"Gregory Kohs" wrote

The more excuses and explanations that the community comes up with, the more obvious it is that you're avoiding the real issue.

The more often you bring up exactly the same points here, the more obvious it is how little support you have.

Wikipedia unilaterally has chosen to discriminate against non-volunteer activity in the article space, despite the fact that the credentials and income sources of 99% of editors are never questioned or verified.

Why should not Wikipedia, #12 website in the world right now, decide 'unilaterally' (i.e. on the basis of its interests, rather than yours) how to set policy?

I would argue that if you looked at the original authors of the New Pages in Wikipedia, 90% had some financial or career "conflict of interest" that could be found if everyone was exposed to a background check.

Original research! Original research! Can you find a reliable source for this outrageous claim?

People who have never purchased or sold a pet skunk are unlikely to start an article about [[Pet skunks]]. They don't seem to get banned, though.

You mean 'on the Internet, no one knows you're a pet skunk'?

Even if your claim on 'some financial or career "conflict of interest"' had any foundation, you are lawyering wildly to connect ownership of a skunk with such a conflict. You'd have to be a career skunk breeder promoting skunk ownership for your woefully scant reasoning to have any traction.

Strangely enough, Wikipedians generally don't accept such chop-logic; and especially not arguments on conflict-of-interest policy from those lobbying against having any such thing.

Charles

----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information