RK Discussion Archive/5

Rating: 0 - 0 votes

Company Name

Company Contact

Page Type

This page is about a company.

Revision as of 07:18, 19 November 2007 by NickBurrus (talk | contribs) (Section Five)



(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Rating: 0 - 0 votes

Company Name

Company Contact

Page Type

This page is about a company.

AboutUsPeopleCleanup

Hi Ray, as an effort to minimize the distinction between AboutUsStaff and ActiveMembers, we are replacing the AboutUsStaff/AboutUsEmployees/AboutUsStaffCity categories with AboutUsCity Category. You are welcome to share your ideas/thoughts on AboutUsPeopleCleanup#Discussion page. Best, Asad

Looks good, I added a comment to the above page, thx - Ray | talk

community team and content team

Ray, Just wondering who's on which team. Will this be self-identified? I wonder if I should be asking folks which team is their "home" or if you'll be handling that, or assigning? Ted Ernst | talk

Ted, I'm talking with folks now about this, i.e. letting folks opt into the adhocracy as much as possible. I may ask for some help shortly - Ray | talk
great Ted Ernst | talk

Hey Ray, I'm starting to get anxious about this question again. Mark and I have been working on getting at least one task fully into shape, so we can then pair with others on getting the others tasks into shape. I'm still not sure who's in the team, so who to pair with. Thoughts? peace, Ted Ernst | talk

Locking my page

The user "DannyG" is vandalizing my talk page and user page.He is persistently editing them.This is a request to lock my pages down to the revision made by me at "02:37, 29 August 2007"

Darkgiant 20:53, 28 August 2007 (PDT)

Well I would have to admit I was guilty of editing the said page. I felt that DG was mistakenly deleting my comments since he has openly said he does not like comments removed. For that I am sorry and have ceased to edit the page. If he chooses to put my comments back up it will be his choice. Thanks. DannyG


DannyGs Questions

Location: http://www.aboutus.org/User_talk:Master_Baitor (Be certain to check the history to understand)

One of the questions User DannyG would not let up on me without answering but will not actually let me answer as he continues to taunt me but at the same time deletes my posts with no reason why, Rather childish and I would be very concerned about your site association with this user. There is alot more history to this user than meet your inbox so...Dont say later that I never gave you the heads up!

Questions 1

Art states that he has his own children and would not post pictures of them in the same style he has posted himself, girls in see through clothes with their legs around their head, but he chooses to promote other parents to do this. How can one say that they allow this from others and following the beliefs he has stated? Is this not being hypocritical? Does this not show that he is trying to justify his own actions? --DannyG 20:22, 28 August 2007 (PDT)

Answer 1

Answer Question 1: [REPLACED THIS RESPONSE AS DannyG KEEPS DELETING IT NOW AT TWENTY FIRST POST]

:: For starters DannyG you were banned from my website for posting disgusting n-de pictures of little girls in and your preteen torrents were so bad on the pirate bay they actually deleted some of them, and the pirate bay allows allot of content as it even has the nickname as the pedo bay, do a search on google for your name show thousands of comments and as large as the pirate bay is ALL your comments are about pedophile material and daily I might add, you have been charged with Child Pornography Charges and have already spent years in prison as a convicted sex offender of little children but you visit daily for hours on end sites with this content and then get your jollies convincing people you do nothing wrong and are there to help others, I know this is NOT the case and you have a collection worse than I could ever image as I never moved onto the unrecoverable stage of hardcore child pornography as you have openly admitted.
Any person that actually listened to to your words DannyG that you have time and time again tested to convince people that you are the good guy, You are the conman criminal sex offender that attempts to convince people to allow them access to their children and you attack others to gain yourself some respect amongst those that don't know your tricks yet but you don't know everything I have studied and I have studied Child Protection and you cannot gain access to courses to help protect children without passing numerous tests (at least in my country that make it hard to even get into a course relating to children let alone complete one or more - I Studied these course namely as I know what is out there so I have studied to protect MY children and will strongly defend them from harm) you are the very person we should all be protecting our child from!
And that is the god honest truth! Be very careful about trusting anything he says that would be my words of wisdom to all those that read this. He will convince you otherwise as he is very sneaky and has dealt with police and others in prison just like himself for many years.
Now since you always ask questions that are basically accusations in statements that all but force a person to respond and more often than not your questions are phased to initiate an emotion response so that any person answering them sounds like the one in error. Thus further adding to your creditability.
I am a loving father and if my children wanted to play a sport that involved them getting injured I would attempt to protect them and not let them do it (I would ask them first ofcourse to be fair, but convince them not to) The same can be said for the modeling industry, there are allot of fine photographers that can do very professional and stunning work with children and all thought my two daughters are very beautiful and would not mind being photographed I feel that as a parent I have the right to decide for them not to be setup for possible failure as professional models as I of all people openly and honestly admit I know what they would be up against in comparison to around the world and If I as a parent choose for my children not to enter that industry who are you to tell me I am wrong. :: ART also known as USER ArtSapience
I have just removed words pasted by user DannyG for the second time that I did not write and he put my signature at the end of and then commenting on the words I didn't write for here?
How false and misleading can a user be before it is classed as harassment? ART 19:23, 30 August 2007 (PDT)
You have no idea how many arguments the user DannyG is going to make you go through! I have begun helping this community site and now I am slowed in my efforts to help your site by this new user. ART 23:02, 30 August 2007 (PDT)

