User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Fact Source, Sarah Trimmer

Hi there, I noticed that you contributed to the page on young adult fiction and was hoping you could help me out with a question. It says on the page that Sarah Trimmer was the first to note the period of adolescence in 1802, describing it as the years 14 - 21. I urgently need to know the source of this comment as I am researching for a thesis on YA lit. My email address is charlene.okane (at) gmail.com if you have any information at all.

Many Thanks, Charlene O'Kane.

Charlene87 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm now looking into this. Notes to myself: Young-adult fiction, Sarah Trimmer, [tag I added on YA fic] to see if someone answers the question there. Here's a possible Google search. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, LAEC, that Google search was very helpful. I too was looking for confirmation on Trimmer's definition of 'young adulthood'. As it happens, I couldn't find anything on that, but I found another writer talking her distinction between children's books and young adult books. I have edited the Young-adult fiction page, but had trouble citing the edit. I tried picking up the code from another page, but still had no luck. If you've had confirmation about Trimmer's definition of 'young adulthood', and are planning on adding the citation, perhaps could you include a link to my Grenby footnote you'll find there? I would be much obliged - I'm only new here. Cheers, --Wiki apprentice (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Np. You may be new, but we are all equal. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some instructions for setting this up then? That way I can cite the 'young adulthood' statement if I find a source, as I plan to look anyway. --124.168.70.48 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it some thought. I am not an expert in this area and have done no further research on it. But why not try contacting Charlene87 who gave me her email address above regarding this very issue? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Charlene87 doesn't have the source. That's why she asked you - or whoever posted that comment - for the source. If you posted the comment, you presumably have the source. Did/do you? If not, I will bump the question on the discussion page. --Wiki apprentice (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, she asked me 4 months ago. She may have found her own answer by now. In any case, I do not recall what I did back then, nor do I recall what resources are available to me at this time. I am sorry I could not be of further assistance. Please go ahead to the discussion page. And thank you for writing here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America

You recent inclusion of a reference to Grolier [1] is a problem as it requires an account. This is going to have to be replaced or removed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I could be mistaken, so forgive me, but one would think an encyclopedia needs support, and the mere fact that some people do not have access to that support does not mean it cannot be used in Wikipedia. Think about it -- Grolier is a major source of unbiased information available in books around the world. Grolier has some of its content online. One needs an account for the online content but not the books. I do not see how that means the Grolier references must be "replaced or removed." Please educate me by pointing to the specific wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL; specifically "Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers." I agree that Scholastic/Grolier is generally a good reference, and if you were quoting the hardcopy version there would be no issue. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in, but that policy is about external links - the standalone, "have a look here for further reading" variety. There's no policy against using subscription sites for inline references. Orpheus (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gadget850, does Orpheus's comment close this matter in favor of keeping the ref? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Different standards for links depending on where they are—who would have thought. I know this has come up on FA before when someone does a external link check. Done. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

which & that

I just noticed you change a "which" for a "that" on the First Nations article. I certainly don't have any problem with your edit since it wasn't incorrect, but to my understanding it was unnecessary in that case. I even notice now you have a user box referring to the issue. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be correct. Which would be correct. Which is correct? Now, after that joke I couldn't resist, I'll go look at your citation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, its a big artical. Aisle look at it latter than. ;-)~ Tanks 4 bringin it too my attenshun. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying...

The editor whom we've both had unfavorable interactions brandies about lots of WP:AGF and WP:CIV yet turns a blind eye toward his own breaches of good faith and incivility. And he will be probably follow me here and blank my comment (as he's done on one other 3rd party talkpage). Hope you get to read this before he does so (which he has no right to although he seems to be above such social norms). Regards and be well.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement on the page Cheeser1 setup. However, as is his classic modus operandi, he blanked it because it doesn't fit his agenda. Still I appreciate your apt defense. Regards and take care.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 23:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the RTA label

If its for free it is not commercial. My understanding is that the definition of spam is unsolicited *commercial* communications. Am I wrong in that assumption?

If you need to email me to find out more about what we do please contact cal asacp org (fill in the blanks).

Cheers,

Cal Woodruff ASACP.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleymartin (talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I have no doubt you are legitimate and the organization is legitimate. But I did a Google search on it and found few hits. That lends itself toward the potential that it is not notable as required by Wiki rules. Further, Seth Finkelstein (the other editor also removing your comments, so far) is a rather well respected resource here at Wikipedia and generally as well, and that combined with these edits being your first also causes one to be concerned that proper wiki policies and procedures are being followed. The burden is on you to prove notability and that other wikipedia policy concerns are satisfied. Good luck in that--I still haven't figured it out even after 4200+ edits. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District on Day of silence

Why did you remove this from Day of silence. Do you even now how common law works? If i recommend you do, because you are incorrectly removing it. [--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)]

Relax. I'm being totally impartial here. The case was removed because you asserted it to support your opinion. It's a fine and wonderful case, and your opinion is fine and wonderful, but Wikipedia is not about people's opinions, even if I agree with them. Asserting a case to support your opinion is not wikiworthy. You need to find a reliable source that makes the connection between Tinker and your opinion. Then, using this reliable source, you can add the wikiworthy material that also just happens to be your opinion. Okay?

Imagine all the articles that people could assert their opinion into and cite to cases to support their opinion. What a mess that would be -- no one would trust wikipedia. Hence the rules are the way they are to make wikipedia trustworthy. I'm sure you understand. Go find a source to support the connection between Tinker and the opinion you are asserting and you will be good as gold. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. That is how common law works in the united states. Didn't you read the ref that i put: Under United States common law, a supreme court decision becomes law (Case law). Students are protected by the outcome of the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. Another example of U.S. Common law case law would be Roe v. Wade, which made abortion in the first trimester legal and protected by federal. I think you do not understand how common law works, here is the 101: the judges result of a supreme court case becomes law. That is how it works in the U.S., this is not my opinion, that is just how it works. If you read the other example i provided, Roe v. Wade, the dessission made by the judge BECAME THE LAW (case law), these are not my opinions this is how the system of laws works in the United States. If you have a hard time understanding this or would like to now more, see the article. [--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)]

Uh-oh. Someone else who does not understand wiki rules. I stand by my previous statement. However, I apologize that I did not explain it well enough to convince you that you are violating Wikipedia policies. Even now I don't know how to explain it better except to say you need to read the relevant policies to see exactly how and why you are wrong, and you need to get more wiki experience under your belt--like signing your messages would be a good start. Sorry I could not be more helpful. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, someone who doesn't even know how their own government works. [--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)]

Well at least you have a sense of humor. Be that as it may, what you just said is irrelevant to the requirement to follow wiki policy or have a real good reason not to. Injecting POV and acting as a lawyer pro se is not a good reason. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN, that's the policy. I just got it from another editor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ahglogo2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ahglogo2005.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly‎

I've posted a thread at talk:Phyllis Schlafly‎. Please explain your deletion there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, soonish. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you had to be dragged into that. There are a few editors on Wikipedia who seem to edit little¹ on articles unrelated to the LaRouche movement. There are two articles by the Heritage Foundation that you may find relevant to understanding why they're rather combative about things, if you have time to waste on this marginally dangerous organisation; This rather long piece from when he packaged his views as Marxist and there were concerns about possible dealings with the Stasi, and this later and somewhat shorter piece written after he had clearly moved to what is often unfortunately called the 'far-right' and started buddying up to Wizards in white hoods.

^1 though some of them have edited one or two popular culture articles in a way that wasn't obvious stalking of their perceived enemies. John Nevard (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The fur kind of started flying there. And I have personally had one of the admins go after me personally in the past, so I didn't feel like dealing with that again, especially since the same behavior I saw in the past seems like it was starting to repeat--me admin, you dodo. Besides, I'm no Phyllis Schlafly expert. The invitation to the Heritage Foundation sounds good but if it's like Schlafly, I won't last long either. I'll fight where wiki policy supports me and I know what I'm talking about, but not if both conditions do not exist in my opinion. Uh oh, better save before my battery dies. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, nice work on the LBOR page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

strawberries

I eat lots and lots of veggies and fruits (and I juice them at home to drink, a lot). I'm not up on my strawberry horticulture (even though I live near the "winter strawberry capital of the world." My research right now is on Edible Wild Plants and Medicinal Plants and Herbs from Peterson Field Guides (and other sources). JohnRussell (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. An apple is a part of the part called the ovary - it protects the seeds. Cut open a pear and what's inside. Seeds.

Now cut open a strawberry. What's inside. Nothing! Why? The strawberry is a stem! A specialized stem. The fruits are the things most people think are seeds. Isn't that wacky? Enjoy your stems! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why revert?

How was my edit vandalism? Stopkommernism (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I went to the website cwfa.org and found it still in existence and having no mention of the new web address. I went to Google and found your new site not there. Further, sites just don't change like that.

Would you point me to some reliable source showing cwfa is now whatever you said it was? If it checks out, I'll revert myself. I did not want to check it directly in case it was some site with malicious code. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I now see you restored the suspect web site, and yet another person reverted it, again calling it vandalism. If you are truly sincere, you'll be able to back up your claim. As it stands now, your claim is patently false. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your second edit switched from .org to .net. Now Google sees it. Now I see the joke you were making. Funny, but Wikipedia is encyclopedic, not funny. Listen, if you have Wikipedia-worthy criticisms, add them, backed up by Wiki-worthy sources, and you'll be good as gold. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Category links

A technical tip - when you want to link to a category or an image, put a : just after the opening [. Have a look at the source for this comment to see what I mean - Category:Wikipedia, Image:Wormian bones.svg. Without the colon, it categorises the page or displays the image. The colon converts it to a normal wikilink. Orpheus (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the tip. And thanks for working with me on that category imbalance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. In the same spirit, I'd like to offer a small etiquette suggestion. Don't take it personally, just as a friendly word. When you leave edit summaries and talk page comments like this, it comes across as triumphalism. It makes people wish they had never agreed with you, regardless of whether your positions are reasonable or correct. It promotes a divisive "group A vs group B, only one can win" mentality which goes against the consensus based nature of Wikipedia. In short, it's not a good idea. I realise that's not what you're aiming for, and you probably aren't even aware that it comes across like that - but it does. Orpheus (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. My goal was to say the issue was essentially closed instead of leaving it open. How could I have better closed it? Oh, never mind, I guess next time I'll say something like "The issue has since been resolved by the addition of balancing parties." I think I'll go add that now. Tell me if I should not have. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much more conciliatory. It's not an earth-shattering problem in the first place, but some people might think you're aiming for a WP:WIN rather than a better article. Like I say, just a friendly suggestion for the future. Cheers, Orpheus (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that essay started a little click-click-click session (what can I say, I'm supposed to have work to do) that lead me to this one :) Orpheus (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For me, though, it's just plain fun for me. I'm not trying to impress anyone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course :) It just tickled my funny bone. Orpheus (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BDS: CDS

Hi, could you bop over to Bush Derangement Syndrome and contribute an opinion? I'm getting no feedback, just reverts, so I'm baffled.
My edit is here, and my attempt to discuss is here. Thanks, —EqualRights (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a peek. Thanks for thinking of me.

Reminds me of this:

Pliability Journalism; Change Comes to the Associated Press.

By JAMES TARANTO, Wall Street Journal

01/26/09

More than 144 hours into Barack Obama's presidency, the economy is still in recession, the country is still at war, and in many parts of the country it's still cold outside. Citizens are growing impatient: Wasn't President Obama supposed to bring change?

Yet one institution has changed dramatically, and in a very short time: the press. After spending the Bush years as a voice of opposition, American journalists have by and large turned on a dime and become cheerleaders for the man in power.

A case in point is the Associated Press, perhaps the nation's premier "straight news" outfit. During the Bush years, the AP introduced a new reportorial idiom called "accountability journalism," whose goal is "to report whether government officials are doing the job for which they were elected and keeping the promises they make." Turns out they weren't.

But the AP's new idiom, which we hereby name "pliability journalism," aims to show that everything is completely different from the bad old days of a week ago and before. A Saturday dispatch by Liz Sidoti, titled "Obama Breaks From Bush, Avoids Divisive Stands," shows how it works:

Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush's unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.

A central feature of pliability journalism is the bending of contrary facts to fit the narrative of change, hope and unity. Here's how Sidoti reshapes one such fact:

So far, Obama's only real brush with issues that stoke partisan passions came when he revoked a ban on federal funding for international groups that provide or promote abortions. He did that quietly by issuing a memorandum late Friday afternoon. The move was expected; the issue has vacillated between Republican and Democratic presidents.

So three days after taking office, Obama executed a 180-degree policy turn on the nation's most emotionally charged subject. That would seem to be the epitome of divisiveness. But no. It (1) has been "Obama's only real brush with issues that stoke partisan passions," (2) was "expected" and (3) was done "quietly."

Sidoti also notes that "some Republicans are griping about Obama's economic stimulus plan and closing Guantanamo. But their protests are somewhat muted, perhaps because little of what Obama has done thus far is a surprise." So it turns out the abortion order was not the president's only brush with issues that stoke partisan issues. In order to meet Sidoti's definition of "divisive," it seems, Obama would have to do something surprising--which, since he is a liberal Democrat, means he would have to do something conservative.

Oh, and when the next Republican president restores the ban on funding abortions overseas, will Sidoti credit him with not being divisive if he does so with little fanfare? Or would that be an example of excessive secrecy and lack of accountability?

Paul Haven, in a Sunday dispatch, tells how much things have changed on the international scene:

In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama signaled conciliation to America's foes by using the metaphor of an outstretched hand to an unclenched fist.

Already, there are signs that some of those foes were listening, sensing an opening for improved relations after eight combative years under President George W. Bush. Fidel Castro is said to like the new American leader, and North Korea and Iran both sounded open to new ideas to defuse nuclear-tinged tensions.

After eight long years of conflict under George W. Bush, Obama will restore the amicable relations with Cuba, North Korea and Iran that previously had prevailed since the Kennedy, Truman and Carter administrations. What a change!

The change even extends to gustatory matters, as Mary Clare Jalonick made clear Saturday:

Visiting one of his favorite Chicago restaurants in November, Barack Obama was asked by an excited waitress if he wanted the restaurant's special margarita made with the finest ingredients, straight up and shaken at the table.

"You know that's the way I roll," Obama replied jokingly.

Rick Bayless, the chef of that restaurant, Topolobampo, says Obama's comfortable demeanor at the table--slumped contentedly in his chair, clearly there to enjoy himself--bodes well for the nation's food policy. While former President George W. Bush rarely visited restaurants and didn't often talk about what he ate, Obama dines out frequently and enjoys exploring different foods.

It turns out that top chefs have "many suggestions to improve food policy," most of which involve treating small farmers more favorably and agribusiness less so. But Bayless "says the Obamas could make a world of difference if they just publish what they are eating every day. 'Everyone's going to want to be like the Obamas,' he said."

Even if true, that may prove a mixed blessing for foodies. Topolobampo's Web site recommends calling two weeks in advance for reservations. If Obama follows Bayless's advice and the public follows Obama's, pretty soon Topolobampo will be so crowded that no one will be able to get in.

We return to Sidoti's dispatch for one final example of the change President Obama has already wrought:

"In a mix of symbolism and substance, Obama used a host of executive tools to put his stamp on the country without having to go through Congress, making statements from the bully pulpit and signing White House directives.

It's about time we had a president who believes in a strong executive branch!

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, EqualRights, it appears I helped. Let me know if you would like further assistance here or anywhere. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed - thanks, and likewise. —EqualRights (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Humor

Thanks for the note - only just noticed it below the barnstar there! I should read more carefully. We don't have Good Humor here, because our wit is too dry to make good ice cream, but we do have Mr. Whippy. Orpheus (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! What a page you sent me to! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barn star today. I heard on the news that The Graveyard Book won the Newbery. That was an unusual enough choice that the level of media attention penetrated whatever it was that has been blocking my attention. I started reading about it on Wikipedia and was amazed and delighted to learn that the ALA gives out all kinds of awards for different kinds of children's books. I've been visiting my local library and working my way through the list of Caldecott winners with my children. It has much improved my enjoyment of bed time, and I think the kids like it, too. Anyway, its nice to have been noticed - thanks again - ErinHowarth (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Kids? You do a lot of work here--where do you find the time? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, right now I'm trying to teach my four-year old to fall asleep in his own bed, so I'm guarding the door to his bedroom until he falls asleep. To pass the time, I have my lap top open, and I'm editing pages at Wikipedia -ErinHowarth (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That is so funny! You're hooked! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Article probation notice

I am sure you are aware of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. It applies to talk pages as well, and this is a formal notice of the probation to this account. Do not continue posting links and/or irrelevant material to the Barack Obama discussion page in relation to the Drudge Report or WND, as it does not pertain to the article itself, and is more of a topic for discussion boards and idle chit-chat. You may discuss the implications of this and/or the link in a post at ANI, but further reverts could result in sanctions. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 04:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The material is already in the talk page header. Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the funniest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia! I post merely a link to an article published that very day that's directly relevant to the main wiki page vis-a-vis Wikipedia, I don't even add any of my own words, the article is about Wikipedia administrators immediately reversing anything they view as negative and threatening people, and what happens? The link is immediately removed and when I put it back due to the nature of Talk pages, it is immediately removed again and I am given an immediate "formal notice of the probation," all for merely posting a link to a new article!!!! This is funny!!! No friendliness. No Wikpedia community rules about assuming the best of intentions. Just cut me down then immediately talk about "probation" in a way I do not understand other than that it is a threat -- that's my opinion -- I am being threatened with "sanctions." Free speech is irrelevant. Wikipedia rules are irrelevant. Wikipedia community policy is summarily discarded. Seicer leaves a cold, hard message about a "probation" and "sanctions" for "irrelevant" material, apparently solely because its on "the Drudge Report or WND." The article is supposedly not authoritative but what it describes is EXACTLY what happened to me, right here, right now! Somehow I do not think the subject of that wiki page would approve of the actions of Seicer and those who have just treated me like dirt.

Guettarda, on the other hand, is polite and provides information that explains things. See the difference? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't take the probation warning as a threat - it was just a notification of the probation. The article is awash with people who have apparently come here via the WND or Drudge stories (apparently it's on Free Republic now too). Lots of people making claims who haven't bothered to read the article or the FAQ. Not that you expect every new reader to do either one, but when dozens of them appear all at one, tempers get frayed, responses become curt. Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I have *any* intention of getting involved in this little fracas, but that article is getting wider publicity. I saw it in the Daily Telegraph, for instance ([2]). Orpheus (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Guettarda, for explaining that. I was just trying to be a good Wikipedian, not a POV pusher. Given what Orpheus just added, that would seem to make a difference, no? That takes it out of the world or Drudge/WND (as if that's bad) and puts it in the "main stream media," no? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Klein

Hey, I removed a thread you initiated about Klein. My edit summary should sufficiently explain my reasoning. I'm just coming here to reassure you that I meant no disrespect to you. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. But it sure looks odd to remove it where I stressed the point was to encourage his participation to improve that very page and where Talk pages are more open to Talk, not deletion. I'd like it restored for that reason.

I'm reprinting it here so people can judge for themselves: --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Klein denies he's Jerusalem21.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Double standard

Let's all think like Wikipedians for a second instead of carrying on the propaganda war using Aaron Klein and WorldNetDaily as punching bags.

Think.

What is Aaron Klein accused of? Essentially, he is being accused of doing exactly what a lot of newbies do when they first start to stretch their wings on Wikipedia. And he is a newbie here. And newbies get leeway to learn to grow within the community precisely because they are newbies.

But not Aaron Klein. No, he is expected to instantly follow all rules only experienced Wikipedians would know. Since he did not, he (or at least Jerusalem21) got indefinitely blocked.

That is a double standard. And it is wrong. And it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. We as a community should be welcoming him in as a newbie and gently guiding him on how to work within Wikipedia guidelines, not attacking him and immediately shutting him down, possibly just because he's not our political cup of tea.

It's disgraceful what has happened in this matter to treat Aaron Klein differently from other newbies solely because some people use Wikipedia to try to prevent others from hearing his message. That right there makes his message more interesting--what are people trying to hide? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but why not take it to somewhere where policies are made and not here, which is for improving the article. Grsz¹¹ 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But quickly on your comment, he did not come here to contribute, he (or his lackeys) came here with the explicit purpose of creating a disruption, and, like any other user who does so, was blocked. Grsz¹¹ 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the guy could make valuable contributions to this page if he were given proper guidance. Yes, he has not acted very Wiki-like so far, but what newbie ever does. The guy has specific knowledge on the topic, himself, that makes his contribution potentially valuable and unique. Shutting him down is not in anyone's best interests, except the propagandists. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on the userpage, and let the discussion continue there, as it is inappropriate here. Grsz¹¹ 13:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What user page? Let me add this last comment:

Regarding his "creating" a disruption, what he reported is exactly what happened to me on the same page for the same reasons months ago. He did not "create" anything--it already existed. He was just reporting. Is there anyone who can honestly say the Obama page is not kept clean by a cadre of devotees? I don't even edit there anymore for that very reason. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CHAT. This is a page for discussing improvements to the Aaron Klein article. Your personal experience isn't going to improve it one way or the other. Take it to User talk:Jerusalem21. THF (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no double standard for Jerusalem21. He had been editing Wikipedia for almost 3 years. As you can see from his talk page, he had been warned many times over those 3 years, and if he had followed the guidance of those editors, he would not have been banned. I have edited Wikipedia for approximately 45 days and I have almost 1000 edits. I am still learning, but I know enough about Wikipedia to know how to edit constructively. Again, Jerusalem21 was a 3 year old account. There was no double standard. I have been warned about edits I have done. I have learned from my mistakes and I work to contribute constructively. Jerusalem21 did not learn. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Griffinofwales, you have a cool name. Listen, you say you have almost 1000 edits and you are still learning. You say Jerusalem21 has been an editor for 3 years. Does it make a difference to you that Jerusalem21's total edit count over those 3 years is a whopping 45? 45, no kidding. He's made 45 edits over 3 years. At 1000 edits you say you are still learning. At 45 edits, Jerusalem21 is a newbie.

On Wikipedia, we all try to help each other. The double standard is that Jerusalem21 has been identified as an associate of Aaron Klein's and since people oppose Aaron Klein for political reasons, Jerusalem21 is not getting the kind of guidance that people like you are getting from comments like this one. He's just being cut out because of who he is. No guidance, just cut, cut, cut.

I was no paragon of virtue when I first started here, and I'm not one now, but at almost 6000 edits, I'm past being a POV pusher and now I work cooperatively within the community -- frankly that's the only way things stick anyway. You are learning that now, I'm sure. Jerusalem21 is not even getting that chance.

Even if he came here to investigate something, what's to say he will not get the wiki bug and become an excellent editor after proper guidance and experience. Not giving him that chance just because of the person with whom he is associated is just wrong. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that all of a sudden he decided to edit Barack Obama's article. In the three years of editing, he only edited the article Aaron Klein. Although that is not a bad thing, he had been warned about COI and other things while editing. An indef ban may have been too much, however he has not yet appealed. If or when he appeals, you can then argue over the decision. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Klein

Blog cites to non-notable radio-show interviews are WP:PUFF. It's going to get removed. Write something neutral, rather than trying to exaggerate notability. Anyone notable appears on the radio quite frequently--you don't see "Barack Obama appeared on 60 Minutes" in his article; it's those that are non-notable where editors feel the need to emphasize their radio-show appearances in their biographies. THF (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, in history I specifically noted that blogs are not great references but the broadcast was to millions on WABC 770AM. I have asked for better sources. Please, try to be a good Wikipedian and help find a better source instead of removing what I added seconds after I added it, again confirming Klein's report.

Further, Hamas endorsing a US presidential candidate is definately notable. You say it is not. Indeed many were talking about it and other such endorsements, and it's thanks to John and Aaron's interview of Yousef.

Mind you, I am not choosing political sides here. I am just trying to provide encyclopedic material. I faced the buzz saw months back and when I learned of this controversy, it's exactly what happened to me.

I hope you have not already removed what I wrote without considering my response here. I am amazed at the speed, minutes, even seconds, with which the Aaron Klein page is kept clean of any material that provides balance to the existing string of bad news. It is especially notable where that is exactly the thing about which Aaron Klein complains.

I haven't read Aaron Klein previously, until working on this article. It is easy to see why people are trying to shut him up and demonize him. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamas endorsing a US presidential candidate is definately notable. That's an objective, not a subjective standard. If it's notable, then it would have been noted. If Klein is heard by millions, find a source that says that; otherwise, it's original research. THF (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was notable. It was referenced in a FoxNews report. I added the FoxNews reference to section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder, but you are in violation of the 3RR for your edits on Aaron Klein. I could submit this to here but instead I am asking you politely to calm down and take a little break until your head clears up. Maybe use the time to work on gathering sources. Cheers TharsHammar (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. 01:03, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism of Wikipedia */ spelling")
2. 01:05, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "add acronym to make its future use more understandable")
3. 01:48, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism of Wikipedia */ grammar")
4. 01:49, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism of Wikipedia */ spelling")
5. 04:16, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Article alleging Wikipedia censorship */ grammar")
6. 04:17, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Article alleging Wikipedia censorship */ grammar")
7. 04:22, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Student career */ +archiveurl")
8. 04:23, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Student career */ archive date")
9. 14:26, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Student career */ grammar")
10. 14:28, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "move a section up for better date order and so the article's first section is not just another in a series of complaints about Aaron Klein")
11. 15:33, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Student career */ add new section Radio appearances. I am about to add the text too -- please be patient.")
12. 15:41, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Radio appearances */ Klein on the John Batchelor Show - I'm about to improve the ref citation")
13. 15:50, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Radio appearances */ add text +ref - look, the ref is to a blog but the conversation was broadcast to millions on WABC 770AM -- can anyone get a better source?")
14. 16:05, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Radio appearances */ +ref")
15. 16:36, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Yousef interview */ +ref")
16. 16:38, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Yousef interview */ +ref with MP3 file to hear the interview")

TharsHammar, I do not see a single revert there. The above list even includes minor grammar edit, like where I changed "the the" to "the". Then I built a section that's still there and to which others are now contributing. I am assuming good faith and I am certain you intended your 3RR warning for another editor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

More klein

You came close to 3rr (maybe passed it, i don't care) today, and are being tendentious and obstinate on the talk page now. Please read WP:RS which may help you understand why we generally don't use non-notable bloggers as sources. If you have information sourced to reliable sources, bring it to the talk page and maybe we can discuss that. If you don't agree with wikipedia's sourcing policies, try to get them changed. If you think the consensus interpretation at that talk page that Ashley whatever's blog is non-RS is wrong, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. But your current course is just disruptive and timewasting, and begining to look pointy (I don't think you're really be this obtuse). At a certain point, it will get ugly and there will be sanctions. Not going to happen now. But consider this a first warning that you're headed down that road.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As the AniMate edit shows, you mean I'm actually persuading people to follow Wiki policy. That's why we are all here.

As to your claim about the 3RR violations, I wasn't even close.

As to being called "obstinate," seeking to follow Wiki policy on a page where such policy appears constantly disregarded does make me appear to be obstinate. Did it ever occur to you that people who refuse to produce a truthful and balanced wiki page may themselves be obstinate?

I fully understand The Huffington Post or that particular author may have RS problems. But you are overlooking the bigger question raised by the source, namely, that "standard journalistic practices" may be the reason for the very thing that Klein did that is made to look like a smear against Klein on the page. If Klein violated "standard journalistic practices," then he deserves what he gets. But if he did not, then you and others like you have a lot of explaining to do as to exactly how Wiki policies are practices were subverted. The source, no matter how unreliable, raises a legitimate and even compelling issue you continue to overlook.

You said, "At a certain point, it will get ugly and there will be sanctions." As I said, I am not intimidated by the likes of you. I have done absolutely nothing wrong under Wiki policy. Nothing. The page is POV and your threatening me no matter how subtlety will not change that or my efforts to follow Wiki policy.

You said, "But your current course is just disruptive and timewasting, and begining to look pointy." To you, perhaps. To AniMate, s/he found a compromise, as I linked above. The page just may end up being more accurate and Wiki complaint because of what I have done. The "disruptive" ones are those standing in the way of progress.

You said, "But consider this a first warning that you're headed down that road." Perhaps I should go to your Talk page and give you your first warning for attempting to intimidate other Wikipedians with false claims of 3RR problems, warnings, sanctions, getting ugly, etc. But I won't do that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Standard journalistic practice is to be open and honest. He behaved in the exact opposite manner. Do some research in reliable sources if you don't want to take my word for it. I won't engage with you further on this.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no option at this point besides reporting you [3]. I do not mean this personally against you but you continue to violate 3RR on Aaron Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are misreading the 3RR rule. Go ahead, if you wish, but your claim will be found baseless. However, my prediction of continued false claims made against me has proven true. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User Page Image

We probably got off to a bad start over at Aaron Klein, but I respect your thoughts and I have a situation where I think you could help me. By reading your user page I understand that you are a champion for decency and I am wondering if you can help me with a undecent image on a user page. The user in question, User:WebHamster (warning NSFW) has an image of a females shaven genitalia on their user page. I asked politely for the image to be removed, and was told that Your bible belt prudery is your problem, not mine.. I discovered that some images could be banned except where explicitly allowed and tested this out on my userpage with some restricted images and it worked. I then proceeded to the media wiki talk bad image list [4] to try to have the image listed, but was told that the image did not fall under the criteria for listing. Do you have any suggestions on what can be done next, what board I should take this to? Thanks! TharsHammar (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, no, but I'll look into this, for what it's worth. I'll apply Wiki policies as best I can with regard to the picture, just as I try to do everywhere else. Or I'll just make a suggestion or two here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't gotten to it yet. Sorry. Need more time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. This won't be much help, but see Request assistance and especially the Wikipedia:Help desk. I just don't know otherwise. Hope that gets the ball rolling for you. Good luck. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

3 RR

Please be advised that you have already violated WP:3RR = 1, 2, & 3 on the article List of books banned by governments. Moreover, your declarations of "don't do it again" are not only Non-WP:civil but also display a belief of WP:Ownership. Rather than me reporting you for violation of 3RR, I figured I would provide you an opportunity to calm down and explain your rationale, so that we can discuss our differences in Wp:Good faith. I hope that you find this a more equitable arrangement than an edit-war in which you have already reached 3 RR & 2 RR while I have only done so once.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple. The article you added to the banned page has nothing to do with banned books as described on the Wiki page. Further, the edit you made did not spell the name of the author correctly, even the title of article correctly, so that further made the edit look of inferior quality. Then I added in your saying someone on another page was a historical revisionist without added in a reference to that. I put all that together, likely more, and came to the logical conclusion that your edits should be reverted. Your response was simply to revert me. I reverted again for the same reasons, that's twice, and at that point did I say take it to Talk. I have not reverted further. There is no violation of 3RR with which I am fully familiar. Indeed, I realized your addition of a blog was acceptable on that blogger's own wiki page, and I added it back in. So there is no edit war here, except to the extent that you think unsupported claims of historical revisionism cannot be removed under the Biographies of Living Persons rules that seem to apply. Really, please be more careful in your observance of Wiki policy, and avoid adding misspelled external links to irrelevant articles. Though I admit, pobody's nerfect. Friends? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LAEC, first to clarify a few things. (1) I spelled the author's name correctly which was Al Kennedy --> the article, of note it would be improper to capitalize both letters in his first name as he does. (2) The article I posted was about "controversial books", which is usually why a book is banned, because it is "controversial" - but I can even let this go as a trivial matter. (3) My links above clearly display 3RR which is ANY 3 reverts of another editor on a particular article in a 24 hr period. However this is not important really, as I wish to discuss the matter free from admin litigation. (4) Per historical revisionism I believe you are interpreting this as a negative connotation and thus pov, however it is not. Per the aforementioned article ~ ("Historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations and decision-making processes surrounding an historical event. The assumption of the revisionist is that the interpretation of a historical event or period as it is accepted by the majority of scholars needs a significant change.") This describes Humberto Fontova's perspective completely. Have you read his work? His whole shtick / modus operandi is that the "Western Liberal Media" has it all wrong about Castro/Che/Cuba etc and thus the majority opinion needs to be 'historically revised' per his books. (5) I will gladly be your friend.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment Foundation edit

Hi. I recently made an edit to the subject page, which you undid due to lack of reliable sources (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_Foundation&action=history).

I used the actual Second Amendment Foundation document that I quoted. What would have been a better way to cite this source?

Thanks. 71.161.72.145 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. Naturally, I reread my edit. Initially, I thought I might have to agree with you that you supplied the source of the quote as well as the quote.

But I thought further. The source you provided does indeed provide the source for your quote. However, what is not sourced, and what needs to be sourced, are your statements surrounding the quote. For example, you say, "The Foundation's surveys are worded in such a way that the multiple choice answers are predisposed to the positions they want to represent." What is your source? It cannot be your own view. That's called "original research." Another example. You said, "Because the survey is specifically sent to gun owners, the Foundation knows that the first answer is the most likely to be chosen." Listen, 71.161.72.145, everyone is very happy to have you contribute. But you need a reliable source to state the Foundation "knows" this and that and such and such. "In this way, they can claim that gun owners blame bureaucrats for crime problems." Really? It might be true but it needs a reliable source. Any individual, like you or me, is almost never a reliable source.

So I have no idea if what you wrote is correct or is not. All I know is that it is not reliably sourced. Just get reliable sources for what you said and no one will bat an eye.

Do continue to contribute and enjoy yourself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation - it was actually very helpful. I have to admit that I don't care for that policy, but I recognize that it is Wikipedia's policy, and that's that. More accurately, I guess I would question the fine line between original research and what is a logical deduction. However, I do think you made the right call. Thanks again for the guidance. --71.161.72.145 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. You should get the model newbie award, if there is such a thing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

EDS

I removed the link to http://librarianinblack.typepad.com because it is a link to a blog, and links to blogs are normally to be avoided according to point 11. of Wikipedia:External_links_to_avoid#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. I apologize for not explaining in the edit summary.Langhorner (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That makes sense, sorry.

For those interested in EDS, please see Hello. My Name is Sarah, and I Have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome.

That said, I have a question about point 11:

"11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)"

The question is this. Sarah Houghton-Jan is a recognized authority. Granted, that authority extends to the library world, not to the medical world including EDS.

So let me ask this another way. Take a look at what she wrote in her blog. She really explains things quite well from a victim's point of view, so to speak. It is my opinion that the information in her blog will really help people with EDS. Is there no way that such information or a link to same could be included? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NOTDIR. The recommended remedy is to submit the link to a directory like DMOZ (it's probably already there) and include a "see links here" template (like Template:Dmoz). It's an extra click, but it saves Wikipedia pages from becoming lengthy, spam-prone lists of links. Orpheus (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Polka Floyd

A tag has been placed on Polka Floyd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on Aaron Klein's talk page

I've noted your request on that talk page, and have asked TharsHammer to tone down his own language regarding Aaron Klein. However, I also ask you not to make accusations like this one[5] against other editors. You seem to favor a content position, in connection with which you disagree with editors who question Klein's veracity as a source based on his prior misstatements about Wikipedia. Having observed the Wikipedia incident before, while, and after it happened, I have some very serious concerns about the incident itself and also Klein's reliability. It is fine to disagree, and if you feel you must bring it up at the appropriate notice board (though I think that is unnecessary and counterproductive). Better to just keep this calm and agree to disagree. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think you can understand why I grew concerned when TharsHammar accused the subject of the Wiki page of collaborating with terrorists. I am happy you asked him to calm down. His comments and yours were similar in nature, but his were particularly egregious. I don't care who the subject matter is, you don't glibly accuse people of collaborating with terrorists unless you have direct evidence that you make public and that evidence is proven true. In all the pages I have ever edited, that TharsHammar attack was the very worst. I would not be surprised if the subject of the wiki page brings suit against TharsHammar, and the recent Google suit where Google was forced to reveal one blogger to a model made such a suit even more likely to be winnable.

I'm not favoring any position over another. Rather, I am favoring building a wiki worthy page, and on that Aaron Klein page, it is clearly not encyclopedic. It blows out of all proportion something reporters do on a routine basis, and it totally wipes out legitimate information. It is one of the most biased pages I have ever seen here at Wikipedia. Ironically, it evidences the very thing Aaron Klein was reporting in one instance.

I'm not really disagreeing about Klein, I'm disagreeing with the way Wiki rules are pushed aside by some editors to besmirch the subject of the page. It's as if BLP does not apply to Aaron Klein. It is simply unjust and unfair. I have no problem saying Klein has ugly warts if that is somehow encyclopedic, but its wrong to force one view on others and call people terrorist collaborators, etc. If Aaron Klein can prove the constant personal attacks are a proximate cause for any possible loss of wages, I guess he will win--being called a terrorist collaborator just to besmirch someone is not defensible.

So I'll agree with you on wiki worthy content, but I won't agree with you if you persist in making truly outrageous claims about the subject of the page. You may think you are right, but take a breath and step back and look at the situation with fresh eyes. Aaron Klein is a serious reporter with excellent sources no one else has. He uses various journalistic techniques like anyone else. He reports on things people disagree with politically, and I strongly suspect that is the very reason why he has come under persistent Saul Alinsky-inspired attack, including in Wikipedia. It saddens me to see Wikipedia being used in that fashion. If TharsHammar or others wants to call someone a terrorist collaborator, he should do it on his own blog, not on Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

per this complaint at WP:AN3. The fact that the other guy is a newbie does not relieve you of your obligations to behave well, especially in a conflict of interest situation. You should use the normal channels for WP:Dispute resolution if you are unhappy with the state of the article, instead of continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Ed. Just know if you look at the series of edits by Bibliolover, right from his very first, he has been almost solely and completely directed toward attacking me personally, materially misleading people, and promoting his interests to the exclusion of working cooperatively with others. The page was a puff piece, and a poorly written one at that, when I first got involved. Thanks to my lead, me and other editors working as a community have made significant improvements. Bibliolover has added blogs, by guest bloggers no less, significantly increasing the size and importance of a certain issue, then claimed I was responsible for the increased size and importance of that very issue. This is the type of vexatious comments to be expected from Bibliolover. He also claimed I removed all the words "banned" from the article, which I did not. When I pointed out I did not, he continued to claim that I did. This is the type of false comments to be expected from Bibliolover.

Regarding the COI, I clearly laid that out, and others have so recognized. Regarding the direction that I talk things over in Talk, I am the one who writes out everything in great detail in Talk about issue after issue. Bibliolover ignores the need for consensus despite it having been spelled out to him. He then makes substantially false claims that mislead people into blocking me in the manner and for the reasons stated here.

So I'll respect your actions and not contest the block though I could for the above reasons, among others, but just know it is my opinion that Bibliolover may just been inadvertently empowered in his own mind to continue to edit in a vexatious, false, and non-Wiki compliant manner. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

More support for what I have been saying. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Levin

I am somewhat of a fan of Levin (I like his politics, but sometimes his personality is a bit grating), but he obviously doesn't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work, even if it doesn't work that way all the time. He obviously doesn't understand that admins are not employees of Wikipedia. I think Will's actions are OK, as far as I can tell with all the edit warring and such. The page just needs protection for a little while until everyone settles down. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and I said so on the page. In fact, funny, I left a comment on your Talk page about how you and Will Beback are correct, likely at the same time you were writing on my page!!!!!

By the way, I left legitimate comments on the Talk page that have been removed. Can they be restored, please? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Levin

Thanks for your note. I'm not sure what triggered this.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Levin apparently does not understand how Wikipedia works. I predict when he gets it figured out, you will no longer be the target of his ire, and the page will be more compliant with Wikipedia policy. He has urged his listeners to get involved, and if they do, and if they follow Wikipedia guidelines, I'm certain that would be a welcome change. The page is really not well written now, even setting aside the issue of Wiki policy adherence, and could use a good dose of a combination of good writing and adherence to Wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is how Levin has "urged his listeners to get involved": [6]. --BobMifune (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of the Tweeter tweet until you posted it on my page a few minutes back. I didn't even know he was on Twitter. Should I say a little birdie told me? So please forgive me if you didn't like my wording. Remember WP:AGF. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as BobMifune just got blocked for 24 hours, I won't have to worry about AGF violations for 24 hours. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Levin

Please see WP:STICK and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I didn't realise Bob Mifune has been blocked recently, but both of you have been in the past. I've advised him to WP:DISENGAGE, and I'm advising you to do the same. The article will still be here tomorrow, and if the both of you don't cool it, I will reduce the heat myself. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me.

But you should know that he attacks people left and right, is persistently confrontational, ignores the comments of those who block him advising him to work cooperatively, changes the edits of others on talk pages, repeatedly refers to legitimate edits as vandalism, ignores the need for consensus on Talk pages, works almost exclusively on the Mark Levin page, threatens others with admin action, actually files complaints numerous times, leaves downright nasty and threatening messages on newbie pages, makes comments that are pure personal attack and have nothing to do with improving any Wiki page (which is the reason why I responded to him ultimately leading toward your commenting here), and is otherwise persistently disruptive. Sometimes people do not like being treated like crap by this guy who bulldozes over Wiki policies. Be sure not to confuse people defending themselves from his attacks with people acting like he does. Consider looking into his edit history and taking appropriate action to rein the guy in. I have been editing here for years. In all that time I have seen only one other editor act as recklessly with total disregard for Wiki policy as BobMifune. Getting him to conform with Wiki policy will go a very, very long way toward making life here normal for all the editors he has viciously attacked and will continue to attack if not reined in. And I mean vicious. So vicious one newbie, for example, was afraid some admin was going to permanently shut him out of Wikipedia. The guy's first comment on his Talk page was this attack from BobMifune. BobMifune is out of control. Something must be done. Me? I hardly edit that page any more. Do you know why? I wrote it in comments there. Because I tired of BobMifune's persistent personal attacks. So BobMifune's actions have resulted in experienced editors like myself giving up editing the page. That's the effect of BobMifune's attacks. He attacks others similarly, then he controls the page. And he's a newbie himself!--Unless he's a sock. There has to be a means for controlling people like him. As I said a month back, I'll start editing that page again when the attacks stop. In the meantime, all it results in is more nasty attacks then people believing what he is saying as if he were sincere. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Turns out BobMifune was a sock puppet as well as being divisive. With his exit from editing the page, people are getting along much better and not being attacked constantly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ToCLeft and Right

Please immediately cease your beyond inappropriate additions of {{TOCleft}} and {{TOCright}} to various articles. It is a complete misuse of those templates and a complete violation of Wikiepdia's manual of style. Your edit summary that you are doing "to beautify article further by pushing table of contents to the left, thereby getting rid of large empty space" it invalid and a purely personal asethetic that is not appropriately pushed off by your shoving it on some 2+ dozen articles. I have reverted all of your placings of these templates. See also Help:Section#Floating the TOC and the actual instructions on those templates, which specifically state that they "should only be used in cases where the TOC gets in the way of other content or is detrimental to the layout of the page; it should not simply be used for aesthetics since it tampers with the standard appearance of articles.". They are not to be used just to "beautify" (which they do not) but only in a few rare cases which are not shown in any of the articles you made those edits too. Again, please stop. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume you are somehow exempt from WP:AGF? I've been editing here for years. Your original comment, complete with a threat, was one of the nastiest in all those years, but not the worst. I appreciate that you rephrased what you said, but it's still not very wikifriendly. "Beyond inappropriate"? "Complete misuse"? "Complete violation"? "Invalid" and "shoving"? Would you mind rephrasing it further to assume I was only trying to make improvements? Did you notice I left a comment on your Talk page asking why you did what you did but not assuming anything one way or another? Yes, I'll stop to take the time to consider what you said, and you may be right, but I follow Wiki policy, not the threats of bullies. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

When someone goes through and wholescale changes dozens of articles for personal aesthetic reasons against the explicit instructions of the template, and guidelines, yes, I will use a harsher tone. And editing here for years does not exempt you from knowing that you were acting inappropriately, it only makes it worse that you tried to do such a thing for no other reason than because you seem to personally prefer it. My wording was appropriate. Your actions were NOT appropriate and you were completely misusing the templates from their stated purpose, and did so on a large scale without any discussion, consensus, etc. If you have been here for years, I expect it to occur to you that there was a reason it was not done by default nor that anyone had ever done it before...because it was not appropriate, it was invalid. I will not rephrase it. If I were not assuming good faith, I'd have just reported to ANI and used far stronger language in my reverts. You want to call me a bully for calling out your misbehavior, that's fine, just make sure you actually note that you were going against guidelines and policy not following it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo obviously died and left Collectonian boss. I was totally unaware of that policy--there was no "misbehavior"--and now that I look at it, he may also be mistaken.

Further, in one case, Collectonian reverted about 18 edits of mine. Another editor found his actions so surprising, that he asked why Collectonian reverted all my edits, then explained why my edits were valid.

Based on Collectonian's responses here, his threats, his continued insistence on assuming bad faith like decrying my "misbehavior," and his rolling back many of my edits having nothing to do with his perception of my TOC edits, I have confirmed that Collectonian is a wiki bully. If he bully others and they seek my assistance, I will show them his threats here. Should he continue his attacks on me, I may take appropriate action. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see now Collectonian admitted this was a mistake. I accept that as a mistake. Too bad he did not assume good faith and assume I also made a mistake. Be that as it may, I now withdraw my comments regarding the 18 edits. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He mistakenly cut out more of my edits on Mark Simone and on Polka Floyd. Still, I have not accused him of bad faith for these mistakes. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny! The guy even reverted his own statement that he was "sorry"! He made all those mistakes, but my mistakes were somehow "over the top"! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Smile. ;)

Thank you for the smile. :)

I am sure you already know this, but proposing a different edit, rather than simple reverting, is often a good idea. :) All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 06:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, the SHADOWS under your name are cool. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't even remember who I stole copied them from.- Sinneed 14:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags

Placing a fact tag on an article is usually done after an editor has attempted to verify if the information is true or not. When you added one here, I'm guessing you didn't try to verify the claim. I googled the quote and came up with this story from the Washington Post. It took almost the same amount of work as adding the fact tag. I decided to format the references you had added to the article, and that's when I noticed that you had already linked to the article. You had placed a fact tag on information that was from an article you had cited. AniMate 09:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

AniMate is correct. I'm guilty. What happened was I was falling asleep and I rushed the job. The fact tag was an easy way out. I am sorry, and I thank AniMate for catching and correcting the situation.

