User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

Welcome to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (formerly SafeLibraries.org) User Talk page. Please say whatever you like, but do try to remain civil and avoid unfounded personal attacks. Such attacks never advance any arguments; I enjoy engaging in civil debate but that is not possible with flame throwers, so if you expect a response or if you expect your work to stay posted for all to see, please be civil. Feel free to visit SafeLibraries.org. Thank you.

"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." - Supreme Court of the United States, [[US v. ALA]]

This user has a website, which can be found here.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

SafeLibraries.org

Can an organization create an account? I don't know, you might want to check. Greetings, regardless. Welcome, I'm aware of your resent ACLU posts and I'd like to complement you on your willingness to debate and civility. Very much meritable on your part. I'd like to offer encouragement to you and let you know you can always come back to an issue. No one owns an article WP:OWN Don't leave wiki, OK? Scribner 07:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Partial Reverts

SL, you ask how you can revert a major change without reverting subsequent minor changes. So, of course, I expect that it's me you probably are intending to revert, I'll of course still tell you how it's done. hehehe. THe short answer is I don't think you can't-- you have to manually edit the page so that its code reflect how you want it to look-- you can't automatically just revert some edits but not others-- the software isn't smart enough to do that, I don't think.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds if you know how to do copy and pasting. Let's say the history looks like this:

Time 0 - Pre-editing --- "The Earth is round. The Fox is red."

Time 1 - Major Edit --- "The Earth is flat. The Fox is red."

Time 2 - Minor Edit --- "The Earth is flat. The Foxes are red."

You want to keep minor edit, but revert major edit. if the Major and Minor edits are modifying the exact same sentence, you're out of luck. But in the example I gave above, the minor and major edits concern different parts of the text.

So, first you look at the code for Time 0, and copy the text you want to revert back to. By copy I mean, highlight it, copy it to your clipboard. In this example, you'd copy "The Earth is round".

Then you go to the main article page and edit it. You will delete the line "The Earth is flat" and paste over "The earth is round" instead. Meanwhile, the minor edits done to the Fox sentence will be unaffected.

Let me know if this wasn't clear enough. This sort of thing's a lot easier to explain in person, and explaining it online sometimes makes it hard to understand. I know it sounds like a lot, but it's actually a pretty quick process once you get used to it.

Happy reverting! :) --Alecmconroy 17:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny! No, I wasn't intending that for you, but I was wondering how you did it to me! I suspected it would be done manually, but I thought perhaps you know a wiki way that was easier. So I'm not reverting, yet. I want to take the time first to look at the history to see who added the section in the first place and who developed it. Then I can present a case for any changes that is pretty solid. Thanks for the information. By the way, the Earth is round so I would a revert, but I might edit to Redd Foxx. --SafeLibraries 17:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

question mark and comma butterfly

Hi I'm a wee bit concerned about the addition of particular species of butterfly to the general interest of the butterfly article. My arguments against having them are 1. There is nothing remarkable or odd about the species 2. If more contributors decide to add species to the list then that list will be huge. keep in mind that there are easily more than 10K butterflies in the world. 3. If the names are what made you put it there then I'd recommend you look at joker, punch, judy,... oh heck i could go on. I would appreciate it if you would take these points into consideration and remove your edit yourself. --Viren 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. But please consider this. There is a Question Mark page on wikipedia that has nothing about the Question Mark butterfly. It's a no brainer to redirect people to the Butterfly page. However, that page had no information about the Question Mark. Therefore I added it precisely because it needed to be differentiated from the puncuation question mark. Perhaps a section should be added for interestingly named butterflies, and you've named a few, interesting on its own, but also to differentiate them from other things of the same name.

And what if someone attempted to find info on the Question Mark by searching on question mark. They would be frustrated. The more information the better, I say. Of course you are the butterfly expert so perhaps it could be reworded or moved accordingly, but I think the arguments I just presented are just as valid as yours. So what do you say? --SafeLibraries 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a stub for Polygonia interrogationis, and changed the redirect on Question Mark, which seems to be the preferable thing to do. I have images of that species, so can add them in the next few days. I also did a redirect from Question Mark Butterfly to Polygonia interrogationis. --Cotinis 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks! Or, in this case, thanks?????????????? --SafeLibraries 00:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Cotinis. Thats exactly what I was gonna do. SafeLibraries, you may take off the 2 butterfly links now. Your arguments have been addressed. --Viren 06:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks all. --SafeLibraries 08:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Have I got the place for you!

SL,

As you know, I've done lots of thinking about you and your cause lately. Anyway, I just came across this and immediately thought of you: There's are two sites you should look into Wikinfo and Wikireason-- they use the same software as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikibooks. But-- unlike Wikipedia, which insists people not use it as a soapbox, these two sites actually encourage people to write from a specific point of view.

These would be a great outlet for you to write an article on what you think is wrong with the ALA, and Wikinfo in particular has quite a lot of users, so you'd be sure to get some visitors that might not otherwise come to your own Safelibraries site.

In fact, I think it's SUCH a good idea for you to make such an article that I took the liberty of starting one for you on Wikinfo. See the stub I wrote on Wikinfo: Criticism of the American Library Association. I don't know the issues like you do, so, I didn't write very much-- but I strongly encourage you to round out the article so Wikinfo users can understand your criticisms of the ALA. (you have to register to edit, but... it only takes 3 seconds)

--Alecmconroy 11:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! I'm going to look there right away! Here we see the power of people working together. But, learning from you, take some time to add things. Thanks again! --SafeLibraries 12:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You are coming close to violating WP:3RR with your constant readdition of the link to ACLU. I suggest you stop adding links when multiple editors remove them. Ladlergo 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I wasn't aware of this. Now I'm not sure what vandalism is, but when a person adds a site that provides balance and someone then immediately deletes it for a bogus reason that is actually a POV, and where the effect is to reduce not increase wikiworthy information, am I not allowed to restore that page?

Now looking at the ACLU page, I added a really right on article by a legitimate, wikiworthy source, but the article was critical of the ACLU so it was immediately removed. (I was actually surprised that the person was implying a victim of the Castro regime, a Cuban, was "non-noteworthy.") So I reverted to put it back. And again it was removed. So I reverted a second time. Then another person removed the link but suggested that if it was really relevant, it could be writted into the text. So I did. I did not do the third revert. I wrote a new paragraph about the ACLU's law suit and the counterbalancing article. Then someone left in the link to the ACLU article I added but again cut out the counterbalancing article. Another person then added back the counterbalance and changed the language to remove any possible negative language. Then you came along and editted further, but also leaving in the counterbalancing link. So I view that as 2 people besides me agreeing with me that the idea is valid and well as having counterbalancing opinions.

Given that, it appears I did the right thing, although not perhaps in wikiperfect fashion. So again thanks for telling me about the 3RR rule.

And what do I do when someone keeps cutting out information in an obvious POV fashion instead of providing positive input and guidance as you have?

Thanks again. --SafeLibraries 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Obsessional point of view

Alecmconroy wrote to you: "Lastly, SL, let me once again caution you that you are editing with an "obsessional point of view"-- that is, editing articles related directly to something you care deeply about and are an advocate for."

I think your complaint on the censorship talk page that I was personally attacking you was uncalled for and unfair, and could potentially affect me. I may have been a little cold toward you but I have not attacked you. Pardon me for using the word "obsessional," but as you saw in Alec's explanation it has a technical meaning in wikipedia. Rlitwin 04:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you do consistently argue by calling my credibility into question while never, perhaps almost never, addressing the issue directly. Your only arguments are ad hominem. I am trying to encourage you to address the arguments head on instead of disparaging the messenger. And as I said, it's really you who looks less credible when you make such poor arguments, not me. And it was especially arrogant of you to imply my contributions are invalid on a page that, using a blurb at the top, specifically invited people to get involved.

By the way, while I did not yet look up the definition of the word obsessional, the ALA has had for about 40 years an obsessional goal in convincing people that it is "age" discrimination for anyone other than a parent to keep a child from inappropriate material for children, and to bypass the parents the ALA awards inappropriate books for children with the highest awards and writes glowing reviews to ensure the widest possible distribution. And on the Printz Award page of which you are complaining, that's the very use of the Printz award. Just look at the Printz 2006 winner where that author admitted he would not give his own award winning book to his own 12 year old if he had one, yet the ALA would and does. The ALA even lost big in US v. ALA, SCOTUS 2003, where the SCOTUS said it's "legitimate, even compelling," to separate children from inappropriate material, yet the ALA refuses to respond accordingly and continues to push its agenda. My own kindergartner was given an inappropriate book by an ALA librarian using an ALA list of books approved by the ALA for kindergartners.

So what's more obsessional -- wanting my child not to get inappropriate books the ALA recommends, and I have to do this each new school year, or 40 years of the ALA's ensuring children get access to inappropraite material despite public outcry and even despite the SCOTUS and 40 years of ensuring parents are misled as to the contents of books? --SafeLibraries 12:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I have used any ad hominem arguments with you and have always focused on the issue. The one exception could be yesterday when I referred the Censorship article contributors to look at the talk pages of other articles to see what you were about. I see now how that that was unnecessary. But all the other times we have debated on talk pages I have stuck to the issue and not referred to your credibility at all. So what you are saying there is simply not true. Anyone interested in seeing for themselves can view these talk pages: Talk:American Library Association, Talk:Library Bill of Rights. Besides a few words on the Censorship talk page yesterday, those are the only places where we have intereacted, unless I'm forgetting something minor. I don't think readers will find anything there that supports what SL is saying here. Rlitwin 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are the Library Juice blogger, right? Would you care to do a story about SafeLibraries.org and any of the many other organizations opposed to the ALA's policies, such as PABBIS?

Opus Dei, Censorship, and Courts

SL, thanks for your kind words on my talk. I do applaud your continued and increasing use of talk pages. I have to be honest, I'll be surprise if you convince people, but if you're going to try, that's the way to do it. I don't know if it'll work, but I can almost guarantee you that the only way you're going to get the pages changed is by talking about it and building consensus-- if you try to make controversial changes yourself, everyone will just revert you, get mad at you, and then ban you if you keep it up. Talking about it-- you might changes some minds, you'll definitely educate some foks about your point of view, and if truth is on your side, you may even convince enough people to get the media attention your organization needs (and which it will get eventually, I have no doubt).

I'm really glad you stepped into that Opus Dei controversy, because it's a perfect example the "notability tests for a controversy" that I've mentioned to you with ALA. Currently, it seems likes criticism of the ALA, in general, hasn't really hit the national consciousness yet. Opus Dei, however, clearly has. Look at this bibliography-- there are have been four full-length books published devoted to criticism of Opus Dei. There have been several books written in response to these criticisms. There have been articles on the controversy in Time, CNN, Fox, and every other major new source. Opus Dei is even the main villain in a blockbuster movie. And even with all that, I still haven't been able to get the controversy discussed in a non-biased way, and it could easily take quite a while still before that's accomplished. So you see, it's not just the ALA-- it's just always very difficult to introduce minority criticism of an organization. It's hard enough when you have the whole media backing you up-- it's practically impossible without it.

The real irony about the whole Opus Dei controversy, the thing no one involved in that debate knows or would believe about me is this: I don't even AGREE with the criticisms of Opus Dei. LOL. I'm sure everyone there thinks I'm a hateful atheist with an axe to grind against their organization. I'm sure several folks at a different article currently think I'm a America-obsessed war hawkish US Marine who hates the anti-war movement. At one point, people thought I was a gay activist. hehehe. All in a day's work once you start trying to work towards neutral points of view, instead of working towards points of view you agree with.

But I digress. So, I was going to ask you: you said "It is not censorship to keep a child from reading porn". Why not? I would say that it _IS_ censorship, the very definition of censorship. But the question is: Is censorship always bad, or is it sometimes justified? You see my point? I agree with the censorship article that such access is censorship, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think it's bad.

Similarly, I'd point out that the supreme court doesn't actually comment on morality, they just comment on legality. You've mentioned this a couple of times about the ALA losing the big supreme court case. But just because something's legal doesn't mean it's moral-- ask anyone who's Pro-Life. The ALA has their opinion on how things should be and other people have their opinions of how things should be-- but the courts aren't saying how things should be, they just say what's legal. For me, this isn't an ALA issue, specifically, it's just one of my many geeky rants. People are always quoting supreme court judgements as if the supreme courts are: For abortion, or For censorship, or Against Bush, or Against the war, or... etc. But the thing is-- they're not ruling on the issues, they try hard to be blind to the actually issues, and focus just on the law of the things, the constitutionality-- not the morality. :)

I know, I know... I'm a nit-picky geeky.

--Alecmconroy 07:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The word is just the wrong word to use. Parents keep their childen from a lot of things. It is not censorship to keep your child from running freely into the road. That's parenting. It is not censorship to use a V-chip to filter out inappropriate material for children. That's parenting. It is not censorship to keep a child from reading about inappropriate sexual activity. That's parenting.

The problem arises when organizations try to take away your right to parent by substituting their own judgement for yours. The problem is even worse when the US Supreme Court sides with the parents but the losing party in that case decides not to comply with the Court. That's when it changes from mere difference of opinion into defiance of the law. Do you or I get to openly and repeatedly flaunt the SCOTUS?

So I see your point that such "censorship" may not be bad, but the word just doesn't apply in that case.

I ask you to read US v. ALA. Then consider how the ALA continues to argue it is age discrimination to keep children from inappropriate material. You'll see what I mean. --SafeLibraries 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

SL- I think the problem here, a semantic problem, is that you want to insist that a word carry both a positive and a normative meaning. In your usage, censorship means something like "preventing something from doing something in a way that is morally wrong." Which is fine enough, but if you double up the definition like this, you (and anyone talking with you) suddenly needs three more words in order to cover the full range of possibilities:

• preventing someone from doing something in a way that is morally right (you call it "parenting")
• doing something morally wrong without preventing someone from doing something
• doing something that is not morally wrong and does not prevent someone from doing something

Obviously, this throws a wrench in the usual flow of conversation. And the effect is to create a kind of circular reasoning. Unless we come up with all the new words you demand that we use, you have simply eliminated the possibility of discussing whether or not it is morally wrong (or right) to prevent someone from doing something. Ethan Mitchell 16:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethan Mitchell. Happy to see you here. You may be right. Perhaps I need to really think it out, write it well, and have people understand what I'm saying -- 3 elements. Perhaps.

But censorship is not my real gig. My gig is the application of US v. ALA to the ALA, and the application of other laws and cases to the ALA, because the ALA could care less right now and children continue to suffer nationwide. So I need to get the definition(s) of censorship from those sources. Any way I may be defining it, my real goal is to follow the rule of law and have others follow the rule of law, not to make up my own rule of SafeLibraries. The ALA has its own rule of the ALA (it's "age" discrimination to keep kids from inappropriate material) that apparently trumps the rule of law (it's "legitimate, even compelling" to keep kids from inappropriate material) -- I will not be doing that because 2 wrongs don't make a right. --SafeLibraries 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Revert

Oops, that was an accident. I thought you were changing it from singular to plural.. --Ptcamn 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Formal request to change name

Hello, SafeLibraries.org. I am formally requesting that you change your user name. Your name could be seen as a direct advertisement for your website. Additionally, as anyone who visits your website can see, you have a very strong viewpoint on the ALA. I am not suggesting that you are incapable of writing NPOV material, however your user name implies that your organization endorses your edits, and as your organization is certainly POV, it gives the very strong impression that your edits are POV.

I am also bothered by the potential precedent your name may set. My understanding (and I may be wrong on this, as I've not been able to find any policy to back me or refute me) is that Wikipedia user accounts are just that: an account for a single user. Having a user name that indicates that a group of people is editing articles is ill advised. It also raises legal questions. Are you entitled to speak for all parties in the SafeLibraries.org organization? Do all the members of that organization agree to license their contributions under the GFDL?

Please consider making a voluntary name change. I feel strongly about the integrity of this project, and I hope you understand my concerns.

Brian Schlosser42 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you regarding the integrity of this project. Will someone please provide me with the wiki policy page regarding names, and, since I'm new, specifically point out where I should look to see why I should change my name? I have no problem changing the name after seeing that it's required.

My name is not an advertisement for the web site. Rather, I choose it precisely because it clearly identifies who I am -- it's more honest, in my opinion, to make edits as SafeLibraies.org than as Born2Run or other arbitrary name. My edits, hopefully, are based on provable facts, not on my point of view or my feelings. Therefore, I feel that if my edits are unassailable, it is irrelevant who I am personally.

Thanks for writing here. Let's see what others say. --SafeLibraries 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Username. You can request your name be changed at WP:CHU. Thank you, Prodego ^talk 02:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. "Usernames that promote a company or website: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked."

Forgive me, I did not read this before I created the name. I'll go voluntarily change it now. And I thank you for pointing this out politely to me. --SafeLibraries 03:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your query

Hi, SL.O. Thanks for your interest. I would not advise you to get involved on any particular side in this dispute. People who have have been stalked and harassed mercilessly by sockpuppets -- I don't wish what I've gone through on anyone, even the person doing it to me.

Couldn't help notice your exchange above. You might want to check out the link below, number seven in the list: here.

Cheers, IronDuke 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And if I editted the page I think you are talking about, you can see I made a lot of minor changes. (I then worked on some other college's page too.)

"7. Do not add an external link to your signature. However, external links to Wikimedia projects are acceptable. For example, Talk page." Yes, I see what you mean. It appears my signature is an external link. But I click on my signature and it goes to my Talk page, internal to Wikipedia. I have not added an external link to my signature. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --SafeLibraries 06:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Most welcome. And just FWIW, I have no problem with your sig, but you may well get grief for it from someone at some point. IronDuke 14:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your name

I want to support your decision to use SafeLibraries.org as your name, for precisely the reason that you give - it is more honest about your purpose in editing wikipedia than some arbitrary name would be. It lets people know that you are here on wikipedia for a purpose, a cause. It helps people understand your edits better if you let them know that right up front, as you do.

That said, I think you should probably reread the actual NPOV policy. You refer to it on talk pages but I'm not sure how well you understand it. More specifically, I think you should read the Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy. I think if you give these policies a careful read you will see that your intentions on wikipedia run counter to them. But as long as you insist on advancing your POV on wikipedia, I encourage you to keep your name the same, so that people will know immediately that that is what you are doing. Rlitwin 12:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not hiding anything. But let's be clear -- correcting or complaining about obvious bias does not mean the obvious bias is not there just because I am on another side of an issue. Rather is it precisely the strength of Wikipedia that many people from different backgrounds get to work together to improve the work available on Wikipedia. It's a wonderful thing. I just disclose what side I'm on. I will continue to point out obvious bias introduced and will continue to be a part of the community that makes Wikipedia strong.

I even agreed with you lately on the Propaganda page, and I never once mentioned that you are one of the American Library Association's leading propagandists! Perhaps because of your high position in the ALA and related history, you ought consider the soapbox policy yourself instead of complaining when I expose your propaganda and when you attempt to stifle input from people like me with whom you disagree. Be that as it may, I will read the pages you recommend and attempt to comply accordingly. Thanks for visiting. --SafeLibraries 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really did agree with me on the Propaganda talk page. I thought your comment was difficult to understand, and it made me wonder if you were following me. It would make me uncomfortable if you were in fact doing that. Rlitwin 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rlitwin, despite our political differences, I do enjoy our discussions back and forth. --SafeLibraries 21:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Activist cat

I think that category works by adding whatever article it's on to the page, I don't think it has | functionality to include just certain sections. The Day of Truth article was merged awhile ago, so the only thing I can think of to fix it would be to manually add "Day of Truth" to the activist events cat page. Homestarmy 12:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh. Thanks. I didn't know manual additions were allowed. Thanks again. --SafeLibraries 15:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your additions

Hi SafeLibraries. I'm reaching out to you here. I looked over a lot of your additions, and I'd like to point out several things. First, I am glad you are editing WP, but I would like to see your additions more useful. You cite to sources that aren't reliable. WorldNetDaily is inherently an unreliable source for anything on this site. Have you seen their latest headline story that the US is forming a shadow government with Mexico and Canada? I am not saying that everything they have on their site is as ridiculous as that, but when you can only use that site (or similar ideologically-based websites) to support your points, you have to question why those people who write on it can only find those platforms for their views; they don't use any standards of journalism. Regarding the WSJ Op-Ed: this is not a news story, but an opinion piece. An opinion piece does not have to be fact checked or verified; just b/c the WSJ chooses to print it doesn't mean it has met any journalistic standards. I have not seen the documentary (I don't own a television), but in researching this issue the documentary was *not* just about Clinton, yet you chose to highlight. This is POV. I also note on your talk page that you say things like "this is not censorship, it is parenting" when referring to V-Chips and stuff. It is both. To censor something is to expunge, remove or block objectionable content. It is within a parent's rights (even responsibility) to censor what their children come into contact with. Granted, censorship as it has been used in the political realm has negative connotations, but its denotations are the same. You can't substitute the word "censoring" with "parenting" - they aren't the same thing, and it confuses your argument.

