"Ah, I see - anyone who thinks it is inappropriate for you to link to your own blog from a Wikipedia article must be a "Freenet fanboy". Right. You are pathetic, you won't even admit you are wrong when numerous independent people are telling you so. I suspect you are close to being banned from Wikipedia based on your behavior, you certainly deserve to be."
Once again, we see the devious use of half-truths to cover-up your hypocritical behaviour and outragious claims. If anything is pathetic, it is using excuses to get rid of of criticism, especially when it is about the project, concerning development-choices and (the lack of) human resource management in regard to the project. The only thing I see that even remotely comes to anything that could be seen as indicating some true criticism is in the 'controversy'-part, which is rather trivial because it deals with the content that may be found on Freenet, and not criticism on the how and why of the freenet project. Another half-truth is the 'numerous people'... one can note that of the 5 IPs that deleted it, two show they were *only* used for the *sole* purpose of deleting that specific part on the wikipedia. Meaning, they were only created for that purpose, and probably by the same person. then we have you, hardly a neutral person in connection with Freenet, and the Red-something nick; someone who had previously shown, already on other wikipedia parts, that his deletions are based on a bias towards me (see the discription he gives of why he deleted former edits of me at the start; contrary to his later remarks (much like you, btw) which hides behind the "I'm only following the rules", there he clearly demonstrated it was personal bias, not objective consideration of edit-merrit or rules, which was the cause of his deletion. One can hardly call someone like that a neutral person, and I suspect I know who the person in question is - namely someone I criticised on my blog, and didn't take it well - but, contrary to you, I'm not in the habit of throwing wild accusations around. which leaves only Haakon, a wikiadmin which made himself an edit as a compromise, to which I reluctantly agreed - only to notice I am the only one respecting that compromise. "I removed your little rant for the simple reason that it is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. I was not the first to remove it, nor, I see, am I the last.Note that the only reason you know I made this edit was because I chose to reveal it. You, in contrast, sought to hide your identity when making your self-serving edits, and were angry when I (trivially) uncovered your activities." This is the biggest lie of all. As *anyone* can see (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freenet&oldid=34627030#Project_related_criticism ) , the matter had long stopped being "linking to your own blog". It is the *edit of a wiki-admin*, which hardly does anything more then *recognising* the fact that there is critcism, which still remains constantly deleted. The link in question was nowhere mentionned anymore, even though, I may say, your argumentation there also sucks severely. First of all, your assertation that I tried to 'hide' my identity and then was 'angry' at being found out, is so absurd, as to convince me that you are truelly self-delussional. A weed-smoking pothead who can't form a coherent thought while striding in wonder-wonderland full of rabbitholes, and took a dozen blue AND red pills at the same time, couldn't come up with such a completely nonsensical contraption of ludicrous claims. You exhibit an astonishing lack of good sense or judgment, or, more likely, you show an appalling sense of hypocrisy and falseness when argumenting - probably in a futile goal to prove 'your point', even when having none. As one can see at my IP, I always used an IP-addy, for the simple reason I never registered before on the wikipedia. Furthermore, as can be seen on my response to your first ad hominem (well, first... not counting all the previous cases) attack on the maillist, I never denied I was that person; in fact, I said I wanted the edit to be valued on it's relevance, not on bias towards me personally. The only other IP I use, is that of the proxy of my provider, which is set standard on my second browser, and thus, which shows up when I edit with that browser. So much for your 'hiding'...wow..nice going, if you're paranoid...you look for black helicopters in the night-sky too, I suppose? Try wearing some tin-foil on your head, that might help you, because rational and clear reasoning sure as hell doesn't seem to be your way. The only IP remaining, is of someone I know, and who I asked to have a look on the matter, and whome is quite capable of making his own mind, rest assured. Keep 'uncovering' my 'activities', and don't ever be surprised how trivial it is! Otherwise, you might come to the conclusion that the triviality is due to the fact people aren't covering anything. But no, it suits your ego better to imagine a whole conspiracy of me trying to cover my tracks - probably because you are so superior in uncovering it, or I so inferior in covering them - rather then acknowledging you're brainfarting the whole thing. And then I'm supposed to be angry at your self-proclaimed discoveries...more ego-tripping, indeed. It's almost bordering on the pathological. Actually, I'm laughing my ass off with so much self-delusion and idiotish egoprofiling. You are in dire need of a reality-check, dude. "Your assertion that my motivation is simply to remove criticism, you haven't looked very closely at the history of that page, unlike you, I actually went out and found some independently written criticism, and added it to the page. That is the appropriate way to try to achieve balance, not to abuse Wikipedia as a soap-box as you do. You are making a fool of yourself, and have destroyed whatever last morsel of credibility you might have had." See my response above; your search for criticism has been extremely meager at best, and seems to have missed some obvious area's of criticism towards the project. No doubt an accidental glitch of your otherwise neutral attitude and diligent scrutiny for criticism? The reasons you give are *all* mere excuses; 'own linking': even when someone else agreed and replaced/edited then me, it was still being deleted, teherefor, your flimsy excuse that I can't be the one linking it has no value. The 'soap-box': even when the edit was made by somebody else (even to the point of a wiki-admin), the edit was still rmoved regardless, thereby refuting the claim it was because it was because of me holding a 'soap-box' issue. 'original research'; even when I gave sources/links of other people/sites who had similar criticism, the edits were not allowed, thereby showing the 'original research' claim as the worthless and knowingly abused, insubstantial excuse it actually was. As said before, the only one making a complete fool out of himself is you, though it may be you succeed in misdirecting the less-critical freenet-fans, I doubt you can hide the severe shortcommings of (some parts of) the project for long. when browsing the mailists, one can see the same criticism numerous times re-appearing, after all. In any case, I prefer no credibility in your eyes, or even in most eyes here on the maillist, above no integrity. Because that is what you lose, when you reach for excuses to cover up any criticism you deem 'not warranted', even to the point of denying it (at least in those areas). I hope one day you will come to realise the errors of your blindfolded way, and regain some integrety and honesty when dealing with others and the project. _______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
