Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Articles _ Links to MyWikBiz

Posted by: Peter Damian

I raised the issue on the RS noticeboard here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rel...WikiBiz_deleted

There is a concerted effort to remove a link on the Summa Logicae article to a version of book III (the only version on the internet) I placed there.

The logic is that it is a 'personal website'. As I have pointed out, that logic would remove 90% of links from medieval articles, and nearly all the links on that particular article.

It was many weeks work to check the scanned in Latin version - there are currently no Latin spell-checkers on the market, and it all has to be done by eye. This seems more a vendetta against Kohs than anything else.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 10th July 2009, 3:23am) *

This seems more a vendetta against Kohs than anything else.


Seems?

Welcome to my world, Peter Damian.

Actually deleting this particular link gives them revenge not only on me, but on you, as well. It's a double whammy for them. And it goes to underscore what I and others have been saying for a couple of years now -- Wikipedia is the world's largest online revenge platform.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Look ... come on ... you are facing a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alastairward whose other area of expertise includes South Park, and you are arguing over the authenticity of a Medieval Latin philosophical text?

Its obvious who is going to win. Its the Wikipedia!!!

You could try pointing out the non sequitur in his logic but I think you would be wasting your time. This one is putting the smell of cack into his cack-handed handling of the matter.

Posted by: Peter Damian

The discussion is continued by someone called Flowanda, on the talk page of the Summa article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sum_of_Logic

and on Flowanda's talk. He says "link appears to be a self-published site not noted for its authority or expertise and to non-English content" - meaning the Logic Museum (which is a directory of MWB). Outrageous! And John Vandenburg has re-linked the first parts of Book III to the Wikisource version

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logicae/Pars_III_-_1_:_De_Syllogismo_simpliciter

which is a simple scanned in version, not corrected. For instance, it contains the following horrendous spelling mistakes.

Alia regula est qnod nollns terminus in praemissis uel conclusione somator aequiuoce.

"qnod nollns" should be 'quod nullus' and 'somator' should be 'sumatur'. These are elementary spelling mistakes which are common in scanning. For example, search for the misspelled 'qnod' in the Wikisource version - scanners often confuse 'n' with 'u' and as they don't have Latin spellcheckers (this is something I am working on this as a separate project) the result is often a mess.

I take a lot of time clearing up these sorts of errors. I can't guarantee 100% but it is a lot better than Wikisource. The usual problem of a lot of attention paid to format and rubbish like that, no attention to basic content.

[edit] Even the chapter headings are wrong "3-1.02 DE QUIBUSDAM PPAEAMBULIS QUAE PRAEMITTENDA " - the scanner confused the 'R' of 'PRAEAMBULIS' with 'P'. How dare they say my site is not 'noted for its expertise'. Spellchecking without mechanical aids takes days. If they take my corrected version (as Vandenberg has threatened) I shall really go mad.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 11th July 2009, 7:40am) *

The discussion is continued by someone called Flowanda, on the talk page of the Summa article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sum_of_Logic

and on Flowanda's talk. He says "link appears to be a self-published site not noted for its authority or expertise and to non-English content" - meaning the Logic Museum (which is a directory of MWB). Outrageous! And John Vandenburg has re-linked the first parts of Book III to the Wikisource version

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logicae/Pars_III_-_1_:_De_Syllogismo_simpliciter

which is a simple scanned in version, not corrected.

...

If they take my corrected version (as Vandenberg has threatened) I shall really go mad.


Don't take it so personally; I take accurate public domain text from everywhere, and I marry them up with the original page scans on Wikisource. If there is no public domain text available on the internet, I spend days correcting OCR, and I don't care who makes copies of my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow.

The Latin Wikisource content appears to have originated from http://home.riise.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~akyah59/ock.sl.index.html, which was listed on the Wikipedia article until today. Latin Wikisource doesnt have many maintenance tags, however I tagged this page with {{Infectus}} back in September 2008, which gives the reader a sense that it isnt reliable. Wikisource has a text quality system to help readers know when a text is accurate, and the texts slowly gravitate towards perfection, when people like you and I have time to work on them. It isn't always obvious that a text is low quality, however it is quite obvious when a text is good quality. Take for example http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Occam%27s_Razor, which I did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud from your site, and I made a few corrections along the way. The pages of that text are yellow, which indicates they are proofread. Another person needs to come along and "verify" the pages, which will result in the pages turning to green, by which stage we are hoping that all errors have been removed.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 11th July 2009, 5:42pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 11th July 2009, 7:40am) *

The discussion is continued by someone called Flowanda, on the talk page of the Summa article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sum_of_Logic

and on Flowanda's talk. He says "link appears to be a self-published site not noted for its authority or expertise and to non-English content" - meaning the Logic Museum (which is a directory of MWB). Outrageous! And John Vandenburg has re-linked the first parts of Book III to the Wikisource version

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logicae/Pars_III_-_1_:_De_Syllogismo_simpliciter

which is a simple scanned in version, not corrected.

...

If they take my corrected version (as Vandenberg has threatened) I shall really go mad.


Don't take it so personally; I take accurate public domain text from everywhere, and I marry them up with the original page scans on Wikisource. If there is no public domain text available on the internet, I spend days correcting OCR, and I don't care who makes copies of my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow.

The Latin Wikisource content appears to have originated from http://home.riise.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~akyah59/ock.sl.index.html, which was listed on the Wikipedia article until today. Latin Wikisource doesnt have many maintenance tags, however I tagged this page with {{Infectus}} back in September 2008, which gives the reader a sense that it isnt reliable. Wikisource has a text quality system to help readers know when a text is accurate, and the texts slowly gravitate towards perfection, when people like you and I have time to work on them. It isn't always obvious that a text is low quality, however it is quite obvious when a text is good quality. Take for example http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Occam%27s_Razor, which I did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud from your site, and I made a few corrections along the way. The pages of that text are yellow, which indicates they are proofread. Another person needs to come along and "verify" the pages, which will result in the pages turning to green, by which stage we are hoping that all errors have been removed.


I'm sorry, I missed the comments on your WP talk page which were quite sensible.

And you did indeed take my myth of Ockham's razor from here

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/latin/mythofockham.htm

It is of course public domain so you are welcome - and you didn't take the introduction which I wrote, which is OK. However Google will probably 'redirect' any traffic to Wikisource, which is a shame because the point of my Logic Museum is to put things in context and generally explain things. Oh well.


Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 11th July 2009, 5:06pm) *

I'm sorry, I missed the comments on your WP talk page which were quite sensible.

And you did indeed take my myth of Ockham's razor from here

http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/latin/mythofockham.htm

It is of course public domain so you are welcome - and you didn't take the introduction which I wrote, which is OK. However Google will probably 'redirect' any traffic to Wikisource, which is a shame because the point of my Logic Museum is to put things in context and generally explain things. Oh well.


Wikisource has a http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:Textinfo for recording additional information about the transcription, such as where the text was obtained from, or who did the transcription (if it wasn't done by Wikisource contributor). I haven't done that with this text (yet) as I was intending to set it up as an example, and discuss it with you in detail privately. One example I can find quickly is http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:Balade_to_Rosemounde, but there are others where we acknowledge the original transcriber by name. I wasn't sure if you wanted that.

Page http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:The_Myth_of_Occams_Razor.djvu/5&action=history has now been corrected, and is now "validated".

Posted by: Peter Damian

And there they go, moving the precious work across

http://la.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Summa_logicae/Pars_III_-_1_:_De_Syllogismo_simpliciter&curid=1532&action=history

Do I mind? A little bit: it was several weeks work, and it puts me off because Google will prefer that version. My version will include many links within MWB to other medieval philosophers and medieval terms, and the net will be a little poorer. Wikisource is completely rubbish at the moment.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 16th July 2009, 5:27pm) *

And there they go, moving the precious work across

http://la.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Summa_logicae/Pars_III_-_1_:_De_Syllogismo_simpliciter&curid=1532&action=history

Do I mind? A little bit: it was several weeks work, and it puts me off because Google will prefer that version. My version will include many links within MWB to other medieval philosophers and medieval terms, and the net will be a little poorer. Wikisource is completely rubbish at the moment.


First, are they "stealing" from your labor without attribution, or is this stuff (being a transcription, really) not protected by any rights?

Second, I wouldn't be so sure that Wikisource (much less "la.Wikisource") will out-do Wikipedia Review in the search engine competition -- especially if, as I always plead with you, you enhance your pages with the semantic attributes (minimally, "keyword") that are available to you on Wikipedia Review.

Greg

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 17th July 2009, 12:09am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 16th July 2009, 5:27pm) *

And there they go, moving the precious work across

http://la.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Summa_logicae/Pars_III_-_1_:_De_Syllogismo_simpliciter&curid=1532&action=history

Do I mind? A little bit: it was several weeks work, and it puts me off because Google will prefer that version. My version will include many links within MWB to other medieval philosophers and medieval terms, and the net will be a little poorer. Wikisource is completely rubbish at the moment.


First, are they "stealing" from your labor without attribution, or is this stuff (being a transcription, really) not protected by any rights?

Second, I wouldn't be so sure that Wikisource (much less "la.Wikisource") will out-do Wikipedia Review in the search engine competition -- especially if, as I always plead with you, you enhance your pages with the semantic attributes (minimally, "keyword") that are available to you on Wikipedia Review.

Greg


I seriously doubt that there are any rights in the original text, however http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Hiroshige looks like a sock of some sort, which I think it is still a rude way of handling this. I had hoped to work with Peter Damian to bring it across with his agreement.

Wikisource vs Wikipedia Review would be an interesting battle - I expect you are right about who would win because Wikisource doesnt do much to promote itself. Rather than fight, I would prefer to link back to the original website, as I have mentioned in an earlier post on WR or WP.

Wikisource only wants to have a copy; I hope that any competition between Wikisource and other depository is friendly, as there are sources throughout the ages for everyone to have a chunk of the pie, and still some left for the next generation to digitise. Aggressive competition is only warranted against the commercial depositories who have ads, or who use proprietary formats which prevent copying, or who add assert copyright over their etexts when they are actually in the public domain.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 17th July 2009, 5:25am) *

I seriously doubt that there are any rights in the original text, however http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Hiroshige looks like a sock of some sort, which I think it is still a rude way of handling this. I had hoped to work with Peter Damian to bring it across with his agreement.


This was clearly retaliation for the link from the article in Wikipedia.

QUOTE

Wikisource vs Wikipedia Review would be an interesting battle - I expect you are right about who would win because Wikisource doesnt do much to promote itself. Rather than fight, I would prefer to link back to the original website, as I have mentioned in an earlier post on WR or WP.


QUOTE

I hope that any competition between Wikisource and other depository is friendly


So would I but recent events haven't made it so.

QUOTE

I seriously doubt that there are any rights in the original text


Wrong, this text (both book III and books I and II) are taken from the 1974 critical edition originally begun by Boehner who, having died in 1953 is probably out of the radar, but the main work was completed by Gedeon Gal and Stephen Brown. Brown is still alive.

