JzG: Wikipedia Review superfan Options

[Joseph100]

If I were a sysop on this board, I would block you for your statement above, because it's pure gibberish. We don't need any more gibberish on this site.

For the record, we don't block people here for gibberish. If someone routinely posts gibberish, that may be construed as trolling, which may result in being given a special forum of one's own for the posting of troll material. But, we have an anti-censorship policy in general.

== How be a good wikipeida admin. ==
In more general terms, one can also enjoy the pain of others by:

# [[WP:TROLL]]Baiting and using intensifiers in commentary (such words as ''terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, good,'' and so forth, and exclamation marks).
# [[WP:IGNORE|Wack the hammer down and pwn someone]].
# [[WP:DICK]] Striving to a jackass and a dickhead
# [[WP:SOCK]] Accepting that any one not a Jenuine JIMBO JUICE JERK is a SOCK and must be bitten hard
# [[WP:CONSENSUS]] Acknowledging one principles, its our way or no way]].
# [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]] WE BRAKE FOR NO ONE, We fuck with every one.
# [[Ethic of reciprocity]] FUCK'em before before they can have a say.
# [[Active listening]] Listening takes time from caring for my new vandal fighing bot coding.
# [[Wikipedia:WikiLawyering]] LAW, WE DON"T NEED LAW and STINKING LAWYERS We are the LAW.
# Ban early, as a first resort. Ban all and ban as many as you can. Consider a user to the object of some wikipwnage using [[WP:DICK]] and [[WP:IGNORE |ALL RULEZ]].

Try to use standard welcome/warning messages... TROLLER, IDOIT, YOU MUST BE SOCK OF <ENTER NAME OF ALL PURPOSE SOCK> or the ole wiki favorite...YOUR A SOCK AND YOUR BANNED SUCKER!!!

Consciously choose your agenda POV, strive to be a true cultist of the Wiki by fostering hate, anger, of those who don't believe in our GOD, JIMBO, and the Holy Wiki. Devote much time and resources, as to be all consuming in your life as an wikiadmin, that task is to builda mound of BULLSHIT so FOUL and So high, that it should stink to high heaven.

[Somey]

The vibes I get from Monsieur JzG are generally positive.

And you don't realize that he's only nice to you because he wants a look at your... boobs?

Anyway, I should never have taught JzG the meaning of the word "redacted," by redacting the names of those half-dozen or so Wikipedia admins who had been identified on this website. At this point I might as well just put them all back, and hey, guess what! They'll have JzG to thank for that!

What a fucking asshole!

[AB]

The vibes I get from Monsieur JzG are generally positive.

And you don't realize that he's only nice to you because he wants a look at your... boobs?

Psychomagnetic indicators suggest that is not correct....

Someone on Monsieur JzG's website moved my talk page
to 'Free blowjobs', and Monsieur JzG stopped that person....

Anyway, any one who thinks I will consent to having
pictures of my breasts posted online in very mistaken.

This post has been edited by AB: Sat 20th October 2007, 7:04am

[Somey]

Psychomagnetic indicators suggest that is not correct....

It's a good thing we have good old-fashioned obviousness, then!

Someone on Monsier JzG's website moved my talk page to 'Free blowjobs', and Monsieur JzG stopped that person....

Your point being...? Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean he's an idiot. Remember, his interest in boobs is strictly for scientific research purposes only. After all, he's a Wikipedian!

Anyway, don't worry - this thread has enough soft-core porn in it already. Maybe even too much, crazy though that may sound... I mean, what were those things up there, cantaloupes? Casaba melons? Sheez.

[AB]

Psychomagnetic indicators suggest that is not correct....

It's a good thing we have good old-fashioned obviousness, then! :lol:

I have no reason to believe Monsieur JzG would disrespect me in that
manner.

Someone on Monsieur JzG's website moved my talk page to 'Free blowjobs', and Monsieur JzG stopped that person....

Your point being...? Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean he's an idiot. Remember, his interest in boobs is strictly for scientific research purposes only. After all, he's a Wikipedian!

Point being that he has opposed treating me as a sexual object....

Anyway, don't worry - this thread has enough soft-core porn in it already. Maybe even too much, crazy though that may sound... I mean, what were those things up there, cantaloupes? Casaba melons? Sheez.

Will you pretty please redact the pornography?

[Viridae]

Psychomagnetic indicators suggest that is not correct....

It's a good thing we have good old-fashioned obviousness, then!

I have no reason to believe Monsieur JzG would disrespect me in that
manner.

Someone on Monsieur JzG's website moved my talk page to 'Free blowjobs', and Monsieur JzG stopped that person....

Your point being...? Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean he's an idiot. Remember, his interest in boobs is strictly for scientific research purposes only. After all, he's a Wikipedian!

Point being that he has opposed treating me as a sexual object....

Regardless of whether I believe that is or isn't the case (and since I am not sure who you even are, it is completely up in the air), you are stretching that action waaay too far if you think it alone is evidence he doesn't objectify you.

This post has been edited by Viridae: Sat 20th October 2007, 7:00am

[AB]

Regardless of whether I believe that is or isn't the case (and since I am not sure who you even are, it is completely up in the air), you are stretching that action waaay too far if you think it alone is evidence he doesn't objectify you.

I don't go around assuming men objectify me until proven otherwise....

Nonetheless, it would seem to be some sort of evidence to the
contrary.

[Jonny Cache]

Regardless of whether I believe that is or isn't the case (and since I am not sure who you even are, it is completely up in the air), you are stretching that action waaay too far if you think it alone is evidence he doesn't objectify you.

I don't go around assuming men objectify me until proven otherwise …

Nonetheless, it would seem to be some sort of evidence to the contrary.

At least we're clear about the fact that it's all about you.

Jonny

[Somey]

Will you pretty please redact the pornography?

Oh jeez, now you're doing it too! You don't redact pornographic imagery, you remove and/or delete pornographic imagery. Redaction is an editorial term that refers specifically to textual content, unless you're using some weird-ass bastardized form of it that applies to everything.

Anyway, it isn't pornographic unless the naughty bits are actually exposed, again going by a strict interpretation of the term. To be honest, I would tend to think that the contrast between the two photographs does tend to indicate a certain moral laxity on JzG's part.

I'd prefer to use the word "depravity," but I'm trying to keep the discussion from descending into a total farce here.

Admittedly, that may not be working.

[AB]

Regardless of whether I believe that is or isn't the case (and since I am not sure who you even are, it is completely up in the air), you are stretching that action waaay too far if you think it alone is evidence he doesn't objectify you.

I don't go around assuming men objectify me until proven otherwise …

Nonetheless, it would seem to be some sort of evidence to the contrary.

At least we're clear about the fact that it's all about you.

Jonny B)

Do I have some reason that I do not know about to believe that he
objectifies other women?

Will you pretty please redact the pornography?

Anyway, it isn't pornographic unless the naughty bits are actually exposed, again going by a strict interpretation of the term. To be honest, I would tend to think that the contrast between the two photographs does tend to indicate a certain moral laxity on JzG's part.

See Diana E.H. Russell's What is pornography?

What do the photos have to do with JzG?


This post has been edited by AB: Sat 20th October 2007, 7:36am

[guy]

Psychomagnetic indicators suggest that is not correct....

Isn't that gibberish?

[Jonathan]

Typical Wikipedians, terrified of the very possibility that their seemingly perfect engine is tainted, and so they make up lies about the source of Criticism. I would challenge any WikipediAdmin or WikidepiUser that hates WR to look at the top 10 most viewed threads, and then tell us with a straight face that WR is unreliable and contributes nothing.

Puh-lease! I know there are some users here that are open to question (people like Amorrow are people who have tainted WR and who WR have removed, but there are a few more extreme guys like those who violate Godwin's Law and who are very abusive and sweary when talking about WikipediAdmins and such and also do the same to other WR members. Those types we could do without) but a lot of what is here is constructive criticism. And besides, if the SlimVirgin identity case that WR talks about is so untrue, then a) why is Slimmy so nervous and why did Slashdot proceed to promote the story which proved so damning of her?

It will take time, but with Wikipedia's ever declining situation, WR will eventually be exceedingly recognised, along with WikiTruth, as a definitive source for explaining what is wrong with Wikipedia and how it can be fixed.

God I haven't posted here in a while. It's good to be back! Especially from the cheery mood I always get from hearing Somey's and Johnny Cache's witticisms.

[thekohser]

What do the photos have to do with JzG?

Try to keep up, AB. The photos represent what Guy Chapman likes to edit about on Wikipedia -- when he's not logged in to his User account. It's all been thoroughly documented.

By the way, the thread linked above appears not to come up in Google search results. Is that thread protected from search in some particular way, or is that whole "Editors" folder so protected?

