User talk:BnBH
I am (temporarily) changing my editing from username User:Edison to User:BnBH, in honor of Beavis and Butthead, two funny lads whose antics make as much sense as does turning off Wikipedia to protest proposed legislation which might impair the operation of Wikipedia, a publicity stunt akin to chaining the doors of the library for a day to protest legislation which might amount to censorship, or putting on a Spiderman suit and climbing the US Capitol dome to make some political point. I believe that as a tax exempt charity, Wikipedia should not be conducting publicity stunts such as the one day blackout in an effort to influence legislation in the US Congress. BnBH (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Libraries and librarians are very forceful in protesting against book burning and book banning. So your analogy falls down like some clumsy guy in a Spiderman costume. The protest worked. Let's move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Libraries protest book burning, and sit-ins to prevent access to a library, the same way that some contributors to Wikipedia object to shutting down access as a tactic in political agitprop. Let's not be so thrilled with this escapade that we do it next time there is some issue which captures the imagination of a few Wikipedians or Foundation employees. Is this legislation the only issue which could whip up the ambition of someone to want to shut down access? The implementers and proponents are all basking in the glory and media attention, and I fear that they will want to do it again, and again, contrary to the purposes of a tax exempt charity. Were the hyped dangers of this legislation so much more important than The Environment, Honest Elections, The Arts, Education, World Peace, Economic justice, Civil Rights, or Unemployment? Can we agree that this should not become a recurring tactic whenever some Wikipedians see a deserving cause, or perceive some trumped up threat to Life As We Know It? BnBH (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since Edison (talk · contribs) is an admin only account, and you obviously don't have any qualms about creating multiple accunts, I'm curious, what is the name of the account you use for normal editing? Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- (What are "accunts?") There is no such thing as "an admin only account." That sounds like an account used only for actions using the mop (admin tools). As Edison I have done over 40,000 edits over the last several years, creating articles, finding references to improve articles, copyediting articles, and participating in Reference Desk and AFD, long before becoming an administrator in September 2007, and since becoming an administrator, besides admin actions such as deleting 997 pages and blocking 220 users who would not abide by guidelines and policies. If I were more clever about coding, I might have just altered the signature to express abhorrence of the disruptive 24 hour blackout of the encyclopedia I have spent thousands of hours improving, rather than switching to an alternate account. I will go back to the Edison account after a 24 hour period, equal to the day of politically manipulative madness inflicted on the project by a few activists.("On strike, shut it down! Power to the people! Right On" and all that 1960's rhetoric, akin to the sentiments expressed by proponents of the blackout). The anti-intellectual stunt is reminiscent of
thugs(eta)those nice folks standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent entry of those who seek knowledge. What was done is done, but it should not be repeated. BnBH (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)- If it wasn't for the 1960s, you wouldn't be editing this encyclopedia right now, and you certainly wouldn't be using a personal computer. For someone who claims to know so much, you clearly know very, very little. You might want to start with What the Dormouse Said (2005) by John Markoff and finish up your elementary education with From Counterculture to Cyberculture (2006) by Fred Turner. Let me know if you have any questions. Yes, there will be a test. The only thing disruptive here is your willful ignorance of history. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- (What are "accunts?") There is no such thing as "an admin only account." That sounds like an account used only for actions using the mop (admin tools). As Edison I have done over 40,000 edits over the last several years, creating articles, finding references to improve articles, copyediting articles, and participating in Reference Desk and AFD, long before becoming an administrator in September 2007, and since becoming an administrator, besides admin actions such as deleting 997 pages and blocking 220 users who would not abide by guidelines and policies. If I were more clever about coding, I might have just altered the signature to express abhorrence of the disruptive 24 hour blackout of the encyclopedia I have spent thousands of hours improving, rather than switching to an alternate account. I will go back to the Edison account after a 24 hour period, equal to the day of politically manipulative madness inflicted on the project by a few activists.("On strike, shut it down! Power to the people! Right On" and all that 1960's rhetoric, akin to the sentiments expressed by proponents of the blackout). The anti-intellectual stunt is reminiscent of
- Since Edison (talk · contribs) is an admin only account, and you obviously don't have any qualms about creating multiple accunts, I'm curious, what is the name of the account you use for normal editing? Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Libraries protest book burning, and sit-ins to prevent access to a library, the same way that some contributors to Wikipedia object to shutting down access as a tactic in political agitprop. Let's not be so thrilled with this escapade that we do it next time there is some issue which captures the imagination of a few Wikipedians or Foundation employees. Is this legislation the only issue which could whip up the ambition of someone to want to shut down access? The implementers and proponents are all basking in the glory and media attention, and I fear that they will want to do it again, and again, contrary to the purposes of a tax exempt charity. Were the hyped dangers of this legislation so much more important than The Environment, Honest Elections, The Arts, Education, World Peace, Economic justice, Civil Rights, or Unemployment? Can we agree that this should not become a recurring tactic whenever some Wikipedians see a deserving cause, or perceive some trumped up threat to Life As We Know It? BnBH (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Retired[edit]
This account was used for a period equal to the agitprop blackout madness. It is now permanently retired. I will now resume using my normal account, User:Edison.