Good Lord, anyone but Tom Cruise, please! I know that you said acting ability and Scientology-related insanity aside, but I don't think he really would be able to do the image of Gordon Freeman justice.
Well, I know I would. I'm a big fan of the Half-Life 2 series (big enough to do some serious article work on Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2), and I'm more than willing to shell out some money for it. I figure this: you're paying for an excellent shooter, an excellent story, and lots and lots of eye candy. It's worth it, though some will disagree.
Gee, I suppose that all snipers count as hitmen or gamers. Policeman must be hitmen or gamers.... ooh! Terrorists/insurgents who execute people at point-blank range, they must be hitmen or gamers, too!
This is incorrect. "Heavily censored by the ArbCom" is a hasty generalization as well as totally incorrect. The ArbCom has nothing to do with how articles are edited unless subject to a complaint. The page is locked because it was being vandalized. Plus, we don't block any mention of Wikipedia Review. To do so would be stupid and have a pro-Wikipedia bias. Unless you can prove these claims, then I would ask that you do your homework a little more before accusing.
1.) It's not censorship. Censorship comes from a government, not from a free encyclopedia that you didn't pay for.
2.) It's not a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia, which is allowed to do whatever it damn feels like to its own sites.
3.) The articles were deleted because Wikipedia does not have a solid policy regarding living people.
"Banned from use in undergraduate research writing"? Last I checked, all of my professors love Wikipedia and would recommend it without a second thought..
After taking the time to research the rant that was placed there, I found that it was accusing admins of encouraging childlovers. So not true. In fact, I wrote a very angry letter to that POSC group demanding an apology. You may find that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Linuxbeak/Angry_ letter.
Well, seeing that several of my college professors consider Wikipedia to be one of the better sources, and indeed encourage their students to take advantage of it (as long as it's taken advantage of cautiously)...
It's not that Wikipedia is unreliable. Some of it is unreliable. There are things that need to be fixed, stuff that needs tweaking, and some things need a major overhaul. But... I wouldn't blanket-statement Wikipedia as unreliable.
I think your comment "How long can you keep generating sparks from that axe you're grinding when there's no axe left?" is right on target. I myself was misquoted in the Register with a link to my user page (!) regarding the entire Daniel Brandt thing. You may find that gem at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_ bio/page2.html.
The Register used to be mildly amusing, but now it doesn't even try to make its potshots covert. Now that they are specifically linking user pages, it only makes the job easier for trolls to harass editors who mind their own business.
What *I* want to know is where all of this newfound Wikipedia-hate is coming from. I know that it's had its enemies, but what's with the targeting of specific users?
Yikes. I don't think that Sega would be wise to reenter the market at this point.
The original Dreamcast was a commendable effort to keep Sega in the game console market, and to this day it still holds a cult following of gamers. It featured new technology and could have been an excellent platform for gamers. However, the introduction fo the XBox and the Nintento Gamecube more or less shut the door on Sega.
I'm curious not to what Sega can produce; instead, I'm curious to see if they can manage to outmarket Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. Personally, I doubt it.
Honestly, I don't think it even affects the situation at all. Everything2 is totally obscure compared to Wikipedia; obscure enough that nothing will really help or hinder Everything2.
That website, if I recall correctly, IS from Mr. John Patrick Ennis, otherwise known as Sollog, himself. Some Wikipedia users and admins may recall that Sollog was heavily involved in trolling Wikipedia before his arrest.
So... yeah. If someone is trying to prove that Wikipedia *does* suck, I highly suggest that it's not based off of Sollog's skewed point of view.
You know something, Daniel, I thought somewhat higher of you. I didn't know that you were such a publicity hunter.
I'm not saying that what Mr. Chase did is defendable. It's not. However, all things considered, it wasn't that big of a deal; you found Mr. Chase out, caused him to have enough inner conflict to apologize to Mr. Seigenthaler in person (not to mention resign from his job), and scored a point for your anti-defamation campaign. So far, so good.
But wait! I thought you were a champion of privacy!
I'm noticing a rather disturbing trend here. On your wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html page, you list several people (myself included; I'm sure you'll add another juicy tidbit to my section) which you want to get personal information (such as home addresses, age, schools, information about offspring, etc.) about. You also list several quotes which, if taken out of context, seem to be rather hostile towards you. However, those comments are in fact blatantly out of context. Additionally, when you yourself were an editor on Wikipedia, your contribution page (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions /Daniel_Brandt) shows that you were not only disruptive, but a full-blown troll! No WONDER why they banned you!
I think you're the most dedicated hypocritical crackpot that the Internet has ever seen. I don't see your above post as "modest"; in fact, I find it quite disgusting. It's just *dripping* with brownnose comments ("It was a pleasure to work with Mr. Seigenthaler on this trace. He is an amazing, accomplished person, and I have a huge amount of respect for him." "He's the genius." "...all the clever Slashdotters...").
Guess what, Daniel! The world doesn't revolve around you, and your self-righteous crusade against Wikipedia is misguided at best.
Slashdot Mirror
There goes the neighborhood.
Good Lord, anyone but Tom Cruise, please! I know that you said acting ability and Scientology-related insanity aside, but I don't think he really would be able to do the image of Gordon Freeman justice.
Well, I know I would. I'm a big fan of the Half-Life 2 series (big enough to do some serious article work on Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2), and I'm more than willing to shell out some money for it. I figure this: you're paying for an excellent shooter, an excellent story, and lots and lots of eye candy. It's worth it, though some will disagree.
