User talk:Matticusmadness

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Matticusmadness!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: A barnstar for you![edit]

Thank you for the kind message on enwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, that thing must have took ages to write. It's a shame ArbCom capped you. These guys have done that to quite a few, Betacommand, Rich Farmborough. I swear those guys have a thing for knocking out WP's best (unless you're one of them. 'User:Worm That Turned' anyone?) Did they take your Talk Page Access too? I haven't read the case fully but I picked up that you made a page off-wiki that would have been a G3 on-wiki. Matticusmadness (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall how long it took me to write that, but I finished it twelve hours after DeltaQuad censored the initial investigation by "Itgetsworse", and I don't believe that I was working on it for twelve hours straight. G3 is "Pure vandalism, and blatant hoaxes." The page that I created (at least until others revised it) wasn't misinformation or vandalism.
I lost my talk page access several months after the ArbCom case. I wanted to help improve the "Encyclopedia Dramatica" article. The "Encyclopedia Dramatica" article was out of date, and wanted to ask the enwiki community to improve it rather than create a sockpuppet or use a friend as a proxy. I wrote a draft of the request on my talk page and kept it out of sight until ArbCom approved it, but ArbCom didn't approve of the idea. I didn't know that I breaking any rules. Which policy says that I can't do it? I wasn't hurting anyone by writing the draft request. I wasn't up to anything sinister by making the draft request. I only sought to have the encyclopedia improved, but "banned means banned." The fact of the matter is that I'm pretty much the only Wikipedian interested in improving the "Encyclopedia Dramatica" article and keeping it up to date after information about "encyclopediadramatica.se" had been added to the article. I was the main driving force before the article in 2011 and 2012. Look at how little the article improved since my ban. The other Wikipedians don't care about adding new material to the article. As long as I'm banned, the article is going to continue declining in quality.
I don't know much about Betacommand or Rich Farmbrough beyond that they were banned for allegedly violating bot-related restrictions.
P.S. No, I don't mind "Template:Talkback" appearing on my talk page. You're welcome to use that template on my talk page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)