I think that we should start a thread where authors who created and remained the principal contributors to specific Wikipedia articles could certify their authorship of these articles, giving permission to all and sundry editors to blank them at any time.
This would serve as a form of protest and a wake↑call to Wikipediot Whorelords.
Come to think of it, now is a good time —
Jon Awbrey
Full Version: Bomb Em Bak To Tabula Rasa !!!
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 12:50pm) 
I think that we should start a thread where authors who created and remained the principal contributors to specific Wikipedia articles could certify their authorship of these articles, giving permission to all and sundry editors to blank them at any time.
This would serve as a form of protest and a wake↑call to Wikipediot Whorelords.
Come to think of it, now is a good time —
Jon Awbrey
Let's see if I understand the proposal. The principal author could blank the article over the objections of the other editors? For any and all reasons? What about for reasons not related to the article itself, say general dissatisfaction with WP? What about scrappers and others who appropriated the article? Would the contents exist in the history?
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 17th November 2007, 2:10pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 12:50pm)
I think that we should start a thread where authors who created and remained the principal contributors to specific Wikipedia articles could certify their authorship of these articles, giving permission to all and sundry editors to blank them at any time.
This would serve as a form of protest and a wake↑call to Wikipediot Whorelords.
Come to think of it, now is a good time —
Jon Awbrey
Let's see if I understand the proposal. The principal author could blank the article over the objections of the other editors? For any and all reasons? What about for reasons not related to the article itself, say general dissatisfaction with WP? What about scrappers and others who appropriated the article? Would the contents exist in the history?
For my part, at least, to begin, I will list only those Wikipedia articles for which (1) User:Jon Awbrey created them and (2) User:Jon Awbrey or one of the accounts that Wikipediot Admins themselves have listed as "Confirmed" or "Suspected" alternate accounts of User:Jon Awbrey contributed all of the significant content to the article.
"Created" includes cases where a simple redirect or a trivial stub was turned into a real article, in which case the article may be reverted to the redirect page or the stub page that it was before.
"Significant Content" excludes things like adding category tags, correcting typographical errors, reversions, wikifiying, or anything else that a reasonable person would consider derivative or trivial.
The thrust of the proposal is that the author of a Wikipedia article is granting Blankit Permission to any editor to Blank that Wikipedia article at any time.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(SlimVirgin @ 07 September 2006)
Wikipedia Articles by Jon Awbrey
— or —
News for Virgin Ears
— or —
News for Virgin Ears
Jon Awbrey, the sole contributor of significant content to the following Wikipedia articles, grants any Wikipedia editor permission to remove their contents from Wikipedia and expresses his desire that these contents be so removed.
Signed,
Jon Awbrey
- Ampheck
- Boolean domain
- Boolean-valued function
- Comprehension_(logic)
- Continuous predicate
- Descriptive science
- Grounded relation
- Hypostatic abstraction
- Hypostatic object
- Inquiry
- Inverse relation
- Logic of information
- Logic of relatives
- Logic of Relatives (1870)
- Logic of Relatives (1883)
- Logical graph
- Logical matrix
- Minimal negation operator
- Multigrade operator
- Normative science
- Parametric operator
- Pragmatic maxim
- Prescisive abstraction
- Relation composition
- Relation construction
- Relation reduction
- Relative term
- Semeiotic
- Semiotic information theory
- Sign relation
- Sign relational complex
- Sole sufficient operator
- Tacit extension
- Theory of relations
- Triadic relation
- Types of relations
- Zeroth order logic
- You may wish to notify Wikipedia Personnel of this convenient Wikipedia Review Author Certification, Article Decertification (WR:ACAD) Page by inserting one of the following forms of comment in the edit line of the blanking or reverting edit:
- «Article Withdrawn By Request Of Author (See "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795")».
- «Removing Article Acquired Under False Pretenses By Wikipedia (See "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795")».
- The above articles have already been imported to Wikipedia Review — you may wish to consider doing that with yours.
- Be sure to wish JustZapitGuy a Happy Thanx-But-No-Thanx-I'm-Taking-It-Back-You-Dumb-Turkey Day.
The thing is that blanking will satisfy some POV pusher over Wikipedia if I give such a permission. Someone may even use the blacked page to write a POV of the initial article. It isen't as easy. I would prefer deleting it entirly or locking them indefinitally.
[*] Put a link to this Wikipedia Review Certification Page ("http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795") in the edit line of the Blanking Edit.
Hehe!!!
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 1:47pm)
[*] Put a link to this Wikipedia Review Certification Page ("http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795") in the edit line of the Blanking Edit.
Hehe!!!
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Sat 17th November 2007, 3:08pm)
The thing is that blanking will satisfy some POV pusher over Wikipedia if I give such a permission. Someone may even use the blacked page to write a POV of the initial article. It isen't as easy. I would prefer deleting it entirly or locking them indefinitally.
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 1:47pm)
Put a link to this Wikipedia Review Certification Page ("http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795") in the edit line of the Blanking Edit.
Hehe!!!
It depends on what your personal aims are. For my part, I never wrote in areas that should have been NP:controversial, but added Gentle Reader Expositions of Well-Sourced Basic Knowledge. And as thanks for all my contributions to Wikipedia I now find myself being defamed all over Wikipedia pages and email lists.
I just ain't gonna take that anymore !!!
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 2:47pm)
Jon Awbrey, the sole contributor of significant content to the following Wikipedia articles, grants any Wikipedia editor permission to remove their contents from Wikipedia and expresses his desire that these contents be so removed.
Signed,
Jon Awbrey
Dynamic List
Wow !!!
In all my life I've never been in so much demand !!!
Well, to put a finer point on it, I've never seen people so dedicated to detaching the Baby from his Bathwater, and keeping the Bathwater.
Doubtentry was so kind as to make prompt response to my call, very expressly including the following information in the edit line:
«Article Withdrawn By Request Of Author (Cf. "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795")»
But Wikipediots evidently have as much difficulty reading and comprehending plain English as they have with writing it.
Jon Awbrey
I don't like that.
This, of course, should come as no surprise:
22:54, 17 November 2007 CBM (Talk | contribs) blocked "Doubtentry (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)
QUOTE
22:54, 17 November 2007 CBM (Talk | contribs) blocked "Doubtentry (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Sun 18th November 2007, 12:31am)
I don't like that.
Don't like you what?
Jonny
QUOTE(Robster @ Sat 17th November 2007, 11:33pm)
This, of course, should come as no surprise:
QUOTE
22:54, 17 November 2007 CBM (Talk | contribs) blocked "Doubtentry (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)
We should find more creative ways than this. We want to expose them not to pass as vandals.
QUOTE(Robster @ Sun 18th November 2007, 12:33am)
This, of course, should come as no surprise:
QUOTE
22:54, 17 November 2007 CBM (Talk | contribs) blocked "Doubtentry (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)
I would say that Wikipedia user accounts are a Dime a Dozen, but y'know they are 10¢ cheaper than that a Gross.
The point of the Blank-In Writers Strike is not necessarily to keep the articles blanked for very long, but to make Wikipediots start asking themselves, «Gee, what if everyone whose work we took and then pissed on 'em for their troubles starting pissing back — and all at once?»
Jonny
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Sun 18th November 2007, 12:36am)
We should find more creative ways than this. We want to expose them not to pass as vandals.
Herzliche Xideaf,
If you have any concrete suggestions of "creative ways" that I haven't already tried over the course of the last 2 phreakin years, then please be so gracious as to share them with the group.
Otherwise I'll start a list of all the times I made an effort to talk to those phreakin Nazis like maybe there was a chance they still had some spark of humanity left in them, only to have them grind my attempts under their phreakin Jimbots one more time, and then you can take that phreakin list and shove it↑yours.
Am I phreakin gettin thru 2 U !?
Jon Awbrey
What about creating a tag which say something like: ''[place name here] who was the creator and/or a major contributor of this article was banned from editing Wikipedia. The Wikipedians have therefor taken possession of it by getting rid of its major contributor.''
We can post it at top of each talkpages, we can go even further by creating a category ''Article created by a now banned user'', but maybe that would be a little too much ''disruptive.''
We should find more creative ways than this. We want to expose them not to pass as vandals.
Herzliche Xideaf,
If you have any concrete suggestions of "creative ways" that I haven't already tried over the course of the last 2 phreakin years, then please be so gracious as to share them with the group.
Otherwise I'll start a list of all the times I made an effort to talk to those phreakin Nazis like maybe there was a chance they still had some spark of humanity left in them, only to have them grind my attempts under their phreakin Jimbots one more time, and then you can take that phreakin list and shove it↑yours.
Am I phreakin gettin thru 2 U !?
Jon Awbrey
What I am saying is that with your method, obviously it will never remain, it will be reverted and users banned. While there is a legitimate and ethical argument to warn users that the major contributor is now banned and his work taken posession of without him being permitted to edit it. There are strong arguments to leave such an information there.
We can post it at top of each talkpages, we can go even further by creating a category ''Article created by a now banned user'', but maybe that would be a little too much ''disruptive.''
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 12:14am)
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Sun 18th November 2007, 12:36am)
We should find more creative ways than this. We want to expose them not to pass as vandals.
Herzliche Xideaf,
If you have any concrete suggestions of "creative ways" that I haven't already tried over the course of the last 2 phreakin years, then please be so gracious as to share them with the group.
Otherwise I'll start a list of all the times I made an effort to talk to those phreakin Nazis like maybe there was a chance they still had some spark of humanity left in them, only to have them grind my attempts under their phreakin Jimbots one more time, and then you can take that phreakin list and shove it↑yours.
Am I phreakin gettin thru 2 U !?
Jon Awbrey
What I am saying is that with your method, obviously it will never remain, it will be reverted and users banned. While there is a legitimate and ethical argument to warn users that the major contributor is now banned and his work taken posession of without him being permitted to edit it. There are strong arguments to leave such an information there.
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Sun 18th November 2007, 1:50am)
What about creating a tag which say something like: ''[place name here] who was the creator and/or a major contributor of this article was banned from editing Wikipedia. The Wikipedians have therefor taken possession of it by getting rid of its major contributor.''
We can post it at top of each talkpages, we can go even further by creating a category ''Article created by a now banned user'', but maybe that would be a little too much ''disruptive''.
Fine, let us know how that works out.
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Sun 18th November 2007, 1:50am)
What I am saying is that with your method, obviously it will never remain, it will be reverted and users banned. While there is a legitimate and ethical argument to warn users that the major contributor is now banned and his work taken posession of without him being permitted to edit it. There are strong arguments to leave such an information there.
Like I said, good luck with that.
Jon Awbrey
The contributions of banned users (even when they are right) are reverted or deleted as "banned means banned" (says JzG).
When a long-time contributor (even if he was right) is no longer welcome in the Community, doesn't that mean his contributions and his attempts at collaboration meant nothing and mean nothing to the Community? So, isn't Jonny doing the right thing by WP standards by removing all the articles and contributions he made?
Not to mention that JzG claims (despite the fact he's been told here and there that he's wrong) Jonny has used original research in all his articles. Doesn't that mean all of Jonny's articles and contributions should be removed? OR is against the rules! Thus, it should be removed!
I mean, Jonny's just giving the Wiki-pediots what they want! How is this "vandalism" by WP standards?
I love the smell of irony in the morning!
When a long-time contributor (even if he was right) is no longer welcome in the Community, doesn't that mean his contributions and his attempts at collaboration meant nothing and mean nothing to the Community? So, isn't Jonny doing the right thing by WP standards by removing all the articles and contributions he made?
Not to mention that JzG claims (despite the fact he's been told here and there that he's wrong) Jonny has used original research in all his articles. Doesn't that mean all of Jonny's articles and contributions should be removed? OR is against the rules! Thus, it should be removed!
I mean, Jonny's just giving the Wiki-pediots what they want! How is this "vandalism" by WP standards?
I love the smell of irony in the morning!
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:24am)
The contributions of banned users (even when they are right) are reverted or deleted as "banned means banned" (says JzG).
When a long-time contributor (even if he was right) is no longer welcome in the Community, doesn't that mean his contributions and his attempts at collaboration meant nothing and mean nothing to the Community? So, isn't Jonny doing the right thing by WP standards by removing all the articles and contributions he made?
Not to mention that JzG claims (despite the fact he's been told here and there that he's wrong) Jonny has used original research in all his articles. Doesn't that mean all of Jonny's articles and contributions should be removed? OR is against the rules! Thus, it should be removed!
I mean, Jonny's just giving the Wiki-pediots what they want! How is this "vandalism" by WP standards?
I love the smell of irony in the morning!
Yes, I had not considered the very likely possibility that perhaps Ξdaf has simply not been paying full attention to recent events. The latest round of applesauce started with a thread entitled «Featured Editors?» that Phoenix-wiki initiated on the Wikienlist. For no apparent reason that I can figure from the content of the initial post, Guy Chapman and David Gerard seized on it as an occasion to attack my integrity as a scholar.
As the thread ravelled on, and as Chapman and Gerard raved on, they escalated the levels of defamation and prevarication beyond anything that my desultory sampling of that list had ever turned up before, all without the least shred of evidence or a single diff to back up their charges.
When it became clear, after many futile interventions by other editors on Wikipedia and the Wikienlist both, that they had no plans to put up or shut up evidence wise, I encouraged anyone who would take my part to enact a proportionate response.
And that is how we came to this.
Jon Awbrey
And Now For The NP:Strange But WP:True News —
Slrubenstein is a sockpuppet of Jon Awbrey.
It's True, Fluke, Ich Bin Dein Vater!
Jonny
Slrubenstein is a sockpuppet of Jon Awbrey.
It's True, Fluke, Ich Bin Dein Vater!
Jonny
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 6:56am)
As the thread ravelled on, and as Chapman and Gerard raved on, they escalated the levels of defamation and prevarication beyond anything that my desultory sampling of that list had ever turned up before, all without the least shred of evidence or a single diff to back up their charges.
What else can you expect from a rabid attack site like Wikipedia? That's what Wikipedia does, that's why it's done to them in return, and that's why no one else should take them seriously when they complain.
Only those Wikipedia editors who consistently blank attacks on and privacy violations of others deserve consideration. There are those who satisfy this criterion, including some who have been severely criticized (and worse) on this site, but Guy Chapman isn't among them.
Discreditation Uber Alles
It's essential to silence and discredit all banned contributors.
Off with their creds!
It's essential to silence and discredit all banned contributors.
Off with their creds!
There is a clear fallacy here. Just for the sake of argument, suppose Poetlister or Taxwoman were sockpuppets and had edited after their ban. These edits would get reverted if discovered. But they would still have been illegal sockpuppets before the ban, so why should any of their edits be allowed to stand? (OK, I know there has been a lynch mob after some of Taxwoman\'s articles, but not after Poetlister\'s that I\'ve noticed.)
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:32pm)
There is a clear fallacy here. Just for the sake of argument, suppose Poetlister or Taxwoman were sockpuppets and had edited after their ban. These edits would get reverted if discovered. But they would still have been illegal sockpuppets before the ban, so why should any of their edits be allowed to stand? (OK, I know there has been a lynch mob after some of Taxwoman\'s articles, but not after Poetlister\'s that I\'ve noticed.)
Yup. Every kb I affected should be nuked according to WP's own policy, as they have banned me as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Since I'm not, no one has removed the articles I created (and have not received any substantial edits after) or my substantial article overhauls.
On top of that, my "editing history" does not show me to be a "meatpuppet of Overstock", the other conflicting reason given in a summary. Which is it David? Its "obvious" you are a liar.
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Sun 18th November 2007, 10:32am)
There is a clear fallacy here. Just for the sake of argument, suppose Poetlister or Taxwoman were sockpuppets and had edited after their ban. These edits would get reverted if discovered. But they would still have been illegal sockpuppets before the ban, so why should any of their edits be allowed to stand? (OK, I know there has been a lynch mob after some of Taxwoman's articles, but not after Poetlister's that I've noticed.)
I will have to meditate on the distinction, if any, between a Fallacy and a Lie, but what we are dealing with in Wikipedia is Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah.
The proper name for the peculiar form of tendentious special pleading with which Wikipediots try to change the subject here is WikiPettifoggery.
Wikipediot PowerMongoes delete and revert what they damn well please, manifesteringly out of Petty Infantile Spite (WP:PIS), and many times in an effort to make their much-vaunted Transparency as Invisible as they can make it, and they do this with both pre-ban and post-ban contributions, independently of the value that the edit in question adds to the article, discussion, project, or site in general, and irregardless of how many promises of policy their actions breach.
The pre-ban versus post-ban dodge is yet another red herring, especially when accounts are banned 5 seconds before the act of oppression that the ban is cited to excuse. A facile excuse is better than none — that's the Wikipediot Way.
The above assertions can be backed up with diff after diff, unlike the Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah that we read in quarter after quarter of WikiPedia, WikiTedia, and the Wikienlist.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Sun 18th November 2007, 1:07pm)
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:32pm)
There is a clear fallacy here. Just for the sake of argument, suppose Poetlister or Taxwoman were sockpuppets and had edited after their ban. These edits would get reverted if discovered. But they would still have been illegal sockpuppets before the ban, so why should any of their edits be allowed to stand? (OK, I know there has been a lynch mob after some of Taxwoman's articles, but not after Poetlister's that I've noticed.)
Yup. Every kb I affected should be nuked according to WP's own policy, as they have banned me as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Since I'm not, no one has removed the articles I created (and have not received any substantial edits after) or my substantial article overhauls.
On top of that, my "editing history" does not show me to be a "meatpuppet of Overstock", the other conflicting reason given in a summary. Which is it David? It's "obvious" you are a liar.
Any Wikipedia author who wishes to join this Writers' Strike or Blank-In Protest may create a dynamic page on this thread for each of his or her authorships, following the model of the one that I created above for Jon Awbrey.
Wikipedia Reviewers can then examine the edit histories of each article certified and judge whether the claims of sole significant authorship are credible enough to proceed with blanking the articles.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 1:38pm)
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Sun 18th November 2007, 10:32am)
There is a clear fallacy here. Just for the sake of argument, suppose Poetlister or Taxwoman were sockpuppets and had edited after their ban. These edits would get reverted if discovered. But they would still have been illegal sockpuppets before the ban, so why should any of their edits be allowed to stand? (OK, I know there has been a lynch mob after some of Taxwoman's articles, but not after Poetlister's that I've noticed.)
I will have to meditate on the distinction, if any, between a Fallacy and a Lie, but what we are dealing with in Wikipedia is Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah.
The proper name for the peculiar form of tendentious special pleading with which Wikipediots try to change the subject here is WikiPettifoggery.
Wikipediot PowerMongoes delete and revert what they damn well please, manifesteringly out of Petty Infantile Spite (WP:PIS), and many times in an effort to make their much-vaunted Transparency as Invisible as they can make it, and they do this with both pre-ban and post-ban contributions, independently of the value that the edit in question adds to the article, discussion, project, or site in general, and irregardless of how many promises of policy their actions breach.
The pre-ban versus post-ban dodge is yet another red herring, especially when accounts are banned 5 seconds before the act of oppression that the ban is cited to excuse. A facile excuse is better than none — that's the Wikipediot Way.
The above assertions can be backed up with diff after diff, unlike the Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah that we read in quarter after quarter of WikiPedia, WikiTedia, and the Wikienlist.
