Banned means "seems" to be banned Options

[thekohser]

Rodhullandemu had this to say today, as he was chatting so chummy with his pal Jimbo:

If that means banning editors, so be it; the road to where we are now is littered with the (figurative) corpses of those who have failed to meet our standards, and now seem to be either completely absent or residing in Wikipedia Review.

(emphasis mine)

I wonder what would be the look on Rod's face if he knew that, just today in fact, I billed a client for $185 for some work completed on their behalf on Wikipedia, manipulating content?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

This is the same Rodhullandemu that only a few days ago was throwing a hissy fit and leaving because someone took his porn away?

"Standards", nous ...!?!

Corpses is hardly the word either, I'll happily list all the new pages I have created for them recently for free.

It is a damnable thing to do, I know, but the only way to get around silly page blocks on the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit except those are trying to outcast".

But I do not understand his comment, "'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' is equivalent to 'a website that anyone can add any old rubbish'" ...

Oh, I see ... he is suggest that it is a website that anyone can add any old rubbish rather than it is not, right?

[gomi]

Corpses is not the word ... perhaps zombies? I know several banned -- or undead editors who are editing quite regularly now, though (spawned by the "breaching experiments") they're adding bogus content to see what they can get away with. Some of it is quite amusing, in fact.

[Moulton]

Corpses is not the word ... perhaps zombies?

I have cast Caprice, the Fantastic Flying Scape-Goat for Azazel in this role.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Corpses is not the word ... perhaps zombies? I know several banned -- or undead editors who are editing quite regularly now, though (spawned by the "breaching experiments") they're adding bogus content to see what they can get away with. Some of it is quite amusing, in fact.

It is true ... the best breaching experiments are the ones they don't even know ARE breaching experiments as the content is so close to regular content that they cannot discern the difference.

Class is having an admin speedydelete a new page only to falter and remove the tag because he was unsure in himself.

Zombie account sounds far better, and more accurate than sock or troll ... anyone care to recommend it by way of a policy page or what?

The Undead ... Spooks, perhaps ... even better.

Those sock tags are starting to smell.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I wanted to add that a devotee saying to a Guru "our standards" is under the greatest influence of delusion.

The devotee works for free ... the guru pull in speakers fees in excess of $75,000.

[A Horse With No Name]

Rodhullandemu had this to say today, as he was chatting so chummy with his pal Jimbo:

If that means banning editors, so be it; the road to where we are now is littered with the (figurative) corpses of those who have failed to meet our standards, and now seem to be either completely absent or residing in Wikipedia Review.

(emphasis mine)

I wonder what would be the look on Rod's face if he knew that, just today in fact, I billed a client for $185 for some work completed on their behalf on Wikipedia, manipulating content?

In utter seriousness, the tone of Rod's comment genuinely shows a pathetic person who has completely lost touch with reality. My sympathies to his family. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Rodhullandemu had this to say today, as he was chatting so chummy with his pal Jimbo:

If that means banning editors, so be it; the road to where we are now is littered with the (figurative) corpses of those who have failed to meet our standards, and now seem to be either completely absent or residing in Wikipedia Review.

(emphasis mine)

I wonder what would be the look on Rod's face if he knew that, just today in fact, I billed a client for $185 for some work completed on their behalf on Wikipedia, manipulating content?

In utter seriousness, the tone of Rod's comment genuinely shows a pathetic person who has completely lost touch with reality. My sympathies to his family. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Yes, would somebody send Rodhullandemu a crate of doilies and lace antimacassars and such? He's going to need them, being a queen and all.

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/QueenV.jpg)
Those who have failed to meet our standards

[Abd]

But I do not understand his comment, "'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' is equivalent to 'a website that anyone can add any old rubbish'" ...

That's because that's a quote taken out of context. But the original is still pretty stupid.

I've seen more often than I care to count editors who believe that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is equivalent to "a website that anyone can add any old rubbish", good-faith or not.

The only people I've seen like the editors he finds too many to count aren't editors, they are vandals. Editors don't add content that they believe is "rubbish," so they don't believe that "anyone can add any old rubbish." He's mistaken his opinion for some kind of absolute truth, that, of course, everyone would know, so if an editor writes about a topic he loves, and claims that it should be in the project, Rodhullandemu treats it as if the editor is claiming rubbish is allowed. A bit confused, I'd say. He's not alone, though, I've seen this kind of argument before. From other admins and editors.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Moulton]

There is a lot of "rubbish" in circulation in the media, for the simple reason that we live in a political culture rather than a scientific one. A scientific culture has as an overarching goal to weed out rubbish to the maximum extent possible, and then to maintain a healthy skepticism of the theories that survive the great rubbish scrubbing better know as the Scientific Method.

