User talk:Yossarianpedia

The Law of One

My pleasure. :-) I'm very into the Law of One. What about you? --173.128.70.223 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Law of One for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Law of One is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop

You haven't the slightest idea about what sort of editor Drmies is. If you want to leave Wikipedia, fine. If all you are going to do is vent your emotions, then you certainly don't belong here. Luckily Drmies is tough - but why should anyone have to put up with your venting? Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority or right to dictate what discussion is valid and what is not. As a content creator and domain expert, my opinion and my experience are more important than that of deleters and rule lawyers. What is abusive is when the hard work of dozens of editors is erased without due process or due diligence; when wiki guidelines and rules are fast-tracked and ignored. User: Drmies himself admitted his mistake but failed to revert his error. User:Dougweller insults me and calls my work nonsense and attempts to dismiss me as emotional--as if we live in the 18th century and such a criticism somehow invalidates my claims. You have not engaged my claims and you have no educated yourself on this conversation--on the history of this discussion. You are abusive as are the indiscriminate deleters you support. It is very lazy and very offensive. I won't subject myself to further deletionism (I submit my articles to Encyclopedia Brittannica now, where they are curated and published) but I absolutely do reserve the right to convey my disgust and describe my experiences as a content creator--as an original contributor. Like a typical right-winger you get offended when your abusiveness is called out. You think erasing work without process or investigation is your perogative. A failure of process on wikipedia should be called out and the irresponsible admins absolutely should be fingered. Shame on you for protecting bad editing and for failing to acknowledge the validity of open criticism. Yossarianpedia (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yossarianpedia, you are shortly before being blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring. Please drop the stick now and note that Drmies is perfectly entitled to remove your edits from his talk page. Once that has been done you must not restore them. Your version of the story has been read by multiple editors so there's no point in you making a point. De728631 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - That's great that you contribute to Brittanica although sometimes our material is better, eg "in a recent report published in Psychological Medicine, ten researchers from the University of Melbourne concluded that ‘the quality of information on depression and schizophrenia on Wikipedia is generally as good as, or better than, that provided by centrally controlled websites, Encyclopaedia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook’10. For schizophrenia and depression, two commonly encountered psychiatric conditions, Wikipedia scored highest in the accuracy, timeliness and references categories – surpassing all other resources, including WebMD, NIMH, the Mayo Clinic and Britannica Online." However, you are editing Wikipedia and however expert you consider yourself you have to follow our guidelines and policies. These include WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You make some remarkable accusations about me which are as wrong as calling me a right-winger. Fair criticism based on reasoned and detailed argument should always be acceptable. Your behaviour is not. And yes, accusing Drmies of "gross incompetence" is simply nonsense and I stand by that. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - @Dougweller: It actually doesn't matter how good the information itself is, because even good information on Wikipedia cannot be trusted and therefore is not helpful. Anyway, it's well known that science coverage is better than humanities. The problem with situation like this is that you have people who seen to operate from a scientific mindset editing articles that have to do with literature, theology, culture, and philosophy. Most wikipedia admins mis-apply scientific concepts and criteria and methods to articles that are not subject to those methods. For instance, you constantly see idiotic admins asking for "reliable" "empirical" sources for a claim about literature, or asking for "reliable" "unbiased" citations for some postmodern topic. Hahaha. Anyway for philosophy at least we have the stanford encyclopedia. Right now the best compendium of information for information about the contents of books is on Amazon. Too bad that a greedy corporation gets to own and capitalize on all that free information. Wikipedia can't handle that stuff because any books that aren't the taste of these Richard Dawkinite Asperberger I-Fucking-Love-Science types get deleted. Like the Law of One article. Some pointy headed basement nerd decides he doesn't like those books so they should be deleted. Nevermind that they meet all the wikipedia requirements... what counts is that the admin thinks the books are "nonsense" and that the 30+ notable and reliable sources are "biased". And you can't get justice because there are way more dumb admins than good ones, and what kind of person would volunteer for such a terrible job anyway? The only people who become admins are power tripping losers with small man syndrome, because those are the only kind of people who benefit from the job. They don't follow the rules as laid out in wikipedia guidelines and there is no court or system to keep them accountable. The admin rot goes all the way to the top, and admins will never justify their rulings according to policy. It's like having a legal system where judges are not required to explain a ruling in legal terms. They just hand out the ruling without explaining how the ruling follows from law, and then they cry about it when people point out that there is no logical way to get from the written laws to the stupid ruling they made. They cry harassment. They delete your criticisms from their page. They delete the evidence you present. You claim this asshole is competent; why did he selectively delete the evidence I presented on his talk page? He deleted the EVIDENCE. That's not incompetence, that's malicious, that's psychopathic. Anyway now that this last article of mine is finally dead I can move on. I'd have to be an idiot to put any more of my work at the mercy of capricious, vindictive, arbitrary petty tyrants like that guy. Yossarianpedia (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the Irresponsible Hacksaw Deletionist, and the screenshot he doesn't want you to see

The following was selectively deleted by Drmies

Screenshot of sources for The Law of One article before it was vandalised and then deleted.

@Yngvadottir:

@Dougweller:

@Drmies:

@De728631:

@Logos5557:

Are you fing kidding me? There are 30+ reliable sources listed in the pre-vandalism history of the page. This debate in this talk page has no importance and will not receive justice. I am making my objections public for the sake of posterity alone. If you want to see the sources:

Go look at the history of the page pre-vandalism.
Go look at the history of the talk page pre-vandalism.
Go look at the previous AfD discussion where 30+ sources are extensively discussed and analyzed, and consensus found that they were reliable according to the wikipedia definition of "reliable" which you have not familiarized yourself with.

This debate has already been done and it's very visible in the history of the page and the previous AfDs; the history which has not been consulted by the current deleters attacking this page. Without an "admin in my pocket" my claims fall on deaf ears; I understand this all too well. If you or your allies were interested in due process, you would examine the history instead of asking that all that labour be repeated. Your kind will always demand that others do all the work even when it has been done in exhaustive detail. When you've read this entire page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One then you may speak without embarassing yourself. Anyone who has not read that entire page and understood the poles of the debate speaks from ignorance and exposes themselves as lazy deleters happy to erase hours and hours of work without a care. Shame on all of you for your intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and irresponsible deleter reflexes. Yossarianpedia (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

User:Drmies :@Drmies: and his ally User:Dougweller :@Dougweller: continue to abuse their admin privileges, attemtping to delete and erase all criticisms of their gross incompetence. Yossarianpedia (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of the Sources Pre-Vandalism

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossarianpedia (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yossarianpedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have participated in a deletion debate on the appropriate deletion page. I have requested and warned unwelcome editors from touching my talk page, as is commonly done by admins who set the example for behaviour on this website. In a court of law, the accusation toward a person includes a citation of the law or regulation or bylaw that has been broken. Where is this citation? What rule have I broken? Cite the rule, or expose yourself as a petty capricious tyrant. I reject this blocking as my offense has not even been listed; it is impossible for me to change my conduct when my offense is unknown. The admin behaviour here is a joke. Yossarianpedia (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. (1) Did you edit disruptively? Yes, to a very great extent. (2) Did you make personal attacks? Yes. (3) Does your unblock request indicate a recognition of what you did wrong? No. (4) Does your unblock request indicate that you are unlikely to do the same things again? On the contrary, even in the unblock request itself you make further personal attacks. Case closed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A word of advice. If you make another unblock request, stick to the subject, and don't attack others, because further personal attacks are likely to lead to loss of talk page access and/or lengthening of the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]