I started the original "antifeminism". It has been heavily modified since.

FYI German MRAs started their own wiki because of the heavy editing via feminist editors. Is this happening in other wikis as well?

Quote from johnkimble1

I've been doing a hell of a lot of wikipedia editing over the last 8 months or so, and although some people are dismissive of it, I find it mostly an incredibly useful way to get the truth out.

Well...Kudos for your efforts.

Understand that I, along with MANY professors and "peers" with integrity, do not even CONSIDER references from Wikipedia as valid, for reasons probably best set fourth by
it's own creators.

Much as I don't consider prolific graffiti to be a measure of a structures architectural integrity.

I must agree, however, that particular "Wiki" has value for what ISN'T explored, and/or what is repeatedly erased by "others",
kinda' like Russians had to extrapolate from what WASN'T addressed by Pravda or TASS.

BUT, Keep hammerin' johnkimble1!

Thanks again for the instructions and the advice. Wikipedia and The Urban Dictionary are must-have resources, if you want to keep up with current topics and vernacular. I think I'll look up "Mangina" to see if it's defined on Wiki.

Phyllis Mangina
Phyllis Mangina is the head women's basketball coach at Seton Hall University . Mangina was first a star basketball and softball player …
3 KB (425 words) - 03:29, 28 April 2009

Just a reminder that anyone wanting advice on how to be sucessful on WIkipedia is more than welcome to contact me.

My most successful edit on there has spread to some 500 websites/forums, so you really can have an incredible impact over time.

My best advice would be to make sure you act relatively civilly and ensure you stick to the rules. I've seen so many feminists banned for misconduct on there that I can guarantee you'd be caught out eventually.

Yeah, being civil isn't something everyone is capable of. This seems to be a common issue within feminist groups.

Just bumping this as promised elsewhere.

I edit all over the place. The feminist cancer is all over Wikipedia but there are some good people out there as well.

My experience with wikipedia showed it to be a politically biased Misandrist farce that no researcher of worth would bother with, and those are its good points.

I was fighting a case against the Dykes who take over the streets of SF in the annual Dyke March / Anti Male Hate Riot and cited both Wikipedia and Answer.com and their definition of Dyke - for their published position that Dykes were "Hostile to Men"...

Not to prove the Fact that Dykes are kreatures of Misandry (kind of obvious really) - but rather that I was not alone in recognizing the Dykes Hate Men, and that others had made similar observations as well...

Shortly after I turned in my brief citing these facts, the Reply from my opponents brief Also cited the wikipedia entry defining Dyke - which amazingly now had a completely different content, which amazingly mirrored the position of my opponents (not about Dykes Hating Men, they didn't touch that hot wire) - but rather in Praising Dykes (houda thunk somebody so hateful could be so wonderful) and claiming that the term Dyke had been "Re-appropriated" - by Dykes.

Tried to make additions to the entry clarifying what had happened to the entry, but was locked out from doing so...

So - Wikipedia Changed the 'facts' in the middle of a legal case where they had been cited as evidence, and allowed no corrections afterward to show the manner of manipulation, and I am supposed to 'trust' such a scam?

Reminds me of the Evil Soviet Empire, where such 'facts' (and people too) were subject to elimination by Censorship, and Changed at the whims of the Commissars...

Which is actually the nature of the Kommissars of the Abomination, for whom all PC Censorship is in service of 'tolerance'...

Because after all - Tolerance Macht Frei!
Ohso

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire