Misplaced Pages

Notes from TheUnforgiven

Yes.

User:Jayjg does this fascism to everybody against his singular maniacal will.

He thinks he is a demigod!

Special:Contributions/Jayjg

TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

JayG / SlimVirgin / jpgordon / Guy Montag

As a group they are extremely effective in pushing pro Israeli POV - they often rope in Guy Montag to act as a stooge. My advice is -> get together with your pals and do likewise. They are admins - so learn from them - ape their behaviour. You will soon see your POV being pushed just as effectively. But it's pointless whineing because they act as an effective team and the people pushing your POV cant co-operate. They play within the rules - you need to work out how to do the same. 62.252.0.6 11:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If a system is corrupt, the correct course of action is to fix the system, not to give in to its corruption. --Zephram Stark 14:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I also had a bad experience with the JayjG/SlimVirgin/Jpgordon team. I agree, however, that they play by the rules. They are experienced wikipedians and know how to push POV's and still play within wikipedia regulations. Send me a message whenever you need a second opinion in the future so you won't have the same bad experience I have had with them. --Vizcarra 01:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikilynching

Please take a look at the Talmidaism page that Jayjg has marked for deletion. After several attempts to merge the artice with the Nazarene page were disputed, he has now decided to delete the article entirely. Jayjg is abusing his position as an administrator to accomplish what he could not do as an editor. Please help prevent a hi tech lynching! --Ovadyah 15:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a very interesting article and well written. Thank you for sharing it. I certainly don't think it should be deleted, but there is a definite lynching mentality to Misplaced Pages. I consider this forum to be the quintessential test as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson's assertion is true that given unrestricted freedom of communication, people can rule themselves. The programming of Misplaced Pages is very close to allowing unrestricted freedom of communication, but a few people like Jayjg have still figured out ways to abuse it. The system can be a little bit more complex without infringing on communication. The secret to doing that is through anonymous bottom-up accountability. Voting for representatives is a simple implementation of this, but with complex database programs readily available, Misplaced Pages can easily create a recursive accountability program, allowing confidence or no-confidence in a user to be weighted by the same confidence level of the anonymous voter. In an efficient bottom-up accountability system, the representative knows nothing personal about his constituency, while the constituency knows everything about their representative. An editor, in the Misplaced Pages context, acts as a representative of everyone who has an interest in the definition. When he writes or votes for the deletion or reversion of an article, this should be known by all, but votes for that representative's confidence level should remain anonymous. In the history of the world, no top-down method of accountability has ever been shown to be incorruptable. The closest we have ever come to social stability is through systems that enable natural selection based purely on the merits of the issue. Misplaced Pages has tried to implement that system here, but has needed to give extra power to some users. Accountability for that power is currently determined by a few people at the top—-it is top-down. When the program is written that enables bottom-up accountability, Misplaced Pages will be fundamentally complete and people like Jayjg will no longer be able to engage in blatant Revisionism. --Zephram Stark 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

Thanks for the info; you are one of the people who keeps this repository honest. --Zephram Stark 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey just a short note to you Zephram. I read through the terrorism talk page and I have to say that while you did come off a little brusque you never stepped over the line and became rude. Unfortunately your arguments with user:Smyth became so convoluted at times that they lost their point. Did you try putting up an example of how you envisaged the introduction and then offering to tweak it according to others' views? --Darxide 10:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Closer to the end of the Discussion page, in Introduction Dispute, I put some proposals for a new foundation on which to build. There are some other good, objective definitions of terrorism in Political Terrorism, State Terrorism, etc, that should be referred to. Perhaps a Disambiguate Page is in order with links to Unconventional Warfare, USA Act, Insurgency, Revolution, Violence, War on Terrorism, Political Terrorism, and State Terrorism, depending on which definition suits the user’s needs at any particular moment. The term has become so convoluted that it has lost its usefulness as part of the English language—-it no longer conveys information except to show that the user enjoys hearing his own rhetoric. Unfortunately, there is no other word that embodies the use of terror for political purposes, so we have to make terrorism viable again as a word of the English language if we are to talk about such things efficiently. I believe the first step in making "terrorism" useful as a word is to write a definition that assumes no innate pejoratives. --Zephram Stark 21:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Talk:Terrorism

Zephram, the article talk page is not the appropriate venue for your complaints against SlimVirgin. It is the talk page for the article, and is not the place to be discussing your dislike for an editor, be they admin or otherwise. If you want to talk about specific article content, one version vs. another, that's fine, but nothing can be gained by dragging the name of a popular admin, whom you apparently dislike, through the mud. Stick to the subject of the article itself, and your arguments are likely to garner a more sympathetic audience. Tomer 03:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I believe that Jayjg's Wikilynching of the definition—-tearing it down with no positive proposals for improvement—-is entirely relevant to the article, as is identifying his cohorts and the apparent motives behind their destruction of a good piece. The fact that SlimVirgin is a popular admin does not place her above the Misplaced Pages Writers' Rules of Engagement. At Misplaced Pages, everyone has an equal voice.

As I'm sure you can see by the discussion, I have tried repeatedly to compare the article she keeps reverting us to against the unanimously agreed-upon article. People all over the world keep voicing their opinion that the a agreed article is better and most accurately reflects usage of the term, but Slim's Wikilynching team keep reverting the article back to some earlier version, it doesn't seem to matter which because they obviously aren't trying to make the article better. They're only trying to tear it down. SlimVirgin and her gang would do well in a social structure where subordination is a component of the process, but Misplaced Pages does not have that structure. Every time SlimVirgin tries to make her actions seem acceptable through sympathy or accusations against me, I'm going to remind people that SlimVirgin has failed to produce a better article, and better articles are what Misplaced Pages is all about. --Zephram Stark 13:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

she keeps reverting us to against the unanimously agreed-upon article. Again, there is no "us", there is no "unanimously agreed-upon article", and there is no "gang". No one is buying it, nor your magically appearing supporters. Put up some actual sources instead of the major-league handwaving and you might make some progress. --Calton | Talk 15:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You have broken Misplaced Pages's 3RR rule, Carlton. Please undo your damage immediately. --Zephram Stark 15:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I undid my revert -- not "damage" -- because, unlike you, I have respect for the 3RR. Now, once again, there is no "us", there is no "unanimously agreed-upon article", and there is no "gang". No one is buying it, nor your magically appearing supporters. Put up some actual sources instead of the major-league handwaving and you might make some progress without having to resort to transparent sockpuppetry to game the rules. --Calton | Talk 00:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea?!!

File:BigMad.jpg

Talk:Unalienable rights

I hadn't noticed that Kim Bruning had removed the official poll; I've replaced it, so you might want to add your vote (and a brief explanation). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Accusations by the Commodore regarding Talk:Terrorism

I just wanted to post a note to your discussion page indicating that I find your attempts to disrupt the discussion on the terrorism article to be extremely destructive and in contradiction to several WP:Rules. I am not an admin here but you have gone beyond the boundaries of good faith on several occasions; you have engaged in personal attacks; you have insisted upon original research; you have even erased edits of people arguing with you. Beyond that you have engaged in what one user has called "transparent sockpuppetry." Your behavior is what caused the article page to be locked in the first place. I don't understand why you are so destructive of Misplaced Pages when on your user page you claim to support its goals. Please stop disrupting the page and let the editors get on with improving it.--csloat 01:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Commodore Sloat, but as everyone who reads the Talk section of Terrorism knows, you're full of shiba. --Zephram Stark 03:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually everyone on that page is quite clear that it is you who are causing trouble. --csloat 07:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words, Commodore. You can show that you are there to contribute by actually contributing—-making the definition better. --Zephram Stark 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, csloat! I happen to think in this case the person who has been trying to improve that page has ended up being a whipping post by editors who disagree. "Everyone" doesn't agree with you. --EKBK 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right I forgot -- two people disagree -- Mr. Stark and his sock puppet. Everyone else who has piped up agrees with me.--csloat 17:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am seriously sick of being called a sockpuppet. I know what I'd love to call you. Is this how any user who hasn't edited and one day decides to voice an opinion is treated by you? Grow up. Administration knows I am not a "sockpuppet".--EKBK 20:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Your libelous use of facts that are not in evidence has gone too far this time, Commodore Sloat. I regret that I have no choice but to use all my forces against your dryer. May you never find another matched pair. --Zephram Stark 19:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Stark... that was the best thing I've read all day. I'm gonna keep a close eye on my laundry and back off my claims of sockpuppetry -- you win. I now believe that there are two people who disagree with me on that page. About what, I'm no longer sure. --csloat 21:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

I have filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark. Please contribute to it. – Smyth\ 18:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

You already know that you should avoid personal remarks about other contributors. No matter how angry you get at the other users, you are not allowed to attack them. I'm blocking your account for 8 hours while you ponder this. 22:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

A time out! How fun!! I haven't had one of those since I was a toddler.

Now, would you mind telling me where you think your allegations took place and giving me a chance to defend myself—-the way adults communicate—-or is treating other people like three-year-olds too much of a power trip for you? --Zephram Stark 13:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)