Pet Shop Boys influenence?

[dVTB]

Wikipedia's a crock of shit.

Wikipedia is what people make of it. If you're a crock of shit, the page you edit, will also end up as a crock of shit, if not corrected by others.

It's just a site for anal fascists who are too thick to get a job working for a proper encylopedia and so spend their time fine-tuning their own conception of reality on there.

Which - I guess - is why you took part in editing?

[Radiophonic]

erm, the London Boys. They were influenced by the Pet Shop Boys....

[BlueSwan]

Ah, another amateur psychologist stood up, it seems.

Now that you're so keen on getting all of your facts straight - I am a psychologist. It just didn't take one to spot anger in your posts.

[Janet Street-Porter]

Wikipedia is what people make of it. If you're a crock of shit, the page you edit, will also end up as a crock of shit, if not corrected by others.

Bullshit. What's the 'correct' version of anything anyway? Wikipedia is what its fascist editors make of it.

Which - I guess - is why you took part in editing?

No, that's why I vandalize it.

[dVTB]

Ah, another amateur psychologist stood up, it seems.

Now that you're so keen on getting all of your facts straight - I am a psychologist. It just didn't take one to spot anger in your posts.

I suggest you URGE your way back to the psychology univeristy then
Since you actually completely misjudged my mood. I haven't been bitter, angry or upset for one second while working my way through your tolerance nonsense.

As a psychologist, I think you should know even better than others that it's quite tricky to make statements about people's mood, without knowing them in person. It's almost as bizarre as the music journalist who's a fan of entering false information on band websites.

[dVTB]

Wikipedia is what people make of it. If you're a crock of shit, the page you edit, will also end up as a crock of shit, if not corrected by others.

Bullshit. What's the 'correct' version of anything anyway? Wikipedia is what its fascist editors make of it.

Which - I guess - is why you took part in editing?

No, that's why I vandalize it.

... which - again - proves my point: you're a crock of shit.

[Janet Street-Porter]

... which - again - proves my point: you're a crock of shit.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of logic I'd expect from an epistemological fascist like you.

[dVTB]

Yes, that's exactly the kind of logic I'd expect from an epistemological fascist like you.

So let me get this straight: people who add correct information to Wikipedia sites, are 'fascists'. What does that make of people who deliberately vandalize it?

[dVTB]

IF YOU'VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG YOU'VE GOT dVTB TO FEAR, IF YOU'VE VANDALISED THE SHOP BOYZ PAGE YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE

It's really quite simple: keep ME out of your Wikipedia vandalism! Mess with any page you want, but don't involve me in it.

If you behave childish, my reaction will also be childish. I reported your vandalism to the administrators and you have been banned for 99 hours. And trust me: the next time you repeat your actions, I will AGAIN report it. Am I'm sure you will AGAIN be banned.

[BlueSwan]

It's really quite simple: keep ME out of your Wikipedia vandalism! Mess with any page you want, but don't involve me in it.
.

So it's no longer about the "principle" of having correct info on Wiki, but about references to yourself. Perhaps this is why we think that your sense of humour and self-irony is somewhat lacking.

[dVTB]

It's really quite simple: keep ME out of your Wikipedia vandalism! Mess with any page you want, but don't involve me in it.

So it's no longer about the "principle" of having correct info on Wiki, but about references to yourself. Perhaps this is why we think that your sense of humour and self-irony is somewhat lacking.

The latest edits by Janet Street-Porter include my own user page on Wikipedia. I know why he/she/it is doing this. I apparently ruined some fun. It's now becoming some kind of ridiculous game. This is why I made clear I will be requesting bans. Fortunately, Wikipedia has clear contribution rules and the moderators DO act.

I find it quite remarkable that you immediately react on my message to Janet Street-Porter, about an issue you're not involved in at all. You have an opinion about my mental state/mood, about my sense of humour, etc. However, when Janet Street-Porter uses Wikipedia as a source (see here: viewtopic.php?p=294286&highlight=#294286 ), you're not there to give your opinion about that. I would say it's fairly hypocrite when you actively vandalize Wikipedia and then use it as a source. The fact that you only react on my messages, makes perfectly clear that you're not neutral in this debate. You took a side. Fair enough, but it means we won't agree about anything, since you're prejuidiced. Further discussion with you about this subject is a complete waste of time.

I also find it quite remarkable that despite SEVERAL comments, you still have to ask me what my complaint is about. I said it before: I don't mind what crap you post online, but keep me and other PSB forum members out of it.

[Posh Boy]

Yes, that's exactly the kind of logic I'd expect from an epistemological fascist like you.

Although I don't agree with that statement I do love this kind of flowery speech!

