Personally I'm almost entirely unconvinced the recent editor was not
Vogel - not only did the favourite topics match, the characteristic
spelling errors did too. But let's see if sweet reason gets a
response. If neo-Nazis^Wwhite supremacists^Wseparatists are going to
edit, at least they can damn well do so properly.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:58:51 +0100
Subject: National Alliance article (was Communist Censorship)
To: Robert88 <rchamberlain(a)gmail.com>, wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:07:00 GMT, Robert88 <rchamberlain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Plain libel and communist censorship supported on Wikipedia?
> I recently edited an entry entitled "National Alliance". This is an entry regarding the American White Nationalist organization. While you state that we are White supremacists and a White supremacist organization, this is blatant and unacceptable libel. Your article also states that we are an "anti semetic" group. Again, another clear case of libel. We do not hate Jews, and we do not hate Arabs or other people that speak Semetic languages. We are avidly Anti-Zionist, Anti-Immigration and pro-White. We are not White supremacists because we do not feel the need to rule over other people of different races, we simply want seperation because we feel this is best for our people. I also added other business entities that were owned by the National Alliance which were removed. Please explain why I was banned from editing the article and why the libel is still published on Wikipedia.
> Thank you for your time.
Sorry, thought you were Paul Vogel, who is banned for a year for
grossly obnoxious behaviour. Did the block notice say which IP range
it was? Let me know and I can unblock it now.
If you dispute the content of the article, I strongly suggest you
reply with solid and checkable references. On a highly contentious
topic, solid and checkable references are about the best way to avoid
this sort of dispute over facts or wording. Third-party ones are best,
but ones from the organisation in question are of course relevant.
Don't worry too much about formatting if you're not sure, just make
sure they're in and someone will clean them up. Solid and checkable is
essential, because you can be sure people will check them and
challenge if they consider them dubious.
- d.