On 3/2/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/07, Rob Smith <nobs03(a)gmail.com> wrote:
None of this would have happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Essjay#Outside_…
if the circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel Brandt bio
had
been dealt with fairly in both Arbitration cases
which preceeded it..
Wow, stop right there, Nobs. You're not bringing your SlimVirgin
Review conspiracy theories onto this list.
There were no "circumstances that led to the creation of the Daniel
Brandt bio" that are relevant to this incident, or of any interest. I
created the stub on Brandt because his name was showing up as a red
link in the article about, as I recall, Chip Berlet. Rather than
remove the red link, I created a stub so it turned blue. End of story.
Sarah
( A ) you said yourself, you did not regard Brandt as a credible source;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&am…
( B ) the subject of the Berlet entry was the first to identify Brandt by
name with these words:
QUOTE
This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was
urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic Spotlight newspaper (at
the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-…
( C ) the self published citation in the Public Information Research entry *
still* violates WP policy.