Changes

'''FURTHER REPLY''' Many Harry Potter fans are under 12 years old.  And if an adult editor is naming himself after a silly Harry Potter figure, then that is also worth knowing.  If an editor deleting pages on Wikipedia called himself "Winnie the Pooh" or the "Easter Bunny" then that would raise some concerns.  Does Wikipedia have an age limit on editors?  Does Wikipedia have a requirement that editors be informed, or be objective, or even take their responsibilities seriously?  It is startling that an editor having power to delete entire entries in Wikipedia names himself after a silly Harry Potter figure.  By the way, I do doubt that editor has an informed understanding of the Bible, and I also doubt he even cares.  --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)

'''FURTHER REPLY''' Many Harry Potter fans are under 12 years old.  And if an adult editor is naming himself after a silly Harry Potter figure, then that is also worth knowing.  If an editor deleting pages on Wikipedia called himself "Winnie the Pooh" or the "Easter Bunny" then that would raise some concerns.  Does Wikipedia have an age limit on editors?  Does Wikipedia have a requirement that editors be informed, or be objective, or even take their responsibilities seriously?  It is startling that an editor having power to delete entire entries in Wikipedia names himself after a silly Harry Potter figure.  By the way, I do doubt that editor has an informed understanding of the Bible, and I also doubt he even cares.  --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)

'''Relpy''' Upon what do you base this claim? Does the name "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" indicate ignorance of the bible? I must confessmy disappointment in your judgment of this editor based on nothing but his user name.  

'''Relpy''' Upon what do you base this claim? Does the name "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" indicate ignorance of the bible? I must confess my disappointment in your judgment of this editor based on nothing but his user name.  

Earlier in this debate you said: "Censorship by an anonymous person is bad enough.  But it is even worse when the censorship is by someone displaying a silly description of himself." I must point out that deleting the article on conservapedia was '''''not''''' censorship or anything like censorship. The conservapedia article did not meet wikipedia's standards and was deleted through a very fair procedure.  

Earlier in this debate you said: "Censorship by an anonymous person is bad enough.  But it is even worse when the censorship is by someone displaying a silly description of himself." I must point out that deleting the article on conservapedia was '''''not''''' censorship or anything like censorship. The conservapedia article did not meet wikipedia's standards and was deleted through a very fair procedure.