So, as part of the wiki project we should make sure ALL American related articles, no matter how crazy or (un)popular, are in good shape. This article is full of bias and slanders other decent Americans. --Woxan 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Continued bias and unsourced information
After leaving the Ref marks and having to replace them several times, I am now making a formal request to Mr. Bruno to properly source his material or rephrase it. Several of these statements are unverifiable and inflammatory, and this will not be tolerated in the wiki. If further vandalism of good faith edits takes place, I will call in a senior editor. --Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 02:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted unsigned comments and will continue to do so. Unsigned comments will be considered vandalism. --Woxan 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Ajay Bruno's malicious protective behavior,
This is addressed to Ajay Bruno. You cannot simply delete good faith AND SOURCED edits to your wiki page just because YOU disagree with them. If information is relevant, you MUST leave it there. If there is disagreement, cite your OWN source as a counter, but you MAY NOT DELETE GOOD FAITH EDITS. I have contacted multiple editors on the #wiki chat. We'll see what they have to say. --Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 16:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have protected this page to prevent further edit warring. Ajay Bruno, please contact my talk page to have a discussion about the reference policy and "ownership" in the wiki.--QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 19:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Excerpt from QJLincoln's Talk Page, added for archival and pertinence's sake,
Lincoln, the bottom of my page is biased and untrue. There is no source that verifies that I did not live up to obligations and I was fired. That is completely untrue and is opinion and should be removed. GenoGaron is not an objective editor and his changes cannot be verified. He is being hypocritical by saying my unverified information is not acceptable but his is. It is clearly slanted and opinionated.
The unsigned comment above, left no doubt by Ajay Bruno himself, could not be further from the truth. To his questioning of the source of his dismissal from the CvP, the Party President gave him that position; who better than that very same person to know whether he is performing his job or not? In fact, Ajay "satisfying" his job or not is ENTIRELY subject to Mattoze5's interpretation and so is, as such, his decision to remove Ajay from office. If Ajay would like to provide CITED PROOF otherwise I would gladly like to see it. However, based on wiki protocol (verifiable, not necessarily true), the excerpt stands.
As to me be an objective editor; OF COURSE I AM! I come from a specific viewpoint, with particular habits, knowledges, and proclivities. The question is not me, but MY EDITS, which must be asked if they are objective. Once again, I must say, YES, the edits have an objective. Their objective is to get each wiki page as close to the verifiable truth as possible, covering as many angles as possible. Ajay has already included the "pro-Ajay" angle. For me to provide a counterpoint is only natural AND REQUIRED by wiki protocol.
AS to being hypocritical, allow me to elaborate on Ajay's thought before I answer them. He insists that my CITED information is MORE BIASED than his uncited PRO-SELF information. As per wiki protocols, CITED information always takes precedent over NON-CITED information. When I asked Ajay to provide links and citation for his "information", he impolitely declined, reverting my edits. When I provide my own information, he reverts those as well. Let's go over a quick wiki rule: No one "owns" any page on the wiki; they are all open source, and open to good faith editing. You are free to edit "my" page if you like, Ajay.
As for the last point, to my edit being "slanted and opinionated". May I remind you that the initial pages Ajay put up were immediately flagged by others besides myself as having incredible bias (as well as no citation, see initial Ajay Bruno history page). When I set about asking for Refs, I was immediately told not to "screw" with "his" page. When I continued to ask for information, and make good faith edits (at one point even supervised by a Senior Sysop to ensure validity), I was continually rebuffed. I was actually told that, should I "screw" with the page one more time, that Ajay would "fuck me up", and that "there is a special place in hell prepared for" me, because I brought the page up to wiki standards. Are these not the actions of a "slanted and opinionated" person? One who, on his own SIGNED IN, IP VERIFIED chat name on the Rizon servers, can actually be quoted as having said "The world should just be run by religious white men". Is this the kind of person who can adequately judge "slanted and opinionated"? I should expect not. --Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 03:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Reopen this wiki page
I would like to submit to the Sysops that this page has remained locked long enough. If Ajay has contacted a Sysop and had the requisite conversation, then fine. If he has not, then his wiki account should be suspended for edit-warring and failure to follow directions of a sysop. Either way, this page now has a lot of history to be updated to it, and I would like to keep it current. Would it be possible for a sysop to unlock this page so that I may bring it up to date? --Geno Garon : Just trying to get by... 07:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please check if the following change is legit: http://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php?title=Ajay_Bruno&diff=207279&oldid=203939 ? Thanks in advance for the help!--Admin 11:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)