I've occasionally edited or commented on WP. Usually it's to fix some grammar, add a link, minor housekeeping stuff. I've occasionally opined on a talk page about a matter.

Recently I added content on two pages, and was amazed at the retardery I had to wade through.

First was on the page for John Illsley, former bassist for Dire Straits.┬á I saw a message to the effect of, "Before you add instruments to a musician's page we have to discuss it and get consensus."

Um, no. He played bass and sang backup for Dire Straits. On his solo albums, articled on Wikipedia, he plays bass, guitar, and sings.┬á He sings and plays on his Youtube channel (And he's very good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdrvmuAeJK4 ).┬á The liner notes of his albums document these facts. "Consensus" is irrelevant when faced with facts.┬á Grow up.

Then on David Bowie's page, same message. Are you fucking kidding me?┬á Bowie played about 17 instruments, most of them live on stage and on film and noted in liner notes. That means he fucking played them. There's no "consensus."

This demonstrates the problem. Wikipedia is the plywood fort in the back yard where the unpopular kids go to look at each other's wangs and talk about how awesome they are.┬á You have to impress them, or they'll not take note of you!

And so we get to me.

Back in 2008, I argued a point on the 0bama election on that WP page. Now, ultimately, I was wrong* and the statement was corrected.┬á However, in response some asshole "article for deletion"ed my page, claiming I was "not notable, or his non-notable works."┬á He specifically stated in discussion he was doing this in revenge for daring to question the history of The One.

This was quickly shut down as "WTF are you talking about? Of course an author with a dozen books from major publishers is notable."

Some years back, I got hatemail in IM on Facebook.┬á Anonymous troll had already blocked me, so I have no idea who, but the gist was they were going to doxx me and get me fired (good luck, I've been self-employed since 1991. My boss is an asshole, but I understand him), and "You also have a Wikipedia page. Yeah that's gone.┬á It might take me a year or two, but say goodbye."

So, the threat was to remove the WP page about me, because?┬á Dunno. No reason given.

So Saturday night, a friend and antagonist (we disagree on several things, frequently where he's more libertarian than I am) (I am an anarchist, sort of) pings me that the WP page about me just speedy deleted.

WTF?

And apparently, someone was claiming that none of the references on the page (after 15 years and at least two attempts to delete it) were "Credible" or some such.┬á Apparently, the books are not considered valid as evidence of relevance, for an author page,--wait, what?┬á It doesn't matter how many books an author has published, that doesn't make them relevant as an author?┬á Really?┬á I guess then it doesn't matter how many races a driver has run, or how many TV shows an actor has been on.

The page was reverted and protected for discussion, but despite that, some fat troll in Sweden kept deleting content if he couldn't "verify" it from "independent sources" (Um, google, you mouthbreathing ignoranus (sic)?)

In discussion, there's even some asshole claiming Baen is a "vanity publisher," (magically distributed by Simon and Schuster).┬á I suggest they delete that page, too, then.

Apparently my Year's Best Military SF award was "self-awarded."┬á Weird. I gave myself a plaque and $500 cash?┬á I guess I should do that more often.

They claim they somehow can't source my Locus or Bookscan bestsellers.

And apparently, I "claim" to be a veteran. What standards do they require for proving military service or bestseller status, and do they require this of other authors?

Someone on my side even linked to an article in Stars and Stripes about veteran writers. And apparently, that's not an official source.

This has happened a lot. I remember when they were complaining that Howard Tayler, "Couldn't have more than 100,000 readers," for his comic, and therefore wasn't "notable," despite numerous awards, interviews, GoH status, etc. Are you fucking kidding me?┬á 100K readers is plenty big enough in this field.

They also went after Jim Rawles at Survivalblog, simultaneously insisting online references weren't good enough, and complaining that paper references from the 1980s weren't available online.

The error here is ignorance, or as the few honest people in that forum of failure call it, "WP:IDONTKNOWIT."┬á That YOU don't know who or what something is does not mean it is not relevant in that field and to people in that field. ┬áOne is supposed to assume good faith on an article's existence and ask for elaboration, not "speedy delete."

You see how this works? Nothing is credible unless they say it is.

And as a random aside, in the HELPDESK forum was this exchange, so you get an idea of the type of people who edit WP, usually without asking:

┬á

Am I allowed to add the following counter argument to this entry:┬áhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law┬á?
Am I allowed to add the following counter argument to this entry:┬áhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law┬á?

