Well, it looks like Orangemarlin is the group's designated hatchet man for this coatrack article, with some help from Odd nature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association
On ANI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...sonal_prejudice
Full Version: Intelligent Design clique branching out
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Thu 19th June 2008, 1:20pm) 
Well, it looks like Orangemarlin is the group's designated hatchet man for this coatrack article, with some help from Odd nature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association
On ANI:
AN/I
Hmm, something odd about the linking - it is adding a space before incidents and did not want to be fixed.
Is that an outing in the edit summary per chance? IP address to retired user Jinx[m]chue. Inappropriate use of edit summaries I would say, but SOP.
As usual, difficult to tell exactly what is going on from the talk page and edits, and who is right or not. But there is this:
QUOTE
I just have to mention how this paragraph as it was (and probably will be again) exposes a serious weakness in Wikipedia's methods. If you read the actual Agape Press article, it's obvious that they are reporting the comments of two clergymen and are not stating the beliefs of the AFA. Yet it was recorded in this article as if it was absolute fact that these were the beliefs of the AFA because someone somewhere at sometime misportrayed the article as stating the AFA's beliefs and "got it into print." Apparently, overzealous editors can have Wikipedia articles say anything about anyone (or any thing) no matter how inaccurate or even blatantly false as long as its printed somewhere. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
IP 67.135.49.116 has no reverse lookup, but the traceroute leads to Salt Lake City UT.
See also the colloquies on the talk page for that IP. The editor admits to being User:Jinxmchue. See also this version of that blocked/retired user's talk page.
See also the colloquies on the talk page for that IP. The editor admits to being User:Jinxmchue. See also this version of that blocked/retired user's talk page.
QUOTE
Apparently, overzealous editors can have Wikipedia articles say anything about anyone (or any thing) no matter how inaccurate or even blatantly false as long as its printed somewhere.
Isn't that exactly what WP:V and WP:RS say?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.