Here we go again (wikipedia)

[yossarian]

I am an expert and as far as I know nobody has a deeper understanding of The Law of One than I. I am qualified to discern what is reliable here.

---

I am sorry but with your view of authority in "scholarship," I really don't have much to discuss with you. I can't say I agree with your perspective here.

Wait wait wait...

HOLD UP!!

YOU'RE Immanuel Thoughtmaker!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAH AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


...this is just too rich for words...

Buddy! There is at least one academic who knows more about all of academia, wikipedia, and the LOO than you do. It's me, bro!

You got the article deleted because wikipedia admins are all scientific materialist ideologues who don't read their own rules.

"reliable source" is a technical term with a wikipedia-specific definition. It doesn't mean what YOU think is "reliable".

"Peer-review" is an academic term with a specific academic definition. People like me are trained experts in peer-review, not you. I've published peer reviewed papers.

*** You just vandalised the article and then a sloppy "deletionist" admin deleted it as a snap judgement, based entirely on his scientific materialist anti-New Age ideology.

**** you haven't even read the [[WP:NBOOK]] page let alone all the wikipedia legislation as I have.

Writing an article that explains what secondary written cultural activity says about the series of books is precisely the stated goal of wikipedia. This includes books like The Bible, Greek myths about Zeus, fiction like Harry Potter, movies like Star Trek, disproved theories like phrenology, books like The Law of One, and every book in between. Does Harry Potter have a reliable source to prove that Harry has a magic talking owl or that Hagrid is a giant? *****

An article about a book that talks about what the book says and what other authors have written about the book is precisely what wikipedia considers a notable book for which a summary of contents is desired.

Way to go *** in finding an admin on wikipedia who is sloppy enough, lazy enough, and biased enough to delete an article that you ruined by vandalizing it. Following your vandalism it was deleted, precisely because the admin was lazy. After he deleted it before checking the history, he decided to cover up his mistake to avoid censure by other admins. He literally went around and deleted all evidence of his own error and had me (who was calling him out) banned from the site by his ideological allies.

You ruined the work of dozens and dozens of people who had dug up over 40 RELIABLE sources, according to WIKIPEDIA'S DEFINITION OF RELIABLE WHICH YOU HAVE CLEARLY NOT READ.

Great job. Case in point in how ********** change the world. A textbook example of why letting amateurs edit encyclopedias is the ****ist idea ever. An encyclopedia is supposed to be, above all things, RELIABLE, and yet they let you edit it who literally doesn't know the definition of reliable.

too good for words. I am speechless. I assumed we would be sold out by some atheist skeptic, but of course not!!! It had to be one of our own, a homegrown ******** *********!!!!

OF FUCKING COURSE