That was a terrible display of biblical literalism, Matto.

Quote

Stop being silly, icterus, if you had followed the link to Metapedia that I gave earlier then you would already know that Wikipedia is a far-left and ʝʊdɛօcentric, multilingual wiki project, censored by an internal bureaucracy of tribal editing clans to conform to a largely neo-Marxist and Zionist viewpoint.

And this, McFiggly, is why Wikipedia will never be changed by you.  Or by anyone like you.  The wrong will not be righted.  You will feel affirmed, and your friends will help you to feel affirmed, but the world will continue in ignorance.

I'm sure that was how Jesus and the Apostles conducted themselves...can you help me find the verses?

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." -- Gospel of St Matthew, X, xiv-xv.

"And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them." -- Gospel of St Luke IX, iv.

Wikipedia isn't biased. Only things that go against the majority consensus are biased, because consensus defines reality. Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, and the final result is the product of popular consensus, therefore it is impossible that any bias exists within it's pages. "Systematic bias" is nothing but a crackpot conspiracy theory.

Oh, you go too far.  Wikipedia is biased.  I'm trying to explain to McFiggly that he has to be wise and cunning in order to defeat this bias.  

That's funny.  Between all of your gratuitous insults stemming from your warped view of the world, that message was lost on me.

Quote

That's funny.  Between all of your gratuitous insults stemming from your warped view of the world, that message was lost on me.

...he said with another gratuitous insult.

You are misusing the words "gratuitous" and "insult" here.

.


Post

My edit has already been undone. That's how changeable Wikipedia is - you can change an article, but unless you have the credentials your changes will be undone within minutes. A lot of articles these days are locked by default, so unless you are an established editor you can't edit the article at all.

You should have just asked me.  I could have told you that the Wikipedia system has a small army of volunteers (or perhaps employees of George Soros) whose accounts are pinged whenever an edit is made, such that any one of several volunteers who are assigned to blocks of 50 articles, when he get a ping, scrambles to his computer to see what the changes made were, and if for whatever reason they're objectionable according to his training criteria, he clicks a button and undoes the changes.  

They compete with each other in teams, so that the one in the team who is quicker at the draw gets advantage points compared to the others who don't get points.  But they can't delete changes that further the liberal agenda without losing points faster than they earn them, so they have to be careful.  In your case, McFiggly, the edit sentry would only need to read the first sentence to see that the entire post, the edit was going to be an award point for him to delete your changes.  In this way, topics of a sensitive nature (as certainly +W is) receive a lot of attention, and any such edit as yours is doomed to not endure for more than a few minutes.  

It's actually daunting to think that with all the many thousands of articles in Wikipedia, the EACH are covered in some degree by these minions of sentries.

I have made edits that have lasted for an hour or two, but no longer than that.  Most of the time, it's undone within 10 minutes or less.  It's not worth the trouble.  That's the way they like it.  

And then they have the gall, the NERVE, to ask readers for donations!!  

"If every reader reading this would donate just $3, our appeal would be over in one hour."

And I'm sure there are stupid readers out there who actually donate.
Like icterus -- he probably chipped in his 3 bucks. That's about his speed.  

All the while, the multi-trillionaire George Soros who owns Wikipedia is laughing all the way to the bank.


.

.

There is an obvious conflict between our two groups, between Catholics and liberals. It's not very complicated. You apparently seek to belong to both groups, so I can see how something so simple to the rest of us would be uniquely difficult for you to understand.

Liberal Catholics are the WORST ENEMY of the Church.


.