Bomb Em Bak To Tabula Rasa !!!, Wikipedia Blank-In Protest Strike (WP:BIPS) Options Rating

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 17th November 2007, 5:52pm

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?

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 19th November 2007, 12:38am

I'm not aware of any useful edits he makes …

Wikipedia Articles by Jon Awbrey

— 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

1. Ampheck
2. Boolean domain
3. Boolean-valued function
4. Comprehension_(logic)
5. Continuous predicate
6. Descriptive science
7. Grounded relation
8. Hypostatic abstraction
9. Hypostatic object
10. Inquiry
11. Inverse relation
12. Logic of information
13. Logic of relatives
14. Logic of Relatives (1870)
15. Logic of Relatives (1883)
16. Logical graph
17. Logical matrix
18. Minimal negation operator
19. Multigrade operator
20. Normative science
21. Parametric operator
22. Pragmatic maxim
23. Prescisive abstraction
24. Relation composition
25. Relation construction
26. Relation reduction
27. Relative term
28. Semeiotic
29. Semiotic information theory
30. Sign relation
31. Sign relational complex
32. Sole sufficient operator
33. Tacit extension
34. Theory of relations
35. Triadic relation
36. Types of relations
37. Zeroth order logic

Let me provide a couple of serving suggestions —

• 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.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 9th January 2008, 3:18am

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!!!

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!!!

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 18th November 2007, 6:24pm

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 20th November 2007, 3:10am

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)

I don't like that.

Don't like you what?

Jonny

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)

We should find more creative ways than this. We want to expose them not to pass as vandals.

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)

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 18th November 2007, 4:44am

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 18th November 2007, 5:16am

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.

This post has been edited by Xidaf: Sun 18th November 2007, 5:51am

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.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 18th November 2007, 5:56am

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!

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 post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 18th November 2007, 7:12am

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

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!