Gee, I suppose that all snipers count as hitmen or gamers. Policeman must be hitmen or gamers.... ooh! Terrorists/insurgents who execute people at point-blank range, they must be hitmen or gamers, too!
I don't feed trolls, kthx.
This is incorrect. "Heavily censored by the ArbCom" is a hasty generalization as well as totally incorrect. The ArbCom has nothing to do with how articles are edited unless subject to a complaint. The page is locked because it was being vandalized. Plus, we don't block any mention of Wikipedia Review. To do so would be stupid and have a pro-Wikipedia bias. Unless you can prove these claims, then I would ask that you do your homework a little more before accusing.
1.) It's not censorship. Censorship comes from a government, not from a free encyclopedia that you didn't pay for.
2.) It's not a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia, which is allowed to do whatever it damn feels like to its own sites.
3.) The articles were deleted because Wikipedia does not have a solid policy regarding living people.
"Banned from use in undergraduate research writing"? Last I checked, all of my professors love Wikipedia and would recommend it without a second thought..
According to this article, it was written by Andrew Orlowski of The Register. Why do we take Andrew Orlowski seriously when he has complained(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23 /britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/), trolled(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/ji mmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia/), taken things out of context(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wi kipedia_bio/) and just generally spouted idiocy(http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Wikipedia &num=10&hs=Znz&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozi lla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=& as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all& as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.theregister. co.uk&as_rights=&safe=off) regarding anything related to Wikipedia and supporters. If WikiTruth is run by "dozens" of Wikipedia administrators, then tell me why there are only a few user accounts there? Besides, if they want to gripe, fine. Perhaps they should first voice their complaints on Wikipedia FIRST, though.
After taking the time to research the rant that was placed there, I found that it was accusing admins of encouraging childlovers. So not true. In fact, I wrote a very angry letter to that POSC group demanding an apology. You may find that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Linuxbeak/Angry_ letter.
Actually, there is already something in the works for something like this. It's called Wikipedia 1.0, and you may find that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pushing_to_ 1.0.
Well, seeing that several of my college professors consider Wikipedia to be one of the better sources, and indeed encourage their students to take advantage of it (as long as it's taken advantage of cautiously)...
It's not that Wikipedia is unreliable. Some of it is unreliable. There are things that need to be fixed, stuff that needs tweaking, and some things need a major overhaul. But... I wouldn't blanket-statement Wikipedia as unreliable.
I think your comment "How long can you keep generating sparks from that axe you're grinding when there's no axe left?" is right on target. I myself was misquoted in the Register with a link to my user page (!) regarding the entire Daniel Brandt thing. You may find that gem at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_ bio/page2.html.
The Register used to be mildly amusing, but now it doesn't even try to make its potshots covert. Now that they are specifically linking user pages, it only makes the job easier for trolls to harass editors who mind their own business.
What *I* want to know is where all of this newfound Wikipedia-hate is coming from. I know that it's had its enemies, but what's with the targeting of specific users?
Yikes. I don't think that Sega would be wise to reenter the market at this point.
The original Dreamcast was a commendable effort to keep Sega in the game console market, and to this day it still holds a cult following of gamers. It featured new technology and could have been an excellent platform for gamers. However, the introduction fo the XBox and the Nintento Gamecube more or less shut the door on Sega.
I'm curious not to what Sega can produce; instead, I'm curious to see if they can manage to outmarket Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. Personally, I doubt it.
Honestly, I don't think it even affects the situation at all. Everything2 is totally obscure compared to Wikipedia; obscure enough that nothing will really help or hinder Everything2.
That website, if I recall correctly, IS from Mr. John Patrick Ennis, otherwise known as Sollog, himself. Some Wikipedia users and admins may recall that Sollog was heavily involved in trolling Wikipedia before his arrest. So... yeah. If someone is trying to prove that Wikipedia *does* suck, I highly suggest that it's not based off of Sollog's skewed point of view.
You know something, Daniel, I thought somewhat higher of you. I didn't know that you were such a publicity hunter.
s /Daniel_Brandt) shows that you were not only disruptive, but a full-blown troll! No WONDER why they banned you!
I'm not saying that what Mr. Chase did is defendable. It's not. However, all things considered, it wasn't that big of a deal; you found Mr. Chase out, caused him to have enough inner conflict to apologize to Mr. Seigenthaler in person (not to mention resign from his job), and scored a point for your anti-defamation campaign. So far, so good.
But wait! I thought you were a champion of privacy!
I'm noticing a rather disturbing trend here. On your wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html page, you list several people (myself included; I'm sure you'll add another juicy tidbit to my section) which you want to get personal information (such as home addresses, age, schools, information about offspring, etc.) about. You also list several quotes which, if taken out of context, seem to be rather hostile towards you. However, those comments are in fact blatantly out of context. Additionally, when you yourself were an editor on Wikipedia, your contribution page (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contribution
I think you're the most dedicated hypocritical crackpot that the Internet has ever seen. I don't see your above post as "modest"; in fact, I find it quite disgusting. It's just *dripping* with brownnose comments ("It was a pleasure to work with Mr. Seigenthaler on this trace. He is an amazing, accomplished person, and I have a huge amount of respect for him." "He's the genius." "...all the clever Slashdotters...").
Guess what, Daniel! The world doesn't revolve around you, and your self-righteous crusade against Wikipedia is misguided at best.