Doesn't Laura want a wikipedia page?


FOTCM Member
Personal pages on Wikipedia are not worth the effort, it seems, as the "Phillip Cross" affair showed (or rather, still shows (ongoing)). ( Neil Clark (@NeilClark66) | Twitter had an extremely difficult time with it.)

Just had a scroll through the #PhillipCross affair, if this even is a real person. Given the number of edits, it seems like a team of people. Possibly a govt. psyop to sanitise and slander people whose opinions are inconvenient. It’s all about controlling the narrative.
The Wikipedia deletion log shows :
00:56, 21 October 2005 Jaxl talk contribs deleted page Laura Knight-Jadczyk (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Knight-Jadczyk) That's why it is highlighted in red in the Thomas French article, as it existed then.

Jaxl blanked his profile on 14 June 2008, at 19:56 (UTC) (last edited date). At 21:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC) his admin privileges were suspended due to inactivity. According to his log he keeps uploading non-free pictures for articles and has proposed 2 other major pages for deletion in the (long) past : Bag of Tricks and Derailed (novel) due to (Non-Notable).

Jesus, here is his activity list : User contributions for Jaxl - Wikipedia

He went on a major deleting spree in 2005, what an asshole. This is what Wikipedia is, wasted effort :( They shouldn't allow pages to be deleted no matter how "offensive" , hell especially if it's offensive. You should always be able to see ALL revisions of all pages which can be voted on and you can choose whether to see popular / original / edited etc pages. There shouldn't be any LEADERS in the sense of deciding what is and isn't worth it, everything has worth, the LEADERS should simply ensure everything works without errors. Arg, I hate Wikipedia people...
Top Bottom