Changes

WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission.  WR is now, just an apologist for WP and  a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent.  WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed.  Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission.  WR is now, just an apologist for WP and  a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent.  WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed.  Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

== A word from Blissyu2 ==

== A lot of words from Blissyu2 ==

My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues.  On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias.  Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case.  Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles.  On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article.  What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts.  If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases.  Biases are an important part of historical revelation.  I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately.  Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so.  Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago.  On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation".  It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia.   

My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues.  On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias.  Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case.  Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles.  On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article.  What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts.  If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases.  Biases are an important part of historical revelation.  I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately.  Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so.  Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago.  On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation".  It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia.   

::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister.  Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago.  Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all.  Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister.  All ego tripping on everyone's parts.  The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person.  Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person.  Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister.  How could they be the same person?  Read them again and perhaps you might get it.  I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2".  I would have thought that that was obvious.  How can you not understand what I am saying there?  I must be missing something.  What is there to confuse you?  He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister.  Simple.  How could you get that confused?  How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister.  Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago.  Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all.  Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister.  All ego tripping on everyone's parts.  The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person.  Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person.  Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister.  How could they be the same person?  Read them again and perhaps you might get it.  I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2".  I would have thought that that was obvious.  How can you not understand what I am saying there?  I must be missing something.  What is there to confuse you?  He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister.  Simple.  How could you get that confused?  How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

::::Adrian, ''where is the page and passage'' in which (as you claim) ''Proabiv says'' that you wrote wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request?  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

::::Adrian, ''where is the page and passage'' in which (as you claim) ''Proabiv says'' that you wrote wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request?  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::He's referring to this document: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq

:::::He's referring to this document: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq

:::::We wrote that he "added" the information, but it sounds like Blissyu2 says he only invited "Poetlister" to add it himself. As soon as he clarifies what happened, we can make the necessary correction.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 15:43, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::We wrote that he "added" the information, but it sounds like Blissyu2 says he only invited "Poetlister" to add it himself. As soon as he clarifies what happened, we can make the necessary correction.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 15:43, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::Would you quit it, Blissyu2? Just explain what happened. You "invited" Poetlister to the site. Okay. Why did you invite him?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::Would you quit it, Blissyu2? Just explain what happened. You "invited" Poetlister to the site. Okay. Why did you invite him?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (PDT)