Ming

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.

Re: Ming

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:52 am

It's gimp time again.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=9536

http://archive.is/YYDi8

Hoax of the Day
WTF?

Say what you like about that shitty forum, but when they issued guidance on how to properly title threads, and now to check whether you even need a new thread, they were spot on.

I look forward to Day Two's pick. He's got a few hours to find it yet......

Domaduir (T-H-L) - fake Irish town possibly written so that someone at the Simpsons Wiki could refer to it.
I'm impressed now he can get not one but THREE errors in such a tiny, nay, insignificant, thread starter.

1. It's a fake hamlet (a hamlet is many times smaller than a town, in Ireland or Scotland, which is kind of significant when trying to con people into thinking a place exists).

2. It's a fake Scottish place in it's Wikipedia article, and it's a fake Scottish place when referred to in The Simpsons. So where has this idiot got Ireland from?

3. It was most definitely created so it could be referenced from the Simpsons Wiki. Can this fuckwit not read an edit history of something? I know that wiki uses different colours and all, but fuuuuuuuck.....

http://simpsons.wikia.com/index.php?tit ... did=799840
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Ming

Postby CrowsNest » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm

If you can believe it, Ming is now claiming to be better educated, less arrogant and a better writer than Peter Hitchins. How hard is it to process that his infamous edit was never meant to stick? You need something higher than a college education to understand that basic point? Jesus.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 20#p222820

If you don't do tantrums Ming, then where the fuck are you? Come play in this sandpit, come discuss that affair with me, where your mommy can't protect you. Don't be wasting your time over there contradicting Kingsindian, like that's a remotely hard thing to do. Unless you want people to think you're the talentless prick.

If you want to flap your gums on that website for so called Wikipedia investigators, why not start with saying something insightful about the whole timeline, which seems to show, as with other cases, that the only really successful strategy for getting an article fixed on Wikipedia, is to do what Hitchins did, try it their way, and when it fails, raise hell, poke them in the eye and take one for the team for it.

Or you can try and use your English 101 qualification to make some pathetic case that forcing Hitchins to continue to try and and conform to their idea of what works, would have achieved any kind of improvement to the article.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Ming

Postby CrowsNest » Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:13 am

Doubling down. No surprise there.
You can call it a protest, or something. Ming calls it "someone with his education should have known better." He went to Leys and York, for crying out loud.
I'm amused at the suggestion a top class education means you would be equipped to understand the ways of the Wikipedians, to even realise, much less accept, before it was too late, that their so called collaboration toward an intellectual goal, is better seen as a sea of indifference punctuated by Kafkaesque experiences where the encyclopedia project is largely irrelevant. To appreciate that the conduct and outcomes of their machinations have little to no grounding in their actual published policies (if we assume Ming is trying to say Hitchins would have fared better had he read and understood them).

Fuck off Ming. This is pure shite.

If we're examining his life as a stick with which to beat him, let's first start with the idea that what could be more embarrassing for the Wikipedians, than the revelation that how the workings of their enterprise comes across, is actually more ruthlesss and less just than the sort of things a columnist who has risen to the heights he has, with the opinions he has, would be familiar with, much less capable of handling.

Hitchins tried to handle it the way anyone with a serious education and copious experience in the field of serious debate, would. A serious critic would never ever excuse the Wikipedians by arguing he was wrong to assume they are interested in anything but now to remove him from Wikipedia as fast as possible, recognising as they did, that people with his sort of education and experience simply will not stand for what they consider normal.

No wonder you feel the need to hide. I'd find it impossible to defend garbage like this. I find it inconceivable that Ming isn't in reality one of the little shit lords himself. I am sure I have speculated before that he is Guy Chapman, the biggest of them all. It certainly fits, you can certainly see Chapman saying exactly this sort of nonsense. Then again, Ming truly lacks the guts to be a leader, so he could easily be one of his faithful disciples.

Always two, there are.....
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Ming

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:59 am

See, Ming doesn't see abstruse/bureaucratic policies as the primary problem here. Ming went to the American version of a place like Leys, from sixth grade on; high school was so Anglophiliac that we had forms, not grades. And when Ming went on to college, Ming already knew the difference between the kind of writing that WP expects, and the kind of writing that Hitchens does as a matter of his daily work, regardless of whether one writes for the Mail or for the Times. And much of what he did in the Bell article shows that he knows the difference, because he carefully cited material and wrote in a way which made clear it wasn't his opinion he was attributing to WP. But then, for whatever reason, he decided that his analysis of the claims of the diocesan statement could be stated outright without citation. He knew how to do it right: make it clear that the diocese was making this claim about whether there was sufficient cause, not the actual police. But for whatever reason he decided that publishing his analysis was the hill he was going to die on, when he had to know that die was what he was going to do.

To be clear: Ming happens to share his unease/mistrust over the allegations. But every public school sixth former in England gets taught how the material he was trying to add wasn't going to be appropriate in context, so his "I'm a pro" stance that set off the Wikibureaucracy was simply not going to cut it.
The reason was stated countless times, and makes perfect sense.

Ming needs to get a refund, because not getting it for this long, can only be the product of a deficiency in intellect.

And now he's lying about Hitchins trying to impress the Wikipedians with his job. Didn't happen. What did happen, is the Wikipedians continually berated him for making that infamous inappropriate edit, and he told them they must be trying to argue he is thick if they genuinely believe that was him trying to make a legit edit that would stick, which he merely reminded them, is not indicated by his education and job, nor indeed his edits to the article up to that point. They did not care.

Here's one notable example of Hitchins' job being the subject of discussion......
He edits like a Daily Mail columnist. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I am a columnist for the Mail on Sunday. Our editing standards are very high and extremely professional. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You barely need an elementary education to figure out who was being done wrong here.

Ming needs to go back to school, and complete his education this time.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Ming

Postby Graaf Statler » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:13 am

Ming. Ming is saying something, just saying something and it is never based on something. Ming is thinking, in ming's opinion, Ming has the idea.......
Ming is just noise.
User avatar
Graaf Statler
 
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Ming

Postby Dysklyver » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:04 am

Ming is just an annoying example of what happens when an en-wiki admin goes "undercover" to try and keep their precious record clean.
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.
User avatar
Dysklyver
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am

Re: Ming

Postby Graaf Statler » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:18 am

Mings style of discussion is the steamroller system. It is Ponziwiki! No, Ming it is not because etc, etc. The discussion goes on, there is not any new argument it is a Ponziwiki, the subject has changed and yes! There is the steamroller Ming again. It is a ponywiki! ignoring the beginning of the discussion, he is programmed. Ming doesn't give argument, ming doesn't listen to arguments, Ming is just a stupide steamroller who is just saying something and who thinks if he repaid his nonsens many times it becomes the true. It is mister wiki stupidity himself.
User avatar
Graaf Statler
 
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Ming

Postby CrowsNest » Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:27 am

Ming wrote:Look, how many times are people going to have to mutter about you going on about this stuff for you to take the hint?
Hey Graaf, just so you know, this is Wikipediocract code for telling you that if you don't shut up, he's going to ask someone to ban you. They're cowards like that.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Ming

Postby Dysklyver » Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:01 am

CrowsNest wrote:
Ming wrote:Look, how many times are people going to have to mutter about you going on about this stuff for you to take the hint?
Hey Graaf, just so you know, this is Wikipediocract code for telling you that if you don't shut up, he's going to ask someone to ban you. They're cowards like that.


Well yeah that's certain, however Jake is apparently considering creating a special forum where he will presumably move all threads that end up with a high percentage of Graaf comments.

I think Ming is just a little bit too Wikipedian really.
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.
User avatar
Dysklyver
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am

Re: Ming

Postby CrowsNest » Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:00 am

Ming is at least helpfully giving us data with which to pin his identity down......
Ming doesn't think that Ming could get through an RfA because Ming has been a PiTA to too many people, and besides, it's well-known that Ming is something of a deletionist.

But you know, Graaf, Ming programs computers for a living; it's not terribly unlikely that Ming has been doing it since before you were born.
Graaf is old, but then again, who says they "program computers" anymore? He probably doesn't even realise his mistake there, he probably has no clue how old Graaf is. It happens, when you don't pay attention, as Ming is prone to do.

He said this too.....
Ming has a finely developed sense of what computers can and cannot do.
Really? Computer says no.....

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 69#p211569

A professional coder doesn't look at that incident I raised and think, yup, this looks normal, these Wikipedians sure are smart at the computers and tings, this Andy bloke especially so.
Ming learned long ago was to chuck ideas that didn't pan out.
I somehow doubt this. I have no doubt this fool still thinks I talk nonsense, that I am merely a grudge bearing quackery pusher expelled from Wikipedia. Or alt-right. Or any of the other monumentally stupid things he said about me.

He should pay attention more, silly Ming. He won't seem quite so stupid to others if he did.

What say you Ming? Still too scared to take me on? Still only interested in bullying people from within the nice little padded playpen Zoloft created for you?

The offer stands. I'll wipe the fucking floor with you on any subject, including computers by the looks of it. You are too thick, too arrogant and too lazy to do anything other than embarrass yourself. Hence your cowardice.

As a rule I don't tend to reveal my education or experience. That's partly for security, but I'd be lying if it wasn't also for the hilarity of people like Ming making assumptions based on limited data. In that respect, he truly is a dependable ass.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Wikipediocracy talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest