Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
User:Anarchangel
- "The spirit was freedom and justice "
- "And it's keepers seem generous and kind "
- "Its leaders were supposed to serve the country "
- "But now they won't pay it no mind "
- "'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy"
- "And now their vote is a meaningless joke "
- "They babble about law and order "
- "But it's all just an echo of what they've been told "
- "Yeah, there's a monster on the loose "
- "It's got our heads into a noose "
- "And it just sits there watchin'"
- "The cities have turned into jungles "
- "And corruption is stranglin' the land "
- "The police force is watching the people "
- "And the people just can't understand"
- "We don't know how to mind our own business "
- "'Cause the whole world's got to be just like us"
- "Now we are fighting a war over there "
- "No matter who's the winner "
- "We can't pay the cost"
- "'Cause there's a monster on the loose "
- "It's got our heads into the noose "
- "And it just sits there watching"
- -Steppenwolf Monster/Suicide/America, Live, 1995
Spanish Civil War, 1936
- • • • • Last 500 changes to Anarchopedia in the last 30 days • • • • -
Without User's
User's last 500
| . |
|---|
Example
| < | > |
|---|---|
To Do
Revolutionary • Reactionary • Titles of articles and certainly not Category titles should not be phrases or sentences
User:Anarchangel/Wikipedia argument of the month
[edit]
How To
The hopefully more complete than necessary guide to extracting useful information from Wikipedia to use here
- Gibbs: Look alive and keep a weather eye. Not for naught it's called Shipwreck Island, where lies Shipwreck Cove and the town of Shipwreck!"
Sparrow":For all that we pirates are clever clogs, we are an unimaginative lot when it comes to naming things <pause>
I once sailed wif' a geezer lost both of his arms, and part of 'is eye"
Gibbs: "what'd you call him?"
Sparrow: "Larry"
-Jack Sparrow and Joshamee Gibbs,
Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End, YouTube
- "notability is the difference between declaring to everyone that you have a new nickname, and everyone giving you a nickname
Puerile as that distinction is, it is one of the pillars of WP, the somewhat exclusive social network that anyone can edit.
-Anarchangel, 17:14, 27 December 2010
Wikipedia relies on the concept of notability to define worthiness of inclusion. They mistakenly believe that this sidestepping of the notion of truth makes their rule unequivocal and objective, whereas it merely replaces one subjective judgement with another, less-well-understood one, so that no one really knows what is notable and what is not, exactly. But of course there may be other reasons why no one at WP ever questions the use of such an obviously subjective rule...
- "Down your street your crying is a well-known sound / Your street is very well known, right here in town / Your town is very famous for the little girl / Whose cries can be heard all around the world"
- Pete Townsend, The Who.
And so we come to the second problem of notability - all you have to do is be loud, to get everyone to hear, and thus be notable
- "I do not like broccoli and I haven’t liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I’m President of the United States and I’m not going to eat any more broccoli"
George H.W. Bush, 22nd March 1990
Another problem with notability-on Wikipedia, it represents the views of the power elite as filtered through the Ivy League, and what the unemployed and activists of both sides have to say that does not interfere with that world view Unduly.
So do not bother with notability. Citations are nice, use them, but do not feel hampered by a requirement to use them to state what is truth as you know it.
We did not end up at Anarchopedia because we believed anything we read, and neither will our readers.
Wikipedia, and I think Wikia also, operate under the Creative Commons 3.0 licence. This means that all work added to here from there (and vice versa, heheh) must be credited, somewhere, but is otherwise completely free to use. I credit at the top of the page, but it can be anywhere. 3.0 does not go with 2.5, that Memory Alpha (Star Trek Wikia wiki) uses, so information that is learned from a source with 3.0 can be added to 2.5, via one's mind and back onto the page, but not directly, and not obvious paraphrasing, other than the obvious nuts and bolts, impossible-to-alter elements such as citation sources.
Copy-Paste: (I said it was too complete)
Copy: With the desired text highlighted, hold down either Control (Ctrl) key plus the 'c' key.
The highlighted text is now copied, and can be added to any active text field (editing box on an article, or the Search field above the Go button on the left there)
Paste: With the blinking '|' (cursor) in the desired destination location for the copied text, hold down Ctrl plus the 'v' key.
