User talk:209.129.49.65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School IP address Attention:

This IP address, 209.129.49.65, is registered to California State University Network and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason a message intended for one person may be received by another. Similarly an innocent user may be blocked for another user's vandalism. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please read our advice on this situation.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block with the template {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.
School staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by Anacapa.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page or you can type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome!

Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Where (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] March 2006

Thanks for experimenting with the page Leukemia on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --stephenw32768<talk> 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

huh, interesting, that wasn't "me."

[edit] IP blocked

This IP address has been blocked for 48 hours because it was used for block evasion purposes. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

how amusing. I have dozens of ips available to me.

[edit] whateva

So you believe in logic. It now dictates that you should either conform to the way things are done on Wikipedia (I think you have what it takes to become a valued editor), or leave the project. You may also want to exercise your right to fork or join a project already based on the principles you so sorely miss here at Wikipedia. Making a bloody nuisance of yourself is not going to work here. And if you don't follow your own logic, it will be applied for you. It probably hasn't escaped you that it's been done already.

Take it or leave it. AvB ÷ talk 08:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference between me and anybody else you may be comparing me to is that i have a 180 IQ, and the will and means to make Wikipedia responsible for its flagrantly abusive behaviors.

What will happen to wikipedia when the general public is informed that the place is run by pov warring admins and arbiters?

Participation will shrink. Heres another bit of thought for you to chew on.

We live in the age of propaganda. 99 percent of the information we encounter is noise and spin. This is very true even of textbooks on topics like psychology. Wikipedia is a great example of this. They can't hope to get any further than the sophomore level on any given difficult point of view topic, because they don't have the rules in place that would make that possible. Wikipedia is thus a doomed endeavor, eventually, it will be replaced by a better effort that doesn't cater to trolls and allow them to become admins. (or, maybe I'll actually get them to listen to reason, but that seems unlikely.)

The question of this thought experiment is how to in theory collect all of the most useful and meaningful information, specifically so that the age of propaganda can be brought to an end by starting the true age of information. The essential premise is that if we can write 20 1000 page tomes on topics like Ethics, Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, Psychonautics, Metaphysics, Cosmology, Philosophy, and World Religions, we can nuke the propaganda noise of our culture and begin a society based on fact and reason instead of point of view warring and ignorance.

Wikipedia is halfway there. What kinds of rules would have to be added to Wikipedia in order to actually allow it to be successful? For its own mission statement? For my mission statement of ending propaganda via information?

answers.yahoo.com/question/...0UUubsy6IX

Wikipedia has become over run by pov warring admins and pov warriors. How to fix it? These people are incredibly abusive. They attack anybody for confronting them, they selectively enforce the rules against those that disagree with them, admins are allowed to call people names and stay admins even tho personal attacks are grounds for banning other people, the pov policy has backfired and now the people running the place are actually pov warriors who took the time to become admins. Any examination of almost any government page on wikipedia is full of personal attacks that go unanswered, obvious cases of serious admin abuse, obvious cases of gaming the system, obvious cases of pov warrior admins driving for their own versions of reality.

Wikipedia is such a potentially awesome resource, how can it be fixed?

Additional Details


pov= point of view...as in republican or democrat or etc. Anything that deviates significantly from absolute fact.





 4 Re: OmnipediaYesterday, 7:30 PM

answers.yahoo.com/question/...BL6zbsy6IX

answers.yahoo.com/question/...mN3Qrsy6IX

answers.yahoo.com/question/...xLHvTsy6IX

answers.yahoo.com/question/...0UUubsy6IX

answers.yahoo.com/question/...hO.qvsy6IX

answers.yahoo.com/question/...y_89_sy6IX

answers.yahoo.com/question/...umQersy6IX

answers.yahoo.com/question/...CM.XLsy6IX

answers.yahoo.com/question/...uxVyPsy6IX

answers.yahoo.com/question/...hzxOTsy6IX


Aaron

 1 Re: OmnipediaToday, 1:28 AM

First you would have to define what a fact is. There are facts of the right, left, east, west, poor, rich, minority, majority, religious, agnostic, atheists, individualistic, altruistic. The list goes on.

How do you suppose we solve for example the beginnings of the universe? Evolution, Creation or Intelligent design? Explain to me how we get world wide consensus on this issue and you can begin overthrowing wiki.

For someone to claim a monopoly on truth is foolish. You may not like it but wiki does point out that there are topics that under dispute and truths that are being challenged. Maybe having a place where people can fight over the web about facts is the best we can hope for. This is after all the democratisation of history and knowledge.



 0 Is there ANYTHING we know for sure?Today, 2:36 AM

During some test I had to take, the psychologist asked me to talk about certain things or groups of things that she'd provide. One pair was "Enemy" and "Friend". I said they're the same. She wanted an explanation. I said one person's enemy is someone else's friend. Someone's friend is someone else's enemy. Pick a group. Pick another group. Make a up group. Someone's going to perceive someone else as automatically being friend or foe. Well, most of the time I don't.

Anyway, whose perspective would such all encompassing facts come from? A global perspective? A country? A state? A city? A street? Mine?

Nothing is carved in stone (er, except stone carvings). Everything changes. Facts change. Opinions of right or wrong change. Realities change. Individually, within a group. Or across the globe.

Only facts I can think of that would apply to everyone everywhere are really basic.

All in the category of "Things that Suck"

Like:

It really sucks if you're a farmer and there isn't enough rain or too much rain. It sucks when you bang your shin in the dark. It sucks being cold and wet when you don't want to be cold and wet. It sucks when you don't have enough food to eat for you and your family. It sucks when there is no clean water to drink. It sucks to die from an easily treatable illness but the money isn't there to cure it.

This sucks: 2.2 million children will die from diarrhoea and related diseases this year. 80% of them in the first two years of their life; 42,000 a week, 6,000 a day, four every minute, one every fourteen seconds

1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . now.

rehydrate.org/diarrhoea/

That doesn't have to remain true. Many "facts" are adjustable. Current facts. World population. Births and deaths.

World history still comes from different perspectives. It would be interesting to do a meta-analysis of various textbooks in this country and in others to see how those textbooks explain what happened during a specific major event. Or their enclyclopedias.

I have older encyclopedias. They once held "facts" but now have a bunch of countries that don't exist anymore. Widespread species are extinct.

I have an older decorating book that shows the "modern office", with an old Mac Classic.

By the time a huge book was written, there'd be new facts. Possibly completely overturned perceptions of what is real and what isn't.

I'd rather just see a book of things that suck. Things that a lot of people take for granted in some areas. Things they could make a difference in helping with. Or at least to be AWARE that life isn't all so great for EVERYONE.

There's a counter on the diarrhea website.

While I've been sitting here typing and thinking, 330 people died. reply to this post delete this post


prom...

 4 Re: Is there ANYTHING we know for sure?Today, 10:23 AM


Yes, thats terrible. Perhaps you would like to lead a thought experiment on how to end global poverty and disease?

We know some things with enough certainty that we can in theory end the age of propaganda by simply compiling what is called fact. Epistomologiucal and existentialist arguments aside, we pretty much do know and can tell the difference. reply to this post delete this post


 4 Re: OmnipediaToday, 10:20 AM

Re: Omnipedia First you would have to define what a fact is.

Good answer. Wikipedia defines a fact as anything that somebody notable said that you can proove they said. Which is a stupid way to define a fact as compared to formal logic, which defines a fact as anything which scientific method can proove repeatedly in an experimental setting, or, anything wich otherwise conforms to the strict rules of set theory, syllogisms, etc and which is derived from axioms based on those science facts.


There are facts of the right, left, east, west, poor, rich, minority, majority, religious, agnostic, atheists, individualistic, altruistic. The list goes on.

I think the best thing to do, and something which wikipedia would be smart to do, but which it probably won't do, because wikipedia is lame and stupid and run by pov warring admins and arbiters, is to limit discussion of such obvious pov topics to single axioms in large sets. For instance, beliefnet has 100 or 300 or so paradigms it represents, each of which has maybe at most 1000 axioms. Beliefnets conversations rehash those same axioms thousands or maybe even millions of times. Its a big glorious waste of time and energy because of the organization. Axiomatic discussions would of course limit a single article to discussin a single small idea or concept as can be put together in a single sentence. Then each axioms assorted links to other axioms could be discusses, etc.