Jon Awbrey
As if anyone with ≥½ a brain could not generate their own examples, here is an especially egregious one —
Special:Log/delete&page=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Historical_datapoints
This WP:NOR Talk Page material was collected in support of the discussion of radical changes that SlimVirgin, Inc. were trying to make in WP:NOR. SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and finally Jpgordon have repeatedly WP:Transparented this material out of sight. It was first subpaged within the ballpark of the WP:NOR policy area, then moved to a user subpage, then the automatic redirect from the policy area was deleted, and then these actions were repeated each time other editors restored the data to its original location. All of this material was contributed to the WP:NOR Talk Page long before Jon Awbrey was banned.
Indeed, the aforementioned anyone with ≥½ a brain can probably figure out that the effort by Awbrey and several other editors to prevent SlimVirgin's Highly Original Rewriting of WP:NOR had far more to do with his being banned from Wikipedia than the absurd story now being perpetrated by these same Creative Rewriters Of History.
So let us now have an end to that Φanciφool Divertimento on the theme of an Imaginary But Invalid Line between pre-ban and post-ban material. 'Tis not a diff that makes a diff to anyone anywhere anytime.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 18th November 2007, 9:35am)
Discreditation Uber Alles
It's essential to silence and discredit all banned contributors.
Off with their creds!
It's worse than that — you lend them your own credits to shore up their credibility and then they use that credibility to try and discredit you.
It's as if you lent a person money who went out and bought a gun to shoot you with and then tried to call it attempted suicide on your part because you funded their enterprise.
Jonny
My biggest WikiΦan, JustZapitGuy, has become so desperate in my absence to preserve my memory in any form he can, for example, in the form of what he praises as my "Original Research", that he has gone and semio-protected all of the affected articles.
Are there no bounds to this Never-Ending Vendetta Of WikiLuv
!?
Jon Awbrey
Jon Awbrey, the sole contributor of significant content to the following Wikipedia articles, grants any Wikipedia editor permission to remove their contents from Wikipedia and expresses his desire that these contents be so removed.
Signed,
Jon Awbrey
Dynamic List
Are there no bounds to this Never-Ending Vendetta Of WikiLuv
!?Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 2:47pm)
Jon Awbrey, the sole contributor of significant content to the following Wikipedia articles, grants any Wikipedia editor permission to remove their contents from Wikipedia and expresses his desire that these contents be so removed.
Signed,
Jon Awbrey
Dynamic List
My proposed title for this chapter of our tale is...
Fighting the Ban That Bleeds You
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 12:47pm)
Dynamic Page for Wikipedia Articles by Jon Awbrey et Aliases —
Jon Awbrey, the sole contributor of significant content to the following Wikipedia articles, grants any Wikipedia editor permission to remove their contents from Wikipedia and expresses his desire that these contents be so removed.
Signed,
Jon Awbrey
- Ampheck
- Boolean domain
- Boolean-valued function
- Comprehension_(logic)
- Continuous predicate
- Descriptive science
- Hypostatic abstraction
- Inquiry
- Logic of relatives
- Logic of Relatives (1870)
- Logic of Relatives (1883)
- Logical graph
- Logical matrix
- Minimal negation operator
- Multigrade operator
- Normative science
- Parametric operator
- Pragmatic maxim
- Relation composition
- Relation construction
- Relation reduction
- Relative term
- Semeiotic
- Sign relation
- Sign relational complex
- Sole sufficient operator
- Tacit extension
- Triadic relation
- Put a link to this Wikipedia Review Certification Page ("http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795") in the edit line of the Blanking Edit.
- The above articles have already been imported to Centiare — you may wish to consider doing that with yours.
- Be sure to wish JustZapitGuy a Happy Thanx-But-No-Thanx-I'm-Taking-It-Back-You-Dumb-Turkey Day.
I would like to ask you a question.
What is you educational background and degrees in???
Are you WR version of "Essjay" or are you the real deal?
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 19th November 2007, 10:42am)
My proposed title for this chapter of our tale is...
Fighting the Ban That Bleeds You
Fartspans of The Spooner Razzem Anthology who are having trabble keeping truck of the E*Φernally Re*Cursing Vanges of Cheñu that affect this subject may find transient news of the latest e-pis-ode of The Wiki-Punch-&-Judy Show on these two pages —
Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/WaddaDoWaddaDo/Awbrey Articles
Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/WakkaDoWakkaDo/Awbrey Articles
Exorcise for the Reader. I leave it to you to figger out who is Punch and who is Judy.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 11:38am)
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Sun 18th November 2007, 10:32am)
There is a clear fallacy here. Just for the sake of argument, suppose Poetlister or Taxwoman were sockpuppets and had edited after their ban. These edits would get reverted if discovered. But they would still have been illegal sockpuppets before the ban, so why should any of their edits be allowed to stand? (OK, I know there has been a lynch mob after some of Taxwoman's articles, but not after Poetlister's that I've noticed.)
I will have to meditate on the distinction, if any, between a Fallacy and a Lie, but what we are dealing with in Wikipedia is Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah.
The proper name for the peculiar form of tendentious special pleading with which Wikipediots try to change the subject here is WikiPettifoggery.
Wikipediot PowerMongoes delete and revert what they damn well please, manifesteringly out of Petty Infantile Spite (WP:PIS), and many times in an effort to make their much-vaunted Transparency as Invisible as they can make it, and they do this with both pre-ban and post-ban contributions, independently of the value that the edit in question adds to the article, discussion, project, or site in general, and irregardless of how many promises of policy their actions breach.
The pre-ban versus post-ban dodge is yet another red herring, especially when accounts are banned 5 seconds before the act of oppression that the ban is cited to excuse. A facile excuse is better than none — that's the Wikipediot Way.
The above assertions can be backed up with diff after diff, unlike the Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah that we read in quarter after quarter of WikiPedia, WikiTedia, and the Wikienlist.
Jon Awbrey
You can see a demostration, in real time and life, here... Some wiki sausage being make... old and stinky
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Mon 19th November 2007, 11:34am)
You can see a demostration, in real time and life, here … Some wiki sausage being made … old and stinky
It's only a matter of time before they get a template that reads —
«An editor has expressed a concern that this user may NOT be a sock puppet of <Your Name Here>».
It would probably be more efficient in the long run.
Jonny
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Mon 19th November 2007, 11:31am)
I would like to ask you a question.
What is you educational background and degrees in???
Are you WR version of "Essjay" or are you the real deal?
If you follow that home page link on my local profile, there's a web-safe vita there.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 19th November 2007, 10:50am)
[It's only a matter of time before they get a template that reads —
«An editor has expressed a concern that this user may NOT be a sock puppet of <Your Name Here>».
It would probably be more efficient in the long run.
Jonny
or:
«<Your Name Here> has expressed a concern that this the use of pseudonymous editing identities leads to divisive asymmetrical warfare and witch-hunts and does not understand why editors are not required to contribute using IRL identities.»
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 19th November 2007, 9:50am)
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Mon 19th November 2007, 11:34am)
You can see a demostration, in real time and life, here … Some wiki sausage being made … old and stinky
It's only a matter of time before they get a template that reads —
«An editor has expressed a concern that this user may NOT be a sock puppet of <Your Name Here>».
It would probably be more efficient in the long run.
Jonny
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Mon 19th November 2007, 11:31am)
I would like to ask you a question.
What is you educational background and degrees in???
Are you WR version of "Essjay" or are you the real deal?
If you follow that home page link on my local profile, there's a web-safe vita there.
Jon Awbrey
Is this about you talking about...
It would appear to be rather impressive.
* 1993–2003. Graduate Study, Systems Engineering, Oakland University.
* 1989. M.A. Psychology, Michigan State University.
* 1985–1986, Graduate Study, Mathematics, University of Michigan.
* 1985. Graduate Study, Mathematics, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
* 1984. Graduate Study, Psychology, University of Illinois at Champaign–Urbana.
* 1980. M.A. Mathematics, Michigan State University.
* 1976. B.A. Mathematical and Philosophical Method,
Justin Morrill College, Michigan State University.
AS the say in Chicago South side, where I grew up, you seem to have a "jones" for wikipedia.
Now, You and I know this one fact that links our causes... I Hate lies and untruth. The reason is for economic and political good.
For me, Wikipeida hurts my freinds and spread lies and disinformation across such a wide swath.
It is apparent to my simple wisdom, that wikipeida is "Clear and Present Danger" to the world by it's near monopoly of internet information.
Wikipeida is this gaiant leach, sucking the life out of the interent for the gain of so few, the the expense of so many. For me this is the reason for my concern about wikipeida.
Any rate you have a good day
Dear Mr Cache,
You are over-qualified for Wikipedia. Go away, you are busting the curve. Hopefully you don't mind if we continue to use your real formerly good name in editing summaries next to phrases like "Fuck off". Esteemed fellow Wikipedians David Gerard and Josh Gordon are doing it, so the rest of us will do so too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ical+datapoints
Regards,
Wikipedia
You are over-qualified for Wikipedia. Go away, you are busting the curve. Hopefully you don't mind if we continue to use your real formerly good name in editing summaries next to phrases like "Fuck off". Esteemed fellow Wikipedians David Gerard and Josh Gordon are doing it, so the rest of us will do so too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ical+datapoints
Regards,
Wikipedia
Checking Jonny credentials, I am wondering how many standard deviation differences would it be between the average WP IQ and WR IQ. 
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Tue 20th November 2007, 1:28am)
Checking Jonny credentials, I am wondering how many standard deviation differences would it be between the average WP IQ and WR IQ.
I'm actually a rather slow learner, but I think I fall more into that "persistent fool" category.
