Talk:Andrew Nellis

Reason for mirror

I originally intended to mirror this article here as its subject is an anarchist. I prefer Anarchopedia's politics to those of wikipedia. The article on wikipedia was recently deleted without consensus. There was a majority but the majority was a group who had a personal vendetta against Andrew Nellis and had nothing to do with the content of the page. Oddly, I had also created an article on another activist in the Ottawa community running for mayor. Her article was not deleted as she is not known to the group online who know Andrew Nellis. --Fredm 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Great to see you here, Fredm, my innitial switch over from Wikipedia was also due to the issue of censorship, and from what i can see it's only getting worse in there. Please feel free to move over all the articles that you've create for Wikipedia here, since you are the author you don't even need to add any back links to Wikipedia, since you are the one who holds copyright in the eyes of the law, or if you release your works under public domain even better yet.  ~ Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 2006 September 27 15:23 _(UTC)

• This article has been deleted three times on Wikipedia and none of them was justified. They say on Wikipedia you need consensus to delete an article but there was a 7-7 vote. I think it's obvious at this point that the Wiki Admin do not like anarchists. The Anarchopedia entry is deleted and protected on their site. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to abandon Wikipedia altogethe but the anarchist in me want to fight.--Fredm 13:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This about it this way, is the fight worth it? From one side it would be improtant to have our say in the large scheme of things. Peter Kropotkin for example didn't mind writing an entry on anarchism for Encyclopaedia Britanica. But if we approach the problem from a different perspective, why stay in the hostile environment, and keep it alive by doing so, when there are other remedies available. Wikipedia is going the way of IBM, it's gotten too big to be maintainable, so they are instituting so many rules and regulations that after being an active writer for a couple of years, you still don't know all the procedures.  ~ Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 2006 September 30 18:03 _(UTC)

Actually Wikipedia has rules about creating articles about individuals. That is, unless you have made some notable contribution to society, you are not worth writing about. I.e., Andrew Nellis has done fuck all for the world, so why should he be written about? It's not about him being an "anarchist". Please...Wikipedia has standards, and that's what you don't like. Get over yourself Andrew Nellis. You really aren't that important.

Wikipedia is not a venue for self-advertisement, which this page clearly is. Obviously he has written this about himself to glorify his ego. Ergo....DELETE!!!

You do not need to talk about "Wikipedia not being pro-censorship" as almost all the people here know just how much of that is on Wikipedia.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 2008 January 20 15:15 _(UTC)

Actually: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism."