User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Informal mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

The phrase to be added is part of the material highlighted here: [1] --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Parental controls

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

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

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

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

The Last Mimzy plot synopsis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have issues

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

IBDP

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

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

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

Good morning!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your deletions of 68.21.5.18's sockpuppetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the policy: Vanity guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

OrgName: SBC Internet Services

OrgID: SIS-80

Address: 2701 N. Central Expwy # 2205.14

City: Richardson

StateProv: TX

PostalCode: 75080

Country: US

NetRange: 68.20.0.0 - 68.23.255.255

CIDR: 68.20.0.0/14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen Minnis

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

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

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

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

Alliance Defense Fund

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

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

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

AFA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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