210:
seen to operate from a scientific mindset editing articles that have to do with literature, theology, culture, and philosophy. Most wikipedia admins mis-apply scientific concepts and criteria and methods to articles that are not subject to those methods. For instance, you constantly see idiotic admins asking for "reliable" "empirical" sources for a claim about literature, or asking for "reliable" "unbiased" citations for some postmodern topic. Hahaha. Anyway for philosophy at least we have the stanford encyclopedia. Right now the best compendium of information for information about the contents of books is on Amazon. Too bad that a greedy corporation gets to own and capitalize on all that free information. Knowledge (XXG) can't handle that stuff because any books that aren't the taste of these
Richard Dawkinite Asperberger I-Fucking-Love-Science types get deleted. Like the Law of One article. Some pointy headed basement nerd decides he doesn't like those books so they should be deleted. Nevermind that they meet all the wikipedia requirements... what counts is that the admin thinks the books are "nonsense" and that the 30+ notable and reliable sources are "biased". And you can't get justice because there are way more dumb admins than good ones, and what kind of person would volunteer for such a terrible job anyway? The only people who become admins are power tripping losers with small man syndrome, because those are the only kind of people who benefit from the job. They don't follow the rules as laid out in wikipedia guidelines and there is no court or system to keep them accountable. The admin rot goes all the way to the top, and admins will never justify their rulings according to policy. It's like having a legal system where judges are not required to explain a ruling in legal terms. They just hand out the ruling without explaining how the ruling follows from law, and then they cry about it when people point out that there is no logical way to get from the written laws to the stupid ruling they made. They cry harassment. They delete your criticisms from their page. They delete the evidence you present. You claim this asshole is competent; why did he selectively delete the evidence I presented on his talk page? He deleted the EVIDENCE. That's not incompetence, that's malicious, that's psychopathic. Anyway now that this last article of mine is finally dead I can move on. I'd have to be an idiot to put any more of my work at the mercy of capricious, vindictive, arbitrary petty tyrants like that guy.
122:
abusive as are the indiscriminate deleters you support. It is very lazy and very offensive. I won't subject myself to further deletionism (I submit my articles to
Encyclopedia Brittannica now, where they are curated and published) but I absolutely do reserve the right to convey my disgust and describe my experiences as a content creator--as an original contributor. Like a typical right-winger you get offended when your abusiveness is called out. You think erasing work without process or investigation is your perogative. A failure of process on wikipedia should be called out and the irresponsible admins absolutely should be fingered. Shame on you for protecting bad editing and for failing to acknowledge the validity of open criticism.
168:
generally as good as, or better than, that provided by centrally controlled websites, Encyclopaedia
Britannica and a psychiatry textbook’10. For schizophrenia and depression, two commonly encountered psychiatric conditions, Knowledge (XXG) scored highest in the accuracy, timeliness and references categories – surpassing all other resources, including WebMD, NIMH, the Mayo Clinic and Britannica Online." However, you are editing Knowledge (XXG) and however expert you consider yourself you have to follow our guidelines and policies. These include
384:
242:
424:
46:
491:
577:
of the law or regulation or bylaw that has been broken. Where is this citation? What rule have I broken? Cite the rule, or expose yourself as a petty capricious tyrant. I reject this blocking as my offense has not even been listed; it is impossible for me to change my conduct when my offense is unknown. The admin behaviour here is a joke.
599:
You are blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. (1) Did you edit disruptively? Yes, to a very great extent. (2) Did you make personal attacks? Yes. (3) Does your unblock request indicate a recognition of what you did wrong? No. (4) Does your unblock request indicate that you are unlikely
112:
You have no authority or right to dictate what discussion is valid and what is not. As a content creator and domain expert, my opinion and my experience are more important than that of deleters and rule lawyers. What is abusive is when the hard work of dozens of editors is erased without due process
576:
I have participated in a deletion debate on the appropriate deletion page. I have requested and warned unwelcome editors from touching my talk page, as is commonly done by admins who set the example for behaviour on this website. In a court of law, the accusation toward a person includes a citation
316:
This debate has already been done and it's very visible in the history of the page and the previous AfDs; the history which has not been consulted by the current deleters attacking this page. Without an "admin in my pocket" my claims fall on deaf ears; I understand this all too well. If you or your
321:
then you may speak without embarassing yourself. Anyone who has not read that entire page and understood the poles of the debate speaks from ignorance and exposes themselves as lazy deleters happy to erase hours and hours of work without a care. Shame on all of you for your intellectual laziness,
209:
It actually doesn't matter how good the information itself is, because even good information on
Knowledge (XXG) cannot be trusted and therefore is not helpful. Anyway, it's well known that science coverage is better than humanities. The problem with situation like this is that you have people who
167:
That's great that you contribute to
Brittanica although sometimes our material is better, eg "in a recent report published in Psychological Medicine, ten researchers from the University of Melbourne concluded that ‘the quality of information on depression and schizophrenia on Knowledge (XXG) is
121:
insults me and calls my work nonsense and attempts to dismiss me as emotional--as if we live in the 18th century and such a criticism somehow invalidates my claims. You have not engaged my claims and you have no educated yourself on this conversation--on the history of this discussion. You are
176:. You make some remarkable accusations about me which are as wrong as calling me a right-winger. Fair criticism based on reasoned and detailed argument should always be acceptable. Your behaviour is not. And yes, accusing Drmies of "gross incompetence" is simply nonsense and I stand by that.
96:
You haven't the slightest idea about what sort of editor Drmies is. If you want to leave
Knowledge (XXG), fine. If all you are going to do is vent your emotions, then you certainly don't belong here. Luckily Drmies is tough - but why should anyone have to put up with your venting?
300:
Are you fing kidding me? There are 30+ reliable sources listed in the pre-vandalism history of the page. This debate in this talk page has no importance and will not receive justice. I am making my objections public for the sake of posterity alone. If you want to see the sources:
317:
allies were interested in due process, you would examine the history instead of asking that all that labour be repeated. Your kind will always demand that others do all the work even when it has been done in exhaustive detail. When you've read this entire page:
72:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
311:
Go look at the previous AfD discussion where 30+ sources are extensively discussed and analyzed, and consensus found that they were reliable according to the wikipedia definition of "reliable" which you have not familiarized yourself
140:
now and note that Drmies is perfectly entitled to remove your edits from his talk page. Once that has been done you must not restore them. Your version of the story has been read by multiple editors so there's no point in you
653:
A word of advice. If you make another unblock request, stick to the subject, and don't attack others, because further personal attacks are likely to lead to loss of talk page access and/or lengthening of the block.
76:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
69:
646:
template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
58:
531:
631:
464:
526:
406:
22:
82:
440:
448:
545:
504:
431:
62:
498:
364:
continue to abuse their admin privileges, attemtping to delete and erase all criticisms of their gross incompetence.
503:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
78:
444:
26:
394:
318:
665:
617:
476:
181:
136:
Yossarianpedia, you are shortly before being blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring. Please
102:
578:
509:
398:
365:
323:
211:
123:
383:
241:
150:
169:
142:
137:
661:
613:
640:
454:
254:
232:
Drmies, the
Irresponsible Hacksaw Deletionist, and the screenshot he doesn't want you to see
387:
Screenshot of sources for The Law of One article before it was vandalised and then deleted.
245:
Screenshot of sources for The Law of One article before it was vandalised and then deleted.
173:
470:
423:
359:
353:
263:
204:
177:
118:
98:
290:
53:
37:
281:
146:
331:
606:
even in the unblock request itself you make further personal attacks. Case closed.
347:
341:
272:
114:
113:
or due diligence; when wiki guidelines and rules are fast-tracked and ignored.
669:
621:
586:
484:
410:
373:
219:
185:
154:
131:
106:
86:
30:
447:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
319:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One
70:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Law of One (2nd nomination)
382:
240:
21:
My pleasure. :-) I'm very into the Law of One. What about you? --
117:
himself admitted his mistake but failed to revert his error.
489:
422:
57:
is suitable for inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG) according to
628:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
648:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
559:
555:
549:
540:
536:
522:
518:
514:
51:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
308:
Go look at the history of the talk page pre-vandalism.
497:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
443:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
305:Go look at the history of the page pre-vandalism.
451:by adding the following text below this notice:
322:dishonesty, and irresponsible deleter reflexes.
237:The following was selectively deleted by Drmies
8:
59:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
379:Screenshot of the Sources Pre-Vandalism
7:
14:
657:The editor who uses the pseudonym
609:The editor who uses the pseudonym
68:The article will be discussed at
44:
463:. However, you should read the
231:
1:
600:to do the same things again?
435:from editing for a period of
31:05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
501:, who declined the request.
685:
670:10:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
632:guide to appealing blocks
622:10:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
587:03:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
485:00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
465:guide to appealing blocks
445:make useful contributions
411:22:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
374:22:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
332:22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
220:18:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
186:13:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
155:05:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
132:22:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
107:20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
582:
369:
215:
127:
87:01:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
61:or whether it should be
494:
427:
388:
246:
546:change block settings
493:
459:Your reason here ~~~~
426:
386:
244:
79:Immanuel Thoughtmaker
495:
441:disruptive editing
428:
389:
247:
659:
611:
481:
449:appeal this block
414:
397:comment added by
676:
655:
645:
639:
607:
603:On the contrary,
565:
563:
552:
534:
532:deleted contribs
492:
482:
479:
475:
473:
462:
413:
391:
363:
351:
294:
285:
276:
267:
258:
208:
48:
47:
684:
683:
679:
678:
677:
675:
674:
673:
651:
643:
637:
636:, then use the
625:
590:
553:
543:
529:
512:
505:blocking policy
490:
487:
477:
471:
469:
452:
439:for persistent
420:
392:
381:
357:
354:User:Dougweller
345:
339:
288:
279:
270:
261:
252:
234:
202:
119:User:Dougweller
94:
49:
45:
42:
19:
12:
11:
5:
682:
680:
626:
597:
593:Decline reason
579:Yossarianpedia
574:
570:Request reason
567:
510:Yossarianpedia
488:
429:You have been
421:
419:
416:
399:Yossarianpedia
380:
377:
366:Yossarianpedia
338:
335:
324:Yossarianpedia
314:
313:
309:
306:
298:
297:
296:
295:
286:
277:
268:
259:
233:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
212:Yossarianpedia
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
160:
159:
158:
157:
143:making a point
138:drop the stick
124:Yossarianpedia
93:
90:
54:The Law of One
43:
41:
38:The Law of One
36:Nomination of
34:
23:173.128.70.223
18:
17:The Law of One
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
681:
672:
671:
667:
663:
658:
650:
649:
642:
635:
633:
624:
623:
619:
615:
610:
605:
604:
596:
594:
589:
588:
584:
580:
573:
571:
566:
561:
557:
551:
547:
542:
538:
533:
528:
524:
523:global blocks
520:
519:active blocks
516:
511:
506:
502:
500:
499:administrator
486:
483:
480:
474:
466:
460:
456:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:
425:
417:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
385:
378:
376:
375:
371:
367:
361:
355:
352:and his ally
349:
343:
336:
334:
333:
329:
325:
320:
310:
307:
304:
303:
302:
292:
287:
283:
278:
274:
269:
265:
260:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
243:
239:
238:
221:
217:
213:
206:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
194:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
166:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
135:
134:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
110:
109:
108:
104:
100:
91:
89:
88:
84:
80:
74:
71:
66:
64:
60:
56:
55:
39:
35:
33:
32:
28:
24:
16:
662:JamesBWatson
656:
652:
647:
629:
627:
614:JamesBWatson
608:
602:
601:
598:
592:
591:
575:
569:
568:
541:creation log
508:
496:
468:
458:
436:
430:
402:
393:— Preceding
390:
340:
327:
315:
299:
236:
235:
115:User: Drmies
95:
75:
67:
52:
50:
40:for deletion
20:
342:User:Drmies
255:Yngvadottir
537:filter log
472:Acroterion
360:Dougweller
264:Dougweller
205:Dougweller
178:Dougweller
99:Dougweller
630:read the
556:checkuser
515:block log
418:June 2014
337:June 2014
291:Logos5557
92:Just stop
527:contribs
467:first.
457:|reason=
437:48 hours
407:contribs
395:unsigned
282:De728631
170:WP:CIVIL
147:De728631
641:unblock
550:unblock
455:unblock
432:blocked
63:deleted
478:(talk)
348:Drmies
273:Drmies
174:WP:AGF
634:first
312:with.
666:talk
618:talk
583:talk
403:talk
370:talk
328:talk
216:talk
182:talk
172:and
151:talk
128:talk
103:talk
83:talk
27:talk
664:" (
616:" (
560:log
507:).
668:)
644:}}
638:{{
620:)
595::
585:)
572::
554:•
548:•
544:•
539:•
535:•
530:•
525:•
521:•
517:•
461:}}
453:{{
409:)
405:•
372:)
330:)
218:)
184:)
153:)
145:.
130:)
105:)
85:)
77:--
65:.
29:)
660:"
612:"
581:(
564:)
562:)
558:(
513:(
401:(
368:(
362::
358:@
356::
350::
346:@
344::
326:(
293::
289:@
284::
280:@
275::
271:@
266::
262:@
257::
253:@
214:(
207::
203:@
180:(
149:(
126:(
101:(
81:(
25:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.