Okay, just to be fair to JzG, since I'm a nice guy, I'll try to present an image of Carolina Ardohain (my editing topic) that is not as flattering to high standards, and one of Letha Weapons (JzG's editing topic) that is upstanding and proper. Here we go:

Carolina Ardohain:



And, Letha Weapons:



Sorry, but that's the ONLY image of Ms. Weapons that Google would return of her, with the SafeSearch filter switched on.

I don't know... somehow, even with Letha Weapons dressed so patriotically, and Carolina Ardohain standing there in the nude, I still say I have better taste in Wikipedia editing than JzG.

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 21st October 2007, 5:22pm

[Viridae]

Letha Weapons is just scary.

And I believe the editors subforum is not indexed by google.

Edit: NSFW Ok these things have GOT to hurt: http://www.lethaweapons.net/pictures/Letha%20Weapons%207.jpg. "sponsored by Spalding"

This post has been edited by Viridae: Sat 20th October 2007, 1:23pm

[AB]

Psychomagnetic indicators suggest that is not correct....

Isn't that gibberish?

That was a joke... and a vaguely self-deprecating joke
at that. Anyhow, they say 90% of the human mind is
subconscious.

why did Slashdot proceed to promote the story which proved so damning of her?

Based on my conversation with Slashdot, they consider
it all a great big joke. And I don't feel bad telling you that,
since they basically told me the only reason they weren't
going to publicly attack me for asking the content to be
deleted was because apparently I am lacking in humour
value.

Attacking people for nicely asking for censorship is what
makes Slashdot, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and, last but
probably worst of all, Wikipaedia such morally reprehensible
websites.

(Y'all should not feel offended, as WR has always
responded positively to my requests for censorship.)

[Derktar]

Poor JzG, so caught up with Wikipedia, how many times has he left and returned soon after? It's a shame, since I anticipate all he will do is galvanize more support for us, hopefully this will spill over to ANI.

And it seems the war has begun. Noble Tobias and a few others have begun a few sorties on several articles with Crum375, Tony Sidaway and MONGO (The usual suspects) throwing their weight around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._.22BADSITES.22

This post has been edited by Derktar: Sat 20th October 2007, 4:24pm

[blissyu2]

I'm not sure that we really need to have porn in any threads here.

[Piperdown]

Now JzG has taken to calling for reverts to articles I've edited because he claims I'm a "meatpuppet of WordBomb".

I guess I've been downgraded from sockpuppet.

Next they will claim I'm a meatpuppet of the commissioner of the SEC, Chris Cox. The Gary Show really hated it when I edited in the quote from Cox that the SEC considers naked short selling to be a very serious problem that they are actively addressing. Kinda threw a spanner in the "nothing to see here, move along" works from Gary Wan Kenobi.

JzG dear, could you inform Gerard of my demotion? My WP page isn't accurately reflecting the current views of hysterical WP liars who have fallen off the med wagon. I hate when that happens.

And, in my best (New) Jersey impression, I got your meat puppet right here, scum bag.

P.S. Herschel, do you really support LL ? Really? Our WR honeymoon is over, baby. Somey? He/she is still the toppermost of the poppermost. I'm your #1 WR fan, Somey, don't ruin the mystery and reveal any more about yourself. Vive la mystery !

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sat 20th October 2007, 9:27pm

[thekohser]

I'm not sure that we really need to have porn in any threads here.

The images I have posted here have been decidedly less revealing than what the "Bomis Babes" used to show on that famous website. And Jimbo has emphatically declared that even the Bomis images were not "porn". So, how are YOU defining porn? Women showing skin below their necks?

Don't blame me. Blame JzG's IP edits.

(Come on -- it's clear that these provocative posts are in part causing JzG to go nuts on Wikipedia. Are you sure you want to censor them?)

Greg

[AB]

I'm not sure that we really need to have porn in any threads here.

The images I have posted here have been decidedly less revealing than what the "Bomis Babes" used to show on that famous website. And Jimbo has emphatically declared that even the Bomis images were not "porn". So, how are YOU defining porn? Women showing skin below their necks?

Dear Greg,

I agree with Diana Russell's definition of pornography. It's not the nudity,
it's the degradation.

Would it be possible, rather than including the pornography on the page,
to link to the pornography instead, with a warning that those of us with
fragile sensibilities should not click?

Thanks,
AB

This post has been edited by AB: Sun 21st October 2007, 3:38am