Well, if this Janet is the real Janet, then Neil's comment (on her website) is quite to the point: 'You have to be courageous to speak your mind as Janet does. You might have to be pig-headed as well.'

[BlueSwan]

The latest edits by Janet Street-Porter include my own user page on Wikipedia. I know why he/she/it is doing this. I apparently ruined some fun. It's now becoming some kind of ridiculous game. This is why I made clear I will be requesting bans. Fortunately, Wikipedia has clear contribution rules and the moderators DO act.

I find it quite remarkable that you immediately react on my message to Janet Street-Porter, about an issue you're not involved in at all. You have an opinion about my mental state/mood, about my sense of humour, etc. However, when Janet Street-Porter uses Wikipedia as a source (see here: viewtopic.php?p=294286&highlight=#294286 ), you're not there to give your opinion about that. I would say it's fairly hypocrite when you actively vandalize Wikipedia and then use it as a source. The fact that you only react on my messages, makes perfectly clear that you're not neutral in this debate. You took a side. Fair enough, but it means we won't agree about anything, since you're prejuidiced. Further discussion with you about this subject is a complete waste of time.

That's quite simple semiparanoid nonsense. I'm really not sure how to respond to that. No I hadn't read that page JSP referred to Wiki as a source in. Even if I had I absolutely don't see what relevance it has to this discussion. He can refer to Wiki one moment and trash it the next moment 100 times a day for all I care. I don't care one bit about that. From my point of view, this debate has never been about the merits of Wiki. I don't give a damn about that. I only react to your messages because I take a stand against your actions, which were unneccessarily paranoid and humourless. I'm not prejudiced. If you write something sensible I will agree with it. Infact, I often agree with you, just not when it comes to issues like censorship. You have known this for years and years.

[dVTB]

That's quite simple semiparanoid nonsense. I'm really not sure how to respond to that. No I hadn't read that page JSP referred to Wiki as a source in. Even if I had I absolutely don't see what relevance it has to this discussion. He can refer to Wiki one moment and trash it the next moment 100 times a day for all I care. I don't care one bit about that.

So now that you DO know about the hypocrisy of JSP, you suddenly act as if you don't care. This is just laughable. I clean some crap on a Wikipedia page and shortly after that, you post a public message on this forum, bashing me for doing so. You bloody act as if I actually owe you an explanation. But when hypocrite JSP slags off Wikipedia, only to use it as a source in the following message, you suddenly don't care. You measure with two different standards, that much is for sure.

From my point of view, this debate has never been about the merits of Wiki. I don't give a damn about that. I only react to your messages because I take a stand against your actions, which were unneccessarily paranoid and humourless. I'm not prejudiced. If you write something sensible I will agree with it. Infact, I often agree with you, just not when it comes to issues like censorship. You have known this for years and years.

You don't get it, do you? You're still talking about my actions, as if I did something horrible and unforgivable. I cleaned a bloody Wikipedia page from some boring AND some below the belt references to PSB and PSB forum members. You DID choose a side, because you posted a public message here, with bitchy comments about me. You chose the side of the people who added these references to the Wikipedia pages. Which is of course your fullest right, but stop acting as if you're neutral. You're not.

I find it sickening and worrying that you call the removal of vandalism censorship. In your perfect world, vandals and trolls can do whatever they want, without anybody at least having the RIGHT to repair it. If some youngsters decide to spray some grafitti onto your house, you will leave it there, because they have freedom of speech, don't they? You wouldn't clean it, because that would be 'censorship'. That would spoil the fun for them. That would ruin their work of art. It wouldn't matter that the house is in fact your property.

Wikipedia is the property of an organisation who pays for the domains. It's also the intellectual property of all the people who contribute. The owner has a right to introduce contribution rules. If you cannot deal with these contribution rules, DON'T visit the page, DON'T use it as a source and DON'T confront people who contribute to Wikipedia with your mindless 'censorship' drivel.

Same with this regulated PSB Forum. If you're really so principal about internet freedom, why do you post here? This forum doesn't meet your requirements, since it's regulated. Go elsewhere (for instance the PSB newsgroup, flooded with spam about Viagra, Male Enhancement and rants by Jeffrey Durst). This is where you will feel perfectly at home, since there's no censorship there

Finally, I kindly request you to stop bothering me with your ideas about humour and psychology. Your idea of humor is making fun of people behind their back, and when it comes to psychology, you only judge about people who disagree with your views.

Oh, and one more thing: I, as an internet user and Wikipedia contributor, ALSO have rights. Not only your vandalizing friends have them. I don't need your approval or agreement to post something or to clean up something, since I'm not using your property. Your hypocrisy and double standards disappoint me. I always thought of you as a quality poster, but - as you can see - that's now past tense.