Note that a critical edition by definition is a synthesis of different manuscripts which in theory may not resemble exactly any primary source. Arguably copyright does exist there. The Franciscan Institute are generally very relaxed about this and gave permission for use of a digitised text for Bonaventura's works which I was involved with.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 17th July 2009, 6:48am) *
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Fri 17th July 2009, 5:25am) *
I seriously doubt that there are any rights in the original text
Wrong, this text (both book III and books I and II) are taken from the 1974 critical edition originally begun by Boehner who, having died in 1953 is probably out of the radar, but the main work was completed by Gedeon Gal and Stephen Brown. Brown is still alive.

Note that a critical edition by definition is a synthesis of different manuscripts which in theory may not resemble exactly any primary source. Arguably copyright does exist there. The Franciscan Institute are generally very relaxed about this and gave permission for use of a digitised text for Bonaventura's works which I was involved with.

Indeed; until the text is accompanied with proper bibliographic and provenance data, it isnt possible t o be certain that it is not a copyright violation. Many of the texts on Wikisource lack these important details. We are slowly fixing that problem on English Wikisource, however the German Wikisource decided that they needed to remove all etexts that did not have accompanying page scans, which also removed the legal uncertainty about their etexts.

An important distinction to make here is that the Latin Wikisource text may be infringing the copyright of the recent authors, but it is not infringing your copy.

On Wikisource we often have copyright violation discussions where there is doubt. English Wikisource has the most active forum for http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/WS:COPYVIO, and the participants there are usually very keen to remove all uncertainty, or find a replacement text, which means the discussions can remain open a long time, and many of the administrators prefer to err on the side of caution. Two examples are http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2009-01#De_Anima_.28Aristotle.29 and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2007-11#Categories.

Latin Wikisource does not have many copyright discussions, and does not have a separate copyvio forum, mostly due to the active community being very small, and most of us have other projects which dominate our time. The only copyright discussion that I recall is http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Vicifons:Scriptorium/Vetera_IV#Copyright, where the person who published the original source claimed copyright, and we did remove the text. Sometimes it is worth investigating whether there is any serious copyright claim to be made, but in other cases it isn't feasible and the best approach is deletion or replacement.

I have initiated a http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Vicifons:Scriptorium#Summa_logicae_copyright about this possible copyright problem.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Time to resurrect this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sum_of_Logic&action=historysubmit&diff=384385498&oldid=379600116

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 12th September 2010, 9:42am) *

Time to resurrect this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sum_of_Logic&action=historysubmit&diff=384385498&oldid=379600116


The Wikipedia page about Sum of Logic gets about 10 or 11 page views per day, on average. If maybe 3% of viewers click through to Wikipedia Review, that's about 9 or 10 hits on Wikipedia Review per month. This would constitute about 0.0167% of all my site's monthly page views.

Therefore, I am almost certain this will become a point of grave importance to Wikipediots, that they will snuff out this effort of yours, Peter.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 12th September 2010, 12:28pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 12th September 2010, 9:42am) *

Time to resurrect this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sum_of_Logic&action=historysubmit&diff=384385498&oldid=379600116


The Wikipedia page about Sum of Logic gets about 10 or 11 page views per day, on average. If maybe 3% of viewers click through to Wikipedia Review, that's about 9 or 10 hits on Wikipedia Review per month. This would constitute about 0.0167% of all my site's monthly page views.

Therefore, I am almost certain this will become a point of grave importance to Wikipediots, that they will snuff out this effort of yours, Peter.


There were a few people expressing an interest in http://openstudy.com/topics/classics over at http://openstudy.com/. You might try and start a study group on Medieval Logic or Scholastic Philosophy and see what happens.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: trenton

It occurs to me that since Wikipedia Review is a wiki, should it not be afforded wikipedia's interwiki links rather than plain external links. After all, Jimbeau's wikia project uses interwiki links (and therefore benefits in the google rankings)

Posted by: Abd

Well, there is no question that the external link to Wikipedia Review is appropriate, unless that material is truly duplicated at Wikisource. I tried to figure out what was what, it wasn't easy to compare these. I restored the link to Wikisource.

The discussion on Talk there shows how not to approach a content dispute, Peter, you rather quickly resorted to "childish," etc. That really never belongs on an article talk page, if anywhere. If this was common, it's easy to see why you were banned. Yes. I know, it is very tempting to call stupidity "stupid" and childishness "childish." Sometimes I have to sit on my hands, sometimes I fail, but ... I do redact at the drop of a complaint, I'd have struck that immediately....

Old stuff, though.

But the Wikisource link wasn't discussed, just the Wikipedia Review link, with the usual bogus arguments.

RSN was the wrong place to address this issue, the issue for external links isn't reliable source, and external links are not required to be reliable sources, merely to be of likely interest to readers without being grossly biased, or ''known'' copyright violation, or maybe just likely violation, and an allegation of gross bias here is probably preposterous, likewise copyvio, unless the Wikisource is copyvio.

If one of the links duplicates information in the other, with no independent value, then probably preference would be given to Wikisource. Otherwise, removing the Wikipedia Review link is damaging the usefulness of the encyclopedia.

Yes, this was a coatrack on which to hang complaints about Wikipedia Review or perhaps Peter Damian.


Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(trenton @ Sun 12th September 2010, 1:04pm) *

It occurs to me that since Wikipedia Review is a wiki, should it not be afforded wikipedia's interwiki links rather than plain external links. After all, Jimbeau's wikia project uses interwiki links (and therefore benefits in the google rankings)
Don't even go there. Incorrect, anyway. If interwiki links, i.e., "See also," is being used for wikia, that's probably improper, "See also" should be reserved for Wikipedia links, not even links to Wikiversity, for example. The reason is that See also should be reserved for material covered by and governed by Wikipedia content policies.

As a reader of Wikipedia, I think of See Also as part of the encyclopedia, and External Links as material deemed of interest, with a caveat that this material may not be neutral. (That doesn't mean that Wikipedia material is guaranteed to be neutral, but it is, at least theoretically, required to be, whereas External link material is not such a requirement. The error is often make of objecting to external links as not meeting RS requirements.

Where there is duplication, links to sites that are RS are preferred, that's all.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

My guess is MrOllie will be along pretty quick to fixit.

The question is — Whose sock is MrOllie?

Jon Image

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 12th September 2010, 6:05pm) *

The discussion on Talk there shows how not to approach a content dispute, Peter, you rather quickly resorted to "childish," etc. That really never belongs on an article talk page, if anywhere.


I know, I should have said 'asshole' or something like that.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 12th September 2010, 6:10pm) *

As a reader of Wikipedia, I think of See Also as part of the encyclopedia, and External Links as material deemed of interest, with a caveat that this material may not be neutral. (That doesn't mean that Wikipedia material is guaranteed to be neutral, but it is, at least theoretically, required to be, whereas External link material is not such a requirement. The error is often make of objecting to external links as not meeting RS requirements.


The irony, as I pointed out, is that most of the version in Wikisource is the one that I originally scanned in and checked, and which someone copied from Wikipedia Review. I know this because the first version contains a number of scanning errors which I subsequently corrected. See e.g. chapter 45

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logicae/Pars_III_-_1_:_De_Syllogismo_simpliciter#.5B3-1.45_DE_MIXTIONE_NECESSARII_ET_POSSIBILIS_IN_SECUNDA_FIGURA.5D

where 'convertibile' was incorrectly read by the OCR as 'convertible' (Latin OCR is frustrating because no one has built a spell checker, and the OCR tries hard to convert everything to English spelling). There are dozens of such errors in the Wikisource version.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 12th September 2010, 3:56pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Sun 12th September 2010, 6:10pm) *

As a reader of Wikipedia, I think of See Also as part of the encyclopedia, and External Links as material deemed of interest, with a caveat that this material may not be neutral. (That doesn't mean that Wikipedia material is guaranteed to be neutral, but it is, at least theoretically, required to be, whereas External link material is not such a requirement. The error is often make of objecting to external links as not meeting RS requirements.


The irony, as I pointed out, is that most of the version in Wikisource is the one that I originally scanned in and checked, and which someone copied from Wikipedia Review. I know this because the first version contains a number of scanning errors which I subsequently corrected. See e.g. chapter 45

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_logicae/Pars_III_-_1_:_De_Syllogismo_simpliciter#.5B3-1.45_DE_MIXTIONE_NECESSARII_ET_POSSIBILIS_IN_SECUNDA_FIGURA.5D

where 'convertibile' was incorrectly read by the OCR as 'convertible' (Latin OCR is frustrating because no one has built a spell checker, and the OCR tries hard to convert everything to English spelling). There are dozens of such errors in the Wikisource version.
That's rude, eh? Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.

Yes, I noticed you'd called attention to this. What I couldn't tell quickly, and what is more important, is which of the copies is more complete. I don't think Wikipedia should get into the issue of whether or not the material on Wikisource is legitimate, that should be handled at Wikisource. If the copies are complementary, then both should be linked to. If one includes the other, then the larger one. Except that if the smaller is more correct, then, once again, maybe both.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:34am) *

Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.


If they burped on the same glitches, then the 95% of glitches that I manually cleared up would be still there in the Wikisource. But not so. The Wikisource contains both my corrections, and the errors I failed to detected first time round. On the provenance, Books I and II were copied from a scan on Peter King's website (which he in turn took from an old scan that had been doing the rounds in academia). Book III is mine. I noticed that Book II part 2 and book IV have been scanned in by some Wikisourcer, which is a development at least.

This is all academic. I have no copyright over the work I did on correcting a scan, laborious as it was. It's more the politeness thing. I go to all that work, perhaps they could let me link to it? That's what gets me.

Posted by: Peter Damian

To show exactly how much it is to correct these pages, I show the original scan, then the Wikisource version, then my version at MWB. The latter two are identical. It could be that someone else corrected the Wikisource version. But then why are all the errors in the MWB version also in the Wikisource version?

A further amusing oddity is that my version conforms to the Aqua Clara practice of using the 'v', not the 'u'. But books I and II and IV in Wikisource were taken from a source which converted 'v's to 'u's.



