Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility, Ayers, and Weight for Obama Bio

[Psychoblues]

Wikipedia is constantly being updated and edited by anyone registered there and with an ability to type and otherwise communicate in a credible manner.

Wikipedia can edit themselves at will, I don't agree with it, but they have the right to, so what's the problem?

The whining about corrections is pretty much useless and, well ,whining. If additional information from the whiner, in this case, would be posted and not immediately debunked by the population there I would suggest the foundation is secure.

Considering the history of the whiner in this case I would suggest only a casual overview and a quick if not immediate discounting of the opinions presented.



Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Whether they are of are not is of no matter, they can say whatever they want about whoever they want and not say what they want also. It is their right too, while I may not agree with it, that makes no difference.

Yep, as long as they do that with a liberal

Question. Why should "Obama controversy" be a separate page from Obama?

You think because maybe they are trying to keep those looking up Obama from reading it, but they have a separate page elsewhere to cover their ass?

[Psychoblues]

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

The article is indeed worthless, but it does reflect how Obama was packaged by the media.

The average person has no idea who Obama really is, and this censored entry reflects that well.

[Noir]

Yep, as long as they do that with a liberal

Question. Why should "Obama controversy" be a separate page from Obama?

You think because maybe they are trying to keep those looking up Obama from reading it, but they have a separate page elsewhere to cover their ass?

They can do it with whoever they want, for example GW Bushs page is locked from all editing.

It should be on a seperate page because an admin has decided it should go on a seperate page, which is their prerogative.

Why do they have 2 seperate pages for bill clintons preisential inaugurations in 93 and 97? And more to the point, who cares? The owners and mods of the site can do as they please, if they really wanted they could proclaim McCain the winner and 44th president,

[Psychoblues]

your neg rep received, srs. I will not return the ignorance.

The article is indeed worthless, but it does reflect how Obama was packaged by the media.

The average person has no idea who Obama really is, and this censored entry reflects that well.

If debate is your interest I suggest you adhere to common sense and respect. You indicate a satisfaction with shitheadedness and stupidity. Good luck with that, cowgirl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Psychoblues

[red states rule]

They can do it with whoever they want, for example GW Bushs page is locked from all editing.

It should be on a seperate page because an admin has decided it should go on a seperate page, which is their prerogative.

Why do they have 2 seperate pages for bill clintons preisential inaugurations in 93 and 97? And more to the point, who cares? The owners and mods of the site can do as they please, if they really wanted they could proclaim McCain the winner and 44th president,

Bush's criticism started off as part of his main page, and was moved to a separate page when it got too large.

Obama's page doesn't have ANY criticism.

And if you attempt to add any, you'll get banned.

Are you saying you cant grasp that simple concept?

[Psychoblues]

You are a liar, srs.

Bush's criticism started off as part of his main page, and was moved to a separate page when it got too large.

Obama's page doesn't have ANY criticism.

And if you attempt to add any, you'll get banned.

Are you saying you cant grasp that simple concept?

Psychoblues

[Noir]

Bush's criticism started off as part of his main page, and was moved to a separate page when it got too large.

Obama's page doesn't have ANY criticism.

And if you attempt to add any, you'll get banned.

Are you saying you cant grasp that simple concept?

Yes I can grasp the concept

And to a degree I concur, however,

It is there site and they can do whatever they want with it, edit articals, ban users, lock pages ect. It is their right and they can use it as they please.

[red states rule]

Yes I can grasp the concept

And to a degree I concur, however,

It is there site and they can do whatever they want with it, edit articals, ban users, lock pages ect. It is their right and they can use it as they please.

Yeah, no liberal bias there.

It's all in our minds

[Noir]

Yeah, no liberal bias there.

It's all in our minds

What I am saying very simply is that it does not matter of there is bias or if it reports complete lies ect ect, the admins have the power and the right to add or remove basicly anything.

If you do t like it don't go onto the site, but there is no point in yapping about it.

[red states rule]

What I am saying very simply is that it does not matter of there is bias or if it reports complete lies ect ect, the admins have the power and the right to add or remove basicly anything.

If you do t like it don't go onto the site, but there is no point in yapping about it.

Oh yes Noir, as long as they are giving glowing coverage to the messiah - all is right in the world


wow just look at all this censorship... wki has been scrubbed clean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Ayers_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremia...ht_controversy

[Nukeman]

What I am saying very simply is that it does not matter of there is bias or if it reports complete lies ect ect, the admins have the power and the right to add or remove basicly anything.

If you do t like it don't go onto the site, but there is no point in yapping about it.

This is all true "providing" it is not being directed by an external force.....