![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#1
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
See Jimbo's talk page, and the [[Ayn Rand]] article which I have rewritten. The bet is how long it will stay in its rewritten state. I love the remark that 'Aristotle was sorely over-rated'.
QUOTE 'Aristotle was sorely overrated'. Ha! Wikipediot. Obscure greek Homer 42k, famous american Homer 65k. I would have bought this argument when Wikipedia first began. But as I pointed out above, the project is now mature, and we still find it difficult to attract editors who can write accessible material on more encylopedic subjects. The reason is abundantly clear: the place is infested with cranks, advocates of strange fringe theories, mystics, lunatics of all kinds. No sane intelligent person would go near the place with a bargepole. In any case, I have now re-written the introduction to Ayn Rand that makes it less obviously written by Rand fanatics. Let's see what happens from there on. If the introduction stands relatively unchanged, I lose my bet. If it is torn to shreds and returned to the unreadable ungrammatical state as before, I win, bigtime. Peter Damian (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...es_in_Wikipedia This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
![]() ![]() |
maggot3 |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 251 Joined: Member No.: 6,260 ![]() |
I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.
Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic. This post has been edited by maggot3: |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#3
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing. Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic. Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it). QUOTE I'm not at all interested in the underlying content issue here. You're simply not acknowledging my point: it is wrong for you to insult a tenured academic who is expert in the area in question and at the same time whine about academic respectability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC) You are right, I have never noticed you had any interest in underlying content issues. Peter Damian (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Hicks, by the way, also received a grant http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1917-S_hicks.aspx from the Objectivist Centre. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#4
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it). More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough. |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#5
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it). More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough. 'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat. And what is the block for? 4 academic philosophers on the Rand page supported my re-write of the introduction. 1 idiot troll opposed. Wales supports the troll. I lose the battle. As for the war... |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#6
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat. No, it's an observation of your behaviour. I don't threaten. Guess what, you might be right about the Ayn Rand article. But if you actually want to fix it, you're going the wrong way about it. And you know it, since you stated: QUOTE On being difficult to work with, that is the whole and entire point. I have no desire to 'work with' anyone here. Why on earth would I? We get it. You're not there to write an encyclopedia, you're there to count coup, make bets, score points, posture for the viewing audience there and here, and the like. Spare us. If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already. |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#7
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat. No, it's an observation of your behaviour. I don't threaten. Guess what, you might be right about the Ayn Rand article. But if you actually want to fix it, you're going the wrong way about it. And you know it, since you stated: QUOTE On being difficult to work with, that is the whole and entire point. I have no desire to 'work with' anyone here. Why on earth would I? We get it. You're not there to write an encyclopedia, you're there to count coup, make bets, score points, posture for the viewing audience there and here, and the like. Spare us. If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already. No actually I have some very deeply held principles involving conflicts of interest that prompt many of my, er, dramas on Wikipedia. And on writing an encyclopedia, I have today written a new introduction to the Rand article, plus a rewrite of the whole of [[Rational egoism]]. Prior to that I put a considerable amount of work into [[Neurolinguistic programming]] that involved a lot of emailing experts on the subject, library work and so on. The new article won praise from a number of people. oh yes, and [[NLP and science]]. All you care about is the crappy civility thing. Well fuck off, Lar. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |