Take a look at the history of the article; I did not, in fact, remove that language!!!! I have made very few edits to that article; and I think an impartial examination of the history thereof will show that my edits have been to improve it, not to add any kind of ideological or personal bias (see my remark on the talk page of that same article, reminding people that praise of the subject for his character based on personal experience with him is not to be inserted into the article, as violating our NPOV rules).

Huh? What on Earth are you on about?

So every garage band looking for a drummer, every high school kid who ever scored a touchdown, every Cub Scout pack in the history of the BSA, every two-person startup which has submitted an app for iPhones, every candidate for City Council district 6 in Osceola, Arkansas, every National Merit Scholarship in Vermont, etc.: each should have an article in Wikipedia? Where does one draw the line?

Actually, it looks like a pretty fair sample to me. Ever done New Page Patrol?

There is a strong cultural bias towards writing about what matters to English-speaking Americans AND is available/verifiable online. There are undoubtedly myriads of villages in Heilongjiang alone that have no article about them; just as there are state legislators (past and present) even in the U.S. who have no articles: because nobody has bothered. But every porn star, American Idol candidate, Pokemon, and South Park episode has an article: because those are topics which suit the interests of the average contributor.

We are rapidly approaching a point where the vast majority of the necessary articles IN ENGLISH ABOUT U.S. AND U.K. TOPICS have been written, and folks are having to go further and further afield to find any new topics to create articles about. Given the inherent cultural biases of the project, instead of people writing articles about present-day U.S. state legislators or national legislators of other countries or important literary figures outside the Anglophone world, we get endless rehashes of the minutia of last week's ED, EDD & EDDIE episode and articles about Harry Potter fanfic and excruciatingly detailed accounts of Ron Paul's 2008 candidacy. The other thing we get, of course, is the unremitting utterly nauseating firehose-load of spam for startup companies, garage bands, self-elected supermodels, YouTube celebrity wannabes, and coiners of new religions, causes, neologisms, etc. who think that you get notable by being in Wikipedia (rather than being in Wikipedia because you actually are notable).

Judging from the tone and content, it appears that Morvath is the same person anonymously editing this article from an IP in the 72.128. ranges. The "whitewashing" which other editors and I are being abused for includes removing that individual's preferred language, which included, "During Frank Zeidler's administration, Milwaukee grew by constantly annexing local municipalities and hiking taxes on people. During this period, Milwaukee nearly doubled its size with a very aggressive campaign of municipal annexations. Large parts of the Town of Lake and most of the Town of Granville were annexed to the city during this era, eventually causing the other suburbs to rise up and demand that the State legislature do something to prevent the communist administration from taking over their villages. The eventual result was Wisconsin statute 66.0215, also known as the "Oak Creek Law", which caused Zeidler to go into conniption fits and bitchfests about the "iron ring" preventing him from taxing more people even more outrageously." Do I need to remind Slashdot readers that encyclopedia articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view? If you consider "conniption fits and bitchfests" and conflating a Milwaukee Christian social democrat with "communism" to constitute a neutral point of view, then take Morvath seriously. Otherwise, I urge you to judge for yourself. The editing history of that article, like any other on Wikipedia, is not secret. My friendship with Zeidler is no secret (does Morvath imply I should have hidden it?) I make it a point to fully disclose my conflicts of interest, so that others may judge my work fairly. My identity is openly known and public to all. My training is as a historian, and I believe that I have been true to that training in my edits on Wikipedia. I am no more flawless than any other writer/editor; but I know the difference between an editing dispute and "fascist-style controls".