Here's your correction, Wikipedia founder, But who is Jeff Peters? Options

[Retrospect]

Hilarious example of Jimbo demonstrating shitheadedness.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-corr...ipedia-founder/

The founder of Wikipedia, the online “encyclopedia” that has damaged reputations with reckless, irresponsible and defamatory charges, has demanded of WND a correction to a column which characterized him as making a “fortune” in pornography before starting the company.

Among the comments is one from someone called Jeff Peters.

As someone who once wrote some of the few quality that existed and fought against much of the plagiarism, defamation, and rampant pornography on the site, I always appreciate it when people are willing to put up the honest truth.

He's clearly someone who can't ruddy write a grammatical sentence! I'd guess he's someone who's butthurt after being thrown off the site.

[Jay]

I haven't logged in here for a few weeks. In that time, this site has gone completely to ruin, and it's clear why. This thread was begun with an interesting post that deserved a thoughtful reply, but all that's happened is that Ottava has been posting a load of piffle, stifling sensible discussion and scaring away other contributors. No doubt he will now accuse me of being Indian, too, on the grounds that he (and only he) alleges that I am a sock.

Anyway, ignoring all that, I shall now respond to the first post.

This is a good example of the double standards that pervade Wikipedia. Other examples are the fact that Jimbo's own entry has long been semi-protected when few other BLPs are, the difficulty in getting mention of Rachel Marsden into that article even after dozens of newspapers had reported it, and the lack of articles on people who are associated with WP and the WMF bu tmight be embarrassing, such as Carolyn Doran.

[Ottava]

I haven't logged in here for a few weeks. In that time, this site has gone completely to ruin, and it's clear why. This thread was begun with an interesting post that deserved a thoughtful reply

Really, troll?

The thread began with a personal attack on myself and had nothing legitimate to say. You are well known to be a sock, and it is obvious that you are the same sock master.

[Jay]

The thread began with a personal attack on myself

Wrong; it began with a reference to an interesting article about Jimmy Wales.

and had nothing legitimate to say.

Wrong again, as i proved by giving a reasonable response.

You are well known to be a sock,

Nobody but you has ever said that, so it is scarcely well known. You are so predictable.

[Ottava]

Wrong; it began with a reference to an interesting article about Jimmy Wales.

No. It began with an attack on my use of grammar. You are a piss poor liar.

Nobody but you has ever said that, so it is scarcely well known. You are so predictable.

It was pointed out when you first started. You never put up a user name because you are a sock.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Retrospect]

No. It began with an attack on my use of grammar. You are a piss poor liar.

What a shithead! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Since you are unable to read, I reproduce below the first half of the first post.

Hilarious example of Jimbo demonstrating shitheadedness.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-corr...ipedia-founder/

The founder of Wikipedia, the online “encyclopedia” that has damaged reputations with reckless, irresponsible and defamatory charges, has demanded of WND a correction to a column which characterized him as making a “fortune” in pornography before starting the company.

If you speak English at all, you must accept that that was the start of the thread. How is it an attack on your bloody rubbish grammar? Yes, I then made a passing reference to an irrelevant comment that someone had made, but it was not meant to be an attack on you. How the hell was I meant to know it was by you? In fact, what's the evidence that it was by you?

Nobody but you has ever said that, so it is scarcely well known. You are so predictable.

It was pointed out when you first started.

No it wasn't. I've looked and there was never any such post. You're bloody lying again.

You never put up a user name because you are a sock.

And I suppose The Joy, Carbuncle, taiwopanfob and everyone else without a WP account listed is a sock too. Try and develop just a little bit of sense.

This post has been edited by Retrospect:

[Ottava]

What a shithead! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Since you are unable to read, I reproduce below the first half of the first post.

Ignoring the second half. How cute. You created a coatrack to attack me then whine when I expose how stupid you are. It is obvious that you can't take anything even close to what you attempt to dish out.

I thought they would have raised children better in India.

And I suppose The Joy, Carbuncle, taiwopanfob and everyone else without a WP account listed is a sock too.

Carbuncle has put up his account name. The Joy has admitted to using many accounts. taiwopanfob has been a well established user name on multiple websites related to Wikipedia going back many years. Even the name here was established in 2006.

