625:
wrote "An author in his book must be like God in the universe, present everywhere and visible nowhere." Surely the same applies even in
Knowledge (XXG). Saying that author intent doesn't matter may impress the postmodernists, but it's missing the point on a very important level. Would you deny the
526:
While I guess I appreciate that many of you found humor in my entry, I was just trying to provide a concrete example of russell's paradox for easier understanding. I thought it would help for people to be able to actually have the list in front of them, and think about whether or not it should be an
152:
with other editors, then yes. I think you'd bothered to write a quick note to the author, they may have given more information - maybe even confirmed it was a joke. As you can see below, the author was contacted and commented on it. That's what friendly collaboration is all about. Try it
299:? Nonsense. Practical joke. Not encyclopedic. Constructed perhaps to see whether an edit war will develop as people alternately add and remove "List of all Knowledge (XXG) lists that do not contain themselves" from the list? ] 00:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
709:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.
663:
A non-encyclopedic joke list. Was rightly placed on BJAODN, because it is impossible to fulfil what it proclaims: "This page shall list all and only those wikipedia lists which do not contain themselves as members."
332:, these are very useful in proving mechanical infringement of intellectual property. A redirect like this would be a particularly harmless form of this, but comparably useful. --
40:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
569:: This page is not importent and is un-needed and dusent make eny sence,, and enyways, it is imposible to no wether or not the list is supost to contain it-self. --
23:
541:
It is a misfire: it doesn't pose paradox, since wikipedia inherently allows incomplete lists. What is more, it is misleading in terms of explaining the nature of
62:
191:
Perhaps
Wikimedia ought to have a space for writers of fiction and/or humor. However, this is a bit confusing. I'll second Netoholic's recommendation.
384:
261:
As far as I know, the only user page he's modified is mine, and that wasn't technically vandalism, since he was attempting to add useful information.
138:
So we're not supposed to list anything on VfD until the author gives us permission? Sheesh, Neto, you really ARE trying to subvert VfD, aren't you?
33:
321:
The
Nihilartikel page says it's a "deliberately fictitious entry". Do we want to add deliberately fictitious information? Don't redirect.
17:
387:
must be either incomplete (if it does not list itself) or incorrect (if it does)." That text, IIRC, has been there for a while.
534:
Excellent idea, very questionable implementation. I've added mini-lists to the
Paradox page itself as an illustration. -
398:
That text has been there for a while, but it didn't link to the page in question until recently, when I wikified it.
105:
Um, did anyone bother to ask the author about this to see their intent? *checks* Nope, another all-too-hasty VFD.
489:
65:, this list may even have problems on a fundamental logic level. Not sure if that matters for deletion or not.
148:
If by "subvert VfD" you mean that I want to encourage hasty deletionists to stop trolling and try to actually
520:
495:
Paradoxes are funny. And this is a perfect example of
Russell's. Unfortunately, WP is not a joke book;
310:(don't bother merging content). That redirect would constitute an excellent (and I think appropriate)
55:
123:
95:
79:
700:
357:
BTW, it is a misfire: it doesn't pose paradox, since wikipedia inherently allows incomplete lists.
157:
113:
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/List of all
Knowledge (XXG) lists that do not contain themselves
251:
207:
88:
36:
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion.
696:
657:
464:
411:
380:
307:
282:
215:
176:
72:
636:
542:
421:
I thought
Knowledge (XXG) was the source of all truth. This list must be completely accurate.
535:
506:
It is a misfire: it doesn't pose paradox, since wikipedia inherently allows incomplete lists.
475:
392:
132:
680:
669:
622:
599:
650:
627:
580:
574:
500:
443:
415:
399:
369:
322:
262:
183:
142:
120:
92:
76:
66:
47:
275:
154:
110:
254:, creator's contributions have mostly been user-page vandalism, don't encourage him. —
689:
546:
528:
507:
460:
358:
351:
233:
219:
211:
196:
172:
482:
453:
364:
So there aren't any logical problems with it? That's surprising, but in that case,
311:
255:
614:
Delete. Author intent does not matter, only the content of the article itself. -
182:
I think it clearly does, since the article is a list that doesn't contain itself.
