Hi,

Please stop removing other editors' comments. You seem to have gotten into edit wars over a series of articles for inserting contentious external links. The correct way to deal with this is to discuss the removals with the editors in question. Following them around articles reverting their edits is the wrong approach. If you keep this up you'll end up getting blocked from editing, which shouldn't be necessary. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 12:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

NOTE: Most of the editors that delete people's contributions have their messaging turned off so when they send people threats of banning, etc no one has a chance to reply or debate (so much for free discussion at Wikipedia). Other editors apparently delete messages that you send them so no one can read them on their talk pages. So I thought that I'd post my reply to one of them in order to have an equal say, in case anyone was interested in what is going on at Wikipedia.

Chris,

You suggest discussion with the editors in question. But please tell me how people can be expected to enter into dialogue with editors like Boffob and S.K. that have their messaging turned off so that you cannot contact them? Clearly they are not interested in discussion.

These two go around and delete hundreds of contributions of a lot of valid and appropriate information on the web today. Personally, given their behavior, I have come to the conclusion that they are ego-centric, power-hungry cravens with too much time on their hands that have decided to act as both judge and jury in determining what people should read, effectively establishing themselves as authoritative censors for us all. And if I understand the original intent of Wikipedia, I think that's a terrible shame.

The content that I tried to add was:

1. Highly relevant - it is a news reader or also called a news aggregator.

2. It was listed on only TWO pages (List_of_feed_aggregators and List_of_news_clients#Freeware) that are very appropriate for the proposed content. Furthermore, the listing was placed among other similar news readers in the correct category (web based, freeware).

3. The news reader is not a commercial promotion, it is free to be used by all, with no restrictions or constraints and is a tool that can be very useful to many people for a great many endeavours.

I don't know if either S.K. or Boffob are experts in the field of news readers. Perhaps they are experts in all of the dozens upon dozens of fields in which they have decided to so wantonly oversee Wiki content. I really think that if they took a look at the site I listed and compared it to the others in the same category that they would find a high degree of relevance.

Boffob and S.K. repeatedly call the proposed listing "spam", however, I see all kinds of external links on Wikipedia pages that land directly on the product ordering pages for Amazon or other commercially-minded sites.

How is it that my site is spam and those other Wikipedia external links to blatant commercial advertisements are not spam?

I have seen some justifications by S.K./Boffob to other contributors to the effect that their site is not "notable", "as Google's site is notable" and therefore that is the basis for the removal of the proposed content.

Frankly, with such narrow-minded people like S.K. or Boffob acting as self-proclaimed gate keepers of information, how can anything worthy ever hope to become notable?

I am sorry for undoing S.K.'s revisions. I can assure you that this was done out of last-resort frustration caused by their nescient and hypocryptical behavior.

There is no need to ban me - I think I shall not be submitting anything to Wikipedia anymore in the future on any topic. This does not look like a place for true information exchange, free-thought or intellectual inquiry/research. It smacks more of a site for tight information control and suppression.

I do think that if you have a say into the policies of Wikipedia and that you care about Wikipedia as I think you do, that you should take a very hard look at the kind of culture that you are fostering at Wikipedia. If you are not careful it will drive away all of the smaller contributors and only the large corporate players that S.K and Boffob and the like approve of as being "notable" will remain. Unfortunately, as some recent press stories have hinted, I believe that that process might already be well under way.

Thank you.

thedavedave September 12, 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- Boffob 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply