User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

NetNanny

I will not participate in an edit war. It would be proper etiquette (and decent courtesy) to state the reasons you have removed the Criticisms section without seeking consensus in the talk section of NetNanny. You may feel impatient and that you understand the issue better but we editors deserve a clarification from you since its obviously been controversial. This section has been removed and re-added many times in this article. The one you just removed was a complete rewrite with appropriate citations. Than's for your help. I noticed you added comment on the notability, but not on the broad deletion of the Criticism section.Retran (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning on talk. I read what you eventually posted on the discussion. It was an innocuous mistake on your part "not knowing it was previously removed" (you didn't check the history (and probably not talk either)). Thanks!--Retran (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are cool with me now? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any personal problem with you. I notice that you have some personal concerns with me, ie from the talk page of NetNanny "Based on your behavior on this page and on my own Talk page... I am now certain you have some kind of soapbox." What behavior on here are you referring to that would lead you to say I have a conflict of interest? We've simply both decended on the same page to make NPOV edits and have disagreements which we are discussing. It was a big problem that you reverted an edit without looking at the history and talk page, and you corrected that. It wasn't wrong of me to alert you to that here since I had no idea if you were monitoring the discussion page. Again, its a big deal to wipe a section without even mentioning like you did any reason (neither in summary or discussion). I only wanted clarification in the discussion as I've had many times before when I make a move and someone objects. Thanks for participating in these tedious quality cleanups. --Retran (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Soapbox is different from conflict of interest. And you say things on this page and on the NN page that are just plain false--I am not even going to address them. But I get the impression you are just confused, not motivated by animus, so I'll just get back to whatever I was doing, cleaning my car at the moment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Ledeen

Please see Talk:Michael Ledeen, RE: your recent reversions of my edits. Also, please take a look at WP:AGF -- my edits were clearly not vandalism and it is not appropriate for you to imply that they are in your edit summaries. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. If I said vandalism, I must have been confused and I apologize. I don't know how to do the strikeout thing. Feel free to strikeout any comments I made along those lines. If you want me to repeat this message on the Ledeen Talk page, let me know, or you have my permission to link here.

Oh! Oh! I just looked at my history comments! They say "rv"! In my mind I was thinking "revert" -- rv as in revert, not rv as in revert vandalism. Oops! Well at least you and I now both know it was an innocent mistake, if indeed it was a mistake. I see people say rvv and rv v for revert vandalism. And I say rv v for revert vandalism and just plain rv for revert. So I just meant revert. No vandalism was involved. Oh my, I hope others are not thinking I'm saying rvv instead of rv. Do you happen to know what is common wiki usage so I can clear this problem up here and elsewhere?

And let's remain friendly editors. I have no axe to grind on the Ledeen page. I honestly feel that is an awful quote for an encyclopedia not matter the political viewpoint, and its being merely a third person's memory makes it unreliable. If I oppose you, it is only for Wiki policy reasons as I believe them to be. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

why did you undo my categorizing?

I am not familiar with what "rv cat for OR/BLP reasons, as well as cat violations and mass cat addition" means. There is no category for "LGBT Rights Opposition" so I found the nearest to it, which does fit Maggie Gallagher. She IS against LGBT rights and she does discriminate against LGBT people. --DCX (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you have also undone Fred Phelps. Fred Phelps is most famous for his "God Hates Fags" slogans, yet he is not anti- LGBT? BUT he is Anti- Judaism? This makes no sense. Are you suggesting that being anti-gay is not a form of discrimination / bigotry?--DCX (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the illusion that anti-gay discrimination is a POV instead of a real discrimination.--DCX (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, you can make that argument in the article text with the appropriate reliable sources. You cannot make that argument with categories. I know Phelps is Phelps, but that does not give people the right to sidestep rules regarding categories. I have been through a similar incident with the cat homophobia. It was decided, and appropriately so, to stop labeling people in such a fashion using categories. It's the same for labeling them as something else, even as angels. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will do as you suggest, however as I previously mentioned, there are people and groups labeled in such fashion under racism and antisemitism. If you think this rule is important, I suggest you take up your crusade in those areas as well.--DCX (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "crusade." I just follow the rules at WP:CAT. If anyone was on a crusade, it was the person who slapped the label on a dozen people within a few minutes in violation of WP:CAT, then expects all of the world to accept his view of the world. And I note I was not the only one to revert your actions, like when you slapped the label on a US Congresswoman with whom it is now apparent you disagree.

If other categories are also used in a manner that violates WP:CAT, that does not mean it is open season for anyone else to violate cats, neither does it mean it becomes my job to fix other cat violations.

Other than that, I hereby wikismile on you as fellow coeditor on Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Rights Opposition

Hi Legitimate, Please see the discussion here and advise your thoughts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_12#Category:LGBT_rights_opposition

Thanks, Doug--DCX (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's already wordy!! I'll look at it sooner or later, just hammered right now. In my 30 second overview, I liked what Orpheus said. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion on CWA

I have in fact read the CfD. It brings up two issues but does not offer a solution to either, save that it does suggest (as is happening) that the category get "nailed down" in terms of defining it's appropriate scope. I've made a number of suggestions in the discussion that's come from that, I don't believe you've yet participated but you might wish to. I'm guessing from your wording that you're saying that the inclusion is overcategorization? I'd honestly appreciate it if you could elaborate. Thanks. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Been busy with real life. May look at this soon. Generally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a wp:soapbox for promoting wp:pov, especially when it comes to wp:categories. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your name is neat, too

I kept trying to register names but a few choices were taken and many were rejected as too close to others. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, it is legitimate. And, even compelling! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

McChicken

I chose a name and WP said to chose another name. So I was eating a sandwich and chose my name. If there are protests, I could change it to The McChicken costs money. Or I ate a McChicken. Or McDonalds has no Whopper. I certainly don't want IllegimateAndNotCompelling ! The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How about, "it would cost more if the chicken had a say" - ? - Wikidemon (talk)

Wikidemon! I just commented in defense of that funny name and see you left a substantially similar comment. You see? We can agree on things! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerome Corsi

Interested in weighing in on the discussion on the use of Media Matters as a reliable source in the Jerome Corsi article? Ink Falls 02:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Just a little busy at the moment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope I am wrong

I predict that I will be blocked again. I hope I am wrong.

Maybe the reason will be that I will be accused of advertising for Safeway or Kroger? Or in Wikipedia boards, I see that people cause trouble by accusing people of being socks (such as "I accuse you of being the sock of The McChicken costs $1") or saying that there is disruption because of the "$1" part. What foolhardy company runs Wikipedia? They certainly give very bad service, worse than Burger King. I hope I am wrong and that most people are nice, like the you. Oh, saying that could be used as an excuse that I am you? I'm going to try this one time and see if I get picked on. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You big Chicken! Don't let anyone bother you. Go have fun. Let me know if I can help you any. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let me know if I can help as well, there is no reason to assume you are a sock just because of your name. :P Ink Falls 20:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

You seem to be confused about the reliability of Media Matters for America. MMFA is a perfectly acceptable and reliable source with regards to its own criticisms (as long as they're within the main scope/function of what they do: media watchdog). Please stop blanket removing them as a reliable source. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Blax, I have no disagreement with you personally. The reality is, MMfA is not a reliable source for anything except about itself. You see, MMfA is not reporting news. Rather, it is commenting on the news as reported. Those comments are not to be used as reliable sources because they are not sources. Now the MMfA articles do cite to reliable sources that MMfA claims support what it is saying. Those sources may be perfectly legitimate as reliable sources for Wikipedia. And if they are, you certainly do not need MMfA anyway.

Look. Look what Jimbo Wales just said in a similar matter:

• I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything - so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. (I should note that even if Thomas Friedman himself tore into someone, that would not automatically mean that it is noteworthy.)

If anything, MMfA is "scathing criticism" and it is always one sided at that. Definitely not a reliable source. "[T]here's not really any reason to mention [an MMfA] piece at all." Bingo.

Further, I have removed MMfA references in the past from other articles and the community agreed they were not a reliable source.

I have seen MMfA advocates so push MMfA as a reliable source that MMfA appeared directly in the article itself as if it were some wonderful source of unquestionable truth. People don't even give the major networks that same deference.

MMfA is not a reliable source except about themselves. I will continue to remove MMfA wherever their inclusion is a violation of Wikipedia rules.

So, Blax, if you want to include the point they are making, may I suggest you use the reliable sources they link, if any, not MMfA itself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your position is not supported in policy or in practice. Announcing that you're going to edit war to blank sourced content where not supported by policy will be considered disruptive editing and will result in being blocked. I suggest you review the archives at the RSN. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not announce I would edit war. I said, "I will continue to remove MMfA wherever their inclusion is a violation of Wikipedia rules." And, just to be clear, I will continue to remove MMfA wherever their inclusion is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Blanking sourced content is what people do when that source is not a reliable source. The issue is WP:RS, not blanking sourced content.

Further, a number of the MfAA unreliable sources I removed were used as additional sources. By removing MMfA I left in the reliably sourced material. Any unbiased Wiki editor removes unreliable sources. Indeed, the rules demand it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reported

I have now reported your recent edit warring. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't like what I said about MMfA so you reported me? No problem. I try my best to follow Wiki policy, and I didn't break the 3RR rule. And I'll still be friendly with you. Thanks for visiting. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you please provide a better link? I see the diff but not that actual page where I get to respond.

Further, I ask you to reconsider then withdraw your report based on the following that directly applies in this case: "The three-revert rule does not apply to ... reverts of ... biased ... or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons." The MMfA reverts are to remove biased and poorly sourced controversial material which violates WP:BLP on the page in question. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the matter has already been decided. The page has been protected based on your claims, but I could not figure how to respond. Even still, if I am correct, no 3RR rule violation has been found. Thank you for following Wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit is substantially similar and exemplifies that removing poorly sourced material is proper, even if many instances of that use of that single source are removed from multiple pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Blax

People reading here need to know Blax complained about MMfA issues in the Reliable Sources noticeboard just days after writing here and he did not inform me, and I only just now noticed. On the noticeboard, I said this.

If anyone wishes to enlist my assistance in ridding MMfA POV/SOAP/OR/BIAS, please let me know. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to join you in ridding Wikipedia of MMfA POV/SOAP/OR/BIAS and COATRACK. Sign me up. ;) Ink Falls 03:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let's notify each other as the situations arise. Thanks. Looks like we may have our work cut out for us.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="media+matters"+site%3Awikipedia.org

Using that list I just cleaned up Neal Boortz. Some MMfA soapboxer embedding MMfA so deeply that it even appeared as part of the page itself, in addition to being used as a reference. Yet you don't see, for example, Glenn Beck used as a source and being part of the story on the MMfA page -- no, rather, the page includes one of the MMfA slams on Beck. The usual double standard with MMfA. Thank goodness people are waking up to this abuse of Wikipedia by MMfA soapboxers (I have no idea if MMfA is directly involved).

To be clear, I am not taking sides with Beck/Boortz v. MMfA. I don't even know who is Boortz. Rather, it is simply a matter of following Wiki policy and noting MMfA soapboxers continue to promote MMfA in violation of Wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, acknowledged, let me know if ever you have any arguments with any editors trying to defend keeping MMfA and I'll come and try to help. ;) Ink Falls 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Count me in Lionelt (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia. The land of fair rules for all. The land where the MMfA propaganda machine actually does not hold sway. I don't have the time to track down each instance of MMfA promotion, but as a team we can begin to apply Wiki policy and remove unwarranted MMfA references. Its members or its acolytes have even figured out how to insert MMfA into Wiki article text itself, let alone merely as a source. Oh sure, some MMfA mentions and sources may be appropriate, but I'll bet it is a very small subset of the current MMfA octopus that uses Wikipedia to push its propaganda. I have faced these types before. They usually go negative or go ad hominem immediately and do not address the actual issues involved. But, with enough people who politely follow Wiki policy working together, the soapboxers do not always get their way. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This may take a while... [1] Lionelt (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! I took a look at the list and, along with all the pages of conservatives, I found a page for a liberal (then I stopped looking at the list). I was curious to see how MMfA was used there. Sure enough, MMfA was used for support instead of being used for attack. You have to give MMfA's creators credit for creating such an effective, pervasive propaganda machine. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Look what I just found:

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Media Matters for America was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation should request to the talk page.

The relevant link is here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed you have not joined the mediation yourself. That's too bad, I will miss your style of writing. ^_^ Ink Falls 19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the mediation will not differ much without me there. I note the editors who obviously promote the MMfA soapbox have said they might participate, but reluctantly. That looks to me like they are preparing an excuse for what they know will be a losing argument to allow MMfA soapboxing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Kk, you're probably right. ^,^ Ink Falls 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Southern Poverty Law Center. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Labeling people as "hate groups" is clear libel. Clear libel is an exception to 3RR. I will continue to revert libel in accordance with policy. Further, I have asked people to discuss in Talk. You personally acted in an unfriendly fashion in violation of Wiki policy and ignored My concerns. You have unclean hands in that you are violating policy on cooperation/WP:AGF, policy on WP:BLP, and policy on WP:3RR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, North Shoreman left me a message saying, "When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." And I specifically requested Talk be used for that purpose and started a new Talk section. Yet North Shoreman overrode that, then had the gall to come here and tell me to do what he did not do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Compounding what now appears to be a clear violation of Wiki policy, North Shoreman has ignored my statements here and moved to file a complaint against me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling_reported_by_User:North_Shoreman_.28Result:_.29 --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I warned you at the same time he did. I deleted mine and would have reported you also if he hadn't. I've raised the issue at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw the report here and at the ANI. I even thanked you at that ANI. And I thank you yet again, this time for giving me notice, notice I did not get regarding the 3RR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I recognize that you have made an argument that your edits fall under the WP:BLP exception to WP:3RR. Your fellow volunteer editors at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center disagree, making compelling arguments. While BLP is an important principle, it should not be extended so far as to generate chilling effects that detract from article quality. Please follow the steps in WP:Dispute resolution if you are not able to reach consensus at the talkpage. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

After discussion with the protecting admin and one other and reading your statement here, it looks like protecting the article should be sufficient. I am unblocking you now, but please be careful, and the rest of my advice stands. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Your obvious fairness is apparent, as well as the others involved in reversing the block. Please consider contributing to the discussion which attracted those seeking to have me blocked. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

This user supports the fight against mental illness.

I realize you have your userboxes all neatly arranged and symmetric and that there doesn't seem to be currently any space for a new one, but I am trying to spread around this user box and if you would like to help out and put this up I would much appreciate it(feel free to say you don't want too because you don't have any space for it, I won't take it as an affront to the mentally ill). If you don't have space for it, please feel free to help spread it around. Cheers. :) Ink Falls 05:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. And I help those in its grip. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm really glad to hear you help out in real life also, that is definitely a worthwhile way to spend your time. Ink Falls 18:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very fulfilling. Especially since some of what I have done has actually improved family relationships as a result. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy to hear that there are people like you out there helping others. Thanks for brightening up this world a bit. :) Ink Falls 03:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Harrassing? Looks like you haven't contributed at DYK in 4 years (when you made two edits). Yes, I commented on his nomination, but I contribute regularly there (check my talk page). So no, but thanks anyway. Grsz¹¹ 02:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I'll bet it is merely to continue your unfriendly behavior. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol, didn't you simply appear at T:TDYK for the first time in almost 4 years, just to make a stupid comment about me. Grsz¹¹ 02:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case. I can't believe you actually took the time to check and see the last time he posted on T:TDYK just so you can build an argument that someone who just seems to have just run across you is harassing you. Chill out. Ink Falls 04:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

He very obviously didn't just run across me. Nor did I just come across that discussion at DYK. I did nominate the article for deletion, and feel it's entirely appropriate to comment on it in another venue like DYK, particularly where I am involved commonly. Grsz¹¹ 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To just assume that if someone shows up where you are that they are stalking you is way too much of a leap to make, let alone too much of a leap to then goto their page and accuse them of stalking you. If he showed up in 3 very unusual places where you are then it would be more fair to accuse him of stalking you, but as it stands I think you need to step back and just assume it's a coincidence(which it probably is). Ink Falls 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall stalking anybody, unless I gave them celery. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

Not particularly fond of celery. Anyways, I apologize if I jumped to the wrong conclusion, and hopefully you did the same. See you around, Grsz¹¹ 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Having fun is better than arguing. I'm looking forward to working with you in the future. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And please don't think my posts at the sockpuppet page came about from you. I actually came across it at Talk:Barack Obama. You see how intertwined interests here get? It's easy to come across the same people across multiple pages. Epeefleche and I (and you) are interested in similar articles, and I have seen him at many articles I am looking at. A discussion is always better/more productive with opposing sides, so I've inserted myself into them occassionally. I don't see it as harassing, I haven't gone and accused him of sockpuppets, etc., just having similar interests, yet different opinions. Grsz¹¹ 01:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand and the thought did not even cross my mind. Epeefleche edits pages I generally avoid editing because conversations can get so heated that I have better things to do in my life and those pages already have a gaggle of editors. I like him because his name sounds interesting to me, and because his User page shows he is very well respected and very experienced. He's even had Jimbo in his corner. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As to Dave Dial, I quoted accurately, and I too have been subjected to his manner of behavior. Reporting accurate information accurately is not a personal attack.

Further, his behavior on or about even date is relevant due to his participation on SPLC such as it is. As part of the effort to stop my editing on Wikipedia, someone has criticized me for things I did years ago or by accident. We can't have a double standard where my history (including as a newbie) is held against me and that's not a personal attack, but my commenting on Dave Dial's present behavior on other pages somehow "amount[s] to a personal attack". "Amount to", no less, not "is". WP:POV?

Also, my comment was relevant to the article since A) there was the suggestion that consensus was near, yet few editors opposing your view had commented, B) when I commented I was ridiculed by someone whose words evidenced he was in some kind of position of judgment, and C) Dave Dial was participating in that section. If the "compromise" is accepted as proposed by Tom, then the article will be negatively affected. Therefore, people need to know what I properly and accurately reported about him. It was in no way a personal attack, something you tacitly admit. Further, is does not "amount to" a personal attack.

Dougweller, why don't you stick to the substantive issues instead of using procedure to complain, no matter how politely? Win the argument by obtaining consensus, not by preventing edits from those with whom you apparently disagree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikidemon said it best. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IP 69.211.7.137

After your comments, I was wondering who the IP might be. I was a bit startled to see that it came from my zip code in Chicago. the closest link seems to identify it as a teenaged girl. Being an unconscious sexist, I thought most trolls were pimply, chubby guys. Live and learn. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's your second violation of WP:NPA, Jackie boy. Maybe I should report you? 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

IP. I can see you are very intelligent and interested in contributing to Wikipedia. May I suggest you politely interact with the other editors here. Having friendly conversations is so much more fun for everyone involved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And Jack was joking in a playful fashion. Besides, can you attack an IP address, a personal attack? Is that possible? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, i could have called her a bunch of awful names, like 'Republican', 'Bolshevik' or 'Scamp' (I kinda like the last one). Instead, I suggested she work on creating templates instead, or simply go and edit an article somewhere. She hasn't done so. I sense a pattern. Perhaps a CheckUser is in order? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw, LAEG, it would appear that the 69Anon felt compelled to report you at AN/I (though not by name). I think she was supposed to have notified you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

U r kidding, right? I have offered to help him/her. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I looked. I believe he/she is complaining about u, not me. Ha! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuh-uh! I only said to not feed the trolls, meaning, ignore her, and she might get bored and go away. You got all up in her cara, suggesting she was a sock and all. I'm telling' Mom. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What a waste of time. No way a new IP addy knows the ins and outs of Wiki as well as that one did. It is definitely a sock. It could also be someone who just forgot to login. Then it would still be a sock, just not an intentionally bad one. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As a sock, it's not a newbie we are dealing with. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, we are the bad guys for not showing good faith that the user might be trying to be useful. I guess, as "Grinning Thug" #2, I should have kept silent until/if the anon self-destructed. They always do, eventually. Live and learn. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I try to be as friendly as possible. Right now I am engaged in a long-term back and forth with someone who apparently disagrees with me (I am removing many Media Matters for America links for violating WP:RS and WP:LINKVIO) but it is one of the friendliest conversations ever. I say a few things about someone violating Wiki policy, and it's off to the races. Weird. Anyway, I got to meet you, so it was all worth it! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel

I deleted your recent edit summary on Debbie Schlussel. While I understand you were clarifying her position, I don't think it's a good idea to have an edit summary branding someone a Nazi collaborator. 05:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I just deleted the edit summary and let the edit stand. AniMate 05:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand, AniMate. Just know I was clearly explaining the change and the material I used was directly from the source. I have no actual knowledge of the truth of those assertions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm curious, how did you find that so fast? Is there a bot? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Luck. The article is on my watchlist, I decided to take a quick peek, and it was at the very top. AniMate 05:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

I have initiated an WP:ANI discussion about your systematic removal of citations that link to Media Matters.[2] Please drop by to respond. Thanks, LK (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drrll (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is uncensored

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Yoursubversive edit at Institute for Energy Research undercuts Wikipedia's credibility.--Wetman (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

U r kidding, right? You think that MMfA ref should be used for the purpose it is used on that page? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice your argument to keep the non-RS is that I made a "subversive edit". I have to love the people who resort to ad hominem argument to make MMfA a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And u made the revert with no comment. I have to love the people who revert non-RS removals with no comment as to why. And in this case, then come here an complain about "subversive edits". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cease mass-removing citations without discussion. You are likely to find yourself being blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. I do make a lot of edits, but each one is carefully thought out and each one has a history comment that applies specifically to that case. Further, if the great majority of the edits are proper and in compliance with Wikipedia rules like WP:RS, why should I be blocked? Why should I have to explain things as you require--I explain them in the history comments.

You are now the second editor, at least, to suggest blocking, and still not a single person has yet explained why any specific MMfA ref is a RS in the relevant instances. All arguments have been ad hominem or have been that MMfA is generally okay on other pages. No one complies with RS that requires looking at the context in the individuals articles. It must have taking a lot of people to insert these hundreds of MMfA refs into article. I am just one person. That does not make me wrong to comply with WP:RS, especially where not a single person ever explains why any particular ref is actually a RS.

And WP:LINKVIO. Does being MMfA exempt the refs from compliance with that too? Look at the Wiki message you see before submitting an edit. It says, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Unless that content is a MMfA ref. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain, therefore, why you have not removed everything in those same articles sourced to WorldNetDaily, a source that - unlike MMfA - genuinely is regularly described as non-RS at the RS Noticeboard? Or does your sense of reliable sources only stretch to one end of the political spectrum? You can see how this looks, can't you? Black Kite (t) (c) 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I can explain. Somehow, I don't recall how, I noticed a few MMfA articles were improperly used as refs. Like taking a new car for a ride suddenly makes you realize the number of that same make and model on the road, I began to realize a number of MMfA refs suffered from the same problem. So I took a look at more instances. They too failed to meet WP:RS as well. Not all, mind you, but most uses of MMfA refs. So, in an effort to meet WP:RS, I found that MMfA refs, having a high percentage of RS failures, made an easy target for me to quickly focus on things I could do to improve Wikipedia. Applying WP:RS improves Wikipedia. That, Black Kite, is why I concentrated on MMfA only, and no other reason. You cited WND, but I also did not touch over refs as well, of any political bent. "Political spectrum" has nothing to do with it. Further, until this recent mass revert of all my edits, most were not reverted. Some that were were restored by other editors who apparently agreed with me or found better reasons to remove the MMfA refs. And any that were reverted where never explained, other than no comment or some ad hominem comment, some extremely nasty--the guy trouted himself for one. So, seeing general acceptance within the community (before the mass reverts), I continued on. Knowing WP:RS and WP:LINKVIO and WP:NOTE and WP:SYN are important to Wikipedia, I will continue on, after the current mass gang up on me has died away because consensus will be that my edits have been for the most part accurate and correct and never made for any of the nefarious reasons of which I have been blamed.

Thanks for taking a look here, Black Kite. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

People here would be much more likely to see 'good faith' on your part if you stopped removing MMfA refs and started removing the much less reliable WorldNetDaily refs, at least until you have removed as many WorldNetDaily refs as you have MMfA refs. If not, the prima facie evidence would point to a systematic biased removal of sources from one end of the political spectrum. LK (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Your perception of a political bent is projection. Your suggestion to lay off MMfA refs sounds like you are asking me to self-censor. You have not once discussed the substantive issues of the MMfA refs, seeking instead to act with a group to use ad hominem argument to stop me from something I have come to learn opposes your political interests.

I have been told I am not the arbiter of the reliability of MMfA refs, yet you are acting as the arbiter of how I am to conduct myself to meet the groups approval, namely by acting as the group would, politically, to remove WND refs. You have mistaken me for someone who shrinks at such peer pressure. Fortunately, Wikipedia is larger and more relevant than your group. Fortunately, a number of editors are on my side, and that list will grow as word spreads. Word spreads fast among MMfA supporters, but time will catch up with them, and so will Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules, not your group's rules. Wikipedia relies on rules and cooperation, not on groupthink and demands for forced edits. It relies on logic, not on ad hominem argument.

Now I have a demand for you, since you started this. You address yourself to the MMfA non-RS ref you reverted and you explain, for the first time, why that ref is a RS, and you do so without ad hominem argument or general statements about how MMfA has been shown to be reliable elsewhere. In other words, I demand you comply with Wikipedia, not with some group using procedural means to silence others for apparent political gain. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

There is a discussion at the bottom of Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy concerning an op-ed by a Mr. Grenell. Since you're interested in the copyvio discussion at the top, please participate in the content discussion at the bottom. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go look. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking. I can say that so far there is so much that I am confused. But I'll keep trying. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I commented. Hope it helps improve Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Xeno and Ceemow are minimalizing your input, apparently because you haven't posted 10,000 word essays on the subject. To make an extremely long story short, Ceemow is exhaustively flogging his argument to death, resurrecting several old arguments along the lines of "if you bring in this, then I have the right to bring in all of THAT." And both are saying that since they want to keep discussing this forever, consensus has not been (and, evidently, cannot be) reached, so we should just delete the material. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Response

Here. Anthony (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had a good look at your edit history - not everything of course, so there may be some surprises there - but the only fault I find apart from your religion and politics is not observing WP:BRD; and just replacing MMfA ref's with a "citation needed" tag is disruptive, because most facts at MMfA come from reliable sources - so if the article's assertions reflect the factual assertions of an MMfA article, it is likely they can be reliably sourced. Not pasting the MMfA ref into talk makes finding reliable sources for the content much harder for other editors. If you decide to start posting deleted MMfA ref's into article talk pages, let them know at ANI. Anthony (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I have, put perhaps I'll be more specific. Here goes.... --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is thanks to your guidance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#LEAC_proposal --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet dreams. Anthony (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads' proposal at ANI seems reasonable to me. It looks like now it might be possible to arrive at actual consensus regarding the use of MMfA. I am composing an introduction to a thread for WP:RSN here, and will post it in an hour or two. You might want to let ANI know, if you agree with me and Elen. Anthony (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agreed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your support is being claimed...

The "editor" we were discussing previously has returned at the bottom of the Talk Page to claim your support for including the Grenell editorial. --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters

I'm curious why you think that it doesn't meet WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Some do. So I'll assume you are not talking about those.

The WP:RS issues are numerous, and I have pointed them out elsewhere. But let me summarize, and forgive me if I forget some.

1. MMfA reports typically report MMfA views on what legitimate MSM sources have reported. The RS is the MSM source, not the MMfA view thereof.
2. Consider also that almost no MMfA source ever reports an author. Why? The author is never revealed. Only initials. Funny, I saw someone added the initials to a ref on a page. Initials are not a reliable source.
3. MMfA is simply not a RS for certain things it is being used to source. Astronauts? Oprah? What's Un-American? Things like that. There are RSs for astronauts, and MMfA is not one of them.
4. What kind of RS uses what may be copyright infringement to support its argument? I know you have not asked me about WP:LINKVIO, but I see it again and again with MMfA refs, and, at least in my opinion, RSs do not consistently use copyrighted material without attribution. Even if "fair use" is claimed, fair use does not mean you get to exclude claims of authorship, etc.
5. MMfA provides a window that favors it own view. A wider window might provide more accuracy, but that would be counterproductive to MMfA's reason to be.
6. MMfA's reason to be is to monitor one side of the media and present the other side's view. Why would anyone think that is a reliable source?
7. Similar organizations on the right monitor the left. They are not considered reliable sources for certain things. So should it be any different when the political tables are turned?
8. MMfA is so into attack politics that it will sometimes republish what MMfA targets are saying minutes after it was said. Reliable? I think not.
9. MMfA refs typically but not always fail measurement again WP:RS which I urge you to read carefully.
10. Just because MMfA is large and has an army of people to monitor the air waves, make and store recordings of copyrighted materials, write stories to which they add their initials, then insert MMfA refs all over Wikipedia does not make MMfA a RS. Might does not make right.

Well, there are some reasons right there.

Let me add that I have removed dozens of MMfA links, each time adding a Citation tag and noting in history comments that it was an MMfA ref I removed. I am hiding nothing. I am very open and very clear about my edits, explaining each time what I am removing and why.

In all those edits, I think 2 have been reverted and stayed reverted. I had one guy revert me then revert his own revert. All my other MMfA ref removals have stuck precisely because the MMfA ref removals I made were made in full compliance with Wikipedia policy.

Where there has been a question about my MMfA removals and a discussion ensued, the discussions have all gone the way of Wiki compliance and agreement with the removal of non-RS MMfA links. I have further noted that an editor who defends MMfA's use as a RS has so far resorted to ad hominem argument while failing to address the actual reasons why MMfA might be a RS. To be fair I ask for specific reasons but they are never given, just more verbal legerdemain.

Wikipedia policy. That's the key here. That's what empowers me or any editor to act accordingly. I do not remove all MMfA refs, but where they violate Wiki rules, I remove them. I have found MMfA refs to be a rich source of nonWiki-compliant refs. So, in an effort to improve Wikipedia as all editors do, I can do that rather quickly by focusing on a known problem. MMfA refs being used by the hundreds in a manner that is not compliant with Wiki policy is a problem known to me. It may now be a problem known to you. Assuming you are not one of the editors who insert such refs out of a greater love for MMfA than for Wikipedia, perhaps you might join me in improving Wikipedia.

Thanks for writing here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, here's an MMfA ref that, for the first time I can recall, has an actual author named: http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007210037 and instead of removing that link I added the author's name to the ref. What a coincidence, an article written by someone who initially at least appears credible does not suffer from WP:LINKVIO like many others MMfA posts. There is a feel of quality, of being a RS, of compliance with LINKVIO that applies to this ref that simply does not pertain to most other MMfA refs I have seen, and I have seen quite a few.

On the other hand, another MMfA ref used as an external link I removed from the same page—it suffered from both WP:RS and WP:LINKVIO. It was authored by "B.C.O." Not a RS. What does that mean, Big Cohones Online? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone else has questioned my MMfA removals. See ANI - Numerous systematic removal of Media Matters citations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MMfA, Ad Hominem, and Possible Bias

I must say I find it interesting if not ironic while you decry Ad Hominem by a supporter of MMfA references, when a poster who used an MMfA footnote misspells a word instead of saying grammer/spelling fix and leaving it at that you say "I guess while you are adding non-RSs, the quality of the encyclopedia is of little importance".

I do not know if MMfA can be considered a RS or not. Some feel strongly it is a RS. You feel strongly it (mostly) isnt and seem to be able to cite Wiki guildlines to support your position. However you also say "MMfA is so into attack politics". I have been a reader of MMfA for many years and find their MO is the following: this is what the pundit/news reader/panelist said and this is why we feel it is not valid. Not sure where the attack is in that. So I wonder if perhaps your desire to exclude MMfA as a RS goes beyond just your intepretation of Wiki guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris473 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I do not understand/recall/agree with some of your observations/comments. Be that as it may, thanks for the comment. Alas, this is old news. Basically, MMfA may not be declared a blanket RS or non-RS as it must be viewed in context, a large percentage of MMfA links are in violation of RS or other rules, and I or anyone may remove MMfA links at any time I or they wish as long as I or they do so in a wiki compliant fashion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Well like I said, MMFA is a legitimate source, but it should NOT be the only source. That gives too much weight to a highly partisan view. However, like I and everyone else said, just removing them from the article wholesale isn't productive. They ARE good for details and for their own POV. They serve a purpose and no one disputes that they can be used as sources in the proper situations. Soxwon (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, although I do revert more than I should, 2 reverts as a rule is definitely a bad idea (see my block log for evidence of that). Soxwon (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and hence the changes in the way I will do things. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. You recently participated in a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi LEAC, I'm considering moving that this ANI thread be closed. Can I just clarify, have you agreed to (1) observe WP:BRD in future, (2) preserve MMfA citations on article talk pages, should you delete any in the future? Anthony (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. You have been a tremendous assistance to me personally and to Wikipedia generally. Thank you very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do you concede Moonriddengirl's point regarding fair use and linkvio here? Anthony (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't look at this moment. I am about to write something related to my COI on my blog. It has to be, get this, well sourced! My wiki experience helps me do that. But I get to use original research!! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Aaah. I remember writing without citations. Anthony (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Et tu, Mary Minow? Then Fall, Gail Sweet! And notice the links to Wikipedia; indeed I learned something from Wikipedia that I added because it was so interesting. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. You have new messages at 75.139.111.29's talk page.
Message added 06:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Six-Day War

I responded to your inquiry on Epeefleche's talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this notice. I'll go look and comment there if I have any more questions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

West Bend Library

Am I missing something here? The source states very clearly the complaint was about gay/homosexual themed books, not sexually explicit books. There is a huge difference there. Why do you dispute this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbackhaus (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for writing here. I do not dispute it. The problem is that you still have to comply with Wikipedia policy. I totally understand that you are new here, and I totally understand it takes a while for people to get used to the rules here, so no harm done. The Wikipedia policy of relevance in the case is WP:SYN. Essentially, an editor can't combine references and make them say things the editor says they say. There all other policies in play such as those dealing with working with the community and not WP:WAR.

In the specific case, the complaint was against a number of things including the one you are promoting. The language you are seeking to add focuses on the one aspect you want people to see as a means to embarrass or marginalize someone. I am aware you have spent about a year attempting to embarrass or marginalize someone involved in the library matter. You may do that all you wish anywhere you wish but not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX.

I am not criticizing you for your edits here or anywhere else. I am merely explaining the situation here on Wikipedia as a means of constructive criticism. Fellow Wikipedians and I want you to contribute, however, you just have to do it within the rules. May I suggest getting some experience under your belt by editing lots of pages on lots of topics and engaging in various discussions in Talk pages, like you are now, for example. That's the way to learn. Well, continue editing on the West Bend library page, but remember that relevant guidelines covering this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Oh, and it is best to end your posts with a signature consisting of 2 hyphens followed immediately by 4 tildes, or just use the signature button. And should you respond, use 2 colons first thing on the sentence to indent the comments 2 tabs.

Have fun! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If simply wanting the record to be clear that the ORIGINAL complaint was only about homosexual characters in young adult books is trying to "embarrass or marginalize" someone, then I guess I am. I will edit and provide links to the original complaint submitted to the library stating such. While the complaint did indeed evolve to encompass "sexually explicit material", it is important to note the complaints origins. Thanks for your help. --Danbackhaus 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbackhaus (talk • contribs)

Okay, but be aware of WP:WEIGHT in addition to everything else. I wonder if this may be of interest: Timeline of the West Bend Public Library Controversy --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Given your involvement in the West Bend matter, I suggest you cease editing the related article due to WP:COI. --129.89.210.24 (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I am complying with the policy so I may continue to edit there. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on the Lively debate[3]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would prefer if you didn't refer to me as one of those "apparant newbies[...] who proposed it [the Lively quote] initially" and of which "one[...] just made a personal attack". It wasnt us who initialy proposed the quote, it was me (and I stopped adding it the instant you called The Huffingten Post an unreliable source – though I'm still not entirely convinced). I didn't make the personal attack and don't want to be linked to it, nor am I a "newbie". I find those remarks offensive.

Kind regards,

Björnar

--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. You've followed me here to continue your efforts to confront editors instead of addressing issues. Lovely. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you feel the need to complain to others about me stick to the facts, and please refrain from condescending remarks. That's not to much to ask, is it? What was that again about "resolving the matter in a friendly fashion", about assuming good faith? Well, please do so. --DVD-junkie | talk | 18:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I said what I said accurately and otherwise you are putting words in my mouth. Now do you want to get back to editing or will you leave yet another remark here that accomplishes nothing? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly edit, but what's the use – you would simply revert me, as you did before, and I don't want to go against 3RR.

By the way, quoting you is hardly putting words in your mouth. And, if addressing your behaviour "accomplishes nothing", that would be regrettable, yet somehow revealing.--DVD-junkie | talk | 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation on Ugg boots

LAEC, you are cordially invited to participate in mediation here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have not helped. Too busy at the moment. Thanks for the invite. Continue to seek my assistance in the future. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Judith Reisman

I cannot begin to fathom why you would think dumping anti-kinsey rhetoric not about Judith Reisman on that talk page would be appropriate. Talk:Judith Reisman is to discuss the article about Judith Reisman.

If you want to launch an anti-kinsey campaign, she might be an ally, but please refrain from using her article and Wikipedia in general as a platform for such a highly POV initiative. Toddst1 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Toddstl, forgive me if I have caused you to overlook WP:AGF. The issue of whether you or I view the articles as my "launching an anti-kinsey campaign" is irrelevant, setting aside your failure to WP:AGF.

Those 2 articles from WND and the third one from Scope appear, from their titles, to contain information that may be directly relevant to matters on both the Kinsey page and the Judith Reisman page.

Further, I have not read the contents of the articles, and I explicitly stated that, and I only added them to Talk and did not insert anything into the main Wiki pages, so I have no idea how you conclude that I am "launching an anti-kinsey campaign".

That said, your following me here to state what you have stated and to accuse what you have accused evidences to me a clear bias in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. That will help me and other editors determine how much weight to assign to your edits, etc. I have not looked at a single one of your edits yet, so far as I recall, but I will in the future, and I suggest others do as well since Wikipedia policy compliance is far more important than supporting a Toddst1 WP:SOAPBOX.

Thank you.

Oh, I see you have removed my edits from the Talk page. That is very bad form. I will revert your edits doing so or otherwise restore my legitimate comments to the page, as well as the comments of others you removed in your zeal. If you begin a battle to whitewash the Talk page from legitimate comments, I will not hesitate to appropriately seek community involvement, and in this circumstance it appears your WP:SOAPBOX will fold. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear you are here to push your POV. I have no opinion on Kinsey, nor do I have a website promoting anti-kinsey views as you do. Take this as a final warning about POV pushing. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

See ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. I merely posted links to a few articles relevant to 2 Wiki pages, then only in the Talk section, then with very little commentary, if any. I specifically said I did not read the articles but from the titles they looked relevant. One commenter even added another article from the past that he said contained substantially the same information. He did that on the Kinsey page and it was relevant on the Judith Reisman page so I added the link there too. All this was done to address issues raised or that could be raised in the main Wiki pages.

I see now you have removed or affirmed the removal of certain information from the pages that appears to be confirmed in the newly provided links, based on the titles alone as I still have not read the articles. But that certainly does explain why you would go through the extraordinary step of effectively removing relevant links from a Talk page by the use of the collapse template.

I see you are a sysop with significant experience in Wikipedia. That, fortunately, does not make your WP:SOAPBOX any more reliable. I urge you to consider that merely adding the links to the Talk page was a totally harmless activity intended to allow the community to work together to improve the relevant Wikipedia pages. Indeed, the community started to do that, even adding another link, but you made it all disappear. Talk pages are for talking, not for pushing your POV. Please, clear your mind, all I did was add a few links and someone added another, all on the Talk page. That is perfectly appropriate Wikipedia activity. So much can be accomplished if we work together and not under a false cloud of "an anti-kinsey campaign."

And I see you filed an ANI against me. That is, in this case, an attempt to use procedural means to accomplish what you cannot by talk. Really, you can do better and contribute positively, no? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you Judith Reisman? Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. You are a sysop. I think you have special tools that will confirm that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You seriously misunderstand things. I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you that.

Fare thee well now, let your life proceed by it's own design. Nothing to tell now, let the words be yours, I'm done with mine. Toddst1 (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Fare thee well as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought we were done, then I saw your edit removing her background. You really should lay off this serious COI editing and self-revert. Good night. Toddst1 (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume you are talking about her writing a song for Captain Kangaroo. If you can set aside bias for a moment, I'm sure you can see that cherry-picked aside comment is intended to make her look like a buffoon. I'll bet every single person on Wikipedia can be made to look like a buffoon if you cherry pick the perfect phrase and place it on a Wiki page. If I recall, there were only 3 paragraphs to describe the Wiki subject, and one was devoted to her writing a Captain Kangaroo song. Clearly that is agenda pushing. Now there is nothing wrong with writing music for any show whatsoever, but the way it was present was completely WP:UNDUE. And I have no COI on anything other than my announced COI on libraries, and we are not talking about libraries here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This AN/I was closed with no action taken. Essentially, Toddst1's complaint was viewed by the community as a tempest in a teapot. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR notice

Please note that you have made three reverts at Alfred Kinsey in less than 24 hours, and any further reverts will put you in violation of WP:3RR, which will likely result in a temporary block of your account. Also note that 3RR is not an entitlement, and a continued pattern of reverting against the consensus of other editors may lead to sanctions even if you do not actually make four reverts within a 24 hour period. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. I am not engaged in an edit war as I explained in detail here and neither will I do so. Feel free to remove your 3RR notice as it does not apply.

There is, however, a number of people using procedural means or false and misleading statements and misquotes to stop or hide my edits, and this 3RR notice is yet another in that series. All have failed so far since I have followed Wiki guidelines and worked cooperatively with other editors. Notice I have taken no procedural action in return to stop what is beginning to feel to me like it could be some sort of Wiki compliance breakdown. I am leading by example and editing in compliance with Wiki rules and policies. I will continue to do so. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This 3RR notice went nowhere as no violation occurred. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A 3RR notice does not mean you have violated 3RR, it means you will if you continue to revert. Wikipedia's 3RR procedure requires that an editor be made aware of the policy before the policy can be enforced. The purpose of the message above was to make sure that you were aware of the policy and aware that you were getting close to violating it. As a broader point, an editor who engages in single combat with a group of other editors almost always loses, right or wrong. As a practical reality, if you can't persuade any other editors to support you, you aren't going to be able to get your way here. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We're beating a dead horse now, but the 3RR rule says, "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive." That's how I see it. No, you were not actively involved, but given the circumstance of the speed that a number of people were objecting to legitimate (and even compelling) edits I was making in a sort of pile on fashion that you see on pages people are protecting, leaving me feeling totally blind sided for perfectly fine edits (in the Talk section too, no less), I feel the aggression. I feel it again when you come back here in response to my simple statement that no 3RR violation occurred. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't violated WP:3RR but you are clearly edit warring. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, you should be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not edit warring. You tried to use collapse templates on me. That failed. You filed an AN/I on me that failed. 3RR action was taken about me. That failed. I simply have not edit warred, violated 3RR, or done anything wrong whatsoever. I added two links to a Talk page. That's it. Then I added an existing ref from a previous version to a statement someone added. That's it. That is totally normal and Wiki compliant editing. Including the few reverts I made for the legitimate reasons I stated.

All of your procedural efforts to block what I wrote or to block me in general have failed, yet here you are, yet again, yet again making false statements about me. I was not edit warring. I was cooperatively engaged, it was you who were and not. You use collapse templates on a few links on a Talk page no less. Other editors saw right through what you did and called it a tempest in a teapot and closed the AN/I you filed against me.

Better yet, it appears all your huffing and puffing has been for naught as there appears to be consensus to add the material some sought to blocked, and the collapse templates have been removed (by me) and have stayed removed.

You made constant false allegations about me. You misquoted me in a manner that made it appear I said something I did not. You have filed a procedural action against me that failed. You falsely claimed my POV/COI. You are now coming to my talk page, to what, to continue to harass me? To continue to put in writing what you have claimed about me that was false in the past and remains false? "You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits." So you said just now. The truth is, my reverts were proper and I have created a Talk page subsection to work with other editors after it became clear there was a need, yet here you are saying I should have done that, but I did, but you did not say that. I mean really, do you think you can just say one thing when it's the exact opposite? This is at least the second time you have done this.

You do not know me from a hole in the wall. All I did was add 2 links to a Talk page and you went off on me so fast it made my head spin. You then garnered your friends to join in on the feeding frenzy. All the frenzy was for naught as no action was taken against me of any kind and the page and Talk page has or will have the material you sought to remove, yet you come back to my page to continue what I now feel has become harassment. That's my opinion. That's how I feel. You are harassing me.

I will continue to edit on Wikipedia any way and any where I like, and in a Wiki complaint fashion, and there is no amount of intimidation you and your friends can pile on me to scare me off. I have been though a number of scrapes where people like you wish to use Wikipedia for a certain political interest and have sought to bring various actions against me. Setting aside my early, inexperienced years here, all such actions have failed. Yours has too. Because I remain Wiki complaint, all such future actions will fail as well.

I'll work with you cooperatively, but you have to stop the harassment, stop the false accusations, stop the procedural steps to stop my editing, stop using collapse templates to remove legitimate edits I make to Talk pages, stop the violation of Wiki rules such as WP:AGF, then get off your WP:SOAPBOX. If you do that, we'll be fine. If you continue to harass me, I will continue to point out the form your harassment has taken. Clear? Your false statements here do not show me any improvement at this time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That was a mouthful. Perhaps step away for a bit, read over WP:COOL, and a bit of WP:AGF, and come back and edit something else later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.187.181 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to intimidate you and as I said on ANI, I am now involved, so I'm not acting as an admin. However, [4] [5] [6] is a textbook edit war, whether you want to believe it or not. I'm a bit surprised that Looie didn't block you for it given the concerns already raised. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block mainly because no 3RR notice had been given. My notice that started all this came after those edits. If there was an earlier notice, I didn't see it. Looie496 (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You people don't stop, do you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINK

Please read WP:DEADLINK. There is nothing "reaching" about following that policy.

By the way, I don't actually have an opinion on the content dispute going on, I haven't read enough about it to have formed one, I certainly see a potential POV argument with that section. But deleting deadlinks because they are dead is quite clearly in opposition to the policy:

Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line.

Please revert. (Struck this as it's already been done by another editor, it appears.) --j⚛e decker^talk 22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe, it suffered from various Wiki policy violations as well, hence the "reaching". If it is still there, then if and when I get a chance, I will work with the community to get it removed based on those various Wiki policy violations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the link is no longer in the article. So I need take no further action. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I see there's a Talk page subsection on it. You'll notice I asked Will Beback a number of relevant questions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, gotta run to dinner but I'll take a look when I return. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for both Phyllis Schafly edits

Both were improvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 17:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So many times you make normal edits like I just did and someone with an agenda assumes you were opposing their agenda. My talk page gets filled with such people, some of whom attempt to use procedural means to stop me from editing in a way they apparently dislike. What a refreshing relief when someone sees your edits as improving Wikipedia instead of opposing their agenda. So thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ex-gay and Donnie Davies

Hi! I think I have solved your (cn) tag problem on the Ex-gay article, thus I have removed the tag, and the Donnie Davies entry. Apparently, Donnie Davies is not a person (see link, and related articles that can be found via Google if you need to confirm). So... if I am correctly understanding that section to be intended for real people, I think that solves that problem - and if not (and fictitious ones should be included to), feel free to revert me. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. I thought it was a joke as well. But in an abundance of caution just in case someone had a Wikiworthy reason to keep the joke and knowing people can get touchy on that page, I added the cn template instead of just removing it in the first place. Thanks. Good call. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

COI

As an individual who makes a substantial amount of their living professionally criticizing the ALA, you are advised to read and follow WP:COI. Continuing to edit articles about the ALA, or closely related to the ALA is problematic, and needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My actions have been fully complaint with WP:COI. Please, join the line of people using procedural means to stop me from editing. Like them, you will fail precisely because I follow the rules.

And before making accusations, consider WP:AGF.

It wouldn't hurt to be truthful either. I do not "make[] a substantial amount of [my] living professionally criticizing the ALA". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You alleged, then, that you are not paid to criticize the ALA and various libraries for not following a filtering regimin? Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite is not following WP:AGF. Hipocrite is possibly at the beginning of a pattern of harassment and intimidation relating to WP:STALK. Please, Hipocrite, reconsider before continuing down this path. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Hipocrite is possibly at the beginning of a pattern of harassment and intimidation" - perhaps you could WP:AGF as well.... Westbender (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have. His actions kept compounding. You, for instance. What compelled you to come here just to leave a statement about me instead of about building Wiki pages? Really, what possesses you to feel the need, almost a week later, to add such a comment? My advice to you is, don't answer the question, or say something polite. If a comment is not directed toward building a Wiki page, consider not making it. Did I go to your page and say things I don't like about you? No. Instead I made a nice comment on your Talk page. See the difference? I know you are newish here and you'll calm down soon. This message is an attempt to hasten the process for the benefit of all. I'll bet you are thinking this comment is directed at you and not a Wiki page. Correct, but the point is to help you to mature on Wikipedia and encourage you to contribute in a positive way. Please consider what I have said as if a loving family member gave you friendly advice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"If a comment is not directed toward building a Wiki page, consider not making it." Consider your own advice (and try to be brief). Westbender (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I predicted above you would come back with such a comment. Does this get tiring for you? Don't answer. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I just learned of this issue. A quick scan of recent newspaper clippings confirms that you are an activist concerning certain issues. Wikipedia is not a soapox, nor is it a battlefield. Despite your promise to avoid editing articles where you have a conflict, unless no one responds to talk page requests, you seem to have dominated the relevant articles.[7][8][9] I request that you follow WP:COI closely and not make further direct edits to topics about which you have been a public activist.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, I have in the past and will remain having great respect for you. On this one you are not fully correct, however. I have and will continue to follow the COI rules assiduously--see my User page for my COI notice, for example. COI does not require me to do nothing while someone promotes his own soapbox on a page. COI also does not require me not to get involved.

Let's look at the three examples you provided.

1. Banned Books Week. That page is much improved with my input. But let's set that aside for now since it has recent activity, so let's look at the other pages in which I have significant impact.
2. Content-control software. That page is greatly improved thanks to me. The changes were made with consensus of the community. I just saw the problem and brought it up to the community. The problem was that it used to called censorware. That is a very loaded name, and intentionally so. It is, essentially, POV. So I raised that with the community and together we decided content-control software was encyclopedic whereas censorware was not. Censorware still remains prominent on the page, but it is not the name of the page now. That was thanks to me. What was my COI, that Wikipedia has rules to follow and I acted within those rules to affect positive change? I am happy I did and so is the Wikipedia community.
3. American Library Association. That page is vastly improved thanks to me. First off, it was the first major page on which I was involved and my sense of Wikipedia rules was not as well developed. So I can admit now that I was not aware of the COI rule in the first place. I eventually changed my name to SafeLibraries.org so as to be very clear who I was and someone complained about that, so I'm LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Point is, forgive me for being a newbie and not behaving perfectly--we all go through a learning process. That said, my input was invaluable. That page was a near perfect copy of the the ALA's own web site at that time. Essentially, the ALA was using Wikipedia as its soapbox. I came along and as a result the page is now encyclopedic instead of being an ALA echo. The page stays in its current form that I helped bring about precisely because the Wikipedia community knows the page is now far superior to what it was when the ALA used it as its mirror. I am happy I contributed to that page and I would do it again, only with more experience now.
4. Banned Books Week. Yes, let's discuss that again. BBW is another page that ALA was using to promote ALA's soapbox. I came along and others joined in and the page is now much improved. I am aware of COI and I am and will continue to comply.

You have ordered me "not make further direct edits to topics about which you have been a public activist." COI rules are not so bright edged. I will continue to make edits as I see fit and in accordance with Wikipedia rules.

I have person after person using procedural means after procedural means to get me to stop editing. I edit on pages that are both on the left and on the right of the political perspective. Yet only my edits that are perceived to be on the right are challenged not with talk on the talk pages but with procedural means to stop me from editing or with demands like that I should "not make further direct edits to topics about which you have been a public activist."

Will, I'm telling you I have been through this plenty of times and each time (past my newbie stages) I have come out on top and I may continue to edit as I had been editing. So I will continue to edit on the BBW page as I see fit and in compliance with Wiki rules. I strongly encourage you to engage me on the Talk page and bypass the procedural means to stop my edits. You have enough experience to know it's a waste of time for all if you don't have a solid case. Since I follow COI rules, you don't have a solid case.

And if people are newbies using the BBW page to promote their soapbox and I revert, say, longstanding text that offends the personal sensibilities of someone, that is not editing as a result of COI. That's just common sense editing any Wikipedia editor would do anyway. My COI may cause me to put the page on my watchlist, but after that I may follow Wiki rules just like anyone else.

If I added my own articles on BBW to the main page, or added those articles like Thomas Sowell's one calling BBW "National Hogwash Week" that I thought people should see, that would present a COI problem. Other things would too. But I'm not doing those or those other things.

That said, thanks for writing here, I really do respect you, and I look forward to working with you and others on a variety of pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you assure me that not a single edit you've made to those articles has promoted your activist POV?   Will Beback  talk  07:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it true that you have a financial interest in "censorware", or other library-related issues? I saw that assertion somewhere, excuse me if it's incorrect, but it is relevant.   Will Beback  talk  09:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, you appear to be reverting the edit of someone you describe as an involved party: "rv - interested editor Danbackhaus needs to discuss this in talk and not edit war".[10] You started a thread at Talk:West Bend, Wisconsin#Danbackhaus COI. I get the feeling that you consider that to be a problem. This is looking increasingly like a battleground for off-wiki disputes.   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct that you believe adequate COI disclosure in this matter does not include your RL name, blog, published remarks, etc?   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to get a sense of persecution here. Will Beback, you have 10 times as many edits as me and you are a sysop. Yet you are making statements like, "Is it true that you have a financial interest in 'censorware', or other library-related issues? I saw that assertion somewhere...." Hearsay, no? And you have outed me on 2 pages in violation of Wiki rules. I am beginning to feel WP:HOUNDed. Another example would be to complain that I am "actively engaged in editing Wikipedia articles in his area of activism," then to provide an example where I have not edited in two years. I have followed WP:COI rules and feel you are violating WP:AGF, among other things. I am beginning to lose respect for you and I am wondering how someone with your behaviour can be a sysop. I raise evidence of COI compliance above and you totally ignore that and continue rolling right on with your persecution.

I further feel you are colluding with others to persecute me, one of whom is someone known to me to be defamatory to me and one other outside of Wikipedia in multiple and nefarious ways affecting our families and our good names, and over the course of years. It appears that he has obtained an unwitting ally in his efforts. You were concerned that "[t]his is looking increasingly like a battleground for off-wiki disputes." Well your actions tell me you have four square joined someone in his battleground for off-wiki disputes, and that person may be acting illegally in his off-wiki battle. Will Beback, do not become his ally.

I will respectfully ask you now to withdraw your questions and curtail your persecution, at least that's how it's starting to feel to me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you stop editing those article, in compliance with WP:COI, I'll drop the matter. I am not "colluding" with anyone, and haven't contacted anyone about this, on- or off-Wiki. However if there aren't satisfactory answers to my questions I will look further into this, starting with a review your edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you have added links to your website.[11]   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2618497/posts?page=30#30
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2618472/posts?page=32#32
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2618522/posts?page=8#8

Please read WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET. You've violated both.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, that link you claim I added to my site was merely a change from a site that went dead, 404, and I happen to have an archived version. And that would be 1 edit in the over 9,000 I have made. My suspicion of your WP:HOUNDing of me is beginning to gel. Back off if you don't want attention turned to your actions here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You say "claim" - are you disputing that you added a link to your personal website? Since you have not responded that you will comply with WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX, I am going to be reviewing your edits further. I see that there has already been one user RFC regarding the same behavior. I also see other editors making similar complaints. Unless you're willing to commit to changing your behavior there may need to be another RFC. If you want to investigate my actions in this regard you are, of course, welcome to do that. But it gives the appearance that you are attacking me instead of addressing the issue.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, there is no issue. You are persecuting me. You have just admitted so.

Be that as it may, you'll find my edits are all Wiki-compliant or otherwise honestly made. I'll continue to edit as I have been, and your persecution of me will not stop me one iota. And that 404 link that I used my own site as a backup version for, excuse me for having a backup version of something that went 404.

By the way, I do not believe your claim that you are persecuting me independently at all. Information you used to persecute me could have only come from someone else. That someone else is known to me to be spreading misinformation external to Wikipedia and getting others to join in his efforts. He is now doing it in Wikipedia, and you are his first recruit. I do believe that if you knew the full extent of his actions, you would not assist him further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you to back off and your response is to say, "I am going to be reviewing your edits further." Others like you have all given up when they see I was (past my newbie stage), am, and will remain Wiki-compliant. Feel free to join the crowd. And for pete's sake, WP:AGF. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

All I have done is come to your talk page and ask you to comply with Wikipedia' guidelines and policies. You say that all of your edits are in compliance. I assume that means that you have not used Wikipedia to advocate for a cause. Even a brief review seems to belie that assertion. I am not concerned with your first edits, but I assume your "newbie" phase ended a couple of years ago.

Can you share the name of the person you're accusing me of colluding with? What is this special info that only he or she would know?   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"All I have done is come to your talk page and ask you to comply with Wikipedia' guidelines and policies." False. You have come here to badger and bully me. You have outed me in violation of policy. You have said you will follow me around to review my edits. You have done more than that. That's a far cry from "ask [me] to comply with Wikipedia' guidelines and policies." And I do not need to response to a bully's questions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You can assume bad faith if you choose. As for outing you, that's absurd. To your credit, you have made no secret of your identity as the person who runs SafeLibraries.org. As the operator of that website and plan2succeed.org you have been an outspoken advocate, and you've been quoted by name in newspapers on many occasions. All of that is fine and you're entitled to say whatever you like on your websites and to reporters. But when you come to Wikipedia to advocate for that same cause then there's a problem. You have accused other people of violating WP:SOAPBOX, so I assume you must be familiar with its language. Just in case, I'll repeat it here:

• Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

I have seen edits in which you add negative material about people or causes that you have advocated against in real life, and you've added removed negative material about people or causes that you've advocated for in real life. And that's despite numerous complaints from other editors stretching back years. As for reviewing your edits, I was meaning your past edits. If you make further edits to article related to libraries or content filtering software, despite your admitted COI and advocacy, then that's more direct problem and may require a more direct response. I'll ask you again, as I did at the start of this thread, to please stop editing articles on topics in which you are well-known activist.

Though it's unrelated to the libraries and filtering software issues, your canvassing for support on FreeRepublic is also very troubling. It adds more weight to the view that you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox for advocacy.   Will Beback  talk  08:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my persecutor is back.

"But when you come to Wikipedia to advocate for that same cause then there's a problem." I have not come to Wikipedia to advocate for a cause. If I did, I could go hog wild like the advocates for, say, Media Matters for America or, say, the American Library Association go hog wild.

Setting all that aside, let me ask you an out of the blue question. You have repeatedly gone out of your way to expose me on page after page. You decry the many articles in which I appear in the media. You call me a "well-known activist". The question is, in your opinion, am I noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia page named after me? If my persecutor writes the page, I wonder what it would look like.

As to FreeRepublic, I made a polite, non-pushy statement, and on one issue, at one slice in time. You wanna find any more such instances? Good luck. You know, I'm not taking the time to track down each of your edits here and external to WP to determine that each one exactly aligns with my personal sense of what's right and wrong, and if not announce it to the world. Is your life so empty that you have chosen to take such action against me? I guess I am noteworthy!

"And that's despite numerous complaints from other editors stretching back years." Oh, Will Beback's edits never receive numerous complaints stretching back over the years.

Then you complain, "I have seen edits in which you add negative material about people or causes...." I'm getting complaints right now for adding a BIAS tag to the Southern Poverty Law Center page. I did it because the page looks like an advertising brochure from the SPLC. There are a number of people there protecting that page from containing anything negative whatsoever, except the fourth to the last sentence of that huge page. However, I have people supporting my view that the page is indeed biased and needs more criticism. Eventually the page will be improved as a direct result of my intervention.

I had the same effect on a number of pages American Library Association members created and maintain to promote ALA interests. Had I not obtained consensus that such pages were non-Wiki compliant, they would to this day most likely be non-Wiki compliant. You see, my COI gives me an interest in certain issues others may not notice. I then work with the community to effect change. Sure, people who protect those pages on behalf of the ALA oppose my edits. That does not make my edits suspect, as you are implying if not openly stating.

For example, someone on the Banned Books Week page keeps promoting a censorship map as the ALA's, citing to an LA Times piece saying so. I have, however, produced legitimate and even compelling evidence that the ALA plagiarized the page given I presented information about the actual creator admitting he is not connected to the ALA, and indeed now he is connected to another organization. Further, I have produced evidence, words of the author himself, that the map is not really well put together. So I have a COI. Am I not supposed to provide the evidence as I have over and over again, obtain consensus, then remove the offending material? You have complained that I remove such material, haven't you?

I will continue to do such things while I remain as compliant as possible with Wiki rules, including WP:COI. Where you see I have not been so complaint, with any rule, assume it is an honest error and ask me to resolve before running off and outing me, etc. On the whole, however, I have made or led significant improvements in a number of pages, including those where I have had a COI, and those changes have remained in place for years without my having to do anything. Since the point of Wikipedia is the improvement of Wikipedia, I'll keep contributing as I have. Care to drop your persecution of me and instead join me in constructive changes? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fred has significant experience here as has said he does not necessarily view Will Beback's action as hounding. Since I respect Fred, I hereby state Will Beback is not hounding me. That said, Fred also said what matters is how I edit. So, Will, I have dropped my claim of your persecuting me, will you go easier on me now and just respond to individual edits as you see fit? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any comments that indicate you will stop editing topics related to your activism. Therefore, as I said before, I will review your past edits. You appear to have started editing in 2005, and got an account in June 2006. I assume that by 2008 you were no longer a newbie, and so I'll limit my review to edits since then. I will bring my findings to the community to decide what, if anything, should be done.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC

You are a free man and I need not respond to a bully. I tried to resolve this with you, but you just keep charging ahead, as you just did, without hardly ever actually discussing any specific problem on a Talk page anywhere. You are just going to skip Talk and attempt to stop me from editing completely on the topics in which I have been effective in improving Wikipedia.

Let me add here a comment I just added on Fred's page in response to your and your friend's effort to BAN, AN, RFC me.

That SPLC matter is old history. I am actively involved on SPLC right now. Go ahead and find one problem with my editing there despite the obvious differences. Further, I edit pages of all political stripes. For example, for the co-author of "The Joy of Gay Sex," I got his photograph approved and posted on his page. You also have to admit that the issue really is that I am not afraid to edit where others are protecting pages. For example, ALA pages have been created and maintained to appear like Wikipedia copies of ALA pages. My input has led the effort to turn them into Wikiworthy pages. Is it my fault other people are using Wikipedia to promote their interests? Is it my fault the SPLC page now looks like an SPLC pamphlet and I am leading the effort to change that? People there are actually removing the BIAS tag and you're not supposed to, but I put it back up. Is that a problem to anyone here? You guys know exactly what it is like to edit on a page that someone or some group is protecting. That is what I do. Shall I stop? Sometimes people who oppose me realize what I'm doing and change their opinion of me. Like Orpheus. Is he wrong? I have gathered a number of opponents who can't stand that I am able to remove Media Matters for America references wherever they are strewn about by MMfA soapboxers. That's right, soapboxers. Numerous procedural actions were brought against me by numerous people. They all ended up on the losing end of the stick. Wikipedia needs more editors like me willing to do the right thing instead of being scared out by bullies protecting a page. Look at my edits and Talk page comments now on the Judith Reisman page. You see any problem there? The number of people who oppose me for purely political reasons it truly outstanding. Shall I be topic banned so that the soapboxers may continue to, for example, keep the SPLC page looking like an SPLC brochure? I led the effort to change the Censorware page to the Content-control Software page. I won a lot of enemies there. But it was the right thing to do and it remains to this day. Wikipedia is better. Should I have been topic banned on that one? People were going around and labeling people as homophobic by added the category Homophobia to anyone they opposed for soapbox reasons. Yes, soapbox. The community worked together to stop that soapboxing, and again it stands to this day. Again, I gained a lot of people who did not like me after that. Should I have been topic banned from improving Wikipedia in that case? So go ahead and pick and choose a spot or two where I have not been perfect, but who is, and it was probably out of innocence. You wanna topic ban me on all those pages I have improved despite the political headwinds precisely because I have tacked to the Wikipedia winds? Wikipedia has gotten a bad name for this kind of behavior, but I know it is not Wikipedia per se doing it, it is the soapboxers, and the Wikipedia rules enable me to steer clear of sanctions every time. I will continue to edit as I have been editing, and if you find any problems, raise them on the Talk page -- don't just seek a topic ban to make your life of protecting pages easier. Look at those people drooling to stop my editing. BAN, AN, RFC. It's really sick that they find my editing so offensive that they need to stop me from editing the pages I edit. Who's really being offensive? They don't even go to the Talk pages to discuss issues. No, skip over that. Go for the throat. It hasn't worked before and it won't work again, thanks to Wikipedia rules. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)