QUOTE(herostratus @ Tue 25th May 2010, 8:55pm)
First of all, you start off this thread by calling me a "notorious pedophile", which is if anything the exact opposite of the truth. While I found this amusing, you really shouldn't sling inflammatory accusations at people, especially when they're not true. Eric Barbour, you owe me an apology.
No, I don't. Whether you're obsessed with pedophilia for good reasons or bad,
I still think you're a freak. Your jokes are ill-considered and not funny at all,
and your dedication to keeping yourself fully anonymous is bizarre. Why must
you do that? Did it ever occur to you that someone might think you're
hiding something very bad
and real in your personal makeup or history?
I think I speak for most people here, when I say that your deep and long
involvement with the Pedophilia Article Watch is
weird. It would be
understandable if you were known to be a professional in mental health,
an advocate for child protection, a good parent, or someone else personally
interested in discouraging WP's use as an informational playground for sex offenders.
But until you
admitted to being opposed to pedo-positive information on WP,
I had no idea who (or what) you were. And that idiotic joke about "The Incident"
made a lot of people wonder what the hell you were trying to do or say.
Nobody laughed.
Are you really so damned clueless that you will sit there and deny that anyone
could take exception to your activities since 2006? Most WR people have
realized that one of Wikipedia's major flaws is its openness to role-players, who
manipulate others and wear masks. So far, you've been a down-the-line
perfect example of someone who is using Wikipedia to push an agenda that
is incompatible with a "neutral" publication, while posting obtuse and irrational
attempts to be "humorous", in order to mask your activities.
You said it yourself:
QUOTE
Of course, slanted editing is never welcome. But in this area it's especially problematical, because:
* This is a subject where we really don't want people to get the wrong ideas. It's not good if people get the wrong ideas about, say, the history of the Slovak language, but misinformation on this subject could cause real-world harm.
* This is a potential political problem for the Wikipedia. We don't want outside parties to get the idea that we present slanted information on this subject or countenance over-emphasis on fringe ideologies in this area . This could be quite a disaster.
So that is why I edit in this area. Solely because I care about the Wikipedia and wish to defend it.
Well, you managed to give the wrong impression, and make yourself look slanted.
Congratulations, twit.
If you had said as much back in 2006, I would not regard you as a possible
slanted editor today. Wikipedia has entirely too damned many freaks running
around loose as it is (why do you think this forum has become the leading
Wikipedia criticism site? Because the regulars here have mostly fallen afoul of
some of those freaks).
You don't need to add to the noise floor, by posting coy little jokes to your userpage
that practically invite misunderstanding. Fools keep telling me that Wikipedia is an
"encyclopedia", yet they run it more like a 4chan subboard.
This post has been edited by EricBarbour: