I think I can safely say you didn't bother to take a look at my WP acount before you decided to hit the send button. I think the non-editor me has contributed more t Wikipedia articles than this 'potentially good editor' who by some curious coincidence also manages to be a banned user. I'm a strong fighter for NPOV and I always remove the slightest POV wherever I come upon them. NPOV is the most important policy in Wikipedia and it needs to be upheld strictly.

I also don't remember ever advocating getting rid of admins (in fact I said admins were a necessary evil). The only thing that irks me is when a certain class of admins decide that they as editors form a class superior to other editors who are not admins and their special abilities give them the right to ignore community consensus and impose their own POV on issues. I'm sure this is only a small fraction of all admins, but they tend to be a highly visible one.

Molu

On Tue, 30 May 2006 12:07:48 -0400 jayjg wrote:

Nonsense; the two aren't even remotely comparable. A potentially good editor who has been hard done by over an article is nothing like a non-editor who feels they need to get rid of Wikipedia admins because they can't POV the project to their own liking.

Jay.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com