[WikiEN-l] further response to Erik

[daniwo59 at aol.com]

While we are at it, I suppose that now, Erik, you also reject the old edit  
war you were engaged in on the Bomis article as to whether it was  pornography:
 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bomis&diff=32643882&oldid=32643701_
 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bomis&diff=32643882&oldid=32643701)  is  just one example
 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bomis#Links_to_archived_Bomis_inactive_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bomis#Links_to_archived_Bomis_inactive) 
 
I find this quote from you in the following section especially telling of a  
sudden change in tone:
 
"First, as I've said to you, this is about documenting the history of _Bomis_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis)  truthfully,  follwing the NPOV and not 
using euphemisms. Due to Wikipedia's affiliation with  Bomis, Wikipedians' 
loyalty to Jimmy Wales, and the press interest in this  history, it is easy to 
violate our most sacred policies when dealing with this  topic. I must encourage 
all contributors to edit these articles with our  policies in mind. There are 
no special exceptions to NPOV."
 
Oversight, anyone?



**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & 
Finance.      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)