Articles that you don't expect NOT to be in Wikipedia Options

[Peter Damian]

I'm worried about pollution.

Lost me there.

Neurolinguistic programming, scientology, junk psychology/philosophy, 'pederasty', Objectivism.

The two articles you showed me were very nice and also important in that (like Columba Ryan) they take us away from the present and teach teenagers something about the past. Not remotely controversial. It's the pollution that is the problem.

I don't see why we seem to have ended up on different sides (if that is the case - perhaps not).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 19th September 2009, 8:57pm

[Lar]

I'm worried about pollution.

Lost me there.

Neurolinguistic programming, scientology, junk psychology/philosophy, 'pederasty', Objectivism.

The two articles you showed me were very nice and also important in that (like Columba Ryan) they take us away from the present and teach teenagers something about the past. Not remotely controversial. It's the pollution that is the problem.

I don't see why we seem to have ended up on different sides (if that is the case - perhaps not).

I expect our ends are more congruent than you might expect. Our means just differ.

[Peter Damian]

I expect our ends are more congruent than you might expect. Our means just differ.

Then why aren't you doing something about the likes of Triplestop? Here he is, replacing the tag on the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=314965697

He had a change of heart later, but the very fact there are people like that running the project is very disturbing.

Policy should change so that article quality takes priority over everything else. These 'experiments' of mine prove beyond all doubt that this is not the case.

Actually to your credit I see you are. By why hasn't this person been blocked or banned? He or she is no use to the project.

Regarding this G5 tagging. It's already been explained to you that the article is ineligible for G5 tagging. Your removal was prudent, but your edit summary is fallacious. No further edits by me or anyone else are required to make it ineligible for G5, all that is required is that some other editor takes responsibility. Which I have done, see the note at the talk page. That tagging of yours was a disruptive edit, and you are strongly advised not to do it again. Also, next time you template a regular, please have the courtesy to sign your work instead of expecting someone else to clean up after you. ++Lar: t/c 05:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the hard part of G5. PD knows this. So he's going to sock and/or proxy to get "good" articles into wikipedia in order to show us all how wrong we were about banning him for being disputatious and unpleasant. Burn. with. fire. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ NW. There is really no option here other than avoiding playing his games. Part of the reason he is banned is because he insisted on treating other people like this, placing them in seemingly implacable binds in order to fulfill his views about wikipedia. It's petty and fanatical and we are better off just going without it. If that means wikipedia has 1 less article on 13th century theologians so be it. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Gasp.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 20th September 2009, 6:24am

[thekohser]

Not quite that simple. You'd also need to convince some person or thing to "visit" the ads.

I understand that's part of the problem over at ED. The site is plastered with adware which nobody would click on—not with a stolen mouse—so they still need to beg for donations.

I will bet a dollar to a dime that Wikipedia Review is getting more fruitful AdSense returns per page view than ED.

[thekohser]

I'm surprised nobody has written yet about Brandywine Springs. The place has a fascinating, multi-century story, tracing from Native American gatherings and legends; to General George Washington preparing promptly-abandoned defense works against the oncoming Howe/Cornwallis assault; to a fashionable spa and hotel (designed by U.S. Capitol Building architect T.U. Walker) located on the site from 1827-1853 and visited by such notables as Henry Clay; followed by a thriving early-20th century amusement park.

I'd like to write the article for a wiki, but I think this one's going to Wikipedia Review, not Wikipedia.

Let the work begin! (I believe that Cla68 is even going to help me out on this article.)

And, once again, I'm able to prove a bit of a point. If people are tired of Wikipedia's constant battlefield and cleaning up after people who can't write, they might visit a site like Wikipedia Review and establish a content page that has the ability to outrank an identically-named page on Wikipedia.

Just Cla68 and I have worked on the Wikipedia Review page, while Wkharrisjr, Thomas.macmillan, SmackBot, Phantomsteve, Briantist, Mr. Matté, The Anomebot2, Ironholds, and I have worked on the similar Wikipedia page. Which one is better? Which one is worse? Which one represents the "wisdom of crowds"?

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 24th September 2009, 4:05pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Just Cla68 and I have worked on the Wikipedia Review page, while Wkharrisjr, Thomas.macmillan, SmackBot, Phantomsteve, Briantist, Mr. Matté, The Anomebot2, Ironholds, and I have worked on the similar Wikipedia page. Which one is better? Which one is worse? Which one represents the "wisdom of crowds"?

One reason (among many) that I cannot take WP seriously is that 98% of the editors sound like characters on “Batman.” I mean, truly, how can one keep a straight face knowing that the likes of SmackBot, Phantomsteve, Mr. Matté, The Anomebot2 and Ironholds are running amok? Just from the sound of their monikers, are these guys out to improve the quality of online scholarship, or are they in cahoots with Catwoman to steal the jewelry collection from the Gotham Museum? Holy inane pseudonym!

[Appleby]

Holy inane pseudonym!

Sorry, what were all your various pseudonyms again?

This post has been edited by Appleby: Thu 24th September 2009, 7:06pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Holy inane pseudonym!

Sorry, what were all your various pseudonyms again?

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking...

