Simple English Wikiquote, Translate a quote...? Options

[thekohser]

Incidentally, Simple English Wikipedia want a checkuser on Greg as they think he is Jonas Rand

Is there a public link where I can see my privacy being violated as such?

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 29th April 2009, 10:24pm

[Alex]

Incidentally, Simple English Wikipedia want a checkuser on Greg as they think he is Jonas Rand

Is there a public link where I can see my privacy being violated as such?

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti...nd_Jonas_D_Rand

Don't worry, no one will be performing that check...

[Eva Destruction]

Incidentally, Simple English Wikipedia want a checkuser on Greg as they think he is Jonas Rand

Is there a public link where I can see my privacy being violated as such?

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti...nd_Jonas_D_Rand

I'm more taken by "Gut instinct. Looks suspiciously like a sock" as a reason for checkusering, a couple below you.

[Floydsvoid]

How 'bout the Jonas dude? This user is banned from changing Wikipedia because of this disccusion. Simple indeed.

Eva D, I done think you hit a

trying to insert any kind of reasoning into this discussion

[The Joy]

Banned from changing Wikipedia?

Gee, you don't have to be banned to be unable to change Wikipedia.

Goodness knows how long we Reviewers have tried!

I fear the answer to this question, but:

Is there going to be a Simple WikiNews now that we have a Simple WikiQuote? A Simple WikiSource?

[EricBarbour]

thekohser, I have zero knowledge of you whatsoever. I have never, ever attacked you. But, you've given me a horrible first impression of you: you don't stop complaining, whining and acting like you're the poor victim everyone destroys, when it appears you've spent all your time attacking and demeaning everyone around you. It's no wonder the largest wiki in the world banned you.

AE, this may be the stupidest post I've ever seen on WR and there's some pretty stiff competition there. I'm no fan of Greg's but I can still agree that Jimmy Wales treated him like a piece of shit.

I also have no idea what Jimbo did to him. As I said, I know nothing of him, and I don't know why he keeps accusing me of attacking him.

thekohser, I have zero knowledge of you whatsoever. I have never, ever attacked you.

Are you trying to tell us you're not an integral part of the Massive International Anti-Kohser Communist Conspiracy?

No, I'm not, and I have no clue what that means.

Golly, this sure is loads'a wacky fun!........

[thekohser]

From the CheckUser discussion:

So, "writing style" and an "attitude" are now sufficient grounds for violating the Internet privacy of a contributor to a Wikimedia Foundation project? Seems rather rude and invasive to me. And, fancy that, no apology to me on my Talk page. -- Thekohser (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh quit trying to provoke people. Just walk away. -Djsasso (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say exactly as I said to Jonas: You are deluded if you think I am going to apologise to you. Kennedy (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[Jon Awbrey]

Incidentally, Simple English Wikipedia want a checkuser on Greg as they think he is Jonas Rand

Is there a public link where I can see my privacy being violated as such?

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it.

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser&oldid=1508578#Thekohser and Jonas D Rand

I'm more taken by "Gut instinct. Looks suspiciously like a sock" as a reason for checkusering, a couple below you.

I've heard of "gutchecking" before — but it takes Wikipediots to make a bureaucracy of it.

Nevertheless, I think it would give our critical faculties a bit of beneficial exercise to stop and look at what's going on here.

When you really think about, the behavior of these Wikipediots Simpletons is actually quite rational here, after a faschion, of course — even if their overall conduct is not.

I probably ought to mention that I follow some schools of philosophy and humanistic psychology that draw a distinction between "behavior" and "conduct". Behavior is anything you do, while Conduct is deliberate, value-guided behavior.

That said, let's ask ourselves — What are the rationalizations, however implicit or tacit, that underlie this type of behavior?

If we try to articulate the Underlying Rationale, I think it would sound a bit like this:

Forget all that PAP about Privacy And Pseudonyms that we feed the suckers, whenever there's a Problem — meaning anything that bugs one of our preferred members, that is, one of our More Equal Than Others (WP:METOs) — we arrogate the right to investigate the identities of any and all accounts indited by said METOs as being behind the Problem.

Like I said, aside from certain peculiar features, this is actually about as close as Wikipediots get to behaving rationally. It is more or less what normal folks do whenever they spy a problem somewhere. They seek to identify the cause, the source of the problem.

Some of the more irrational add-ons are, of course:

• Wikipediots live in total denial that doing this stuff violates their loudly vaunted principles.
• Wikipediots indignantly deny to anyone else the justice of doing what they themselves do.

Jon Awbrey

[thekohser]

Couldn't agree more, Jon. 100% true.

Meanwhile, it looks like this "Kennedy" character has also taken to the practice of removing favorable comments about me from my Talk page.

[Alex]

From the CheckUser discussion:

So, "writing style" and an "attitude" are now sufficient grounds for violating the Internet privacy of a contributor to a Wikimedia Foundation project? Seems rather rude and invasive to me. And, fancy that, no apology to me on my Talk page. -- Thekohser (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh quit trying to provoke people. Just walk away. -Djsasso (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say exactly as I said to Jonas: You are deluded if you think I am going to apologise to you. Kennedy (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should heed Djsasso's advice? You've caused trouble on Simple from what, your 3rd edit, and have what, 10? It's like you're after conflict... after creating an article, you leave an attention-seeking message to Razorflame (who hasn't been active for ages), and it's been downhill from there - entirely your own fault this is happening to you. If you just, um, wrote articles and attempted to get on with the community instead of trying to act like a wikimartyr, you wouldn't receive so-called "abuse" and "harrassment".

It's what Jonas Rand tried doing - he positioned himself as an unwanted in-house critic, and stayed under the false pretence he was actually useful, by editing an article once in a while. He went out of his way to find conflict, and irritate everyone he came across, until he became such an irritating twat, we had no choice but to ban him. Of course, this was abuse and wrong according to Jonas, but it was entirely his own fault, simply because he act(s/ed) like an asshole. You're heading down the same route, as far as I can see. Jonas is, I believe, 12 years old. You're in your thirties/forties (I forget which). See if you can do better than a little kid, which is what Jonas is.

[Somey]

Jonas is, I believe, 12 years old. You're in your thirties/forties (I forget which). See if you can do better than a little kid, which is what Jonas is.

"Jonas" is actually 46 years old, give or take a couple of years.

[Moulton]

Jonas is, I believe, 12 years old. You're in your thirties/forties (I forget which). See if you can do better than a little kid, which is what Jonas is.

"Jonas" is actually 46 years old, give or take a couple of years.

If you know "Jonas" to be a 46-yr old female, why did you ban "Jonas" under COPPA? Shouldn't you have banned "Jonas" under some more appropriate pretext such as Identity Theft?

[groody]

You've caused trouble on Simple from what, your 3rd edit, and have what, 10? It's like you're after conflict... after creating an article, you leave an attention-seeking message to Razorflame (who hasn't been active for ages)

...but who is most active on simple, thus making simple the most reasonable place to leave the message. Abrasive, perhaps, but Razorflame is more of an irritating twat than Jonas Rand ever was.

Frankly, I think simple should be zapped. Clear the server space. Very few people know it's there, even less actually use it, and the vast majority of its articles are utter crap.

f.

This post has been edited by groody: Thu 30th April 2009, 7:07pm

[Somey]

If you know "Jonas" to be a 46-yr old female, why did you ban "Jonas" under COPPA? Shouldn't you have banned "Jonas" under some more appropriate pretext such as Identity Theft?

We didn't ban her under COPPA, we banned her for, well, pretty much everything. And to be frank, it's actually worse to pretend to be 12 years old than to actually be 12 years old, assuming you're going to make a point of announcing it, as far as participation in a forum like this is concerned...

Mind you, I can't definitively prove that "Jonas" isn't a highly precocious 12-year-old boy who has, in the past, impersonated a 46-year-old woman. But I've decided to fall back on Occam's Razor for that one.

[Alex]

Mind you, I can't definitively prove that "Jonas" isn't a highly precocious 12-year-old boy who has, in the past, impersonated a 46-year-old woman. But I've decided to fall back on Occam's Razor for that one.

Indeed. There is no doubt Jonas is a child.

[LaraLove]

Perhaps you should heed Djsasso's advice? You've caused trouble on Simple from what, your 3rd edit, and have what, 10? It's like you're after conflict... after creating an article, you leave an attention-seeking message to Razorflame (who hasn't been active for ages), and it's been downhill from there - entirely your own fault this is happening to you. If you just, um, wrote articles and attempted to get on with the community instead of trying to act like a wikimartyr, you wouldn't receive so-called "abuse" and "harrassment".

It's what Jonas Rand tried doing - he positioned himself as an unwanted in-house critic, and stayed under the false pretence he was actually useful, by editing an article once in a while. He went out of his way to find conflict, and irritate everyone he came across, until he became such an irritating twat, we had no choice but to ban him. Of course, this was abuse and wrong according to Jonas, but it was entirely his own fault, simply because he act(s/ed) like an asshole. You're heading down the same route, as far as I can see. Jonas is, I believe, 12 years old. You're in your thirties/forties (I forget which). See if you can do better than a little kid, which is what Jonas is.

I haven't been keeping up with the Jonas Rand thing, so I really don't know who he is or what he's done, however, I just wanted to point out that you just called a 12 year old a twat and said he's acting/acts like an asshole. I don't know whether to laugh or to scowl.

[thekohser]

You've caused trouble on Simple from what, your 3rd edit...

You still don't seem to understand who started the "trouble". One of "your" project's users threatened me (unprovoked) in an offsite forum that was specifically about Wikipedia projects. I thought that you all have a "no stalking" and "no threats" rule. Because the person threatening me had also shut off my ability to respond to him with the same communications tools he was using to harass me, it seemed very appropriate to contact him on his favored Wikipedia project, to let him know that I would pursue this at "my" favored Wikimedia project, if he persisted in threatening me.

Guess what? No more threats toward me.

It was only when the wiki-goons then started throwing their weight around did things start to get uglier.

You're mired in "trouble", Alex. Maybe if you woke up and thought about what it is that provokes normally kind, diplomatic adults to track down impetuous teenagers, you'd be able to see just where the trouble resides.

P.S. I think that "Simple" project you're working on is a big, mismanaged waste of time. If you re-directed your efforts to something more worthwhile toward your future career, or to humanity, you will feel better about yourself in the long run. You could then thank me, say, in 2015 for having given you that bit of advice. Liberate yourself from the "trouble" in which you are mired, Alex.

[thekohser]

I have come to the conclusion that the Simple English Wikipedia community is almost completely ignorant of my backstory. I am bemused.

Greg

[Somey]

Indeed. There is no doubt Jonas is a child.

There is little (but not "no") doubt that a child named "Jonas Rand" existed at one point, and probably still does. The only non-wiki evidence we have for that is a PDF file announcing a boy by that name as a spelling bee winner, which is hardly proof of anything germane to Wikipedia. However, I'm at least willing to accept the PDF as legitimate.

I do have more information about this than the average Wikipedian, I'm afraid. So, I can say with about 97 percent certainty that the Wikipedia user "Jonas Rand" is not a child, and is in fact a grown woman. And until "Jonas" can come up with a plausible explanation for who "Linda Rand" is, then Occam's Razor clearly points to "Jonas Rand" being a woman in her mid-40's named Linda Rand.

I shall split this part of thread out into the Tarpit later today...

[Alex]

You've caused trouble on Simple from what, your 3rd edit...

You still don't seem to understand who started the "trouble". One of "your" project's users threatened me (unprovoked) in an offsite forum that was specifically about Wikipedia projects. I thought that you all have a "no stalking" and "no threats" rule. Because the person threatening me had also shut off my ability to respond to him with the same communications tools he was using to harass me, it seemed very appropriate to contact him on his favored Wikipedia project, to let him know that I would pursue this at "my" favored Wikimedia project, if he persisted in threatening me.

Guess what? No more threats toward me.

It was only when the wiki-goons then started throwing their weight around did things start to get uglier.

You're mired in "trouble", Alex. Maybe if you woke up and thought about what it is that provokes normally kind, diplomatic adults to track down impetuous teenagers, you'd be able to see just where the trouble resides.

P.S. I think that "Simple" project you're working on is a big, mismanaged waste of time. If you re-directed your efforts to something more worthwhile toward your future career, or to humanity, you will feel better about yourself in the long run. You could then thank me, say, in 2015 for having given you that bit of advice. Liberate yourself from the "trouble" in which you are mired, Alex.

If you think that way, why do you continue to edit? I suppose you won't make a fuss if you're banned then? I don't put any effort in on Simple anyhow - I patrol recent changes and delete/block the crap that comes up most of the time. It's not difficult, and do it to fill the time.

I just find it odd how you're creating articles there but you're saying it's a waste of time, and you're encouraging me to leave. Practise what you preach.