Please don't post attacks on people. Or, if you must post attacks on people, please do so in a way that is remotely humorous. --Nonsensical 15:28, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
- Thank you, Nonsensical. We really take your opinion on humour highly. Please go to the page, for more laughs. PS. You're next! Hugs and kisses.
- "We"? It saddens me that it took more than one person to think of an edit that stupid. Anyway, if you make another attack page, your account will be blocked. Hugs and Kisses right back atcha. --Nonsensical 15:45, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
I have to admit, I'm flattered. WhatYouKnowAboutThat 20:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
- Why don't you guys follow your own rules? From the WikiCU help page:
" Complaints about an article
Wikipedia doesn't censor content. Neither does WikiCU. Occasionally someone will post stuff that others don't like. This might include slander or unnecessarily personal information. You are welcome to remove this content yourself by editing the article."
- I guess that rule is a bit misleading, but it is true. The maintainers of WikiCU are fairly hands off on censoring content, but the admins are just regular users who happen to participate a lot and were given extra rights. I wouldn't quite call the Erica Jackson or Matt Sanchez pages "attack pages". They're about people who are notoriously disliked on campus and part of wikicu is reflecting campus sentiment. The difference between the Jackson/Sanchez pages and what you posted is that those pages are factual, whereas yours is purely opinion and does not demonstrate any relevance to anyone in the student body besides you and the person you're attacking. I wouldn't delete something just because I don't think it's funny (though I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought what you wrote was funny). --Nonsensical 13:01, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
- I would beg to differ with your statement regarding the "factual" statements you've posted about Erica Jackson, Matt Sanchez, and countless other controversial pages on this website. Frequently there are articles you've written that bear NO citations, but rather tout your subjective and rather erroneous opinions about the Columbia community. It's "funny" that you frequently seem to find yourself exempt from the rules that you purportedly support, as an admin, but have no problem deleting pages that don't fit some esoteric underlying objective you seem to be furthering with every article you write. You clearly socialize in different circles [if at all] if you believe Sanchez and Jackson to be more infamous on the Columbia campus than Beaulac; perhaps you should diversify content and maintain strictly factual articles if you intend to oversee a site that is useful to someone other than the four or five of you who are so clearly invested in this piece of shit.
- If you see something that's factually incorrect, I invite you to correct it, or at the very least point it out on a talk page. My problem with the page wasn't the relevance, but the fact that it just contained puerile insults towards him. You think Matt Sanchez is less infamous than ? I'm not going to really argue that, but just try typing "Matt Sanchez" and "" into searches on Spec, Bwog, and Google and see what you find. I remind you that this is a wiki. I got involved with this site simply because I saw it growing and thought it was a good idea and I could add information about what I knew at Columbia. If you feel like the articles lack diversity, then please by all means add/revise/contribute. --Nonsensical 12:37, 14 June 2007 (EDT)