User:Kizzle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Barnstars
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| I award kizzle a barnstar for working tirelessly to improve articles, for genuinely understanding what kind of writing/language adheres to a NPOV policy, and for being civil and productive in discussion. --Ubiq 08:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
Yeaaa... umm I'm not going to be around here that much until it starts getting interesting in the election. Then bring it on, bitches! email me if you need to reach.
Kizzle's Guide on How to Be a Dick on Wikipedia:
- If you're in a disagreement with someone, and they misspell something that wasn't quoted, try to use that same word with the same intentional mispelling (bonus points for using "[sic]") in your retort to point out that they are, in fact, a retard.
- Always vaguely reference a discussion that has already been archived, preferably far back in the archives. If they ask where the discussion is located, tell them how the archival system works on Wikipedia and that you don't have time to hold their hand. If they tell you that you're not being specific enough as to where this discussion exists, then marvel at their incapability as an editor. Alternatively, provide them with a link but not before pointing out their stupidity immediately before.
- Whenever it is possible, try to say "I've already answered that a million times" without providing a link to any of these million times.
- If you disagree with another editor, they must be biased, and you must do everything in your power to let them know of their status.
- If you disagree with another editor, they must be very unskilled, and you must do everything in your power to let them know of their status.
- If another editor disagrees with you, don't even worry, because remember: you're the only truly unbiased person on Wikipedia.
- End every disagreeing post with a trite catchphrase such as "If you can't play by the rules, don't play"
- Use personal attacks against who you really want to talk to by using "some editors here". That way, you can skirt around WP:NPA by theoretically musing on some hypothetical people's stupidity, even though there might be only two people in the discussion.
- But most importantly, try to avoid answering as many substantive points as you possibly can while pointing out this person just doesn't "get it".
There you go :) Now, go out there and practice!
- Nice work, you mispelling [sic] retard ;) Derex 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, 2 minutes before someone got that, I thought it was going to be longer ;) --kizzle 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No one is actually going to believe that you are actual liberals if you use such uninclusive language - remember, a person is not a disability. Guettarda 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- In the words of Sarah Silverman, "I wish all the retarded could be re-smarted." Classic! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
To-Do List
- Write Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of the assumption of good faith, the counter-point to Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith
- This cannot possibly be created. If Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith is followed, there's no need for the above.--Orthologist 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