---------------- VERSION AS ORIGINALLY SCANNED

[CAP. 8. QUOD MAIOR IN PRIMA FIGURA POSSIT CONVENIENTER
BSSE SINGULARIS ET SEQUETUR EADEM CONCLUSIO QUAE
SEQUERETUR SI ESSET UNIVERSALIS]

Scicndum cst ctiam quod sicut arguitur evidcntcr poncndo talcm
universalem airirmativam vej ncgativam pro maiori in prirna figura, ita 5
etiam sequitur cvidcnter si maior sit singularis affirmativa vcl ncgativa.
Bcne cnim scquitur 'Sortes cst albus; omnis homo est Sortcs; igitur
omnis homo est albus\ SimiJiter bcne scquitur 'Sortes non currit; omnis
Jiomo cst Sortcs; igitur nullus liomo currit\ Et ita scquitur 'Sortes non
currit; aliquod album est Sortcs; igitur ahquod album non currit'. Et io
ratio istorum est, quia quando propositio singularis est vera, si sit af-
firmativa, subicctum non potest dici dc aliquo nisi de eo dicatur prae-
dicatum; si sit ncgativa, non potcst rcmovcri ab aliquo nisi ab eo re-
movcatur praedicatum. Et ideo talis syllogismus est bonus sicut illc qui
rcguJatur pcr dici dc omni vcj de nuJlo, et hoc quia sicut subiectum uni- 15
versaJis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, ita etiam subicctum
singularis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, cum non habeat
nisi unum.
Et regulae, quac dictae sunt p r i u s \ quando maior cst uiiivcr-
salis, sunt etiam servandac quando maior est singularis. Et proptcr hoc 20
ulis discursus non vaJet 'Sortes est animal; tantum homo est Sortes;

------------------------- WIKISOURCE VERSION

Sciendum est etiam quod sicut arguitur evidenter ponendo talem universalem affirmativam vel negativam pro maiori in prima figura, ita etiam sequitur evidenter si maior sit singularis affirmativa vel negativa. Bene enim sequitur 'Sortes est albus; omnis homo est Sortes; igitur omnis homo est albus'. Similiter bene sequitur 'Sortes non currit; omnis homo est Sortes; igitur nullus homo currit'. Et ita sequitur 'Sortes non currit; aliquod album est Sortes; igitur aliquod album non currit'. Et ratio istorum est, quia quando propositio singularis est vera, si sit affirmativa, subiectum non potest dici de aliquo nisi de eo dicatur praedicatum; si sit negativa, non potest removeri ab aliquo nisi ab eo removeatur praedicatum. Et ideo talis syllogismus est bonus sicut ille qui regulatur per dici de omni vel de nullo et hoc quia sicut subiectum universalis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, ita etiam subiectum singularis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, cum non habeat nisi unum.

Et regulae, quae dictae sunt prius, quando maior est universalis, sunt etiam servandae quando maior est singularis. Et propter hoc talis discursus non valet 'Sortes est animal, tantum homo est Sortes;


------------------------- LOGIC MUSEUM VERSION

Sciendum est etiam quod sicut arguitur evidenter ponendo talem universalem affirmativam vel negativam pro maiori in prima figura, ita etiam sequitur evidenter si maior sit singularis affirmativa vel negativa. Bene enim sequitur 'Sortes est albus; omnis homo est Sortes; igitur omnis homo est albus'. Similiter bene sequitur 'Sortes non currit; omnis homo est Sortes; igitur nullus homo currit'. Et ita sequitur 'Sortes non currit; aliquod album est Sortes; igitur aliquod album non currit'. Et ratio istorum est, quia quando propositio singularis est vera, si sit affirmativa, subiectum non potest dici de aliquo nisi de eo dicatur praedicatum; si sit negativa, non potest removeri ab aliquo nisi ab eo removeatur praedicatum. Et ideo talis syllogismus est bonus sicut ille qui regulatur per dici de omni vel de nullo et hoc quia sicut subiectum universalis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, ita etiam subiectum singularis supponit actualiter pro omni suo significato, cum non habeat nisi unum.

Et regulae, quae dictae sunt prius[1], quando maior est universalis, sunt etiam servandae quando maior est singularis. Et propter hoc talis discursus non valet 'Sortes est animal, tantum homo est Sortes;

------------------ WIKISOURCE VERSION USING U INSTEAD OF V

Postquam dicta sunt aliqua de terminis, nunc secundo dicendum est de propositionibus. Et primo ponendae sunt aliquae diuisiones; secundo uidendum est quid ad ueritatem propositionum requiritur et sufficit; tertio de conuersione propositionum sunt aliqua pertractanda.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:41pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:34am) *

Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.


If they burped on the same glitches, then the 95% of glitches that I manually cleared up would be still there in the Wikisource. But not so. The Wikisource contains both my corrections, and the errors I failed to detected first time round. On the provenance, Books I and II were copied from a scan on Peter King's website (which he in turn took from an old scan that had been doing the rounds in academia). Book III is mine. I noticed that Book II part 2 and book IV have been scanned in by some Wikisourcer, which is a development at least.

This is all academic. I have no copyright over the work I did on correcting a scan, laborious as it was. It's more the politeness thing. I go to all that work, perhaps they could let me link to it? That's what gets me.


“Credit Where Credit Is Due” applies to any use of another's work.

Work, as in Labor.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 13th September 2010, 9:56pm) *


Work, as in Labor.

Jon Awbrey


Admittedly I did write a macro to make the obvious and clear-cut corrections. E.g. 'cst' is always 'est' and 'ctiam' always 'etiam'. Still, it took the best part of a week.

And of course this has put me off putting anything else onto the net. What's the point? A small reward, such as recognition of the fact it was your work, is a small price. But if they won't allow that, why bother? This is all harming 'free knowledge'.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 13th September 2010, 5:08pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 13th September 2010, 9:56pm) *

Work, as in Labor.

Jon Awbrey


Admittedly I did write a macro to make the obvious and clear-cut corrections. E.g. 'cst' is always 'est' and 'ctiam' always 'etiam'. Still, it took the best part of a week.

And of course this has put me off putting anything else onto the net. What's the point? A small reward, such as recognition of the fact it was your work, is a small price. But if they won't allow that, why bother? This is all harming 'free knowledge'.


It goes way beyond what people owe to any one person.

It goes to what people owe to the truth.

It's bad enough that Wikipediots so arrogantly flaunt their intellectual dishonesty, but they deform developing characters to fit in with a whole culture of intellectual dishonesty.

That is a gross disservice, not only to the individuals involved but to the entire society.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:41pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 13th September 2010, 4:34am) *
Of course, maybe the scanners burped on the same glitches. What's missing on Wikisource is provenance for the scans.
If they burped on the same glitches, then the 95% of glitches that I manually cleared up would be still there in the Wikisource. But not so. The Wikisource contains both my corrections, and the errors I failed to detected first time round. On the provenance, Books I and II were copied from a scan on Peter King's website (which he in turn took from an old scan that had been doing the rounds in academia). Book III is mine. I noticed that Book II part 2 and book IV have been scanned in by some Wikisourcer, which is a development at least.

This is all academic. I have no copyright over the work I did on correcting a scan, laborious as it was. It's more the politeness thing. I go to all that work, perhaps they could let me link to it? That's what gets me.
You are expecting politeness?

(Wild, hysterical laughing)

I'll note on Wikisource that you claim to have done the scanning, and I'll provide the evidence you've provided, perhaps I'll link to here. At least it will be on the Talk page. And we'll see what those who put up the pages say. It's not illegal for them to have put it up, and I won't be screaming at them, so let's see what they say about it, if they are around.

Posted by: Abd

Okay, http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Disputatio:Summa_logicae, http://la.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Disputatio:Summa_logicae&oldid=38110.

I see that my edit on the Wikipedia article was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sum_of_Logic&diff=384418649&oldid=384416438 by someone named Mr. Ollie, I assume that nobody here will be shocked to hear that, but I'm a little offended that Mr. Ollie ignored my polite request that he explain the revert in Talk. Sooner or later he will surely stub his toe and my laugh will haunt him.

All hell appears to have broken loose. My my, all that fuss over a effing external link. I have a feeling that there is one or more of these people just itching to be blocked, or, what is more painful, for, not being blocked, the community to chew them up and spit them out.

WikiuserNI seems to be a class A jerk. This is the one who -- very incorrectly -- seemed to think that external links need to be "reliable source." And then he rejected a reasonably http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiuserNI&oldid=384664305#Summa_Logicae on his Talk, and promptly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sum_of_Logic&diff=prev&oldid=384664593, with a totally wrong-headed and backwards edit summary.

For this type of Wikipediot, "banned editor" means that they would erase the name from history if they could, and benefit to the readers means absolutely nothing. If you are banned, you must be a Very Bad Person, and any web site that would host your crap probably hosts browser viruses, copyright violations, and child pornography.

However, at the moment, it looks like some kind of sanity is prevailing. It happens at Wikipedia from time to time.

As usual, when someone comes in and makes sensible edits in a way that a banned editor did, there is a claim of sock puppetry. However, the heavy lifting is being done by Skomorokh, no lightweight. 51,000 live edits. Think he can handle the situation?

Meanwhile, Mr. Ollie took time from his busy day pouring over Recent Changes to user-page tag The Man On The Clapham Omnibus, as a suspected sock puppet of Peter. But he didn't take the time to actually file an investigation, and, my guess, it's pretty thin. But, then again, you never know, or, maybe, it's who you know. Who is this Ollie jerk, anyway, his MO is pretty familiar, but, then again, if you've seen one asshole, you've seen them all. Maybe Ollie would disagree with me on that.

I'd have removed that tag in better days, but, while that MYOB ban is still in place, I'm sure I'd get nailed for it. I'm saving getting nailed for better purposes, like, saving the whole of humanity or something like that....

One of these days, Peter, you ought to look at self-reversion. It can really drive someone like Mr. Ollie up the wall if you self-revert, leaving him completely powerless. You can self-revert any edit to any article that isn't semi'd, and it would be astonishing if the RfPP admins would consider that any kind of a problem at all. "Why don't you just ignore it, Mr. Ollie?" "But, other editors are restoring the edits!" "Okay, Mr. Ollie, and the problem with that is?"

"But he's banned! He shouldn't be doing this!" "Mr. Ollie, get over it. Perhaps you need to take a break."

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

MrOllie is a self-appointed BADLINKS vigilante and probably someone-we-know's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Twinkle. This is the new faschion in BADSITES lynching — “We Don't Need No Stinkin' Warrant That Some Judge Might Decide To Deny Us — We'll Just Off You In The Dead Of Night”. I personally think he's someone that Brandt or Tarantino ought to look into, not necessarily for IRL Name, but just to check out his likely alter-avatars.

Jon hrmph.gif

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 13th September 2010, 11:28pm) *
MrOllie is a self-appointed BADLINKS vigilante and probably someone-we-know's Twinkle-Toed Sock. This is the new faschion in BADSITES lynching — “We Don't Need No Stinkin' Warrant That Some Judge Might Decide To Deny Us — We'll Just Off You In The Dead Of Night”. I personally think he's someone that Brandt or Tarantino ought to look into, not necessarily for IRL Name, but just to check out his likely alter-avatars.

