As David Gerard has previously said, checking the edits and making them again in your own name is the way to do that. Yes, tedious and to an outside view somewhat silly, but when we ban people *we ban them*, if we think they should be allowed to come along and edit some then *we should not ban them*.

You need to remember that the source of this problem is not our behaviour, it's theirs. They are the ones evading a ban. They are the ones deliberately gaming the system and disrupting Wikipedia to make their point. Sockpuppets of banned users correcting typos as a way of building up an edit history is *not actually a good thing* because the aim is to do some damage that is massively greater than the benefit of the trivial typo fixing.

Policy on banned users says that we should revert all edits made by banned users after banning. And we should, even if (as with Arch Coal) we then go and rewrite a whole article from scratch, from sources. I do not subscribe to the idea of being "a little bit banned".

Guy (JzG)

Guy Chapman, Re: Featured Editors, 16 Nov 2007 UTC 09:57

Charles Peirce Article

At this point I've brought in the stuff from the other articles mentioned in the "Works" section. Hence these separate Wiki articles are ripe for deletion:

"On a New List of Categories"
"Logic of Relatives (1870)"
"Logic of Relatives (1883)"
"Logic of Relatives (1897)"

Somebody can always create such articles again if they plan to expand them.

As for "Kaina Stoicheia", I hope I'll get to it soon. The Tetrast (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Source. Wikipedia, User Talk:Kaldari

Charles Peirce Article

The subarticles have been deleted. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take Wikipedia several years to clean up all of the crap created by Jon Awbrey in his quest to make Charles Peirce the center of the universe. I rewrote the ampheck article yesterday, although I was tempted to just delete it. Could you take a look at some of these other articles and see if they look legitimately useful to Wikipedia:

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

I suspect some of these are anachronistic terms or neologisms that would be better suited as redirects or merged with larger articles. The tricky thing is that Jon created all of these articles and they all reinforce each other, so it's difficult to tell which ones are legitimate academic terms and which ones are simply pet terms used by Charles Peirce or Jon. I have no background in philosophy, so I was hoping you or someone with more knowledge could help sort through the mess. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Source. Wikipedia, User Talk:The Tetrast

GFDL

Note to whoever moves contributions from one article to another: The GFDL requires author attribution to be retained, and the customary way to do that at wikipedia is to add appropriate information into the edit summary and/or the talk page. In the case of articles like these that basically have one author, a statement like that indicating Jon Awbrey as the primary author of material in the article prior to (January 2007?) in both an edit summary (perhaps of a null edit?) and on the talk page would be appropriate. (Often I move content from one article to another and say in the edit summary "moved from name of article". That doesn't work if the article is then deleted. Why people don't just make the articles redirects instead of deletions makes no sense to me.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Source. Wikipedia, Talk:Charles Peirce

Article Blanking

You should know that some of the articles you blanked have been significantly rewritten since Jon Awbrey wrote his initial versions, thus for many of those articles there is little basis for Jon's claim of ownership (licensing issues aside). Kaldari 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kaldari, I will try to provide with the information. Your largely cosmetic edits to the Ampheck article did nothing to alter your use of the work by Jon Awbrey, but merely evidence an apparent attempt to disguise that use. The obligation to provide proper attribution resides in the use itself, and that use is evident from the record. As far as the small number of your more substantive alterations go, your evident lack of familiarity with the subject matter and the relevant literature led you to convert an accurate article into an inaccurate and misleading article. Real World Apple 04:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Source. Wikipedia, User Talk:Real World Apple

Sorry to go off topic, but in all the funny shite you come up with, "WOE IS" has to be the very best I've read. Thanks for the lulz!

If you want Peace, work for Justice.

If you want Justice, work for Mirth.

If you want Mirth, work for free (and without attribution).

Parsing Is All In Reeding Bardology

The mechanics of selling tickets to mass quantities of theatre goers will frequently dictate our plays to imitate life but only up to point — typically a point near the end, where The Muse-Ick Man gets the Muse and escapes his deserted justice by the breadth of a feather on the breath of a theos ek mechanes, magically placating even the most stub-born Iowanischer to save his tar-and-feathering for another day.

But everyone knows how it really goes, so the cautionary tale is not wholly obscured by its cheerful wrap-up.

Jon Awbrey

Policy on banned users says that we should revert all edits made by banned users after banning. And we should, even if (as with Arch Coal) we then go and rewrite a whole article from scratch, from sources. I do not subscribe to the idea of being "a little bit banned".

Guy (JzG)

...(as with Arch Coal) we then go and rewrite a whole article from scratch, from sources...

Guy (JzG)

has the record in the page's history been set straight since all that inappropriateness had occurred?