Deception has a long and distinguished history. Mimicry and camouflage are common in the animal world among predators and prey alike - to hide, to pretend to be dangerous, to lure prey into a false sense of security, etc.
Batesian mimicry occurs when two or more species are similar in appearance, but only one has the trait (e.g. being poisonous) being signaled. Coral snakes have alternating stripes of red, yellow and black. So do king snakes and milk snakes. However, coral snakes are poisonous, but king snakes and milk snakes aren't. The plain tiger butterfly is poisonous, containing alkaloids that make predators vomit. They also fake death when attack, oozing nauseating liquid, enabling them to often survive such attacks. The palatable indian frittillary females and danaid eggfly females look much like plain tiger butterflies. Alligator snapping turtles have tongues which look like worms; if a fish tries to eat such a tongue, the fish is eaten instead.
Muellerian mimicry is the same thing, except that the two species do in fact share the trait being signaled. Monarch butterflies and viceroy butterflies look much alike, and both taste bad to predators. Poison arrow frogs and Mantella frogs tend to have bright coloured spots against a black background, and they are all poisonous.
Self-mimicry is where one body part imitates another. Prey can use this to increase chances of survival if attacked, and predators can use it to lure prey into a false sense of security. Owl butterflies have spots on their wings which looks like eyes. They are more likely to survive an attack on their wings than an attack on the main part of their body. Pygmy owls have false eyes in the back of their heads to fool predators into thinking they are seen. The two-headed snake of central Africa has a head which looks like a tail and a tail which looks like a head, fooling prey into believing the attack will come from the tail rather than the head.
Camouflage involves imitating the appearance of the environment to avoid being seen by predators or prey. Katydids look like leaves or sometimes sticks. Countershading involves a light underside and a dark top, to counterbalance normal shadowing, and is employed by grey reef sharks and pronghorn antelope.
Deception is not some barbaric human invention - it is ingrained in use by evolution for a reason - because we need it, to survive. Deception is often as natural as breathing, and we lie not only to others, but to ourselves. Honesty often requires actual effort.
Notice a number of the examples above involve colour, which is not a hard signal to fake, making such signals conventional signals. Basically, it is much like signaling that you are strong by wearing a 'Weight lifter' t-shirt - not hard to fake, and if too many do fake it, the signal may become worthless.
According to the handicap principle, a signal may be difficult to fake if producing it requires the trait being signaled. Having muscles tends to require being strong, hence having big muscles is an assessment signal for being strong. Moose have large antlers, which requires strong bodies to support, hence antlers are an assessment signal for strength.
The following questionnaire is helpful: 1. What is the cost of sending the signal if honest? 2. What is the cost of sending the signal if deceiving? 3. What are the advantages to the deceiver? 4. Statistically, how reliable is the signal? (May require experimentation.) 5. What is the cost of observing the signal? 6. What is the cost of being deceived?
If the cost of sending the signal if deceiving is significantly higher than the cost of sending it if honest, and the advantages to the deceiver are not too great, it should generally be fairly reliable. However, the cost of observing the signal relative to the cost of being deceived and the reliability of the signal itself is important to deciding whether to bother.
References
* 'The Arts of Deception: Mimicry and Camouflage'. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0306.htm * Zahavi, Amotz. 'The fallacy of conventional signaling'. 1993. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0962-8436%2819930529%29340%3A1292%3C227%3AT... * Donath, Judith S. 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community'. Communities in Cyberspace. MIT Media Lab. 1996. http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Can this be summarized?
Regards, Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:55 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] King snakes, milk snakes and viceroy butterflies: Honesty and deception
Deception has a long and distinguished history. Mimicry and camouflage are common in the animal world among predators and prey alike - to hide, to pretend to be dangerous, to lure prey into a false sense of security, etc.
Batesian mimicry occurs when two or more species are similar in appearance, but only one has the trait (e.g. being poisonous) being signaled. Coral snakes have alternating stripes of red, yellow and black. So do king snakes and milk snakes. However, coral snakes are poisonous, but king snakes and milk snakes aren't. The plain tiger butterfly is poisonous, containing alkaloids that make predators vomit. They also fake death when attack, oozing nauseating liquid, enabling them to often survive such attacks. The palatable indian frittillary females and danaid eggfly females look much like plain tiger butterflies. Alligator snapping turtles have tongues which look like worms; if a fish tries to eat such a tongue, the fish is eaten instead.
Muellerian mimicry is the same thing, except that the two species do in fact share the trait being signaled. Monarch butterflies and viceroy butterflies look much alike, and both taste bad to predators. Poison arrow frogs and Mantella frogs tend to have bright coloured spots against a black background, and they are all poisonous.
Self-mimicry is where one body part imitates another. Prey can use this to increase chances of survival if attacked, and predators can use it to lure prey into a false sense of security. Owl butterflies have spots on their wings which looks like eyes. They are more likely to survive an attack on their wings than an attack on the main part of their body. Pygmy owls have false eyes in the back of their heads to fool predators into thinking they are seen. The two-headed snake of central Africa has a head which looks like a tail and a tail which looks like a head, fooling prey into believing the attack will come from the tail rather than the head.
Camouflage involves imitating the appearance of the environment to avoid being seen by predators or prey. Katydids look like leaves or sometimes sticks. Countershading involves a light underside and a dark top, to counterbalance normal shadowing, and is employed by grey reef sharks and pronghorn antelope.
Deception is not some barbaric human invention - it is ingrained in use by evolution for a reason - because we need it, to survive. Deception is often as natural as breathing, and we lie not only to others, but to ourselves. Honesty often requires actual effort.
Notice a number of the examples above involve colour, which is not a hard signal to fake, making such signals conventional signals. Basically, it is much like signaling that you are strong by wearing a 'Weight lifter' t-shirt - not hard to fake, and if too many do fake it, the signal may become worthless.
According to the handicap principle, a signal may be difficult to fake if producing it requires the trait being signaled. Having muscles tends to require being strong, hence having big muscles is an assessment signal for being strong. Moose have large antlers, which requires strong bodies to support, hence antlers are an assessment signal for strength.
The following questionnaire is helpful: 1. What is the cost of sending the signal if honest? 2. What is the cost of sending the signal if deceiving? 3. What are the advantages to the deceiver? 4. Statistically, how reliable is the signal? (May require experimentation.) 5. What is the cost of observing the signal? 6. What is the cost of being deceived?
If the cost of sending the signal if deceiving is significantly higher than the cost of sending it if honest, and the advantages to the deceiver are not too great, it should generally be fairly reliable. However, the cost of observing the signal relative to the cost of being deceived and the reliability of the signal itself is important to deciding whether to bother.
References
* 'The Arts of Deception: Mimicry and Camouflage'. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0306.htm * Zahavi, Amotz. 'The fallacy of conventional signaling'. 1993. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0962-8436%2819930529%29340%3A1292%3C227%3AT FOCS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage * Donath, Judith S. 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community'. Communities in Cyberspace. MIT Media Lab. 1996. http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Agreed. pretty much a Tolstoy.
On 8/27/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Can this be summarized?
Regards, Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:55 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] King snakes, milk snakes and viceroy butterflies: Honesty and deception
Deception has a long and distinguished history. Mimicry and camouflage are common in the animal world among predators and prey alike - to hide, to pretend to be dangerous, to lure prey into a false sense of security, etc.
Batesian mimicry occurs when two or more species are similar in appearance, but only one has the trait (e.g. being poisonous) being signaled. Coral snakes have alternating stripes of red, yellow and black. So do king snakes and milk snakes. However, coral snakes are poisonous, but king snakes and milk snakes aren't. The plain tiger butterfly is poisonous, containing alkaloids that make predators vomit. They also fake death when attack, oozing nauseating liquid, enabling them to often survive such attacks. The palatable indian frittillary females and danaid eggfly females look much like plain tiger butterflies. Alligator snapping turtles have tongues which look like worms; if a fish tries to eat such a tongue, the fish is eaten instead.
Muellerian mimicry is the same thing, except that the two species do in fact share the trait being signaled. Monarch butterflies and viceroy butterflies look much alike, and both taste bad to predators. Poison arrow frogs and Mantella frogs tend to have bright coloured spots against a black background, and they are all poisonous.
Self-mimicry is where one body part imitates another. Prey can use this to increase chances of survival if attacked, and predators can use it to lure prey into a false sense of security. Owl butterflies have spots on their wings which looks like eyes. They are more likely to survive an attack on their wings than an attack on the main part of their body. Pygmy owls have false eyes in the back of their heads to fool predators into thinking they are seen. The two-headed snake of central Africa has a head which looks like a tail and a tail which looks like a head, fooling prey into believing the attack will come from the tail rather than the head.
Camouflage involves imitating the appearance of the environment to avoid being seen by predators or prey. Katydids look like leaves or sometimes sticks. Countershading involves a light underside and a dark top, to counterbalance normal shadowing, and is employed by grey reef sharks and pronghorn antelope.
Deception is not some barbaric human invention - it is ingrained in use by evolution for a reason - because we need it, to survive. Deception is often as natural as breathing, and we lie not only to others, but to ourselves. Honesty often requires actual effort.
Notice a number of the examples above involve colour, which is not a hard signal to fake, making such signals conventional signals. Basically, it is much like signaling that you are strong by wearing a 'Weight lifter' t-shirt - not hard to fake, and if too many do fake it, the signal may become worthless.
According to the handicap principle, a signal may be difficult to fake if producing it requires the trait being signaled. Having muscles tends to require being strong, hence having big muscles is an assessment signal for being strong. Moose have large antlers, which requires strong bodies to support, hence antlers are an assessment signal for strength.
The following questionnaire is helpful:
- What is the cost of sending the signal if honest?
- What is the cost of sending the signal if deceiving?
- What are the advantages to the deceiver?
- Statistically, how reliable is the signal? (May require
experimentation.) 5. What is the cost of observing the signal? 6. What is the cost of being deceived?
If the cost of sending the signal if deceiving is significantly higher than the cost of sending it if honest, and the advantages to the deceiver are not too great, it should generally be fairly reliable. However, the cost of observing the signal relative to the cost of being deceived and the reliability of the signal itself is important to deciding whether to bother.
References
- 'The Arts of Deception: Mimicry and Camouflage'.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0306.htm
- Zahavi, Amotz. 'The fallacy of conventional signaling'. 1993.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0962-8436%2819930529%29340%3A1292%3C227%3AT FOCS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
- Donath, Judith S. 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual
Community'. Communities in Cyberspace. MIT Media Lab. 1996. http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. pretty much a Tolstoy.
Is this some new use of "Tolstoy" to mean "TL;DR"?
Agreed, pretty much a Tolstoy. My original reply quoting it made me hit the size limit for requiring modded posts. Resubmitted without it, you can discard the modded one.
On 8/27/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Can this be summarized?
Regards, Navou
That is a summary. And I haven't even started talking about any of the applications to Wikipaedia.... If you want to, skip the 4 paragraphs on Batesian mimicry, Muellerian mimicry, self-mimicry and camaflouge. Those are examples.
On 27/08/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, pretty much a Tolstoy. My original reply quoting it made me hit the size limit for requiring modded posts. Resubmitted without it, you can discard the modded one.
On 8/27/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Can this be summarized?
Regards, Navou
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ok, I read through it all, the examples too.
And frankly im lost. Interesting, in that im a nerd and things like this are interesting to me. But whats the point? Why is this on wiki-en, and not random-bio-mailinglist?
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
That is a summary. And I haven't even started talking about any of the applications to Wikipaedia.... If you want to, skip the 4 paragraphs on Batesian mimicry, Muellerian mimicry, self-mimicry and camaflouge. Those are examples.
On 27/08/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, pretty much a Tolstoy. My original reply quoting it made me hit
the
size limit for requiring modded posts. Resubmitted without it, you can discard the modded one.
On 8/27/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Can this be summarized?
Regards, Navou
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
People keep going on and on about lying, in a variety of contexts, and the biologists are way ahead of you all.
What context would you prefer to talk about it in? Sybil attack (misused sockpuppetry) detection? Tor? Random accusations that people are lying? Pick one, it's relevant to them all.
On 28/08/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I read through it all, the examples too.
And frankly im lost. Interesting, in that im a nerd and things like this are interesting to me. But whats the point? Why is this on wiki-en, and not random-bio-mailinglist?
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
That is a summary. And I haven't even started talking about any of the applications to Wikipaedia.... If you want to, skip the 4 paragraphs on Batesian mimicry, Muellerian mimicry, self-mimicry and camaflouge. Those are examples.
On 27/08/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, pretty much a Tolstoy. My original reply quoting it made me hit
the
size limit for requiring modded posts. Resubmitted without it, you can discard the modded one.
On 8/27/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Can this be summarized?
Regards, Navou
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, pretty much a Tolstoy. My original reply quoting it made me hit the size limit for requiring modded posts. Resubmitted without it, you can discard the modded one.
This is perhaps a gentle software-assisted hint why thoughtless Jeopardy quoting is bad. Please don't do that.
On 28/08/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 28/08/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed, pretty much a Tolstoy. My original reply quoting it made me hit the size limit for requiring modded posts. Resubmitted without it, you can discard the modded one.
This is perhaps a gentle software-assisted hint why thoughtless Jeopardy quoting is bad. Please don't do that.
See the references at the bottom of the original post.
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Deception has a long and distinguished history. Mimicry and....
tldr
- -- Sean Barrett | The Penguin Credo is not "never sean@epoptic.com | bathe in hot oil and Bisquick."
On 28/08/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Deception has a long and distinguished history. Mimicry and....
tldr
Sean Barrett | The Penguin Credo is not "never sean@epoptic.com | bathe in hot oil and Bisquick.
Well, if people are going to go on and on about liars, sockpuppets and trolls, it helps to have an understanding of the nature of what exactly they are accusing people of.
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, if people are going to go on and on about liars, sockpuppets and trolls, it helps to have an understanding of the nature of what exactly they are accusing people of.
Seems reasonable to me, and useful to put things in context. But then again my background is biology... :) Are you planning on making this an [[essay]]? I wish you would.
On 28/08/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, if people are going to go on and on about liars, sockpuppets and trolls, it helps to have an understanding of the nature of what exactly they are accusing people of.
Seems reasonable to me, and useful to put things in context. But then again my background is biology... :) Are you planning on making this an [[essay]]? I wish you would.
Yes, biologists are way ahead of us.
Banned, sorry. Do you wish me to BSD-licence it?
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Banned, sorry. Do you wish me to BSD-licence it?
You got moderated on this list for repeated false claims of being banned. Tor is blocked, you are not. You are now at the stage where I think I can reasonably call you a liar each time you repeat this claim.
- d.
On 28/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Banned, sorry. Do you wish me to BSD-licence it?
You got moderated on this list for repeated false claims of being banned. Tor is blocked, you are not. You are now at the stage where I think I can reasonably call you a liar each time you repeat this claim.
- d.
I got moderated for daring to defend my reputation against accusations of lying, and also for answering a question which people kept asking me for months on end. Next time you call me a liar, please fill out my questionnaire.
The community rejected my unblock request. If you want quotes as to which comments sounded particularly like banning rationales, email me privately, but I'm not actually interested in guilt-tripping the people who made the comments.
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Banned, sorry. Do you wish me to BSD-licence it?
You got moderated on this list for repeated false claims of being banned. Tor is blocked, you are not. You are now at the stage where I think I can reasonably call you a liar each time you repeat this claim.
- d.
I got moderated for daring to defend my reputation against accusations of lying, and also for answering a question which people kept asking me for months on end. Next time you call me a liar, please fill out my questionnaire.
The community rejected my unblock request. If you want quotes as to which comments sounded particularly like banning rationales, email me privately, but I'm not actually interested in guilt-tripping the people who made the comments.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Can he be put back on moderation? I am sick of this.
I second that.
--John Reaves
On 8/28/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
Can he be put back on moderation? I am sick of this. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Banned, sorry. Do you wish me to BSD-licence it?
You got moderated on this list for repeated false claims of being banned. Tor is blocked, you are not. You are now at the stage where I think I can reasonably call you a liar each time you repeat this claim.
- d.
I got moderated for daring to defend my reputation against accusations of lying, and also for answering a question which people kept asking me for months on end. Next time you call me a liar, please fill out my questionnaire.
The community rejected my unblock request. If you want quotes as to which comments sounded particularly like banning rationales, email me privately, but I'm not actually interested in guilt-tripping the people who made the comments.
Can he be put back on moderation? I am sick of this.
Could you stop calling me a liar? And blank some pages on Wikipaedia?
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Banned, sorry. Do you wish me to BSD-licence it?
You got moderated on this list for repeated false claims of being banned. Tor is blocked, you are not. You are now at the stage where I think I can reasonably call you a liar each time you repeat this claim.
- d.
I got moderated for daring to defend my reputation against accusations of lying, and also for answering a question which people kept asking me for months on end. Next time you call me a liar, please fill out my questionnaire.
The community rejected my unblock request. If you want quotes as to which comments sounded particularly like banning rationales, email me privately, but I'm not actually interested in guilt-tripping the people who made the comments.
