"

 Question on Possible Citation 

I'm sorry if I missed your question - I don't pay much attention to that page. In response to your question, let me start by repeating my boilerplate formulation: The job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. (I haven't yet worked in ""no original research"".) WP:NOR says that we mustn't integrate otherwise reliable information to arrive at novel conclusions. Comparing two lists and drawing conclusions from their differences and similarities is most likely original research. We can integrate information, so long as we don't arrive at new theories. Another principle to remember is that vagueness improves accuracy. The more precise we are the harder it is to be accurate. 

Getting down to details, the Predators and Editors website appears to be a reliable source so we can use it as a source. The Bauer site, even if somewhat unreliable, may be used in a limited fashion as a primary source about Bauer. I'm not familiar enough with this topic to make pronouncements on what would be correct. However I would say that your proposed text appears reasonable. The sources are sufficient, and no original conclusions are made. The website takedown issue is confusing to me, but you should be able to summarize what you find in reliable sources. 

Overall, my opinion is that the less we say about the subject the better. Attack articles are not encouraged. While we must show our subjects ""warts and all"" we shouldn't enlarge the warts, nor ignore their better features. Balance is a part of NPOV. - 

""but you should be able to summarize what you find in reliable sources."" There no reliable sources only a he said she said blog flame war. It is alleged the website takdown was instigated by Bauer. It isn't clear if she did, and other factors between the forum and the IP are not known. It was the root cause of this article and all the players here were involved via these blogs. I don't see how that can be objective. 

 Bauer 
I'm sorry I did not get back to you about the Usenet stuff et al., but I've been somewhat overloaded at work. Personally, I think the article is better now than when I first saw it, thanks to a lot of effort on the part of the primary editors of the article to bring the best sources and present them in a way that doesn't seem like a lynch mob. Y'all are doing a good job, and there should be enough editors on either side to ensure that something resembling nuetral gets posted . I'm glad to help and try and make the article neater, and I don't mean to sound brusque in the summary field, but there was a lot to cram in there. Thanks for the note, I appreciate it!   
 I would say Karen saying I've called her names is an out and out fabrication. I've never done any such thing. 

""or whether it's because he's been able to insult me and call me names on Wikipedia, repeatedly and without consequences""

I've accused her and Jule of carrying the water for TNH and Absolutewrite and they have. That isn't namecalling by a long stretch. I'm really weary of these attacks over this. This is mob rule. While avi seems genuine, she's hanging with a tough insulting tribe. The threats against me are real and escalating by the hour. Blaming me won't make my points any less valid. Nobody likes to be piled on by a crowd. It's the Internet equivalent of stoning. 

This is not a fabrication. I get awfully tired of being called a troll, or part of a mob or cult or ""group troll,"" or a ""self-interested partisan,"" or a ""blog comment commando,"" or other things I could point at if I wanted to depress myself. You also made a ""theoretical"" comment about me being ""nosy, fat and ugly."" Putting the word ""if"" in front of it doesn't make it any less of an insult. I've tried to be polite to you, and will continue to do so, but this is the response. And, please notice, like abi (Avi is Avraham the admin, abi the ML commenter who believes in kindness) I counseled against piling on.  | Talk | contribs 

Those are not ad hominem names Karen. Yet you've linked to a thread where you and Teresa caled me a psycho. You should hear what she said in private when I asked NOT to be spoken of negatively in threads on Making Light. It's obvious you two are pro-TNH and absolutewrite. That's self-interest and backed up by the fact that you run to her for counseling. Well, avi can make her own decisons about it then can't sh