Got any good examples of people trusting Wikipedia and getting burned as a result?

I just spent many hours working on the Liberal National Party of Queensland page at wikipedia only to see a whole section removed by an administrator because he didn't like the ABC news references which were perfectly legitimate and relative to the topic. How can this degree of censorship be permissable at an open source which claims to be unbiased and honest? Secret cabals were just a myth, I thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_National_Part...

My username is translinkfish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Translinkfi...

I can't believe I wasted a whole afternoon on that corrupt place. Never again! The lowlife wouldn't even explain because he has so many barnstars he thinks he owns the whole wiki. Stuff wikipedia. Jimmy Wales can shove it where the sun doesnt shine. Everything you've read in the REAL media about that place is true. Its run by a bunch of secretive control freaks who think they know whats best for us to see. How is this possible?

QUOTE: You are a new user who has edited Liberal National Party of Queensland only. There are many aspects regarding editing at Wikipedia which take a considerable period to learn—welcome to Wikipedia, but please take the time to read the following and if you have any questions or comments, please reply here (I will notice any reply).

Unfortunately, whether you realize it or not, you are introducing material that promotes a long term abuser of Wikipedia—that material will be removed. Per WP:DENY, I am not going to explain the details, but I provided two links in my edit summary (see diff), and a glance at the second page that I linked to will show that you need to slow down. It would be very serious if you understood the background and were introducing the material on purpose, however, I assume that you are simply unaware of the history or details of the case, and it is just bad luck that you happen to be editing an article on a topic that has been the focus for a person who has performed long term abuse.

At Wikipedia, the term "vandalism" has a special meaning. In brief, vandalism is when rubbish is inserted into an article, or when text is arbitrarily deleted. Claiming that another editor is a vandal is not permitted (unless any reasonable person can immediately recognize the edits as rubbish). The policy is at WP:VAND, and it means that you must not accuse Yale s or myself of vandalism because whatever your opinions, our actions do not meet Wikipedia's definition of that term.

I noticed that you created a report at WP:AIV (diff) and you seem to think that some action was taken as a result. That conclusion is not correct, and your "thank you" comment to Materialscientist was not appropriate. After your addition to WP:AIV, Materialscientist removed three reports from that page (diff) with edit summary "rmv blocked and non-(obvious) vandal". The meaning was that two of those removed were blocked, while the third (the one you reported) was not a vandal (the word "(obvious)" was used to cover the unlikely possibility that the editor was a vandal, although a quick check did not confirm that). That is, your report was removed with no action taken because Materialscientist decided that the report was not valid. The reason for that decision is that the editor's actions did not satisfy Wikipedia's definition of vandalism.

There is no deadline at Wikipedia, and you do not need to do everything at once. Accordingly, would you please accept that I have a good reason to repeat my removal of a couple of sentences from that article (see my edit summary for the reason; click the "history" link at the top of the article to see all changes and edit summaries). If, after considering my message here, you still wish to include that text, would you please briefly explain why here. Bear in mind that an article should not attempt to mention every incident connected with a topic, and while the issue was no doubt highly irritating to those affected, it is not of long term significance (no policies were affected; no outcomes were changed). Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC) END QUOTE

All that work for nothing. just to hear mindless waffle from a vandal who works for wikipedia. This sucks big time. Censorship is the last refuge of the damned.

You are pressured as to what the "burning bosom" is and feels. It isn't an emotion...it's anything that you just believe similar to you could believe the softness of a cats fur. It is not an emotional feeling it's extra of a bodily feeling. See the change? When the Holy Ghost testifies to you, commonly it looks like your spirit is simply too tremendous in your frame and is attempting to get out. If you have not felt this...it's fairly tough to explain any greater. But it is not an emotion. It is a competencies.

nope, it's a generally a good source. if you're professor / teacher is apposed to wikipedia, find your article and go to the bottom to the references section. check out those sources and use them.