Having watched the edit wars, editor sanctions, and all the rest over the last year on a variety of subjects. I can say that there are cliques of editors that have an agenda. They don't care about a NPOV, they want their POV. Even when ABCOM steps in and kicks them out, they'll come back either as someone else or a new account and continue to do what they were before.

You want a good example from the last year? Take a look at the gamergate article. Not only did ABCOM step in, it banned 5 editors, two of which were carrying a very specific agenda, one of whom came back under a new alias and ABCOM is now looking at revisiting it again because people can't be bothered to keep the article neutral.

4-8 happen quite a bit. Especially on articles relating to non-scientific subjects.

Don't tell anyone, but we do have a time machine. JFK, Lincoln, WWI? Those were all us.

Let me fix that for you:

1. Use wikipedia as a source for information.
2. Find it lacking.
3. Fix and source information with verifiable information from more than one party.
4. Watch revert happen in under 1 hour.
5. Watch talk page explode when hissy fit is thrown
6. Refute revert with more facts
7. Get temp banned by editors for 'reasons'
8. Give up.

I dunno about that, all I have to do is look at southern califorina then remember that many homes have high to very high levels of lead in the drinking water.

Probably the same reason most of us don't bother, because some yahoo has the article set to page them the second that someone edits it. They then jump up and down and revert it while throwing a hissy fit in the talk section.

Zing! And you missed it, and having listened to the entire bit about that little presentation, it's exactly the same. One is the media saying "listen and believe, don't examine" the other is a person which the media is giving clout to saying "listen and believe, don't examine."

Perhaps you'd like to explain the differences between a person which the media gives clout and refuses to examine her claims, and the media running with exactly the claims that aren't examined.

Who said anything about agreement? I'm talking about restricting speech to walls, "safe zones," "trigger warnings on lectures," "disrupting lectures by trying to shout down people" "pulling fire alarms because of subject matter they don't like." Perhaps you should spend a bit more time looking at exactly how messed up millennials are. And boy are they messed up.

Funny enough "listen and believe" is one of Anita Sarkisian's prime points, don't think just listen and believe. And people wonder why there's an entire generation of fucked up people out there.

Millennials are the same group marching along trying to restrict speech on campuses. Saying that they're better informed seems to be off by a fair bit.

But it doesn't dooooooooooooo anything. Fucking derp on a rope.

Then you'd best learn some history. After all, the ones who didn't run and stayed in Israel are citizens to this day. Mainly Druze, the ones who ran when the arab countries said "we're going to kill every jew there, and you'll get the land afterwards" are the ones that are living in your 'open-air' camps that have a standard of living beyond what most do in the other arab countries.

Says the anon that is distorting text 1441. It required full co-operation and full compliance of all sites, inspectors were refused entry at many sites. That was a violation of the ceasefire.

Not much really. Hell they used to let kids play with mercury in science class, even allowing them to put it on their skin. Those were the kids in the 40's 50's and 60's and it turned out fairly well, I mean we did have that fuckup with the 70's but we seem to have done okay.

Since I'm already a organ and tissue donor on death, and have been in at count 20 different trial phases for migraine medications, I think I've got that covered already. How about you?