Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shawn Mikula
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Classic vanity page. Isomorphic 22:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Grrrr. He removed the vfd notice. Oh, and while the original version listed his degrees and said he's currently in a Ph.D. program, now he's just a "neuroscientist". Bah. Stupid grad student with an over-inflated ego. Isomorphic 22:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Aha! Vanity! Delete! - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Should also delete related article Mind-Brain.com. —Frecklefoot 22:32, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed, unless someone can demonstrate Mikula's significance, of course. I concur with Frecklefoot about Mind-Brain.com. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, perhaps I'm changing my vote -- his article does go a bit overboard, but google for "Shawn Mikula" + mind-brain ... Apparently he's actually pretty well spread over the internet. Can anyone tell if this is just a successful self-promotion campaign, or if these are reputable sites? ImmInst, for example? Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- About Shawn Mikula's significance, see the following: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22shawn+mikula%22 --128.220.29.140
- why do you think it's a vanity page? What not de-vanitize it? I'm expecting others will and that other contributions and links will be made. -128.220.29.140
- The concern is whether there is enough verifiable information on Mikula to be able to do so -- I'm thinking there may be, but I think we should all express our opinions. Additionally, we have a policy against people creating pages about themselves, and you do appear to be Mikula (though I'm sure you'll insist you aren't. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- I am not. I got most of the info directly from mind-brain.com and some from direct acquiantance with him. -128.220.29.140
- What do you all need to find these page submissions acceptable? Better write-ups? -128.220.29.140
- Speaking for myself, I need some clear evidence that Shawn Mikula's notability rises to encyclopedic standards. Some evidence that people might want to look him up in Wikipedia. For example, a notable neuroscientist might be expected to have written a book, but an Amazon search for author Shawn Mikula yields no hits. Has he, say, won a McKnight scholarship from the McKnight Endowment Fund for the Neurosciences? Anything like that? Dpbsmith 02:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'd think that few neuroscientists have time to be writing books. -Mikula
- If you'd think that, you'd be wrong. David Marr died at age 36, but managed to find time to write enough seminal papers to fill the book "Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information." Bernard Katz managed to find time to write the semipopular book Nerve, Muscle, and Synapse, and deserves his Wikipedia article, although possibly winning the Nobel prize may have been a more important contribution. And take a look at Warren McCulloch's Embodiments of Mind. Incidentally, that book contains some of his poetry, as well as some of his papers such as "A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity."
- Granted, Shawn has not won a nobel prize (yet) nor can I find any books that he's found time to publish (besides articles in journals), but with all due respect, Warren McCulloch is small time. -Janus san
- You do not bolster respect for your position by saying that the first president of the American Society for Cybernetics is "small time." Isomorphic 21:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to play down Warren and I am not meaning any disrespect, but I am sufficiently knowledgeable of his works in and contributions to neuroscience to pass judgement, in my opinion. And how many Google hits does Warren have? 1,850, compared with Shawn's 26,400. -Janus san
- I'll bet Warren doesn't call Shawn "Shawn." Dpbsmith 23:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- You do not bolster respect for your position by saying that the first president of the American Society for Cybernetics is "small time." Isomorphic 21:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Granted, Shawn has not won a nobel prize (yet) nor can I find any books that he's found time to publish (besides articles in journals), but with all due respect, Warren McCulloch is small time. -Janus san
- If you'd think that, you'd be wrong. David Marr died at age 36, but managed to find time to write enough seminal papers to fill the book "Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information." Bernard Katz managed to find time to write the semipopular book Nerve, Muscle, and Synapse, and deserves his Wikipedia article, although possibly winning the Nobel prize may have been a more important contribution. And take a look at Warren McCulloch's Embodiments of Mind. Incidentally, that book contains some of his poetry, as well as some of his papers such as "A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity."
- I'd think that few neuroscientists have time to be writing books. -Mikula
- Speaking for myself, I need some clear evidence that Shawn Mikula's notability rises to encyclopedic standards. Some evidence that people might want to look him up in Wikipedia. For example, a notable neuroscientist might be expected to have written a book, but an Amazon search for author Shawn Mikula yields no hits. Has he, say, won a McKnight scholarship from the McKnight Endowment Fund for the Neurosciences? Anything like that? Dpbsmith 02:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- The concern is whether there is enough verifiable information on Mikula to be able to do so -- I'm thinking there may be, but I think we should all express our opinions. Additionally, we have a policy against people creating pages about themselves, and you do appear to be Mikula (though I'm sure you'll insist you aren't. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. The person's article certainly has a ways to go to indicate notability (any books, works published in journals or other third parties, etc.)--is this the same person that has a bunch of poetry hits? Also, it should link to the WP mind-brain article, rather than the external link. mind-brain.com is at the top of the alexa.com category "Subjects > Society > Philosophy > Philosophy of Mind > Consciousness Studies".
, but it would be a better article if it gave more details about accomplishments than objectives.Both articles should focus more on detailing notable accomplishments/works, instead of airy jargo-babble about intentions/beliefs. Keep if improved, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Niteowlneils 00:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)- He's a grad student. The current version doesn't reflect this, but that's what he is. Check the original version. Not saying he couldn't be notable as a grad student, but there's no particular reason to believe he is, either. Isomorphic 05:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- He's famous and spread across the internet. -Mikula
- He's a grad student. The current version doesn't reflect this, but that's what he is. Check the original version. Not saying he couldn't be notable as a grad student, but there's no particular reason to believe he is, either. Isomorphic 05:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. He's more significant than a lot of the other bios I've seen here. Kanjiish 16:43, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, see Ecclesiastes 1:2. But take a look at Shawn and Tabitha's wedding, particularly the cake kiss. Dpbsmith 02:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC) P. S. And one of his poems, Am I to blame?
- What's wrong with those URL's? -70.16.2.172
- You continuously refer to the abundance of google hits on his name. Those are examples of why that is not sufficient evidence. Google hits alone aren't proof of noteriety. I get over a million hits on my real name and I've certainly never done anything encyclopedic. --Starx 00:37, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- What's wrong with those URL's? -70.16.2.172
- Delete: self promotion, nonnotable. A few journal and conference publications is, sadly, no sign of notability, and neither is a vanity web site. I looked at the abstracts for a couple of his papers and it looks like pretty typical academic journal material -- solid work, I'm sure, but not distinguished. Come back in a decade or two, Shawn, but leave the poetry out of it, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:29, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- You all are such hypocrites and provincials. I've seen so many pages at wikipedia that could much more easily be classified as "vanity pages" than the one that started this thread. Hypocrites and provincials, the whole lot of you, that's what you are! Congratulations on your lameness! -Shawn314
- Please point them out specifically then; I for one would love to get rid of those too. - Hephaestos|§ 15:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a place to post your life story. (Unless you are notable)--Beelzebubs 15:24, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Good point re. that Anissimov article. Someone listed it as needing cleanup, but I'm of a mind to put it up for delete. Anyone else want to take a look at it? - Lucky 6.9 16:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, and now abuse. See talk:Michael Anissimov for my comments on that page. Some linked pages should also go IMO. Andrewa 16:37, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- I see "Shawn Mikula" has 25,800 Google hits. Hmmmm..... -Mikula
- You really should sign your edits here. See my welcome for how to do this. Take a deep breath, and lurk a little. You may find Wikipedia has something important to say about some of your pet ideas. Andrewa 17:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- thanks Andrewa -70.16.2.172
- You really should sign your edits here. See my welcome for how to do this. Take a deep breath, and lurk a little. You may find Wikipedia has something important to say about some of your pet ideas. Andrewa 17:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- I see "Shawn Mikula" has 25,800 Google hits. Hmmmm..... -Mikula
- Delete. Clear vanity, abuse, etc. Plus the author obviously feels like he has something to hide if he won't even sign his posts. I don't see Mikula's relevance at all. blankfaze 19:38, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- why don't you read about his accomplishments before passing judgment? -Janus san
- Delete. No evidence of achievement that merits being in encyclopedia. Every graduate student writes papers and presents them at conferences. Andris 21:32, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
- He has published in many journals, is known across the neuroscience community, has hosted many talks, and belongs to many key organizations. Quite simply, he is a current leader in the field. If some ppl are not aware of this it's probably because they're lagging behind by 10 yrs or more. -Janus san
- Or.... you could be wrong. You dismiss others as not knowing what they're talking about without providing any proof of your position. Why don't you find us a link to a reputable site with an article on Mikula? --Starx 00:37, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- He has published in many journals, is known across the neuroscience community, has hosted many talks, and belongs to many key organizations. Quite simply, he is a current leader in the field. If some ppl are not aware of this it's probably because they're lagging behind by 10 yrs or more. -Janus san
- Delete both pages. The "solution" to the mind-body problem mentioned in the article seems to be nothing more than a retreading of functionalism. This is a classic vanity page. The fact that he added himself to a list of philosophers working on the mind-body problem next to Daniel Dennett just adds insult to injury. Of the Google hits, nearly all of them seem to be crap indexes that he's added himself to. — Adam Conover † 22:07, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
- a retreading of functionalism? You have misread the article apparently. Daniel Dennett is just a philosopher, to my understanding, and has no neuroscience background, nor has he made any contributions to neuroscience. So his contributions to the mind-brain problem, lacking any such background, are doubtful at best. Or, to put it another way, a philosopher lacking a rigorous scientific background can amount to little more than a poet, in my opinion. Dennett has published some books but has made no contributions to neuroscience. Dennett will appeal to laymen, but it's hard to imagine that he'd appeal to a scientist-philosopher since he lacks a scientific background and scientific rigor. Also, I have read his books and what he has said on the mind-body problem, and I am not impressed. About Google hits, Shawn has more than Daniel Dennett, and I could say that most of the latter's are to crap indexes too. -Janus san
- I don't think this is a vanity page. I do have the sneaking suspicion, however, that some people here feel, shall we say, less than adequate perhaps, which is why they are reacting so strongly against this page. To me, that's true vanity. -70.16.2.172
- Delete, especially since this person is trying so hard to keep it without giving us any reason why it's worth having. RickK 04:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- you presume far too much. The reasons have already been given. Being that your background is in writing about fictional universes, I don't think you're really qualified to judge one way or the other. -70.16.2.172
- Delete, Vanity. Well written vanity, but still vanity. --Starx 13:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Dear User:Shawn314, User:Janus san, User:Mikula, User:128.220.29.140, and User:70.16.2.172. When posting, please conclude your posts by typing four tildes, ~~~~ at the end. That will "sign" your post with your username and the time of posting. -Dpbsmith 00:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Umm, you know that those usernames don't exist, right? -70.16.2.172
Also, if you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, we currently have no article on Vernon Mountcastle (Vernon Benjamin Mountcastle, Jr. b. 15 July 1918), and we could use one. Dpbsmith 00:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- thanks for the suggestions, both of them. 70.16.2.172 00:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Those users exist ! Just not the user page. It's alright. It would be easy to start those yet-to-exist user pages on behalf of the "users", cut-&-paste everything from Shawn Mikula & Mind-Brain.com. (or re-direct !)
Of course, the pages in question will need to be deleted to avoid duplications.
