Posted on 04/05/2010 9:17:43 PM PDT by grundle
(Note to Admin Moderator: I know we're not supposed to post links to wikipedia here, but since this is something I wrote myself, please allow an exception. Thank you.)
Wikipedia just banned me because I repeatedly asked the same seven questions about why true, relevant, well sourced information that was critical of President Obama was not allowed to be included in the wikipedia article "Presidency of Barack Obama."
I had asked these seven questions quite a few times, but they never answered them. Instead, they told me to quit asking them, and then when I did ask them again, they banned me.
Here are my seven questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=354179095#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions
Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions
Please answer my seven questions regarding the article "Presidency of Barack Obama":
1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?
2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.
3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV (Neutral Point of View), which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?
5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?
6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?
7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?
...
Soon afterward, I was banned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=354241738#Propose_outright_ban
Propose outright ban
Really, this entire situation has gone on long enough, and there's no sign of it stopping. Grundle is again referring to these so-called "seven questions" he brought in October and which, as mentioned above, he agreed not to mention anymore (I just reminded him of that in the thread above) with the knowledge that a long block could be the result if he broke that promise (Grundle had been posting these (already answered) questions over and over again to the point that he was about to, or maybe even did, get blocked for it). The fact that he is again bringing it up in the context of "liberals are censoring me" only makes it worse.
...
I am proud of the fact that I kept asking my seven questions. Their refusal to answer them is proof that they want wikipedia to be censored.
The truth is not something they like.
They kept claiming that they had answered my questions, but whenever I asked them to post a link to those alleged answered, they refused to do so.
Weakipedia is a liberal online “resource”. If you’re searching for legitimate information, use other resources. Weakipedia is about as trustworthy and reliable as CNN.
Do not question THE REGIME.
Who owns wikipedia? Put them out of business.
Wickedpedia is OK for skimming non political topics such as grand pianos and Great Danes. They are ludicrously leftist when it comes to politicians.
You were banned for being an asshat... liberal asshats are given more leeway, but you should of had more tact and not given them more ammunition with that Guam vandalism edit you made...
But conservapedia doesn’t claim to be neutral - wikipedia does. They even have rules about it.
The Guam tipping over thing was my April Fool’s joke. Even the administrators made April Fool’s jokes, so I figured it was OK.
Don’t feel bad. The White House has already been pressuring FOX News behind the scenes, especially Beck and O’Reilly.
It’s not wise to poke the mods at any site when they’re already on your case, no matter the timing.
It has been a long time since I personally went to wikipedia for anything of more importance than a study on why most pencils are yellow.
I wish they would ban me. That would be so cool.
How about KeyWiki
This is a comedy, right?
That reminds of of a comment by either Carlin or Steven Wright: If number 2 pencils are the most popular, why are they still number 2?
Links from the media? But not Fox News.
What a joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.