User:Bedaapkay

Bedaapkay is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia sucks, and I intend to make it worse until it gets better. I'm a total fucking loony when it comes to religion, and, though I may not know what I believe, I know my stuff and am ordained in several religions. Come to think of it, I'm a total fucking loony, in general. If I bite you, it might be due to paranoid delusions. Fair warning.

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For backing down and apologizing to User:Jaimecooper The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion This user values reason over faith. This user is a religious pluralist. This user is a mystic. This user has studied the Bible a lot more than you, and doesn't believe it is the word of God. respect This user respects others' religions and realises not all people wish to follow the same path. This user follows both the gourd and the sandal This user has been touched by His Noodly Appendage. This user believes that the Universe began with a bang. This user understands biological evolution. This user realizes that people from the Middle Ages already thought that the Earth was spherical. no fun This user would argue that, despite its name, there is hardly any "fun" at all in fundamentalism...! This user is a liberal Muslim. This user is a liberal Mormon. (Yes, there is such a thing.) ULC This user is an ordained minister with the Universal Life Church. This user has been Baptized multiple times. This user is a Taoist. This user follows Voodoo. This user is an Alchemist. This user is probably going to Hel. This user is interested in Druidry and/or is a Druid. This user points out that sushi is halal. dys This user is a dystheist. This user would argue that, quite clearly, God cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent. ✊ Bedaapkay was unable to seek God.† ☠ This user is sick and tired of Religion's attempts to hijack government and wants stronger separation of church and state. This user is a Gemini.

Me>You This user has borderline personality disorder. This user has atypical depression. PTSD This user has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. PSY This user lives with episodes of psychosis. This user wears corrective eyeglasses or contact lenses, without which they'd be as blind as a bat! This user is of Viking ancestry. This user plays the ukulele. This user is a Hacker. This user is a pyromaniac. This user supports the legalisation of all recreational drugs under a harm reduction scheme.  -90  This user has reduced their body mass by 90 lbs (40.8 kg). Trebuchet This user has built a Trebuchet and knows that trebuchets are not to be confused with wimpy catapults! This user collects coins. Driver's License This user collects Driver's Licenses. This user enjoys menthol cigarettes. This user loves abandoned buildings and ghost towns. This user likes to play Role-playing games. CN This user's alignment is Chaotic Neutral: the "Free Spirit." D&D This user is a DM, and has just offed the cleric. Good luck facing that Red Dragon. D&D This user uses 4th edition as a fire starter. VTM This user is a member of Clan Malkavian and is undoubtedly insane.

Wikipedian Politics This user is a member of Wikipedia. This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles. This user is a sockpuppet of a sockpuppet. This user still wants to vandalize lots of pages, but...must...not... This user is a WikiImp (and may practice drive-by tagging). This user is a WikiKraken. PC-0 This user is politically incorrect. Majority ≠ right This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake. This user is anal and is prone to making edits on top of their own edits and those of others. delu This editor is a delusionist. Everyone has points of view with inherent cultural biases - recognition is the first step to achieving NPOV. This user is opposed to political censorship. $ ¥ € £ This user believes that the profit motive makes network news reporting inaccurate and biased. † This user is in pursuit of an Equal Society. Don't forget about Larry!

A few things about me:

• I'm still not sure how serious this text is.

• I came here to prove a point.

• I used to love editing Wikipedia, until it became cabalistic, elitist, ethnocentric, Zionist, and hypocritical. (Confirmed Serious)

• I have made it my goal to bring Wikipedia down through constructive edits. Constructive being, in this sense, the same thing that the majority of editors do today: revert any changes I disagree with, delete unsourced material without looking for a source first, put up templates instead of improving articles, and accuse anyone who stands in my way of sockpuppetry. This will serve to irritate good-intentioned editors until they go away.

• I intend to make Ignore All Rules the ONLY rule that I adhere to with any regularity.

• I will use Wikipedia's contradictory rules to my advantage whenever I see the opportunity. Ambivalence will become the word of the day.

• I will meatpuppet for people whom I have never met, whose opinions I might have previously opposed.

• It is my prediction that until Wikipedia undergoes a major reform, the number of registered, editing users will continue to decline as it has for the past four years. (Confirmed Serious)

This reform must have many facets, among them:

• Administrators must no longer be appointed by other administrators. This is how George W. Bush was elected, and on Wikipedia, this has created an elitist culture of groomed admins. (Confirmed Serious)

• The status quo is evidence of a systemic bias and must be abolished. In many situations, the less active Wikipedians' statements should carry more weight than the most active. The most active participants already like Wikipedia's methods and culture of arrogance, and will do anything, including blocking users erroneously (in the case of admins), to keep the status quo. The less active users frequently have better ideas for improving the site, which are ignored by the cabal, which in turn, makes users less active. The dissatisfied customer is not a repeat customer. (Confirmed Serious)

• There is a thin line between factual inaccuracy and vandalism, and both run rampant; reverts must not be made when a categorically false statement is removed, even if empirical evidence is the only basis for its removal, much like when the article on Liberia was vandalized to state that the official name of the country is the "Republic of Niggers". (Confirmed Serious)

• Debates must involve consensus among all parties, even if it involves compromise. (Confirmed Serious, but I'm not so thick-headed as to not realize that you just can't please some people.)

• Debates over the accuracy of a statement must not involve Wikipedia policy. Facts are independent of their implementation. (Confirmed Serious)

• If Wikipedia is a group entity, the burden of proof must lie on everyone, not on the individual. Doing anything else assumes bad faith. If an addition is proposed or put into a page, especially if unsourced, the immediate response of everyone should be to attempt to CONFIRM the statement, not revert the page and demand proof. In absence of confirmation after a number of people (see below) have attempted to support the information, THEN comes the burden of proof. It may take longer to get things done, but hell, look at how long it takes to get things done, now. (Confirmed Serious)

• If one is going to be hypocritical enough about reliability that, when presented with a fact, empirical or sourced under WP:RS, they decide that a consensus is needed to approve an obvious truth, then there must be more than a 2 against 1 bullying match with robotic editors that spout policy and nothing else. A consensus will have to involve at least a dozen users that are more than administrative meatpuppets. (Confirmed Serious)

• Wikipedia will either need to require registration to prevent anonymous IPs from editing, whence comes the majority of our vandalism, or pages must not be locked. Ever. The Internet is dangerous; edit and flame wars happen everywhere. Why would you expect Wikipedia to be safer? We already have a tidy, albeit disorganized, cabal of editors and administrators who have made it their sole purpose to perform reverts and undue criticisms. Let them answer to the floodgates. (Confirmed Serious)