Let's do this to all Wiki-Vanity-pages. :-)
199.71.174.100 05:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a good idea to do that with all Wiki-Vanity-pages, but it's still questionable to me that this submitted page constitutes a vanity page because I have seen many "lesser" individuals (in my opinion) with page listings at wikipedia. Perhaps they wrote some obscure book or song, and because of that, it somehow justifies that they be listed here over others who have made many significant contributions to science but who many laymen are probably unaware of. I think your biographical pages here are highly biased towards people that laymen may be familiar with and is very under-representative of the people who make real contributations to society but who may be less well-known to the laymen because they don't necessarily popularize themselves by publishing books geared towards laymen or using other such popularity techniques and shenanigans. And I personally think it would be a shame if wikipedia further succumbs to that bias, to the bias of the laymen and the provincial-minded. It would be unfortunate indeed. -70.16.2.172
Note: I have gone through and retroactively signed all posts by User:Shawn314, User:Janus san, User:Mikula, User:128.220.29.140, and User:70.16.2.172. To be fair I accredited each post to the username that originally posted it, although I suppose that was a waste of time because they are all obviosly the same person. --Starx 14:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see how that contributes to this debate/discussion/thread, nor how it's obviously the same person (since same IP/username doesn't necessarily imply same person). It seems rather that you're trying to toss out a red herring and/or trying to throw this thread off topic. This thread is about whether the 'Shawn Mikula' page is a vanity page or whether it warrants being in wikipedia. I personally think it's not a vanity page and that it should be in wikipedia.66.119.34.60 14:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
-
- I have more then one reason for believing they (and you also) are the same person. You all have IP address's or usernames that are used only to edit either this vfd page or the articles in question. You all have the same tendency to revise and expand one comment 5 or 6 times in a row. At times one username has revised/expanded on a post originally made by another username. And finally you all share a common goal of vehemently defending the article. As to the reason this is important; it's because wiki policy specifically states that sockpuppets are not to vote in vfd's, that is the reason why people sign their comments. Plus it's just good manners to inform people of who they are speaking with. -> Starx 15:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Belief is a funny thing. As others have noted, there are no facts, only interpretations and beliefs. Thanks for sharing your interpretation and belief with us. -66.119.34.60 17:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Your welcome. --Starx 19:50, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep it.218.145.25.80 14:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. It's not a vanity page. -193.255.207.252 15:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Excuse this poor language, please, but STOP THIS STUPID ASS DISCUSSION AND DELETE THE FUCKING PAGE! blankfaze 17:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- there is no excuse for such pubescent remarks, and let me add that I consider your reply ironic since you're one of the biggest culprits creating these vanity pages (just look at the large list of nobodies you've made wikipedia pages for), and yet you would have a legitimate biographical page of a "somebody" be deleted. Hypocrite. 66.119.34.60 18:13, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- It may be a legitimate biographical page, but this could go on that person's website or personal wiki page. Encyclopedic relevance doesn't exist here. Delete. -- Stevietheman 18:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Do you think all the biographical pages created by Blankfaze (above) have encyclopedic relevance? In my opinion, they're all biographies of people of rather small stature, so why are they in wikipedia? In fact, I think I may go ahead and set them all up for deletion because I think they're all vanity pages and about people who lack encyclopedic relevance.70.16.2.172 18:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you're finished editing your thoughts, I will endorse this plan. Anything in the Wikipedia that's not of encyclopedic relevance should be deleted. -- Stevietheman 19:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Then I have a lot of work to do.70.16.2.172 19:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- You seem to be taking this personally, and it really isn't anything personal. The vote will reflect whether or not the article should stay. If you see other articles that you think don't belong then please by all means put them up for a vfd. But the name calling and other personal attacks aren't necessary. --Starx 19:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- It IS personal, because all of these sock puppets are Shawn Mikula trying to make people think he's somebody important when he's just a grad student. Also, whichever of your multiple personalities threatened to delete other entries, don't try it wihout bringing it before VfD. RickK 20:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- in my opinion, those biography pages created by BlankFaze are not of any encyclopedic relevance and should be deleted. What's wrong with that? In fact, you want to talk about google hits, well I am getting few hits for the people that he felt inclined to write pages about. These pages he created are about nobodies and should not be in wikipedia.
- The pages he created that you put up for VfD; I didn't look through them all but the first 5 or so that I did included several actors in currently running TV shows, a forensic expert who worked on a highly publicised case. There were all obviosly encyclopedic. Mikula is obviously not nearly as notable as these persons. If you wish to plead you case that Mikula is notable enough for wiki then do it in a respectable manner. But don't pretend that someone like Andy Dick is non-notable and deserving of deletion. --Starx 20:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I had never heard of Andy Dick before coming across the wikipedia page on him, and after learning of him, did not think he had any encyclopedic relevance. And I think I have a right to express my opinion regarding what pages do not possess encyclopedic relevance, as all of you have too. We all have a right to our own opinion, now don't we? (User:218.145.25.80)
- Encyclopedic relevance must have some research behind it, though; it cannot simply be an opinion out of one's ass. Andy Dick is a very well-known person to those who enjoy sit-coms. He also makes many appearances on talk shows. -- Stevietheman 20:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, we do. But you are quite apparently basing your opinions of the Andy Dick article on the fact that Blankfaze wrote it, as opposed to on a neutral assesment. If you read the stub you would be that he is an actor who has been on several TV shows. Celebrity personalities are certainly encyclopedic. --Starx 20:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I know it's easy to rationalize things like you have, but the fact that blankfaze wrote the page was completely irrelevant to my decision that the page was not of encyclopedic relevance.
- Well, I am certain that you are lieing about that. A visit to Blankfaze's user page shows that the list of articles that you tried to vfd are identacle to the list of articles he has worked on. This after made it clear you were going to start vdf on other people articles as retrobution. You have thrown a long drawn out temper tantrum over the fact that the consensus of wikipedia is that you are not noteworthy. Instead of accepting that maybe you haven't earned your place in the history books yet, you decide it must be some sort of backlash against you and your charector, and you decide to respond in kind. You complain that you aren't allowed to vfd articles, but you are, and already have. 1.8.14 Michael_Anissimov, and 1.8.15 Bruce_Klein remain on the vfd page because they are vanity and it was reasonable to vfd them. It is your unreasonable vfd's that have been taken down. You claim that this is a dictatorship. But the fact that this page is likely to be deleted is proof that this isn't a dictatorship because wikipedia will not let you force your will upon it. --Starx 23:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Starx, arrogance is unbecoming. Are you saying that you and your cronies represent and control all of wikipedia? If so, then meritocracy just flew out the window. Should we all sing "Hail Starx and his cronies, the dictators of wikipedia"? 66.162.147.1 18:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- Your dodging the point and trying to cover that up with an insult. The point still stands that a) your vfd's were obviosly retrobution, b) you have been allowed to vfd articles when not obviosly abusing the power, and most importantly c) you and your sockpuppets are in the minority about this article. The majority of votes have been in favor of delete. You somehow think that your objections to this should be held above the consensus of a fair vote, and when you discovered that wasn't going to happen you started trying to rig the vote. If the average opinion of wikipedians is that this page is vanity then even if your sockpuppets save it from this vfd, some other wikipedian some time in the future will stuble over it, think it's vanity, and put it up for another vfd. Just let the vote take place fairly. --Starx 20:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- I know it's easy to rationalize things like you have, but the fact that blankfaze wrote the page was completely irrelevant to my decision that the page was not of encyclopedic relevance.
- I had never heard of Andy Dick before coming across the wikipedia page on him, and after learning of him, did not think he had any encyclopedic relevance. And I think I have a right to express my opinion regarding what pages do not possess encyclopedic relevance, as all of you have too. We all have a right to our own opinion, now don't we? (User:218.145.25.80)
- The pages he created that you put up for VfD; I didn't look through them all but the first 5 or so that I did included several actors in currently running TV shows, a forensic expert who worked on a highly publicised case. There were all obviosly encyclopedic. Mikula is obviously not nearly as notable as these persons. If you wish to plead you case that Mikula is notable enough for wiki then do it in a respectable manner. But don't pretend that someone like Andy Dick is non-notable and deserving of deletion. --Starx 20:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- in my opinion, those biography pages created by BlankFaze are not of any encyclopedic relevance and should be deleted. What's wrong with that? In fact, you want to talk about google hits, well I am getting few hits for the people that he felt inclined to write pages about. These pages he created are about nobodies and should not be in wikipedia.
- It IS personal, because all of these sock puppets are Shawn Mikula trying to make people think he's somebody important when he's just a grad student. Also, whichever of your multiple personalities threatened to delete other entries, don't try it wihout bringing it before VfD. RickK 20:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you're finished editing your thoughts, I will endorse this plan. Anything in the Wikipedia that's not of encyclopedic relevance should be deleted. -- Stevietheman 19:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Do you think all the biographical pages created by Blankfaze (above) have encyclopedic relevance? In my opinion, they're all biographies of people of rather small stature, so why are they in wikipedia? In fact, I think I may go ahead and set them all up for deletion because I think they're all vanity pages and about people who lack encyclopedic relevance.70.16.2.172 18:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- It may be a legitimate biographical page, but this could go on that person's website or personal wiki page. Encyclopedic relevance doesn't exist here. Delete. -- Stevietheman 18:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- there is no excuse for such pubescent remarks, and let me add that I consider your reply ironic since you're one of the biggest culprits creating these vanity pages (just look at the large list of nobodies you've made wikipedia pages for), and yet you would have a legitimate biographical page of a "somebody" be deleted. Hypocrite. 66.119.34.60 18:13, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity. I would not have paid attention to this one except for his vandalism of many pages in retaliation for this nomination. - Tεxτurε 20:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- How can you possibly characterize putting pages up for deletion that I thought were not of any encyclopedic relevance as "vandalism"? I think many people would agree that many of the pages I listed for deletion should not be in wikipedia.
- No, I don't think many people would agree at all, I don't think any reasonable person would agree. --Starx 20:50, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- And so it comes down to a few people deciding what should get voted on for deletion. This does not seem like a democracy of knowledge to me; it sounds more like a beaurocratic dictatorship or something along those lines.
- It's not as much a democracy of knowledge but a democratic meritocracy of knowledge, and that's how it should be. As long as you make responsible choices out of reason, you won't get knocked back as much or as hard. -- Stevietheman 21:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- a democratic meritocracy of knowledge is a worthy ideal, but it has not been realized here, even though you may choose to believe otherwise. What I have been exposed to here, in general (though there have been exceptions), is provinciality and insularity coupled with abuse of power.
- Ideals are never achieved; they remain as goals we continuously shoot for. I've not noticed any abuse of power, but rather a lot of people who care about keeping the encyclopedia, well, encyclopedic. Also, you may want to come out from the shadows and sign your posts. -- Stevietheman 21:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- When I am not permitted to put articles up for deletion which I strongly feel are not of any encyclopedic relevance, then I can think of few things other than abuse of power at work. You apply double standards for what's considered a vanity article which is evident by the hundreds of them currently in the wikipedia while at the same time denying those which are worthy of inclusion. But I guess that's the tragi-comic drama you've all chosen to create and propagate in this arena, one that falls far short of any sort of worthy ideal. Yeah well, it's your choice. You live with it. 218.145.25.80 21:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Your argument is unconvincing. You were trying to take down articles which had obvious encyclopedic relevance after making it very clear you were going to start a lot of delete debates after having your apparent super-large ego burst. Maybe it's time to cool off and reflect upon the idea that nobody agrees with your position. -- Stevietheman 22:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I do not doubt that most rational intelligent individuals will agree with my statements above. Rationalizations and Freudian projections on your part are not convincing.