Counter argument:

While Goodwin appears to be coming around as documented in the above "Generalization, corollaries, usage" what Goodwin originally pretended to fail to take into account when he created Goodwin's Law is that some ideologies, like Conservatism and Nazism require innocent people be murdered for the ideology to be even be implemented - THAT, not the racism of the Conservative base, or the Nationalism that American Conservatives use as a bludgeon is what makes Conservatives' vile evil murderous pro-pollution ideology no better than the Nazis' vile evil murderous race-purifying ideology.

It doesn't matter if an ideology requires 1,000 people to be murdered, or if an ideology requires 6,000,000 be murdered - crossing the line into murdering people is what makes these two ideologies no different from each other.

Without the murder of innocent civilians, Conservatism could not be implemented:

https://news.vice.com/.../trumps-epa-knows-its-new-coal...┬á"TrumpΓÇÖs EPA Knows Its New Coal Rule Could Kill 1,400 People Per Year"

Other ideologies, like Democratic Socialism, or as it used to be called "a mixed market economy", aka Capitalism, does not require people to be murdered for those ideologies to be implemented. Even Socialism can be implemented without actually having to murder people - just incarcerate those who donΓÇÖt believe that private property is theft from humanity.

Conservatism requires that people be murdered or it's just another example of what the sociopaths call 'Radical Extremist Far Left Big Gubment Socialism.' ΓÇö Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuni Leml (talk ΓÇó contribs) 17:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not unless you can find a WP:Reliable source that makes that claim. Dbfirs 17:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


@Kuni Leml:No. You can only add an argument like this if you have found it in a reliable source, not if you propounded it first. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, you could only add this argument to that particular article if the source itself referred to Godwin's law. -Arch dude (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

