Thread:Boomer8/@comment-27523603-20160105222252

My original post wrote: The admins need to realize that eventually the editors are going to disagree with them, and they need to do something about it without deleting it, blaming Gunshow and calling it a day. Boomer8 on another thread wrote: And also, that Merchant guy is banned for sockpuppetry. He is an obvious sockpuppet of Gunshow's" Talk about a sense of irony, huh?

Boomer8 wrote: I find it quite peculiar how a user who has been here less than a week already Okay, so one, you proved the point in my original post yet again. "You are new so your opinion isn't valid." And two, there's something called LURKING that you do before you join a website so you don't make a fool of yourself.

Boomer8 wrote:and cares so much about this wiki's politics. y What's wrong about it? I'm an editor on the wiki. I should be entitled to know how it runs.

Boomer8 wrote: And the supporting of the skinheads on the Community Cleansing page blew your cover. False dichotomy. "You're either with us or you're against us!" shouts Boomer as a user suggests he shouldn't write about others as nazi skinheads.

Boomer8 wrote: I guess you're trying to push this Neutrality thing so you can get "your side of the story" in on that page I did not include Community Cleansing for the neutrality argument. I used it as Ali Rocky claimed that "we can't include insulting remarks on the pages," and that page was my response, as it is filled with terms like racist just pulled from a hat because you don't like the person in question.

Boomer8 wrote:If you're going to try to start more chaos here can you at least do a better job at pretending you're a different person? Making high quality edits that even admins of the wiki have praised = causing chaos. What isn't "chaos" to you, Boomer?

Boomer8 wrote:As for the Gunshow's proposed Neutrality policy, groan

Boomer8 wrote:it is absolutely foolish. groan

Boomer8 wrote:The articles are not biasedly written [...]they are written as if the myth was Proven Writing articles as if they are 100 percent true or false 100 percent of the time isn't "unbiased." Unbiased would be if they simply reported on the myth, a la wikipedia, and the reader could draw their own conclusions. Dictionaries agree with me. 