User talk:Holdsgood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Nufy8 - you're a real piece of work banning me like that. Through the Looking Glass (Lost) being a featured article is an insult. a slap in the face to anyone who's ever been accused of fancruft or of creating an allegedly non-notable article.

check out [[1]]. someone adds the tags i did, and someone else removes them. the person who removed them then gets in trouble, suggesting that removing tags is unacceptable. yet when i add tags, they just get removed immediately, without any discussion what-so-ever.

wikipedia and high school jocks have a lot in common. they both seem to get hard-ons by pissing on other peoples work while lauding their own. the article for Flesh and Blood (Star Trek: Voyager) gets deleted because the "jocks" don't like it, yet this episode of Lost? it's not only kept - it's made a front page featured article.

or look at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. tons of episodes have been deleted. trans-wikied because they're fancruft.

at a time when wikipedia is becoming more and more intolerant to episodes having their own articles, you people go and make an episode a front page featured article?

you are a real piece of work, you know that? and then you go and ban me without warning. are your positions so weak that they can't stand up to a little criticism? are they so weak you have to ban me without even discussing it with me?

you people are idiots and wikipedia's standards are totally hypocritical and unpredictable. the articles that stay don't stay because they're any better then the articles that get deleted - they stay because they're the pet projects of admins like you. well, it's wrong. if you think your own opinions hold so much more weight then anyone else's, how about you just disable registration on wikipedia?

the only thing i can take comfort in is that maybe, in time, Through the Looking Glass (Lost) will be deleted just as Torchic - another front page featured article - was. it's a slap in the face to those who worked on this article, but at least it's consistent - which is more then can be said of wikipedia right now.