Stock Investing Zone

Good. I come for some time attending to what has proved to be a shameful campaign from anarchist forum “www.alasbarricadas.org” to manipulate the contents of the article and to impose a particular point of view on the subject, both from subscribers (or at least, so suggests the coincidence of nicks) or by a user becomes continuously expelled as POVW. The campaign includes a series of defamatory practices against a particular user, which is the article from a while ago, including messages on talk pages of individual users of wikipedia to undermine the credibility of the user and can impose its view, such and as stated in the forum and can be seen in this comment from an IP in that a user registered here and probably in other discussions. Just wanted to record and notify the community of Wikipedians vandalism organized this attack. Greetings. Please visit Verizon Communications if you seek more information. wikisilki iklisikiw 15:18 16 Jan 2009 (UTC)
Well, sorry to disagree. On one hand, is already in this discussion and in the original article’s fairly clear that there is not a clear consensus by facilitating the user Nihilo compared to most arguments against certain concepts that may not be attached to the Anarchism entry on Wikipedia. On the other hand, discuss and work on a Wikipedia article beyond, not only does not contravene any of their rules but it is a good thing, since decongests discussions within it. Moreover, the presumed good or bad faith is established, or so it should be, to the activity within the Wikipedia, not what you write or stop writing beyond. One can agree or not that people outside of the Wikipedia “slander” one of his colleagues or even the entire Wikipedia, but can not be invoked as an argument inside of vandalism, but because this would a “witch hunt.” Nor can we say that there is an “attack organized vandalism” or that users Alasbarricadas want to “impose their views.” Wikipedia in working with arguments and references, as many of these users seem to be doing. Is very terrifying to the rigor of which claims that Wikipedia comes to allegations of assault and vandalism to impose the view of one when a majority has put forward arguments against references. Like, I say, as has been discussed at length in this discussion and in the original article, if someone is suspected of vandalism within the Wikipedia is a user Nihilo about the “anarchism.” Returning to the preparation of the article, please. Un saludo .– Goliath Wiki (talk) 16:37 16 Jan 2009 (UTC)
The views are personal, but the facts are objective, there is such a bell as can be seen, and slander are not limited to that forum but, as can also check for links, has been moved to Wikipedia, and the fact that three Your unique four interventions (except in an article by were between yesterday and today in this discussion and in this case and in the direction indicated by the “conspirators” seems to indicate. And you can not ignore this campaign which aims to impose a particular point of view, covered with derision in the verifiability of the proposed system, known to undermine the image of an editor, tips on how to act to impose their point of view, claims Jumping blocking using dynamic IP’s etc … It is important to be aware of the attack, directly related to the preparation of the article. Disgraceful and shameful. Greetings. wikisilki iklisikiw 17:10 16 Jan 2009 (UTC)
It is no longer about this novel, and in this situation there was no other solution than to protect the items in question. For me it is inconceivable that there is a double moral force to impose a vision harangue and manipulated from outside the community of Wikipedia users and only those with a particular purpose are tearing their hair out here as if they were carriers of the truth and who has a different view to be maligned and harassed by fatigue to the user, either here in Wikipedia as the blog mention.