Jump to content

User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Global Politician

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could this be developed into a "general descriptive/answer" document - as it appears to cover quite a few points reasonably clearly?

(Perhaps with additions on the nature of a wiki-community etc)

Jackiespeel 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy it into your own user space... though I think that most of these things are covered in Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the sense that this is a reasonably concise document (though aimed a specific person) and the other article is long (comparison rather than criticism) Jackiespeel 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ic. Yeah, feel free to adapt it as you will. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

Ph.D.

[edit]

Please note that Sam Vaknin got his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Pacific Western University in California. This is significant because this institution is on a list of unaccredited instutitions on the Oregon School Assistance Commission's website. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another note

[edit]

This is really a remarkable article, you blew him out of the water, without once mentioning the word "projection".

The Sam Vaknin article has been deleted today, I hope it stays that way, he really isn't worth the time, space and effort --Zeraeph 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, I deleted it :-) The previous AFD was to delete, for some reason it was undeleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another note

[edit]

I'm surprised that you didn't slam Sam on his foolish 2 million claim (not once mentioning how most of that goes to bandwidth and hardware) and on his implying how much the Wikimedia Foundation controls content (but then again, wasn't the Foundation supposed to not be controlling enough?) --maru (talk) contribs 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I probably should have, but honestly: there were so many issues he got wrong or misrepresented I didn't think it was a problem. It would be fantastic if Wikimedia got $2 million in donations! I only wish it were true... - Ta bu shi da yu 01:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Sorry I missed this one for the Signpost, came out after I had done my roundup, it looks like. I think I'll save it for next week, since more people will have a chance to see it (our informal information shows most people read the SP immediately after publishing and rarely look back at corrections).

I was going to suggest you should point the zeroeth law of Wikipedia, that it only works in practice, never in theory -- but he does such a miserable job of explaining why it shouldn't work in theory that I'm not sure it applies.

He also might be interested in the disclaimer text at the top of the "Cite this article" page, linked from every article. (Perhaps we should strengthen the text (at MediaWiki:Citethispage-content) to say "citing us might get you an 'F'", or some such? :) )

Anyway, well-written and supported argument -- thanks for taking the time! I often see your responses to reporters and bloggers out there "in the wild" when I'm surveying news coverage -- I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned responses, as they reflect very well on Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors as a whole. Thank you! — Catherine\talk 19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we already do now as it says:
IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, and as a starting point for further research.
As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia's content — please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information.
I'm fine with it appearing in the next Signpost, it would be really cool :-) Maybe an op-ed (our first one?). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm aware of what's already there (I helped write it!), just musing over whether we should be clubbing people over the head more -- "Hey moron, if you cite this as a serious reference for that 40%-of-your-grade term paper (assuming you didn't copy from us outright), you're probably going to get laughed at, lectured and failed by a very grumpy professor who has every reason to say we're not a good reference (no matter how right our article might be and no matter how proud we are of it)....".
Pretty sure ol' Sam never saw that text though...
It will certainly appear on the "In the news" page in next week's Signpost, and I will point readers to this response as well -- but unless a lot of other bloggers or newspeople pick up on his kvetching, I think neither tempest nor teapot is big enough to merit its own newspaper article. Maybe Ral would like to mention it in his occasional "From the editor" bit....  :) — Catherine\talk 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, should have checked the history :-) I'd laugh if that text did go there... As for being an op-ed... well, you're probably right, I doubt that it gets on anyone's radar, so probably not worth an op-ed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not for want of trying though, take a look at this google search, this morning [1] (there were about 3 entries yesterday). I'm trying to find one with working "comments" so I can drop a link, and perhaps query the "contributions to Nupedia" (he never made any) status, so far no joy...--Zeraeph 10:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, he is a self-promotion machine, isn't he? About a dozen "submit-your-own-writing" sites, as well as his own website, (where the description blurb amused me by telling me "Wikipedia is dommed to fail...") -- sheesh. — Catherine\talk 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to submit the rebuttal to one of the sites (where the comment section purely DOES NOT WORK, as it doesn't on any that have it) and if you give them exclusive rights for 48hrs+ (no WAY could I do that on behalf of someone other than myself) they submit your article to at least 160 other sites (where I presume that the comment function ALSO doesn't work). *chuckles*
It's a pretty standard format for a Samvak tantrum really, nothing special yet. I reckon the blurb was a Freudian slip.
He has been roving around replacing a link to his dreadful self published tome in the reference section of articles he once copied and pasted here to promote it. He claims (always in the third person) "copyright infringement". In recognition of this claim I am trying an alternative solution that may take a little longer and replacing all his text from other sources. The difference between the two never ceases to amaze me.--Zeraeph 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophile activism

[edit]

You cited pedophile activism as an example of wikipedia being willing to cover offensive topics. I'm a bit unhappy with the quality of the article (eg external links section). Would zoophilia be a better option? Andjam 12:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... just saw this email. Well, more than likely, but unfortunately this is now out in the wild... :-( Ta bu shi da yu 14:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little light paranoia

[edit]

It seems you have a CRITIC see: [2]

As he has "admin" status I'd better post the dialogue here (maybe give it it's own "archive page"? For me to do that seems like calling to visit and shifting the furniture around or something).


From: vebrun Registered: Posts: 2

Date Posted: Thursday, June 29, 2006, 06:34:05 AM


The Full Story

You will find a very convincing and far more accurate rebuttal of the article (first published in direct response to the author being banned for sockpuppetry see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samvak) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/Global_Politician



From: samvak Admin Registered: Posts: 2

Date Posted: Friday, June 30, 2006, 07:49:34 AM [ Reply ]

Wrong info and vindictiveness from a typical Wikipedian The Six Sins of the Wikipedia is the fifth essay I have written about the Wikipedia. Evidently, Wikipedians, Wikipedia, and Wikimedia are vehemently opposed to free speech when it is directed against them.

Judge for yourselves:

I have written my first attack of the Wikipedia's dubious practices years ago. Here is a more recent example, dated February 2006, published four months before I was banned:

http://www.globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?id=1590&cid=1&sid=19

In other words, I was banned BECAUSE I am an opponent of the Wikipedia, not the other way around. Actually, I discovered the ban only now, following the comment above. I was not even aware of it hitherto.

I was banned from posting to the Wikipedia - my punishment for what the Wikipedia calls "sockpuppetry" (essentially, editing articles without first logging in to one's account). It is ironic, since the vast majority of Wikipedians - including the administrator who banned me - edit articles anonymously or hide behind utterly meaningless handles and screen names. There is not a shred of proof, of course, that I have edited any article, with or without logging in.

Consider vebrun, who posted the comment above. Vebrun is merely one of the many aliases used by the same person on the Wikipedia and elsewhere. Now that's what I call sockpuppetry.

But banning me is only the latest in a series of vindictive acts by the Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and by Wikipedians.

A group of Wikipedians apparently decided to take revenge and/or to warn me off. They have authored a defamatory and slanderous article about "Sam Vaknin" in their "encyclopedia'. To leave no room for doubt, at the bottom of this new entry about me, they listed all my articles against the Wikipedia. After repeated complaints, the article was removed. Additionally, I received an e-mail message from the Wikimedia's General Counsel (attorney), asking me to copy him on all future correspondence with Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, or anyone else associated with the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. I declined his "request". He then proceeded to ask to communicate with my lawyer since "I raised the issue of suing his client." Couldn't be subtler.

Finally, my name as well as references to my work were removed from a few articles (for instance, from the entries about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Narcissism (Psychology)). At least one of the "editors" who were responsible for what appears to be a vindictive act ("Danny") claims to be somehow associated with the Wikimedia's grants commission.

My next article deals with the Wikipedia's multiple copyright violations. I am in the process of communicating with publishers the world over and referring them to articles in the Wikipedia which contain pirated texts to which they (the publishers with which I am corresponding) own the copyright.

Stay tuned - the fun is just starting. Time to expose the Wikipedia for what it is.

Sam

From: vebrun Registered: Posts: 2

Date Posted: Friday, June 30, 2006, 10:46:24 AM [ Reply ] [ Edit ]


Just a few small problems with your reply:

  • You say: "I received an e-mail message from the Wikimedia's General Counsel (attorney), asking me to copy him on all future correspondence with Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, or anyone else associated with the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. I declined his "request". He then proceeded to ask to communicate with my lawyer since "I raised the issue of suing his client."" Yet one of your major complaints in your article is "My personal experience is that correspondence with and complaints to Wikimedia and to Jimmy Wales go unanswered."
  • You say: "Finally, my name as well as references to my work were removed from a few articles (for instance, from the entries about the Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Narcissism (Psychology))." Are you aware that this is for two reasons: a) As a financial/media analyst claiming a PHD in "Philosophy of Physics", from Pacific Westen University, a notorious unaccredited degree mill, who is published, not by a reputable publing house, but rather by his own wife, you do not meet the Wikipedia criteria for a "reliable source" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Beware_false_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources b) A great deal of text that you originally copied and pasted, into Wikipedia, directly from your own book and websites contains statements that do not accurately represent the sources you choose to cite in association with them. On one hand you claim that "Wikipedia is against real knowledge" and on the other, you claim that the removal of misinformation posted by yourself is vindictive.

It seems to me that your only real problem with Wikipedia is that, despite your threats and bullying, the community as a whole still refuses to accord you the "expert" status you demand without the slightest due merit.

--Zeraeph 12:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. I deleted the Sam Vaknin article because it was already decided on AfD to delete the article, and it appears that it was restored unilaterally without going through DRV. So I deleted it, it had nothing to do with repeated complaints as a) I'm not part of WP:OFFICE, and b) in any case I wasn't even aware of complaints by Sam Vaknin about the article. Regardless of all these things, I didn't address any of the issues raised by Sam above in my response on Wikipedia. I addressed each of his points, and made my own counterpoints — something it appears Sam is unable to address further. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he does that, it's his "debating technique" to ignore everything he doesn't like and try to change the subject, as well as to make something up wherever the facts don't suit him, however much evidence there is, and attack at a tangent whenever he hasn't got a leg to stand on. It's as though he thinks all he has to do is find the right formula of bs to get anything he wants, or get away with anything. See his explanation of what "sockpuppetry" is? Loosely "sorta, kinda forgetting to log in", like DUH?
There wasn't any defamation in that article either, every word was checked out with his own words on his own websites, AS WELL as reputable, third party sources, in most cases. Jimbo himself came down from on high and INSISTED on that so:
  1. Where was the slander?
  2. Where was the defamation?
  3. What more could Jimbo have done to exclude either?
Samvak knows this as well as I do. It wasn't what was IN the article that bothered him, it was the flattery and idealisation that was lacking.
Have you googled "The six sins of the wikipedia" lately? He is up to 612 hits of which 86 are independent, but just LOOK at the kind of ad spawning (is that what they call it?) sites it is on. --Zeraeph 10:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Wikipedia"

[edit]

I love the way this guy calls it "the Wikipedia". That almost makes me chuckle as much as his "article", but not quite. --Tim1988 talk 12:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing, I spent years gritting my teeth at the multitudes of references the "The Narcissistic Personality Disorder" the sheer bliss of being able to delete that inappropriate article on Wikipedia was like taking a stone out of my shoe. --Zeraeph 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*chuckle*

[edit]

A bit ironic that one of his works is Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited, no? — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on which version of "The Narcissism" you want to attribute, because if you ever start checking the references in the remarkably convoluted excercise in torturing syntax on the grand scale, you will shortly begin to realise that it it a whole lot more like Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Reinvented --Zeraeph 15:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People (Sam) can actually be...

[edit]

...this bitter? --Oblivious 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIMEOUT!!!!

[edit]

Folks, my article was never to whale on Sam! I responded to his points, and asked for his response and he only responded with an ad hominem attack. Please, we should not be doing the same in kind. I realise he's frustrating, but it gets us nowhere to have a go at him. Please, some kindness and patience for this critic of Wikipedia! He's absolutely no threat to us, and even if he was, we should not be too harsh on him anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't say that if you knew him.
The guy has spent almost 8 years cold-bloodedly, deliberately playing cruel little games with the heads of as many extremelly vulnerable, damaged people as he can rope in, and determinedly crushing anyone he percieves as "getting in his way", including, but not limited to, the kind of tactics you have seen around "The Six Sins of the Wikipedia".
To Sam Vaknin "kindness" and "patience" are just contemptable weaknesses in others to be exploited. So don't waste them on him.
Truth and fairness are the best he deserves. --Zeraeph 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but this is not the forum for such matters. Blogs and places like Kuro5hin are best for such matters. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but I don't think this is the place to request "kindness and patience" for someone like that under circumstances where to extend either would be to leave oneself open to abuse.
Still it might be best if discussion of the man himself, as opposed to the specific article in question, were to move over to Talk:Sam Vaknin? --Zeraeph 16:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you now also have a rival :o(

[edit]

Check this out, though it gets a tad inaccurate in places, this is worth a read:

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060703WikipediaIsSatan.html

--Zeraeph 00:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROCK ON!

[edit]

While the above nearly made me fall off my seat laughing, it doesn't address and refute the article anything like the way that this does:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11184

*winks*

--Zeraeph 01:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate :-) Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source code

[edit]

I think the raw wikicode can be considered the "source code", and the rendered HTML output can be considered the "object code". --cesarb 04:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting take :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-response

[edit]

I admire your inquisitive and open response, but at the very least I would have asked for a reference regarding his statistics on Wikipedians. :"D RoyBoy 800 05:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were just too many issues with that essay... if I'd covered them all I'd still be typing! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fullsome praise

[edit]

Just found this: http://heliologue.com/blog/2006/07/03/sam-vaknins-self-love/

Really says nice stuff you should see.

And this hilarious, particularly if you are privy to the fact that Sam Vaknin stands openly, one HECK of a long way to the right of Ghenghis Khan: http://www.bumperactive.com/archives/000770.jsp --Zeraeph 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Politician -fresh article

[edit]

Sam Varkin has another article in Global Politician ( 20 Oct 2006) which criticises the way Google ranks Wikipedia which he claims gives it an inflated status. See [3] Lumos3 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club, I guess. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/Global_Politician&oldid=704020485"