| Revision as of 21:02, 8 September 2005 editZephram Stark (talk | contribs)1,402 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:43, 8 September 2005 edit undoZephram Stark (talk | contribs)1,402 edits →Response to Uncle EdNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| <font color=#003311>My response is: Misplaced Pages editors don't need friends in high places. We need a level playing field. The '''''best''''' article should rise to the top, not the one supported by the highest ranking official. If you want to help Misplaced Pages and her editors, demote administrators that use their power to unduly influence an article, and do it on their first offense. With greater power comes greater responsibility to stave off corruption. '''''--] 21:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)'''''</font> | <font color=#003311>My response is: Misplaced Pages editors don't need friends in high places. We need a level playing field. The '''''best''''' article should rise to the top, not the one supported by the highest ranking official. If you want to help Misplaced Pages and her editors, demote administrators that use their power to unduly influence an article, and do it on their first offense. With greater power comes greater responsibility to stave off corruption. '''''--] 21:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)'''''</font> | ||
| :<font color=#003311>If you need examples, I can name about a hundred, but so could almost anyone else I've talked with about the problem. You could start with Jayjg's blocking and reverting the articles of everyone who disagreed with him at ]. You could add his buddy, Jpgordon's, locking of the article in order to avoid the 3RR limit in reverts, which they would have reached, even '''with''' their blocking. If that's not enough, you could add SlimVirgin's conveniently forgetting to block anyone who viciously argued her side of the ] discussion, while blocking everyone, not already blocked by Jayjg, who argued against her agenda (9 in all, I believe, with legitimate IP service addresses all around the world). You could read in the discussion how all three of them dared anyone to come in and support me using their login accounts, and when they did, how they were immediately blocked and labeled "sockpuppets." You could look through Jayjg's User_talk to see the dozens of people he has done similar things to, but you would have to go to his edit history, because he deletes negative responses from his talk page. You could see a few examples on my talk page, except that you would have to go to my history too because '''''you''''' deleted those discussions.</font> | |||
| <font color=#003311>Oh well... I guess joining WikiProject Judaism is looking more attractive all the time. Does one get immediately unblocked when they join? '''''--] 21:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)''''' </font> | |||
Revision as of 21:43, 8 September 2005
Why does there have to be gangs of this or that trying to redefine history to make the past look better? Why can't we all just be human? Why can't we let our words mean something? Don't you guys get it? When you confuse the meaning of a word, you make the language weaker. Language is the basis of philosophy, intelligence, and society. When you destroy language, you weaken the nations that use that language.
Block
I've extened your block by 48 hours because of this offensive edit summary. The matter has been raised at the administrators' noticeboard. — Trilobite 03:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
.
I'm sorry. I spoke out of turn in frustration and I want to clarify. I wasn't talking about the Jews as a race, only as a group within Misplaced Pages that have an admitted agenda. Since my mitochondrial DNA links me to the house of Israel, I certainly don't have anything against the bloodline.
I hope you understand that it just takes a little while for new people to grasp the hierarchy around here. I thought that a small group was trying to secretly push their agenda on a larger, more powerful group. In such a case, I would simply need to point out to the more powerful group what is happening. I've spent the morning researching the "contributions" of people who showed their hand at terrorism. I can now definitely see that the group pushing their agenda is neither weak, nor very secretive about their ulterior motives (except that most of the players don't openly confess their historically obvious prejudice). I want to play ball, but I just didn't know who I was playing with. Now I know, and I hereby add my support, to those with whom I was previously at odds, in the cause of deleting all historical information that shows Judaism in a negative light.
.
.
|
This user is a member of the Judaism WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of Judaism on Misplaced Pages. |
.
.
I'm being facetious about my desire to push any cause except great articles, of course. I certainly have nothing against the Misplaced Pages Jews because they are Jews. It just frustrates the hell out of me to see any group targeting holes in our system as a means of rewriting history and furthering their agenda to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. --Zephram Stark 18:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
.
Histories
- My User-talk page before Ed Poor blanked it: User_talk:Zephram_Stark.
- My conversation with Jpgordon that SlimVirgin reverted out of existence at the same time that she blocked me: Response to Jpgordon
- Unalienable rights article, of which I wrote 40%, that Mel Etitis completely deleted and replaced with a redirect to his article that changes the meaning and (in one place) the wording of the Declaration of Independence, without any discussion, and on the same night that I was blocked: Unalienable rights
Response to Uncle Ed
In my edit history, Uncle Ed left me a little note: " 21:53, 7 September 2005 Ed Poor (not an enemy, unless that's how you want it) "
My response is: Misplaced Pages editors don't need friends in high places. We need a level playing field. The best article should rise to the top, not the one supported by the highest ranking official. If you want to help Misplaced Pages and her editors, demote administrators that use their power to unduly influence an article, and do it on their first offense. With greater power comes greater responsibility to stave off corruption. --Zephram Stark 21:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you need examples, I can name about a hundred, but so could almost anyone else I've talked with about the problem. You could start with Jayjg's blocking and reverting the articles of everyone who disagreed with him at terrorism. You could add his buddy, Jpgordon's, locking of the article in order to avoid the 3RR limit in reverts, which they would have reached, even with their blocking. If that's not enough, you could add SlimVirgin's conveniently forgetting to block anyone who viciously argued her side of the terrorism discussion, while blocking everyone, not already blocked by Jayjg, who argued against her agenda (9 in all, I believe, with legitimate IP service addresses all around the world). You could read in the discussion how all three of them dared anyone to come in and support me using their login accounts, and when they did, how they were immediately blocked and labeled "sockpuppets." You could look through Jayjg's User_talk to see the dozens of people he has done similar things to, but you would have to go to his edit history, because he deletes negative responses from his talk page. You could see a few examples on my talk page, except that you would have to go to my history too because you deleted those discussions.
Oh well... I guess joining WikiProject Judaism is looking more attractive all the time. Does one get immediately unblocked when they join? --Zephram Stark 21:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)