User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

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

BThis user keeps a weblog at Blogger as SafeLibraries. This user has a website, which can be found here. This user keeps delicious weblinks as Plan2Succeed.

This user supports the fight against mental illness.

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

Bias warring

Please don't edit war with the bias template. You'd be more productive if you focused on describing such biases on the talk page rather than getting banned for readding a template. Thanks. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. So I reverted once on general principles particularly given his history comment, twice on the strength of what you told him, but I won't do it further. And I did add a section to Talk asking people to assist in this area. Again, I won't do it further today. Thanks for commenting here. Let me say I see he has said things on his User Talk page that were intended to prejudice you against me. I am certain you will keep an open mind. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:3RR does not entitle you to up to two reverts, as you seem to imply above. ONly revert when policy and consensus allows, not on "general principles" or "history comment[s]". You're playing with fire. Westbender (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but, as usual, the way you cast what is happening is not the complete truth. I also referred above to "the strength of what [Falcon8765] told him." Here is what Falcon8765 told BalancedAndFair: "Regardless, insulting other editors is not acceptable, despite whatever actions they may have taken. Please don't do it again and discuss whatever issue you have civilly. The template itself doesn't need consensus to be included as long as the person who added it starts a discussion, it's used to invite editors to join such discussion, see {{NPOV}}. Thank you." Westbender, please stop spinning everything I say. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bryan Fischer. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Westbender (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Westbender, you consistently make uncivil comments about or to me, and nearly 100% of all your Wikipedia edits are devoted to me or to reverting my edits. Now, you may be engaging in template abuse, whatever that is, but I have heard people speak of it.

I have not been edit warring on that page. I reverted an edit that restored an incorrect reference and removed a citation tag. I also reverted an edit that removed a BIAS tag.

Although the tag was removed in a disruptive fashion for the second time, I did not revert further. At this point, the BIAS tag is gone. I will not restore it. I have merely continued on in Talk discussing the page, just as Falcon8765 recommended.

No edit warring is taking place, not even close. Prove it otherwise. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stay on topic; my edit history is irrelevant to the fact that you reverted multiple times, thus, edit warring. Perhaps you should go find some other article -- outside your off-wiki domain of interest -- to improve. Perhaps there's something here you can do, without causing controversy. Westbender (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I said, "No edit warring is taking place, not even close. Prove it otherwise." Your response is that I "reverted multiple times, thus, edit warring." Please provide the diffs proving edit warring on Bryan Fischer. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You have reverted at least five times since 23:02 UTC last night. Given your block log, it's probably lucky for you that I've decided to protect the page instead. And yes, it wasn't just you that was edit-warring - it takes two. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim here is that I am edit warring on Bryan Fischer, hence the title of this subsection named "Bryan Fischer". Black Kite, you are known to me to be an experienced editor. In your opinion, do you see me edit warring on Bryan Fischer? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Given your block log, it's probably lucky for you that I've decided to protect the page instead." Now I understand why people make false claims about edit warring, like this current Bryan Fischer one. If enough smoke piles up, eventually some may see fire.

To think that I was so close to being blocked again, by you this time, just for making normal edits on the Bryan Fischer page, simply because a newbie who dedicates almost 100% of his edits to denigrating me or reverting my work comes here and makes a false claim of edit warring which is simply not true even in the slightest. That is truly outstanding that that is the hair line trigger it takes for people to block others. Just make a false allegation, then let others view all the false allegations as a whole and block the guy again.

Show me the diffs where I edit warred on Bryan Fischer. If there are none, then this matter is void ab initio. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You were edit warring with me [1][2], which was an extension of the edit warring you were doing here: [3], [4]. You moved the edit war to a different page, and now you're taunting someone to call you on it. Done.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go update the SPLC page. Seems the Family Research Institute has been deemed a hate group. About darn time. Have a great Thanksgiving! --BalancedAndFair (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For the Bryan Fischer page, you produced two edits. One reverted your revision that removed a citation tag and moved a ref from the correct sentence to the wrong sentence. The other reverted your removal of the BIAS tag. When you removed it a second time, I did not revert again, nor will I. Neither of those edits is edit warring. Thank you for proving that this Bryan Fischer subsection is void ab initio as no edit warring occurred on Bryan Fischer.

And stop outing me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As to your first paragraph: Wrong! As to your second: the "stop outing me" charge didn't work when you were using it against Will Beback, and it's not working now. Stop using Wikipedia to push advocacy for your off-Wiki censorship hobbies. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. 3RR is a fairly bright line, and if you make more than 3 reverts - of anything - on the same article in 24h then technically you should really be blocked. On Bryan Fischer, your multiple edits (UTC) at 23 November 23:02-23:07 were removing content added previously, you then readded the BIAS tag at 23:51 (another revert) and then two standard reverts at 24 November 17:03 & 17:55. Now that's anything between four and seven reverts depending on how you count it, but regardless it's contrary to WP:EW/WP:3RR. Not only that, but your 17:03 edit summary was "rv v" when it clearly wasn't vandalism. Still, this is all moot now because the page is protected, so can we please work out if Fischer is notable or not on the talkpage? Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked BalancedAndFair indefinitely for coming here with the sole intent of harassing you. That said, stop edit warring, now, and pay attention to the warnings. I'm going to unlock the article - I highly suggest that if you reinstate the the bias tag, and another editor removes it, that you let it be. In fact, I highly suggest you abide by WP:1RR per day because I will be watching you. Please use the talk page for disputes; do not simply revert other editors. Please do not take this as harassment from me: if you can abide by community norms, you will have my utmost support. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

FINALLY! THANK YOU! What a huge weight off my shoulders! I have BalancedAndFair, Westbender, and Will Beback after my every move, the first two with the nastiest of behavior, I have Will Beback and BalancedAndFair talking together about gathering diffs to start an ANI and ban me, and never once does anybody help me in the slightest, until you. Fred Bauder helped me with Will Beback's outing of me. BalancedAndFair outed me, I informed OTRS, but that was yesterday and I know of no response yet. So, once again, THANK YOU so much! I'll follow your suggestions about 1RR, etc.

I think the problem is a group of editors assume everything I do is a problem because they assume I have an agenda in mind instead of Wiki rules. When someone who does not know I'm supposed to be bad comes along, then there's no problem. For example, last night someone added the SPLC's anti-gay claim to the lead paragraph of some page, I reverted that for POV. That edit of mine is the very type that has been drawing instant attention to me by BalancedAndFair, Westbender, etc. That guy who first added it immediately added it back in. Ckatz reverted it again, thus removing it, then remarking on the Talk page that that other editor violated BRD. EXACTLY! I really feel this is the reason why the likes of BalancedAndFair, Westbender, and Will Beback spread as much misinformation about me as possible (like I'm being accused of calling people demons!!) so that they can prejudice editors against me, instead of doing the right thing, like Ckatz and Fred Bauder did, and like you have just done.

Please, keep an eye on me. I encourage that 100%. You may be Magog the Ogre, but I view you as Magog the Angel. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - and actually I suggest you pay attention to Will. He's been around a long time and he doesn't come to Wikipedia with an ax to grind (at least that I know of). Even without reviewing his comments to you, I imagine it is entirely possible and even if your best interests for you to heed them - again, even if he isn't on your "side." Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. And I'll bet with one less person harassing me, it'll be easier for me to edit without wild accusations being made about me that draws the attention of others, including Will. I have always respected Will. About 2 weeks back he changed like overnight and adapted the Westbender/BalancedAndFair way of viewing my edits. Maybe BalancedAndFair being indef blocked will help resolve that issue. Then there's another issue with Will. After going through that recent WP:LAME incident, I brought my concerns to the likely fora for discussion. Will Beback showed up to poison the well so, e.g., the first response to me was "I don't think this has been a problem for anyone but you. Calling other editors 'CABALDEMONS' is a personal attack - please assume good faith." I don't know why anyone would be interested in discussing the substantive issues after that. Since Will was a participant in that recent 3RR incident and even outed me, we already know how he feels, so his giving the tipoff to everyone else who might respond that my concern is really nothing is another problem I am sensing with Will. And Will being as respected as he is makes his statements like that have even more effect. Indeed, no one else has responded. There's no discussion. I really do not appreciate Will's doing that, and I do not think it benefits Wikipedia to cut off debate. He's not on anyone's side if he's cutting off debate and prejudicing people against others. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

you sure like to bloviate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.166.43 (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Hate group. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

Hi. I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Heck I even followed BRD and encouraged a newbie to do so and he responded by attacking me. So, on the talk page I even said, "I'll be practicing 1RR for a while so I won't revert it myself". I couldn't be more careful. Would you please explain what was the transgression this time? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And let me ask you this. Assuming I get the usual stream of people only making ad hominem comments about me, am I allowed to just remove them off my talk page instead of responding? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

On another page an editor said to me she was really pleased to work so well with other editors. Actaully, it was the Bryan Fischer page. She said, "Incidentally, I'd like to congratulate all the participants in this talk page for its welcome absence of trollery. We don't all agree all the time, but we can disagree in a constructive way. (Sanity rather than fear is being retained)." Really, I'm confused as to this latest block. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove anything you'd like from your talk page, save unblock requests during your block. I recommend you don't remove any constructive comments, as it's seen as a type of disruption. Also, to address the issue: you did not follow BRD. You reverted twice. Given that this is your third edit war since I unblocked you on your own recognizance, and I specifically gave a warning regarding more than 1RR, I've had to block your account. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand. I specifically reverted a guy once. When he restored it, I simply asked him to consider BRD, and after he attacked me, I went to the Talk page and asked the community to look at it, specifically saying I could not revert further due to 1RR. There was another guy with a different edit though similar, and I only reverted him once as well. I simply do not see what you are saying. Sorry, I suppose I must be really think. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

1 2. Cmon bro, you're trying to tell me you didn't know you'd reverted twice? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

One reverted was this: The Family Research Council is classified a hate group for its broad opposition and denigration of LGBT people.

The second reverted was this: /ref The Southern Poverty Law Center has also designated the Family Research Council a hate group. ref name="SPLC-18-List" cite news|last=Waddington|first=Lynda|title=Groups that Helped Oust Iowa Judges Earn 'Hate Group' Designation; SPLC Adds American Family Association, Family Research Council to List|url=http://iowaindependent.com/47947/groups-that-helped-oust-iowa-judges-earn-hate-group-designation%7Caccessdate=25 November 2010|newspaper=Iowa Independent|date=23 November 2010 /ref ref name="WaPo hate" cite news|last=Thompson|first=Krissah|title='Hate group' designation angers same-sex marriage opponents|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112405573.html%7Caccessdate=25 November 2010|newspaper=Washington Post|date=24 November 2010 /ref

They are totally different edits made by different people.

Further, I did not revert further after the other guy failed to practice BRD.

Are you telling me that's a violation? If it is, can you not see I had awareness of 1RR and attempted to follow it? If there was a problem, why did you not just give me a hint. Now you have given people more ammunition to continue to harass me. I really do not appreciate this in the slightest. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy who wrote that nasty comment above already laughed at me for being blocked again. Is this really necessary? Does it look like I'm going wild? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I reread 1RR. I made a mistake and assumed edit warring meant warring with a single person. Now I see "An editor must not perform more than [one] reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." So now I see it pertains to the page, not just to people. I'm guilty. I apologize. I understand now. I will not violate 1RR further. Will you please unblock me? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will consider it. The problem is your editing behavior overall lends to edit warring before discussing, and I see that as a problem. Give me a bit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My behaviour is fine with other editors who behave, mainly polite and/or experienced editors. Look at the Talk on Bryan Fischer, for example. Someone even praised how great it was that we were all getting along so well. Then TFD showed up, made ad hominem comments about me, ignored the work we did as a community, and he's the guy who kept removing the BIAS tag that I reverted before I knew what would happen. I am telling you ther are quite a number of people like TFD who harass me on a regular basis and make false claims about me that causes other to doubt me, like you. Please, go look at the Bryan Fischer Talk. See that it's like a mini microcosm of what I face simply because I make edits that people think are political on pages they are protecting. Look at what TFD said. Was that right? Look at what Tom Northshoreman said about me. How about the botton of SPLC talk -- see Dave Dial and Blaxthos? Do you think I have a fair chance as all with people like that protecting pages? How about this. People bring actions against me but I don't do it back. Do you suggest I start doing that? Balxthos called me a vandal for adding a BIAS tag that people are discussing and the article is improving. Should I do anything about that? Should I start fighting back instead of letting these people tag team me? Please, guide me. It is totally silly how these people gang up on me, complain about me, and suddenly I'm the bad guy. It's not that way with decent editors though. Ask Black Kite. Heck even ask Limulus who was originally really annoying with me. Ask the other editors on Bryan Fischer or on just about any other page where I am not drawing personal attacks. TFD, Dave Dial, Blaxthos, Westbender, Tom Northshoreman, these are people who go on the attack instantly and work together to stop me from editing. It's really quite frustrating. I saw you warned TFD, but that was it. He really suffered no consequences for his behaviour that been gone on for what, years? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright I've unblocked you again. I can't well block you for violating BRD when you only do it twice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And you can see below I'm trying to take some action to control the harassment. Thanks again. And if there is such a thing as removing "unjustified" blocks from my block record, that would help cut back on harassment as well. You have been a doll. Magog the Angel. No need to respond. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I Will Remove Harassing Comments, Templates, and Outings

New news for my Talk page.

• I will be undoing all harassing comments as minor edits and without comment.
• I get to determine whether or not it is harassing. If, for example, it sounds polite but it is really just a lull in a continuation of a pattern of harassment, I will remove it.
• Any comments or history notes that are WP:OUTINGs will not only be reverted as minor edits and without comment, but will be handled as an OUTING, wasting everyone's time, so just don't do it. I do not want my name or address on Wikipedia. The web sites of mine that I link do not contain my name or address on page I link from WP. Every single time I am outed, it has been malicious in nature. I have been outed about 5 times by about 4 editors, including 1 sysop.
• Even if not strictly viewed by me as harassing, any comments that contain any content that relates to me personally or to any other editors will be removed, and I get to make that determination.
• Harassment that consists of templating me for rules violations will be reverted as well. See WP:HUSH. If you are one of my regular harassers and you find a legitimate reason to leave a legitimate template, ask someone to leave it for you.
• A look at my Talk page reveals a pattern of harassment by a number of people, some of whom have dedicated entire accounts to attacking me or reverting my edits on certain pages in a manner that violates a number of WP rules and policies. One has even been indefinitely banned due to this. I simple will not allow my Talk page to continue to be used in this fashion.
• The results of leaving such personal attacks and the like on my Talk page has not been good for me as the complaints, when viewed by otherwise objective sources, begin to get people to thinking where there's smoke, there's fire. I'm removing the smoke.
• The above rules may change as the WP:CABAL members change tactics to evade this rules.
• It is hoped that a reduction in the harassment left visible on my page will result in a reduction of my being blocked, and that these rules will further that goal.
• These rules are intended to be observant of WP:HARASS. That says, e.g., "If you feel you are being harassed, first and foremost, act calmly (even if difficult). It is hard to over-emphasize this." Undoing all harassing comments as minor edits and without comment is intended as the means by which I will act calmly. It is hoped things will become WP:CIVIL as a result.

