Guy Chapman aka JzG Sun Nov 11 20:57:17 UTC 2007
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:41:33 +0100, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
We won't stop before we get precisely what we want either.
Which is a verifiably neutral encyclopaedia.
Daniel R. Tobias * Sat Nov 10 21:06:33 UTC 2007*
On 10 Nov 2007 at 16:37:33 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
- Fact is, I am getting just a little bit tired of the fact that some*
* *>>* people give a very strong appearance of extending a greater* * *>>* assumption of good faith towards the likes of Bagley and Barber than* * *>>* they do towards those of us who work to protect the project form the* **>>* pernicious influence of such people.*
And Senator McCarthy, I'm sure, was tired of the fact that some people seemed to be extending more assumptions of good faith towards the communists than towards those like the Senator who worked to protect the country from their pernicious influence. Nevertheless, even if it caused one to be categorized as a communist sympathizer for saying so (and even if many of the people saying so *were* in fact sympathizers of communist ideology), it was in fact true that the actions taken by the likes of the Senator in the name of protecting the American system against communism were in fact undermining some important things about the American system such as freedom to hold and express opinions.
What a joke. Verifiable? When I came to Wikipedia, nuclear scientists were on the Hollywood Ten list, and Joe Mccarthy was on HUAC. I got stalked, harrassed, defamed, and banned for trying to improve the entries.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:59:33 -0700, "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
What a joke. Verifiable? When I came to Wikipedia, nuclear scientists were on the Hollywood Ten list, and Joe Mccarthy was on HUAC. I got stalked, harrassed, defamed, and banned for trying to improve the entries.
No, you got banned for tendentious editing. Your version of "improve" was found to be out of line with how the community defines "improve".
You are not alone in this. I am sure Jonathan Barber thought he was "improving" Wikipedia by namechecking himself, promoting his alleged book and trying to change a whole area of content to more accurately reflect his POV. The community, with pretty much one voice, disagreed.
I don't think you're in the same class as Barber, far from it, but having read the arbitration case it is pretty plain that you were a long way from being as blameless as you make out here.
Guy (JzG)