606:
594:
591:
333:
329:
315:
643:
615:
570:
560:
440:
347:
286:
171:
unless someone can tell me whether the article belongs in its own category. --
139:
44:
281:
Delete. I'd say BJAODN, but only the actual title is funny. I think I hear a
229:
430:
131:
Netoholic, this is a very obvious joke article, see my comments below. -
621:
But can't one infer things about the author from reading the article?
296:
346:
and not BJAODN: lacks originality; known for at least a century in
383:: "...Russell's paradox proves that the Knowledge (XXG) entry on
385:
List of all
Knowledge (XXG) lists that do not contain themselves
109:
until the originator has spoken. Stop biting the newcomers. --
34:
List of all
Knowledge (XXG) lists that do not contain themselves
54:
Yes, please delete. You beat me by about 15 seconds, Rick.
527:
entry for itself. Sorry to cause so much of a disturbance.
467:. He's the author of this list. ] 06:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
488:
Keep. This is an illustration of an important point.
470:Pointless, and contributes nothing to the project.
626:affinity between a sculpture and the sculptor?
328:The Nihilartikel page also explains that, like
8:
410:, and then remove the quoted paragraph from
232:, but I'm also adding the title to BJAODN.
590:. A very awesome, albeit stupid, joke (:
302:And you almost beat me to my suggestion:
119:Why would we need to consult the author?
43:What the heck? Delete this nonsense.
675:I would not object to turning it to a
481:Delete. Marginal BJAODN. No big deal.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
195:until we have contacted the author.
31:
439:. WP is not a suicide pact. --
1:
688:Keep this. It is not a joke.
712:Please do not edit this page
214:00:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Or
38:This page is no longer live.
656:Keep. An interesting page.
379:As others have noted, from
728:
459:Comment: I left a note on
705:21:03, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
672:13:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
630:21:28, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
618:03:05, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
503:08:22, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
325:00:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
318:00:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
258:00:26, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
145:05:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
50:23:49, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
695:Redirect, preferably to
692:17:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
683:14:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
660:17:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
653:09:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
646:16:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
639:04:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
611:23:04, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
538:18:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
531:12:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
478:06:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
402:03:21, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
395:03:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
372:00:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
361:00:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
354:00:49, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
336:06:51, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
278:00:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
265:00:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
222:00:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
199:00:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
186:00:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
179:00:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
160:00:19, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
116:00:08, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
84:00:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
69:00:02, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
61:As I pointed out in the
58:23:51, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
583:20:16, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
563:18:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
549:00:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
523:11:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
510:00:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
492:07:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
485:06:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
456:05:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
446:05:22, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
433:04:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
418:04:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
289:00:33, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
236:03:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
135:03:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
128:00:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
100:00:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
515:Stop it, it's silly.
499:and possibly BJAODN.
153:sometimes, Rick. --
490:The Recycling Troll
425:Or, failing that,
697:Russell's paradox
559:. Stupid joke. --
423:Implode Universe.
412:Russell's paradox
381:Russell's paradox
308:Russell's paradox
216:Russell's paradox
75:but not serious.
22:(Redirected from
719:
703:
649:Hehehe. Delete.
623:Gustave Flaubert
609:
604:
597:
577:
543:Russel's paradox
521:Average Earthman
126:
98:
82:
27:
727:
726:
722:
721:
720:
718:
717:
716:
701:
607:
600:
595:
575:
295:Or redirect to
124:
96:
80:
63:discussion page
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
725:
723:
707:
706:
693:
686:
685:
684:
661:
654:
647:
640:
633:
632:
631:
612:
584:
564:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
524:
513:
512:
511:
493:
486:
479:
468:
457:
447:
434:
419:
405:
404:
403:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
300:
290:
279:
268:
267:
266:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
189:
188:
187:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
136:
129:
103:
102:
101:
70:
59:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
724:
715:
713:
704:
698:
694:
691:
687:
682:
678:
674:
673:
671:
667:
662:
659:
658:Mark Richards
655:
652:
648:
645:
641:
638:
634:
629:
624:
620:
619:
617:
613:
610:
605:
603:
598:
592:
589:
585:
582:
578:
572:
568:
565:
562:
558:
555:
548:
544:
540:
539:
537:
533:
532:
530:
525:
522:
518:
514:
509:
505:
504:
502:
498:
494:
491:
487:
484:
480:
477:
473:
469:
466:
462:
461:User:Posiduck
458:
455:
451:
448:
445:
442:
438:
435:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
413:
409:
406:
401:
397:
396:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
371:
367:
363:
362:
360:
356:
355:
353:
349:
345:
342:
335:
331:
327:
326:
324:
320:
319:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
294:
291:
288:
285:rustling. --
284:
280:
277:
273:
269:
264:
260:
259:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
235:
231:
230:flip-flopping
227:
224:
223:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
200:
198:
194:
190:
185:
181:
180:
178:
174:
170:
166:
159:
156:
151:
147:
146:
144:
141:
137:
134:
130:
127:
122:
118:
117:
115:
112:
108:
104:
99:
94:
90:
86:
85:
83:
78:
74:
71:
68:
64:
60:
57:
53:
52:
51:
49:
46:
41:
39:
35:
25:
19:
711:
708:
679:, either. -
676:
665:
601:
587:
566:
556:
536:RedWordSmith
516:
496:
476:Slowking Man
471:
449:
436:
426:
422:
407:
393:RedWordSmith
388:
365:
343:
330:trap streets
312:Nihilartikel
303:
292:
271:
247:
243:
225:
206:, recommend
203:
192:
168:
149:
133:RedWordSmith
106:
42:
37:
32:
681:Mike Rosoft
670:Mike Rosoft
616:Sean Curtin
586:Definately
651:Lacrimosus
628:Factitious
501:Kinitawowi
416:JamesMLane
400:Factitious
370:Factitious
348:Set theory
323:Factitious
263:Factitious
184:Factitious
87:Recommend
67:Factitious
465:talk page
452:love it.
276:tregoweth
202:Also, if
155:Netoholic
111:Netoholic
702:Etaonish
690:Intrigue
677:redirect
642:Delete.
635:Delete.
547:Mikkalai
529:Posiduck
508:Mikkalai
359:Mikkalai
352:Mikkalai
304:redirect
234:Rickyrab
220:Rickyrab
212:Rickyrab
197:Rickyrab
173:jpgordon
167:I'd say
483:Andrewa
454:Wolfman
427:Delete.
297:Paradox
293:Delete.
283:paradox
270:Yeesh.
256:Stormie
250:add to
204:deleted
177:yammer}
666:Delete
588:BJAODN
567:Delete
561:Improv
557:Delete
517:Delete
497:Delete
472:Delete
408:Delete
389:Delete
344:Delete
334:Jmabel
316:Jmabel
272:Delete
252:BJAODN
244:Delete
228:. I'm
226:Delete
208:BJAODN
169:delete
125:Verily
97:Verily
89:BJAODN
81:Verily
56:Joyous
644:Jayjg
571:zzo38
441:Jerzy
314:. --
287:DrBob
246:, do
73:Funny
16:<
668:. -
637:Ambi
596:siro
474:. --
450:Keep
391:. -
366:Keep
193:Keep
150:work
140:Rick
121:Very
107:Keep
93:Very
77:Very
45:Rick
463:'s
444:(t)
437:Del
431:WOT
429:--
306:to
274:. —
248:not
218:.)
714:.
699:--
545:.
519:.
414:.
368:.
350:.
210:.
91:.
608:o
602:χ
593:—
581:?
579:)
576:*
573:(
175:{
158:@
143:K
114:@
48:K
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.