Changes

:: We've discussed how Wikipedia will leave up some "vandalism", while reverting others.  It's an example of Wikipedia's bias how some vandalism will remain while others are reverted immediately.  You can bet many editors saw that edit during the nine days it remained, and left it there.  It's irrelevant whether an outsider could have reverted it; the point here is to illustrate the bias of the editors who run Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: We've discussed how Wikipedia will leave up some "vandalism", while reverting others.  It's an example of Wikipedia's bias how some vandalism will remain while others are reverted immediately.  You can bet many editors saw that edit during the nine days it remained, and left it there.  It's irrelevant whether an outsider could have reverted it; the point here is to illustrate the bias of the editors who run Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: It was a redirect page.  Very few editors have redirect pages on their watchlist.  Vandalism to a redirect page could go unnoticed for some time.  Furthermore, it was vandalism by an IP, so there is no basis for saying that the editors who "run" Wikipedia had anything to do with it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: It was a redirect page.  Very few editors have redirect pages on their watchlist.  Vandalism to a redirect page could go unnoticed for some time.  Furthermore, it was vandalism by an IP, so there is no basis for saying that the editors who "run" Wikipedia had anything to do with it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)