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.
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
Jimmy Wales wrote:
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.
It's also distinctive because white supremacy is agreed with by few (if any) non-whites, but there are some non-whites who agree with the doctrine that people of different races should live separately from each other ([[black separatism]], for example, pretty much necessarily implies [[white separatism]], since you can't have the one without the other). So they should be treated separately. Or, alternately, in one article about "Opposition to racial integration" or something of that sort, detailing the (fringe) separatist views in both the white and black communities.
-Mark