User:Ultramarine/Hall of Fame Comments

[edit] Hall of Fame Comments

Ad hominem is unfortunately common in Wikipedia by those who have lost the factual discussion

I haven't had much dealings with Ultramarine within the last few months, but I can vouch that he's the most unethical, hypocritical, irrational, dishonest, and unreasonable individual I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. He will resort to any measure, no matter how unethical, to get his discombobulated and confused vision into an article. I had a lot of trouble with him a few months ago on the capitalism article where he engaged in every kind of dishonesty and hypocrisy one can image. He even engaged in an arbitration case against me with was entirely bogus and fraught with his lies to try to keep me from editing that article. Of course, the case against me was dismissed, and I was able to be instrumental in improving that article beyond all former recognition. For the sake of the Wikipedia mission, Ultramarine's behavior needs to be stopped. The guy is out of control.
I find your mentality and reasoning ability abysmal.
looks like it was devised by a schizophrenic with ADHD.
looks like it was written by third grader who can't get his thoughts together
Go to bed, little boy

When someone makes an edit that is unsourced or poorly-sourced, but nevertheless makes a fairly obvious point, instead of being helpful and trying to improve the article, Ultramarine simply reverts and routinely accuses his fellow-editors of ignorance, or laziness.
Because Ultramarine is adamant about supporting the view with which he agrees, his fellow-editors are almost forced to become advocates for the opposite POV
Because Ultramarine insists that every criticism be responded to in detail, the articles tend towards logorrhea, which injures Wikipedia
He is exceedingly argumentative on talk pages
He is rude and condescending to other editors
I regret that Ultramarine remains unable to read English
Since it would be uncivil to suppose that his writing skills are actually limited to billingsgate and cut-and-paste plagiarism, I see no other choice but to conclude that his alternate text is the null set. Mr. West appears to have had a life other than Wikipedia for the last two weeks; Ultramarine does not have this excuse.
his latest dead pigeon
fraudulent superstition
Ultramarine is quite correct in one thing: I am not interested in his whining.

Further, peer-review is not part of the scientific method and says nothing of the scientific value of the study
you fucking twit
...In the long term, I fear that Resistance May Be Futile.

the argument is presented as a confused string of insinuations and petty pointers in some stream-of-consciousness prose

I have also participated in one the longest arbitration cases in Wikipedia history:

RfC: 20 July - 18 August 2005, 1 month

RfA: 18 August - 21 September 2005, 1 month

Arbitration Case: 21 September 2005 - 23 December 2005, 3 months

(However, this case [1] was even longer, was merged with another case, and was even reopened once!)

The original RfC can be found here: [2] The arbitration case is here [3]. As can be seen, the attempt to silence me failed miserably.