Talk:Andrew Orlowski

Removed, NPOV

He roundly denounces techno-utopian in even its mildest forms.

- Makes no sense. Contributor possibly means "utopianism". But being "mildly utopian" makes as much sense as being "slightly dead".

Orlowski has been described as a "professional troll" by Jimmy Wales

- unsourced. Maybe Jimbo can say it now so we can include it ;-)

Orlowski has been criticized and accused of unprofessional journalistic behavior. [1]

- previously removed for NPOV. "Hawk" is a psuedonymous blogger with an Orlowski obsession. Above added by User:200.2.128.2

Thank you for your input. The blog quoted has not been shown to be notable as a source. I would not dream of censoring this article (although I was accused of doing so) if there was genuine, notable criticism of Orlowski to be added. I removed the above comment since it is not worthy of inclusion. By the way, could you sign on talk pages? DannyWilde 04:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Stob says Andrew Orlowski is a Dalek

Probably not notable enough to put on the page proper, but this humorous article by Verity Stob purporting to be a conversation between a Dalek and Billie Piper between takes during the last series of Doctor Who includes this bit about what a Dalek does online:

And even when you do get on, what can you do? You read a bit of the Reg, Outpost Gallifrey, the Beeb, maybe log on to Wikipedia with username 'Andrew Orlowski' and post an article talking up the importance of the blogging movement. Just like everybody does.

Cute. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? This has nothing to do with Andrew Orlowski. DannyWilde 02:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right — it's saying that if Daleks were on the Internet they'd pull stupid trollish stunts. My bad. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to circumvent AfD

The AfD for Wikifiddler will determine whether the contents will stay under that title, whether they will be merged to a different article, or whether they will be deleted without merge. Your repeated copying of the entire article to Andrew Orlowski before the conclusion of that AfD is an attempt to circumvent the process, and the fact that you are doing so in bad faith, aware that what you do is wrong, is shown by your falsely flagging it each time as a "minor edit" (disputed edits are never minor edits, refusing to use an edit summary, and your failure to note on either talk page that you are copying the entire contents of one article verbatim into the other. Your chutzpah in describing it as "vandalism" when these bad-faith edits of yours are reverted is stupidity. Are you really so very in love with Orlowski that when he rants about Wikipedians who act badly you have to leap to fulfill his prophecy by exhibiting the worst behavior you can calculate? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say the same to you. You have been stupid enough to blank out and revert the article, even though I have extensively added to the material. Since Orlowski clearly is watching Wikipedia closely (see the material you blanked out, you moron) I hope he's watching this discussion and finding it as amusing as I do. Your repeated attempts to censor this material are laughable. --DannyWilde 23:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]