User talk:Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

Welcome!

Hello, Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Fr a ncs2000 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avi's second personal attack on innocent wikipedian

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Actuarial Outpost. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -- Avi 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avi has carried over a personal grudge

Avi has carried over a personal grudge from another web site onto wikipedia. He should know wiki policy better, too bad he thinks he is above the policy. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care for the personal attacks on my space by Avi

Thanks.

All I ever did was edit an article that I felt was more of an advertisement for a commercial web space. It was non-notable. Avi personally attacked me for my opinion as well as my attempt to add history about the web space. Ultimately, wiki powers agreed with my opinion several months after the fact.

Someone else must have agreed with my unbiased POV. I feel vindicated that a rational wiki editor deemed Avi's association with the web space for which he wrote an article was a conflict of interest and there was no third party sourcing for any of the material. Furthermore, no one is going to look in wiki for info about a commercial site when they go to the site itself if they want to find out what it is. No need for a secondary source written by the primary source. People can just go to the primary source for the primary sources POV. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Avi

We know you don't want to confront the evil history of the board, but the principles of wikipedia are to Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus.

Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.

I do not feel that you respect an alternate point of view which details the nepharious activity of the AO. I guess as long as it didn't affect your clique then it didn't happen.

The history of the CAS board has repeated itself.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA (talk • contribs) 2006-05-18.

When a commercial site is a commercial site

The Actuarial Outpost is not a commercial enterprise, even though it is funded by a commercial entity, any more than National Public Radio is a commercial enterprise even though most of their funding comes from commercial entities. Secondly, noteworthy commercial enterprises do have a place in an encyclopedia, such as IBM for one. The facts are the facts; opinions are welcomed and encouraged on the talk page, Talk:Actuarial Outpost. -- Avi 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this, do the sponsors of NPR get to edit the content of the news reports or other commentary on NPR? Cause an employee of the sponsor of your compost does edit content on the compost, as well as limit certain points of view, as well as selecting the other moderators who perform other functions. Do sponsors of NPR get to select the management employees of NPR? I guess you would say PBS is not a commercial entity either. Do you think a sponsor of PBS would be able to ban Bill Moyers from PBS because he expressed a view about Iraq or about religion or political views on the current administration? I tend to think not. Whereas, on the compost, your "sponsor" who you claim does not run the "commercial entity" known as the compost, does ban members because their point of view generates complaints from thin skinned liberals who don't like to be criticized for their anti-religious opinions. If a commercial entity edits content and limits membership based on discussions, and if the ultimate purpose of their sponsorship is to generate recruiting referral income for their commercial business, then what you have is a commercial enterprise. They run it, they operate it. It is a far cry from you NPR comparison. NPR does not exist to generate referral income for a recruiting company. The compost does not exist to allow actuaries to communicate views, anonymously and free from moderation. Posters being allowed to research where people work and sending faxes to their employer and then posting on the compost where the person worked is unprofessional and violates anonymity among other ethical issues. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 15:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham

Shall we invite the protagonists, Glenn, Traci, Claude, and Tom to comment? There was a reason your membership in that community was revoked, after *many* warnings. -- Avi 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a moderator at the other site? If so, perhaps you know more about why I was banned than I do. There actually were very few warnings. Tom once said he was getting some complaints and to try and tone things down. Next thing I know, I was banned. It all started heading south when I participated in a thread started by Traci who complained about a parent who said a prayer at a Thanksgiving dinner at school. She said if she ever heard a prayer again she was going to end up on the 6:00 news complaining about it.

I opined that her behaviour demonstrated an anymosity for religion and religous expression. Several other posters, besides myself, received warnings for disagreeing with Traci.

I don't dispute that other posters were uncomfortable with my point of view or things I posted. I don't think Glenn, Traci, Claude, or Tom would be able to shed any further light than that. Traci often said to anyone who complained over there, "If you don't like the way things are being run here, go start your own site." That is exactly what happened. I bear no anymosity toward anyone. They can run their site however they want to. Some members including myself want to also or primarily participate in a spin off site.

What's the big deal? Is the internet not big enough for more than one site on it? You don't really think a mention of a spin off site is going to create a mass exodus from the other site do you? Do you have some financial interest in the other site?

Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

Mention is one thing, writing that moderators were abusing their privilege as FACT and not supposition is another. Your original text was a violation of WP:POV, the current rewriting by demon and myself is done from a neutral perspective, with the allegations as such, merely allegations, and, interestingly, no mention of your blatant violation of community rules and standards, especially regarding one whose username is best described as being alone.-- Avi 00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so are you claiming that moderators recused themselves from disputes in discussions in which they participated. As I recall, Traci admitted that she did not do this. Traci instituted warnings in threads where she was the offended party. That is using your power in a dispute with a poster. Any judge in a real court would have to recuse himself in such a situation. Your re-writing is not from a neutral POV, your suggestion that it is such is, quite frankly, laughable.--Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

A lesson from another Avraham

An argument could be made that this type of mindset, whereby an individual fearlessly confronts those wielding immense political power and challenges their behavior and leadership qualities on ethical, moral and spiritual grounds, is very much a fundamental aspect of Avraham’s activities throughout his life. Avraham’s unceasing willingness and increasing boldness to “speak truth to power” appears to evolve from confrontation to confrontation

Avraham is ... designated as possessing the qualities of generosity, humility, and readiness to forgive"

Shabbat Shalom and let us all try to influence ourselves, our families, our communities and our people to aspire to the agenda that Avraham modeled so profoundly for us all.

http://www.kmsynagogue.org/VaYera.html

Avi has posted an id of a user from another board here

Carrying over personal grudges is against wiki policy. Posting id names from other boards which may make a person identifiable is a personal attack on me Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 16:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific policy against it sayeth Jimbo Whales

From the policy: A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases. Jimbo Wales has said: "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason," and " ... multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny." [1]

....

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid' conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia'.

=

Unfortunately, I was the victim of personal attacks and harassment outside of Wikipedia due to my views. It appears that in the end, sanity prevailed, and the blatant advertisement for a commericial non-notable site was removed. It's too bad they treat members the way they do. A community without a sense of a community and without the proper bounds of professionalism given their support of personal attacks and harassment to people in real life based on an opinion about an inappropriate spam link in a wiki article. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=

Go play in the sandbox, stop spam linking in wiki about commercial sites. You know who you are. LOL Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post freely and anonymously without excessive moderation

Nice thought. Too bad commercialism rears its ugly head, thanks to the sell outs to commercialism.

WIKI finally ROCKS

No need to have spam articles about commercial web pages. I was right. I have nothing against worhtless commercial web sites, but spam links in wiki should be eradicated.

Conflict of interest Avi, how can you not see that? Find any new Hex codes? Is the dead thread dead yet?

Merry Christmas fellow wikipedians

Live long and post freelyJoe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 15:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, Beauty and Freedom

I clothe myself in these but am attacked by those who practice deception, ugliness and censorship.