I think it is perfectly appropriate for you to come on here with a conservative viewpoint to ensure that liberals don't take liberty with the truth. But from my perspective, you are coming on here and taking liberties with the truth from a Conservative viewpoint. This helps nobody, least of all this website that I care about deeply. I'm a liberal, and a proud one. But I am more interested in ensuring my views are based on an accurate factual basis, or at least as close to one as I can muster. Otherwise, I'm only supporting my pre-conceived notions, which may not be accurate. I've been proven that some "facts" I've taken for granted in the past are actually completely wrong. It's embarrassing to me personally to espouse a viewpoint only to be shown up that it's based on inaccuracies or outright lies. In some ways, I understand where you are coming from; but I personally am on WP because I want to learn from conservatives by building consensus and agreement. I don't want to persuade them of my viewpoints, especially with faulty information. I don't know if any of this means anything to you or even if you care, but this is my effort to reach out to you and explain why I take issue with your additions, your sources and your edits. Not all, but many of them. What I hope you take away from this comment and others that have been left on your Talk page is that WP is a great place for us to learn from each other--learn from each other--and not only try to persuade each other that we are, in fact, right. After all, I care more about the accuracy of the facts that inform my perspective than I care about being able to say, "I'm right, you're wrong." I just don't see the world like that. I hope you continue to edit, but I would enjoy seeing the quality of your sources and edits improve. Dave --DavidShankBone 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

On the American Library Association page I removed the reference to WorldNetDaily and substituted a reference therefor to the ALA's own web site. For the ALA, there is no higher authority. Please don't shoot the messenger. I did not make up what it says on the ALA web site. And as to that WSJ article, you have to admit, conservative or liberal, that the article was directly relevant to the main wiki page. Anything I may have said on the Talk page might be POV but I only added a link to the article and a very brief description on the main page. And I have even removed the phrase "Democratic Senators" even though it is the truth that they were the ones threatening freedom of speech in the USA, the title of that wiki page. So I listen and react as you do as well. My edits where not based on conservativism, only the actual truth. And claims that you made that certain sources can't be trusted solely because major media will not publish them, well you know full well that the major media suppresses information they do not what the public to know. Consider today's news about the government memo showing the USA needs to leave Iraq. It's in the news, it can be trusted, right? Wrong. More of the memo came out and, after the semicolon, the memo made it clear the USA needs to stay in Iraq. Only the major media does not want to admit that. Now that's the truth. That's why the major media is shrinking and alternative news sources are flourishing. You just can't cut them out as you are trying or you are yourself engaging in POV arguments. Be that as it may, I think my more recent edits are more to your liking. --SafeLibraries 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

SL, you may or may not be right about the Mainstream Media, but generally I think you are right. I certainly would like to see more coverage of the two wars we are involved in. But this misses the point: the MM still theoretically ascribes to journalitsic standards, the kind taught in universities, and blogs and other ideologically-driven sites do not. Does the MM mess up, or cover everything we think they should? No. But WP and our editing must draw a line somewhere, and WP policy has rightfully drawn it on sources that employ fact-checkers, and whose business models will come into jeopardy if proven wrong or inaccurate. These blogs and NewsMax, DailyKOS and the like are appealing to anger and emotion on politically-charged issues and if they are wrong there is no accountability. That's why they are not acceptable as sources. This site can not be a haven for conspiracy theories to be worked into main articles that are not about conspiracy theories unto themselves. I'm sure in your line of work you are aware of the Franklin Coverup Scandal article. If you feel there is a conspiracy that is being underreported, create an article on it and let other editors judge whether it, like the Frankling Coverup Scandal, merits its own page. But working conspiracy theories and fake controversies (sorry, I don't buy the Banned Book Week thing as a controversy) into main article pages is a good way to get yourself in trouble on here. Just to let you know; you should take some time to review policy more. --DavidShankBone 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User Conduct RFC

Safelibraries-- as discussed, I've gone ahead and asked the Wikipedia community to comment on your edits, so that people who are unrelated to this dispute can help guide you. You will probably want to respond to this RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SafeLibraries.org. --Alecmconroy 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

Regarding your comment in the RfC that "I will immediately investigate what action I will take within Wikipedia and what other action I will take legally against you": I strongly suggest you remove that statement or you may be blocked. See WP:LEGAL. JoshuaZ 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's all be calm now. I did not say I will sue anyone. I said, "I will immediately investigate what action I will take within Wikipedia and what other action I will take legally against you," if you quoted me correctly. So essentially I was "threatening" to think about what I might do. Is threatening to think a violation of any policy, Wikipedia policy that is, not George Orwell. Indeed several people, in response to this statement, informed me of the wiki avenues of redress.

In exchange for being calm, I too am being calm. Despite the defamation and libel to which I have been subjected as a means of minimizing my arguments, I too have remained calm and not filed any actions within the wiki world against the defamer.

I've never heard of you before, JoshuaZ. The motivation that causes you to come to this page of someone you don't even know for the purpose you have is beyond me. Perhaps if we met at a water cooler at work, we might even like each other and, say, talk about that outstanding, rare Mets double play last night. So I say we all remain calm. --SafeLibraries 23:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ seemed perfectly calm and rational to me. Perhaps what he's saying is simply good advice. Rlitwin 01:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with thinking about using legal avenues. However, since we live in a highly litigious society almost any mention of such avenues is consider a legal threat since it has almost all the same intidimation effects as for a more explicit legal threat. Such comments therefore fall under WP:LEGAL and should be avoided. JoshuaZ 01:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on your comments and my interest in adhering to wiki policy, I reread WP:LEGAL and I did not find your view supported therein. Have I missed something? --SafeLibraries 10:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing is almost certainly close enough to constitute a claim of legal action or threat of such under the policy as it is commonly interpreted. Regardless of whether the comment falls afoul of the precise letter of the policy it carries with it all the associated problems. JoshuaZ 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. I have remained civil towards he who made the claim and he has remained civil toward me, unlike what that policy suggests. Perhaps even better than merely civil. However, I do appreciate your concern for my welfare. Thank you very much. --SafeLibraries 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Alaska

I've started revising the page. I'd be interested to know what you think. Czolgolz 13:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, great, much better. Thanks. Remember, I'm just another editor like you. I hope you continue to make great edits. --SafeLibraries 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Username

See my message above. Prodego ^talk 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Short answer, yes you do still need to change it. The reason I removed the other users comment because it said you were blocked, which is not true. (However, I did block you for a few seconds before changing my mind, since you had been editing a while, and that is probably why he/she left it). The page actually does not just discourage certain usernames, but forbids them, which you can see here. Your current name, as well as "SafeLibraries", both fall under the "Usernames that promote a company or website" criterion. If you have any other questions, please let me know, Prodego ^talk 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Prodego, for your guidance. Will change my name. --SafeLibraries 21:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Username block

Wikipedia is so peculiar. Here's a guy "Avraham" who posts without writing his name, then blocks my name for violating policy, yet his own name is a violation of policy! You have to love the hypocrisy here! No names of revered religious figures are allowed, and "Avraham" is revered by Jews, Moslems, and Christians as the father of all!!! I mean the pure hubris of this person blocking me, SafeLibraries.org, but going around as Avraham. And nevermind my apparent willingness to voluntarily change. Oh no, "Avraham" has to block me immediately! No more edits to Elmo! No more edits to Glass Flowers. But I suspect the real goal is no more edits to the American Library Association. I hereby nominate "Avraham" as a violation of wiki policy. Anyone know where I can go to register a complaint about "Avraham" using a religious man revered by billions of people from 3 major religions? --SafeLibraries 18:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username does indeed prohibit "Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". However, such names are prohibited only when they are exclusively religious references. User:Avraham is no more an exclusively religious reference than User:Mary is a reference to the virgin Mary. Your username, by contrast, bears no interpretation other than a URL for a website. However, if you request that your username be changed on this talk page, I will post a request on your behalf to Wikipedia:Changing username. Once your username is changed to comply with Wikipedia:Username, you will be unblocked. John254 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, John254, I'll change my name. Don't know what to yet. And I do want my old info tied into my new account so I can continue editting the near hundreds of pages I edit. I think I read that's possible. I'm no expert so I appreciate any help I get. Also, I don't always have time to devote hours at a time so I'll do my best. I think my name will have something to do with libraries, but will not in any other way be connected to web site. Maybe LibraryZorroDefenderOfTheMeek, how about that? Too long? --SafeLibraries 21:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked to request name change

You have been unblocked. Please contact a bueracrat at Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the instructions there for having your name change and your contributions kept. Thank you, and good luck! -- Avi 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Help, I went to change my name and it still says I'm blocked!! --SafeLibraries 00:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Try now. If it still doesn't work, I'll get help. -- Avi 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that worked. Thanks again. --SafeLibraries 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your username, again

Your request to change your username to "LibraryPaulRevere" was denied as a bureaucrat deemed the new username you requested to be inconsistent with Wikipedia:Username. Additionally, as you have continued to edit articles under your existing username, you have been blocked until the username change process is completed. You may make a new request to change your username on this talk page. I will then post a request on your behalf to Wikipedia:Changing username, with a link to your request on this page. Once your username is changed, you will be unblocked. John254 03:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Phew, John254, thanks. I continued to improve pages and revert vandalism while the name change process was in process. What a sin! Be that as it may, here is my proposed new name, and I thank you for helping me here.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

Thanks again. --SafeLibraries 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Posted for you here Wikipedia:Changing username#SafeLibraries.org → LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. -- Avi 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --SafeLibraries 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As requested, I have renamed you as User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. You may now like to move your userpages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I did that for you. Enjoy! -- Avi 02:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

THANKS TO AVI AND WAROFDREAMS FOR RESOVING THIS ISSUE AND UNBLOCKING ME! I might have thanked you earlier but I couldn't even update my Talk page! Thanks again. Hmmm. I see in preview it still says my old name. Guess I have some changes to do myself. --SafeLibraries 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Think I fixed it now. Testing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

HELP - CAN ONLY EDIT THIS PAGE, NOT EVEN MY USER PAGE: "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Grandmasterka...." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Must be an autoblock. Let me see what I can do. -- Avi 04:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Try it now, LaEC. -- Avi 04:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no good. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Try editing something, and then copy-paste the exact message here, please. Thanks. -- Avi 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, try again. I think I found your other autoblock ID. -- Avi 04:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Grandmasterka for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Someone else can submit the name change request for him. In the mean time, the user has continued to edit under this one.

Your IP address is 24.225.139.202.

• Block duration: To find when your block will expire, click on my contributions and follow the Block log link. If you have no current blocks listed, then it is most likely that you have been "autoblocked" (see below).

• AOL users: Please read Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users first.

• Username blocks: If the reason given is "username", "user...", or "contact an administrator for verification purposes", then you or someone with whom you share an IP address has most likely been blocked for choosing an inappropriate username. To request a change in username and be unblocked, please follow these instructions.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason you should be blocked now. Please log off, log on, and try one more time. -- Avi 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't help. Does this help:

04:58, 25 October 2006, Grandmasterka (Talk) blocked #286028 (expires 04:58, 26 October 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "LegitimateAndEvenCompelling". The reason given for LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's block is: "Someone else can submit the name change)

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked #286028. Let's see what happens. -- Avi 05:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Avi, and I even logged out and in again. Still cannot edit. Well, you have worked very hard to help me. I really appreciate it. I'll guess I'll just have to wait until the block expires. Thanks anyway.

Still getting this:

You are not blocked from reading pages, only from editing them. (Note: If you had clicked a red link you were blocked from starting a new page).

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Grandmasterka for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Someone else can submit the name change request for him. In the mean time, the user has continued to edit under this one.

Your IP address is 24.225.139.202.

• Block duration: To find when your block will expire, click on my contributions and follow the Block log link. If you have no current blocks listed, then it is most likely that you have been "autoblocked" (see below).

• AOL users: Please read Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users first.

• Username blocks: If the reason given is "username", "user...", or "contact an administrator for verification purposes", then you or someone with whom you share an IP address has most likely been blocked for choosing an inappropriate username. To request a change in username and be unblocked, please follow these instructions.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've posted for help at WP:AN. Maybe someone there knows more about the autoblocks. -- Avi 05:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, you are tenatious in being veryful helpful. I see user pages with Wiki awards. You should get one for the above and beyond way you are helping me!! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; it is a pleasure. If I were in your shoes, I'd want someone to help me out . Remember, sysops are not only banhammer-wielding rogues ;) PS. I've unblocked #286042, although I do not know if that will help. -- Avi 05:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

AhA! Try it now. I tried unblocking "SafeLibraries.org" and it did not return an error, which implied that "SafeLibraries.org" was still blocked. Perhaps… -- Avi 05:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I THINK IT WORKED! Let me make an actual change now to be sure. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

YES, IT WORKED! I reverted some vandalism! THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, AVI! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Great!!!! Now enjoy editing wikipedia! -- Avi 05:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Grandmasterka 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

general guidelines concerning userpages on Wikipedia

Hi and welcome to your new username and userpage. It is considered against the guidelines to have polemical information on your userpage. Please see Wikipedia:Userpage, specifically Wikipedia:Userpage#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. If you'd like to turn over a new leaf here at Wikipedia, I'd suggest keeping your personal political statements on your own website or at least on a subpage of your userspace. It's going to be very hard for you to argue that you are editing from a NPOV if your userpage out and out says that you have an agenda w/r/t the articles that you are editing. Jessamyn (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll read that policy. Just note what polemic means. When an organization, any organization, refuses to be guided by the US Supreme Court case it lost and as a result children continue to be injured nationwide, an "aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another" is essentially required. Are people to sit back and allow that organization to endanger children in defiance of the US Supreme Court? My opinion, of course.

Now perhaps Wikipedia is not the place to do that. But where Wikipedia is or rather was a major source of propaganda for that organization and in violation of various Wiki policies, then it is imperative that Wikipedia includes someone willing to ensure the application of Wiki policy. I just happen to be one of those people and I just happen to say so, so that I do not mislead anyone myself about my edits. But I'll check into that policy now as I wish to comply with Wiki policy.

I didn't think there was a problem explaining why I choose "LegitimateAndEvenCompelling" as my username, and some contextual information is required for the explanation. Further, note I made no links to my web site. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is that policy, and here are my responses:

Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. Examples of unrelated content include:

• A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities DON'T HAVE THIS
• Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia DISCUSSION IS RELATED TO MY WIKIPEDIA NAME
• Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia I HAVE ALMOST NO PERSONAL INFO
• Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the creative commons, etc. A FEW PARAGRAPHS IS NOT EXTENSIVE
• Other non-encyclopedic material AN ORGANIZATION'S REFUSAL TO FOLLOW A US SUPREME COURT CASE IT LOST IS NOT NON-ENCYCLOPEDIC
• Polemical statements:

“ libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea ”

- Jimbo Wales[1]

I AM NOT DISPUTING "A TOPIC WIDELY VIEWED TO BE A 'SACRED COW' OR BEYOND REPROACH." DEFYING THE US SUPREME COURT BY MAINTAINING AGE IS NOT A REASON TO KEEP INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL AWAY FROM CHILDREN WHERE THE US SUPREME COURT SAYS IT IS "LEGITIMATE AND EVEN COMPELLING" TO DO SO IS NOT A SACRED COW AND IS NOT BEYOND REPROACH.

• Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project DON'T HAVE THIS
• Communications with people uninvolved with the project or related work DON'T HAVE THIS
• Images which you are not free to use (see below) DON'T HAVE THIS

In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site. Many free and low-cost web hosting, email, and weblog services are widely available, and are a good alternative for content unrelated to Wikipedia. You might also want to consider Wikia for wiki-style community collaboration. I DO HAVE A SEPARATE WEB SITE THAT IS FAR, FAR MORE EXTENSIVE THAT WHAT'S HERE. THE COMMENTS HERE PERTAIN ONLY TO WHY I AM CALLED LEGITIMATEANDEVENCOMPELLING.

The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption. MY EDITS ARE MAINLY IN NUMEROUS TOPICS OTHER THAN LIBRARY-RELATED ISSUES. AND A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF MY LIBRARY-RELATED EDITS ARE NONCONTROVERSIAL. ANY EDITS THAT I DO MAKE THAT ARE CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL ARE USUALLY ONLY CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL BY MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS DEFYING THE US SUPREME COURT.

Redirecting your userpage to another page (other than your talk page or a subpage of your user page) is frowned on by some people. Doing so makes it difficult to follow links to your userpage and thus to leave you messages or to look at your contributions. The exception, of course, is if you redirect the userpage for an older account of yours to the userpage of your current account. I DO NOT DO THIS.

End of policy analysis. Please tell me where you disagree with this. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

LaeC, I am not the policy-maker or enforcer for Wikipedia. I was offering a helpful suggestion regarding your userpage and regarding your ability to make edits that other people will accept as being NPOV. Jessamyn (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I know and I thank you. Since you raised the issue, others may have the same concerns. Therefore I detailed line by line why I fall within the policy.

I appreciate your suggestion that having such information on my user page my lead some people to think I am on a soapbox with regard to the American Library Association. They may believe as they wish, but the truth is that ALA pages like that one had no balance at all until I came on the scene.

I am proud of the work I have done to ensure one-sided pages have become wikiworthy pages, and this includes non-ALA pages. My interest in the ALA's deceptions are only relevant to my being drawn to Wikipedia in the first place. Now that I am here I am perfectly within wiki policy to turn propaganda pages into wikiworthy pages, and, with the hundreds of thousands of pages here, it should be no wonder to anyone that my work regarding the ALA naturally predisposes me to editting ALA pages.

Honestly, I would not be here in the first place but for the existence of the ALA propagandistic pages that used to be here. Had the ALA written pages that were wikiworthy, instead of exact copies of pages from the ALA.org web site, I would never have gotten involved in the first place.

We all know Wikipedia is no one's property. Unfortunately, that's not what all ALA members believe, and that's why to this day I have a following of ALA members constantly ensuring that my actions are monitored minute by minute so that I do not run afoul of the ALA's public image. Well, this is Wikipedia, not ALA.org. So my soapbox runs afoul of ALA.org rules, but not Wikipedia rules. Adding balance to a propagandistic page is not a soapbox. Disclosing the constant controversies that ALA volunteers to inject itself into, such as awarding oral sex books as the best books of the year for 12 year olds, is not a soapbox -- rather it's compliance with Wikipedia policy.

So again I thank you for the suggestion but I am sure unbiased Wikipedians agree my edits as a whole are not affected by my concern that the ALA may be violating the US Supreme Court and endangering children in a way the law was meant to stop, the very law the ALA advises libraries how to sidestep (similar to how they advise libraries how to sidestep the USA PATRIOT Act designed to uncover terrorists -- hmmm -- I see it's not in the Controversy section). Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 19:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Any soapbox is a soapbox, which is against Wikipedia policy. The guidelines are not about striving for balance, they are about striving for neutral point of view, encyclopedic content and not using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Jessamyn (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for contributing here. Looking forward to our continued collaboration in the future. Hopefully I'll create neutral edits right from the start. Now where am I going to put this old soapbox.... --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you…

…for the barnstar. I was glad to be able to help. . -- Avi 05:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America

Thanks for helping with the article, we do appreciate it, but please leave dates as 2006-10-10 fmt as it's less typing, auto adjust to user's viewing prefs, and is ISO compatible. If dates don't match this, yes, they should all be made one fmt. Rlevse 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeouch! I saw so few of those. I just redid them all to the same format. I'm still doing a few that have 06 instead of 6, for example. Do you want me to change them all back? Well, I give you permission to revert all date changes if you wish, but they were in different formats. Tell me what I should do as I'm contributing since it's the collaborative scouting project of the month. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert to when you started the dates. Then since you want to help (THANKS!) change the others. I will help if you want. Rlevse 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I'll leave the date changes to you as I'm minorly confused about them now, but that's just me. But I'll go ahead and make other changes like I have, usually just to grammar and the like. But I added that great quote from President Gerald Ford. I think that's a great start to the article. The article describes Scouting, but it didn't have in it mention of the really great things it has done. Like I added the reference to the astronauts and the popularity and longevity of the Pinewood Derby. Scouting is clearly a pillar of American life and culture. It is no wonder it is under constant attack by the ACLU and the like. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallo. Just curious - what attacks do the ACLU make against Scouting?

Well, 81.104.161.147, I see this is your first addition EVER to Wikipedia! I feel honored, scouts honor! But wikipedia talk pages are about improving wikipedia pages, not about political topics. Therefore I will gracefully request you try a Google search on the terms to see for yourself. But thanks for your interest! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Algae on Pansexuality

Yes, yes we are. :) Disinclination 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It sure was a funny mistake. I like to check words that look peculiar. Most time it's just a misspelling. This time it was the wrong word, but the meaning of the wrong word actually made the sentence funny! I should have left it in! Thanks for writing here, and enjoy your algae -- do you prefer red, green or brown? Sorry, I couldn't kelp myself. And for that bad joke I'll flagellate myself. Hey, if I keep this up, maybe you'll be lichen me more. Now stop sponging off my user talk page. Hey, I'm funny; I should win a phagotrophy for this! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh good lord. You make me raw-ful. Hehe. Get it? Rofl? It's nice to know that someone to going around checking these things. Just to make sure we're not fanatical about algae. :)Disinclination 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the Jay-Z article

Hello! First of all, nice work cleaning up the article! You attacked quite a few of the issues I've had with the article for some time now. One minor thing; you might want to have a look here for clarification about how stage names and full names should be formatted. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 15:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		...is awarded to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling for major clean-up above and beyond the call of duty on the Jay-Z article. Play on, playa! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 15:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU! My first Barn Star! And I'll look into the naming policy. Thanks again! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of banned books

Please don't cite websites like WorldNetDaily as sources -- they are far too partisan to be trustworthy sources for most subjects. (And also, you might want to try to clean up the formatting on your talk page so it isn't so wide...) Haikupoet 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugg, my formating was awful. I canned it.

I'll leave out the WND article for now, but I'm restoring the other as it does not suffer from what you say the WND article suffers from and as it has already passed muster with a number of other wikipedians. Note, however, the banned books article is totally weighted to one side--the WND article provided a little balance, but you excised it.