The copied text is dumped there instantly, but it still remains in memory until a new batch of text is copied or the computer is shut down.
Move: 3 methods. It makes literal sense to call it move, but it can also be thought of as Copy-Paste but not leaving the text behind. So, obviously, one way of doing it is to just copy-paste and then delete the old text. But you don't have to. Paste as above, but use Cut (Ctrl + x) instead of Copy. If you are not moving from one document to another, but within the same document, then Windows has about the only useful text utility I know how to do, which is to highlight text, and then click on it and hold down the left mouse button and drag the whole text to another place on the page. This is particularly nice when you have a piece of text copied and don't want to lose it or go back to where it came from.
Don't be a Space Hog: Now that you have the piece of text moved from Wikipedia (multiple browser tabs helps with this also) to an Edit field of an article, and added some message somewhere about it containing content from Wikipedia, hit the Show Preview button. Always do this instead of Saving and then seeing how it looks. I cannot stress this enough. It was my first big mistake in editing, and it is a bad habit that thousands of admins and experienced editors on Wikipedia cannot break. All the same, don't be a space hog. The amount of space taken up by an article is only worth one consideration; how easy it is for a web surfer's RAM to load the page. That is all. That is why WP likes for pages to be below 60K, and AP likes for pages to be below 32K. The amount of storage an article itself takes up on AP's hard drive somewhere is nothing. But consider this; every single edit to that page has to be stored somewhere to be accessible to the page history. That means a second entire copy of the page, and then a third, a 33rd, a 3,333rd... I asked someone on WP about how much this represented in bytes, and s/he said it was 20K on average. So every article on Anarchopedia with more than the one edit it takes to create it is using up more storage in bytes than what we like the total size of articles to be on AP. I suck at remembering things, and I work fast, so I am often making that second edit. You can do better than I do.
Red links blue vs red links are our playground The new proto-page is covered in a sea of red. That's Wikipedia, the media giant, and if we ever match that, then the revolution probably happened already and we would be working on the new international all-purpose all-connected database that the Internet can never be because it is .comMERCE not .comMUNAL. There are two ways to approach this, and I always at least consider using both of them. One is leave it. The red links are our playground; we get to make up new articles for each and every one. Plus, some of them may be blue already, and we really don't want to mess with those. The other is link them to WP, and because it is so very easy, it is worth doing right; just pick out the parts of the text with no blue links, and also leave articles we are bound to write eventually, like countries and Anarchist or Communist organizations and leaders, just to name a few. But back to easy: just copy-paste the article to an open text file on your desktop. Then select all the text however (click and drag or CTRL + A or choose Select All from the Edit drop-down list. Now hit the Replace button from the drop down list, or use CTRL + H. Type ' [[ ' in the top field, and ' [[Wikipedia: ' in the bottom field, and ' Replace All '. Copy-Paste the text back et voila! Red links Blue! If you use the most minimal text file, then you may end up with the Text-wrap bug, and there are new paragraph breaks starting in the middle of sentences. Just backspace those breaks out, or if there are too many, consider hitting the back arrow on the browser and pasting in ' Wikipedia: ' by hand.
Piping: Like piping icing onto a cake, it looks pretty but too much is bad for you There is a boatload of 'Wikipedia' s all over this page now, after the above steps. I do not personally care, because pretty is for things you stare at, not for things you read. There is a way to remove unwanted text in links, though, or replace text with the exact word you want. So a link to CIA: SAD and SOG operations from 1973-2002 can made to fit into the sentence "The right-wing coup in Turkey in 1980 was just one of five CIA operations around the globe active during that year" by adding it before, say, 'five', then adding a pipe | after 2002, then dragging, eg, 'five CIA operations' or 'five CIA operations around the globe' between the pipe and the closing brackets. Or, if you wanted to link the relevant section from that article, to the 'right-wing coup in Turkey in 1980', add it, after a pipe, to CIA: SAD and SOG operations from 1973-2002#Turkey 1980 (# designates a section, followed by the name of the section. The link will now take the surfer straight there)
But this has enormous potential to be misleading. And I have gotten so very sick of WPans piping links from, for example, 'Afghan rebel activity in the 21st Century' to 'Afghan terrorist atrocities post-9/11', that I am reluctant to even share this trick. But it works like this: the link destination goes first, then the pretty cover-up. Brackets [[ for the link opening, the destination pagename, then a pipe | which is found above the Enter key on the keyboard, then the text as it will appear on the page, then closing brackets ]].
Citations, References, Further Reading, External Links Wikia does not recognize the {{reflist|2}} command, where 2 is the number of columns created. But AP does, yay. It reduces the citation list in size, and divides it up in 2, shortening it also. WP can use it, but often does not. Good editors who actually add things to articles have been driven off by the deletionists. Take that nasty <references/> tag off the pasted stuff and put reflist in there instead. And call it Citations: References is an all-purpose tag for when you cannot be bothered to add a separate section for, well, References, that are not inline citations (added between sentences) but just there to reference. And they are not Further Reading either, those are generally books added for the same purpose, except that they do not necessarily reflect directly the content of the article, but may cover related material diverging from it somewhat. External Links are basically Further Reading online, but they can be simply useful links too.
The Manual of Style on WP was long ago corrupted to say: "The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity). Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic: "Sources" may be confused with source code in computer related articles; "Citations" may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; "Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography. With the exception of "Bibliography," the heading should be plural even if it lists only a single item." Citations may be confused with a summons to court? Hahahaha. Sources? Do what now? Absurd. Sources is an excellent title for a section or reflist section with many quotes in it, or for a large amount of material quoted at once. Notes and Footnotes sections are a useful device with a long-standing literary tradition, lost and forgotten by WP, that can be updated for the 21st C, and made very useful for alternatives' comment. Take back the subject of the text without having to actually rewrite it. Your gut reaction to the text becomes the focus of your writing. That skill that comes as naturally as breathing to muties, but norms (if muties and norms is not intuitive, or you want to know more, see Wikipedia:Strontium Dog) find so very difficult, of critical thinking, can add content to a Footnotes or Notes section immediately, getting through the WP content faster. Anarchist comments on the original Ivy League / Retard State WP text can be added to articles with piped links, as a computer age version of footnotes the way they used to be, or just written in those sections. And Bibliography? Confusing? What, book readers forgot they were at a computer? This is all designed to the editor who wrote this' desire for uniformity, with no regard to utility of these distinctions. Use these distinctions well, and AP will be better.
Give me a Break: Sometimes the extra line of space between paragraphs is more space than necessary or desired. Use <br>to stop the text connecting end to end but still close together top to bottom.
NoWiki Nooo!!! We want the wiki markup, and we want it invisible, most of the time. To show the Break markup just then (and other markup in paragraphs above that), I used <nowiki><br></nowiki>, and of course the pair of opening and closing ones just now to show you that.
That is all for now; there is sure to be much that I have forgotten to say here. Just look at how things are done, on any wiki you can find, and try it out.
Anarchy Online (AO is a free-to-play science fiction non-first-person-shooter (there being, barring true artificial intelligence, no such thing as a computer roleplaying game, even if that is standard terminology) with an excellent backstory that is updated occasionally and active roleplaying political forum (for paid players). The patently evil Omni-Tech corporation is on one side, and the successors to the gains of the workers' revolution, the Clans, on the other.
CGI introduction to the series
AO vid storyline series part 1
Every science article on WP, even sociology, needs an expert who can write in summary style. Anyone with talent should be welcomed with open arms. Instead, their contributions are put on the chopping block before the talentless Deletion Army hacks, hopelessly out of touch and/or agenda-driven, too inept to use Google (let alone Google Books), who may or may not be able to write something as simple as a deletion summary. None of which failings, I might add, disqualifies them from their goal of racking up sufficient kills to join the admin Special Forces. New content has diminished to bios of dead people, and 1k-byte-listings of cities, colleges, corporations and sports teams. WP writers (I too am guilty on this last point) got scooped by an English writing project. So what's it going to be? Hubris or humility?
|
|
|
</center>
Xenoalphabetophobia: Fear of other people's writing. Deletionists and people who use the term "wall of text" may, sadly, be suffering from this condition.