Jonny
Honor Roll of Fallen Comrades
— ¤ —
Lest They Be Forgot
— ¤ —
Lest They Be Forgot
- BABBUØ
¤ (25 Sep 07 – 10 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - BABBU1
¤ (02 Oct 07 – 11 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Bare In Mind
¤ (14 Oct 07 – 14 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Brigit Zilwaukee
¤ (15 Sep 06 – 19 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Buchanan's Navy Sec
¤ (10 Nov 07 – 19 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - DABBUØ
¤ (22 Sep 07 – 11 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - DABBU1
¤ (02 Oct 07 – 11 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - DEBBU
¤ (21 Sep 07 – 11 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - DEBBUØ
¤ (30 Sep 07 – 11 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Doubtentry
¤ (28 Sep 07 – 18 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Education Is The Basis Of Law And Order
¤ (01 Oct 07 – 13 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Fallopius Manque
¤ (02 Nov 06 – 14 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Marsboat
¤ (20 Nov 07 – 24 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Mr. Peabody's Boy
¤ (12 Nov 07 – 15 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Overstay
¤ (13 Nov 07 – 25 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Preveiling Opinion Of Dominant Opinion Group
¤ (15 Oct 07 – 12 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - RABBU
¤ (19 Sep 07 – 10 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - RABBUØ
¤ (25 Sep 07 – 11 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Real World Apple
¤ (05 Oct 06 – 30 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - REBBU
¤ (20 Sep 07 – 11 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - REBBUØ
¤ (28 Sep 07 – 11 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - VOCØ
¤ (17 Oct 07 – 15 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Wolf of the Steppes
¤ (28 Sep 07 – 19 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤ - Yolanda Zilwaukee
¤ (15 Sep 06 – 20 Nov 07) ¤ Dis ¤ Eds ¤
Jon Awbrey
Re: Current List of Articles on Strike Roster
That's All She Wrote —
That's All The InCensor Let Her Write —
Same Old Guy (SOG) …
Jonny
That's All She Wrote —
That's All The InCensor Let Her Write —
Same Old Guy (SOG) …
Jonny
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 21st November 2007, 10:22am)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 2:47pm)
QUOTE(SlimVirgin @ 07 September 2006)
Wikipedia Articles by Jon Awbrey
— or —
News for Virgin Ears
— or —
News for Virgin Ears
Jon Awbrey, the sole contributor of significant content to the following Wikipedia articles, grants any Wikipedia editor permission to remove their contents from Wikipedia and expresses his desire that these contents be so removed.
Signed,
Jon Awbrey
- Ampheck
- Boolean domain
- Boolean-valued function
- Comprehension_(logic)
- Continuous predicate
- Descriptive science
- Hypostatic abstraction
- Hypostatic object
- Inquiry
- Logic of information
- Logic of relatives
- Logic of Relatives (1870)
- Logic of Relatives (1883)
- Logical graph
- Logical matrix
- Minimal negation operator
- Multigrade operator
- Normative science
- Parametric operator
- Pragmatic maxim
- Prescisive abstraction
- Relation composition
- Relation construction
- Relation reduction
- Relative term
- Semeiotic
- Semiotic information theory
- Sign relation
- Sign relational complex
- Sole sufficient operator
- Tacit extension
- Triadic relation
- You may wish to notify Wikipedia Personnel of this convenient Wikipedia Review Author Certification, Article Decertification (WR:ACAD) Page by inserting one of the following forms of comment in the edit line of the blanking or reverting edit:
- «Article Withdrawn By Request Of Author (See "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795")».
- «Removing Article Acquired Under False Pretenses By Wikipedia (See "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795")».
- The above articles have already been imported to Centiare — you may wish to consider doing that with yours.
- Be sure to wish JustZapitGuy a Happy Thanx-But-No-Thanx-I'm-Taking-It-Back-You-Dumb-Turkey Day.
That's All She Wrote —
That's All The InCensor Let Her Write —
Same Old Guy (SOG) …
Jonny
Quack quack...the duck test...The famous wikipedian, legal -eagle duck test. the wiki inspired test that should be applied to real life in the US courts. The wisdom of Wiki is much greater then the thousands of years of legal Jurisprudence and human interaction. WIKI addicts and Punk flunkies are more wise then this...
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Wed 21st November 2007, 5:42pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 21st November 2007, 10:22am)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 2:47pm)
QUOTE(SlimVirgin @ 07 September 2006)
Wikipedia Articles by Jon Awbrey
— or —
News for Virgin Ears
— or —
News for Virgin Ears
Jon Awbrey, the sole contributor of significant content to the following Wikipedia articles, grants any Wikipedia editor permission to remove their contents from Wikipedia and expresses his desire that these contents be so removed.
