User talk:Juxo: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

User talk:Juxo (edit)

Revision as of 10:08, 25 November 2012

7,097 bytes added , 25 November 2012

→‎Spam: new section

Nemo

3

edits

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 :It isn't a "place".  It's supposed to be a service emphasizing accountability and transparency with a [[sysop power structure]] committed to same.
+-------------
+http://www.wikitravel.org/en/article/Consumerium
+suggests Consumerium and Wikitravel may work together.  Please review and add what you can to it.  Probably all the links mentioned are important, perhaps we need a brainstorm about this, including people who've been in both projects...?
+You should lead that, as you're the most visible figure and have an identity.
+----
+== A personal story and a request for Juxo ==
+A couple years ago, I was personally involved in an effort to create a database of hardware that was compatible with free software (i.e. does it have open specs?  does it have drivers?  are they released as free software or binary? etc.)  A whole bunch of software people got involved.  They started designing a database--should we use a relational database or an object database?  We should let people input all the components of their computer and see whether they're compatible.  They had design discussions, built software prototypes, etc.  At this point, they got a personal rebuke from Richard Stallman: you've been working for six months on a database of hardware compatibility, and all you've produced was a piece of software.  The project fell apart, because they had no idea how to proceed on to the only important part: gathering the data.
+The moral of my story is that, while implementing barcode scanning is fun, it leaves the hardest and most important part of the problem (getting data about companies, products, etc.) totally untouched.  This is the only part of the problem I want to touch, at least for now.  I want to gather data, from all the sources on the [[essential projects]] and [[interesting projects]] and many other places.  Is there any way that you can provide me an area where I can start on this?
+::[[barcode]] scanning was an essential requirement back in the day when the [[Goals and means of Consumerium|original concept]] saw the daylight. It was inspired by information on [[Bluetooth]] since the greed and stupidity of [[mobile operators]] was proven in the [[UMTS]]-auctions that backfired seriously damaging the telecoms sector and the sinking ship took a lot of IT-companies with it leaving lot's of people unemployed. With [[bluetooth]] one needs no central operator and operating bluetooth links costs nothing.
+::The basic problem in being a [[conscientious consumer]] here-and-now is that most of the staff at stores may be part-time workers (working in stores is common with students) or they just don't have the means of acquiring more information exept what is written on the [[product]] [[label]]s so the idea was that if there is an [[information system]] dedicated to storing information that does not fit on the label or just isn't the kind of information that [[producer]]s want to include in the labels or totally different media such as [[video]] or [[audio]] then [[Consumer]]s know that they or the store staff '''can access''' so the [[motivation]] behind starting to develop this information system we call [[Consumerium]] for the time being.
+::In Information Technology there is a word '''interrogate''' that is used to express queries into a database ie. ''interrogating the db'' which is what you could do with [[Consumerium]] if/when it gets built but who'd want to ''interrogate a store clerk'' over some seemingly miniscule piece of information when most likely the clerk would have to respond that '''they (store staff) don't know, and have no system where to lookup what the consumer wants to know''' --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 12:57, 13 Mar 2004 (EET)
+:Yup.  Propose we move what's at [[Main Page]] to [[Main Page Developer]], and create a [[Main Page Researcher]] and [[Main Page Consumer]] right now, today.  And that we change http://consumerium.org [[Front Page]] to quickly direct folks to the right one, and encourage mostly recruitment of the researchers we need.  DanKeshet, you were involved in the creation of [[w:voting systems]], if the logs are right, and that project involved creating many standard pages with roughly the same things said about each system.  That is the same problem as the [[Consumerium:intermediate page]]s with their common [[Consumerium:intermediate page format]].  These are the pages that a [[Consumerium:Researcher]] compiles, and a [[Consumerium:Consumer]] consults.  Whether they consult them in the same form the researchers compile them is not important right now, that's the [[Consumerium buying signal]] problem.  We can work on that at [[Main Page Developer]] while the rest proceeds in parallel.
+::Whew.  OK, all there now except [[Consumerium:Consumer]].  [[Front Page]] and [[Main Page Consumer]] are more or less just invitations for our [[New Troll point of view|New Troll]] [[User:DanKeshet]] to innovate.   We try to be [[troll-friendly]] here.
+:Also, highly recommended to check out [http://geocities.com/n8chz/ Pubwan].  It may have good ideas for this.
+== More on encyclopedia of consumer products, companies, etc. ==
+Juxo,
+I understand what you say about conscientious consumers and part-time workers. I have been one of those part-time workers and I find it annoying when customers assume you know something about one of the 10,000 products in the store even though you didn't get one day of training.
+:In Finland people are often even shy about ''requesting'' any information from the store staff in case the store staff doesn't know the anwser to the question and is put in an awkward situation for both.
+While I understand how cool it would be if the whole thing could work like you outline,
+[[Consumerium:Retrospection]] offers a ''little insight'' into how the concept has evolved from a ''technocratic'' project mainly consisting of automated processing of information into a "[[wiki way]]"-direction, but it still needs tuning. I am anticipating a five to ten year development time. I hope this does not put you off. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)
+I am not interested in working on (planning, developing, discussing, etc.) a system for accessing a database unless the database is populated.
+:I understand. No-one is taking the lead to generate software unique to [[Consumerium]] so far which taking into account how radically the [[Consumerium:Retrospection|plot]] has changed is sort of a good thing because work put into making proprietary software would have stopped us from evolving the concept further because of respect to the coders hard work. But since we don't have a single line of code we are free to change the plans.--[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)
+I am interested, however, in helping populate the database.  Juxo, should I work on that database here on Consumerium (if so, where?) or should I set up a different place? [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 10:16, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)
+:Here we try to generate a WikiWikiWeb that will provide all the needed information to guide building of [[wikis|production wikis]]. If you mean [[Company]] or [[Product]] specific data, this is not the place that information will go to one of the [[wikis]] when we set them up. But sadly for those who are in a hurry it is still not time to set the wikis up because we don't have a practice (or [[instructional capital]] as [[142.177.X.X]] likes to call it) for managing the wikis and neither a set plan on how information flows and we are not even sure what should go where and do we need [[wikis|two wikis]] or just one [[wiki]].
+:Information you have that might be of interest to a larger "population" then the one here in this R&D Wiki should go to [[Wikipedia]] just link the interesting articles from [[Research]] (work needed on articles listed there) or [[Wikipedia]] (when an article is fairly complete) Feel free to write new articles here. We are in desperate need of contributors that are willing to use an identity instead of horrendeous [[trolling]]. I have been making up the [[guidelines]] and [[rules]] up as I go along and this wiki is a mix of anarchy and autocracy, which won't work for the production wikis. [[Recyclopedia]] seems like a subset of the [[GFDL corpus]] dedicated to "alternative" views and things. [[Wikinfo]] might grow to be a formidable access point into the whole "encyclopedic [[GFDL corpus]]".
+:'''Short anwser:''' Write it here unless explicitly forbidden in [[rules]] or [[guidelines]] and it'll flow into the right slot eventually. Be bold in creating new articles. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)
+----
+When I learned about this Wiki, I thought my first entry would be on the SINALTRAINAL boycott of Coca-Cola, since I saw no entry for Coca-Cola listed.  I was distressed to later see that someone had already added information on this boycott, and you had deleted it, and that they (and perhaps someone else) had felt this was a bit heavy-handed.  Of course, this is just one case, but being the first thing I come across on this wiki, it does not give me a good signal.  I can see not wanting people to make direct accusations against a company being a liability issues, but there are simpler ways to handle it, I think.  Like perhaps removing that line with a comment about how it has to be attributed.  Since you deleted the article, I have no idea what it said anyhow, I simply have to guess what it said. [[User:Venceremos|Venceremos]] 12:30, 30 Mar 2004 (EEST)
+:Yes. I deleted [[Coca-Cola]] just as I have deleted [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] and [[CIV]] because we are in a planning and development stage and '''yet''' have no [[Research Wiki]] because we haven't figured out the [[Consumerium Process]] which governs it and Publish Wiki. [[User:DanKeshet]] has started a very similar project of it's own called the [[Consumerpedia]], it is also [[wiki]] and [[GFDL]] so we consider it a friendly project even an [[Essential projects|essential project]]. According to our [[Rules]] this [[Development Wiki]] is no place to put info of companies, so I'm copying the article to [[Consumerpedia]] and blanking it here.
+::I don't see anywhere on the [[Rules]] page where it says this "is no place to put info of companies".  It says "Don't write that Company X or Person Y is evil."  I have not written that any company is evil, I wrote that eight Coca-Cola union leaders in Colombia have been killed, which is a fact, and that the Colombian union that covers Coca-Cola is calling for a boycott until Coca-Cola "makes a commitment to respect the human rights of workers".  I did not say Coca-Cola was responsible for the murders.
+:: My primary concern here is that it seems to me people are being misled into thinking that this IS a "place to put info of companies" even though you say that this "is no place to put info on companies".  You say that the Rules page says this, but it does not, it says to not say a company is evil.  Since apparently people keep coming here and making this error, perhaps this is a sign that people think this is a place to put information on companies.  Perhaps you should be more explicit in your warning.  If your Rules page had said what you SAY it said, which it does not - that this "is no place to put info on companies", I would not have posted anything on Coca-Cola.  You seem to have Kafkaesque, unknown rules that people who are unable to derive them from the existing rules are continually breaking, and then you draconianly delete their stuff.  Perhaps you should be more communicative about what people should put up here, and what they should not. [[User:Venceremos|Venceremos]] 07:26, 31 Mar 2004 (EEST)
+:::Venceremos, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, and our [[Lowest Troll]] is ABSOLUTELY WRONG here.  It is that attitude which led to [[Consumerpedia]] going off in some other direction with perhaps no possibility to even collaborate on some rational standards like a [[standard wiki URI]] (certainly Consumerpedia's is a much WORSE URI even than Consumerium's ridiculous strings that change too often).
+:::The [[Research Wiki]] should have been part of this project, [[User:DanKeshet]] was willing to work on that, and because of top-down ideology or lack of seeming support, he's off elsewhere.  Well, fine, that ghettos this as a technology-development project that will probably fail.  Only [[trolls]] really worked to build [[Main Page Consumer]], [[Main Page Researcher]], [[Main Page Developer]] so we didn't end up with multiple wikis with divergent policies.
+:::Review the "ultimatum" above and you'll see it's a quite general problem.  There MUST be test cases in a development wiki, else there's nothing for [[Consumerium User Stories]] to refer to.  We can make up user names but not company or commodity names.  Juxo wants an omelette but won't break any eggs.  Time for that to end.  Please stay and help [[trolls]] make this thing work.
+----
+Hi Juxo,
+Just to let you know I have moved your Wiktionary page "Types of companies" to "Wiktionary:Types of companies" to show it is not an entry in the main body of Wiktionary. -- Paul G (Wiktionary sysop) 12:03, 29 Mar 2004 (BST)
+----
+Juxo,
+What are your policies going to be with respect to courtesy and respect?  I ask because a user is posting all manner of mean comments about me, calling me a "liar" for example, on my talk page.  Is that o.k. with you?  Is that a proper methods for rational discussion? [[User:Matterhorn|Matterhorn]] 03:22, 11 May 2004 (EEST)
+:This user "Matterhorn" deserves no respect whatsoever, and is provably a liar. What is more they may be part of a [[Wikimedia]] attempt to destabilize wikis which opponents of the [[Wikipedia]] [[sysop power structure]] and supporters of a fairly-mediated [[GFDL Corpus]] happen to work.  All this "user" has done has been to make false statements about Wikimedia activities, defending them, and has CONTRIBUTED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE GOALS OF CONSUMERIUM.  This by contrast to the [[trolls]] who have authored and edited a great deal of useful material.  If it's a choice between Matterhorn and the trolls, make it wisely.  BUt it is only Matterhorn's insistence on defining policy or truth re: Wikimedia that makes it so.  Also see [[User_talk:Matterhorn]] where [[User:Atag]] more or less admits being part of the cabal that illegally took [[Recyclopedia]] down.  These people would seem to be the usual suspects, and at least associated with [[Tim Starling]] and [[Erik Moeller]], who employ the same tactics.
+----
+Hej hej,
+thanxx for overtaking the [[VeganWiki]] invitation to the [[Interesting Projects]] page. Actually I'm only waiting for one or two founders to join before setting up one in English. If you have an idea, don't hesitate to get in touch: tim@veganwiki.org or just leave a note at http://veganwiki.org... and we'll give Consumerium a mention, that's for sure :) `a   Tim
+----
+oi -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro]]
 ------
-In compensation for driving off [[User:Angela]], which there was no choice about, trolls recommend recruiting [[w:User:Mirwin]], [[w:User:Netesq]], [[w:User:Ed_Poor]], [[w:User:Jrincayc]] (especially), [[w:User:Anthere]], [[w:User:Mydogategodshat]], [[w:User:The_Cunctator]], [[w:User:GrahamN]], as Wikipedia contributors who have never contributed to any [[echo chamber]] nor committed any [[sysop vandalism]], and in fact, protested it when it happened.  These are the ones Consumerium needs to recruit.  And it will continue to need to drive off the sysop-vandals, racists, anti-accountability quackers and such.
+Too many issues on this page.
+Time to [[refactor]] to discuss various issues separately like:
+arm's length or close relationship between [[Develop Wiki]] and [[Research Wiki]]?
+:Good question. This develop wiki has been very much about bashing all wiki governance practices as flawed in some crucial manner. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 08:37, 5 Aug 2004 (EEST)
+status of [[Consumerpedia]] ?
+:Umm... well 0 edits in last 30 days and besides i've copied most of the relevant stuff to here or [[CorpKnowPedia]]
-:As yet another proof of Angela's lack of integrity, here she is at [[m:Talk:Draft_privacy_policy]] strongly opposing deleting user_talk pages, and of course, she asked for that to be done for her here.  Someone takes your position, Juxo:
+status of [[CorpKnowPedia]] ?
-::"The user pages are not part of the encyclopedia, they should be deleted upon request. Keeping them viewable by everyone against the user's will is, in my opinion, a misuse of the GFDL." - tristanb (not logged in) 203.96.104.226 00:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
+:This is a good question. I haven't disussed this with Jhedstroem who runs the place. It seems that he aka The Professor and I are quite tied with ca. 300 edits to boths account over there. It is quite clear that our "charter" exeeds that of CorpKnowPedia, but I trust we can negotiate our relation so that no-one feels ripped off. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 08:37, 5 Aug 2004 (EEST)
-::to which Angela responds:
+[[Main Page Researcher]], [[Main Page Consumer]] and other gateways to the [[Consumerium Services]] (how many should there be, etc.)
-:::"I disagree. User talk pages are there to support the development of the encyclopedia, and as such include information that is relevant to particular articles. Perhaps that should have gone on the article talk page, but often it doesn't, and the talk pages provide a very useful history of how particular articles and issues were developed. The user talk page is not supposed to be something private. If you want a private discussion with someone, you can do that by e-mail, so I see no reason why these pages should be made part of the privacy policy. The same might not apply to user pages. Angela 01:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)"
+:Consumers see the [[Publish Wiki]] with links to the "Live wikis" which include [[Research Wiki]] which is for researchers and [[Opinion Wiki]] which is for [[campaigner]]s. So why do I still want separate wikis for opinions and facts. It's simply because it makes managing the whole myriad of wikis simpler
-::All the information about why she had to be driven off, was quite relevant to the development of [[moral purchasing potential]].  Then she goes on again to talk about how important the talk filse are:
+::What?  Creating a new and unnecessary one makes things simpler?  Not really.  And there are no [[campaigner]]s who will not claim to be [[researcher]]s and very few [[researcher]]s who are not already [[campaigner]]s for *something*.  So this separation only gives the [[sysop power structure]] an arbitrary way to force people into two groups defined only by a [[GodKing]]'s whims and such, the same way [[sysop]]s are differentiated from [[troll]]s or [[vandal]]s by a divine [[technological escalation]].  This is entirely wrong and chills the whole debate about "What is research" and "what is opinion" which is required to make the whole thing work.
-:::"I don't think you would have to remove the comments completely though in order for someone to vanish. This could be done through a name change. Also, agreeing to delete a user talk page doesn't really solve anything if comments they would rather vanish from also appear on article talk pages, which is quite likely to be the case. Article talk pages are obviously not going to be deleted, so there needs to be a solution that can apply to both these and to user talk pages. I can't see any strong reason to treat these differently. I'm also not sure you can state different privacy rules for banned users. It's possible that they might be the ones most wanting to hide their past on Wikipedia after they are made to leave. Angela 23:07, 29 Dec 2003 (PST)"
+IMHO and another thing is that it's much simpler to merge two or more wikis then it is to split one wiki up so if it turns out that having separate places for facts and opinions is not a workable idea it won't be much of an hassle to merge the contents if article naming is carefully thought out in advance. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 08:37, 5 Aug 2004 (EEST)
-::It's amazing, really, how bald-facedly she says one thing one place and another in another.  She's appalling, and she really is the worst of them.
