498:"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Knowledge (XXG) articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." Keyword - whenever possible. So if it is not possible (for any reason at all, as there are no stated guidelines as to what defines impossibility) an author does not have to specify the sources of his facts, or even have any sources for his facts, period. AND since the author did not specify a source, one has no way of knowing whether this fact has come from a primary reference or secondary reference - thus, every uncited fact is arguably taken from a secondary source, which do to SOME factor, whatever that factor may be, citing that source is impossible. Hence, the unreferenced fact is fully in compliance with wikipeida's rules on reliable sources.
671:" neologism (from Greek νεολογισμός "νέος" = new; "λόγος" = word) is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") — often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. The term e-mail, as used today, is an example of a neologism."(
570:
Damn, you caught us out. And here I was going to spend a pleasant morning in my Jimbo's
Stormtroopers uniform (complete with riding crop and razor wire) deleting articles about puppies and kittens and inserting lurid pictures of goat pedophilia on unsuspecting user pages. While you're at it telling
442:
a soapbox. Unsourced, POV, unattributable, WP:POINT, and in fact disprovable on multiple points. The underlying valid points would be far better addressed by starting a legitimate essay from scratch (without childish whining and sniping) and posting it in
Knowledge (XXG): space, not article-space.
531:
That's why the article is being deleted; not because there is anything wrong with the article, but because its against your own beliefs'. Thus, wikipedia's ugly secrets make make their presence known again. This is not an encylopedia; its a mere forum where one party's beliefs are presented as fact,
511:
Second, this article has been proposed for deletion because of wikipedia's policy on neologisms. However, wikipedia has plenty of article's on neologisms already - wikipedia's page on deletion says email is a neologism, but wikipedia has an entry on e-mail. Thus if you delete the page on wiki fraud,
275:
as above, just blatant (and intentional) criticism of
Knowledge (XXG). Articles like this are a direct attempt ot atack the integrity of Knowledge (XXG) and th creators should be treated in the same way of vandals (policy states that an attack on the integrity of Knowledge (XXG) is vandalism). Also,
527:
Well, we see the real reason why this article is being deleted. It is being deleted, not because it is against any of wikipedia's policies, but because it points out the major flaws in wikipedia - it rubs salt in wikipedia's wounds. Hence, Jimmy Wales' Thought police, have been sent out to squash
457:"Political pundit Stephen Colbert editing a wikipedia article on Elephants, claiming that the population of Elephants has tripled in the last 6 months, that was latter used by pro-poacher groups in Africa to successfully lobby for the unbridled slaughter of thousands of Elephants in western Africa"
182:
Also, the "driving force behind the
American Scholastic Board's barring of using Knowledge (XXG) as a source in any student's Ph.D thesis paper" isn't "wiki fraud", but a desire for primary and secondary sources in such writing - citing an encyclopedia in a thesis paper would get you laughed at;
517:
Thirdly, as to the claims that this article is inaccurate: Where are your sources? (Show me your sources and I will show you mine.) By
Proposing that this article should because deleted because the facts contained in the article are inaccurate, without providing evidence in support of your own
633:
as a neologism. Where does it say that "email" is a neologism? Catchphrases passed through chain emails may be neologisms, but email itself is not. Your argument on "wherever possible" is missing something: If it is not possible, that probably means the article shouldn't exist.
638:
can serve as the "source" you seek: there are no results there that pertain to the subject of this article. I don't care whether there is another article criticizing
Knowledge (XXG); it's just that this one isn't it. Feel free work on
349:, not because I want to say that there is nothing relevant in that article. All those cases should be addressed. But WE DON'T HAVE ARTICLES WITHOUT SOURCES. If the editor wants to know the pertinent rules he might want to look at
156:"Wiki-fraud" or "Wiki fraud" (the article uses these terms interchangably) is a non-notable neologism, made up by the author of the article as far as I can see. The article also (regardless of what the authour says) breaches
160:
by not citing sources. Also appears not to be written from a NPOV (i.e. suggesting 99% of articles subject to wiki-fraud, reference to people referring to
Knowledge (XXG) as "slack-jawed yokels").
523:
Finally, in response to "thought police officer's" comment: "Most of this is already covered in Essjay controversy anyway. No use rubbing salt in anyone's wounds. -- - (Elkspeak)"
141:
WIkipedia has no policy requiring that everyone cite their sources. Thus, this author, who has written an article critisizing wikipedia will also not cite sources to make a point.
418:
Nice satire, but it doesn't belong in article space. Just as a proper analysis of the % error in WP doesnt belong in article space --until it has been published elsewhere.
