Jordan Peterson

[ericbarbour]

Ever heard of him? Neither did I. So why does he have a 57kbyte WP biography with 72 references?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Because he's a well-known academic critic of political correctness and Marxism. His article was started in 2011 and almost totally ignored until late 2016, when a small group of editors started grinding it like crazy. Most notably Miki Filigranski and Hrodvarsson but also several others.

Look at Filigranski's talkpage: apparently forced out of Croatian WP for fighting over political content. I can't read Croatian so can't tell why they were fighting and Google Translate doesn't help. Filigranski could be a leftist who hates Peterson, or a rightist who loves him. Although I had previously gathered that hr-WP was controlled by "fascist elements", it's difficult to figure out exactly what's going on in there unless you can read Croatian as they're doing a great job of hiding it. Except for banninations like this one.

Hrodvarsson is even more difficult to "read". He/she/it likes chess, Morrissey and either loves or hates critics of Marxism, I guess. This crap gives me a headache. You be the judge.

Peterson is "the stupid man's smart person". Or whatever.

[Strelnikov]

Ever heard of him? Neither did I. So why does he have a 57kbyte WP biography with 72 references?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Because he's a well-known academic critic of political correctness and Marxism. His article was started in 2011 and almost totally ignored until late 2016, when a small group of editors started grinding it like crazy. Most notably Miki Filigranski and Hrodvarsson but also several others.

Look at Filigranski's talkpage: apparently forced out of Croatian WP for fighting over political content. I can't read Croatian so can't tell why they were fighting and Google Translate doesn't help. Filigranski could be a leftist who hates Peterson, or a rightist who loves him. Although I had previously gathered that hr-WP was controlled by "fascist elements", it's difficult to figure out exactly what's going on in there unless you can read Croatian as they're doing a great job of hiding it. Except for banninations like this one.

Hrodvarsson is even more difficult to "read". He/she/it likes chess, Morrissey and either loves or hates critics of Marxism, I guess. This crap gives me a headache. You be the judge.

Peterson is "the stupid man's smart person". Or whatever.

When you go to Hrvatski (Croatian) Wikipedia, a user is a "Suradnik"; I got this through machine translation:

User: Miki Filigranski

This collaborator is currently blocked. The last blocked block item is listed below as a note:

09:13, 2 November, 2017. Kubura (Talk Contributions) has changed the block settings for Miki Filigranski (talk contributors) for unlimited time (autoblock is disabled, email blocked, no editing of own chat site) ( from the beginnings of conflict, remove content, skip steps, ignore instructions, process misuse, WP: POINT,)

View full records

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this name. In general, this site should be created and edited by the Contributor: Miki Filigranski.

I looked at the "full records" and got this:

The following pages link to this page (User: Miki Filigranski):
See (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

User talk: Kubura (← links | edit)
User talk: Ceha (← links | edit)
User talk: Nesmir Kudilovic (← links | edit)
Talk: Southwestern Istrian dialect (← links | edit)
User talk: Miki Filigranski (← links | edit)

The one on the dialect leads to this:

Talk: Southwestern Istrian dialect
Recent edits (October)

You do not know how to edit Wikipedia Wikipedia at all. Your edits have the wrong tone and face in which the text is written. Do not follow the flow of thoughts and information as you repeat what is already summed up. You can not set and separate paragraphs for readability, or leave an empty line unnecessary. You put a link to cities, and the name and context in the entire article and quoted sources is regional. You are wrong. The maps you are constantly posting are unnecessary because they are either unreliable because they do not have a quoted source or are too extensive and obscure for chakavian and other dialects in general. Specifically, you propagate their inclusion in the article because you did them personally. Your call to vandalism is total absurdity because you are the first to start editing editing, just the opposite, until my arrival the article was in no condition so that your equalization of constructive editing and vandalism is insane. I do not have any problems with J. Lisca's source, but with your editing. Also, the controversial text does not remain on the article until the conversation ends, but it returns. Study the Rulebook .-- Miki Filigrans (Talk) 11:19, 22 October 2017 (CEST)