Everyone else is welcome to continue on as if the harassers never visiting my page nor outed me. Thanks everyone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that [5] is a legitimate attempt to discuss with you; I suggest you reinsert it and/or take it to that discussion page. Otherwise it looks like you're refusing to discuss and/or ignoring it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That comment is, taken by itself, legitimate, this time. However, there is context. The context is that that user has never missed an opportunity to harass me, so far as I recall. He often starts with innocuous, reasonable looking concerns, but they escalate from there. Indeed, while writing this there was an edit conflict, and I found and removed another comment of his intended to speak about my editing habits generally, instead of that single page. So, before I even get to respond to you, I have already been handed evidence on a silver platter. And I overwrite that comment. Further, his entire use of Wikipedia has been, right from the beginning, except for a few edits here and there, directed at me, my edits, or the pages I edit. Further, there are people external to Wikipedia who, working together, harass me for perhaps years now. Entire web sites are devoted to harassing me. I am 100% certain he is among those who harass me externally. I will not have discussion with him under these circumstances. As a result, I fully expect that my level of feeling harassed will drop significantly, and the other harassers he attracts with will be gone as well. I do speak with him on Talk pages though, just not mine, and I speak on substantive issues. He can bring the issue up there and I will discuss--I will not let him harass me by forcing me to move his comment there. Let him do it. If his comment is important to the page, he can speak there, I'll see it. There will be no more harassment by him on my Talk page. I'm done with that. And what a relief that is to me. I'll bet it'll be a relief to many others who have to deal with fewer WP:LAME incidents as a result of the reduction in his ability to start them in the first place. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To Westbender, I suggest that if LAEC doesn't want you commenting on his talk page, you don't. To LAEC, if you don't want people commenting on your talk page, I suggest you point them to the talk page of the article where there's a problem, and discuss it nicely there. Is this so hard, guys? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I welcome comments. But not those from WP:BULLYs. Those days are over. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

discussion at {{Bias}}

Hi LegitimateAndEvenCompelling,

I have started a discussion at Template talk:POV#change message.

Maybe we can plug the hole that all of us editors at SPLC fell into.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll take a look. And thanks for your support on the SPLC Talk page. When people are coming at you like those people do, a voice of reason willing to stand up is especially welcome. I believe part of the reason for the loud group attack to is send the message to intimidate others from getting involved. Thanks again for your support. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Westbender (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Kevinkor2, I have read something that totally vindicates my view that, like the BIAS tag says, the BIAS tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved or language should be updated to say otherwise. See Alecmconroy's comments at Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#Proposal to add language to deter edit-wars over the NPOV tag: "we should clarify what the tag means, and sort of 'raise the burden of proof' for someone wishing to take the tag down...." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For lending support to my arguments at the SPLC article's talk page. It certainly seems to me that Wikipedia policy favors the kind of editing that I made in the lead. I plan to take a good look at the whole article over the next few days. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. If you have not already noticed, the people opposing you now are the very ones protecting the page for a long time, usually with the absolutely meanest of ad hominem argumentation. They will stop at nothing to bring procedural complaints against you to force you to stop editing, or they will work as a tag team to wear you down and get you to give up. They will read this and cry to high heavens that I am saying this in bad faith. No, it is simply fact, and I say it to urge you to dot your i's and cross your t's so that you too do not fall prey to the pack. I mean really now. If they were not working as a pack to beat down any and all comers, why would people like you have to come to the Talk pages of people like me to thank me? Why would putting quotation marks around quotations that they want instead to appear without quotation marks as fact set in stone be so controversial but for the pack mentality? Don't give up, Badmintonhist. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Legit, you're probably a lot younger than I am so don't feel that I'm being too condescending. Don't take all of the nonsense too personally and get too worked up about it. After all, Wikipedia is really just a hobby for folks with time on their hands. True, lot's of ordinary people use it for information but it's not taken seriously as a reliable source by anyone with brains. How could it be when anyone can change an article at any time? As for some of your less than welcoming colleagues, learn to enjoy the battle (if it comes down to that). For example I've had all sorts of run-ins with Blaxthos over the three years or so that I've been editing. Believe it or not he actually awarded me a barnstar early on. Humorous comebacks are the best ways to deal with his crappola which, admittedly, can be annoying. Though extremely partisan he is also, at times, amenable to reasoned argument, especially when he sees the tide starting to turn against his position. At any rate try to have fun with it all and DON'T LET THEM SEE YOU WHINE.Regards Badmintonhist (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good advice. I'll try it. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(: I just reread WP:LAME. I especially liked the bot edit-warring with iteself! :) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unite Against Fascism

High, i remembered that you provided me with some much needed and very helpful information when i had issues with people wanting to change my user name and now these same people are involved in an issue with the above mentioned article.

I was wondering if you could give me some help and possible input from your outside opinion regarding the lead of the Article Unite Against Fascism. There have been many arguments with regards to this article due to the fact that a LEFT WING label has been added to the lead which 2 sources provided (one from the times, one from the IBT) would you be able to tell me if these sources are adequate for applying the left wing label and if possible leave your input on the Unite against fascism discussion page. Personally i believe the sources are adequate to apply the label and this label is being rejected by users (such as Snowded) because they have a non neutral POV. If you could help me it would be brilliant news. Let me know. Many thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I saw the NPOV Noticeboard issue on the topic and I commented with what I believe to be a fresh point of view, although there was just too much for me to read there and elsewhere to see if such a point of view was not already supplied or if I could have contributed more effectively. However, I think what I said makes sense and I hope it helps. After quickly looking at it, it appears to me that "left-wing" is reliably sourced and not undue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion notice: smallcaps and LORD

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Time?

Well, I obviously cannot get home in time so I can do what I needed to do. Chill. Or better, maybe respond to my detailed response to you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to chill. The details, the call for diffs, the volume, it's just too much right now. Besides, chilling is more in line with your suggestion with which I am now complying.

I see you are just starting to get the picture and I see you are seeking to intervene. I prefer to let that process continue. I think either the guy will stop attacking, or he will continue, and either way it will obviate the need for me to comply with questions that only arose precisely because of that guy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Be aware that Dylan deleted your comment. THF (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I restored it. I'll be going off the computer for a day or so. If he does anything like that again, please restore it. Further, if there was any action I should have taken other than merely readding the comment, please let me know, or please take such action yourself if you have standing to do so.

If any action is taken by anyone to temporarily ban/block/whatever him, please include the link here. He just called me a troll for making extremely polite comments on his Talk page in the "Redemption" section, then he banned me from further writing on that page. He said I was trolling, which he says is different from calling me a troll. I have requested help from User_Talk:Gwen_Gale#Q on this. I read an admin's comment suggesting not to ban people because they may change. In that spirit I wrote something very friendly. I was rebuffed as a troll (by DF and PrBeacon), a harasser (by DF on Gwen Gale's Talk page), etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What do do?

I'm wondering if you would be willing to offer an opinion on this. It really puzzles me... the user most involved in those articles is trying to establish notability by sources such as [6] [7] [8]. He has a good point that the show has aired around the world. Yet, does that fact alone establish notability? Does it offer enough third party sources to make an article? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's my conclusion. These stories are about something supposedly wildly popular in parts of the world where, due to language issues, references I understand may be hard to find. So it is not surprising to me to see a paucity of RSs. On the other hand, there may be lots of them but I just don't understand the foreign languages involved. Perhaps there's a foreign language Wikipedia that should write these articles, while the English language one simply points to the other.

Calm-sah-hahm-needah, but I'm going to choose not to get involved in that discussion since I don't want to even accidentally step on anyone's toes simply because I may be missing out on the whole picture.

That said, it does raise an interesting point in my mind. Like criticism of liberal cause célèbres like SPLC or positive news about conservative interests, is it really absent or is it just absent from the mainstream media for political correctness reasons and the bias of the MSM? Are stories about Pukka really absent or is it just absent from the mainstream media for language reasons and the bias of the MSM? Regarding the latter, I just don't know, so I choose not to step into that arena.

Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes that was helpful as your idea that it might be better just to point to different 'Pedias might help solve the issue. I think WP:MAINSTREAM answers your thoughts about media. WP seems to take the most traditional or most oligarchical approach rather than necessarily the most rational. You might have a newspaper which was a very RS, versus an opinion piece in the NYT, and WP would choose the New York Times ever day. I guess it's the worst alternative except for the others. And if the most widely revered sources get infiltrated by a certain POV, it would take many years for it to change. Also, the university system tends to turn out liberals, and many of what we call RS tend to pick up university grads. The argument is over whether the liberalism is the result of education or the education system is the result of liberalism, right? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming here to ask me questions. While I didn't exactly answer this time, please write again. Each situation is different. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, just for you, I did some original research today. I went to a large comic book store. It had manga as well. The one guy said he did not know/hear of anything Pucca, but the other would know as he was experienced in that region. The other guy never heard of Pucca. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I should have checked back here earlier. That's great :P I currently have no idea what path to take, without a change in WP policy. I was thinking that if it hasn't established notability for a year/half year/month (whatever) after the first notability tag is inserted, then it can be deleted without discussion, or deleted at AfD if no notable sources are found during the discussion. But as to doing anything about these articles which litter WP without such a rule, I give up. Any thoughts? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there is some appropriate notice board or village pump or something to raise this issue with. My advice would be to get all the ducks in a row on your first post wherever that may be, but too much detail might be overwhelming. That said, know that I am just taking a random wild guess. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I know there are a lot of editors who would be behind a push to actually apply the sourcing and notability rules and delete what can't be sourced, but getting the energy behind it would be difficult. I should probably check the histories of the policy pages and canvass those users. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen people get blocked for what appeared like legitimate canvassing. So go carefully with that. Perhaps just posting to the board alone would already attract the attention of the people who watch the board. Again, that's just a guess on my behalf.

As an aside, let me say it's been a pleasure editing with you. No, we do not always agree, but that's besides the point. After going through the recent you-know-who affair, one realizes how appreciative he is to edit with others who adheres to Wiki guidelines and work cooperatively to build a better encyclopedia. So thanks very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

DF

I think it would be best to restore your name to that list and avoid further trouble. Then take it to a friendly admin and ask them to erase the whole list, as it's basically an "enemies list" anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll do it myself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I informed the blocking admin, and asked him to semi the page while he's there, which should fend off the IP impostor(s) riff-raff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I had in mind to remove the others for the reason you are but sensed that would not be so hotsy totsy if I were to do it.

I have seen a number of editors who battled with me or created accounts just to battle with me blocked indef recently. One more to go and it should be smooth sailing for me after that.

I would like to apologize to you. I think I may have said something not so hotsy totsy to you in the past, but please forgive me as I believe it may have occurred while I was under assault from one of those indef accounts. Sorry.

Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, although I don't recall anything specifically. I let most insults slide off, like the snow on the Metrodome roof (well, maybe that's not the best analogy). As long as they don't call me an "upstart", I'm OK. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You're an "unkempt youngster". Like James Taylor... Doc talk 12:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

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. Mo ainm~Talk 16:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Interesting question re WP:OUTING. I wonder what the result will be.

Interestingly, the complainant is an IP address making his/her first edits ever, and they were to complain about me. There are a number of editors whose accounts have been created and devoted solely to harassing me, some of which have already been indef blocked. I wonder if 208.95.83.51 is just the latest in the series.

Thanks again for the notice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You might consider the Wikipedia:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment section. At the very least, it would make anyone supporting the views of those you outted extremely cautious in any dispute with you. That's not a good thing. Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. I can tell you I am in no way harassing Dcs47. It is an account that has not been used for about 2 1/2 years but for a single edit about 1/2 year ago. It has made only about 86 or so edits ever. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding concerns how other editors my view me, thanks, but that one person I outed was years ago when I was a newbie. I know not to do it anymore, especially since I have been recently outed multiple times and know it is not only against the rules but it is really a time waster for many as the offending material gets expunged anyway. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A second IP address whose only edit is about me has just arrived to comment at the AN/I. A pattern may be emerging. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A third IP address has joined the frey. Three strikes you're out. I now view the filing of that AN/I as harassment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I have reviewed this case. I find:

1. That your off-wiki activity violated our policy against outing.
2. That the account you outed being inactive is not a defense or excuse under policy or precedent.
3. That your activities here cross the line into using Wikipedia as a battlefield (WP:BATTLE).
4. That the IPs participation in noting your blog is suspicious but doesn't mitigate or excuse any of the behavior you did here.