Can he be put back on moderation? I am sick of this.
Could you stop calling me a liar? And blank some pages on Wikipaedia?
Community exile, according to Meatball Wiki, 'The idea is just to get them to exercise their RightToLeave, no more and no less.'
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?CommunityExile
So, if you want someone to go away, it helps to give that person the right to vanish.
'You don't want people hanging around solely because they don't have the ability to vanish - such folks are only around out of the need to protect their reputation, rather than BarnRaising.'
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Banned, sorry. Do you wish me to BSD-licence it?
You got moderated on this list for repeated false claims of being banned. Tor is blocked, you are not. You are now at the stage
where I
think I can reasonably call you a liar each time you repeat this claim.
- d.
I got moderated for daring to defend my reputation against accusations of lying, and also for answering a question which people kept asking me for months on end. Next time you call me a liar, please fill out my questionnaire.
The community rejected my unblock request. If you want quotes as to which comments sounded particularly like banning rationales, email me privately, but I'm not actually interested in guilt-tripping the people who made the comments.
Can he be put back on moderation? I am sick of this.
Could you stop calling me a liar? And blank some pages on Wikipaedia?
Community exile, according to Meatball Wiki, 'The idea is just to get them to exercise their RightToLeave, no more and no less.'
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?CommunityExile
So, if you want someone to go away, it helps to give that person the right to vanish.
'You don't want people hanging around solely because they don't have the ability to vanish - such folks are only around out of the need to protect their reputation, rather than BarnRaising.'
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToVanish
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Which pages would you like blanked? Have you contacted an admin about this, privately? Afaik your RfA, talk page, user page, etc has been deleted. What left is there?
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Banned, sorry. Do you wish me to BSD-licence it?
You got moderated on this list for repeated false claims of being banned. Tor is blocked, you are not. You are now at the stage where
I
think I can reasonably call you a liar each time you repeat this claim.
- d.
I got moderated for daring to defend my reputation against accusations of lying, and also for answering a question which people kept asking me for months on end. Next time you call me a liar, please fill out my questionnaire.
The community rejected my unblock request. If you want quotes as to which comments sounded particularly like banning rationales, email me privately, but I'm not actually interested in guilt-tripping the people who made the comments.
Can he be put back on moderation? I am sick of this.
Could you stop calling me a liar? And blank some pages on Wikipaedia?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I didn't call you a liar.
Can you stop turning every thread on this list into a discussion about your so-called 'ban'? Thanks.
On 8/29/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Banned, sorry. Do you wish me to BSD-licence it?
You got moderated on this list for repeated false claims of being banned. Tor is blocked, you are not. You are now at the stage where
I
think I can reasonably call you a liar each time you repeat this claim.
- d.
I got moderated for daring to defend my reputation against accusations of lying, and also for answering a question which people kept asking me for months on end. Next time you call me a liar, please fill out my questionnaire.
The community rejected my unblock request. If you want quotes as to which comments sounded particularly like banning rationales, email me privately, but I'm not actually interested in guilt-tripping the people who made the comments.
Can he be put back on moderation? I am sick of this.
Could you stop calling me a liar? And blank some pages on Wikipaedia?
Sorry, folks, we seem to have missed this email address - both of Armed Blowfish's emails are now on moderation. I would advise y'all to drop this line of conversation (specifically, whether or not Armed Blowfish is blocked/banned), since I don't see this going anywhere productive.
Johnleemk
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Yes, biologists are way ahead of us.
Some fairly trivial applications of game theory and cost reward analysis?
On 28/08/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/28/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Yes, biologists are way ahead of us.
Some fairly trivial applications of game theory and cost reward analysis?
-- geni
My posting was a summary. Still, that is much better than Wikipaedia's current methodology for telling the honest from the deceptive.
On 8/28/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Seems reasonable to me, and useful to put things in context. But then again my background is biology... :) Are you planning on making this an [[essay]]? I wish you would.
I should say, useful to *generally* put things in context, as there is obviously a whole lot of specific context here which I have no idea about... :)
On 28/08/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On 8/28/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Seems reasonable to me, and useful to put things in context. But then again my background is biology... :) Are you planning on making this an [[essay]]? I wish you would.
I should say, useful to *generally* put things in context, as there is obviously a whole lot of specific context here which I have no idea about... :)
Well, at least you are replying to what I was actually talking about.