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.† 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.† He sings and plays on his Youtube channel (And he's very good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdrvmuAeJK4 ).† The liner notes of his albums document these facts. "Consensus" is irrelevant when faced with facts.† Grow up.

Then on David Bowie's page, same message. Are you fucking kidding me?† 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.† 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.† However, in response some asshole "article for deletion"ed my page, claiming I was "not notable, or his non-notable works."† 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.† 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.† It might take me a year or two, but say goodbye."

So, the threat was to remove the WP page about me, because?† 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.† Apparently, the books are not considered valid as evidence of relevance, for an author page,--wait, what?† It doesn't matter how many books an author has published, that doesn't make them relevant as an author?† Really?† 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).† I suggest they delete that page, too, then.

Apparently my Year's Best Military SF award was "self-awarded."† Weird. I gave myself a plaque and $500 cash?† 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?† 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."† 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. †One 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:

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

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...†"Trumpís 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 donít 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.' ó Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuni Leml (talk ē 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)

~~~

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.† 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.† 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.†

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."† 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.† 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††

I think I last checked in on the page in 2015.† 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.† Because if that's the cost of notability, I'm happy not to be listed.† Call me a prude. It tells me all I need to know about their organization.

*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.† 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.† 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.