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.
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.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around