Jon hrmph.gif
This particular behavior I noticed for MrOllie is so familiar. Revert warring on Sum of Logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sum_of_Logic&diff=384418649&oldid=384416438 bald revert (of me), no discussion, no edit summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sum_of_Logic&diff=384440648&oldid=384440533 revert of IP
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&action=historysubmit&diff=384441486&oldid=384438013 Requested page protection, claiming ''Frequent target for editing by sock puppets of a banned user.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=384470056&oldid=384468436 RfPP denied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sum_of_Logic&diff=384479435&oldid=384462011 revert of The Man On The Clapham Omnibus

This guy also tagged the User page of Omnibus as being a suspected sock puppet of Jon Aubrey, no notice on Talk page of sock puppet investigation report. That was done at 19:20, 12 September 2010 (which is when Omnibus reverted Mr. Ollie's revert. But he waited until the RfPP report was denied, he didn't want them to see his third revert.

This guy knows how to game RfPP. It didn't work, but it often does. Luck of the draw. For some reason, I haven't yet seen them notice that the complainant is the revert warrior, they just accept or deny. Even if the gaming is totally blatant.

Except I did just recently nail Verbal on this one. He'd been revert warring with me on my effing *user page*, and then made his revert and went right to RfPP. But I happened to look and his contribs and saw it, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=380231635, having reverted *him*. They full protected the page, in my state. I think it's indef. Verbal: Fail! Admin had the sense to suggest maybe they should investigate Verbal's claims.

Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause enormous disruption, all over their mindless hatred.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=MrOllie right after the Last Big Failure of the BADSITES Movement, and he's basically just doing all the same BAD OPS on a more covert, pseudo-official basis.

Look at the warning that our http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Twinkle runs around pinning on the talk pages of hapless users as fast as he can punch his video game buttons:

QUOTE

[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the [[Wikipedia : External links | external links]] you added do not comply with our [[Wikipedia : External links | guidelines for external links]] and have been removed. [[Wikipedia : What Wikipedia is not#LINK | Wikipedia is not a collection of links]]; nor should it be used as a platform for [[Wikipedia : Spam | advertising]] or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses [[nofollow]] tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the [[Wikipedia : Welcome | welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [[Category : User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices | {{PAGENAME}}]] <!-- Template:uw-spam1 --> [[User : MrOllie | MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie | talk]])


It's basically just a form of intimidation, with no due proceeding or even a hint of factual finding to back it up. The purpose is apparently nothing other than Keeping Wikipedia Pure, free of all those annoying suggestions that anything of value ever came from the outside world, much less all those bothersome acknowledgments of credit or gratitude for work begged, borrowed, or stolen.

Cf. In-Url Retentiveness

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 14th September 2010, 4:37am) *

Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause enormous disruption, all over their mindless hatred.


It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 14th September 2010, 8:44pm) *

QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 14th September 2010, 4:37am) *

Someone should nail MrOllie. These guys cause enormous disruption, all over their mindless hatred.


It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.
Ehheh doesn't start at all looking like a newbie, this person, I'd say, already knew his way around when http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MUSH&diff=prev&oldid=37707325. Within a month he's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_creation&diff=prev&oldid=43355128. (By the way, the article now reads "1993," the year he was revert warring, with threats, to keep as "1994." Of course, we all know that this proves it really was 1993.

Ehheh was running Twinkle, doing RCP right up to the last edit April 21, 2008.
MrOllie starts up April 16, also doing RCP, looks like. First use of Twinkle, 29 April.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ehheh&diff=205443381&oldid=205007707 to User talk:Ehheh was a bit of a reprimand from DGG about excessive use of speedy deletion tags.

Tarantino, how did you connect Ehheh to MrOllie?

Posted by: The Joy

Another DennyColt/David Spart weirdo? unsure.gif

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 15th September 2010, 3:17am) *

Tarantino, how did you connect Ehheh to MrOllie?


MrOllie's first edit was to Frankenstein as were several of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankenstein&offset=20080418000000&limit=11&action=history. Both accounts edit mostly with twinkle and between the hours of 1100 and 2300 UTC. They're both also interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 15th September 2010, 4:58am) *

MrOllie's first edit was to Frankenstein as were several of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankenstein&offset=20080418000000&limit=11&action=history. Both accounts edit mostly with twinkle and between the hours of 1100 and 2300 UTC. They're both also interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD.

Those are roughly the summer daylight hours (to wit 6:00 to 6:00) in Kentucky (home of Ehheh's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=39221235&diff=prev).

Neither of the users named in the above accusation kept a regular schedule like the other two, but the interests are a dead ringer.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 14th September 2010, 5:44pm) *
It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Beautiful work, Tarantino. Their edit patterns correspond almost perfectly.
And they're both deeply interested in MMORPGs, MUDs, and computing-related subjects--
how many others random WP editors would know what twinking is?
Those two HAVE to be the same person.

QUOTE
I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.

I would count on these accounts being socks of someone else. Who was banned or forced
out of WP in January 2006, and is obsessed with online role-playing games?

And I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive58#User:Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III:
QUOTE
Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III (talk · contribs) would like to be reinstated.

This user is being bothered by User:Nandesuka no matter what he says, does, contributes, adds, revises, changes. This user is forced to use sock puppets to return to and modify his user page. The user was, without trial, understanding, resolution of dispute, banned from Wikipedia by a sock-puppet using Administrator, User:Nandesuka who is User:Jlambert who is User:Ehheh. Thanks. OKmrGhey 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Which seems unlikely, as Nandesuka and MrOllie's edit patterns don't coincide.
Jlambert has different patterns, but practically all he edits are, yes, online-gaming subjects.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 15th September 2010, 4:20am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 14th September 2010, 5:44pm) *
It appears to me that MrOllie (T-C-L-K-R-D) used to be known as Ehheh (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Beautiful work, Tarantino. Their edit patterns correspond almost perfectly.
And they're both deeply interested in MMORPGs, MUDs, and computing-related subjects--
how many others random WP editors would know what twinking is?
Those two HAVE to be the same person.