- Intellectual honesty and the "discussion" laid out here would require that you be the one who does the doubting. -- Stevietheman 23:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Further, if you are a true scientist, you certainly understand the concept of "intellectual restraint". In other words, you know for a fact that you haven't become notable as of yet... so stop pushing it. -- Stevietheman 23:57, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I would beg to differ from you Stevieman regarding his notability. I have heard of this guy through several sources (newspaper, internet, friends). Maybe you haven't heard of him, but many people have. 62.168.43.84 17:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- I do not doubt that most rational intelligent individuals will agree with my statements above. Rationalizations and Freudian projections on your part are not convincing.
- Your argument is unconvincing. You were trying to take down articles which had obvious encyclopedic relevance after making it very clear you were going to start a lot of delete debates after having your apparent super-large ego burst. Maybe it's time to cool off and reflect upon the idea that nobody agrees with your position. -- Stevietheman 22:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- When I am not permitted to put articles up for deletion which I strongly feel are not of any encyclopedic relevance, then I can think of few things other than abuse of power at work. You apply double standards for what's considered a vanity article which is evident by the hundreds of them currently in the wikipedia while at the same time denying those which are worthy of inclusion. But I guess that's the tragi-comic drama you've all chosen to create and propagate in this arena, one that falls far short of any sort of worthy ideal. Yeah well, it's your choice. You live with it. 218.145.25.80 21:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ideals are never achieved; they remain as goals we continuously shoot for. I've not noticed any abuse of power, but rather a lot of people who care about keeping the encyclopedia, well, encyclopedic. Also, you may want to come out from the shadows and sign your posts. -- Stevietheman 21:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- a democratic meritocracy of knowledge is a worthy ideal, but it has not been realized here, even though you may choose to believe otherwise. What I have been exposed to here, in general (though there have been exceptions), is provinciality and insularity coupled with abuse of power.
- It's not as much a democracy of knowledge but a democratic meritocracy of knowledge, and that's how it should be. As long as you make responsible choices out of reason, you won't get knocked back as much or as hard. -- Stevietheman 21:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- And so it comes down to a few people deciding what should get voted on for deletion. This does not seem like a democracy of knowledge to me; it sounds more like a beaurocratic dictatorship or something along those lines.
- Possibly because your actions were viewed to be out of spite and didn't reflect any research about the articles you put up for deletion. -- Stevietheman 20:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- No, I don't think many people would agree at all, I don't think any reasonable person would agree. --Starx 20:50, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- How can you possibly characterize putting pages up for deletion that I thought were not of any encyclopedic relevance as "vandalism"? I think many people would agree that many of the pages I listed for deletion should not be in wikipedia.
- Delete. Couldn't agree more with User:Texture. I wouldn't have cared much either way if it wasn't for his absurdly bad behaviour. That said, the guy does have a point in there being lots of other vanity articles on Wikipedia that should also go. Go ahead. -- Jao 20:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. For all this talk, I still haven't seen a reason this guy is notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:55, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
- This thread was fun to read. However, the guy's desperate attempts to argue underline his irrelevance. DELETE. --Netlad 23:51, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know what all the fuss is about. I don't see anything wrong with the page under discussion. However, it could be cleaned up somewhat and maybe the reference to the guy's website removed altogether. Other than that, I vote to 'Keep it'. Rajesh918 16:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- Woah! I just Googled "Shawn Mikula" and pulled up 28,300 hits! This dude's everywhere. 200.73.172.196 18:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh man... the puppets are really coming out of the woodwork now.... --Starx 20:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well that's kinda rude, Starz. Just cause people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're puppets. Am I a puppet cause I also vote to KEEP IT? 80.58.33.172 22:33, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter what you vote for. Your vote will be thrown out because it is an anon with one edit (this one). It has no weight. - Tεxτurε 22:43, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- ^ That's why your a puppet. --Starx 22:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- Anonymous posters are all puppets? One-time posters are all puppets? Starz, i'm beginning to think you're a puppet. We're all puppets! Yay!
- For the sake of communicating clearly to anyone who might read this, anonymous posters are not always considered puppets, but one-time posters are certainly expected to be. That a user should stumble onto so obscure a policy page as this one and make their first edit here is unthinkable. In general, in fact, anonymous users do not cast votes unless they are puppets -- anyone who doesn't care enough to register usually doesn't care enough about our policies to vote (with a very few notable exceptions). Sock puppets are a danger of the Internet we try to minimize. When (as in this case) numerous users, both registered and anonymous, appear out of nowhere and all have opinions on the same obscure article, it is obvious that someone is attempting to "stuff the ballot box". I would argue, however, that we do try to pay attention to any substantial points raised by anonymous users -- if they point out a side of the issue not already discussed (rather than simply following the lead of other users), they can impact decision-making meaningfully. Jwrosenzweig 23:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- anyone who stumbles on the "deletes" page is going to probably feel inclined to give their opinion on this topic because it sticks out when you scroll down the screen. To presume every anon and one-time poster is a sock-puppet is naive. 80.58.33.172 23:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- You think a new user would take the time to read the vfd page? Highly unlikely. It took me a little while before I even figured out how the vfd thing worked, let alone cared about it. While it is possible that someone could stumble upon wikipedia, stumble upon the vfd, and decide to offer their opinion as their first edit. But the odds are slim to none on that one and it's already happened at least a half a dozen times in this discussion (and only this discussion). The possibility of that person then contributing highly to the Mikula article and continuining the debate past "offering their opinion" further narrows the odds. The naive POV here would be that these are all well intentioned individuals looking to cast their vote. --Starx 00:37, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- um, Starx, what's the probability that a new user search engines onto a page up for deletion, follows the delete link at the top, and recognizes Shawn Mikula and Mind-Brain.com in the contents at the top and then clicks on the prominent 'Edit this page' link? Or how likely is it that a link to this discussion has been posted in a forum or other online discussions? Your post is practically screaming you're naivety about the ways of the web. Just thought you should know, from someone who knows. :) -66.119.34.59
- More ad hominem attacks in an attempt to obscure the point. The probability of someone search engining wiki for Shawn Mikula is low but within the realms of possibility, the probability of a half a dozen new users doing it the moment your other sock puppets got called out, slim to none and certainly not in the realm of reasonableness. You are one of the puppets in question. Care to post a link to the online discussion that you followed to here? You are all quite obviosly sockpuppets. This has been pointed out by more users then me. But I encourage people to not take my word on it. Go look into their edit historys and judge for yourselfs. I'm confident that the results will be as obvious to everyone else as they are to me. --Starx 15:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- I came by way of IM. It's funny that I respond directly to your point and you cry that it's an ad hominem attack and an attempt to obscure the point. What are you, in 6th grade?
