User talk:Niabot

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello Niabot, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

- Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)w[reply]

Warning[edit]

Vandalism like this isn't appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:IFR/en[edit]

Hello, Niabot. Please, refrain from doing edits like this. I hope you are agreed with me that we must be civil when talking to other users. I bet you can provide the same message with more respectful words, with the advantage that you would help to keep that discussion healthier. Thank you for understanding.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 18:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you need words that are describing the situation perfectly. I just could not find any words that would be a more neat expression and what i had to say: That the WMF betrays it's community, that it ignores the community, that it writes its own POV reports (at least a good friend of Sue gets the money for it, even so he has no real qualification), that they are stupid enough to ignore rules written decades before (ALA) or even worse, if they are doing it willingly and knowingly. --Niabot 21:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You should know that Ziviler Ungehorsam is part of the German constitution. A right granted to everyone, if the constitution is in danger to be abolished, due to political disasters. --Niabot 21:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. I don't know German Constitution and I am afraid it would not be required for being civil and respect other rules from this project. Wikimedia has its own rules. We have people here from many countries and we don't need to know any of their constitutions. We have, however, to obey Wikimedia rules, but calling any other users "stupid" (as above) and "fag" (as on linked edit) is not doing it. I see you already know the Five Pillars. I ask you to read that again please; specially the fourth pillar, which states that we have to interact with each other respectfully and avoid personal attacks. So, I really hope you refrain from being uncivil. This kind of behavior does not match with this project. Thank you.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 04:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the fourth pillar is so important, than i might ask you this questions:

Why doesn't the WMF respect the opinion of the community? (A big decision, strongly in violation with pillar two, the moment when civil disobedience is allowed)
Why did the foundation consult Robert Harris and for example not the American Library Association?
Why is there no opposite opinion in a neutral report?
What is Robert Harris (and Family) qualification? Someone might think that a Library Association created in 1876 should think the same way as we do. And in fact: If we compare the Bill of Libary Rights, then it should be obvious that the initial goals are the same. No wonder, since WP is very comparable to a library, except that we have articles (with illustrations) and a library has books (with illustrations). But since the introduction of the filter idea we are parting the way. We label material as inappropriate, while the ALA came already to the conclusion already in 1951, that labeling material after non neutral criteria (violence, nudity, sex) is a "censors tool".
Thats a big opinion from the biggest library association. Why doesn't the report mention this decision at least one time? Isn't this a strong indication that he is strongly biased?
Why call something a referendum that isn't a referendum by definition? There is no "yes/no" option. Example: "Do you like to be punished?" You Answer: "I don't find it important/Yes i like it". Answer: "You would have bee punished anyway." (Not strongly biased?)

I would have a lot more questions to ask. But i guess it's enough for the start and i hope that you can now understand why people think that civil disobedience is so important. --Niabot 06:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you bring these questions when we are talking about being civil? I don't have answer for those questions and I don't understand your point. I just raised some concerns about your comment. Yes; fourth pillar is really important and I don't see what they have to do with your questions. You might want to ask it to somebody more close to Foundation and more qualified than me. I hope you don't think that I am saying that your questions are not relevant in any other discussion; I'm just trying to focus.
If you believe that your disagreement with some facts related with WMF is a reason to be uncivil, I insist you should read the fourth pillar again and pages related. There is *no* reason to be uncivil. There is *no* exception to fourth pillar. No matter how much you disagree with anybody, you have to show your disagreement with respect. No matter if anybody has been uncivil with you. No matter if you are right or not on your complaints.
You are welcome to expose your disagreements about IFR and I hope you keep doing that as long as you interact with other users with respect, just like I am trying to be respectful to you even on disagreement. Have a nice day.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 15:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no exception to any of this pillars. Why do you accept it that the WMF violates this pillars itself? Why do they have the right to do so but we have to respect them? That is the shorter form of the questions. --Niabot 15:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

苦情処理係[edit]

nastiness collapsed

maybe im not the first person to directly tell you this niabot, but you're a sick, perverted bastard. you should realize that no one gives a fuck about what you advocate, what your political opinions are, why you think porn should be in everyones faces, or whatever you consider to be arty and fruity. go ahead and label all of your opponents a prude, at least we arent as retarded and fucked up in the brain as you are. youre words and images aint worth shit, so stop talking like your some badass in front of everyone cuz we all know your just a douchebag sitting behind a computer screen. nobody wants any to see or hear of your nasty shit you put up here, so grow some fucking balls, take your idiotic ideals and get the fuck out. and one more thing… prude pride!

---——-/´¯/)——--(\¯`\

———/—//———--\\—\

——--/—//————-\\—\

—-/´¯/—/´¯\———/¯`\—\¯`\

-/-/--/—/—/-|_—-_|-\---\—\—\-\ -

(-(—(—(—/-)--)--(--(-\—)—)—)-)

-\————\/--/—\—\/————/

--\———— /——\-————/

—\-———-(———)———-

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.251.18.225 (talk) (utrace)

Did you really expect me to show any more emotions than that? [1]

Have a nice day. --Niabot 11:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

at least i got my message across. that's all i needed. 96.251.18.225 11:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you made me a little bit more confident, that I'm right. --Niabot 12:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is despicable. Niabot, I'm sorry you had to see it. You and I disagree on this issue, but being treated like this is absolutely unacceptable. Would you like me to find an uninvolved administrator for a block evaluation? Philippe (WMF) 06:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it be. I have no problem with that and it doesn't hit me. Same goes for similar sections posted on Commons a while ago. Thats a matter I greet with a smile. --Niabot 07:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be civil[edit]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Comments like this one will not be tolerate anymore and if continue, you might get blocked. Thanks! Béria Lima ^msg 14:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I criticized the most stupid comment that i read in a few month. Something bad about it? --Niabot 14:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Empathy"[edit]

This reminded me of the "empathy" propaganda, you might like it:

What puzzles me most is your criticism that he showed 'no sense of engagement'. I haven't met the expression before, and feel bound to comment on its totalitarian tang. Engagement not with the truth as the speaker apprehends it, but with the alleged opinion of the majority of listeners.
- q:en:E. M. Forster

Nemo 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futanari Article[edit]

Discussion moved to EN: Link