19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A British Wikipedian says
::::You are most welcome!--[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 01:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)
::::You are most welcome!--[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 01:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)
== A British Wikipedian says ==
Hello there. I couldn't help noticing that you did not answer a single thing of that persons queries (except your spelling one, although that does not explain why its non-use makes Wikipedia anti-American). I myself am not anti-American, but I do not see how your arguments make sense.
For example- In your rules you state you are neutral in facts, for example you will call a terrorist group a terrorist group, yet a terrorist group is a point of view, not a fact. In your definition you state it as the use of violence or intimidation to pursue political objectives. In that case, any army in the World is a terrorist organisation.
Point 2- Your articles are many times more biased than wikipedia. One of my edits was removed within minutes for being "liberal censorship of conservative facts", that is stating science. A large collection of users with more liberal, international views may become biased, but a small group who make a single demographic faction with pre-set ideas and relying on the consensus of a few individuals really does fulfil the meaning of the word "Wikiality" (see wikipedia on the subject). The internet is not the American Wide web.
Point 3- Many of your articles lack reliable sources or do not mention facts. For example, in Evolution it states that there are no transitional fossils. Perhaps you have not heard of "Archaeopteryx" or "Cynodont". One article linked to a site which didn't exist, while another cited Conservapedia! Wikipedia may have its flaws but their rule clearly disallows that from happening!
Oh, and finally, I do not see how WW2 is connected to the conversation, nor why it was commented as being a particularly relevant point when it was the most irrelevant point on the page, especially as the Battle of Britain was over. I fully appreciate the sacrifice of our American friends in their fight against fascism and for the freedom of Europe, but "come to our aid when things were looking bleak". Perhaps you should touch up on your history.
I remind you that I'm not anti-American or anti-Christian, but I see your response and most of your site to be fundamentally lacking of any substance whatsoever, incredibly biased and hypocritical, extremely prejudice against Liberals and full of blackwhite remarks (see "Newspeak" from 1984). I agree with my fellow countryman's remarks, and if anything, you could argue that I'm anti-you. I hope we can both see your site succeed (the Internet has very few generally new things nowadays) and my constructive criticism has been helpful. If you have read this far, my congratulations at reading to the end rather than deleting this “liberal propaganda”
Signing out for undoubtedly the last time, your atheist friend, --[[User:Ben|Ben]] 16:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
PS. Perhaps you do not know what the definition for “Liberal” is. The dictionary defines it as…
1). Less strict, Tolerant
2). Free from prejudice or bigotry
3). Characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts
4). Of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
“Naturally these are all bad things, although… “