I'm a little confused. Why are people so adamant against having an article "White Separatism"? Rather than banging our head against the wall fighting this guy, why not just make a better article?
The junk this guy is inserting is junk. It looks like a quote from someone, and if it is, then it's probably worth treating in a short article on the subject.
There's nothing inherently wrong (that I know of) about having an article on "White Separatism" as distinct from (but related to) "White Supremacy".
Here's a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801865379/102-0949346-1338507...
My dictionary (American Heritage) has separate entries for "White separatist" and "White supremacy".
The (in my opinion, disgusting) point of view expressed in the quote is of encyclopedic interest because it *is* a point of view held by at least some people who take action in the world, action that should concern us all.
David Gerard wrote:
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Paul_Vogel/65...
He's coming in from three IPs and putting the same bit of spam into a set of articles and their talk pages (and those of anyone who reverts the spam).
He intends to continue however possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:White_supremacy&diff=245...
"WE can revert until the cows come home as long as a NPOV is not being maintained regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda article."
At what point should an anon user be blocked for spam? Is there a measure of what's spamming on Wikipedia?
(And I am following bcorr's example and trying to keep reverts to no more than three per article.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l