- More ad hominem attacks in an attempt to obscure the point. The probability of someone search engining wiki for Shawn Mikula is low but within the realms of possibility, the probability of a half a dozen new users doing it the moment your other sock puppets got called out, slim to none and certainly not in the realm of reasonableness. You are one of the puppets in question. Care to post a link to the online discussion that you followed to here? You are all quite obviosly sockpuppets. This has been pointed out by more users then me. But I encourage people to not take my word on it. Go look into their edit historys and judge for yourselfs. I'm confident that the results will be as obvious to everyone else as they are to me. --Starx 15:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- um, Starx, what's the probability that a new user search engines onto a page up for deletion, follows the delete link at the top, and recognizes Shawn Mikula and Mind-Brain.com in the contents at the top and then clicks on the prominent 'Edit this page' link? Or how likely is it that a link to this discussion has been posted in a forum or other online discussions? Your post is practically screaming you're naivety about the ways of the web. Just thought you should know, from someone who knows. :) -66.119.34.59
- You think a new user would take the time to read the vfd page? Highly unlikely. It took me a little while before I even figured out how the vfd thing worked, let alone cared about it. While it is possible that someone could stumble upon wikipedia, stumble upon the vfd, and decide to offer their opinion as their first edit. But the odds are slim to none on that one and it's already happened at least a half a dozen times in this discussion (and only this discussion). The possibility of that person then contributing highly to the Mikula article and continuining the debate past "offering their opinion" further narrows the odds. The naive POV here would be that these are all well intentioned individuals looking to cast their vote. --Starx 00:37, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- anyone who stumbles on the "deletes" page is going to probably feel inclined to give their opinion on this topic because it sticks out when you scroll down the screen. To presume every anon and one-time poster is a sock-puppet is naive. 80.58.33.172 23:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- For the sake of communicating clearly to anyone who might read this, anonymous posters are not always considered puppets, but one-time posters are certainly expected to be. That a user should stumble onto so obscure a policy page as this one and make their first edit here is unthinkable. In general, in fact, anonymous users do not cast votes unless they are puppets -- anyone who doesn't care enough to register usually doesn't care enough about our policies to vote (with a very few notable exceptions). Sock puppets are a danger of the Internet we try to minimize. When (as in this case) numerous users, both registered and anonymous, appear out of nowhere and all have opinions on the same obscure article, it is obvious that someone is attempting to "stuff the ballot box". I would argue, however, that we do try to pay attention to any substantial points raised by anonymous users -- if they point out a side of the issue not already discussed (rather than simply following the lead of other users), they can impact decision-making meaningfully. Jwrosenzweig 23:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- "Encyclopedic relevance" comes up again and again, but what has not been established is a well-defined criteria for what constitutes encyclopedic relevance other than the haphazard whims of the poster and those who moderate posts. -208.183.105.4
- Additional pages have been added and linked to the Shawn Mikula page. 128.220.29.140 16:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- I have removed links added to articles solely to support your case. Not only is it questionable to create articles solely to bolster an article nominated for deletion, but nothing in the articles provides a reason for a link to Shawn Mikula. - Tεxτurε 17:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- Neural Connectivity
- Consciousness Singularity - nominated for VfD
- Expanded Consciousness
- Neural coding
- Baseline consciousness - written from the first person - is this a term paper?
- this has been rewritten in 3rd person 128.220.29.140 17:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind, but I have re-added the links because I think it's premature at this stage to remove them. If the Shawn Mikula page gets deleted, then the links should be removed, but not beforehand. The links were added to the articles because they are all related to the Shawn Mikula page and to Shawn Mikula's work, publications, and in general, what he's known and noted for. Also, the articles were not contributed solely to bolster an article nominated for deletion, but possess encyclopedic relevance regardless of whether the page under question gets deleted. 128.220.29.140 17:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- You wrote some good articles. However, they have no reason to link to Shawn Mikula. Regardless the outcome of this vote they do not belong in the links section as there is no apparant reason in those articles to view an article about you. Every article I create does not have a link to my user page even if I am am very knowledgeable in that field. - Tεxτurε 20:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- I have removed links added to articles solely to support your case. Not only is it questionable to create articles solely to bolster an article nominated for deletion, but nothing in the articles provides a reason for a link to Shawn Mikula. - Tεxτurε 17:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Vote complete - article deleted
[edit] Deleted page protected
- Shawn Mikula - Page was deleted after VfD vote but Shawn keeps logging in with a new IP to recreate it whenever it is deleted. I have created a blank article and protected it to prevent this. - Tεxτurε 17:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's a perfectly legit page and you know it. You're just acting out of spite now. And you should make a mental note that the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity pages are copyright material and cannot be posted without proper credit given to Shawn Mikula somewhere in the article. Point being that either the Shawn Mikula info stays or the pages and others like it leave. Also, I think what your doing amounts to abuse of your 'Protected Page' privilege, and I have notified your superiors about this abuse.
- The VfD vote was to delete it. Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion makes it a candidate for speedy deletion when you recreate it. Please stop this effort to recreate an article that has been properly voted for deletion. - Tεxτurε 18:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- You, Shawn Mikula, posted the info. If you'll look down at the botom of every edit page you'll notice that in doing so you have agreed to release the info under the GNU Free Documentation License. See here. Also if the vfd was to delete then it's your recreation of the article that is the abuse. This is how wiki works, if the vfd says the page goes then the page goes and you have to abide by that. --Starx 18:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- First off, I am not Shawn Mikula. And secondly, the pages I created are copyright material that must, at the very least, contain relevant citations to Shawn Mikula. Otherwise, they cannot be posted, and by keeping them posted without the relevant citation to Shawn Mikula, you are engaging in theft and copyright violation. 193.255.207.252 18:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Let me understand what you are saying: Are the following copyrighted material?:
- Neural Connectivity
- Consciousness Singularity
- Expanded Consciousness
- Neural coding
- Baseline consciousness
-
- Yes, those articles are copyright material that may not be posted without, at the very least, an appropriate citation to Shawn Mikula in the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity articles. So, if you want, remove all the articles, but please do not keep up the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity articles without an appropriate citation to Shawn Mikula. 193.255.207.252 19:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- If those are copyrighted material you can either refuse GFDL and we will delete the articles per our policy or you can waive your copyright and grant permission under GFDL and you lose sole ownership of the article and anyone can change, add, or by vote - delete the articles. - Tεxτurε 19:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- I am saying that if unqualified admins abuse their power and insist on removing the citation to Shawn Mikula in the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity pages, then those pages violate copyright and all five contributions I made need to be removed. If that is not an acceptable option, then consider the GFDL refused. Thanks in advance.193.255.207.252 20:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- If those are copyrighted material you can either refuse GFDL and we will delete the articles per our policy or you can waive your copyright and grant permission under GFDL and you lose sole ownership of the article and anyone can change, add, or by vote - delete the articles. - Tεxτurε 19:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, those articles are copyright material that may not be posted without, at the very least, an appropriate citation to Shawn Mikula in the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity articles. So, if you want, remove all the articles, but please do not keep up the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity articles without an appropriate citation to Shawn Mikula. 193.255.207.252 19:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Are you blind? Do you see the statement below the edit box, under "Save page"? You realsed your text under the GNU FDL. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." Got it? -- Hadal 18:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- How does that justify removing legitimate references? I don't understand what some of you have against giving appropriate citations. It seems like, if you haven't personally heard of the person, well then no citation should be given, and I think that's just ignorant. You do not know what goes on in 99.99% of the world. This is not an ad hominem, but is simple matter of fact. We all, as human beings, are ignorant of much of the world. You should not be making edits with the presumption of omniscience, and you certainly should not be removing citations if you are not in a position to judge or are ignorant on the matter at hand. You are editing pages that you know little about, and so are not in a position to do such things. That's what you don't seem to understand, even though I've tried to bring home the point repeatedly. You think because you're an admin that it gives you the right to pass judgement on matters you're ignorant about, and that's just abuse. 193.255.207.252 19:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, that's nice; dismiss the rest of us as unworldly and ignorant. If you don't want us dumb, lowly lay folk editing your work, don't submit it in the first place. Also, regarding your answer Texture's question: If what you submitted is copyrighted by someone other than yourself, you should not have submitted it in the first place. If it is copyrighted by you, by submitting it to Wikipedia you have released it under the GNU FDL (a license which does not require your citation). In either case, throwing legal insinuations around isn't going to win you any points here. Wikipedia values any non-copyrighted contributions you have to make; all we ask is that you respect our policies. -- Hadal 19:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Enough with the straw man. I do not mind competent knowledgable individuals editing pages, but you are not one of those people to be editing my pages. Don't take it personally. There are few people who have such qualifications (who are specialized and know the scientific literature very well). I have not met any yet at wikipedia. All I'm saying is that, just because some people don't understand something or have never heard of it, does not mean it's unimportant to people who do understand and who have heard. I made those pages because I thought other people would find them useful and informative, and I did not count on others unjustifiably removing legitimate cititations that would result in copyright violations. Maybe it was a mistake on my part to presume that people would know their place and would respect other people's works, and that would not edit things outside their sphere of competence.193.255.207.252 19:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- "Know their place?" I think you'll find that out place is in the real world, Shawn. Why don't you join us? RickK 19:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, know their place and who respect other people's works and do not edit things outside their sphere of competence. Is that too much to ask for? 193.255.207.252 19:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- You're being obnoxious. Go away. Ashibaka ✎ 19:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can see we have some real intelligent and competent admins here. It's a shame too, because wikipedia could be so much better and of higher quality than it is now if there were just higher standards in place for becoming an admin.193.255.207.252 19:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- You are the only one currently having serious problems with the admins in question, and you have had serious problems with almost every wiki-regular that you have engaged in any sort of debate with; logic would dictate that the problem is more then likely with you.--Starx 19:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- I suppose logic would dictate that it's more probable the problem lies with me, but it does not rule out the probability that the problem lies with a few abusive admins either. 193.255.207.252 20:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- You are the only one currently having serious problems with the admins in question, and you have had serious problems with almost every wiki-regular that you have engaged in any sort of debate with; logic would dictate that the problem is more then likely with you.--Starx 19:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can see we have some real intelligent and competent admins here. It's a shame too, because wikipedia could be so much better and of higher quality than it is now if there were just higher standards in place for becoming an admin.193.255.207.252 19:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- You're being obnoxious. Go away. Ashibaka ✎ 19:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, know their place and who respect other people's works and do not edit things outside their sphere of competence. Is that too much to ask for? 193.255.207.252 19:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Works cannot be submitted with conditions. And if the Mikula referance is truly appropriate then let someone else edit it in, any referances you edit in about yourself are going to be removed. If the referance is truely deserved then someone else will put it in their. Wiki's policy on autobiographies has been mentioned several times to you. Self referances aren't autobiographies but they certainly fall under the spirit of the rule. Anyway, while we're on the subject of strawmen, this page is not about copyvio. This page is about Shawn Mikula being protected. That decision was an appropriate one reguardless of the debate over the other pages. --Starx 19:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- as I've already stated, I am not Shawn Mikula, so arguments about autobiographies are beside the point. And if you're saying that works cannot be submitted without conditions as some sort of justification for copyright violation and theft, then do I understand that as an admission from you that it is your intent to further violate copyright even though it has been made clear to you on multiple occasions that those pages are copyright material? 193.255.207.252 19:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- If they're copyrighted material not released under the GFDL, then they will be removed. If they're to stay posted on here, they are going to need to be licensed under the GFDL. There is no room for conditional posting; it's an all-or-nothing arrangement. - jredmond 20:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- I am saying that if unqualified admins abuse their power and insist on removing the citation to Shawn Mikula in the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity pages, then those pages violate copyright and all five contributions I made need to be removed. If that is not an acceptable option, then consider the GFDL refused. Thanks in advance.193.255.207.252 20:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- If they're copyrighted material not released under the GFDL, then they will be removed. If they're to stay posted on here, they are going to need to be licensed under the GFDL. There is no room for conditional posting; it's an all-or-nothing arrangement. - jredmond 20:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- as I've already stated, I am not Shawn Mikula, so arguments about autobiographies are beside the point. And if you're saying that works cannot be submitted without conditions as some sort of justification for copyright violation and theft, then do I understand that as an admission from you that it is your intent to further violate copyright even though it has been made clear to you on multiple occasions that those pages are copyright material? 193.255.207.252 19:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- "Know their place?" I think you'll find that out place is in the real world, Shawn. Why don't you join us? RickK 19:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Enough with the straw man. I do not mind competent knowledgable individuals editing pages, but you are not one of those people to be editing my pages. Don't take it personally. There are few people who have such qualifications (who are specialized and know the scientific literature very well). I have not met any yet at wikipedia. All I'm saying is that, just because some people don't understand something or have never heard of it, does not mean it's unimportant to people who do understand and who have heard. I made those pages because I thought other people would find them useful and informative, and I did not count on others unjustifiably removing legitimate cititations that would result in copyright violations. Maybe it was a mistake on my part to presume that people would know their place and would respect other people's works, and that would not edit things outside their sphere of competence.193.255.207.252 19:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, that's nice; dismiss the rest of us as unworldly and ignorant. If you don't want us dumb, lowly lay folk editing your work, don't submit it in the first place. Also, regarding your answer Texture's question: If what you submitted is copyrighted by someone other than yourself, you should not have submitted it in the first place. If it is copyrighted by you, by submitting it to Wikipedia you have released it under the GNU FDL (a license which does not require your citation). In either case, throwing legal insinuations around isn't going to win you any points here. Wikipedia values any non-copyrighted contributions you have to make; all we ask is that you respect our policies. -- Hadal 19:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- How does that justify removing legitimate references? I don't understand what some of you have against giving appropriate citations. It seems like, if you haven't personally heard of the person, well then no citation should be given, and I think that's just ignorant. You do not know what goes on in 99.99% of the world. This is not an ad hominem, but is simple matter of fact. We all, as human beings, are ignorant of much of the world. You should not be making edits with the presumption of omniscience, and you certainly should not be removing citations if you are not in a position to judge or are ignorant on the matter at hand. You are editing pages that you know little about, and so are not in a position to do such things. That's what you don't seem to understand, even though I've tried to bring home the point repeatedly. You think because you're an admin that it gives you the right to pass judgement on matters you're ignorant about, and that's just abuse. 193.255.207.252 19:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Let me understand what you are saying: Are the following copyrighted material?:
- First off, I am not Shawn Mikula. And secondly, the pages I created are copyright material that must, at the very least, contain relevant citations to Shawn Mikula. Otherwise, they cannot be posted, and by keeping them posted without the relevant citation to Shawn Mikula, you are engaging in theft and copyright violation. 193.255.207.252 18:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- I don't have a choice in how GFDL is applied. In accordance with your wishes these articles will be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and deleted per process. Any article in Wikipedia can be edited or added to by any other user. (Not just admins.) In addition, by vote they can be deleted. I will mark the pages as not in compliance with GFDL and add them to copyright problems. - Tεxτurε 20:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. And let me just say that it says a lot that no admins at wikipedia stepped up to the plate to do the right thing, which would be to argue in favor of including the relevant citations. I'm not sure whether it's simply due to ignorance, whether the right admins didn't see this discussion, or what, but in any event, I don't think it bodes well for wikipedia to know that such ignorance and provinciality runs rampant through this site. Again, my apologies to the more intelligent and sincere admins who did not see this discussion for whatever reason. It is my sincere hope that those who did participate in this discussion will one day wake up to the error of their ways and the injustice that they permitted to propagate, and that they will become better admins in the process. 193.255.207.252 20:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's a perfectly legit page and you know it. You're just acting out of spite now. And you should make a mental note that the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity pages are copyright material and cannot be posted without proper credit given to Shawn Mikula somewhere in the article. Point being that either the Shawn Mikula info stays or the pages and others like it leave. Also, I think what your doing amounts to abuse of your 'Protected Page' privilege, and I have notified your superiors about this abuse.
I am aware that this page has been deleted previously but I think my addition is noteworthy and new, and would recommend that a fair vote for deletion be made if anyone feels otherwise.
