Who Cares About Carabane?: A Grand Example of Wikipedia’s Hypocrisy
Today, the nerds of Wikipedia, called Wikipedians (which includes truth-hider Jimmy Wales), is featuring an extremely obscure and not noteworthy place called Carabane, at least until Wikipedia decided to make a show out of it:
Here, you can see how Wikipedia presented this article full of eloquently stated information, yet casually neglected, with apathy towards their own rules, to cite references for a large bulk of it (the first parts), as I kindly revealed for them and their audience:
And here you can see how two of their administrators broke their own precious arbitrarily and hypocritically enforced rule against reverting a particular page more than three times in one day:
Notice how wannabe Pope “Pontificalibus” lies in his last “reason for editing” (undo/revert) comment section by implying that he’s only reverted one of my edits? What a rabid, malicious, liar, and yet this liar is allowed to manipulate Wikipedia left and right to no end. This is the typical rabid hypocrisy you can expect from Wikipedia, and yet Google Corp is perfectly happy to promote Wikipedia as a relevant reliable encyclopedia and so promoting Wikipedia’s massive anti-Bible propaganda.
And notice here how his partner breaks their rule to assume good faith, and almost immediately warns he’ll ban me?:
Notice another reference to the Bible in the name of this idiot moderator “Sangrail”? Clearly they see themselves as holy warriors in a jihad against reality.
These are the typical tactics which the atheist dominated Wikipedia uses in order to silence, subdue or crush their opposition, hoping to appear to be running a professional, neutral and factual encyclopedia.
On top of all that: how is this article “noteworthy“, and yet it’s featured on their home page as the number one featured article! Wikipedia’s administrators are noted for making out obscure hardly useful articles to be noteworthy and deleting things and people which clearly are noteworthy out of jealousy and hatred of some truth or truths.
Other common tactics is to twist the meaning of neutral to mean “unbiased” (when it means “in the middle” and in context meaning “not taking sides” which is the last thing they do, they are clearly biased) and to claim to be factual, asking for facts arbitrarily, or pretending some member they are against isn’t giving them facts or enough facts to back up some claim must be done) and yet implying that “factual” doesn’t mean, at least in part, “truthful”, which they do by insisting that, Wikipedia is not about truth.” when the facts inconvenience them.