Thanks, AniMate. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC Mark Levin

I would appreciate it if you'd take some time to review the talk on the Mark Levin article and comment on the RFC I started on Sunday. Many thanks! Malvenue (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a peek. I've been a little busy lately, and while things are still raging on the ML page, they don't compare to the previous mess the page used to be, so I have been more laid back. But I'll see if I can contribute anything. Thanks for the heads up. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel so guilty I haven't look at this yet. Sorry. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So nice...

That was so nice of you. Really. On a day where I was distracted by other matters, as well as by a wikidramafrenzihad (just made that up), its nice to get a nice note from you. Really. Many thanks. And thanks for being part of those joining in the AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No problemo. I see you have quite a number of barnstars. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A handful. I also attracted an AN/I today, so go figure!--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Family Values: Claims of OR, POV, RS

I have a question about you reversion of my edit to the family values page.

You say OR, I provided two newspapers citation. Is using a newspaper OR?

You say POV, I provided newspaper citations of direct quotations from a well recognized conservative leader. How is citing a statement POV?

You say RS, I provided a citation from the Sun Journal, a local newspaper. Is it the policy of Wikipedia that local newspapers are not RS? 66.189.113.173 (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends. And the background is informative. For example, in the history comment of one of your edits, you said, "Leaders of family values movement deny that married women have the right to choose when to have sex. Forced sex w/o consent = rape." I'm no wiki expert, but I think what you did is called "synthesis." That's OR/POV. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is true that I commented about the leaders of family vales movement. I did so in the history comment and not in the article itself. I made the comment to the revision because Rick_Norwood wrote "extreme views should not be portrayed as typical" in his revision. I made the comment to accompany my edit so that it would not simply be an edit / revision war. So, Norwood thinks that that it is an "extreme" and not typical view. He did so without evidence. I had provided and then provided more evidence that leaders of the conservative family movement take the position that Norwood thinks is extreme. That Norwood thinks these positions are extreme seem to me to be his POV or OR since, again, evidence shows that this is a position that leaders of the conservative movement famous for their family values stances and for their attacks on feminism both hold and defend publicly.

My apologies to you for synthesizing this point and discussion within the revision comment. Unfortunately there is only so much room that wikipedia allows in that space. Would you have preferred that I have left off the (short) explanation I did in the reversion of Norwood's POV edit? 66.189.113.173 (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another red flag is the way you speak. You sound driven, on edge, always ready to pounce. Your comment here is snide. You work against instead of with the wiki community.

I'm sorry. I did not mean that tone. I was just surprised that someone would accuse me of OR when I had supplied a citation to secondary source and would charge me with POV when I was providing a quote. And then I was charged with RS violation when I had provided a citation to a newspaper. It seemed to me that I was being repeatedly and unfairly charged with things that I did not do and so I got a little more heated than I should have. 66.189.113.173 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another red flag is you have made few edits as an IP address, they are almost exclusively on the one page, yet you come in with swagger and talk like you have been here for a long time and nobody's going to get in the way or your using Wikipedia for your soapbox about how you hate Phyllis Schlafly and so on. You sound like a sock puppet.

Isn't a sock puppet a fake identity? I am just writing anonymously.

I don't hate her. I think think her views are influential and should be recognized as such. She has been central in several political movements including the successful effort to prevent the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. It just seems strange to censor her well known and important views on family values from the page on family values on the false grounds that she is a marginal figure. 66.189.113.173 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your soapbox. If you think it is, you will get reverted by everyone from here to forever. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia is my soapbox. I just think that Schalfly is not some random nut. And I don't think that someone should simply revert edits on the basis of a false claim about her marginal status. I am sorry that I made the explanation as I did in the edit to the family values page. I was not sure about the best way to do it.66.189.113.173 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of any doubt. May I suggest you use the Talk section to discuss suggested changes and sources. Once you obtain consensus in the Talk section, moving it into the article and avoiding reverts will be a snap.

I have an open mind. You'll need to make your case then work with, not against, the community.

Stick to the facts. Don't put words into people mouths--I never said anything about Schlafly's status, for example. Don't insert original research--"I think think her views are influential and should be recognized as such"--no one cares what you think except to keep such soapbox edits out of wiki articles. Stick to reality--"It just seems strange to censor her""--no one is censoring her or this article. Your not getting POV/OR edits added does not constitute censorship, and people do not appreciate such comments. Remember, assume good faith. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for input regarding citation

I am going nowhere with an issue about the MoveOn.org page. I have created a new talk section on the discussion page, but have only seen the same two members who blocked me last week. I have reason to believe they are meatpuppets or sockpuppets, but that is secondary to my main question. Is there a need for a citation in the big box on the MoveOn.org page about their membership being 5 million? The link is to an MSNBC website that only says "MoveOn says they have 5 million members", and I feel that is a worthless use of citation. I have tried in vain to get input from other members. Any help is appreciated. I could also be wrong. I accept that, but not from the users I have dealt with so far. Bikeric (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at MoveOn.org. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I commented. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why is the Aaron Klein Section "Errors in Reporting" Getting Removed

I'm new to editing wiki articles... (I don't even know if I should be posting this question here) Can you tell me why you are removing this section?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiolag (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is it just happened today and it is supported by MMfA, a source that not reliable for citing other than for things about itself--yes, the links it cites may be wikiworthy, but not what it says about those cites or its own view of things. Also, what was not terribly encyclopedic. But I put the section in Talk for discussion. I am only one editor. Let people discuss/improve it. I just could not see how to improve it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I just thought of something else. An "errors in reporting" section? No other editor ever makes errors? There seems to be point of view (WP:NPOV) or original research (WP:OR) problems involved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:SYN. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for your help! Maybe a "Controversial Reporting" section could be added. The section could include the George Galloway incident —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiolag (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia belongs to me as much as it does you. Go for it. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a chance to get out your message about someone. See WP:SOAP and WP:BLP. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)