User talk:Earthacademy

Hi. About your edits to Uri Geller could you read WP:NPOV.Geni 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

These edits were verified by URI geller and his staff. The article written as it is slanderous and not from a NEUTRAL point of view. But from a organization which blatantly attacks his character. They are libellous, and have to edited or removed to avoid a court case.

I'm a professional journalist, and I work for Uri Geller, and have edited accordingly and fairly. representing the other FACTUAL side of Uri Gellers life.

Most of the original edits were made by intellectual bigots. i.e the same mentality as racists.

you shouldn't promote racists, or people of prejudice, especially, that level of naive stupidity.

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography, our guidelines for the people who are the subjects of articles and their representatives. Remember that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and represent all points of view, not one particular viewpoint. Such phrases as "western archaic scientific community" and "intellectual bigotry, gossip and ignorance" are inappropriate under these guidelines.

If you feel there is material in a Wikipedia article that amounts to libel or slander, please specifically identify it and it will be removed. Information that you disagree with or merely find unflattering, however, will not be removed. Please do not make legal threats, as that is against Wikipedia policy. Such threats will be removed. Any legal matters will be have to be dealt with by the Wikimedia Foundation, so you will have to contact them regarding legal action.

Please do not attack other editors using such language as "intellectual bigots". This is against our policy of no personal attacks. Editing Wikipedia articles is a collaborative process. Please work with other editors in a civil manner.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Gamaliel 18:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Uri Geller

If you think the article does not follow NPOV please outline why on the talk page. Could you also read Wikipedia:No legal threats?Geni 19:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BUT THE ARTICLES REPRESENT ONE POINT OF VIEW ONLY. The PREJUDICED KIND. So does not follow YOUR guidelines either. If you call a man working for charity and sick kids, and working on peace negotiations in the Middle East a charlatan and fake, and allow people to assassinate his character (from a total lack of knowledge on the subject) then you are supporting intellectual bigots who use your websites to propagate dis-information, non factual data, and spread ignorance.

And why did you also remove the REAL biography of URI GELLER? Are you anti- truth?

Slander is NOT CO-OPERATIVE its aim is to damage people only.

You are not doing your job properly either.

Please outline which parts of the article you have a problem with. If you continue to make legal threats you risk being blocked.Geni 20:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are resulting to censorship of the truth (Big Brother style?) The MAJORITY of the information on URI GELLER on your site is NOT written by people who have any basis of empirical scientific study on the subject. It is the same as letting a Republican write the history and information on the democratic party. Why are you unable to understand this simple notion? The information is distorted and processed by members of a minority hate organization who propagate disinformation and ignorance. And are paid to do so. Your Wikipedia database should be written by intellectuals (such as the group 'Intelligentsia') and not by people of these sort who have a chip of their shoulders to cause harm to other people. Your guidesline set a NEUTRAL standpoint, but your information on URI GELLER is BIASED towards the total character assassination of URI. Calling him a 'con man' and 'charlatan' etc. And providing too many links to the negative, and clearing avoiding the positive and empirical.

It seems obvious that your since these hate groups exists in Florida, and your central offices are in Florida that there is a connection here.

You should be ashamed of:

1) not doing your research. 2) allowing bias of your own ignorant opinions (and others) to affect your judgement.

Don't believe the hype! (media, gossip etc.)

EARTHACADEMY.org

I'm not a goverment. I can't censor people. Could you also take a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith? The article does not call him a con man. It mearly states that his critics say that he is. In not aware of any hate group in florida that has a connection to wikipedia. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to back up your claims. Or at least name the group.01:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

JAMES RANDII's organization in Florida. No different from the KKK or BNP (British fascist party) on its stance on empirical educated fatual data. Total Intellectual bigotry morelike, easily lapped up by self righteous pseudo intellectuals.

- recent article on yourselves proving your lack of responsbility on retreiving factual information:

"Wikipedia's "cabal" has become notorious for deterring knowledgable and literate contributors. One who became weary of the in-fighting, Orthogonal, calls it Wikipedia's HUAC - the House of Unamerican Activities prominent in the McCarthy era for hunting down and imprisoning the ideologically-incorrect. So right now, the project appears ill-equipped to respond to the new challenge. Its philosophical approach deters subjective judgements about quality, and its political mindset deters outside experts from helping.

This isn't promising."..

..."Surprisingly, Wales agreed that the entries weren't up to snuff. "The two examples he puts forward are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment. [sic] Bill Gates and Jane Fonda are nearly unreadable crap. Why? What can we do about it?" he asked."

..."Traditionally, Wikipedia supporters have responded to criticism in one of several ways. The commonest is: If you don't like an entry, you can fix it yourself. Which is rather like going to a restaurant for a date, being served terrible food, and then being told by the waiter where to find the kitchen. But you didn't come out to cook a meal - you could have done that at home! No matter, roll up your sleeves."

[IN OUR CASE, WE ARE SUBJECT TO BIG BROTHER STYLE CENSORSHIP and not even allowed to upload factual data!]

Can you imagine someone writing about your life in an encyclopaedia for future generations but not allowing YOU to submit any information about yourself, but allowing your closest enemy to do so.

That's HUMAN history for you. don't believe the hype!

ps. you cannot write: MICHAEL JACKSON *IS* a paedophile. you can only write "He is accused of this" can you understand the distinction?

INTELLIGENTSIA / EARTHACADEMY.org

• Hi, I saw your recent edits to Uri Geller.[1] If you believe there is incorect information, or bias of some sort on an article, it would be a better idea to bring it up on its discussion page, instead of adding commentary directly into the article. I'll add a "disputed" tag to the article, and remove those recent edits. I hope we can work things out on Talk:Uri Geller. Thanks! — TheKMan^talk 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no links between JREF and the wikimedia foundation. A few editors post on JREF's message board and edit wikipedia but that is it. Big brother was the head (probably it is never confimed that he really exists) of a state. Wikipedia is not a state. The article does not state that Geller is a con man. Instead it states that he has critics who claim he is a con man.Geni 05:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Some pointers....

If you want this artciule to be balanced and neutral, I would suggest that you take some time to read and undersatnd how Wikipedia works. A good place to start is Wikipedia:Five Pillars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits on the Magician, Uri Geller's page

Your edits on Uri Geller, the famous magician's page were extremelly POV and very heavily biased. Let's look at what you wrote:

" Uri Geller is the world's most investigated and celebrated paranormalist. Famous around the globe for his mind-bending psychic powers, he has led a unique life shrouded in debate, controversy and mystery. He is also related to Sigmund Freud.

He was studied by scientists who worked with Albert Einstein and the world's most prestigious scientific magazine, Nature, published a paper on Uri's work at the Stanford Research Institute in the U.S.A - a unique endorsement, and an irrefutable proof that his powers are genuine. His work with the FBI and the CIA has ranged from using MindPower to erase KGB computer files and track serial killers, to attend nuclear disarmament negotiations to bombard and influence delegates with positive thought waves so that they would sign the Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty. "

My friend, I say to you quite openly - this is total bullshit. Welcome to wikipedia. The truth is a bitch, isn't it?

Aaarrrggh 01:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)