I've been editing since 2006. I can tolerate what I perceive as stupidity. We aren't all equally smart, strong, or beautiful -- it's how God or nature made us. I'm stupid sometimes too. But I can't tolerate what I perceive as people fucking up the Wikipedia project for real life agendas be they personal, political, professional, or whatever. There are people who've donated 1000s of hours of time to make Wikipedia a good resource for people worldwide. If you claim you are editing from a neutral point of view about an article in which you are totally enmeshed – such an article about your own self or about the ethnicity/nationality that blew up your mom’s childhood home – you are almost certainly a liar. If you want to advance a point of view, you should write a newspaper article or get someone to interview you. If you want your band or whatever to be better-known, tell your friend to write about you and submit it to magazines. If you come to Wikipedia with a plan to rewrite history, promote your business, shape rather than reflect public opinion, or otherwise do anything other than edit neutrally as humanly possible then you've disrespected all of us, you've hijacked the free resource that is Wikipedia, you are the enemy of knowledge, and you're engaging in behavior that is contemptible. --Griseum 00:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Advice I need to follow: edit
If you're arguing with someone who repeatedly says things so ridiculous that it indicates that they may in fact have either a learning disability or some form of mental illness, stop repeatedly trying to engage them as if you’re in a conversation with a typical person. Firstly, it’s unkind. Secondly, it’s a great way to make a fool out of yourself. Instead, ignore them and turn your attention to something more productive! --Griseum (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)