Eric Corbett

[CrowsNest]

God, it never stops......

What's the issue here? I've sometimes used MS Word to write the beginnings of an article before importing it to Wikipedia, and I don't see anything wrong with using a text editor to do the same. In fact it might even be preferable given the ancient wiki markup language.

I have seen sanctimonious clowns including Slim Virgin complaining about articles being written too quickly before being taken to a review process though, as that doesn't give her sufficient time to order all the sources from her library, read and absorb them. But who cares what Slim Virgin thinks about anything?

The only people who prepare articles offline in word porcessors, are people up to no good (as earlier comments in the thread indicated), or whose incredible levels of arrogance andnownership tendencies make for very poor fit for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. People like this ferret fucker and his buddy SchroCat.

Eric's never been the brightest bulb in the box, but even if you wanted to be the sort of person who prepares articles in isolation, away from the interference of your enemies (other Wikipedians), it is precisely because the wiki language is so fiddly and proprietary that it makes sense to develop the draft in your Wikipedia userspace, where you can of course keep assorted notes and links all in one place.

If you're writing anything of length, then doing anything else means you will need to budget a full day doing the tedious job of working on your offline copy in an online MediaWiki setting, correctly formatting references, setting page layout issues and hunting down the correct wikilinks and assorted templates you need to satisfy the needs of the reader. Granted, spending a day that way probably appeals to sad little addicts like Eric, and he does like a bit of coding as we know, but it's really not something that would appeal to the sort of people whose primary interest is the actual words on the page. Encyclopedists, in other words.

Preparing stuff offline also encourages procrastination and a willingness to allow perfection be the enemy of the good, or rather minimally acceptable and ready to be worked on and expanded by others. That's not a problem for people like Eric, who are looking for nothing more nuanced from Wikipedia than the glory of being seen as a writer and researcher, when in reality they suck so badly they can't even make beer money from a self-publishing house. Carrite knows what I'm talking about. It is a problem for actual encyclopedists, who pass through this world without a shred of fame (or infamy), their only concern being getting correct information out there.

True Wikipedians, if they know their role in the universe and genuinely believe in their mission, should be aghast at opinions like this from people like Eric. That it would barely raise a ripple disquiet if he had uttered it in Wikipedia, tells you all you need to know about what qualities most of them actually share.

[CrowsNest]

Now we're seeing the real Eric....


.....to Jake......

That's not a definition of "trolling" that I've ever heard before. It's bad enough when the WMF keeps redefining words, like Humpty Dumpty, without aping them here.

Ouch

......to Poetlister......

Let me be blunt, your attitude makes me sick. Now go back to your beloved topic and leave me alone.

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE

......to Carrite......

With your permission, I won’t be getting back to you at all until you learn how to communicate in a more non-adversarial way. I have nothing else to say to you now, so don’t waste your time in trying to think of some witty riposte in which you mangle the meaning of yet another word as I won’t see it.

Zing!

....to iii....

Try harder, after taking off your "I hate Eric Corbett and everything he says" filter.

Poor widdle victim

....to all my fans.....

I've quite recently been the target of similar suspicions myself, even to the extent of at least one now ex-member of this forum, on hearing that I was perfectly fit and well, proceeding to wish that his invention of a terminal medical condition had been true, and that I had died. (In passing, I hope I can be forgiven for considering those who supported that member, and still support him in his malevolent lunatic ravings, to be shits of the lowest order.)

It's not pleasant and I don't think it's right to voice any such speculation about anyone's health, either mental or physical.

A malevolent lunatic is surely an accuser who isn't careful to check whether he has the right person who started a rumour you had terminal cancer?

Oh, and all the people whose mental faculties you questioned on Wikipedia would like a word. Oh no, wait, it's not a word they want, they have shovels. Heh, Eric, what's THAT! *points over his shoulder*.

And another thing. Where does accusing people of being drug addicts fall on your morality spectrum? That's some lame ass shit to be saying about someone just because they blocked you on Wikipedia.

------------

Still, good to see the effort to make Wikipediocracy seem like a nicer place for prospective posters has been abandoned as the pipe dream it always was. My only regret is not taking full advantage of the freedoms they seem to give people nowadays.

Remember when I got banned for being "hostile" by these assclowns? I hadn't said anything close to this. Literally not even close.

Still, Eric Corbett getting better treatment than other people on an internet site, but still whining like a little bitch? It must be a Tuesday.

Enjoy it while you can people, I think he's winding up for one of those diva quits he is famous for.

[CrowsNest]

Every single day, he proves he's a fucking vegetable.....(about Donna Strickland)

It's the job of the creator of the article to make the case for notability, nobody else. And in this case the creator signally failed to do that.

Firstly, where does Wikipedia policy say that? Because WP:PRESERVE says...

Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
......
Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so......Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

Second, the creator's draft absolutely made the case for notability.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =842614385

.....and even the person who rejected it admits the issue was not the lack of a claim, or at least a claim that didn't have some chance of success at AfD, but their failure to provide what he deemed adequate verification (and if there wasn't a philosophical difference here for Wikipedia's purposes, they would not have speedy deletion for one, AfD for the other, they would just speedy delete everything that lacked a verifiable claim).

Muppet.

[CrowsNest]

You're so stupid Eric.

If you believe that I am some kind of "Wikipedia and the WMF is wonderful" sycophant, then I suggest that you have not noticed the occasions when I have taken Jimbo and the WMF bureacracy to task, quite forcefully on occasion.

I would also like to say that despite what Kumioko claims you are one of the admins I've never had a problem with, so you must be doing something right.

Culen, a month or so ago.......

I do not want to be your enemy, Jimbo, which is in no small part due to my deep respect for your profound and enduring contributions to human knowledge in creating and shaping Wikipedia.

OOOH, STOP, YOU'RE BEING TOO FORCEFUL. Just the tip, OK?

It probably wasn't intentional, but Cullen got a two for one on this visit to Wikipediocracy. He took the opportunity to make Kumioko look like a fool, which is easily done, so easy the word must have got out and now they're all doing it. Oops!

And then he felt the ferret fucker lick his balls clean too, and throw Kumioko under the bus for good measure. What happened to them two being on the same page on everything, BFFs?

You sad little fucker Eric. This simply wouldn't happen if you were an actual genuine Wikipedia critic, instead of a very lazy but very butthurt former addict who is desperate for any opportunity to strike back at his nemesis.

[CrowsNest]

I don't think I've ever seen any evidence that Wikipedia is biased against women.

You've seen it, you lying sack of shit. What you mean is, you disagreed with it.

Seriously, do you think people will ever forget your glorious reign of terror?

Think again, you absolute fool.

[CrowsNest]

My parents were both Roman Catholics, but I'm not.

Insert your own jokes.

If you're looking for the post, you want the thread "Syphilis: Doc James on the Tuskegee Study", naturally.

Again, insert your own jokes.

[CrowsNest]

A comment on the Women In Red project....

We can suppose all we like, but I simply fail to see the point of a load of copyvios and plagiarism being created in the name of gender equality. YMMV.

I wonder which women he is hating on here?

I suppose it is most likely the enthusiastic newbies attracted by the project, perhaps even at edit-a-thons, and who we can presume, due to their training and willingness to work in groups, will actually create less copyvios and plagiarism that the more common method of article creation - a single individual, typically a man, creating articles on their own, not even bothering to read the manual, because MAN.

He could of course be insulting the experienced editors in the project, who are unsurprisingly, mostly women. Doing as the WMF advises and huddling together in small groups and minding their business while simply focussing on content, to avoid the likes of Eric.

Still, there is the bonus. Ritchie333 is an enthusiastic member of the project too. See, Ritchie. It never pays to make friends with nasty little ferrets. They just bite and piss on your floor.

[sashi]

There is a theory going around, most explicitly stated by TDA over at Auggie's, that you've been slumming it over at en.wp, trying to get JzG deleted or to point out just to exactly what degree such an idea is unthinkable.

While these rumors do not appear incredible, I'm glad you've come back to your senses. ^^

[CrowsNest]

Now, Sashi, you know my policy on commenting on rumours about who I am. Man of mystery, me.

As I see it, the more people who are drawn to this site, the better. The more cover-ups they have to do of perfectly valid Wikipedia criticism, the better. The more people who make the Wikipedians make bad decisions, the better. If they block every single person who calls for Guy Chapman's head, the probability Wikipedia destroys itself only increases.

If they ratify that essay, they are only ensuring a fuck-ton more trolls will want to attack the block, and even more perfectly valid criticism from people who are categorically not stupid or trolling, will be found across the internet, of all types of source. The best troll, is one who uses Wikipedia's weaknesses against it. Not their openness, but their fucked up psychology. Which is anything but open.

This is why I always had conflicting feelings about Eric's long reign of terror. I felt bad for the innocent victims. But this is war. Casualties are inevitable. In the long run, it was only a good thing for us that he stayed as long as he did. Look at them now. Don't all those people who made bad decision after bad decision, simply for the benefit of Eric, especially those claiming it was for the good of Wikipedia, look like fucking idiots now?

I do draw the line at what HillbillyHoliday did. Rumours abound that he was an agent of HTD all along. But there is nothing to be said for someone who harms people's careers just so they can embarrass Wikipedia (and their target was really Jimmy, another reason why it was just stupid, since he did what he does, predictably, and so came out of smelling of roses).

All told, rumours are pretty handy in this game. Wikipedians do what they do, and we know what they do, it is all rather predictable. As predictable as Bbb23 accusing anyone who points out what a crap admin he is, is a troll. They will never figure out what is really going on. I've virtually told them here, and they'll either not get it, or will have forgotten it this time next week. They're pretty dumb like that.

Even Guy Chapman, smarter than the average Wikipedian, which isn't saying much, was only being smart in this incident, in an entirely self-serving and self-preserving fashion. He's collaterally damaged Wikipedia pretty hard. But like I said, they'll literally not see it. It's like colour blindness of something.

[CrowsNest]

So not a critic.

Wikipedia doesn't have a robust workable idea of what constitutes pseudoscience, even assuming that such a thing actually exists. Other than "I don't agree with that" of course.

A serious critic would have framed this thusly......

The Wikipedia definition of pseudoscience, while presented as if it matches the real world understanding of the term, is in reality merely defined and enforced (to ban users and classify content) due to the personal opinions of a few powerful activist editors, an inevitable result of the Wikipedia design of governance which rewards activists, which has been taken advantage of through their infiltration by the "Guerilla Skeptics", as documented many times on Wikipedia Sucks!

So, why is this Muppet even waffling on about stuff he clearly has no clue about? Other than the fact Jake is too scared to stop him, and he has banned anyone else who would. The answer is boredom, obviously, and a deep love of his own voice. Since his voluntary retirement from Wikipedia, he clearly has way too much time on his hands. Unsurprisingly, his claim to have found other interests, seems like it was a self-serving (or perhaps even self-deceiving) lie. Either that, or they are warm weather only pursuits. Al fresco ferret sex perhaps.

Still, good news, other serious critics are on hand to correct him.....

It's very simple. Pseudoscience is any view or theory which reliable sources describe as pseudoscience.

Easily disproved, of course. Which is ironic. No surprise to see Poetlister buying into and propagating Wikipedia mantras however.

The classification of pseudoscience is of course not remotely conducive to treating "reliable sources" as if they are an uniform group in universal agreement. They are not. Which is why the Guerrilla Skeptics make good use of the technique of cherry-picking, the inability to defend against this sort of chicanery being another well known flaw of Wikipedia that all serious critics are aware of.

There will now, of course, be twenty back and forth posts of them arguing the toss over who is right, when they are both wrong, in their aggressively flirty way. Can't they just get a room?

The reason nobody bothers with Wikipeidocracy anymore, nobody who matters, is because it really isn't difficult even for people who know little about Wikipedia, to understand what garbage this "criticism" really is.

Well done for ruining Wikipedia criticism Jake. You must be so proud.