+::[[Large public wiki]]s don't seem to have a lot of trouble splitting when they [[fork off]] but I have NEVER seen two of them merge.  This is just wrong.  And since when are [[page name]]s EVER "carefully thought out in advance"?  How many different hierarchical naming schemes have you gone through on YOUR hard drive?  Now multiply that by all the others everyone else has gone through.  These are evolving standards and we need all wisdom on them at once -
-:::Funnily enough, I thought the same thing myself - ie that I was contradicting myself, not that I was "the worst of them" etc. My current thoughts on the matter following my experience here are that a talk page and user page is something more personal than what you write on article pages.
+::differentate [[researcher]] from [[campaigner]] by [[revert currency]] scores and reflect them in article titles, but don't do it by competing name-spaces.
-::::Here we agree, it is more personal, but that does not mean that it is entirely or only personal.  For instance it is common to bring up issues with someone's editing habits with them on the talk page, or general questions about their intentions, etc., there.  Often these are well documented challenges to what they have done, where they stand, etc.  [[w:User:RK]] for example managed to rack up a lot of such challenges which he would delete, then whine about the fact that people wanted to document his various abuses.  He succeeded in many manipulations and in subverting all those who wanted to apply accountability to his various lies and abusive claims, and many think he succeeded in this simply because he was successful at covering his own trail and removing the evidence that he was doing the same thing over and over and over again.  So the solution that various conscientious users including [[w:User:MyRedDice]] tried to apply was the "/ban page", which Wales did not support, and then the "Community case" page, which again he did not support, and in the end, Wales has let RK run riot.  Trolls tend to think that RK now runs the Wikipedia by default, and that others such as [[w:User:Maveric149]] have pulled very similar tricks in the not too recent past, although it's not clear whether they still attempt to do so.  A culture of zero accountability and personal control over all information about oneself is not necessarily conducive to making good trust decisions.
+-------------
-:::User and article talk pages already follow different rules. For example, a user is, in nearly all cases, allowed to refactor and delete comments on their own user/talk page in a way that would not be regarded as acceptable on article talk pages.
+"(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Alleged Wikimedia corruption; 15:24 . . Juxo (Talk) (moving claim later proved false to [[FUCOC]])"
-::::True.
+:This is a lie.  Nothing has been "proved false".  You are a liar.  You are also not fit to exercise unilateral editorial authority here given that you ignore [[Consumerium:proposed deletions]] and just do whatever you want.
-Therefore, it makes sense for those differences to apply to deletion of the pages as well. People are more attached to their pages than to their comments on article pages, and I think it is this level of attachment that would cause someone to feel uncomfortable about leaving an undeleted user page behind when they  exercise their [[MeatBall:RightToLeave|right to leave]].
+:The time has come for [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] to have an [[independent board]] and start a [[Research Wiki]] that will not be constantly censored by you, who for all we know is paid by [[McDonald's]], [[Coca-Cola]], [[CIV]] and [[Bomis]] to keep the truth about them under wraps.  To supervise [[Consumerium Governance Organization election]]s would also require someone less biased than you.
-::::Maybe true.  However, that was not what you advocated earlier, and, you were I think rightfully mocked for advocating a policy somewhere, leaving that assertion in place, and then advocating an opposite policy somewhere else when you wanted a different outcome.  This combined with the exchange with [[w:User:Cyan]] where you were ''clearly'' demanding the same type of "community censorship" to be applied at the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] as at the Full English (a request [[w:User:Tim_Starling]] eventually granted), and then denying that in our exhange on the SEW, is a valid reason to conclude that you are two-faced in these policy discussions and intervention requests.  That is still our conclusion.
+------------
-:::It doesn't solve the problem of not vanishing from article talk, but if the user feels separated from these in a way they don't from their own pages, then there is reason to treat the pages differently. Deletion of your user/talk page may also be a way of psychologically breaking away from a wiki, which has a stronger effect than just walking away. Perhaps when people leave they need this as some sort of final statement that they have left, and not only that, but a statement that they no longer wish to be associated with it at all.
+Thanks for your message Juxo. I hope to contribute here more often.
+:How do you propose to fix consumerism?--[[User:Genyphur|Genyphur]] 03:47, 25 Sep 2004 (EEST)
+::Hey Jux :) I added you to my aim buddy list..my s/n is HoTsHortTie69--[[User:Genyphur|Genyphur]] 12:44, 30 Sep 2004 (EEST)
-::::But they reappear.  By your own rules, again demonstrated in your reverts to valid edits at Wikipedia, people do not have the right to reappear with some new identity let alone the original.  Your "witch-hunts" clearly deny that right.  So if they may reappear and there is a need to compare exchanges of their past incarnations with the current ones, then, one needs the old talk.
+------------
-Thus it should never be deleted, to allow the witchhunters, such as yourself, to identify the "heresy" and point out to others proof that "it's the same person".  Failure to provide that is simply usurping a right to identify one IP or name with another by instinct.  Which of course is what you actually do want, and what you actually do usurp, whenever you make unilateral decisions and operational distinctions that result in banning any IP that you don't like.  Morwen at least admits she has "itchy trigger finger" and that there is no concept of "due process" - but that is not what the mythology of Wikipedia claims...
-:::The history of user talk pages can be fascinating and offer huge insights into the working of the wiki, but this isn't what they are there for. The aim is to build an encyclop�dia or a guide for consumers or whatever the aim of a particular wiki is, not to provide insights into how the community works or to document how individuals played a part in that.
+Happy christmas and new year.
+-[http://fi.wikipedia.org/User:Nikerabbit Niklas]
+----
+I'm on strike or something and have locked the database ---[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 21:46, 4 Jan 2005 (EET)
-::::But "to build an encyclopedia" is not ''your'' aim.  Your aim is to make certain people that you like feel comfortable, and make others that you do not like invisible or even make it impossible for them to participate.  You are one of those who believe in a "virtual community".  So you stand simultaneously for a lack of "insights into how the community works" and no right or ability "to document how individuals played a part in that."  This is the classic definition of a [[w:carceral state]] - an unexamined and unexaminable power structure capable of presenting any image of itself that it wants to, while simultaneously claiming the right and ability to investigate and judge any ordinary contributor/citizen.  So you actually want a "virtual police state".  Wikipedia is your paradise.  But it is not an encyclopedia.
+Hey come off strike. The world needs consumerism. A wiki is the best way to fight the anticonsumerists. I'll help. -Humanityagent 6 Feb 2005
+Hey you're not on strike--you deleted my (the only one here) report. Where can people start working on articles?
-:::So, I now feel that the privacy policy at Wikipedia, and probably on other wikis too, should state that a user/talk page will be deleted on request after someone leaves. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 16:50, 2 Jan 2004 (EET)
+----
+Juxo, if your site has been compromised, why don't you pull the plug until you can secure it again?
+ mnosbercad.com  either on the fly or by means of the scrivner
+http://8.1.osbercad.com/8.1.html 8.1  approach, employ the cut
+----
+I think that now the vandal has been reverted and the attack employed (redirecting to WP user page(s)) has been disabled --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 01:31, 28 Aug 2005 (GMT)
-:::p.s. Thanks for deleting my talk page Juxo.
+:Allright, I have to admit a lack of integrity. In the process of refreshing from MySQLdumps the interwiki-redirect was accidentally re-enabled. I think the situation is now stable, though one can never know how often those vandals attack, but the conlusion that it is that WP user that [[142.177.X.X]] claims it to be is a shallow and false one
-::::Fair enough, you've changed your position.  But if you don't note that fact over at meta.wikipedia.org, then, it will be obvious to all that you advocate one position when you want something, and another when someone else wants it.
+::Lies:  the evidence is VERY strong that it is <nowiki>[[User_name_removed]]</nowiki>, since 1. the [[User:Juxhomosexual]] and [[User_talk:Juxhomosexual]] page redirected to the pages [[en:User:Linuxbeak]] and [[en:User_talk:Linuxbeak]], as it would if that user had set their [[mediawiki]] preferences to always redirect any new user pages
-Follow up to the above discussion:
+:There is no such preference in current [[MediaWiki]]
-:I recall seen some case of [[Wikipedia]]ns having experienced problems beyond the realm of Wikipedia due to having at some point revealed their real identity and/or contact information on their User-page, which resulted in them leaving the pedia and perhaps returning with an another username. Unfortunatelly since people have characteristic style of writing and tend to focus on same articles as before this may not help out in the situation that someone is getting harrassed or threatened because of their information or views.
+. that user was censoring [[142.177.X.X]] IPs for personal reasons ([[sysop vandalism]]) just prior to their [[vandalism]] here
-::This situation is increasingly common there, which is one reason why pseudonyms and accountable-anonymous (visible IP numbers) are popular.  However with the current regime at Wikipedia it is necessary to subvert the sysops by various technical means, fuzzing identity, running proxy servers on private IPs, etc., which is going to enable abuses as much as it enables dissidents.  This is not the solution trolls prefer, but it is the one that we must apply if we don't wish to let advocates of a [[w:carceral state]] control the Wikipedia and thus the direction of the [[GFDL text corpus]].  The alternative is not for us to go away - the alternative is for us to respond to technological censorship with further escalation, e.g. to the legal or direct military realm.
+:That's not relevant or proof of anything except that he might be a all-out deletionist. Send me the logs (links to the diffs), not that it's relevant to these vandalism incidents in here but just because I'm curious of how much of a [[wiki witchhunt]] they embarked on your edits.
-::If someone's "information" includes outright lying about groups or whole ethnicities or religions, as [[w:User:RK]]'s does, or their "views" include the assertion or implication that certain ethnicities or religions resort preferentially to violence and so must or should be repressed in advance (certainly that is a common Zionist belief and RK is a common Zionist), then, of course they are likely to be "harrassed or threatened because of their information or views."  Those exact views are killing people in Palestine now.  So why should people in the USA not be killed for them?  On 9/11, some were, and this is going to continue as long as RK's view gets through to the media, and the troll view does not.  Those who are censored, tend to realize that they are going to have to submit to a regime or fight it with violence (legal means is violence, since the law is backed by violence), and, many will simply fight.
-:And point the blame to those "dreaded wikipedians" eg. the ones with access to logs it is even more easy for them to match historical data way beyond IP-numbers to point out that someone new is infact someone old. I just have to trust they don't abuse this. I personally see no problem with deleting talk_pages when they have back-history of clearly offensive edits by other users having a personal problem with the user elsewhere.
+::It's no big deal, just important to note that [[w:User:Linuxbeak]] is an unwelcome [[sysop vandal]]
-::They abuse it constantly.  Angela also advocated only revealing IP logs to developers in cases of "vandalism" (not trolls who are a distinct category), but has again used this to identify people with views that she doesn't like.
+== Päivää ==
+Olen levykevandaali. --[[User:Levykevandaali|Levykevandaali]] 16:08, 24 October 2006 (GMT)
-::I see no problem with deleting talk pages containing actual offensive edits with "a personal problem".  The issue between Angela and the trolls however is not personal, but obviously political, and our edits may offend her, and you, but, it would be offensive to most [[w:fair trade]] advocates not to be warned that they were dealing with someone who advocated a [[w:carceral state]] well in advance of having to deal with them on a real issue.  For this and other good reasons political [[faction]] really should be declared in advance, and it should be factions, not "just anyone" and not "sysops" who decide that edits do or do not represent a valid action.  That is why parties exist in legislatures, too, and the situation in wikis is easily as complicated.  The [[Content Wiki]] will have this problem worse than any other, and just shoving the controversial material to an [[Opinion Wiki]] doesn't solve the most basic problem, which is that there is an investment in identifying the trustworthiness of any one edit, and that there must be some group that validates these, or refuses to do so, that is neutral politically and does not permit things through on "reputation", and does not revert things due to "reputation", but applies ONLY a "due process".
+== Spam ==
-::There are MANY advocates of that at Wikipedia, but, they are drowned out by the Angelas.  Perhaps she is not "the worst of them" since she talks about it, even to trolls it seems, but, she is certainly engaged in witch-hunts that may actually violate the GFDL, when combined with the various measures taken by the sysops and developers she influences.  Certainly trolls will work hard to make sure that everyone who, for instance, restricts access to source texts that were licensed under GFDL, pays a serious price for it in their "real lives"... is that "harassment"?  If so, it's harassment they have completely earned.  Which is what most people call "justice".
+Hello, you seem to have a little spam here. I suggest you to drop the useless math captchas and employ QuestyCaptcha instead. Also, I got a fatal error after registration, I don't know if the fact of having JavaScript disabled caused it. --[[User:Nemo|Nemo]] ([[User talk:Nemo|talk]]) 12:08, 25 November 2012 (EET)