User talk:Dr.Oak: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:08, 15 August 2008

Please keep closed

I would like this user account to remain fully closed- especially since I have learned the hard way that all things that administrators don't understand are labled as a "hoax", valid sourcing is ignored based on "an individual's assumptions", and accusations over fact is what rules in Wikiland. I feel very sorry for anyone who actually contributes in good faith to fix poorly written articles in need of help. If any such article has been "blacklisted" by "wikinators" as a "hoax article", than anyone who choses to actualy use their brain and proceed to fix it will be banned and labled a "sockpuppet", even though there is a stub asking for expansion.

In Wikiland, no good deed goes unpunished, administrators are unknowledgable fools running matters on hunches, and in the end, truth and validity is run over by stupidity.

I truly wish that Wikipedia would just disappear, it is not an encyclopedia, it is not a valid source of information, and it is mucking up search engines with all of the mindless spillage coming from endless blogging on users talk pages, which show up readily in google searches.

I am also warning anyone who happens to be interested in a "blacklisted" topic- that your efforts will be futile since no matter what you contribute and what you source it will not be accepted, and second, if you also address links within a "blacklisted" topic, it wil be used against you to say that there is a pattern of hoaxing going on- and thus you will be blocked as a "sockpuppet"- even when one is not. Acccusations of "sockpuppetry and hoaxing" are completely invalid, and are done so on hunches, not fact.

Also, notable people who should be included are labled as "nons" while countless "celebutantes" are glorified- and the ruling factor governing acceptance is "google" hits, a completely stupid concept when one is actually dealing with a topic of true historical importance- that requires intelligent sourcing. My advice, is not for anyone to waste their time with Wikipedia, it is not a professional outfit, and the administrators are inexperienced fools- nothing more, its a power trip for them.Dr.Oak (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 14:01, 15 August 2008 edit Dr.Oak (talk \| contribs) 138 edits talking page ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:08, 15 August 2008 edit undo Dr.Oak (talk \| contribs) 138 edits talk Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	I am also warning anyone who happens to be interested in a "blacklisted" topic- that your efforts will be futile since no matter what you contribute and what you source it will not be accepted, and second, if you also address links within a "blacklisted" topic, it wil be used against you to say that there is a pattern of hoaxing going on- and thus you will be blocked as a "sockpuppet"- even when one is not. Acccusations of "sockpuppetry and hoaxing" are completely invalid, and are done so on hunches, not fact.		I am also warning anyone who happens to be interested in a "blacklisted" topic- that your efforts will be futile since no matter what you contribute and what you source it will not be accepted, and second, if you also address links within a "blacklisted" topic, it wil be used against you to say that there is a pattern of hoaxing going on- and thus you will be blocked as a "sockpuppet"- even when one is not. Acccusations of "sockpuppetry and hoaxing" are completely invalid, and are done so on hunches, not fact.

	Also, notable people who should be included are labled as "nons" while countless "celebutantes" are glorified- and the ruling factor governing acceptance is "google" hits, a completely stupid concept when one is actually dealing with a topic of true historical importance- that requires intelligent sourcing. My advice, is not for anyone to waste their time with Wikipedia, it is not a professional outfit, and the administrators are inexperienced ~~kids~~- nothing more, its a power trip for them.[[User:Dr.Oak\|Dr.Oak]] ([[User talk:Dr.Oak#top\|talk]]) 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)		Also, notable people who should be included are labled as "nons" while countless "celebutantes" are glorified- and the ruling factor governing acceptance is "google" hits, a completely stupid concept when one is actually dealing with a topic of true historical importance- that requires intelligent sourcing. My advice, is not for anyone to waste their time with Wikipedia, it is not a professional outfit, and the administrators are inexperienced fools- nothing more, its a power trip for them.[[User:Dr.Oak\|Dr.Oak]] ([[User talk:Dr.Oak#top\|talk]]) 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)