Down with lip synching album tracks!Mancunium wrote:I have repeatedly accused Mr Dingley of lying, and will continue to do so: he is a liar.Poetlister wrote:I have increasingly seen people use "prevaricate" when they mean "procrastinate", but it is a malapropism (T-H-L). I suppose it could lead to a charge of libel if you falsely accuse someone of lying.
Seems like he's changed his line of business then. Dingley used to run a software business, and he used to post a lot of bile about "code monkeys" on Usenet, and whine about how awful it was that incompetent code monkeys were writing terrible software, etc. He was also big on woodworking/diy etc. and used to post on the "rec.woodworking" usenet group. He used to make all kinds of bits and pieces. From what I saw of him on Wikipedia, I think he basically likes picking fights with others and trying to make a name for himself.Mancunium wrote:What is the most expensive thing you’ve bought, not including property?
My new laser-cutting machine. I’ve just started a new business, mainly cutting wood. It took me a lot of time to save up the money and to find a good bargain on one. Hopefully I can make a living on it now.
Wow. Why on earth would you use a laser to cut wood?trout wrote:Seems like he's changed his line of business then. Dingley used to run a software business, and he used to post a lot of bile about "code monkeys" on Usenet, and whine about how awful it was that incompetent code monkeys were writing terrible software, etc. He was also big on woodworking/diy etc. and used to post on the "rec.woodworking" usenet group. He used to make all kinds of bits and pieces. From what I saw of him on Wikipedia, I think he basically likes picking fights with others and trying to make a name for himself.Mancunium wrote:What is the most expensive thing you’ve bought, not including property?
My new laser-cutting machine. I’ve just started a new business, mainly cutting wood. It took me a lot of time to save up the money and to find a good bargain on one. Hopefully I can make a living on it now.
Speed, accuracy, repeatability, ease.SB_Johnny wrote:Wow. Why on earth would you use a laser to cut wood?trout wrote:Seems like he's changed his line of business then. Dingley used to run a software business, and he used to post a lot of bile about "code monkeys" on Usenet, and whine about how awful it was that incompetent code monkeys were writing terrible software, etc. He was also big on woodworking/diy etc. and used to post on the "rec.woodworking" usenet group. He used to make all kinds of bits and pieces. From what I saw of him on Wikipedia, I think he basically likes picking fights with others and trying to make a name for himself.Mancunium wrote:What is the most expensive thing you’ve bought, not including property?
My new laser-cutting machine. I’ve just started a new business, mainly cutting wood. It took me a lot of time to save up the money and to find a good bargain on one. Hopefully I can make a living on it now.
...and burnt, irregular edges. Pretty much what you don't want with wood.enwikibadscience wrote:Speed, accuracy, repeatability, ease.SB_Johnny wrote: Wow. Why on earth would you use a laser to cut wood?
?? Ever seen some professionally made laser-cut wood panels?SB_Johnny wrote:...and burnt, irregular edges. Pretty much what you don't want with wood.enwikibadscience wrote:Speed, accuracy, repeatability, ease.SB_Johnny wrote: Wow. Why on earth would you use a laser to cut wood?
Huh, guess I'm behind the times again.EricBarbour wrote:?? Ever seen some professionally made laser-cut wood panels?SB_Johnny wrote:...and burnt, irregular edges. Pretty much what you don't want with wood.enwikibadscience wrote:Speed, accuracy, repeatability, ease.SB_Johnny wrote: Wow. Why on earth would you use a laser to cut wood?
http://lightwavelaser.com/gallery.htm
Not at all; very highly controllable for thickness, depth, everything.SB_Johnny wrote:...and burnt, irregular edges. Pretty much what you don't want with wood.enwikibadscience wrote:Speed, accuracy, repeatability, ease.SB_Johnny wrote: Wow. Why on earth would you use a laser to cut wood?
Yeah, like that. Dream!EricBarbour wrote:?? Ever seen some professionally made laser-cut wood panels?SB_Johnny wrote:...and burnt, irregular edges. Pretty much what you don't want with wood.enwikibadscience wrote:Speed, accuracy, repeatability, ease.SB_Johnny wrote: Wow. Why on earth would you use a laser to cut wood?
http://lightwavelaser.com/gallery.htm
To be fair to SB_Johnny, the technology was pretty crappy just a few years ago. It was good for etching and rough cutting. Now the price of this much better tech is getting down to individual entrepreneur level. All part of the Second Industrial Revolution, where you can do small factory runs of bespoke stuff in your cottage, loft, garage, or barn.enwikibadscience wrote:Yeah, like that. Dream!EricBarbour wrote:?? Ever seen some professionally made laser-cut wood panels?SB_Johnny wrote:...and burnt, irregular edges. Pretty much what you don't want with wood.enwikibadscience wrote:Speed, accuracy, repeatability, ease.SB_Johnny wrote: Wow. Why on earth would you use a laser to cut wood?
http://lightwavelaser.com/gallery.htm
Where's the fun in that?Zoloft wrote:To be fair to SB_Johnny,
Is that a picture of Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales creating Wikipedia in 2001?tarantino wrote:Where's the fun in that?Zoloft wrote:To be fair to SB_Johnny,
More like FT2 being protected by David Gerard.The Joy wrote:Is that a picture of Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales creating Wikipedia in 2001?
EricBarbour wrote:More like FT2 being protected by David Gerard.The Joy wrote:Is that a picture of Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales creating Wikipedia in 2001?
No, that's a nanny on a stand.tarantino wrote:Where's the fun in that?Zoloft wrote:To be fair to SB_Johnny,
Your partial paraphrase omitted the key phrase "without evidence" and my acknowledgment of the point having been made by Robyn M. Dawes (T-H-L) in his House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Based on Myth. Dawes note that such claims satisfy part of the necessary diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia (DSM IV-R).Mason wrote:If I ran Wikipedia, I'd say: treat wikipediocracy.com links the same way you treat google.com links. You can use Google links to "out" editors just as easily as you can use WO links. Heck, you don't even have to link to anything: just say "you should Google Qworty" or "you should Google Russavia" and that'll do it.
The "compromise" idea of allowing the link as "text" but making it non-clickable is patently ridiculous: most decent browsers will let you just highlight the text, right-click on it and choose "open link", and even the shittiest browsers will let you copy and paste into the address bar. All you're doing is mildly inconveniencing readers.
The problem is that it comes down to motivation: I may add a WO link to "build the encyclopedia" (i.e. in the Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) article's infobox) or I may add it to taunt somebody who's the current subject of a blog post. And Wikipedia's stunningly bad at sussing out motivations. Look at how long it took them to figure out what Russavia's game was, and that could not have been more obvious. (The Commoners still haven't figured it out.) AGF abounds to the point of absurdity. Even Kiefer.Wolfowitz said, at one point, that claiming to know somebody's motivations was a sign of a psychological disorder (or something like that). In the real world, of course, if somebody does something that raises an eyebrow, you ask them why they did it, and if they give you a bullshit answer (ahem) then you recognize they're trying to get one over on you and you treat them accordingly. But this approach seems alien to Wikipedia culture. You could upload a photo of yourself setting an effigy of your wiki-enemy on fire and the Wnts and Mattbucks would rationalize it away as being freely licensed art generously offered.
He's too pathetic to be called "evil".
So, this is how you respond. He's saying that because Alison is involved with Wikipediocracy, and she edited the Wikipedia article about Wikipediocracy (T-H-L), then the Talk page needs to say:
Well, guess what? Demiurge1000 is a UK resident who uses Wikipedia, and he edited Wikimedia UK (T-H-L). Therefore... slap that same {{Connected contributor}} tag on the Wikimedia UK article Talk page!A Wikipedia contributor, Alison (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. This user's editing has included contributions to this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
They might be the same guy. Or two accounts that are shared by several people.Hex wrote:Look who's helping.
Did You Know? I honestly can't tell those two from one another.
I have a short fuse when it comes to what is clearly sexual harassment. Remember, Demiurge asked Alison, "How's tricks?". Now, he's trying to give her a hard time again. Repeated, unwanted attention like this meets the definition for sexual harassment. Actually, it's good that he's doing this, because it gives us a more recent example to use if anyone at the WMF or elsewhere tries to say that sexual harassment in WP is not tolerated.thekohser wrote:In the great tradition of "be careful what you wish for", now they're just encouraging us to taunt them. Cla68 needs to join the fun.
BigTits.pngHex wrote:notthisshitagain.jpg
There is clearly no sexual element to this.
To be honest, I can't see that as sexual harassment. More like the usual dickish behaviour we've come to expect from Demiurge, which he dishes out to everyone (but rarely seems to be able to take).Cla68 wrote:I have a short fuse when it comes to what is clearly sexual harassment. Remember, Demiurge asked Alison, "How's tricks?". Now, he's trying to give her a hard time again. Repeated, unwanted attention like this meets the definition for sexual harassment. Actually, it's good that he's doing this, because it gives us a more recent example to use if anyone at the WMF or elsewhere tries to say that sexual harassment in WP is not tolerated.
A Wikipedia contributor, Fluffernutter (T-C-L), has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. This user's editing has included contributions to this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Ayyy!Jim wrote:BigTits.pngHex wrote:notthisshitagain.jpg
There is clearly no sexual element to this.
Then introduce one. Have you learnt nothing in the wiki boys' club? Sheesh...
Sexual harassment isn't only defined by the intended target, but also by witnesses to it as the comments are creating a hostile editing environment for everyone. I'm a sexual harassment/assault victim's advocate at work, and I have dealt with some real-life victims of workplace sexual harassment, so I guess I'm sensitive about it. In all the cases I've observed or been involved with, the harassment started with comments like Demiurge made to you and Bishonen and escalated with further negative interactions initiated by the person in question.Alison wrote:To be honest, I can't see that as sexual harassment. More like the usual dickish behaviour we've come to expect from Demiurge, which he dishes out to everyone (but rarely seems to be able to take).Cla68 wrote:I have a short fuse when it comes to what is clearly sexual harassment. Remember, Demiurge asked Alison, "How's tricks?". Now, he's trying to give her a hard time again. Repeated, unwanted attention like this meets the definition for sexual harassment. Actually, it's good that he's doing this, because it gives us a more recent example to use if anyone at the WMF or elsewhere tries to say that sexual harassment in WP is not tolerated.
Im with Cla68 on this one. It was clearly harassment. While this particular incident does not have sexual elements to it, Demi clearly has issues with women, and in the past has clear incidents as Cla refers to. Its not a surprise he picked Alison and not one of the other members here. In the UK harassment in itself does not need to be sexual to be sexual harassment. If the person doing it is doing it because of the victims sex, it falls under the banner. Likewise you dont need to use an actual racial slur to be racist if you are harassing someone because of the colour of their skin. I have zero tolerance for this deliberate targeting of people. Granted Alison is capable of taking care of herself if she needs to, but that doesnt prevent others from pointing out that this is wrong and should not be tolerated.Cla68 wrote:Sexual harassment isn't only defined by the intended target, but also by witnesses to it as the comments are creating a hostile editing environment for everyone. I'm a sexual harassment/assault victim's advocate at work, and I have dealt with some real-life victims of workplace sexual harassment, so I guess I'm sensitive about it. In all the cases I've observed or been involved with, the harassment started with comments like Demiurge made to you and Bishonen and escalated with further negative interactions initiated by the person in question.Alison wrote:To be honest, I can't see that as sexual harassment. More like the usual dickish behaviour we've come to expect from Demiurge, which he dishes out to everyone (but rarely seems to be able to take).Cla68 wrote:I have a short fuse when it comes to what is clearly sexual harassment. Remember, Demiurge asked Alison, "How's tricks?". Now, he's trying to give her a hard time again. Repeated, unwanted attention like this meets the definition for sexual harassment. Actually, it's good that he's doing this, because it gives us a more recent example to use if anyone at the WMF or elsewhere tries to say that sexual harassment in WP is not tolerated.
Yeah, looks to me more like doofustry and (lame) sophistry, rather than blatant misogyny.Peryglus wrote:There's no evidence of harassment here. I thought we were talking about the banners on Talk:Wikipediocracy.
It's pretty clear that Herostratus is just having a laugh at the absurdity of it all, at this stage.Hex wrote:The dead sheep strikes back.
So goes Scott.(→top: It makes far more sense to order the list by how /much/ these people have edited the article. All I did was change the Alexa rank once, so I clearly get to go last.)
