History of Patent nonsense

	Revision 7 . . September 30, 2001 9:15 am by Tbc [boldly updating (but who can improve on the Joyce comments :-)]
	Revision 6 . . (edit) September 27, 2001 8:10 am by (logged).112.129.xxx [added link to the 'patent' part of patent nonsense]

---

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Changed: 1c1

Patent nonsense (to be carefully distinguished from brilliant prose as well as PrivateNonsense), particularly on a wiki, falls into a just few general categories:

Patent nonsense (to be carefully distinguished from brilliant prose or PrivateNonsense), particularly on a wiki, falls into a just few general categories:

Changed: 3,4c3,4

* Literal nonsense, i.e., text that has no assignable meaning at all. This tends to be created after the consumption of too much adult beverage, for example, or under the influence of immaturity and/or stupidity. (The writings of James Joyce being the obvious exception.) * Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it. (The writings of James Joyce being the obvious exception.)

* Literal nonsense, i.e., text that has no assignable meaning at all. This tends to be created after the consumption of too much adult beverage, for example, or under the influence of immaturity and/or stupidity. (The writings of James Joyce being the obvious exception.) * Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it. (The writings of James Joyce being the obvious exception.)

Changed: 7,8c7,10

The following, while often regrettable, is not patent nonsense, and therefore according to a proposed rule on the Wikipedia policy page, should not for that reason be deleted (but some suggestions for improvement are included): * Really badly-written stuff. (So correct it.) - like this list item - it should be Very poorly written stuff

The following, while often regrettable, is not patent nonsense, and therefore – according to a proposed rule on the Wikipedia policy page– should not for that reason be deleted. But here are some suggestions for improvement: * Really badly-written stuff. (So correct it.)

Changed: 10,11c12,13

* Religious excogitations. (Make it factual. Yes, there are ways of doing this; e.g., add phrases like "Followers of X hold that...") * Mere opinion, masquerading as fact. (Remove it to an appropriately-named page, or reword in order to make it fact-stating.)

* Religious excogitations. (Make it factual. Yes, there are ways of doing this; e.g. add phrases like "Followers of X hold that...") * Mere opinion masquerading as fact. (Remove it to an appropriately-named page, or reword in order to make it fact-stating.)

Changed: 13,14c15

* Flame bait entries

* Flame bait entries. (Don't take the bait; instead, replace it with something that actually adds to the quality of the Wikipedia.)

Changed: 16,17c17

See also patent.

See also patent.