[BlueSwan]

So now that you DO know about the hypocrisy of JSP, you suddenly act as if you don't care.

I don't act as if I don't care. I've never cared about people's opinions about Wikipedia. I don't care about alleged hypocrisy either. Infact the whole debate between you and JSP doesn't concern me and I've made no reference to it in any of my posts.

This is just laughable. I clean some crap on a Wikipedia page and shortly after that, you post a public message on this forum, bashing me for doing so.

I called you out as being oversensitive and humourless, yes. Still nothing to do with the nature of Wikipedia on my account.

You bloody act as if I actually owe you an explanation. But when hypocrite JSP slags off Wikipedia, only to use it as a source in the following message, you suddenly don't care. You measure with two different standards, that much is for sure.

No I measure everyone by the same standard. If it had been JSP removing those jokes, he would have gotten the same speech that you got.

You don't get it, do you? You're still talking about my actions, as if I did something horrible and unforgivable.

Then let me clarify. Your actions were neither horrible nor unforgivable. They were simply overly sensitive and yes, quite humourless, in my opinion.

You DID choose a side, because you posted a public message here, with bitchy comments about me. You chose the side of the people who added these references to the Wikipedia pages. Which is of course your fullest right, but stop acting as if you're neutral. You're not.

I'm not on any "side" except that of my own personal view of things. That's neither neutral nor prejudiced. I have no special connection to JSP, even though I think he has a brilliant sense of humour.

I find it sickening and worrying that you call the removal of vandalism censorship.

When I used the word "censorship" I was referring to your views on internet moderation in general of which we have always disagreed. If you object to the word censorship, then I have no problem calling it "moderation" instead or whichever word you prefer. The choice of words are irrelevant to me - only substance matter.

In your perfect world, vandals and trolls can do whatever they want, without anybody at least having the RIGHT to repair it.

I've never claimed that noone had the "right" to "repair" it. Never. Maybe you don't understand my position.

If some youngsters decide to spray some grafitti onto your house, you will leave it there, because they have freedom of speech, don't they? You wouldn't clean it, because that would be 'censorship'. That would spoil the fun for them. That would ruin their work of art. It wouldn't matter that the house is in fact your property.

Nonsense.

But I do believe that adults can cope with very large degrees of freedom on the internet.

Wikipedia is the property of an organisation who pays for the domains. It's also the intellectual property of all the people who contribute. The owner has a right to introduce contribution rules. If you cannot deal with these contribution rules, DON'T visit the page, DON'T use it as a source and DON'T confront people who contribute to Wikipedia with your mindless 'censorship' drivel.

Now you're making it a Wikipedia-issue again. You just stated that it was all about the specific fun-making of named forum members.

Same with this regulated PSB Forum. If you're really so principal about internet freedom, why do you post here? This forum doesn't meet your requirements, since it's regulated. Go elsewhere (for instance the PSB newsgroup, flooded with spam about Viagra, Male Enhancement and rants by Jeffrey Durst). This is where you will feel perfectly at home, since there's no censorship there

I post where there is some sense of a PSB community. My ideal of a PSB community involves very very little moderation, but it has never been about rights or requirements.

Finally, I kindly request you to stop bothering me with your ideas about humour and psychology. Your idea of humor is making fun of people behind their back, and when it comes to psychology, you only judge about people who disagree with your views.

Thankfully, my idea of humour is not limited to that which makes fun of other people. I like many sorts of humour, including that which pokes fun at myself. Unlike yourself, I'm afraid.

Oh, and one more thing: I, as an internet user and Wikipedia contributor, ALSO have rights. Not only your vandalizing friends have them. I don't need your approval or agreement to post something or to clean up something, since I'm not using your property. Your hypocrisy and double standards disappoint me. I always thought of you as a quality poster, but - as you can see - that's now past tense.

Hmmmm....do you still maintain that there's no anger in your posts?

I don't have double standards. Nor am I a hypocrite. If the fact that I called you out in a way that is completely consistent with my views, makes you reevaluate your verdict of my personal qualities, then that says more about you than it does about me, I'm afraid.

And let me just repeat until it's sunk in. This is not about rights. You had had every right in the world to edit that Wikipedia page. But the fact that you went ahead and did it and your arguments in defending it, tells a lot about you as a person and your sense of humour (or indeed, lack of it). I'm sorry to say that, because I've always enjoyed your posts, and unlike yourself, this little argument does not make me reevaluate your qualities as a poster. I knew your views already, I just happen to disagree rather strongly with them.