They seem to be having a few problems with it......
Yup, that's a hazard of being a conspiracy theory promoter, where you necessarily have to put the who/why in the draft before the what/when/how to back it up.Jake wrote:I think we're working on that, but every time new info comes in, whatever's written has to be changed, so...
I wonder who is writing it. It's guaranteed to be filed under an anonymous byline, typical of the cowards, in case whoever it is was thinking of making a name for themselves. The primary pusher of it on the forum, Vigilant, has conveniently claimed he's too busy working to write it. Like he hasn't already spent hundreds of hours on it. He's literally transcribing PDFs fer feck's sake.
As well as the shuddering realization of what it means to publish (and be damned), I think maybe he just realized he's not quite cut out for wordsmithing. I mean, even his proposed title was crying out for a copyedit.....
Yup, I properly Corbetted the fucker. Where's my barnstar?Skeevy Grifters within in Wikipedia prey on the Paralympicsans committees.
I think copyeditor is but one of many roles that will be needed for this task. You certainly need someone with a serious understanding of morals, to deal with shit like this......
There may not even be a blog post, and you'll lose your coffee when you hear the excuse Uncle Jake is floating. Apparently, the mainstream press wouldn't be interested in the biggest scandal to ever rock Wikipedia, which is what it would be if it is true, because it resulted in beneficial acts for the disableds. I'm not making this shit up, it writes itself.Moral_Hazard wrote:Does she who must not be named (on Wiki) ever identify herself as disabled?
Some disabilities would explain the trouble with writing or talking coherently or with her impatience and thin-skin.