QUOTE
I'm not sure why he would abandon that account or if he has other ones about.
I would count on these accounts being socks of someone else. Who was banned or forced
out of WP in January 2006, and is obsessed with online role-playing games?

And I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive58#User:Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III:
QUOTE
Herbert_Elwood_Gilliland_III (talk · contribs) would like to be reinstated.

This user is being bothered by User:Nandesuka no matter what he says, does, contributes, adds, revises, changes. This user is forced to use sock puppets to return to and modify his user page. The user was, without trial, understanding, resolution of dispute, banned from Wikipedia by a sock-puppet using Administrator, User:Nandesuka who is User:Jlambert who is User:Ehheh. Thanks. OKmrGhey 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Which seems unlikely, as Nandesuka and MrOllie's edit patterns don't coincide.
Jlambert has different patterns, but practically all he edits are, yes, online-gaming subjects.
Naive users get slaughtered by making sock allegations without proof, and often probably assuming the same thing that the cabal assumes: coincidence of POV and mutual support means "sock." What is likely, however, is that Nandesuka or Jlambert knew who Ehheh was. This might show up in a review of those edit histories.

It's a huge task, I'm totally impressed that Tarantino saw the connection, the sockmasters depend on their activity being concealed by the flood of data. However, I think I know how you did it, Tarantino. Let me guess. You looked at contribs of MrOllie, then you looked for other editors showing up in those pages more than once or twice. There is actually an IP where both Mr. Ollie and Ehheh warned the same IP, but that, by itself, wouldn't be more than a crumb. But there are plenty of coincident pages, enough that if there were a sock investigation on MrOllie, on an accusation of being Ehheh, it might pass the duck test. But Ehheh was under no sanction. There was a reference to an ArbComm case, but he wasn't a primary party, and I saw no sanction. However, it's possible that there was another sock who was sanctioned, so Ehheh was taking precautions by abandoning both.

A new account may have been used here to cover up prior contentious behavior, and quite possibly, as well, clues that would lead to an identification of the sockmaster, who, I suspect, could indeed be an admin. Once a suspect is known, and if both accounts are active, there are ways to penetrate the veil that all but the most determined of sockmasters would find difficult to prevent. AFAIK, none have ever thought it necessary to take precautions on a scale that would evade this. Evading checkuser detection is not difficult, it just takes discipline.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 15th September 2010, 3:57am) *
[...]Ehheh's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=39221235&diff=prev).

Neither of the users named in the above accusation kept a regular schedule like the other two, but the interests are a dead ringer.
A sophisticated sockmaster could make it look like this. However, a closer statistical analysis of the edit timings will reveal, if there is a single user behind two accounts that overlap in edit timing, more than just a few edits, a very different pattern than for random coincidence. Random coincidence will show a range of timings between edits of one user and edits of the other, and, except where they are editing the same page, in response to each other or the like, will show time difference ranging from zero on up. If it's the same user, normally, very short times will be rare.

Note, however, that a sophisticated user can put up two edits within seconds of each other, even with the two edits being from different IP. However, to withstand sophisticated analysis, it would probably be necessary to control timings from a random number generator. That's a lot of work, all for what gain? The very unlikely possibility that someone sufficiently sophisticated will penetrate the veil?

The fact is that I've known how to do it for a long time, but wasn't motivated enough to put in the hours required. There are only a few users who would know how to do this kind of analysis. And when they have done it, it was done (though not the full algorithm I hint at) with Mantanmoreland, to what effect? If you have an ArbComm or Founder who are just going to run by the seat of their pants, discounting mere "statistical evidence" (which can be much more likely to be correct in conclusion than "seat of the pants"), it's pretty useless. However, once we identify a sockmaster, off-wiki, it's possible to watch much more closely.

Personally, I don't care if someone uses multiple accounts. I care if the accounts are used to abuse other users and to push a POV, and if a sockmaster behaves with the main account, and only is abusive with a bad-hand account, it isn't a crying emergency. The relevance, though, is that an admin who will do this is also quite likely to abuse the admin account, too, but in a more subtle way.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 15th September 2010, 8:34am) *
Personally, I don't care if someone uses multiple accounts. I care if the accounts are used to abuse other users and to push a POV, and if a sockmaster behaves with the main account, and only is abusive with a bad-hand account, it isn't a crying emergency.

That remains to be seen.

QUOTE
The relevance, though, is that an admin who will do this is also quite likely to abuse the admin account, too, but in a more subtle way.

Now THAT is so commonplace, it's practically guaranteed in this case.

MrOllie has posted that stupid warning on hundreds of user talkpages--maybe thousands.
He (or she, or it) is up to something sleazy. This is major-grade Twinkle abuse.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 15th September 2010, 11:49pm) *

MrOllie has posted that stupid warning on hundreds of user talkpages — maybe thousands.
He (or she, or it) is up to something sleazy. This is major-grade Twinkle abuse.


At the very minimum, it's a de facto creation of policy — like a cop with a nightstick making up the law on the spot.

Then look at the style of his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&oldid=385103699#Bankruptcy_Visuals_External_Links and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&diff=384657235&oldid=384656931 when anyone challenges his authority. There is something strangely familiar about the style of it — then again, many http://www.hawaiifootballfanatics.com/wp-content/uploads/badger2.jpg look alike.

Jon dry.gif