Harassment from staff(ScottKeeler)

I would like to report the harassment from one of your staff members(ScottKeeler) regarding our site,staff, and users.It has been documented and archived at our wiki so that no other parties on this site will edit it or otherwise make changes to it out of context.Is this how AboutUs Staff is told to represent it's self to the community? Harassment

I've just looked at the IRC transcript and agree that this is clearly not the way we wish to discuss things with our community, you included of course. I will add to this tomorrow. - Ray | talk
I have forwarded both your post on art's page and the post you just made on my page to art for him to contact you further,as he is the head of our legal department ,he is the one who should be dealing with this as legal actions were threated by the user Scott Keeler on the behalf of AboutUs, as a staff member of AboutUs.Also i will not be joining your irc server at all,i have no way of ensuring that my privacy and security will be maintained on your public server.ART should be in contact with you as soon as he gets my messages Darkgiant 21:48, 2 September 2007 (PDT)

VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO RAY KING

Ray King,

Personally I have been very polite and patient with your website if you balance the professionalism shown by your site to my personal actions towards your site, there is a certain bias on your websites behalf about our domain and as our website is completely legal and your site continues to allow the bias and obviously false remarks that it is somehow illegal among many other acusations we have taken so much abuse from members of your website and have not been provided the freedom of speech that others on this site have had available to them and with the bias of opinions from the staff of this site I kindly discussed the matter on your IRC service as I was invited to do so by your staff member Scott Keeler and as you can read he clearly has no thought or consideration for the members of this website community and I have requested to no longer take any part with a website that allows pedophilia activities to take place, for if you allow something to continue then you are condoning it are you not. You will not prevent it so therefore you allow it and this is the case with certain members of this site and I am a child protection advocate and a father of two and cannot allow myself to be associated with a company that allows these activities to take place, also the libelous remarks and bias comments made by users about our site and to me personally have fallen on deaf ears when informing staff and have been on numerous occasions posted and then locked so we cannot remove these libelous remarks about my person and this is extremely unprofessional behavior of any company anywhere in the world and the fact that you will not even follow your own sites policies says allot for the credibility of anything members of your site wish to convey as if your website does not even believe the words it tells it self in its policies then how can we be expected to believe anything that the website AboutUs.org is wishing tell us.

To have a complete transcript of the chat conversation that your company has decided to take legal matters over the above you may find this hosted on our wiki website under your domain reference. We have also begun compiling users around the internet that feel very strongly about the poor services and that of communications with your website. I had offered to help build this community of yours but now it would seem apparent that my skills should be used to prevent others from falling into the trap your website provides all persons on the internet holding a domain name.


Hello

Hey Ray, Just wanted to say hello.. and keep up the good work! Bryan

WhoWeAre Consensus Poll

Hi Ray, did you see the recent changes made to WhoWeAre document? Could you please have a look at Stage 1 for WhoWeAre and see if it works for you and set your status accordingly? Feel free to change the document if you think it can be improved. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Asad

When Is Enough Enough?

Ray, Misha has made more direct libelous statements about my person, last time she stated I was molesting my children which is both disgusting and highly offensive and now she clearly states that I have intentions of having sexual relations with my children, How is this appropriate behavior on a public forum Ray? The statements are 100% False and have no substance other than here pure bias hatred for a me. I have offered to help her with many aspects of her duties here as I have a great deal of experience on this subject but I must keep this user profile intact and maintain this users identity to complete the assignment given and this User Misha jeopardizes this greatly, What is to be done about this user?

She has breached numerous of your websites policies time and time again and she still maintains the constant ability to attack people and commit hate crimes against other in the community including slanderous/libelous remarks that any person would not say in front of there own mother lat alone accuse another without substance.

Further she did not like some of the input I have made for the resolution of the Pedophilia problem you obviously have, I have created a Questionable Content Policy including templates that are both fair and non-bias but require community discussion before implementation but Misha cut my entire discussion input about this new policy and dumped it on a thread for a website not related to the comments, this is clearly an abuse of power and what has been done or what shall be done to discipline a user who show such disregard for another's basic humans rights?

Please check this discussion area (You may need to discover the history by the time you read this) Also perhaps look through the Questionable Content Policy while you are there

http://www.aboutus.org/Pedophile_Warning_Policy_Discussion#Moved_Comments_to_Art_Sapience

ART.png AS_blue_talk_icon.png

Ray > Art

Art, I'm happy to spend more time on this, as I did a couple of weeks ago when you asked me to. I will repeat (in summary) the guidelines that feel appropriate to me:

  1. What we should respect:
    1. Everyone's right to free speech and an opinion
    2. Intellectual property rights
    3. Discussion and discourse
  2. What has no place on our site:
    1. Libel or slander
    2. Personal attacks
    3. Non constructive content

It has been difficult to keep up with the comments that have appeared around your site and the overall topic area. So to the extent that we have not held to these standards in a timely manner, I apologize and can tell you that we are trying. I am also not trying to take a side; I would simply like your site properly presented, with some intelligent discourse so readers will be well informed and be able to form their own opinions. As I said before, we are not perfect, but I can tell you that as a company, we will try to stand by the above guidelines. I have seen your negative posts about AboutUs and they are painful, but while we are less than perfect, it's hard for me to say anything. My tact will be to act in the best way we know how and let you continue to form your opinion based on what you see.

Let me know your thoughts on the guidelines I have listed above. If you have improvements, I'm happy to hear them. And then let's agree to work within this framework towards a result that presents ArtSapience fairly on AboutUs. - Ray | talk

Ray: ART is working on a policy that seems pretty fair. I am now working with him to see if we can come up with a viable solution that fits all parties. As you know we both don't see eye to eye on his site but the policy is necessary and that comes first. --DannyG 19:24, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

That's great to hear and thank you. - Ray | talk

This is very good, and I agree. If I can be of help to anyone, please let me know. I'm of the opinion that we should remove all the negative comments and try to work with each other, like we're (seemingly) attempting to do. In the spirit of constructive editing, there's no point in leaving all the negative stuff up but to fuel the flames further (alliterism is unintended). Nathan (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

Yes, what I did last time was to go through and simply delete anything that didn't belong (regardless of who said it) and then try to refactor so it was more easily readable. - Ray | talk
Also, I've continued this thread here, rather than use everyone's talk page just to keep it in one place, but if that's not working for anyone, please let me know and I'll ping their talk page also. - Ray | talk
I think the bickering has come to and end between ART and myself. If you read Questionable_Content_Policy/Talk You will see that ART has put some good thought into this policy. I don't know if the flag idea can be implemented but it would be good if it could. If it could, I would support the whole policy myself. As I said, both parties here are on oppisite sides of the fence and if we can both agree it should be seriously looked at by the staff. Just my opinion. Thanks --DannyG 20:39, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

New Skin

Isn't it beautiful? KristinaWeis 23:00, 4 September 2007 (PDT)

let's chat about brians mediation help. ~~ iMarkDilley

bryanbl

let's chat re: Bryans mediation ideas. ~~ iMarkDilley

Hi Ray!

Hi Ray! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Austinvoice (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 September 2007 EDT.

TedErnst

I was having a discussion with Ted and all of a sudden he states he will refuse to read or listen to any discussions i may have.You can see a log of the discussion Here Is this really how AboutUs staff wishes to conduct business with its members? By stating they will refuse to listen to what i have to say,when my remarks are being made to help the community and are not insulting or otherwise against the AboutUs policy? Here is an excerpt

"And you're okay with people ignoring your comments because they're marked minor? In fact, I'm going to ignore your comments..."Ted
A staff member who is openly stating he is going to ignore a user who is attempting to contribute to the community and help with the wiki by creating unbiased templates and policies,and contributing to open discussions ,dosen't sound like the role of a proper staff member to me? Darkgiant 22:42, 5 September 2007 (PDT)

Report

The user Jackjones is making non-constructive edits on TedErnst/talk talk page,not only are they non-constructive they are of a demeaning nature and are a personal attack on me. here is the revert history [1] Darkgiant 09:09, 6 September 2007 (PDT)


  • I was just making an humorous observation to the text above about the use of minor edits and the language that was being used by both DG and Ted in relation to the use of minor edits.

It seemed rather childish, if you have a look im sure you will see. Darkgiant seems to be quite sensitive about his age, therefore i will try my best not to try and upset him any further in relation to his minor status, or his tender age. But really to go running "to Staff" seems a bit immature. Jack Jones.

Since you could not actively hold a proper discussion and you continued to edit the page including this attack,i was forced to take further actions.That is how its seems things are handled here,you have to go the the "powers that be" to have anything done,and there is no real community.Would it not also be immature to attack someone? Darkgiant 09:30, 6 September 2007 (PDT)

There was no discussion, you removed my text without a reply. Please dont remove any more text,discussion rather than editing is far more constructive. Let Ray read the whole text and not just what you want him to read. Jack Jones.

I removed the personal attack against me from that page,you persisted to revert it back adding this attack in. Darkgiant 09:44, 6 September 2007 (PDT)

adoreme.cn

This just caught my eye, adoreme ? maybe worth a closer look at. Jack Jones.

Toughcases

Ray tried to hit you off on IRC

let me know what I can do..--DaughertyBw 10:01, 7 September 2007 (PDT)

Ray, Let me know if you want me to continue editing ConflictResolutionIdea or if it will not be needed.. If you would like I can make it more clear and actually give it a little better structure. thanks --DaughertyBw 09:32, 8 September 2007 (PDT)

I think it's great for us to put thoughts down, even if they aren't on the same page. Let's either link the pages, or refactor them onto the same page. Thanks - Ray | talk

MB Again

I was wondering if their was a way to change my nick from DannyG to DannyG so that I don't lose any of my contributes? As you notice I have changed my signature to reflect the new user name. --DannyG | talk 15:54, 8 September 2007 (PDT)

I am just worried about losing my contributes history. I have worked so hard and am very proud of it. I know that I can make it up but just was hoping I could keep them. --DannyG | talk 16:40, 8 September 2007 (PDT)

The Rename User extension is actually already installed. Anyone Bureaucrat or higher can just go here to rename a user. It should be fairly straightforward. After a rename, it may mess up old signatures so you might need to make User:Master_Baitor redirect to the new userpage. Nathan (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2007 (PDT)

I thought I might have to redo the sig but that is so minor. Thanks Nathan. --DannyG | talk 17:41, 8 September 2007 (PDT)

Sure. Nathan (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2007 (PDT)

I think that before I can join any project, that I need to become more transparent. I think Nathan found the answer, Rename User. I thought that by keeping my contributes, others might respect if I offer an idea to them on their own edits or comments. I am just hoping it is doable. Thanks Ray. --DannyG | talk 10:22, 9 September 2007 (PDT)

As Art was saying, you could also run an SQL query (after the rename) to change any occurrences of "DannyG" to "DannyG" (in signatures). Nathan (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2007 (PDt)

Possible Spammer 66.102.80.239

I followed this user for a bit then started checking his edits and I am finding that he is putting links to afraid.org and uncommon.org on other sites. He is not putting them in the related domains but in the desriptions and addtional info. Here is an example : Subdomains under awiki.org and wiki.gd are freely available through afraid.org's FreeDNS for use in hosting your own wikis. I can go back and undo it all if you want. --DannyG | talk 16:29, 9 September 2007 (PDT)

I would class that as vandalism, so my advice is to undo it all. Nathan (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2007 (PDT)

To make sure, I am asking the person what he is doing first. We don't always see what the intentions are. --DannyG | talk 18:32, 9 September 2007 (PDT)

RE:Talk

As i stated before,I cannot trust the security of your public irc server,nor can i assume that staff members in there will not abuse there oper status,and i will defiantly not be providing any personally information such as a phone number. Darkgiant 11:20, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

Uhm. I feel I have to jump in here. AboutUs does not use its own IRC server. I think you're confused with that small technical aspect. They use freenode (an IRC network - network, not a server, a network has many servers, one server is one machine) for IRC, which is public - and it should be public at that. I don't understand why it shouldn't be.
As for AboutUs staff having oper status (as in IRC operator?), that is simply not true. They have channel operator status. Freenode's staff have oper status and their own rules prevent interference in channels. What you're suggesting simply does not happen. You can either take my word for it (someone who has spent some time in #AboutUs) or not.
Also, phone numbers are not required. AboutUs staff use Skype almost all the time. I can vouch for the fact that any phone number told to Ray does not go to anyone else - he & Mark both have mine as well. Just trust me on this one. Nathan (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2007 (PDT)
Yes i am aware of the irc server.But many of the public networks(such as freenode,efnet,dalnet,undernet,quakenet,etc) are no longer safe to join,and they do not provide adequate security.I run a few irc servers my self,and i have contemplated hosting a room there,but i would have to either:
  • Remove my security measures.
  • Provide said measures to AboutUs staff.
Neither of which i feel would be productive or worth my time doing.Im not going to expose my users(not only users from artsapience but from other sites and projects i maintain) to the possible harassment from AboutUs staff (see [2] for more informtion)
@Nathan,chanops still have access to commands which can be abused.

Darkgiant 11:37, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

About the last sentence, again I've spent a lot of time in the channel and I've only noticed staff use their chanop powers wrongly once (on me, actually, and it was resolved eventually). That's something they're not in the habit of doing. The Scott incident never should've happened (but to my understanding, all he did was throw his weight around - just words, he didn't kick or ban you, did he?), I think everyone can agree on that point
Please take my word for it. Staff don't abuse their chanop power. It'll never happen.
As for security measures on Freenode, they allow host cloaking so if you're worried about your IP/hostname showing, that can be changed. Nathan (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2007 (PDT)
With the way i have been treated(from staff other then Scott) and artsapience has been treated,how i assume that i will be treated fairly and not have said commands be abused? I have been told in the past things would "never happen again",but look where we are right now again dealing with the same s--t that has been talked and discussed over time and time again,turning the wheel round and round doing nothing productive. Chanops can still unmask the cloak. Darkgiant 11:49, 10 September 2007 (PDT)
No they can't. Chanops see the cloak. That's all they see. Again, take my word for it, I've been using freenode for 2 years and I have my own channel there. When you cloak your IP, that's it, that's all anyone sees (unless you join a channel before identifying to NickServ, before your cloak is applied, then people see your IP/hostname - but that's users' faults for not identifying first). Really high ranking freenode admins might see your hostname but again, they can't interfere in the day-to-day workings of channels.
If you have any questions about freenode, please feel free to ask me. I probably know.
You know why I edit pages "every 30 seconds", so I don't feel I need to explain it again. If I have something to add, I add it. I don't use the Preview button enough. Nathan (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2007 (PDT)
A hostserv vhost can be seen through by Chanops.
It is rather f--king annoying when you are trying to type somthing back and you get 3-5 occurances of "This page has been edited",its REALLY not worth my time to have to redo it each time... Darkgiant 11:59, 10 September 2007 (PDT)
Alright, I've tried to explain before and I will do so again. Network services are NOT abusable by channel operators. EVER. It never happens. At all. Period. Channel operators are only operators of channels, not the network, not of users or anything else. However, IRC operators are trusted to help run the network and none of them are AboutUs staff. You have the two confused, DG.
I have been using IRC since 1995, which coincedentally is the first year I was online. I know exactly how IRC works - I help maintain an IRC server as part of my job. Just trust me that I'm telling the truth, alright? Channel operators absolutely cannot see through vhosts. Period. I'm not lying (I have no reason to do so) and I'm not wrong. Having used the Internet for 12 years, just assume I've picked up a few things during that time. When it comes to IRC, something that is part of my work, just assume I know what I'm talking about. Channel operators can only do things that affect a channel. They have no effect on the entire network. Only network staff can see your hostname/IP. Nathan (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

May i add a note. I was one of the first people to REPORT about said images, the text should stay as it is.--Jackjones 12:00, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

You have not been on the forums since we moved our servers and have gone through heavy modifications.You were banned for flaming our members about there personal choice Darkgiant 12:01, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

ok, so unban me, let me on, and i will report back to here. --Jackjones 12:06, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

I will NOT allow you to harrass and abuse our site and members further,you have already bee banned, and will not be returning Darkgiant 12:26, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

Gentleman, May I make a note that this is Ray's Talk Page. Might I suggest you take it your own pages respectivly or take it to IRC and try and work it out? --DannyG | talk 12:09, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

Work Together...?

Are you kidding me Ray?, may i point you to this page [3] , we are not the only one not being treated fairly in regards to your site(And i have not finished compiling these references either).There is a plethora of sites and people who have tried to "work things out" but in the end they never were listened to or taken seriously.
The web posts you refer to are mostly earlier on when we first launched the site and we did take them seriously. At that time, we had not yet explained what we were doing nearly as well.
You are NOT trying,we requested our page be removed and locked to the orginal bot crawled metadata over a month ago,you did not comply(per your sites policy),thus we are in this drawn out,rather useless "debate".We have made various attempts to contribute to this site,but every time we do,something else pops up and goes against your policies and your own given words that things "will not happen again".I cannot trust anything any AboutUs Staff member says,as in a few days what was said will be reverted and more sh-t will happen(such as what is going on now)
Our policy is that we will take off bot scraped info, but not that we will lock the pages down and not let anyone edit them. You may not agree with the opinions of others, but the idea is to allow everyone to express their opinion, so long as it's not untrue and it's done in a constructive manner. I, for one, have learned a lot from the discussions here.
Yes we are a new site,but we are not trying to sell a commercial product,as you are.You are trying to create a database,an index, of pages "AboutUs",which the majority of the time no one is asked to be included in YOUR database(yes whois information is made public on a PER REQUEST BASIS,meaning the person who is looking for the information can do a query of the rwhois database and then find it out.If this information was to be made publicly indexed ARIN and ICANN would have created there own public index for this matter,considering the ones who RUN the registry did not,how do you believe that what you are doing is NOT a massive invasion of privacy?.And when asked to be removed(if you actually do remove the page) you allow it to be unlocked,therefore any person can come by and revert it to its prior state,thus causing more problems for the domain owner constantly having to watch his "AboutUs" page,which he did not ask for, for libelous remarks or other false information advertising his site.YOU have none NOTHING to combat this and you allow for the persistent trolling on domains.YOU are causing more problems then you are contributing by running this site.You allow "ActiveMembers" to go around and deem things with there own personal judgment.So now you have a personally biased index of pages "Created" by "ActiveMembers" who are writing things based on there own personal judgment of these things,rather then a neutral,unbiased index of pages.
Im not sure if you know or not but there is a website called Wikipedia which already does everything you are attempting to do,but better,and they actually police things neutrally and are not biased to what one member says.
Whois information is widely available on many sites and therefore I don't see how this is an invasion of privacy. People who don't understand this sometimes complain but are generally happier after we not only remove their contact information and wipe out the history, but also explain how they can get a private registration which is really what they need if they don't want their whois record to be public. On libelous remarks, any site that allows user edits has the same issue; we do our best to patrol all of the edits on the site to keep inappropriate comments off. Wikipedia is run primarily by their community; they started way before us, and they have many of the same issues you refer to. No argument that it's a great site and a huge success, but that doesn't mean that we can't have our own site and with our own different focus.
Our site is a support group,we are not trying to achieve anything commercial or produce a publicly displayed(or sold) product.We do not take in public funding.
Great.
Why should i treat a site which allows libelous remarks to be made and LOCKED by staff members(past occurrences) and not be able to be edited by the domain owners them selves?
Because our aim is to allow multiple points of view to be aired so that the reader can make their own judgment.
We HAVE been trying to work together with AboutUs even offering to help tag sites(we know FAR more information regarding our subject matter then you could possibly find using Google,would it not be in AboutUs' best interest to harness this information and build YOUR database up with?)
Agree.
By being on YOUR site,we have lost countless hours and resources due to our time spent policing over OUR page(which was not asked to be included in your database,and when requested to remove the page, you did no comply) on YOUR index,you do not have the webmaster/domain owners best interest,you want to have a massive index which you can sell "services" to other sites and make a profit off of the work of your "ActiveMembers",i for one think this is a very corrupt thing to do,make a site ,add a few liberal "policies" on it,spend some time getting people to learn it.Then unleash it and have OTHER people do ALL the work for you,so you can then sell access to it through other "services" and reap the benefit(in your pocket) from the work of others. Do these "ActiveMembers" get paid for there work?
No we only pay staff to develop and run the site. If we paid active members, then they'd become staff and the next group of contributors would be active members, etc. It would be difficult to pay every contributor to the site.
Until the time at which these things can be addressed, no i will not treat or trust AboutUs in any way,we have done nothing wrong or illegal to warrent such actions to our site.We have attempted to help,but what is the point when you are goign to allow everything we have worked up to till now to be thrown away?

Darkgiant 12:46, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "allow everything we have worked up till now to be thrown away" ? In any event, I'm not your enemy and am bummed that you feel this way. - Ray | talk
"Allow everything we have worked up till no to be thrown away" means all the discussions ArtSapience and AboutUs has had in regards to the templates and policies that ART as had,the discussions about the site page remaining unbiased, any and all sites which have been tagged by art or I, and anything else we have attempted to contribute to your site or any agreements that the AboutUs staff has come to with ArtSapience.It seems that they are only valid for a few days and then there null,and more edit wars and arguments(over things which has allready been discussed and resolved previously) are being allowed to happen. Darkgiant 13:45, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

ART > RAY

Ray King,

The notice has been allowed by the domain owner and we have compromised on the wording after months of discussions we resolved this matter. However you continue to change what was agree on, the words that were agree to have been altered numerous times simply because the page was not locked as I request, it has however been locked numerous times upon request for other users I might add.

I frankly don't remember what was agreed to, because I don't really see that the word "report" vs. "feel" and "may" is that different. Feel free to point me to the text, however.

The AboutUs.org website clearly states according to the statement the staff insist on reverting to on our domains reference that you have in your possession a report on the current contents of the ArtSapience website, If you do have this report as the owner of the website in question I formally request a copy of this document that has been conducted without my consent and is clearly in breach of the Terms Of Use that all persons accessing our facilities agree to, An extract from TOU at ArtSapience.com/tou.htm "I agree to these Terms and Conditions and I agree that they shall be legally binding upon me if I continue to use any part of Art Sapience" This includes all aspects of the conditions clearly advised on every section of the website. Also any person that wishes to access the forums section of our sites is required to be manually accepted and therefore screened and we have had no requests to perform any such content reports from your company so we can only assume that your site is then making statements about our website without any factual evidence and this being the case any such statement cannot be taken as the truth and thus makes the statement untruthful and furthermore means AboutUs.org is forcefully making a slanderous/libelous statement that is continuously being reverted to by the staff of this site and also allowed other users making these unfounded aligations against the ArtSapience website.

I think the confusion is the word "report". The way I read the sentence it is like "So and so reports that the weather is hot in Arizona today", vs. "So and so has a report that say X". I have not looked at your forum, and I have not seen any "report".

We had come to an agreement and I think you have worked out that we are no going to go away until the agreement that was made is kept, We do NOT have any illegal content on our website and we have discussed this with your website for what has turned into months now, previous version of a website do not pertain to an accurate reference of one, Just as your current work duties do not match exactly with your last job and it would be untruthful to describe your current activities by your last positions duties would it not, this is the case with our website and we have made enormous changes to the website and that of the business plan as it moves closer to the next stage of our project.

If your site is different now than it was before, that's great. If you want, I'd be happy to take a look and put up a more current comment.

We both wish to stop the discussions about this site and I have agreed to your site placing a notice in the main area of our website reference that says we may contain inappropriate images of children and may be illegal in some places, How many people that have checked there site and know they do not contain illegal content and furthermore have a Legal Reference division of their site devoted to reporting illegal activities with links to the FBI and various other useful site to help protect children. If our site was illegal as you claim why on earth would be link to such agencies let alone develop and entire wiki about the laws and invite people to read and discuss the topic?

I don't claim your site is illegal and I wouldn't know what other official agencies are thinking.

You clearly have no idea as to what our business plan is and have only a bias viewpoint that has been judged by an individual that has made numerous hate crimes against my person. How can the AboutUs.org website have such a bias opinion when they have not even viewed the entire website for them selves and even then the opinion is just that, an opinion and not fact and this is why we agreed to the wording "may" and your company "feels", you insist on reverting back to a direct statement that you clearly have no rock solid evidence of the current websites activities so anything that is stated is purely unfounded aligations and as the nature of the statements made are slanderous we are back to your company making libelous remarks and this is against the policies that your company claims to follow.

I can agree that I have no idea what your business plan is, but if you think I have a bias viewpoint, then you don't know my thinking on the subject either.

Simply leave the notice as we agreed, simply revert to the last modification of the page ArtSapience.com made by the user ART and then lock the page, very simply solution is it not? This has gone on for months now, How long will this site take before we come back the same conclusions every time? I told you on day one what would happen and then at a checkpoint of I think 3 weeks and again now... You keep going in circles and wasting everyones time, If this continues I may have to start charging my hourly rate of $145ph as I am effectively sub contracted out to the Art Sapience under the Agency and this should not be funded by the tax payer and should be funded by the person resisting the progress of this Assignment namely the AboutUs.org website. (We are into hundreds of hours wasted discussing the facilities of the art sapience operation)

We have made such progress in relations it would be such a shame for it to fall back to the beginning and go through this all again. If this notice cannot be negotiated then removal of the domain and all references to Art Sapience name shall be required from your servers. (in writing to your atourney if this is required Ray)

In conclusion, let's leave your wording ("Some CommunityMembers of AboutUs feel that the website referenced here may contains images of children that are inappropriate and/or illegal in some places.") and get on to more productive pursuits. - Ray | talk
It really is something you would think grown adults should be able to resolve with ease. Thank you Ray, Could you perhaps lock the page reference just so we BOTH can get onto other projects. It would be the simplest way to stop all this nonsense from starting again would it not? ART.png AS_blue_talk_icon.png

It is but a simply notice and takes such a small effort on your companies part to solve this situation, why is this so hard for AboutUs to do this?

I look forward to you respond Ray.

ART.png AS_blue_talk_icon.png

I am not happy with the wording of the text,report is the correct word to use. I do not feel, i know and REPORTED the said images. Revert the text as it should be. Artsapience dominates the whole page as it is, this small edit is justified. --Jackjones 15:51, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

Jack, I appreciate your thought and agree that "report" would be fine also, but I don't think this is worth the time and effort so I ask if you can allow the leeway of leaving it the way it is? - Ray | talk

In a word, no, report is the word that has to stand,im very happy with all the other text, even though it is biased to ARTSAPIENCE. --Jackjones 16:25, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

It is not biased to anyone,it is neutral,"report" alleges that the content has been on there,it has not. "May" still allows users who read the page to know that it may contain questionable content(how can one "report" questionable content when it is up to the person reading it to determine what is "questionable" for them? Darkgiant 16:38, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

EDITS

It is for one word, REPORT, which is TRUE and FACTUAL. Is this not what aboutus is all about? You can ban me for my belief, that is your choice, i will continue to edit the page until the word stays in place. Im sure that ART will see that this is the best course of action. I would hate to see more publicity than there already is. --Jackjones 17:02, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

You can continue to state your empty threats,there is nothing illegal on our site,and you were banned for harassing and abusing our forums and users.There is nothing to "REPORT" as you say,there is NO such material you speak of.You can continue your none constructive edits if you wish,you have seen how that works out from your prior attempts.If you are truly are trying to contribute to this site positively(as you have stated before) you will not troll on our site. The Owner has stated his views on itDarkgiant 17:08, 10 September 2007 (PDT)


Before you edit the page again, i am going to email you. --Jackjones 17:14, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

Still waiting for this "email".Statement made for archival purposes and to further show discussion Darkgiant 17:34, 10 September 2007 (PDT)
  • The email is for Ray. --Jackjones 17:40, 10 September 2007 (PDT)
Considering you were talking to me for the past hour,to state "Before you edit the page again, i am going to email you" is misleading Darkgiant 17:43, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

I told you, am not talking to you, also ART told me that you have no access to ARTSAPIENCE emails so what would you be waiting for, did he lie to me? --Jackjones 17:47, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

hmm so your EDITS header is misleading then. I do not have access to 's inbox,but any email from the domain i can view. Darkgiant 17:49, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

THE WORD

you have edited but not talked to me first, i find that ignorant and belitteling. --Jackjones 18:04, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

I've already explained and tried to be gracious. - Ray | talk

At what point where you gracious? at which point did you you have any descussion with my self, a look at the history would have been enough to tell you what was going to happen. DO you have your head in the clouds? or are you an ostrich with your head in the sand? This will not end here. How long will you lock the page for? You didnt even reply to my email.

This is a sad end. --Jackjones 18:47, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

I'm sorry, but reverting my edits multiple times was not constructive and neither was the e-mail you sent me. - Ray | talk

TO DG.Use my page or your page, not here. --Jackjones 18:16, 10 September 2007 (PDT)



Rating: 0 - 0 votes

Company Name

Company Contact

Page Type

This page is about a company.

Retrieved from "http://aboutus.com/index.php?title=RK_Discussion_Archive/5&oldid=12457808"