First, your negative attitude / spitting on me is against the rules of the wikiipedia. I'm glad you have some opinion, but it is not relevant to the discussion.
Second, the maps that are placed in the text make sense. I quote Lisca about the sub-dialects, and the second one speaks about the sub-dialects (and the JZ of Istrian, but also the other dialects). The text deals with the origins of dialects, so it is important to map the correlation with other dialects. Both maps have the described resources and are set up as such on a shared server. If you have any problems with them, the comment topic is on their chat site or on the common topics of the shared server, not here.
To be honest, it seems to me that the problem is a linguistic map of Croatia and the surrounding areas, so why remove them. I think your negative bias towards them is obvious from point one. How is a linguistic map showing hr. dialects, and covers the territory of Croatia (and the surroundings where the Croatian language is present) may be irrelevant to the presentation of Croatian dialect's speech?
Thirdly, you try to put a link to cities, although text is a wider area, but these are the cities of the most prominent settlements of the mentioned regions.
I would ask you to stop. Free the text or add useful material, but it does not justify you in vandalism, specifically moving maps, and pointing to the areas from which the dialect is implanted. After the vandalism is committed, add a few lines of new text and invoke vandalism when it comes back to the previous version. Quite sad.

- Čeha (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2017 (CEST)

First, I do not have a negative attitude or I've spit on you anymore but your unconstructive editing style.
Secondly, they make sense if there is consensus that they have the same meaning and the size of the article for the sake of its visibility. I am writing about their problem in the context of this article, and if you are ever referenced in the work of Wikipedia, especially in English, you would know that their quality and reliability are also taken into account, therefore all this in the context of this article may and must discuss this page. The maps do not have a quoted source (nor a shared server), otherwise, each person can make a conclusion that you have made them to an unknown source (whomever they call) and their value is questionable. Until you clarify the situation regarding them I will not give up, but that does not mean that otherwise there can be no compromise. Rather than doing this, you make up the sluggish, which prejudices some kind of "negative bias."
Thirdly, this is not a valid argument, it violates the rulebook.
Fourthly, I would urge you to stop constructing edit according to the vandalism rule, and you are doing the same by pointing out cities instead of regions that misleads (ie, breaking the rules without "original research") because you have not correctly cited the contradictory quoted sources causing copyright violations, citing the wrong face and tone, leaving space between the point and references, paragraphs, duplicating the text already mentioned and summed up in the previous paragraph, deleting trusted quotations. And then you tell me that my editing by the rulebook has no justification unless you have any criticism of your edits. Please, this is the last warning, stop doing this deformed article destruction, otherwise the administration logs are in fact, you have already violated a couple of rules and you should get a warning before the punishment. Today I go to the library to further check the literature on dialect, including. Croatian Dialectics 2, by then, I warn you, do not remove the change .-- Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:51, October 23, 2017 (CEST)

1. You have violated the rules and spit on the job (specifically mine).
2. What consensus? linguistic maps have not changed much in the last 100 years. See the sources, and read this article at http://www.matica.hr/media/uploads/knji ... pha038.pdf. You are editing a linguistic article, it would be good to at least know the basics of the topic you are writing.
You do not need to give up that, just your opinion is not important. The maps are verified, and their value is quite easy to check. Once again, I do not know what's wrong with you.
3. What?
You are not editing either constructively or by the rulebook. You have opted out of 2 generalized maps for what purpose? - Čeha (talk) 14:40, October 23, 2017 (CEST)

1. I did not break the rules nor did I spit on your work. If you are unable to accept a constructive critique of your editing or be critical of your own editing against the editorial rules, then do not edit or edit Wikipedia. You've overwritten the WP: PDN rule by insinuating negative intent.
2. You do not quote any sources in your maps, and consensus regarding any kind of arrangement must be. Consequently, in your statements, it is obvious that you are unaware and ignore the WP: KON rule.
3. Violate the WP Rules: NPOV and WP: PRO, even the rule "Without Original Research", because in quoted source "Josip Lisac: Croatian Dialectology 2. Čakavian Dialect 2009 pp. 62-63" there is no mention of Ljubuski and Vrgorac . I personally have the source of home.
4. The one who does not edit constructively and by the rulebook you are the one you are. You have changed ([1]) outlined quoted sentences without any quotation or argument, returning the text already cited and summed up, and you have mistakenly cited the text because of copyright infringement or the tune and the person in which this article is written, or points leave a free order or space, and so forth not to mention the problems mentioned above. You are stuck around these 2 cards that you have personally made for doing WP: POINT changes that you have made for a few violations of the rulebook. - Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:55, October 23, 2017 (CEST)

1. Read your feedback once more and the amount of "constructivism" in it.
2. If you have a map problem, the comment spot is on their chat site. After all, the maps have no errors, sources are readily available; http://www.matica.hr/media/uploads/knji ... pha038.pdf, and you will probably read Lisca.
3. No. South Herzegovina is the end of Ljubuski, and Zagora is near Vrgorac. I'm glad your cards are no longer in dispute. What is wrong with copyrighta? By direct quote from the book?
4. Are you verbally evacuating / vandalizing verified maps, then adding text and accusing yourself of vandalism? That does not work that way. - Čeha (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2017 (CEST)