Sorry, my DeNiro needs more work. I'll get back to you later on that.

[thekohser]

Holy inane pseudonym!

Sorry, what were all your various pseudonyms again?

Perhaps the distinction to make is that Horsey doesn't expect (or even prefer) to be taken seriously, the way Wikipedia expects (or even demands) to be taken seriously.

[Appleby]

Perhaps the distinction to make is that Horsey doesn't expect (or even prefer) to be taken seriously, the way Wikipedia expects (or even demands) to be taken seriously.

We're not talking about his Horse persona here but his many WP ones where I assume (he'll correct me if I'm wrong) he did wish to be taken seriously.

[A Horse With No Name]

Perhaps the distinction to make is that Horsey doesn't expect (or even prefer) to be taken seriously, the way Wikipedia expects (or even demands) to be taken seriously.

We're not talking about his Horse persona here but his many WP ones where I assume (he'll correct me if I'm wrong) he did wish to be taken seriously.

If I had the proverbial three wishes, none of them would ever be squandered on the notion of being taken seriously.

[CharlotteWebb]

I will bet a dollar to a dime that Wikipedia Review is getting more fruitful AdSense returns per page view than ED.

I've always wondered, how does one go about getting humans to click on these?

[everyking]

It seems to me the purpose of bans is to prevent people to harming the encyclopedia. Since Peter is trying to help the encyclopedia by creating valuable new articles, and these other people are trying to keep him from doing so, wouldn't it make more sense to ban them instead? Anybody who thinks petty politics is more important than "one more article on a 13th century theologian" has lost the plot completely and has no place on the project.

This post has been edited by everyking: Fri 25th September 2009, 2:25pm

[Shalom]

It seems to me the purpose of bans is to prevent people to harming the encyclopedia. Since Peter is trying to help the encyclopedia by creating valuable new articles, and these other people are trying to keep him from doing so, wouldn't it make more sense to ban them instead? Anybody who thinks petty politics is more important than "one more article on a 13th century theologian" has lost the plot completely and has no place on the project.

Why don't you tell that to "Anonymous editor"? He thinks a bit of disruption overrides the value of 350+ articles and 10,000+ mainspace edits, and he says Wikipedia would be better off if I never discovered it and never edited it. Why don't you criticize him instead of criticizing me?

[Angela Kennedy]

It seems to me the purpose of bans is to prevent people to harming the encyclopedia.

I'm sorry but that's an untenable claim. Bans are given to people for all sorts of reasons - even ostensible 'prevent harm' reasons often have a hidden agenda, related to people for whom 'the project' is NOT their priority, but their own positions in the 'community' itself, their own POV warring etc.

I'm of the understanding that there are many people here on WR who were 'banned' when 'harming the project' was not their intent, and for which the 'banning' itself has served to bring Wikipedia into disrepute (that is, WP's reputation has been placed at risk by the banning of someone). I'm one of them, and I got banned by Jimbo himself, at the behest of Guy Chapman and some others. Logical assessment of the 'harm' to the 'project' was not part of their thought processes on that occasion, and that appears a common problem over there.

For every person who has been 'banned' unfairly, even among those of us who couldn't give a fig about being banned (like myself), the processes of Wikipedia come under scrutiny, and are found to be suspect by many: a common theme in Wikipedia Review discussions, for example.

[Appleby]

Anybody who thinks petty politics is more important than "one more article on a 13th century theologian" has lost the plot completely and has no place on the project.

It's not petty politics. It's ensuring thast there is a congenial environment for people to edit in. I don't think he should have been banned indef but I see the logic in having such bans sometimes.

[thekohser]

Anybody who thinks petty politics is more important than "one more article on a 13th century theologian" has lost the plot completely and has no place on the project.

It's not petty politics. It's ensuring thast there is a congenial environment for people to edit in. I don't think he should have been banned indef but I see the logic in having such bans sometimes.

Congenial environment -

(Real world) a place where my divergent but rational views will be cordially discussed and tolerated.

(Wikipedia world) a publishing venue where nobody will ever criticize my lying, my cheating, my hypocrisy, or my graft.

[everyking]

It's not petty politics. It's ensuring thast there is a congenial environment for people to edit in. I don't think he should have been banned indef but I see the logic in having such bans sometimes.

You can't be serious. He was banned because he got into an argument with a really powerful editor. If he had picked some powerless person like me to argue with, he'd never have gotten into any trouble.

[Milton Roe]

It's not petty politics. It's ensuring thast there is a congenial environment for people to edit in. I don't think he should have been banned indef but I see the logic in having such bans sometimes.

You can't be serious. He was banned because he got into an argument with a really powerful editor. If he had picked some powerless person like me to argue with, he'd never have gotten into any trouble.

And that's WHY we don't give you any power, Everyking. Bruhahahah.

[Guido den Broeder]

It seems to me the purpose of bans is to prevent people to harming the encyclopedia.

How naive.

A typical purpose of bans is to protect the banning party's biased views. Once you understand that, you can learn how to read Wikipedia.

And that's WHY we don't give you any power, Everyking. Bruhahahah.

I'd give it to him. There'll be more banned users to fill our ranks, yeah!