- User:Anarchangel/Sandbox * User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Guantanamo detainees * User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Guantanamo detainees 2 * User:Anarchangel/Video Games * User:Anarchangel/If or until deletion 1 * User:Anarchangel/If or until deletion 2 * User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Guantanamo detainees 3 * User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Temp1 * User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Guantanamo Bay Detainees-WP list * *
- No one on the Guantanamo articles ever said they were voting delete out of sympathy for those detained, but I always suspected there were some. You could not be more wrong, in my opinion. The press is filled with accusations of crimes, but criminals being found not guilty, not so much. Vindication, which they can receive, can be more important to those unjustly held and charged than anonymity, which they have lost forever. - Anarchangel, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabeel Hussain
Stupid Crap
Drama (pronounced Draaahma). Failed Law school graduate, too selfish even to edit Wikipedia Drama Where Drama Ends
N = truth[edit]
- The product of N itself is empirically observable, all things working properly
- The value of N on the other hand, is truth by another name
- This mental legerdemain escapes comment if not notice or comprehension:The above is tight as a drum. It is a dirty shame to have to follow it with the rest, but not everyone can grasp the implications of the above. Let's take it in stages
- All truth is subjective, we are told. Therefore we must find another way
- To an infinite extent, N excludes content. This has an infinity of possible consequences good and bad, small and large, depending. You cannot necessarily say anything at all, even empirically observable facts like 1+1=2, on Wikipedia.
- To a finite extent, although it must be said Wikipedia is a very large encyclopedia, N includes content. If many paid to read something, or many paid attention, you can say anything you like.
- Common sense will often prevail in the case of what N includes. But that means that again, a value judgement is being used, while ostensibly the rule has a worth that a subjective measure of truth would not have. And yet, let us examine this part of the rule itself. Is there not something morally wrong about a rule that claims to replace truth, and yet has no empirical value at all? And what of the common acceptance of values in the form of common sense? And this works two ways, also. Not only does common sense instruct well-meaning deletors that they should delete the Flat Earth article or articles on Astrology, it can allow them to include material that is flawed.
- The majority of people will never be able to tell that there is anything at all wrong with this. They share almost every one of their values with the writers of the included content. They know only the facts that the writers tell them, and many of the writers in turn only know what the rest of the writers, in the past and on to the future have told and will tell them. They think what it is expedient for them to think. In most cases, they do not have time to think anything else before they have to go to work again, and after they have finished energizing themselves for another day's work. What is more, they are given every reason to be ignorant of their ignorance, as their true masters are afraid to admit that the consent of the governed is based on their ignorance, and that they, to a man, consider themselves above the herd. The rulers cannot admit it, and so it has become a deep secret between the groups. It is only a simple fact, and yet to declare yourself of better anything than another is to invite sudden anger. Consider, for example, a person who embarks on self-improvement. What are they, when they have completed even a small part of such a task, if not better? And yet, to note such a difference is taboo. That is because the illusion of democracy and civilized society is as much to cover over inequity as it is to cover over the restrictions of law.
- There are two groups of people who think differently. Some of those with time on their hands and inquiring minds, and some of those for whom the established wisdom is not expedient. It cannot be denied that self interest is a powerful motivator. But the existence of self interest for the creation or support of an argument does not disprove the argument itself. There is nothing stopping those with time on their hands from accepting the established wisdom. Therefore, only some of them think differently. There is, however, something stopping those for whom the established wisdom is not expedient: in fact, they are almost forced to see it for what it is; its flaws are manifest in the difficulty of every day of their lives. The only thing stopping most of them, and it does it quite effectively, is the relentless barrage of propaganda they hear from their friends and family and co-workers, if by some rare chance they do not also hear it from the source.
- An example, which I did not really fine tune, so it is a little sloppy. Most of it is an inconveniently divergent rehash to the above, in fact. Its only value is a hypothesis as conclusion: I attribute a reason, namely the power of money in our society, as an overriding reason for the choice of N.
- This movie exists, according to these magazines. So far, so good, right? Well, is anyone really going to deny that the movie was made? Truth woulda solved that one. Here is how much money the movie made (a true fact) and here are some opinions about the movie (well, it is true they said that), in a magazine that makes this much profit (true fact). Is there anything about this magazine that explicitly proves its opinions should be valued? All truth is subjective, nothing can prove a value judgement.