Can you, instead of just cutting out other people's work, suggest a way to cite to the same or similar information showing conservative books are banned from college campuses nationwide? This is a matter of balance, not of my political point of view. I will mull adding an NPOV tag due to your removal of the only balance in the article -- indeed the title of the article is misleading as almost none of those books is banned in reality. Challenged, maybe, but not banned. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is not balance, it is NPOV or neutral point of view. Please cite authoritative sources and note what it says under the contribution box "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Editing and getting edited is part of Wikipedia culture. Jessamyn (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New species

Thanks for that article, was a good read. It is amazing what is found in that part of the world. It is the same in New Guinea, where people are constantly finding huge numbers of new species when they reach an area they have never been. They even continue to find them in pre-explored regions. There were >20 found on a plateau last year, and it happened again this year! Plus, they found tonnes of new fish, in a coral which had not been studied by scientists. --liquidGhoul 13:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Alaska quote

Do you really think that warrents being in three different articles? Especially when your only sources is such a POV site? I say we put it to a vote.

Czolgolz 13:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in one of the articles, in the Talk page, I specifically raised the issue. No one responded. For months and months. So there seems to be no problem.

Now, on the John Green page, this being a John Green quote about an award winning book of his, this being a quote that he would not give his own award winning book to his own child if he had one due to its inappropriateness for certain ages, this being a highly unusual quote, it is perfectly encyclopedic. You do not think it is interesting that the guy wins an award for his book for 12 years olds from the American Library Association but he himself thinks it's only appropriate for 14 year olds and up? You think this happens everyday so its ho hum? The ALA is actively promoting sexually inappropriate books for young children, and here, the author of one such book says he would not give even his own book to his own 12 year old if he had one. This is highly encyclopedic.

Your claim the quote is from a POV site is irrelevant since I did not cite or quote or even mention any controversy from that site. I merely quoted a single sentence as it was relevant to John Green himself.

Consider also the way in which it was presented. I used almost no words of my own, providing only his own quote, and perhaps a connective word like "although." Are you suggesting "although" is a point of view phraseology? Well, then, change although to "and." Would that make you happier?

Now, as to the other pages, leaving out the quote is point of view. That's right. Now quoting John Green in this case leaves one with the impression the book and the Award is honky dorry in the world. Well, it is not. And that is not my POV. That is based on John Green's own statement. I am merely placing his statement on those pages. And that particular quote also belongs on the Looking For Alaska page and the Prinz Award page. Not the YA Literature page, and I did not put it there, or similar such pages. But to leave it out, indeed for you to take it out, even where it was already discussed in Talk and no objections were raised, that is the definition of point of view.

Further evidence of your POV is that you complained it was on 3 pages. One would think you might have removed it from 1 or 2 pages. But no, you removed it from all 3 pages. Pure POV.

Further, John Green made that quote. He is likely proud of it and would make it again. Who are you to cut out his own quote from his own wiki page? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I see on the Looking For Alaska page you made a change more in keeping with wikipeditude. It's quite good really. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I finally had time to get back to this (newborn daughter). Generally, blogs are not legitimate references in wiki. I'm sure the site you cite is fine, but there's no way of telling whether the site's author is really quoting, or taking something out of context, or making it up. If the rules apply to other articles, it applies here too. Also, I think the quote is kind of ramrodded into the article (see my change to the main book article). Finally, I don't think the quote warrents a triple inclusion, I doubt even 'ask not what your country can do for you' is in wiki three times. I'd reccomend it be included in the looking for alaska article only. If you absolutely feel it must be in more than once, I'd say in the award article. If you have no objections, I'd like to remove it from the author's page, I think the subject has been sufficiently covered elsewhere.

By the way, have you read Looking for Alaska? It's a great book. Czolgolz 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Librarian and young adult author

PS when responding to someone, it's a good idea to write in their talk page, not your own, since they probably won't check yours.

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on February 20 2007 to Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Block

I made an addition. After some intermediate disagreement, someone else rewrites it. This is the consensus that wiki is all about. Then a series of newbies with IP addresses either being actually different people or the same person using different computers, removes the rewritten material by the other editor without explanation, initially. I put it back. They do it again and again, and I put it back, each time clearly explaining why it belongs that any unbiased person would at least consider. Then ElKevbo says I violated a revert rule. I cannot believe reverting vandalism or whatever you want to call these out-of-policy cuts by newbie?/newbies? of someone else's work could violate any wiki policies. Jimbo Wales himself could not possibly look and say, well, the vandals cut someone's work repeatedly and this other person kept putting it back, so let's stop this other person from righting the wrongs done by the vandals, or whatever they are. With the series of edits by similar but different IP addresses, all with few edits under their/his/her belt(s), I did not know what to do besides restore the other person's material they kept taking down. Yes, I initially added some of the material, but it was completely redone, except an actual quotation, by a third party. This team of people or single person kept taking it down under the circumstances described. Please advise how to handle that kind of situation. Even now the material excised needs to be restored until policy is followed, but this ElKevbo action prevents that. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to stick within WP:3RR. As to the page in question: in general you want WP:DR. If an anon is being unreasonable, then seek advice, possibly get the page semi-protected, but stick within 3RR William M. Connolley 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That's it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful you don't revert 3+ times on censorware either. We can't have 2 separate articles, so the redirect is correct - but others can revert, don't get yourself blocked. Secretlondon 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

I have accepted the mediation case involving Looking for Alaska, Michael L. Printz Award and John Green (writer). I am contacting all involved parties. If there is someone else who has been involved in the disagreement, please let me know so I can invite them to participate. I am currently reviewing all three pages and their talk pages. Please indicate if you accept my assistance on the case page. Cheers!! Vassyana 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation has been accepted by all involved editors. The case has been updated. I have posed some questions at the case page. Thanks! Vassyana 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A compromise has been proposed. Please review my suggestion and let us know what you think. Vassyana 07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a few suggestions that may help get us to a final agreement. Please review the case page. Thanks! Vassyana 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply asked you to understand how all those appeared when taken together. I also asked everyone, including you, to show where John Green said what you claimed he did and provided the full quotation from the source he provided. I am sincerely sorry you feel that I was "changing the facts". As for "will not even let a single phrase by the author in", you have an opportunity to show where the author states what you claim. You may feel your user page is "irrelev[ent] to this particular matter", but I was asking you to understand how it appears, taken with everything else. I am asking you reconsider not participating in the discussion. The author's full quote was provided and you've been provided with an opportunity to justify your claims against that quote. This page will be on my talk list, please indicate if you will reconsider or if you flat out refuse to continue. Vassyana 18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "flat out refusal." It's just a matter of getting tired of banging my head against of wall of people who seem to use my user page as a reason to exclude a direct quote from the subject of the wiki page, on a stub page, no less. And you have indeed changed the facts. For one example, we discussed the specific quote John Green stated that's wikiworthy. You then, for example, paste up a large portion of what he said, then say you do not see the specific quote. JayHenry did essentially the same thing. Instead of addressing the issue of an author saying he would not give his own award winning book to his own child on the wiki page for the Printz award, instead the argument was twisted into an irrelevant one, namely, that John Green's book contains controversial material. You see when you and others change the arguments into ones that are irrelevant, it's easy to explain why the irrelevant material should not be included. You are redefining what you want, the way you want. Not once has any single person addressed the issue I raised initially, except Cgolholz tangentially, who early on was willing to compromise. I was too. Then I let others write it up, and JayHenry stepped to the plate and wrote something totally irrelevant to the issue I raised and total irrelevant to the article generally. It's just impossible to get any of you to stay on point. And when I point out how people wander off point in an effort to get them back on all fours, I'm told I'm attacking people, something for which you have not yet apologized. So this is not "flat out refusal." This is just giving up talking to people who see compromise as everyone agreeing to exclude wikiworthy information on a stub page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase to be added is part of the material highlighted here: [3] --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously uncomfortable with my continued presence as mediator. Would you be willing to continue the mediation if I bow out and ask another MedCab volunteer to pick up the case? This way we can keep the mediation alive and get another neutral party to continue the process. Let me know if that would help the situation for you and if so, I'll make sure it happens. I want to help find solutions, not cause more conflict. Vassyana 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm had my fill of abuse for a while. I have a real life beyond wikipedia. I'll just edit other pages like Jay-Z where I get barnstars instead of bum steers. Thanks anyway. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, one of the people who removed John Green's quote was 66.158.92.10. That person is a member or employee of the ALA. Congratulations, you became the ALA's useful idiot. (Not a personal attack - merely a term used to describe people who mindlessly carry out the wishes of those with certain questionable intentions.) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. If you wish to become involved in the article and content at a later point and desire another neutral party, I can reopen the case for you. I am also sorry you feel that I am a patsy for the ALA's agenda. You really should review Wikipedia's policies. If they are confusing to you or you do not understand how they apply, you can always ask another editor or ask on the policy's or guideline's talk page. Be well and happy editing! Vassyana 04:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Parental controls

I noticed you were adding a lot of external links to the 'See also' section of Parental controls. That section is for internal Wikipedia links only. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and we don't need a link to the parental control features of Vista and Mac OS; the article isn't about them specifically. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But isn't there some way to give people a list of parental controls from decent vendors like AOL, Apple, AT&T, Windows? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You could always work on List of content-control software. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! No, I won't, but I'm giving up on the ACLU page as my concern in that is only so far as the American Library Association [ALA] gets its marching orders from the ACLU. After all a top ALA leader was also concurrently an ACLU board member. However, you can see my efforts to stop the repeated wholesale censorship of negative information from various ALA pages, a task quite unreal given the ALA arrogates to itself the role of the nation's censorship police, even claiming, despite US v. ALA and common sense, it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep a children from accessing sexually inappropriate material. And that ALA/ACLU member is the direct cause for this. So I keep trying, and believe me, it is trying. --SafeLibraries 12:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Last Mimzy plot synopsis

I see you're interested in working on this plot. The original contributor (to most of it, anyways) asked for some help on it so I did some surgery here (bottom of page). Feel free to make use of it if you like. Happy editing! —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  02:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question. The plot is *extremely* detailed. Isn't that a problem from a wiki policy point of view? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question. There seem to be a lot of wikilinks, as in overusage. Like a link to a box. Is that not also a wiki policy problem? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I cut the plot down quite a bit, but felt uncomfortable going further immediately because I haven't seen the movie. Also, I mentioned to the original editor that the links needed to be reviewed. I wouldn't worry too much about the detail, except, since you've seen the film, please go ahead and condense further (I agree it needs to be cut further — others will edit it down as well). And wikilink as you see fit. I just didn't what you to whittle away if some of the work had already been accomplished. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, so I won't cut either, preferring to leave it to others more knowledgeable in wiki policy. And I see the mandala page needs attention as well. By the way, the movie was extremely entertaining and thought provoking. Also, it may be the first movie I have seen in years that did not include the now-obligatory bathroom/urine/or dodo scene, if I recall correctly. Go see the movie. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your edits, Leg. You and Jim have far more experience it appears than I do so I'm happy that you've been able to cut things out. When I originally wrote it, it was difficult since Jim hadn't seen the film. I'm glad that another fan has ruthlessly edited. Looks good so far, but I would agree that some items could be chopped further. Jim mentioned a themes section -- what do you think? Is it worth exploring or would it just add unnecessary verbiage? Furthermore, I'm not aware of policies; its been a while since I joined so things undoubtedly have changed. Again, my first concern was to capture the data and in the correct order. I figure editing can come afterward. Cheers. Jpittman 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, you've done a fine job. Excellent. I'm not a wiki expert, but I think a read a policy somewhere that wiki is to provide a synopsis of things, not a full description of each and every turn along the way. So your writing is excellent, and it just may be wiki policy that requires it be shortened. But I do not know where I saw this, or indeed if I actually did see this. So I am certainly not one to criticize if I have no solid basis for doing so. Wait, let me check my mandala. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You have issues

VVisit this- http://asifnews.blogspot.com/BTW those quotes on the chocolate war don't belong there.This wikipedia,not-prove-a -point-apedia. unsigned, but added 23:58, 17 April 2007 209.244.43.202 (Talk)

IBDP

I dropped a few lines on the IBDP talk page, while I'm no policy expert either, I'd say common sense usually does just as well, which is what I based my reply on. -Obli (Talk)^? 11:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Obli. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rochester, New York link to http://www.stoplibraryporn.org/

Good morning!

I removed your addition of the external link from the Rochester, New York page... in general, Wikipedia endeavors to not be a directory of links (see WP:EL and WP:NOT for further details). However, this may be a notable topic that could warrant mention within the article itself -- consider adding a paragraph or so about the situation, in your own words, citing the web site as a reference. That will serve the Wikipedia's goal of being an encyclopedia much better than a simple external link.

If you have any questions or response, please feel free to respond on my talk page. Thank you! Rtucker 12:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Okay, I'll try to get to it. It is a rather major issue up there for quite some time now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I live in Rochester :-) Fortunately, there's plenty of local media coverage on this, so a well-referenced, NPOV paragraph or two should, in theory, be possible. Thanks! Rtucker 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is is true Rochester averages only 30 days a year of cloudless, sunny days? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the NWS climatological records, we've had 6 clear and 43 partly cloudy days so far this year; the data are available here. "Cloudless" is a pretty specific condition, though, so I prefer to count a good portion of the "partly cloudy" days as "mostly sunny." In either case, today is unmistakably cloudy.  :-) Rtucker 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your deletions of 68.21.5.18's sockpuppetry

68.21.5.18 recently made two changes, which you undid on the grounds of sockpuppetry. I'll take your word for it that he is sock puppet. The link he added to Internet Censorship, "http://www.savetheinternet.com savetheinternet.com, Save the Internet: Petition against Internet censorship," seems legit. His second edit, adding "(mandatory filtering)" to Bess (censorware), seems legit also. Consider restoring them. The only good reasons I can think of to delete these are if Wikipedia has policy of deleting sockpuppet edits even when the edits are legitimate in their own right, or if the edits in question have already been discussed and rejected. Davidwr 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I'll respond with more information soon. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the facts. I will not reverse my edits, and you won't either after I explain why they were made. I say that not in a bad way, but in a way that recognizes your apparent interest in working within the wiki community to build wikiworthy articles.

First, thank you for taking for granted that the person is a sock puppeteer. That saves me from have to prove it. Be that as it may, this particular sock puppet is almost certainly a leading member of the American Library Association. No problem there, yet, but watch.

That savetheinternet.com link this ALA member added is to a web site that explicitly lists the ALA as a "Charter Member" of the SaveTheInternet Coalition. Last I knew, wiki policy would not allow the ALA to add a link of which the ALA is a charter member, particularly when said link is added in the manner necessarily subsumed within the definition of sock puppetry. This is definitely a gross violation of wiki policy here, and indeed there may even be gross violations that expand beyond wikipedia.

Now as to the "(mandatory filtering)" matter, that language being added was merely duplicative of the existing language. Indeed the sock puppeteer put it in parenthesis implicitly confirming the addition was of minor import. Further, the addition is not necessarily accurate and adds an ALA spin that is not acceptable under wiki policy, again considering it was added by the ALA in the guise of a sock puppeteer.

So that is the full explanation. I thank you for showing concern in this regard, and I am happy to supply a full a complete explanation, other than links to specific wiki policies I'll leave up to the reader. If the sock puppeteer under different sock puppets continues to add the information, I will continue to remove it, minding the 3RR rule, then I will rely on others, perhaps yourself, to maintain wiki compliance.

Thanks again. Does this satify your concerns? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mostly. Now I'm wondering why the American Library Association is not allowed to add a relevant link to a site to which it happens to be involved in. Does that apply to all organizations? I must have missed that policy somewhere. Can you help me find it? BTW, is there evidence that the particular self-promotion was anything but incidental? Davidwr 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the policy: Vanity guidelines.

As to the BTW, the sock puppeteer's actions on the one page standing alone is not exceptional. However, due to the inherent nature of being a sock puppeteer, the point is an overall effort on page after page of all the sock puppeteer's incarnations of essentially the exact same activity. Now we have (thankfully) assumed for the sake of argument that the person is a sock puppeteer. Now I ask that you to accept as well that I have been watching this particular sock puppeteer over a long period of time jump from sock puppet to sock puppet in a manner resulting in the very type of editting sock puppeteers use to bend Wikipedia to the will of the sock puppeeteer. Further, the sock puppeteer's edits have been reverted again and again by a variety of wikipedians who are also aware of this particular sock puppeteer's actions. One time the sock puppeteer even take on a real name, only to revert, apparently, to using more sock puppets. Now for more details on that particular policy, see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

Any other concerns? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought a sock puppet was someone who edits under more than one account. Are you claiming that this person has a legit Wikipedia account that they edit under and then that same person also edits from these IP addresses? Is there anything other than the fact that these IP addresses resolve to Chicago that makes you think they are ALA people as opposed to, say, some interested Chicagoland librarian? If it's just someone who is interested who doesn't have a main account and chooses to edit from IP addresses, that's not suck puppetry as I understand the term. Can you spell it out a bit more? Jessamyn (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Vanity Guidelines. Davidwr 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Jessamyn, to my user page. To those who don't know, Jessamyn is a rather wellknown librarian; there is even a Jessamyn West (librarian) wiki page! She and I have sparred from time to time and she has always been, in my opinion, one who stays within wiki policy and does not use ad hominem argument. I also observe her to be intellectually honest, even if I disagree with her. And while she strongly supports the ALA, she is not automatically in the ALA's pocket. So again, welcome.

What do you mean Chicago? I use www.arin.net to resolve IP addresses. I think that's the leading source for such information. That IP address resolves to Richardson, TX. See for yourself by plugging 68.21.5.18 into here. I honestly could not figure out the connection between Richardson, TX and the ALA, until now, thank you. How did you figure out it was Chicago? Do you know this person?

OrgName: SBC Internet Services

OrgID: SIS-80

Address: 2701 N. Central Expwy # 2205.14

City: Richardson

StateProv: TX

PostalCode: 75080

Country: US

NetRange: 68.20.0.0 - 68.23.255.255

CIDR: 68.20.0.0/14

As to spelling out a bit more the connection to the ALA, well you have just added more information to show that. I have other reasons, of course, but I only have so much time in a day and spelling out what you are requesting would be too time consuming now for little gain. This particular sock puppeteer even admitted to the sock puppetry when a real wiki name was finally selected. Hey, if they admit to it, I don't have to prove it, right?

Thanks again, Jessamyn, for visiting. I'll be here anytime to discuss anything further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the same sock puppeteer has struck again, this time using a, surprise, different sock puppet. This time using 68.21.2.202. Again, it resolves to Richardson, TX on arin.net. I just reverted the edits for the reasons given above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And the sock puppeteer did it AGAIN! This time the rationale was ad hominem arguments to rv my reversions. Really this person is gone lulu, and consideration might be given to blocking edits from the IP range above, or something more targeted, if possible. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet AGAIN!! Only this time I cannot revert now without violating 3RR. So this is 9:30PM ish EST. Will someone please revert the sock puppeteer's puppetry at Internet censorship‎ and Bess (content-control software)? Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess my concern is that except for the IP address and some allegations by you, I don't know anything about this person. What username did they pick? Why do you think they're a sock puppet? Why can't you link to the other things they did if they're so blatant. No offense, but I think that without further information from you I'll let this one lie. Jessamyn (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. It's a lot of work to get this info for you. I have been collecting it over a long course of time. Let me give you some easier, far from complete information. The user is Anonamaus, cute, huh? After hiding under IP addresses, the anonymous user chooses Anonamaus as his or her name.

Now as to why I think what I think, and proof of sock puppetry, well that question comes too late. Why? Already, in the course of this very discussion, the sock puppeteer has already morphed into a new sock puppet. The thing illustrates itself.

And as to blatant, I could give you a long list of many months on multiple pages, but again, even during the course of this conversation, again the sock puppeteer has switched to a new sock puppet, and has made changes that violate wiki policy. For example, when history of reversion specifies specific wiki policy violations, the sock puppet justs reverts the revert, apparently not caring to read or explain why the wiki policies raised do not apply. Rather, his/her reversion reason each time now while we are discussing this very topic is ad hominem argument that we both know is irrelevant to wiki policy.

So I do not think I need to prove what happened in the past when right now, currently, even possibly as I am writing this, the sock puppeteer is jumping sock puppets, violating wiki policies, and responding with ad hominem attacks. He/she is doing now what he/she did in the past which caused me and others to revert the edits in the first place. I know you are fair. Just watch this sock puppet in action and I am sure you will agree there is a problem here, and it's not me. By the way, how did you know the user is in Chicago? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please revert the sock puppeteer's puppetry wouldn't that make me your sock puppet? j/k I think. Seriously, if these articles are going to be the target of a continuious edit war, consider semi-protecting them. On the other hand, the impact of this particular edit-war is minor. It might be better to leave the article alone for a week or two then edit it back when the sock-puppet isn't looking. It's a real shame that this edit is part of a war, because I like the link. I do not like abuse of the system though. Let someone who is willing to stand up and use an established, non-special-purpose account post the link and take responsibility for it. Davidwr 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Davidwr. Let someone else who is not in violation of conflict of interest rules and sock puppetry rules do it. But they won't. Why? Look at the talk page for Internet censorship where yet another wikipedian calls into question the sock puppeteer's addition of that web site his/her organization is a "charter member" of. He says the addition about net neutrality has nothing to do with Internet censorship. I agree. And that is yet another good reason it does not belong and is further evidence of the soap boxing being done by the sock puppeteer. Then the sock puppeteer his/herself gives a lot of detail of why she made the addition. So we get to hear from her for a change. But I respond as to why she needs to follow wiki policy and why her fears of what might happen in the future are essentially POV and do not belong on that page. See for yourself: Talk:Internet censorship Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"But they won't." Don't be so sure. I won't do it today because I don't want to be seen as rewarding bad behavior. I might do it after it's been gone for a few weeks, if I remember. On the other hand, I might not: In effect, you asked me not to restore the link, and when an administrator asks an editor not to do something, it can be intimidating. Davidwr 13:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm no administrator. I'm just like you, another wikipedian. I'm only one of hundreds of thousands. You can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and you don't need me to tell you that. Hence the importance of the various wiki policies and the need to follow them. As it turns out, yet another wikipedian pulled down the linkspam for a reason not discussed here, but under another policy. That's it. The policy is the guide, not me, and not anyone else, although administrators have significant experience from what I've seen. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin? Ah my mistake. Davidwr 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pobody's nerfect. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the sock puppeteer has been jumping sock puppets again and again and continuing in the same fashion as usual. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me be very clear here. If they are posting form an IP address, that is NOT what sock puppetry is. Sock puppetry is someone using many registered usernames. If you have data or links to usernames, post them here. Jessamyn (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This case is a bit ambiguous. The user is using multiple IP addresses. If the change is unintentional, such as with a user whose IP forces a change on him or a user who routinely accesses the Internet from multiple locations, then it is not sock-puppetry. If it is a user who goes out of his way to force IP address changes to fool people into thinking it is more than one person, then that is effectively the same as using multiple usernames, and is sock-puppetry in spirit if not in name. Likewise, multiple people posting anonymously in concert is sock-puppetry by definition, whether or not they use the same IP address range or not. I don't think anyone except the user or users using these IP addresses know for sure. I agree with you on one thing though: LegitimateAndEvenCompelling should put all his cards on the table so we can all see everything LAEC knows or thinks he knows about this anonymous editor or editors. Davidwr 16:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I argue that the sock puppeteer has been acting as a sock puppeteer even after we started this discussion. So instead of producing evidence from the past, one need only look at the evidence from the present.

So here's the evidence: go to the IP addresses contribs pages, using the various IP addresses discussed here. Then look at the edits. They are almost solely on certain pages and almost solely the exact same edits. Further, since this sock puppeteer continues to take on new sock puppet IP addresses, look at the history on those pages and see still more IP addresses (all pointing to Richardson, TX on arin.net - still waiting for Jessamyn to explain how they map to Chicago) making the exact same edits that necessarily violate wiki policy in the exact same ways already discussed here and perhaps in the various Talk pages where this sock puppeteer spreads his POV.

It is in Chicago. Use traceroute or tracert against one of the IP addresses and you'll see where it comes from. Davidwr 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In short, thanks to the continuing violations of wiki policy by the ever morphing sock puppeteer, the material of which I complained in the past is the exact same as the material that is occurring in the present and that is open and obvious for anyone to see, thereby obviating the need for me to "put all my cards on the table." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's some guidance from an admin: "Well you can bring it up on WP:ANI and/or get the socks declared socks, which makes the blocks easier." And thanks for your last comment, Davidwr. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: the sock puppetry continues unabated. And, living up to my high regard for Jessamyn, Jessamyn, a member of the ALA, has just reverted another POV effort by the sock puppeteer (this time 66.158.92.4) who is a high ranking member of the ALA. That person added a link to the ALA Store to the ALA page. Jessamyn rolled it back! Good work, Jessamyn! See the addition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Library_Association&diff=prev&oldid=129350270 and the rollback here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Library_Association&diff=129391287&oldid=129350270

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record only, I don't know if this user is or is not an ALA member and I disagree with your definition of sock puppet, but a link to the ALA store didn't seem necessary or prudent on the ALA wikipedia page. Jessamyn (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, you'd be redfaced if you knew whose edit you reverted. I was going to revert it as well when I first saw it as it was part of the series of conflict-of-interest edits this person is making, but I choose to let another do it just to add to the series of people all reverting the sock puppets edits when they violate wiki policy (not all do). Then you did the reversion. Bravo! Yes, you and I are on opposite sides of the fence, but you have always and will likely always act honorably and in according with wiki rules, unlike the sock puppeteer. That's why I like you!

You know what, Jessamyn, you are so fair, I'm going to email you something I want you to see that may be an eye opener for you. Perhaps you could add it to librarian.net, if you like. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Very little embarasses me. Feel free to tell me whose edit you think I was reverting, otherwise I'd appreciate a little less of the wink wink activity if you're not going to explain what you're implying. Jessamyn (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I do not want to do so publicly here on Wikipedia. So I will tell you who it is via a private communication between you and me. The person has been careful to hide his identity on Wikipedia, and I won't violate that in respect of the person and of wiki policies, but I am certain this person would not mind my communicating with you privately on this topic. You probaby know each other pretty well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Jessamyn, now that you know, simply write the sock puppeteer an email and ask if it's who I say it is. An honest answer will solve it there. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. This is not something I want to do. If you can't spell out the connection clearly here, I don't want to go asking random people online if they are or not editing certain Wikipedia pages. Jessamyn (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not random. It is who I said it was. I don't want to spell it out here because of simple courtesy. The exposition I could give would not leave a shadow of a doubt. But she and her organization would look really bad. That is not my goal here on wikipedia. The goal is only to edit wikipedia with others all working together for the common good. Remember all those lessons I got from you and others? Well they worked. And I have been attempting to guide that person again and again into being a great wikipedian. Some of her edits are very good, in part because of his/her special position/knowledge. So I won't reveal that info unless he/she directly challenges me to do so. But the info is not a secret--it is available for all to see--so I would not be disclosing anything the person has not already disclosed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Karen Minnis

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and User:Dnstrom: Please stop the repeated reversions of external links on the Karen Minnis article. Going back and forth is a pointless waste of Wikipedia's resources. I would suggest that you begin by discussing your differing opinions on the talk page; if you have difficulty coming to agreement, Mediation is an excellent resource. -Pete 00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A newbie (2 edits ever, both smearing Karen Minnis) adding negative information of the type that needs to be immediately removed on a living person's page violates wiki policy. My reversion of such edits is completely within wiki policy--it is not opinion. I have no difficulty agreeing wiki policy trumps people's needs to smear living people in violation of wiki policy. The smears that violate wiki rules stay off the page until it is proven they are not smears, not vice versa. Therefore, I will continue to comply with wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you have a defensible position (not quite the same as "I think you're right.") Though by no means required, I'd like to suggest that you demonstrate editing which exceeds WP policy, precisely because the other user in question is relatively new. It is my belief that exemplifying civility and the assumption of good faith is the best way to help newer users adapt to these sometimes confusing environs, and build a foundation for positive contributions to Wikipedia. Of cours, I understand that my own goal is not necessarily yours. -Pete 02:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, Pete. It's true I could have given the guy a better explanation. I should not have assumed he was just another in a series of such people adding the same poorly sourced material. In any case, the person needs to know the material stays off until it can be shown to be within wiki policy. Sometimes these people add the smears and expect them to stay up ... you know how it is. I'll try to be kindler and gentler while adhering to policy, such as by gently advising specific policy being abrogated. Only problem is I'm no policy expert and wikipedia is not my life ... you know how it is. And thanks for commenting here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alliance Defense Fund

I have raised some concern about the lack of a NPOV in a certain paragraph of the Alliance Defense Fund article, and having noted that you have shown interest in previous talk page discussions on this topic would invite you to input at Talk:Alliance_Defense_Fund#Referencing_and_NPOV. thanks Keylay31^hablame 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look. I'm just a little busy right now, just so you know. And thanks for asking! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

AFA

If other edits say more in circulation, then I don't care about removing it. But for further reference, citing to PFAW is not in violation of WP:VER policy, nor is it in violation of WP:NPOV, because PFAW has editorial oversight. References do not have to be neutral to be reliable. Understand this please. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly PFAW is opposed to the AFA. Clearly PFAW benefits by minimizing the circulation numbers--it's an age old game people play against each other or perhaps the media play. Clearly other sources are saying the circulation is almost 3 times what PFAW reported. Clearly the page you cited goes into many reasons why the AFA is the evil organization it is in the eyes of PFAW, and leading someone their just to confirm a number is not encyclopedic. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. In the above circumstances, the provided cite to PFAW is clear POV. Further, I'm sure an industry standard magazine is available that discloses the information in a nonbiased fashion. That is obviously the preferred source of information rather than the PFAW article. Please try to follow policy--it only makes it easy for everyone, even you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PFAW is a relible source, I'm not going to debate it. I said if there is edit (maybe more up to date) with a different source then I don't mind using it in the article instead, but cite your souce instead of deleting the referce all together. I think it should be refernced how large the publication is to better inform the readers of AFA's influence and size. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The source I found was just from a quick Google search, and I did not deem it to be of particular significance either, as it suffers from some of the same problems as the PFAW reference. I am not a magazine circulation expert. I'll bet someone else knows how to get that info. And if I find it out, I'll be sure to include it.

Which reminds me. I don't see the circulation numbers as being terrible significant either, and they change from month to month. So why even add the circ numbers in the first place? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see why. Let me find that source again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2479/is_n7-8_v22/ai_17195106 "Unofficial membership in the non-profit organization is based solely on AFA Journal subscriptions of $15 a year. Income generated by the publication's circulation of 453,000 is bolstered by...." American Family Association - Special Issue: Fundamentalist Media, by Christine J. Russo, Afterimage, Feb-March, 1995. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that source is from over 10 years ago. I think we should use the more recent source (PFAW) unless you can find another one. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking. I think circ numbers is a big so what and doesn't belong in the article in the first place. Since you added it in, you have the duty to support your claim. You did, with the PFAW article. Then I had the duty to suggest the PFAW article is nonwikiworthy. I did. The best thing now would be to find an unbiased source.

Listen, you have repeatedly admitted how you can't stand the AFA. And you have repeatedly added POV and original research. That does not give one confidence that anything you add would in any way be unbiased, given your history. You have the duty here to provide unbiased sources. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I don't have to duty to do anything. You are the one who violates policy by removing well-sourced information time after time. I am in accordance with WP:VER. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Just because a source doesn't agree with you doesn't mean it is not reliable. You're summarily rejecting sources because they are not "wikiworthy", despite them clearly complying with WP:RS (MMFA and PFAW for example). Then you turn around and say that there's no sources so you delete the material. That's unsupportable. Orpheus 16:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Orpheus. The PFAW link says 180,000 is the circulation. Another link says almost 500,000 is the circulation. The main problem with PFAW is that it may be wrong. Look, I admitted the other source may suffer from the same problems as the PFAW source. But I suggested we get the real value from a real source, not from a biased source one way or the other.

As to the PFAW source not agreeing with me and therefore it is unreliable to me, that is a silly argument. I have not counted the number of AFA Journal subscriptions. All I see is PFAW says 180K, the AFA says almost 500K, unbiased sources make this their business to track, and we should be using those unbiased sources. So I don't even know the number, supposedly according to you, so it could not possibly conflict with my nonexistent view. Frankly, who cares anyway? The point is to get accurate, encyclopedic numbers, not biased numbers, whether they be from PFAW or from AFA.