1. I repeat, if you are not able to be self-critical by your own editing in accordance with the Wikipedia edit rule, then do not edit or edit Wikipedia.
2. Map Problems in the context of this article are commented here, stop scrolling from the conversation topic and try to move it to the second page. If you have worked out a map according to a specific source and have no errors then please provide it as well on the page of these maps. As far as these cards are concerned, since you have done this, we are approaching a compromise. I've read Lisca already, so the entire dispute is over at the next point.
3. So you continue to negate and ignore the Wikipedia rule because Ljubuški and Vrgorac are not mentioned in the source on these pages. Your personal opinion and arrangement itself is a violation of "without original research". This will go to the login administrator. As far as copyright is concerned, text must not be directly cited, and the same text is already summed up in the paragraph above.
4. Maps are released until a compromise and consensus is reached (UPDATE: will be included), and for the proof of the thesis you fill in one and the same text already summed up, and you expel others by doing several mistakes and violations of the rulebook. Then bring the article's version up. You are the first to start an embezzlement of vandalism, apparently you have no idea what WP: VANDAL refers to in the context of Wikipedia editing. You have no idea how Wikipedia works and does not know the rules for editing it .-- Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2017 (CEST)

1. The level of criticism or self-criticism does not allow you to spit on someone else's work.
2. No. The maps are located on a shared server, and they are commented on by their sources or validity. Here you can comment on how many maps are important for the article itself. And after all, that is the dialectal map. They did not change2. I am a longtime associate in English. wiki, I'm probably arranging it more than you have years. Is this important? Ad hominem ...
3. Please report any of my behavior.
4. Here is an overview of the page history; https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history The same created my mildness, and by your very appearance I was the only editor of the same. There was no consensus because the creators of this site (my little bit again) were against your throwing the key parts of the page.
Created maps are a line of lines that are (more or less) the same for the last hundred years, if you have had any problems with them, the discussion site is not on the pages of the article that I created but on a shared server or on my site.
You are new to hr.wiki, you are not a moderator, so you should behave accordingly.
Can you concentrate on the last point (s) to resolve the issue? - Čeha (talk) 21:51, October 24, 2017 (CEST)

"Also, the controversial text does not remain on the article until the conversation ends, but it is coming back to it." Read the Rulebook .-- Miki Filigrans (Talk) 11:19, October 22, 2017 (CEST) "So any malicious person could interfere Wikipedia. Say "I disagree" and then delete the 3000 bytes of the text and then stretch out for months over the conversation "until they agree". "repeating what is already summed up" is not a mistake if it is repeated. It can only sound tense, but it is not incorrect. Some instances have to be repeated because each text is subject to new editing, and in new editions, the "already summed" one can suddenly go away and then the "redundant" remains in the text only. Kubura (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2017 (CET)

Intentionally ignore how the reasons were listed and justified by the editing rules of Wikipedia. Repeated text was redundant and violated copyright. You make up justifications, scenarios, and fatigues to justify the violation of the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia by the editor of Ceha, and you supported it while you punished me .-- Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2017 (CET)

Now I'm getting a vibe of War of the Pedants: Who Can Nitpick The Other To Death?....maybe he was just too annoying to take, or this is what half-educated Croatian linguistics grad students do for fun at Ustasha U. I don't know because I'm not clued in enough; Slavdom is a mosaic and my eye is attuned to a Russian/Ukrainian/Polish wavelength.

[ericbarbour]

That's not all: Turley covered the story of Lindsay Shepherd, who used one of Peterson's lectures to discuss the demands made by transgender people (some of which are IMO kind of silly but in Canada there's no guaranteed freedom of speech anyway, supposedly). An anonymous student (shades of Wikipedia anonymity!) went to the school administration and demanded they get rid of this "nazi instructor". So they tried and did a bad job.

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/11/21/c ... vironment/

Something Turley hasn't noted yet: the attempt to "punish" Shepherd backfired.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e37039010/

By the by: In typical WP fashion, there's a rather lengthy and screechy article about Bill C-16, which passed. And is already being misused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to ... minal_Code

The bulk of it was written by this obvious Canadian legal fan. And yes, of course there was an editwar over it. Unnoticed until now. Captain Titpolice himself, JzG, was involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr_Serjeant_Buzfuz