I don't quite understand the political POV-pushers, since it so unnecessarily stressful living that way; but then there really are people on earth who think they Know the Truth. It is common to mistake the death of curiosity and openness for knowledge, but perhaps this is just one way nature is merciful. Not only are things in the world not in black and white, but things in "black-and-white" are not in black and white. Failure to discern shades of gray may be a disability, an incapacity, or a form of cowardice: since it takes a whole lot more courage to see and accept the world with all its messy contradictions, than to view it all as Right, Wrong, Saved, Damned, My Way or the Highway.And
I just deleted it again. No context, attack, inappropriate namespace for such a discussion: there are numerous reasons for deleting it; and the reason that trumps them all is that it was already deleted on AFD. And stop equating us to a "repressive regime", you're playing with a logical fallacy here. Please do NOT recreate your POV attack article again. And furthermore, I'd delete it whether it were "Wikipedia conservative bias" or "Wikipedia has no bias". All are inappropriate. Thanks. Antandrus (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Wotta maroon. See my tagline
Gosh, what pompous spew. Such lofty thinkers, these libs. You gotta love all those colons and semicolons. They give his email kind of an 18th century flavor. And the lecturette about seeing things in shades of gray is just precious. It's also certain proof that he's a lib. If he's typical of the folks on staff there, then it's no surprise that the Wikipedia would tilt left.
Rather than tilting at windmills by posting emotional rants that you know are going to be deleted, why don't you try this:
Anyone may try to edit an article. Why don't your edit articles you believe to be biased? Now when you do so, please keep in mind that your edits should be well written and coherent, devoid of hyperbole, accurate, and substantiated with valid, vetted references.
There's currently a big dispute on wikipedia where the libs are trying to shut out conservative voices, so any conservative wikipedia editors out there please take a look!
Here's the case. There's an editor on wikipedia named Cberlet who is in real life a far left wing fringe activist named Chip Berlet (see http://discoverthenetworks.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=1243 ). He's brought what wikipedia calls an Arbcom Case against pretty much anybody who has ever criticized him and he's trying to turn his own wikipedia article into a puff piece for his communist idiology.
Wikipedia is controlled by people called "administrators" and "arbitrators." The administrators are almost all pinkos and they all seem to think that this Berlet guy is wonderful. They also elect their own as administrators so they keep expanding their number and using their power to kick republicans around. The administrators then work in concert to pick and prop up the arbitrators, who enforce the same agenda. So right now Berlet is making an Arbcom complaint about conservatives who criticize him and his willing minions among the arbitrators and administrators are trying to enforce it. This is just one of many like it all over wikipedia. The libs truly control that place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others