Wikipedia is famously not a repository of "truth" (non-rubbish), but a repository of verifiable reports in the media. Since the media reports a great deal of rubbish, it naturally makes its way into Wikipedia. NPOV then tries to maintain a balance among the conflicting piles of rubbish.

And if I'm mistaken in the above analysis, then here I am putting yet more rubbish into circulation.

[ulsterman]

Editors don't add content that they don't believe is "rubbish," ... A bit confused, I'd say.

You said it, indeed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Wikipedia is famously not a repository of "truth" (non-rubbish), but a repository of verifiable reports in the media. Since the media reports a great deal of rubbish, it naturally makes its way into Wikipedia. NPOV then tries to maintain a balance among the conflicting piles of rubbish.

An excellent point. One of the very biggest problems with Wikipedia is that anything that purports to be a newspaper, however extreme its POV, is regarded as a quotable source. Clearly, that makes no sense; at best, it should only be cited as "One source alleges ...", but that would never be allowed to stand.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Rodhullandemu had this to say today, as he was chatting so chummy with his pal Jimbo:

If that means banning editors, so be it; the road to where we are now is littered with the (figurative) corpses of those who have failed to meet our standards, and now seem to be either completely absent or residing in Wikipedia Review.

(emphasis mine)

I wonder what would be the look on Rod's face if he knew that, just today in fact, I billed a client for $185 for some work completed on their behalf on Wikipedia, manipulating content?

I have the distinct impression that the Wiki elite is no longer interested in conducting conventional sockpuppet investigations, which would involve the use of Checkuser (making the recent election for Checkusers something of a moot point.) I think they decided to simply screw the evidence and issue sockpuppetry bans simply on the basis of POV (see McWeenie.) I think that it is telling that Wikipedia:Guide to Appealing Blocks (is a Appealing a gerund, or an adjective?) says:

Do not make an unblock request that includes a request for checkuser to "prove your innocence" ... as indicated at Sockpuppet investigations those are so rarely done that you're better off not asking (besides, it is difficult to use it to prove that two editors are different people). Most administrators consider such an unblock request a sure sign of a sock account (particularly one with very few edits otherwise) and will decline on that basis.

[Cedric]

I have the distinct impression that the Wiki elite is no longer interested in conducting conventional sockpuppet investigations, which would involve the use of Checkuser (making the recent election for Checkusers something of a moot point.) I think they decided to simply screw the evidence and issue sockpuppetry bans simply on the basis of POV (see McWeenie.) I think that it is telling that Wikipedia:Guide to Appealing Blocks (is a Appealing a gerund, or an adjective?) says:

Do not make an unblock request that includes a request for checkuser to "prove your innocence" ... as indicated at Sockpuppet investigations those are so rarely done that you're better off not asking (besides, it is difficult to use it to prove that two editors are different people). Most administrators consider such an unblock request a sure sign of a sock account (particularly one with very few edits otherwise) and will decline on that basis.

(IMG:http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2939/talosian.jpg)

"Wrong thinking shall be punished!

"Right thinking shall be as quickly rewarded."

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

In the hands of many admins, it just all means, "we don't do subtle, discriminate thinking ... we just kneejerk and do the easiest thing".

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Do not make an unblock request that includes a request for checkuser to "prove your innocence" ... as indicated at Sockpuppet investigations those are so rarely done that you're better off not asking (besides, it is difficult to use it to prove that two editors are different people). Most administrators consider such an unblock request a sure sign of a sock account (particularly one with very few edits otherwise) and will decline on that basis.

One is struck by the irony, that it is "difficult to prove that two editors are different people," but childishly simple to allege that they are the same person.

[EricBarbour]

Rodhullandemu had this to say today, as he was chatting so chummy with his pal Jimbo:

If that means banning editors, so be it; the road to where we are now is littered with the (figurative) corpses of those who have failed to meet our standards, and now seem to be either completely absent or residing in Wikipedia Review.

(emphasis mine)
I wonder what would be the look on Rod's face if he knew that, just today in fact, I billed a client for $185 for some work completed on their behalf on Wikipedia, manipulating content?

I still think RH&E has earned his own subforum under "Notable Editors". Unfortunately, Somey has
already said there are too many subforums in there, already.

The problem is not management of WR subforums---the problem is that Wikipedia now has so many
aggressively douchey, slimy admins like RH&E that the problem is completely untenable and top-heavy.

And despite this ultimately being Wikipedia's problem, they exacerbate it greatly by not taking action
or moderating the douchery.

(Cue link to j.delanoy being a childish little shit, here.)

RH&E has done some good contributing to their "encyclopedia". He's also done so much Jimbo-snorkeling
and AN/I dramah over the last 2 years, any good work he did before is being canceled out by his poison.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Milton Roe]

(IMG:http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2939/talosian.jpg)

"Wrong thinking shall be punished!

"Right thinking shall be as quickly rewarded."

Ah, the lovable androgenous Bum-heads of Talos IV. Used in The Cage and of course, in The Menagerie (far better episode than it would have been if planned).

The Talosians are an advanced and dying race. And they've been to Earth long ago, and brought back Earth plants and animals. They want to set up Captain Pike and the female of his choice (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) in their own Garden of Eden to repopulate the surface. Well, now. Previous candidate female being the only survivor of a science mission to the planet, 18 years before. Romance attempted. Finally they relent and release the humans, saying that if the races made contact the humans would only learn their "power of illusion" and destroy themselves. How? Well, with the power of illusion you can have anything you think of. It's like TV, but better. Except you might have bad thoughts. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Your enemies might find themselves in deep doo doo.

The Talosians are reminiscent of the Krell in Forbidden Planet, who built a machine which gave them anything they could think of, and destroyed them in a similar way. The saucer starship captain this time is Leslie Nielsen, who attempts romance with the only surviving female of the science mission of 20 years before (see The Tempest). Again there are plants and animals in a garden of Eden (why else the title-- it's from Forbidden Fruit) which the Krell have collected from ancient Earth, long ago. We see the innocent Eve routine again. There's still the problem of having bad thoughts and having the Krell machine turn them into reality. The mission comes close to being destroyed and the planet actually is destroyed, after the ship hurredly leaves.

Some attempts to point out that many Star Trek episodes seem to have been take off on Forbidden Planet lead to a WP:LAME edit war. Original research. Wrong thinking will be punished.

[Moulton]

Of course the Wrong Thinking is a reference to The Really Dumb Idea that Adam and Eve adopted regarding how to deal with issues of Right and Wrong. That whole notion of punishing wrong thinking was a colossal blunder. Not that they weren't warned beforehand.

[EricBarbour]

Some attempts to point out that many Star Trek episodes seem to have been take off on Forbidden Planet lead to a WP:LAME edit war. Original research. Wrong thinking will be punished.

And yet.......

In 1963, he had met a beautiful, young black actress called Nichelle Nichols, whom he cast in one of his earlier abortive TV projects called The Lieutenant, and although he was married, the 42-year-old started a steamy romance, and she was among the first cast in Star Trek.

The scandalous affair only came to light after his death, when Nichelle revealed all in her 1994 autobiography Beyond Uhura.

But the affair did not last long into the Star Trek run because Gene was three-timing both Nichelle and his wife with Majel Barrett, the actress he had to fire from the original Star Trek pilot, but brought back as a ship's nurse.

In 1969, the original Star Trek ended after just three series due to failing ratings.

Gene was distraught over the show but divorced Eileen, his wife of 27 years, to marry Majel, who he would stay with for the remaining 22 years of his life. In the Seventies, following Star Trek's demise, Gene and his show suffered vastly differing fates.

Re-runs of the original series became a huge hit with a new generation of fans, but Gene suffered a series of failed pilots and projects right through the decade and when his production company, the Norway Corporation, teetered on the brink of collapse in 1975, he decided to go back to what he knew best.........That was even to the point where he had demanded a 50 per cent credit for the original series theme song from Alexander Courage, and was repeatedly alleged to have stolen ideas and taken the credit.

He had also come under fire from his cast and crew for his domineering and autocratic management, while tales of drug use were rife within the industry.

Even TrekWeb has an article to that effect.

Go ahead, add that to Gene Roddenberry. It's a pathetic article.
Hope you don't get banned by Erik Moeller:

There's no problem with adding critical information to a biography, but it should be well documented, especially when there are charges of plagiarism. Just pointing to "books by so-and-so" or "speeches by so-and-so" is not proper documentation, and hand waving of the type "These claims are extremely well documented" has no place in an encyclopedia. Just the facts, please.

I have removed the allegation of a Roddenberry/Barrett affair. When did it take place and where is this documented? Roddenberry was later married to Barrett, after all. I've also removed:

Roddenberry's propensity for exaggerating his role in Star Trek is legendary and well known to scholars of the science-fiction community, and extremely well documented.

Pure fluff. Which exaggerations? Documented where? Details, please.

Also removed:
At the time of Roddenberry's death, almost all of his former co-workers were so angry at Roddenberry that they refused to go to his funeral.

Source? A Google search for "roddenberry funeral" turns up Wikipedia at a top spot.—Eloquence 19:09, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I still think RH&E has earned his own subforum under "Notable Editors". Unfortunately, Somey has
already said there are too many subforums in there, already ....

RH&E has done some good contributing to their "encyclopedia". He's also done so much Jimbo-snorkeling
and AN/I dramah over the last 2 years, any good work he did before is being canceled out by his poison.

Can you just start another called "unsorted garbage" or something and bundle them all in together?