As to summarily rejecting sources, when an article is suggested from the past and no link is made and no search can find it, it is really hard to argue that I am rejecting sources. There where no sources there in the first place! I even asked for a clarification so I could evaluate the artile, and I was rebuffed with suggestions I was too lazty yo get the article myself. This does not build confidence that the asserter of the source is a serious editor.

Further, the same person (I think you) asserting other sources that, when examined critically, do not support the assertions of that person, does not mean I am rejecting sources "because they are not wikiworthy." Rather, they are rejected because they to do support the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, there is no need to evaluate the wikiworthiness of a source if the source simply does not support an editor's assertion in the first place!

I and the others are ready, willing, and able to add anything encyclopedic to any article. But the sources provided so far do not support the assertions claimed or they simply are nonexistent. This has nothing to do with bias or favoritism or anything like that. This is just that the sources asserted either do not support the assertions or are just plain nonexistent.

Now as to "Then you turn around and say that there's no sources so you delete the material. That's unsupportable." Well, it is totally supportable where 1) the sources are non existent, and/or 2) the sources do not assert what the editor claims they assert.

Really, you can go on and on for decades until your fingers fall off from constantly claiming why nonwikiworthy sources should be used because it's the thought that counts, but that would just be wrong. Can't you simply provide proper sources? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You claim PFAW must be incorrect, but the source you stated is from over 10 years ago. I hardly see something that old as having an accurate number. A more recent source, 2001, from AFA's web site states it is 350,000 in circulation [4]. Even more recent sources, 2005, including the Washington Times, said the AFA journal is approaching 200,000 monthly circulation. [5][6] Maybe the AFA wants to make it seems like there are more in circulation then there really is, or maybe there used to be a lot, but now there isn't. Who knows, but it seems that the PFAW's number is close to the Washington Times, which is a reliable source and that source you stated, which is almost 500,000, is way off, even according to the AFA themselves. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! Real sources! I'll take a look. The point here is accuracy. But I have to do something else now, so l8r. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PFAW is a "real source" also. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But the sources provided so far do not support the assertions claimed or they simply are nonexistent. I object to that - the New York Times articles I quoted are not nonexistent, they're just not online. You have the ability to check - your local library will have archives of the New York Times (unless some pressure group has had it removed because of liberal bias or something) and you have the date, so it should be easy enough to find the article. The other sources do support the assertion, but you're trying to redefine things so that they don't. It's the whole "advocates censorship vs censors" redefinition. The AFA does the same thing in their FAQ. "Are we anti-gay? No, of course not. We just want gay people to stop being gay." (I paraphrase) Orpheus 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Look. Hillary Clinton just called for a "legislative fix" to halt talk radio she opposes. Trent Lott is interested in something similar. Is it right to go on those wiki pages and add the Censorship category? The American Library Association refused to allow access to it training seminars. Shall I add Censorship to them, the USA's self-arrogated Censorship police? Daytime TV stations no longer show jingoistic cartoons. Is that Censorship? Millions of parents worldwide don't want their children to view pornography. Shall we go into all of the wiki pages of all individuals and add the Censorship category? Shall I go on?

And you cited to an NYT story that cannot be produced and no other sources. Are we supposed to be impressed with that? This is an encyclopedia. It's called Wikipedia. It's not called Orpheusopedia.

In Orpheusopedia, one gets to cite to articles that no one else can examine that requires going to a library with a microfiche room, and there is no need to cite to any other article because only that one will do. Further, in Orpheusopedia, any suggestion that Orpheusbo Wales is not providing good sources is immediately met with the most vociferous and obnoxious behavior that has at its heart the goal of making people give up out of sheer exhaustion so as to allow Orpheusbo Wales to say anything he wants in Orpheusopedia whether or not it is true.

I'm not going to check into this, but one has to wonder if you treat Wikipedia like Orpheusopedia here, have many other wiki pages are similarly infected? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of questions you have. Here are my answers.

• Is it right to go on those wiki pages and add the Censorship category? — I am not familiar with the subject, but if people are advocating censoring radio and it is something they are largely involved in it, I don't see any reason not to. Although, I'm not too sure because sometimes people use categories different on biography articles.
• "The American Library Association refused to allow access to it training seminars." — I'm not familiar with the subject, so I don't think I can provide a good answer.
• Daytime TV stations no longer show jingoistic cartoons. Is that Censorship? — Yes it is
• "Millions of parents worldwide don't want their children to view pornography. Shall we go into all of the wiki pages of all individuals and add the Censorship category?" — Again, I know some people treat categories a little different on biographies, so I don't know the answer.

In reply to your complaint about citing newspapers without an online version, this is not in violation WP:VER policy and is accepted throughout Wikipedia. There does not need to be a web version to be a reliable source. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling - remember WP:AGF. Your lengthy diatribe on "Orpheusopedia" is quite uncalled for. Furthermore, there is in fact such a wiki, although it reflects your views rather than mine - perhaps you should be editing the AFA page at Conservapaedia. I will reiterate: Good sources that can no longer be found on the web are still good sources, still reliable sources, still compliant with WP:RS and still (regardless of your personal opinion) "wikiworthy".

As for your examples of censorship, I would say that Hillary Clinton and Trent Lott are both advocating censorship, and if either of them actually achieved something along those lines I would add them to the censorship category in a heartbeat. So far it's just posturing and has had no effect - the AFA has indeed had an effect (negative or positive depending on your point of view). The ALA and the "millions of parents" are only attempting to censor or restrict that which they have direct control over (seminars, their own children, what have you). That's not censorship. If the AFA confined itself to permitting only "family friendly" material in its own seminars, then more power to them - that's one of the rights you have in a free country and I would march in the streets in their support if someone tried to make them show something they didn't want. Daytime TV stations are a grey area. If they were pressured by the government (threats of large fines etc) then it's definition censorship. If they were pressured directly by private groups (the AFA, NOW, NAACP, whoever) then that could be argued as censorship and belongs in an article, but wouldn't be suitable for a category (not direct or factual enough). If they were pressured by the government because of (in whole or in part) pressure from a private group, then the private group is indisputably advocating censorship and the label is appropriate in a category.

I ask once more - have you looked at the other articles in the censorship category? Do you think they belong there? Do you think the AFA belongs with Thomas Bowdler and the National Legion of Decency? Orpheus 05:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven't had the time yet, but I will, and not merely to respond to you, but to keep an open mind as to what's best for the wiki article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean the other Wikipedia articles in the category, in case you think I meant the external links I posted. Incidentally, calling it the Christian bible wasn't POV, it was an attempt to be more specific - can you think of a better qualifier? Orpheus 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove this?

I don't understand why this had to be removed, [[7]]. It provides info about the AFA. Do you think it needs to go somewhere else? Citadel18080 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is, everything except the categories. Citadel18080 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Pobody's nerfect. It's okay if it goes back. But those cats that guy keeps putting in against weight of all evidence and wiki policy should not be put back. Thanks for your help. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, someone (209.86.73.147 - first edit ever) just added this, "AFA does not do lobbying. They have no lobbying presence in Washington DC. This has been expressly prohibited by Don Wildmon. I talked to him in 2000 and it has not changed. Steve Ulrich AFA of PA Associate Board Member" --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good addition, assuming it can be sourced. I'd heard that the AFA did practice lobbying, but I could be wrong. By the way, what are your thoughts on mediation? Please post a response here. Citadel18080 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation fine. I so stated there. Thanks for alerting me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should rethink your method

This sort of behavior and namecalling is completely unconstructive. It's clear to anyone looking over User:Christopher Mann McKay's edits that they were made in good faith. Intentionally misidentifying them as "vandalism" can be considered harassment and disrupts the project, read WP:VAN, WP:DE and WP:HAR. Frankly you are lucky User:Christopher Mann McKay has been as patient as he has with you, many other wouldn't. You should really reconsider your method of engaging others at American Family Association, you'll get farther if you drop the threats of vexatious dispute resolution and namecalling, and focus on learning and rely upon the guidelines and policies more. FeloniousMonk 06:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone looking at this page should know there is a long history at that AFA talk page about which FeloniousMonk is apparently unaware, although understandably so since he/she only recently became involved and the page is huge. FeloniousMonk's comments here appear to me to be in furtherance of attempts at intimidation he/she started on the AFA talk page (like by announcing he/she was an admin in the fashion he/she did). Here's a guy/gal calling me deceptive for raising a legitimate (and even compelling ;) ) issue, then complaining that I'm name calling when a vandal repeatedly violates wiki policy again and again, perhaps a dozen times or more, even when three other editors are trying to stop the vandalism just as I am, and even despite repeated warnings. To this day the vandalism stands. Such blatant violations of wiki policy on a steady, persistent basis cannot possibly be anything else other than vandalism. The guy even stated he will not stop it even if it goes to mediation.

I am totally unfamiliar with stopping people from using wikipedia as a personal soapbox. Hence the need to reach out for help, though accurately but inartfully (by saying THE VANDALISM IS PERSISTENT!), that FeloniusMonk refers to as "namecalling." Well, people reading should know I am not intimidated, and every single other admin with which I have had the pleasure to converse has been totally friendly and helpful, often going out of their way to help. Not FeloniusMonk. Sorry to say that. No, he/she has to come to this page to restate what he/she stated on the AFA talk page. Do I go to his/her Talk page and spread the same junk there that he/she spreads here? No. So everyone please ignore him/her. Admins are almost always, used to say always, really terrific people.

Now I'm looking at the vandalism page the admin points me to, claiming I'm "misidentifying" vandalism. Just now I looked for the first time. Am I "misidentifying" vandalism? The page says, emphasis mine, "NPOV violations -- The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned." And if anything, a guy who adds POV categories that are supposed to be indisputable (according to wiki policy pointed out again and again by numerous editors) over and over again, over the deletion of the POV/nonpolicy cats by numerous editors, despite efforts to discuss the matter, despite numerous warnings (although FeloniusMonk complains about the form of one of those warnings), and who says even mediation won't shake him from his POV, is persistent, is he not? So now I see the vandalism page backs me up on what was plain common sense to me.

Watch, the admin will come back, see the intimidation is not working, and pile it on thinker and heavier. Get the digitalis. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our polices concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as I predicted in the above section, FeloniusMonk has apparently taken action against me, this time apparently by getting KillerChihuahua to do the dirty work so that the vandals he supports can continue violating policy without one of the numerous people like me trying to get them to comply with wiki policy.

Mind you, editors on that page support me in my efforts to stop the vandals,[8] even explicitly backing up my arguments that KillerChihuahua just blocked me for.

Regarding KillerChihuahua, should anyone ever need information about how he operates, look closely at what happened in this matter because to me it is a clear abuse of discretion.

Does anyone know how I can contest the block and how I could report KillerChihuahua's abusive action? Thank you. Oh forget it. I'll just take a day long vacation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)