Sun 2nd December 2007, 3:49am
I had hoped that we might assemble the rudiments of how to do things right in the way of giving credit where credit is due. Until I encountered the ways of Wikipedia I had been operating under the blithe illusion that all of these principles were either common sense or common knowledge. But many common virtues that are shared by the rest of civilized and educated humanity appear to be rare and getting rarer in the soi-disant "community" of Wikpedia.
But it's all I can do to keep up with the relentless flood of discouraging incidents coming out of Wikipedia, so maybe I will use this page to gather what rose-thorns that I may, since Wikipediots and especially their Administrators never disappoint when it comes to generating bad examples, all of the things that a bare minimum of education would teach a person never to do.
Jon AwbreyWiki-Phagin's School for Intellectual Property Pickpockets —
QUOTE(Guy Chapman @ 16 Nov 2007 UTC 09:57)
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
QUOTE(The Tetrast @ 28 Nov 2007 UTC 20:23)
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
QUOTE(Kaldari @ 28 Nov 2007 UTC 22:43, 22:50)
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:
- Boolean domain
- Boolean-valued function
- Comprehension (logic)
- Continuous predicate
- Descriptive science
- Hypostatic abstraction
- Hypostatic object
- Inverse relation
- Logic of information
- Logical graph
- Logical matrix
- Minimal negation operator
- Multigrade operator
- Normative science
- Parametric operator
- Pragmatic maxim
- Prescisive abstraction
- Relation composition
- Relation construction
- Relation reduction
- Relative term
- Semiotic information theory
- Sign relation
- Sign relational complex
- Sole sufficient operator
- Tacit extension
- Triadic relation
- 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
QUOTE(WAS 4.250 @ 29 Nov 2007 UTC 18:13)
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