From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Just News

  • Yes I should have put more detailed comments on the talk pages on Sunday when I edited the various Wikipedia & clown pages but I got called away and forgot to finish what I'd been doing; my apologies. Mon/Tues I had very very limited keyboard time. Nor was I sure you would return after the series of changes you made to various unrelated pages.
A review of the JustNews user history reveals an interest in only four articles - all related to the Rape a Clown for Peace criminal threat that appeared on blog recomended by, which is the company that controls Wikipedia via the Wikimedia Foundation. JustNews
  • That said in terms of your comments on the various pages:
Nick Berg: while I share some of your concerns re this page part of your comments were more appropriate for the talk page rather than the article page; the others I deleted as they were unwarranted personal attack on another contributor;
Address your comments about Nick Berg to Banana Democrat. If this username was associated with those concerns, I would publish those interests. JustNews
Wikipedia: You take issue with the deletion of "A review of block logs indicated suspected regular contributors who submit anonymously to votes or policy discussions are sometimes blocked from discussion". As far as I can tell there has been no such "review" of block logs. It maybe that you have problems with the policies adopted by Wikipedia but I don't think SourceWatch is the appropriate forum for replaying these debates.
You are asserting that I am incompetent to review the block logs and to direct others to the simple fact that scores of contributors are blocked each day, for various reasons. You hiding evidence that contradicts Wales claim that only "vandals" are blocked from Wikipedia.
I am not replaying any debate from anywhere. I am contributing to an article about a group that helps shape the public agenda, which is the purpose of this site. You are the one apparently affected by a personal motivation, in that you have attached your ego to an identity as a contributor to open-source on-line documents and you are censoring information that suggests disfunctional behavior in a group you support. JustNews 21:35, 19 May 2004 (EDT)
Rape a Clown: I deleted the reference that elevated the link between Jerk Sauce/Bomis and Blair to a greater status than it deserves. Many sites link to Blairs but you focused only on the one that had a two stage removed connection to a company that supports Wikipedia. The issue of the page reflected in the title is something that Blair wrote not who is linked to/hosts sites that are linked to Blairs site.

So I think the edits were perfectly reasonable, if unexplained. I would hope that you can accept the changes weren't made without some consideration of your contribution -- cheers bob

They are reasonable and the reason is censorship. I responded to the substance of your defense of censoring facts on your user page. That you considered a contribution does not mean that you accept the right of others to make their own judgements based on available facts. You are using your reputation, dominant position and technical means to censor information. That is nothing to cheer about. JustNews 21:35, 19 May 2004 (EDT)

rape is abhorrent, peace is precious, clowns are nice, and thie whole matter associating the three deserves no airtime, no press, no consciousness at all anywhere.
--Maynard 18:11, 22 Nov 2004 (EST)