I am blocking you indefinitely while discussion continues on the appropriate sanction for the case. This block may be undone by any administrator at any time based on admin judgement or the outcome of consensus discussions.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Okay, that's fair. I won't be able to comment there now. Will you incorporate into the conversation that one of the IP addys I supposedly outed a major sports figure? I think exposing abuse of Wiki policy for the reasons stated in my blog post and violating the privacy rights of a sports player could not be addressed if the issues were not raised. I raised them externally to Wikipedia. Is "outing" a person who used Wikipedia's anonymity to out a major sports player a problem? If so, how can one address the serious outing issue, as opposed to the "outing" of the real life outer? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite parse your third sentence - did you miss a word? If you can clarify what you meant I can copy it over to ANI. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There are alternate way to raise COI concerns. I think ArbCom is setup to handle something like that when someone needs to pass them information/evidence that normally can't be posted on WP. The biggest problem in your post is outting to a specific person - that's a huge no-no. I'm not touching the COI issue because for right here and now, it's not relevant. Both user names and IP addresses provide some anonymity which you stripped away from them without their consent. If they disclose the information on their own on wiki, that's something different. I kinda ignore the 2 years ago thing because if that's the case, then who would care? But you did care, and care enough to dig and post the blog. I'm guessing (as I said in ANI) that's related to the FCC decision. I don't think it's block-worthy though but I'm just a peon, so take that for what it's worth. Ravensfire (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from contacting ArbCom, there's a template {{Uw-coi}} that might have been useful here - put it on the user talk pages. There's some other templates {{COI}} that you can use on the article itself and explain why on the talk page (IP's from this range may come from organization XYZ). Basically, there are better ways to handle this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what Will Beback said, even if true, has nothing to do with what I said on my personal blog outside of Wikipedia. Further, I do not promote my view here, as he said, except within the confines of WP:COI, with which I comply. If Will Beback has a concern about me, he should raise them on AN/I, instead of typing them into Talk pages where I edit. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire, you said, "I think LAEC has a valid point that there is an undisclosed COI from those editors, but it's not like that doesn't happen anywhere else." I agree. What makes this case different, however, and therefore newsworthy, is that person involved is a major player in a major organization, and that organization is a national leader in opposing the very things that its own high ranking member does when she acts anonymously. For example, the ALA opposed outing a 9/11 terrorist to the police, when that person's own deputy outed a major sports figure on Wikipedia for marital infidelity. For example, the ALA promotes "intellectual freedom" while anonymously propagandizing on Wikipedia to promote its own political interests. Lastly, I appreciate the support and guidance you have provided. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I'm now starting to get solid support at the AN/I. I thank all the editors doing so (including yourself), but I won't mention names so that my doing so does not get them in trouble. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-LAEC anon editors

At the ANI, the blocking admin said, "Can we get a better, neutralish party review of the anti-LAEC anon editors behavior? I haven't seen good coverage of that aspect of it and would like to review that as well... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)" He said this in response to the repeated negative comments of Will Beback and likely the detailed, positive comments of Magog the Ogre who indirectly refuted what Will Beback said, if only by its following Will Beback's comment, and the positive comments of Baseball Bugs and Ravensfire.

I'm obviously not a neutral party. But I suppose it would not hurt for me to attempt to list people/IPs to perhaps assist those responding to Georgewilliamherbert. I'll build this a little at a time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• 64.7.166.43 (a little)
• 76.2.107.243
• 98.92.184.204
• 129.89.210.24
• 208.95.83.51
• BalancedAndFair - indef blocked
• Danbackhaus
• Dylan Flaherty - indef blocked (but not because of me)
• PrBeacon
• Westbender

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a starting point. I'll be in contact with the other admins about that list shortly. Although, as I said, I may or may not be "neutral" anymore... hopefully enough to be "neutralish" . Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)