Signed,
Jon Awbrey
- Ampheck
- Boolean domain
- Boolean-valued function
- Comprehension_(logic)
- Continuous predicate
- Descriptive science
- Hypostatic abstraction
- Hypostatic object
- Inquiry
- Logic of information
- Logic of relatives
- Logic of Relatives (1870)
- Logic of Relatives (1883)
- Logical graph
- Logical matrix
- Minimal negation operator
- Multigrade operator
- Normative science
- Parametric operator
- Pragmatic maxim
- Prescisive abstraction
- Relation composition
- Relation construction
- Relation reduction
- Relative term
- Semeiotic
- Semiotic information theory
- Sign relation
- Sign relational complex
- Sole sufficient operator
- Tacit extension
- Triadic relation
- You may wish to notify Wikipedia Personnel of this convenient Wikipedia Review Author Certification, Article Decertification (WR:ACAD) Page by inserting one of the following forms of comment in the edit line of the blanking or reverting edit:
- «Article Withdrawn By Request Of Author (See "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795")».
- «Removing Article Acquired Under False Pretenses By Wikipedia (See "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13980&view=findpost&p=60795")».
- The above articles have already been imported to Centiare — you may wish to consider doing that with yours.
- Be sure to wish JustZapitGuy a Happy Thanx-But-No-Thanx-I'm-Taking-It-Back-You-Dumb-Turkey Day.
That's All She Wrote —
That's All The InCensor Let Her Write —
Same Old Guy (SOG) …
Jonny
Quack quack...the duck test...The famous wikipedian, legal -eagle duck test. the wiki inspired test that should be applied to real life in the US courts. The wisdom of Wiki is much greater then the thousands of years of legal Jurisprudence and human interaction. WIKI addicts and Punk flunkies are more wise then this...
I thought WP:Quack meant if a bunch of amateur quacks say so it must be true.
Re: Current List of Articles on Strike Roster
Wow !
They've gone and put these articles under full sysop protection !
My e-mortality†is assured !
Jonny
†Some restrictions apply; e-mortality expires 29 Dec 2007 UTC 10:50.
Wow !
They've gone and put these articles under full sysop protection !
My e-mortality†is assured !
Jonny
†Some restrictions apply; e-mortality expires 29 Dec 2007 UTC 10:50.
Recalling a bit of history —
The contributions of banned users (even when they are right) are reverted or deleted as "banned means banned" (says JzG).
When a long-time contributor (even if he was right) is no longer welcome in the Community, doesn't that mean his contributions and his attempts at collaboration meant nothing and mean nothing to the Community? So, isn't Jonny doing the right thing by WP standards by removing all the articles and contributions he made?
Not to mention that JzG claims (despite the fact he's been told here and there that he's wrong) Jonny has used original research in all his articles. Doesn't that mean all of Jonny's articles and contributions should be removed? OR is against the rules! Thus, it should be removed!
I mean, Jonny's just giving the Wiki-pediots what they want! How is this "vandalism" by WP standards?
I love the smell of irony in the morning!
Yes, I had not considered the very likely possibility that perhaps Ξdaf has simply not been paying full attention to recent events. The latest round of applesauce started with a thread entitled «Featured Editors?» that Phoenix-wiki initiated on the Wikienlist. For no apparent reason that I can figure from the content of the initial post, Guy Chapman and David Gerard seized on it as an occasion to attack my integrity as a scholar.
As the thread ravelled on, and as Chapman and Gerard raved on, they escalated the levels of defamation and prevarication beyond anything that my desultory sampling of that list had ever turned up before, all without the least shred of evidence or a single diff to back up their charges.
When it became clear, after many futile interventions by other editors on Wikipedia and the Wikienlist both, that they had no plans to put up or shut up evidence wise, I encouraged anyone who would take my part to enact a proportionate response.
And that is how we came to this.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:56am)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 18th November 2007, 2:24am)
The contributions of banned users (even when they are right) are reverted or deleted as "banned means banned" (says JzG).
When a long-time contributor (even if he was right) is no longer welcome in the Community, doesn't that mean his contributions and his attempts at collaboration meant nothing and mean nothing to the Community? So, isn't Jonny doing the right thing by WP standards by removing all the articles and contributions he made?
Not to mention that JzG claims (despite the fact he's been told here and there that he's wrong) Jonny has used original research in all his articles. Doesn't that mean all of Jonny's articles and contributions should be removed? OR is against the rules! Thus, it should be removed!
I mean, Jonny's just giving the Wiki-pediots what they want! How is this "vandalism" by WP standards?
I love the smell of irony in the morning!
Yes, I had not considered the very likely possibility that perhaps Ξdaf has simply not been paying full attention to recent events. The latest round of applesauce started with a thread entitled «Featured Editors?» that Phoenix-wiki initiated on the Wikienlist. For no apparent reason that I can figure from the content of the initial post, Guy Chapman and David Gerard seized on it as an occasion to attack my integrity as a scholar.
As the thread ravelled on, and as Chapman and Gerard raved on, they escalated the levels of defamation and prevarication beyond anything that my desultory sampling of that list had ever turned up before, all without the least shred of evidence or a single diff to back up their charges.
When it became clear, after many futile interventions by other editors on Wikipedia and the Wikienlist both, that they had no plans to put up or shut up evidence wise, I encouraged anyone who would take my part to enact a proportionate response.
And that is how we came to this.
Jon Awbrey
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.