It is funny how you, a new person without any background, tries to hide your obvious socking behind well established users. The Joy already pointed out that the other site banned you as a rather nasty sock troll.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Detective]

Carbuncle has put up his account name.

No he hasn't' check his profile.

taiwopanfob has been a well established user name on multiple websites related to Wikipedia going back many years.

What does that prove? In a few years, you would be able to say thesame about Retrospect.

The Joy already pointed out that the other site banned you as a rather nasty sock troll.

Your memory is failing. Firstly, the Joy did not say that. Secondly, Retrospect denied that he had ever edited on the other site, and you accepted his denial.

[Ottava]

Carbuncle has put up his account name.

No he hasn't' check his profile.

You don't have to post it on your profile to have made it public information around here, you know. He put up his real name too.

Your memory is failing. Firstly, the Joy did not say that.

She did in another thread. You whined about it and played dumb on your Retrospect name.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Retrospect]

You don't have to post it on your profile to have made it public information around here, you know. He put up his real name too.

Where?

Your memory is failing. Firstly, the Joy did not say that.

The Joy is a male. Of course, you wouldn't know the ruddy difference.

She did in another thread. You whined about it and played dumb on your Retrospect name.

We've established that I am not Detective. Now please come up with something original to say. You've been regurgitating the same bloody nonsense for ages and you're just wasting Selina's money.

[Ottava]

You don't have to post it on your profile to have made it public information around here, you know. He put up his real name too.

Where?

Your memory is failing. Firstly, the Joy did not say that.

The Joy is a male. Of course, you wouldn't know the ruddy difference.

Funny. You can pay attention to personal information revealed here when it suits you but not when you try to make a lame argument.

As for The Joy's gender, I've never met The Joy, seen a picture of The Joy, or anything close. Gender on the internet and Wikipedia is something that switches quite frequently from the unidentified.

How many female persona are you running now? 2? 3? It has been a while since you used a few of them to harass me directly.

[Retrospect]

I've never met The Joy, seen a picture of The Joy, or anything close.

Poor chap. You don't know what you're missing.

How many female persona are you running now?

Isn't that totally ungrammatical? You should say "personae".

[Ottava]

How many female persona are you running now?

Isn't that totally ungrammatical? You should say "personae".

And someone who is not Poetlister would have said "I don't run sock puppets and definitely not those who pretend to be female."

[Retrospect]

"I don't run sock puppets and definitely not those who pretend to be female."

Obviously that is the case. Thanks for admitting it.

[Ottava]

"I don't run sock puppets and definitely not those who pretend to be female."

Obviously that is the case. Thanks for admitting it.

If you were a native English speaker, you would see that quoting me when I say "I" would not refer to you. You would have needed the whole quote, which could not have been manipulated in such a way. Thus, you would have failed either way and not attempt such a feat.

[Retrospect]

If you were a native English speaker, you would see that quoting me when I say "I" would not refer to you. You would have needed the whole quote, which could not have been manipulated in such a way. Thus, you would have failed either way and not attempt such a feat.

Thanks for confirming that you're not a native English speaker, although that's been ruddy obvious for a long time.

[Ottava]

If you were a native English speaker, you would see that quoting me when I say "I" would not refer to you. You would have needed the whole quote, which could not have been manipulated in such a way. Thus, you would have failed either way and not attempt such a feat.

Thanks for confirming that you're not a native English speaker, although that's been ruddy obvious for a long time.

You need to learn how to use independent clauses. It would keep you from putting up nonsense like the above fragments.

[Retrospect]

You need to learn how to use independent clauses. It would keep you from putting up nonsense like the above fragments.

You have already given abundant proof that you are ruddy ignorant about English grammar. It just wastes everyone's time if you give further proof.

[Ottava]

You need to learn how to use independent clauses. It would keep you from putting up nonsense like the above fragments.

You have already given abundant proof that you are ruddy ignorant about English grammar. It just wastes everyone's time if you give further proof.

A native English speaker would have said "provided" instead of "given."

[Retrospect]

A native English speaker would have said "provided" instead of "given."

Once again, you have demonstrated that you are not a native English speaker.

[Ottava]

A native English speaker would have said "provided" instead of "given."

Once again, you have demonstrated that you are not a native English speaker.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)