User talk:65.182.172.89

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Please read WP:POV, WP:NPOV --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your factual misstatements = Editors opinions, and you seem to have a problem with this on several articles. And oh good-by then. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boothy, as much difficulty as you and some of the other true believers seem to have with this concept, not everything is a matter of opinion, and not all opinions are equally valid. When I post to an article about the city of Chicago, I do so as somebody who actually does live here, has done so for a good long time, and knows the place firsthand - something that the idiots who did the reverts can't legitimately claim for themselves. You've offered a vague remark about how I have a problem with some of the editor's "opinions"; in true Usenet fashion, giving the spin while leaving out the awkward details.

The "opinions" given are on such subjects as what the lowest reported temperature in Chicago was, whether or not the entire Midwest can reasonably be said to have much the same climate, whether or not cheese customarily appears on an Italian Beef sandwich, and other things which, like these, aren't a matter of guesswork, but of simple observation. One of the additions I made to the article which somebody, I believe yourself, wiped out with a revert mentioned the "arctic express" winter of 1981-82. When one takes the already silly concept of NPOV, and exaggerates it to the point at which one wipes out mentions of actual historical events which one just doesn't happen to have been well informed enough about the subject to have heard of, one has reached a level of lunacy unusual even by the standards of the Internet and postmodernism. I said this before and will stand by it - anybody who feels that the mention of an unusually cold winter is too much controversy for the site to handle obviously has issues that cry out for medication.

So let's not act like I was getting angry because one of the "editors" (read: overly pushy posters) disagreed with me about what the best movie of May was, or anything of that sort, which is clearly the impression that you're trying to leave the reader with. My well-justified anger comes from the fact that somebody has used censorship in an attempt to conceal the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about when he wrote that article. I might say that same about the people who did the reverts, including, for example, somebody from "Concordia", wherever that is - somewhere far enough from Chicago that most of us have never even heard of it. And yet this person feels qualified to vet additions to an article on Chicago.

That's messed up. - Joseph from Chicago

[edit] Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ∞Who?¿? 07:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)