"

Stone Censors
I don’t know that I’m wrong; in fact, I’m quite certain that you and AuburnPilot are in the wrong. You can censor me and block me all you want – you’ve got the power – but you can’t make me confess to wrongs of which I am innocent. Not yet, anyway. And you can’t make me say that you’re right, when you are as wrong as hell. It’s about time somebody talked back to you.

“If you were to discuss your edits, you won't [sic] be in this position right now.” (Since I had already discussed my edits, physicq’s statement above is a case of “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”)

That’s funny peculiar, because wikicensors with the correct politics somehow never have to “discuss” their “edits.” They just go and censor people with whom they disagree, and then demand that the censees justify the worth of the censored passages or links or footnotes. And guess what? The censees’ explanations, no matter how well-founded and eloquent, are never sufficient to make the censors change their minds. Once an editor realizes that nothing he says will have any positive effect on the censors (or should I say, ""commissars""?), he would be a fool to waste his time and energy trying to change that which cannot be changed. That the censors continue demanding such arguments is because they have a sadistic glee for wasting other people’s precious time and energy.

In case an open-minded (but perhaps less experienced) reader should suspect that I am just engaging in bluster, I had already made my argument in my previous entry on this page (which AuburnPilot has archived in a handsome tan box at the bottom of User_talk:AuburnPilot under the uncivil category, “spam”) for why the footnotes and links I inserted were legitimate, but physicq aka physicq210 derided those arguments as a “polemic, complete with fallacious personal attacks,” and mocked my criticism of his abuse of authority as “whining.” In one case, I pointed out that the external link that AuburnPilot defamed as “spam” and censored, was a classic magazine article related to the  Racial Profiling Hoax.

(Speaking of which, Wikipedia's Racial profiling article is hopelessly POV through the censors’ deleting of links to articles debunking the hoax, and inserting of links to fraudulent “literature” such as thoroughly debunked work by the ACLU.)

In the case of a footnote that AuburnPilot also defamed as “spam” and censored, he cut the longest, most thorough exposé yet published on the  Duke Rape Hoax, which was published by the most brilliant, reliable magazine on the Web, VDARE.

BTW, AuburnPilot asserts that the sources in question are not “reliable” or “verifiable,” and do not maintain “neutrality.” Aside from the fact that thousands of Wikipedia articles are transparent political propaganda, or no more than love or hate letters to certain public figures (particularly entertainers or athletes), AuburnPilot has misrepresented the Wikipedia rule on neutrality. There is no requirement that every source be neutral (as opposed to reliable and verifiable), only that every Wikipedia article be neutral.

WP:NPOV

“All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.”

As for “verifiablilty,” the VDARE source has over 100 hyperlinks to supporting documentation from newspapers, magazines, TV and radio news organizations, and legal filings; if that isn’t “verifiable,” then nothing is.

Now, I ask you. If I have already made my best argument for including the aforementioned links and footnotes, and physicq aka physicq210 responds by misrepresenting what I said, claiming that I have made no attempt at supporting my position, and referring to my defense as “whining,” what possible reason could I have for continuing such a charade?

Plus, why should I be on the defensive? If I were dealing with fair, reasonable people, that might make sense. But fair, reasonable people would not do as AuburnPilot did, and first censor my edits, and then demand I justify their value on the talk pages. (And physicq would not have responded to an edit war by throwing in with AuburnPilot, immediately blocking me, and charging me with “disruptive edits.” That alone is proof of physicq’s unfitness as an administrator.) No, AuburnPilot would not have censored my work, but would have asked me on the talk page why I thought it belonged. No, strike that. He would have hit the links and read the articles in question. If th