Ming

[CrowsNest]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 33#p223533

I shouldn't have re-watched Fight Club recently. If you are a figment of my imagination, the give me a sign.

[Dysklyver]

Yeah I would jut love to know who Ming is supposed to be on-wiki. I had some good candidates, but this latest bout of nonsense is making unsure.

It's also possible Ming fancies himself to look older than he really is, given his clear lack of knowledge of when computers were introduced. (either that or he is really 110 and suffers from memory problems).

[AndrewForson]

It's also possible Ming fancies himself to look older than he really is, given his clear lack of knowledge of when computers were introduced. (either that or he is really 110 and suffers from memory problems).

Ah yes, the computers that were introduced in 1975. An assertion that seems very odd to those of us who were programming computers for money in 1972, having learnt the trade in 1969. And possibly even odder to those at the National Museum of Computing working on the EDSAC project, to recreate a computer in use at the University of Cambridge in 1949.

I believe that Graaf was born in the 1940s, though: he claims to have been a babe-in-arms when his father was in Oxford in 1949. Unless Ming worked at Bletchley Park on Colossus, he is unlikely to have been programming before Graaf was born.

[Graaf Statler]

It is not as bad as that. My father studied from 1949 till 1951 by Tolkien in Oxford. I am born in Amsterdam in the early fifties. And before people think I am real a old man, after a coronary stent I am better than in years! I have the condition of someone from fifty years old and am complet healthy again according to the doctor, so the Graaf is fine again.

[Graaf Statler]

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.

I don't care, Crow. If they want to block me it is no probelm for me, I am not impressed. And still no one gave me a explanation for what happend on that Drmies and MM account. Because it is strange, you have to admit that. There is no other explanation other than and a bot and a other person has acces to those accounts. Most likely Ymnes.

[CrowsNest]

Because it is strange, you have to admit that.

I haven't looked into it. I wouldn't know one end of Dutch Wikipedia from the other.

I can say from personal experience though, Ming insisting someone is wrong, is not a reliable indicator someone is actually wrong. Ming saying he has looked into something, in Dutch or English, is no guarantee he understood what he was looking at. I bet the gimp still thinks Peter Hitchins wanted his infamous Tesco edit to stick.

Unless Ming worked at Bletchley Park on Colossus

It would be depressing in the extreme to learn a person like that saved us from the tyranny of evil men.

*Ming thinks this German submarine is using a code which Ming can crack using Ming's knowledge of Mingness. It is the Mingy, Ming Ming in the Mingelev. MING*

Fuuuuuuuck.

You'd just let the Germans win, wouldn't you? Anything to get away from that.

[AndrewForson]

In general the Wikipedia witch-smellers go for one person operating multiple accounts. I don't think there's been nearly so much attention paid to multiple people operating a single account, although this must surely happen a lot.

[CrowsNest]

In general the Wikipedia witch-smellers go for one person operating multiple accounts. I don't think there's been nearly so much attention paid to multiple people operating a single account, although this must surely happen a lot.

I can't think why they would, unless it was an Admin account.

The theory that ordinary editor Philip Cross was a role account for example. Why? What benefit does it offer, over socking? If five people used it, that's five people now unable to edit British political articles.

I can see only disadvantages. Even for an Admin account. If you managed to get one, you can surely get more?

[Dysklyver]

In general the Wikipedia witch-smellers go for one person operating multiple accounts. I don't think there's been nearly so much attention paid to multiple people operating a single account, although this must surely happen a lot.

I can't think why they would, unless it was an Admin account.

The theory that ordinary editor Philip Cross was a role account for example. Why? What benefit does it offer, over socking? If five people used it, that's five people now unable to edit British political articles.

I can see only disadvantages. Even for an Admin account. If you managed to get one, you can surely get more?

I pretty much agree, although I wouldn't entirely rule it out since there are often multiple people on a twitter role account, possibly more likely a team that shares multiple accounts that they all interchangeably use than a team on just one account though.

[Graaf Statler]

Because it is strange, you have to admit that.

I haven't looked into it. I wouldn't know one end of Dutch Wikipedia from the other.

The Dutch Wikipedia is extreem. extreem complex, but intense interwoven with Meta and WPEN. That makes almost impossible to explane what is going on. It is playing chess over different boards, and Drmies is a part of it.