How do you suppose we solve for example the beginnings of the universe? Evolution, Creation or Intelligent design?

Honestly, how can we call ID something different that Creationism? Its just creationism in a white lab coat. This particular argument is easy to solve actually. God used evolution as one tool in building the universe. End of argument.


Explain to me how we get world wide consensus on this issue and you can begin overthrowing wiki.

I am not interested in world wide consensus. That comes way down the road. I can explain to you how to get it, but thats like from where we are jumping out into the ocean to swim to the moon. Its actually very simple really, if we generate 1000 page Tomes on 20 or 30 core topics, we can simply beat the entire game by providing the best, most lucid, and most up to date and well thought out and best presented information. So now back to process. The first steps are to begin working through how to write those tomes. We need to focus on the baby steps that will get us there in the long run.

For someone to claim a monopoly on truth is foolish. You may not like it but wiki does point out that there are topics that under dispute and truths that are being challenge...

I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with admins abusing people and their powers in order to gain advantages in pov conflicts. I do have a problem with admins doing anything they want as far as breaking the rules. I do have a problem with admins who use dozens of ad hominem arguments against editors, who are not allowed to respond in kind under threat of being banned. I do have a problem with extremely irrational people making extremely fallaciouos and irrational arguments when those people are admins and arbiters. Wikipedia is an abusive and evil place to try to work on any given problem, and that is Wikipedias fault. Pov warriors now run wikipedia, and thus wikipedia is doomed in the long run as any kind of serious information resource.


show more First you would have to define what a fact is. There are facts of the right, left, east, west, poor, rich, minority, majority, religious, agnostic, atheists, individualistic, altruistic. The list goes on.

didn't we cover that? Logic defines facts as that which can be proven using logic. I do think the details of that warrant a whole thread, so, I'll create that thread. We should specifically explore the use of formal logic, as its the only solution to this and many other problems.

Maybe having a place where people can fight over the web about facts is the best we can hope for. This is after all the democratisation of history and knowledge.

Sorry, fighting will only lead to pack psychology driven anarchy and then the tyranny of the majority. This in turn leads to the lowest common denominator. Wikipedias articles in general are of very low quality; about what a high school student could write. Thats not a condition thats going to get better, its going to get worse. The same properties of information evolution which allow so many articles to be created allow those same articles to be over time diluted. This is a fact of wikipedia as is; they are always having these "finished" articles which then degrade over time into junk. Wikipedia articles will always do that with the current system intact; Wikipedia can only hope to ever have lame articles so long as it is run by pov warring pseudo cabals, or majority tyrany.

WE can do much much better than wikipedia by having more lucid ways to deal with defining fact and more lucid ways to handle conflict. Wikipedias total energy output per article is another joke. An expert on evolution, for instance, spent two years or so "fighting" in order to get the article on evolution written. Thats how abusive and lame wikipedia really is. I could have written that article in 3 days maximum. So could anybody who knows the topic well. Its a huge and bizzare waste of time and energy in an utterly abusive and stupid environment. We can do much better than that. reply to this post delete this post


 3 Re: OmnipediaToday, 5:57 AM

> age of information

hail caesar, good point ther, v easy to define fact in som contexts ie physics, but point of view or opinion kind of thing is obvsly differnt. flags on each set of is-a or has-a, indicate distance from physical reality? not sur if its a good idea to prevent input, speculatn and evn lies are novelty if nothng else. and likely ther wld be multiple info sources or repositries, does not seem to make sense to assume that monopoly or borg type trends would apply?

reply to this post delete this post


prom...

 4 new post

Re: OmnipediaToday, 12:57 PM hail caesar, good point ther, v easy to define fact in som contexts ie physics, but point of view or opinion kind of thing is obvsly differnt.

Yes, things get stickiest when we step off into things like poltics, religion, ethics, psychology, sociology, or philosophy. Facts can be ascertained that some people xyz do believe or think or publish ideas xyz, but thats not the same as actual objective facts xyz, and this is one of the fatal flaws of wikipedia. The answer to this problem eventually comes down, unfortunately, to the simple judgement of somebody like me who is an expert in pov issues. In the end, the only rational way to deal with it is to have a very well educated and logic using pov expert who acts as a judge.

flags on each set of is-a or has-a, indicate distance from physical reality? not sur if its a good idea to prevent input, speculatn and evn lies are novelty if nothng else.

I agree in principle. A fatal flaw of wikipedia is that they delete and delete stuff, when it would be better to simply organize it. Shelving somethiing under "pov warfare pro position xyz" is a much better solution actually than deleting it. In other words, if "FACT" is that a peice of work is pov warfare, then there ought to be room, yes, even for that, in a good library or open ended information experiment, by simply naming it what it is, it is rendered factual. In other words, for instance, if somebody wrote an article composed of lies and propaganda, If i was running wikipedia, i'd just file it in the "lies and propaganda" bookshelf.


and likely ther wld be multiple info sources or repositries, does not seem to make sense to assume that monopoly or borg type trends would apply?

Yes, and thats one of the primary issues the thought experiment has to solve. Prevention of those trends will require actively evolving as the persons who are likely to promote such trends will also evolve. Wikipedias npov policy is built to deal with these problems. Sadly, in practice its like a 5 year old making rules for an adult conversation. The adults just find ways to bend, break, or invert the rules to their advantage. reply to this post delete this post

[edit] logic

www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic www.infidels.org/library/m...logic.html www.infidels.org/library/m...logic.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy www.fallacyfiles.org/ www.infidels.org/library/m...logic.html www.adamsmith.org/index.php www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html www.logicalfallacies.info/ creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm www.daltonator.net/durandal...ies.shtml kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php www.propagandacritic.com/artic...l.html www.propagandacritic.com/artic...n.html www.sourcewatch.org/index.php www.sourcewatch.org/index.php www.pnl-nlp.org/download/p...a/index.htm www.pnl-nlp.org/download/p...a/page4.htm Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation ~

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil Become incredulous and indignant Create rumor mongers Use a straw man Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule Hit and Run Question motives Invoke authority Play Dumb Associate opponent charges with old news Establish and rely upon fall-back positions Enigmas have no solution Alice in Wonderland Logic Demand complete solutions Fit the facts to alternate conclusions Vanish evidence and witnesses Change the subject Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs False evidence Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor Manufacture a new truth Create bigger distractions Silence critics Vanish Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist ~

Avoidance Selectivity Coincidental Teamwork Anti-conspiratorial Artificial Emotions Inconsistent Newly Discovered: Time Constant

Thank you for experimenting with the page Bulgaria national football team on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. David.Mestel 20:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to President of the Swiss Confederation

Your recent edit to President of the Swiss Confederation (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to President of the Swiss Confederation

Your recent edit to President of the Swiss Confederation (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 23:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Santa Ynez Valley Union High School

Your recent edit to Santa Ynez Valley Union High School (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lol

not "me" this is a computer lab, blocking this ip means blocking hundreds, if not thousands of college students.


"you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address."

yes, well, wikipedia has its uses until somebody else comes along and does it better, which, shouldn't be that hard, since wikipedia is open propaganda warfare, not an encyclopedia. Getting an account here is more than i'd suggest to anybody, and, i certainly wouldn't bother to try and edit any of the shit you have around here until i get it over to where i'm chatting, so that i can mock the bullshit and call the duckspeak and be done with it.

oh yeah, i have better things to do with my time.

Thank you for experimenting with the page Human chorionic gonadotropin on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Pcbene 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Antifeminism

Your recent edit to Antifeminism (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Ventrilo

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Ventrilo. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] April 2007

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nivix 21:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

[edit] August 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Mark Wahlberg, you will be blocked from editing. - Taroaldo 17:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to 2008, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Pontiac has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Isotopic labeling, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kkmurray (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Dick Ecklund. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dawn bard (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Dick Ecklund. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. MBisanz talk 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Echinoderm has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)