(resubmission, submitted before under improper email profile)
Just a little note.
In the interest of fairness I wanted to state that it may not be strictly true that no one objects to the ban on User:Viking. I believe User:Triton may. The following is from Triton on my Talk page (now archived at User Talk:Dante Alighieri/clovis et al.):
Take a look now at the new way of humiliating a user. A new file has been made called http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viking/banUser talk:Viking/ban that will keep showing up on the Recent Changes list as many times as their attacker(s) wish. When someone not involved sees that, what is the impression of UserViking?
Now, I don't know for CERTAIN that this means Triton objects to the ban, but I certainly would want to give Triton the chance to clarify himself. I wouldn't want his comments to go unheard and risk us banning Viking without giving anyone who cares to defend him a chance to do so.
Let's not ban Viking until we give Triton a clear chance to voice himself. I would hate for Triton to go unheard.
-----
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
I thought Triton was BW... I'm confused. --LittleDan
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote: (resubmission, submitted before under improper email profile)
Just a little note.
In the interest of fairness I wanted to state that it may not be strictly true that no one objects to the ban on User:Viking. I believe User:Triton may. The following is from Triton on my Talk page (now archived at User Talk:Dante Alighieri/clovis et al.):
Take a look now at the new way of humiliating a user. A new file has been made called User talk:Viking/ban that will keep showing up on the Recent Changes list as many times as their attacker(s) wish. When someone not involved sees that, what is the impression of UserViking?
Now, I don't know for CERTAIN that this means Triton objects to the ban, but I certainly would want to give Triton the chance to clarify himself. I wouldn't want his comments to go unheard and risk us banning Viking without giving anyone who cares to defend him a chance to do so.
Let's not ban Viking until we give Triton a clear chance to voice himself. I would hate for Triton to go unheard.
-----
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
LittleDan wrote:
I thought Triton was BW... I'm confused.
I trust that you mean DW.
IIRC, Julie doesn't think that Triton is DW but does think that he's some other usernames that she's met before. (Not that Julie automatically knows all user identities, but she's in a position that makes her more likely to be suspicious.) Now that I've posted this, Julie will no doubt clarify if I messed up.
In any case, until we're sure that Triton is DW, then we shouldn't treat him is if he is, so I think that Dante is right to get his opinion. (IMO, Viking is certainly not DW *or* Triton.)
-- Toby
Dear list,
Please may I ask for your advice and assistance in pouring oil on troubled water with respect to [[User:Harry Potter]].
This user has been starting or contributing to articles relating to pataphysics, which is a movement that parodies things that are pretentiously highbrow (as I understand it, pataphysics is to science and the arts, as Mornington Crescent (the game show) was to chess commentary.) Unfortunately Harry, instead of writing NPOV articles on the subject has been writing articles about pataphysics in the style of a pataphysican. this is to say in a deliberately obscure , obtuse and POV way. Moreover these articles are in fact generally copied from other websites with no sign of permission being sought. Harry has brushed this last problem with a claim that pataphysicans are anti-copyright and so it doesn't matter.
One example is the page [[Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition]] . NB Anthony Hancock is a character in the film The Rebel played by, perhaps confusingly, Tony Hancock. Knowing that Anthony Hancock is/was not a real person makes it easier to understand why this article is rubbish.
I have tried to engage in a debate with Harry (see Votes For Deletion), but as a relative newbie, I do not how to handle him and persuade to conform to our rules if he wants to contribute to the Wikipedia. For the first time having been on the 'net for years I fear I have been properly trolled.
Pete User:Pcb21
Peter Bartlett wrote:
Dear list,
This user has been starting or contributing to articles relating to pataphysics, which is a movement that parodies things that are pretentiously highbrow (as I understand it, pataphysics is to science and the arts, as Mornington Crescent (the game show) was to chess commentary.) Unfortunately Harry, instead of writing NPOV articles on the subject has been writing articles about pataphysics in the style of a pataphysican. this is to say in a deliberately obscure , obtuse and POV way. Moreover these articles are in fact generally copied from other websites with no sign of permission being sought. Harry has brushed this last problem with a claim that pataphysicans are anti-copyright and so it doesn't matter.
I never heard of Mornington Crescent, so that allusion is obscure to me. It would seem hard to define NPOV in an absurdist context where empirical sense does not have a significant role to start with. It may be sufficient to offer a warning to those readers inclined to take the subject seriously that what follows is parody, and that if they are seriously looking for medical help they should consult a psychiatrist.
The copyright issue may not matter because of the anti-copyright stand. If the pataphysicians (or pataphyphysicists?) have left the impression that they are releasing their own writings into the public domain, so be it. What they really are doing should be carefully checked.
One example is the page [[Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition]] . NB Anthony Hancock is a character in the film The Rebel played by, perhaps confusingly, Tony Hancock. Knowing that Anthony Hancock is/was not a real person makes it easier to understand why this article is rubbish.
Tony Hancock WAS a real person!!! His radio comedy ranks right up there with "The Goon Show" and "Monty Python". Whether the "The Rebel" or the retrospective are accurate representations of Hancock, or parodies is quite another question. When absurdists think outside the box they also abandon the safety of keeping the box in view.
I have tried to engage in a debate with Harry (see Votes For Deletion), but as a relative newbie, I do not how to handle him and persuade to conform to our rules if he wants to contribute to the Wikipedia. For the first time having been on the 'net for years I fear I have been properly trolled.
[[Votes for Deletion]] may simply be the wrong place for the discussion. There is absolutely nothing on the talk page for [[Pataphysics]].
I never heard of Mornington Crescent, so that allusion is obscure to
me.
Yes sorry that probably won't help if you are not from the UK. There is an article about it if you are interested in knowing more.
It would seem hard to define NPOV in an absurdist context where empirical sense does not have a significant role to start with. It may
be sufficient to offer a warning to those readers inclined to take the subject seriously that what follows is parody, and that if they are seriously looking for medical help they should consult a psychiatrist.
Ok, if we can write this in a way so that it conforms to encyclopaedic standards and so we cover pataphysics on the 'pedia then great. It doesn't help when Harry Potter keeps reverting back to nonsense all the time.
The copyright issue may not matter because of the anti-copyright stand.
If the pataphysicians (or pataphyphysicists?) have left the impression
that they are releasing their own writings into the public domain, so
be
it. What they really are doing should be carefully checked.
Fine, then the person copying this work should make this clear in the talk page. They shouldn't just submit work as if it was their own. Things in the public domain should be credited too.
One example is the page [[Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition
]]
. NB Anthony Hancock is a character in the film The Rebel played by, perhaps confusingly, Tony Hancock. Knowing that Anthony Hancock is/was not a real person makes it easier to understand why this article is rubbish.
Tony Hancock WAS a real person!!! His radio comedy ranks right up
there
with "The Goon Show" and "Monty Python". Whether the "The Rebel" or
the
retrospective are accurate representations of Hancock, or parodies is quite another question. When absurdists think outside the box they
also
abandon the safety of keeping the box in view.
Yes I am quite aware that TONY Hancock was a real person and am quite aware of his pedigree. /HE/ played a character called ANTHONY ALOYSUS Hancock in the film The Rebel! I wrote this in the paragraph you are responding to!!! It may be worthwhile to read a film review or two of The Rebel, or one of the bios TONY Hancock; it helps you to release what a sorry web HP is weaving on our encyclopedia.
[[Votes for Deletion]] may simply be the wrong place for the
discussion.
There is absolutely nothing on the talk page for [[Pataphysics]].
It has already been moved. However HP's trail of destruction lies across lots of pages, see his User Contributions. I had hoped that VfD would be a very visible place to so I could get some help in undoing the damage he is doing.
Pete Pcb21
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
One example is the page [[Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition]] . NB Anthony Hancock is a character in the film The Rebel played by, perhaps confusingly, Tony Hancock. Knowing that Anthony Hancock is/was not a real person makes it easier to understand why this article is rubbish.
Tony Hancock WAS a real person!!! His radio comedy ranks right up there with "The Goon Show" and "Monty Python". Whether the "The Rebel" or the retrospective are accurate representations of Hancock, or parodies is quite another question. When absurdists think outside the box they also abandon the safety of keeping the box in view.
No, Pete said Anthony Hancock wasn't real and Tony Hancock was the actor who portrayed him.
�LittleDan
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It would seem hard to define NPOV in an absurdist context where empirical sense does not have a significant role to start with. It may be sufficient to offer a warning to those readers inclined to
take
the subject seriously that what follows is parody,
I haven't checked the material, but if it really is parody, as opposed to a *report* on parody, then it should be removed. Parody does not belong in an encyclopedia, just like love poems, dreams, jokes etc. And with regards to reports on parody, NPOV is unproblematic.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
As far as I can tell Harry Potter is using Wikipedia to engage in some form of absurdist conceptualist art by adding subtle inaccuracies in articles, turning then into nonsense, but doing it in such a way that it is hard to pick out the absurdist nonsense from what may be a genuine contribution. Whether this equates to pataphysics or not I have no idea. But it is essentially corrupting Wikipedia. In my opinion he is every bit as much of a vandal as Michael and should be treated similarly with blanket reversions.
Just to clarify the Tony Hancock thing for anyone not familiar with the film "The Rebel". --
The British comedian Tony Hancock used his own name for the character he protrayed in his Radio and TV broadcasts and also in this particular film. In the film he portrayed an office worker who aspired to being a great artist. However he could neither paint nor sculpt with any degree of artistic skill (at least that is the impression his artwork is intended to give to the filmgoer). Despite his lack of artistic ability he manages to become recognized as a great artist by the establishment in Paris. The film is to some extent a satire on modern art.
The purported "London Institute of Pataphysics" claims to have put on an exhibition entitled "Anthony Hancock: Paintings and Sculpture: A Retrospective" http://www.atlaspress.co.uk/theLIP/dora-hancock.html Since it wasn't the REAL Tony Hancock but the CHARACTER Anthony Aloysius St. John Hancock who was an artist, such an exhibition is pure fantasy. Yet Harry Potter has added articles on this and other subjects as if they were real.
Mintguy
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Bartlett" pcb21@btconnect.com To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 12:56 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Harry Potter
Dear list,
Please may I ask for your advice and assistance in pouring oil on troubled water with respect to [[User:Harry Potter]].
This user has been starting or contributing to articles relating to pataphysics, which is a movement that parodies things that are pretentiously highbrow (as I understand it, pataphysics is to science and the arts, as Mornington Crescent (the game show) was to chess commentary.) Unfortunately Harry, instead of writing NPOV articles on the subject has been writing articles about pataphysics in the style of a pataphysican. this is to say in a deliberately obscure , obtuse and POV way. Moreover these articles are in fact generally copied from other websites with no sign of permission being sought. Harry has brushed this last problem with a claim that pataphysicans are anti-copyright and so it doesn't matter.
One example is the page [[Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition]] . NB Anthony Hancock is a character in the film The Rebel played by, perhaps confusingly, Tony Hancock. Knowing that Anthony Hancock is/was not a real person makes it easier to understand why this article is rubbish.
I have tried to engage in a debate with Harry (see Votes For Deletion), but as a relative newbie, I do not how to handle him and persuade to conform to our rules if he wants to contribute to the Wikipedia. For the first time having been on the 'net for years I fear I have been properly trolled.
Pete User:Pcb21
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Eugene Gill wrote:
As far as I can tell Harry Potter is using Wikipedia to engage in some form of absurdist conceptualist art by adding subtle inaccuracies in articles, turning then into nonsense, but doing it in such a way that it is hard to pick out the absurdist nonsense from what may be a genuine contribution. Whether this equates to pataphysics or not I have no idea. But it is essentially corrupting Wikipedia. In my opinion he is every bit as much of a vandal as Michael and should be treated similarly with blanket reversions.
I agree. It sows an atmosphere of distrust, which, going by the pataphysics manifesto, is the goal. It's a waste of my time to research things and add them to an article if the rest of the article is fiction masquerading as fact; no reader is going to believe any of it. [[Templars in England]] looks plausible for instance, but given Harry Potter's other activities, how am I supposed to know if any of it is true? Better to vaporize it and start over.
Stan