132:
512:
to be consistent, you have to go delete EVERY article on neologisms; now what kind of so called "Encyclopeida" would wikipedia be if it did not have an article on e-mail.
139:
An essay on factual inaccuracy and lack of citation on
Knowledge (XXG). Prod (which pointed out that the article itself has a lack of citation) removed with the comment:
648:
571:
Knowledge (XXG) off, could you ask Jimbo to raise our pay, please? We haven't had any checks for our
Thought Police gig in quite some time.
213:
or turn into an essay. But get it out of articlespace unless it can be proven to be an notabale neologism (complete with sources off course).
17:
504:
Hence, the argument that this article should be deleted because not citing sources is against wikipedia policy is spurious at best.
194:
Oh, and comments like "Knowledge (XXG) is ... Joseph Stalin's
Communist propganda machine" on the talk page don't help either.
105:
100:
760:
548:
109:
684:
779:
376:
36:
92:
741:
this article amounts to defining a new term for something that's already discussed a whole lot in Knowledge (XXG) (
742:
734:
640:
778:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
536:
461:
716:
544:
303:
764:
721:
691:
659:
625:
602:
575:
561:
484:
472:
447:
424:
410:
398:
382:
367:
341:
326:
306:
292:
267:
255:
217:
198:
189:
164:
147:
74:
96:
379:
68:
540:
712:
622:
614:
315:
214:
391:
88:
80:
280:
756:
597:
362:
287:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
644:
286:
if I may dissent, we don't need witch hunts and stake burning exercises on Knowledge (XXG).
323:
144:
439:
358:
335:
232:
177:
157:
60:
56:
52:
49:
688:
656:
228:
183:
although Knowledge (XXG) is a nice encyclopedia, it remains an encyclopedia. Just sayin'.
572:
338:
161:
65:
715:
because it repeat information, and we shouldn't be feeding the trolls on this site. —
354:
350:
302:
as unencyclopedic, NPOV and since sufficient sources aren't given, original research.
652:
558:
481:
407:
314:- this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Most of this is already covered in
249:
195:
186:
751:
180:- furthermore, phrases like "slack-jawed yokle" have no place in article space. (
126:
395:
319:
749:
one. However, since this term is kind of obvious, it's a plausible redirect. --
635:
501:
Thus, an unreferenced fact is a reliable source! (Wikipeida's rules, not mine)
444:
264:
617:, existing for no other reason than to disparage its subject. Accordingly
263:, seems more like (scathing) criticism than encyclopedia article. Opinion
480:
into one of the articles concerning criticism of wikipedia or such like.
420:
241:
592:
parade for May the 22nd? Bummer, I was practicing marching along with
532:
and any questioning/critism of these facts is immediately eradicated.
276:
i'm certain that the 99% statistic is innaccurate in the extreme.
772:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
494:
First of all, Knowledge (XXG)'s rule on Reliable sources is:
672:
122:
118:
114:
668:
Quoting Knowledge (XXG)'s entry on the word Neologism
655:, and all those other articles on Knowledge (XXG). –
336:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a blog or a discussion forum.
318:
anyway. No use rubbing salt in anyone's wounds. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
687:for the specific criteria of what is meant here. –
782:). No further edits should be made to this page.
678:Thats where it says that e-mail is an neolgism.
406:- essays of any sort neither needed nor wanted.
745:and the bazillion subarticles). We don't need
649:Knowledge (XXG):Problems with Knowledge (XXG)
8:
518:claims, is a little hypocritical at best.
226:to preserve the authority of Wiki Cabal.
588:does that mean we have to cancel the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
61:nor a publisher of original thought
490:THIS IS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE
24:
673:http://en.wikipedia.org/Neologism
613:Forget all that: the page is an
685:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid neologisms
1:
143:Suggest move to users space?
743:Criticism of Knowledge (XXG)
735:Criticism of Knowledge (XXG)
641:Criticism of Knowledge (XXG)
594:It's a long way to Tipperary
528:all opposition, as always.
390:author admits to violating
799:
765:12:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
722:05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
692:07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
562:22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
75:00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
50:Knowledge (XXG) is neither
46:delete without redirecting
660:09:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
626:09:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
603:15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
576:15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
485:05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
473:02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
448:02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
425:01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
411:20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
399:20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
383:19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
368:17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
342:16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
327:16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
307:13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
293:18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
268:11:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
256:11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
218:11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
199:13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
190:11:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
165:11:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
148:11:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
775:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
57:nor a discussion forum
551:) 2007-03-09 09:27:04
239:or possibly userfy.--
431:Delete as Wiki-Fraud
455:This is a real gem
713:Essjay controversy
316:Essjay controversy
733:without merge to
553:
539:comment added by
229:Original research
184:
790:
777:
719:
600:
552:
533:
469:
468:
465:
365:
290:
252:
244:
181:
130:
112:
71:
34:
798:
797:
793:
792:
791:
789:
788:
787:
786:
780:deletion review
773:
717:
598:
534:
466:
463:
462:
377:patent nonsense
363:
288:
250:
248:
242:
103:
87:
84:
69:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
796:
794:
785:
784:
768:
767:
724:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
676:
669:
663:
662:
628:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
590:Thought Police
581:
580:
579:
578:
565:
564:
557:Yup, I agree.
525:
524:
520:
519:
514:
513:
507:
496:
495:
488:
487:
475:
450:
427:
413:
401:
385:
370:
344:
329:
309:
296:
295:
278:
277:
270:
258:
246:
220:
209:, or possible
203:
202:
201:
167:
137:
136:
83:
78:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
795:
783:
781:
776:
770:
769:
766:
762:
758:
754:
753:
748:
744:
740:
737:. Basically,
736:
732:
728:
725:
723:
720:
714:
710:
706:
705:Speedy delete
703:
702:
693:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
677:
674:
670:
667:
666:
665:
664:
661:
658:
654:
653:Daniel Brandt
650:
646:
642:
637:
632:
629:
627:
624:
623:62.25.109.196
620:
619:speedy delete
616:
612:
611:
604:
601:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
577:
574:
569:
568:
567:
566:
563:
560:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
529:
522:
521:
516:
515:
510:
509:
508:
505:
502:
499:
493:
492:
491:
486:
483:
479:
476:
474:
471:
470:
458:
454:
451:
449:
446:
441:
437:
434:
432:
428:
426:
423:
422:
417:
414:
412:
409:
405:
402:
400:
397:
393:
389:
386:
384:
381:
378:
374:
371:
369:
366:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
343:
340:
337:
333:
330:
328:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
308:
305:
301:
298:
297:
294:
291:
285:
284:
283:
282:
274:
273:Strong delete
271:
269:
266:
262:
259:
257:
254:
253:
245:
238:
234:
230:
227:
225:
221:
219:
216:
215:WegianWarrior
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
193:
192:
191:
188:
179:
175:
171:
168:
166:
163:
159:
155:
152:
151:
150:
149:
146:
142:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
82:
79:
77:
76:
73:
72:
67:
62:
58:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
774:
771:
750:
746:
738:
730:
726:
708:
704:
630:
618:
593:
589:
535:— Preceding
530:
526:
506:
503:
500:
497:
489:
477:
460:
456:
452:
435:
430:
429:
419:
415:
403:
387:
372:
346:
331:
311:
304:82.135.86.58
299:
279:
272:
260:
240:
236:
223:
222:
210:
206:
173:
169:
153:
140:
138:
64:
45:
43:
31:
28:
747:yet another
615:attack page
416:weak delete
145:Marasmusine
739:right now,
324:(Elkspeak)
89:Wiki fraud
81:Wiki fraud
573:RGTraynor
380:Al-Bargit
339:RGTraynor
281:User:ANHL
233:neologism
53:a soapbox
731:Redirect
709:redirect
559:Cloveoil
549:contribs
537:unsigned
482:Cloveoil
408:Moreschi
392:WP:POINT
196:Zetawoof
187:Zetawoof
133:View log
752:wwwwolf
645:WP:FAIL
541:Dimdawg
467:Linnear
464:Michael
235:, thus
106:protect
101:history
761:growls
727:Delete
636:Google
631:Delete
453:Delete
440:WP:NOT
436:Delete
404:Delete
396:JuJube
388:Delete
373:Delete
359:WP:ATT
347:Delete
332:Delete
320:Elkman
312:Delete
300:Delete
261:Delete
237:delete
211:userfy
207:Delete
178:WP:ASR
176:, per
174:userfy
170:Delete
158:WP:ATT
154:Delete
110:delete
757:barks
689:Pomte
657:Pomte
478:Merge
445:Barno
361:....
265:Dureo
251:talk?
162:Jules
127:views
119:watch
115:links
70:desat
16:<
683:See
545:talk
438:per
355:WP:N
351:WP:V
231:and
224:Keep
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
66:Core
63:. --
729:or
718:Moe
711:to
707:or
621:--
599:Alf
459:. —
421:DGG
375:as
364:Alf
334:.
289:Alf
243:TBC
172:or
131:– (
763:)
651:,
647:,
643:,
596:.
547:•
394:.
357:,
353:,
322:-
185:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
59:,
55:,
48:.
759:/
755:(
675:)
543:(
433:.
247:Φ
205:'
135:)
129:)
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.