┬á

~~~

Holy fuckballs, that's retarded.

Well, I don't need the bullshit. The deletion of the page ended my writing career, destroyed my awards, drained my bank account...

Oh, wait, no, it did nothing whatsoever. Utterly fucking irrelevant.

Which pretty much sums up the failures who've appointed themselves gatekeepers of what is "credible" or "notable."

Easy enough: go to google. There are 69,800 google hits for my name.┬á If only it was 70,000, they might care...

well, no. They've specifically claimed I'm all kinds of bad things for what I post. What relevance that has to notability, I'm at a loss.┬á I guess only certain orientations are allowed.

"It's not political! And have you seen the horrible out of context things he's posted?"

Ah, so it is political. Well, I knew that. Or at least, it's what shitheads think my politics are from out of context soundbites.┬á

This is like the time Mercedes Lackey got death threats, had to don body armor, and was accused at a convention of being a paranoid troublemaker for wearing body armor and refusing to be alone.

They then went Full Autism Retard on people commenting. Apparently, everyone is a "sock puppet."┬á One guy made an edit on a page about a small nation's military within a short time of me editing a different page about the same military! Aha! That proves collusion!

Or, it could be that we're both veterans (from different nations) and he's a writer I'm acquainted with. Duh.

What it comes down to is politics. These are largely fat, incel leftist failures (I've met a number of them), and I'm the diametric opposite.┬á They can hide in internet anonymity and pretend to have credentials, while denigrating my real, public ones.

The page is gone, and it's a relief. My fans shouldn't have to grovel, degrade, and humiliate themselves before a "consensus" of social failures to document that a best-selling, award-winning author with over 20 publications and 100 editions in 3 languages is more culturally relevant than a disgusting freak who was fucked to death by a horse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case┬á┬á

I think I last checked in on the page in 2015.┬á On my list of priorities, if #1 is sex with my wife and our girlfriend, and it is, taking my daughter to the museum is about #3, writing my current contracts is #5, showering and wiping my ass is about #12, pulling out the stove to scrape the congealed grease is #57, identifying that weird tree way up the hill on the fence line is #348, and giving a shit about some page argued over by fat, angry, pompous failures is approximately #4,762,051.

The fact is, Wikipee is irrelevant, and my sales and credentials do not depend on it for either existence or credibility. A simple google search finds me, and you can get direct info without "consensus."

So let them lovingly maintain the article about the guy who was fucked to death by a horse.┬á Because if that's the cost of notability, I'm happy not to be listed.┬á Call me a prude. It tells me all I need to know about their organization.

┬á

┬á

┬á

┬á

┬á

┬á

*I insisted he was the "President Designate" until after the (as of then not yet held) Electoral College vote. This was a term Reagan used.┬á I was shouted down that there would be no question of the EC vote, it was a done deal. Eight years later, the same fat, weeping failures even tried bribing the EC to keep Trump out.┬á So much for moral consistency. But then..."liberals."

ADDENDUM: Apparently it's back again. My attorney will be having words with someone.

And in the "discussion," everyone who supports the article is a "Sock puppet," only people who are uninvolved should discuss a page....huh?

Fan-voted awards are not credible, but the Hugo is credible, even though it's fan-voted.

My Hugo nomination was "fake."

ISBNs aren't credible sources, Amazon isn't, IMDB isn't, the publisher's site isn't, my site isn't, Publisher's Weekly isn't, Stars and Stripes isn't, Locus Magazine is too "niche," my site can't be used as a source of info about me, only third party sites, who aren't credible because they're fan sites...

You see where this is going. These are the same fat, festering fascists who spent last year trying to get "conservatives" banned from conventions with false allegations of rape and violence.

UPDATE: they are going after Tom Kratman's page, too. Purely by coincidence. No politics involved. Riiigght.

UPDATE: And now Sarah Hoyt's page. Entirely predictable that the racists would then start on the women of color who don't cling to their leftist bigotry.

┬á

https://www.vnews.com/Grafton-Man-Accused-in-Shooting-Arraigned-25219982

Note he's been charged with two counts of assault, but denied bail. There is no universe in which this is reasonable. Even most murderers get bail.┬á So that has to be fixed first. It also really makes one question the judge.

Now, I've known Joe for over 20 years, and dated Denise before they married. He's a degreed engineer. He's a very stable, very thoughtful guy, and not someone who'd succumb to road rage, ever. His online commentary is always about caution, fully cognizant of the law.┬á If he shot, it's because he felt life was in danger.

Let's look at the article, and consider how it might have played out vs what we're told.

If the other guy was driving slow, it's not unreasonable to hold close but not tailgating, waiting for a chance to pass. I've had encounters where, when you try to pass, the other party then nails the gas to cut you off, just to be that kind of asshole. This is far more likely to me than him passing someone and slamming on the brakes to wreck them.

Furthermore, the default assumption in ANY rear end collision is that the rearmost party is at fault.

So let's interpret this as the other guy being the road rager. Especially as they admit he punched Joe first.

(UPDATE from court docs: Per court docs, the other party admits to being intoxicated on post surgical painkillers, and throwing the first two punches. But he's not being charged.)

Joe's a little guy, about a head shorter than me.┬á If some big guy creates a wreck, gets out of the car and instead of swapping info and calling the cops, starts getting pushy, and Joe has his three minor children in the back (he did), it very well might meet the standard of "fear for my life or that of my children."

I'm willing to bet money on that.

Now, let me dispose of a rumor that some assholes in the area have been spreading.┬á "Joe shot the guy for banging his wife."

First, he is a widower and his wife has been dead for 6 years. Try not to be that kind of asshole.

Second, he probably has a girlfriend or two at present.┬á He usually does.┬á He and Denise were openly poly, and there'd be no issue whatsoever about discussing it and having other partners.

Third, they're strangers who met on a random highway.┬á Trying to chase someone down with your kids in the car is so far outside the realm of rational we're not going to consider it.

So with that information, please donate what you can to help him first get released on some reasonable level of bond, and then prove his innocence, which no one should be forced to do in an innocent until proven guilty society.

He has been held without bail for 17 months so far, under the insane argument that he "turned a fistfight into a gunfight."  Apparently, you're supposed to let a drugged out freak beat you to death in front of your kids.

And they're in no hurry to hold a trial. The process is the punishment.

You can donate here.┬áhttps://www.gofundme.com/joseph-brown-charged-for-act-of-self-defense

The established law started with "No new 'hi capacity'* magazines."┬á In 1994ish.┬á I may not have the date exact. Doesn't matter.┬á I'm lazy, look it up if you care.

(*Standard capacity for the weapon redefined as "high capacity" by a bunch of legislative faggots with no technical knowledge and no other credentials. About like claiming any gas tank over 5 gallons is "High capacity.")

Then it was "No repair parts" and "no spare parts."┬á Because that was a loophole* you could drive a semi through, and people did. Some companies marked production dates on their mags for this and other reasons, which helped ID the "Bad" ones.┬á Some weren't produced until after that deadline.

(*A "loophole" means "we're ignorant shitheads who didn't actually say what we mean, and for some reason, people and the courts are going by what we said." Sort of like that crazy chick who expects you to understand what "it's fine" means.)

Then it was, "Turn them in to be destroyed."

And an injunction.

And a court ruling, rescinding all of it. The entire fucking law.

Which means, even if it was only in effect for 90 seconds, and so far it's at least 90 hours, ANY MAGAZINE made between 1994 and the present can legally be brought into CA, whether or not it's marked any particular way.┬á And even if they get an injunction against the injunction, followed by winning a case against the case they just lost, all those magazines will remain grandfathered legal in CA.

And because there is no way to distinguish those magazines from any other identical magazines, anything found in CA with that production date range must be assumed to have been legally acquired in this window.┬á If residents bring in 10 million more magazines made between 1993 and X, and don't get caught, once in CA, the burden of proof will be on the state to prove they were imported after X. Which hasn't happened yet and may not.

So even if X happens and Commiefornia manages to ban them again, using different language, the billions of mags in the state will remain legal, and CA will have to start from scratch down the road of fascist cocksuckery.

And they even admit so here:┬áhttp://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-01-Defendants-Ex-Parte-to-Stay-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf?fbclid=IwAR01_1K_OqyVrZhiHGCh3fzKnDwqydLg1g1UfcAXIEwHV9ddwa7_JLnNFRY

Watching hoplophobic faggots squirm in agony is almost as delightful as watching fetus fetishists be told for the 48,972nd time that Roe v Wade is established.

A couple of weeks back, I clicked on a "featured" photo or such on Photobucket front page.

Immediately, popups exploded and insisted my system was infected, vitally important I call their toll free number, etc.

I closed fast, and luckily, my malware protection worked.┬á┬á

But this was a photo they were PROMOTING.┬á Linked to malware.

I had another issue the week after that (which follows).┬á I tried to click on the FAQ button for help, and THAT triggered popups and another loud voiceover if, "We have detected your system may be infected with malware, viruses or porn. It is vitally important you not close this window, and contact our toll free" etc.┬á With an attempt to download, which I refused.

This time my malware protection quarantined the file.

I contacted support and informed them of this.┬á They asked if I had a screenshot. No, duh. However, I reported that I had the quarantined file, gave them all system details, etc.┬á

No response. Apparently they don't give a shit that their site is hosting threatware, possible ransomware, and other stuff. Or maybe they get a kick back? How does their FAQ button trigger malware unless their entire site is corrupted?

~~

And why was I contacting them?

Because I got autobilled in December, and billed again in March, and I wanted to complain about it.

The December charge was $29.99.┬á March was $59.99.┬á They refunded $29.99 and told me they cancelled that plan.

I asked why that one and not March, and where had March come from?┬á And that I'd apparently been billed for both the year before as well.┬á The December bill had been in effect since 2015.┬á The March one started in 2018.┬á They asked for documentation, I sent it.

I vaguely recall I may have been told the Dec plan was going away and the new minimum was $59.99, which is why I'd been pulling images anyway, planning to shut it down and go elsewhere--I can host on my own now, cheaper.

I was using about 174 meg of a 60 gig plan. Barely enough to even show on the bar.

But, if the $29.99 annual Dec billed plan was going away, why was I still getting billed for it as well as the new one?

I inquired, they quoted the previous correspondence. They don't intend to reimburse me for anything else.

Now I'm not a lawyer, and not versed in the finer points of fraud law, but this certainly looks like it to me.

Add in that they seem to endorse ransomware on their site.

And then there's the 57,435 ads that pop up when you try to access it from a phone.

My advice?┬á Don't give them a cent, don't click on their site. There's no benefit, and every reason not to.

EDIT:┬á Oh, yeah--I contacted their "Delete my plan so I can delete my account" email twice in a week and never got a response.┬á I can't delete the account until I beg them to cancel the plan, which they have not done.┬á Almost as if they intend to keep charging me every year for service I'm not using.
https://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/cms/index.php/18-general?start=8
www.michaelzwilliamson.com
CC-MAIN-2024-10
47901
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:XSNT4RUBJNXLVMSPWQ2UGN2HZ7KCVIDO
<urn:uuid:99832539-7ee5-4226-971a-bf3556813ac0>
2024-03-02T13:15:06Z
69.163.216.67
text/html
sha1:O4LDXZZXFQZXUL2NXFE7MTONRX6V7RGP
<urn:uuid:26e86b8d-4487-4e69-9963-305186864d5c>
https://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/cms/index.php/18-general?start=8
response
<urn:uuid:09ed305f-e320-4e93-9f0a-9765edbd8136>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-31
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/