User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All/Archive2

Formerly Known as NBGPWS

Formerly known as NBGPWS - Now known as Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Take the Pledge

My pledge. With important elections coming up, and politicians on both sides sinking to new levels of sleaze and smear tactics - I - Fairness And Accuracy For All - will rise above the muck and mire! I pledge to not enter any negative info, or any info which could even REMOTELY be considered negative into the articles or even the talk pages of ANY candidate running for political office on Nov 7! Anyone who would like to can join me and take the pledge!

Fairness And Accuracy For All 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you live up to all this. Jinxmchue 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you have not. Why am I not surprised? Jinxmchue 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I've seen you been wrong before, but not this wrong. Is the President of Diebold running for office or something? WOW! - F.A.A.F.A. 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. So some "muck and mire" on Wiki is okay, then. Just as long as it's not about candidates running for office this year. Jinxmchue 03:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I didn't enter ANYTHING negative about ANYbody (running for office)! 2)Your mistaken assumptions are astounding. If you watched the documentary or even read a little, you would discover that in districts where Dems are in control and use evoting, the Repubs are actually fighting against it, arguing that its unreliable and prone to hacking and fraud! I know you're upset about the loss of the House (and possibly Senate) but you don't need to act out with your wild unfounded accusations against me! - F.A.A.F.A. 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ironically, you contradict (1) with your final sentence. As for my assumptions, accusing someone of "Play[ing] Admin" or saying that someone is good at "dodging" because they "get lots of practice" is hardly positive or rising "above the muck and mire." Ah, but your "escape clause" makes it okay, since these aren't current election candidates, right? Jinxmchue 05:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup - I refuse to lower myself to the GOP level. I'm not a scumbag like the Repugs who crafted and ran the underhanded, dishonest attack ads against Michael Acuri and others. Unlike Repugs, I have values and morals! I don't do meth OR have gay sex with male prostitutes, like your exalted leader either! LOL!- F.A.A.F.A. 06:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting a little heavy on the partisianship & politicking there. Wiki is not soapbox. Dman727 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't even need to respond to that. It responds to itself. Jinxmchue 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's my user page Dman, and an entirely appropriate reply in response to a mertiless desperate attack considering that I clearly stated that I promised not to edit the articles of "candididates running for office". Obviously another case of this Pre Election Desperation Syndrome - F.A.A.F.A. 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand correctedt. It is your user page and you have that right. Rant On citizen, Rant On! Feel free to expose your partisianship and bias as you see fit. I apologize for interfering.Dman727 09:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. 'Speaker Pelosi' has an especially sweet ring to it, doesn't it? :-)- F.A.A.F.A. 09:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you may be suprised to find that I agree with you. FWIW, I don't consider myself a Dem or a Rep. I do however like a mixed government as it keeps one party from running away with an agenda (as all have done at various points throughout history). Either way, I'm waiting till tonight before emotionally investing in any outcome. cheers! Dman727 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

fyi

User:NuclearUmpf/NBGPWS

The Irony

The irony considering whats above, but I have good faith in your intentions:

• Answers.Com
• DemocraticUnderground

Not sure if they are recent, but both use their content from Wikipedia, just in case admins at AN/I do not oblige you, those are at least images of the article at one point to work off of. --NuclearZer0 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't think of checking there. Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Walter Andrew Stephenson

Please see [1] BenBurch 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

SB Courthouse

Greetings! Yes, I do actually have quite a few photos I can upload if you like. It also shouldn't be too hard to get a cite for that "most beautiful public building in the United States" quote; I've seen it in the LA Times, and Walker Tomkins, local Santa Barbara historian has it in at least one of his books. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Image:SB_Courthouse1.jpg. It's not the best of the bunch, but it was ready for upload. There's some others that need some minor photoshopping, and I can also snap some more any time; I'm only a couple minutes away from there. Let me know. By the way I may also have some shots of Hollister Ranch from Gaviota Park and Gaviota Peak (since I saw from my watchlist that you are interested in that area too). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful pic! Thanks! That's one of the exact angles I was hoping for. The Hollister Ranch article needs a total re-write. I think that most of it is copied directly from their page. IMHO, its notable mostly for their private ownership of 8.5 miles of coastline, the cost of ownership there, their draconian rules and regulations, and efforts to keep surfers out. I've visted someone who has a home in there a few times. The place is amazing. Cheers Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Section header

Please do not make further edits like this one as it messes up the numbering on the main page, WP:MFD. Naconkantari 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't see the note in the edit summary till too late. I've seen other discussions with page breaks, so I thought it was OK. Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

When you get that HBO transcript

If it is electronic, I would love to have a copy! Thanks so much! BenBurch 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Email Enabled

Thought I had already done so, but it is done now. BenBurch 16:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Votergate Film

You know, most of the 'delete' votes have come from conservative editors with a similar edit trail. Groups like this often organize via email, then pretend not to know each other in public. Not saying that's necessarily the case here, but it's a classic situation. The opposite of good faith, when it occurs. Auto movil 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See your talk page: Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's the case. Derex 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You might get indefinetly banned

I have watched this debate with interest from afar, like a pedistrian watches an oncoming train wreck, powerless to stop it, knowing it will happen, and secretly, deep down inside facinated to see its conclusion.

Ask yourself Fairness, are you really any different from the person you argued with? To attempt to difuse the situation, I won't use his name, but that won't matter anyway, will it? Go ahead and post yet another ANI. I will illustrate the blatant hypocricy of the ANI when you do.

Both of you are hardcore partisans who use wikipolicy as a sword.

Both of you are going to be eventually banned. You will be banned first, and soon, because the other user's side is better organized and has virulently partisan admins on his side.

The only chance you have is to:

1) Become a diplomat and edit smart, in otherwords, become a POV diplomat. You are editing stupid. By stupid I mean that your partisanship is so evident, and the tit for tat deletions etc. are going to get you banned. You have pissed off a well organized group of partisans, who have much more power than you do.

2) Take a deep hard look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you are any better than your nemsis in the AfD. I don't think you two are much different at all. You are both POV warriors, pushing your own POV, refusing to comprise. POV warriors eventually get AfDs, then they get restrictions, and eventually they are banned or leave wikipedia with a loud egotistical pronouncement, which no one really cares about anyway. And they are in the outside looking in, and everyone keeps editing, and forgets about the POV warrior. That is your fate. If I was a betting man, I would bet 99 to 1, that is your fate. I have seen it dozens of times before. Rarely has anyone changed. I was indefinetly booted myself once, it is only by the grace of one kind admin who I had argued with before, that I am still here. I am still here because I radically changed my behavior, whereas most editors I know are slowly on there way out or have been indefinetly banned. Will I eventually get banned? Probably. I hope not, but if I was a betting man, probably. But I will be editing here months, if not years after you are forgotten. You might get indefinetly banned.

Signed: Travb (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. You must be MUCH more more dispassionate that I am. When people start f_cking with me, I'm pretty much powerless not to respond in kind. I already DID file another ANI! LOL ! Thanks for your thoughts. On to Nov 8!

Note - no pics here please. Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.

I refactored your prediction. It was bad juju. Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is why I restore the photo: User_talk:Travb/Archive_8#Train_wreck you can delete it now if you wish. I respond to people in kind, but I do it in a diplomatic way, and I use wikipolicy like a weapon, as my advisaries have taught me.

I went up against some of the most powerful admins, and got indefinately banned. I then learned by looking at their edit histories, that these admins are no different then me, and in fact, in most cases they are far more partisan, stubborn, biased, peity ideologues than I am (or was). Except the difference is:

1) These partisan admins and veteran editors know how to use wikipolicy like a weapon, they learn how to vent in other ways, instead of using their mouth like a weapon, like you naively do (and I naively did and sometimes still do), they use wikipolicy like a weapon.

2) These partisan admins and veteran editors form "clics", some people call them "cabals". It is obviously going on, but because of WP:NPA and other policies, no one can actually say the word "cabal". It is the "elephant in the room", like I mentioned recently on the village pump. So what do you need to do? Get organized: seek out and kiss ass to partisan editors who share your POV.

Want proof? Look at the admins you have gone up against, they are so terribly partisan. People report them to ANI ALL THE TIME. Many users have gone up against them, and many of those users who went up against them are indefinetly banned. Ask yourself: Why are these other novice editors banned and these admins are still editing?

Two in particular that you are fighting with currently come to mind.

The absolute best tactic you can do is be less ideological and less partisan. But I have no illusions about this happening soon. Peoples ideologies change glacially. Unfortunatly, you will be banned before yours changes.

You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.

Yeah sure, everyone else is biased, but you. I already mentioned your stark and aparent bias on the AfD, maybe you should reread that section.

RE: Thanks for your thoughts. I responded to them on my page Very nice pic too, I just don't want pics on my talk page. [On my user page]

No prob, I will watch your page, so you don't need to comment here, and all comments are in one place. When I saw the "unread message" notice, I was thinking you were an admin who dislikes you, threatening me.

It is only a matter of time before someone threatens me or puts up a ANI about my comments on your user page. Many of these editors tactics are so pathetic, obvious, and predictable.

Maybe I can save you from yourself, you have been one of several "interventions", everyone always ignores me, especially partisans (because, of course, by there nature, they are not very open to new ideas), and they get banned or leave noisily and nastily. Maybe I am simply becoming more convincing with practice. Travb (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what? You are DEAD wrong. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to add negative info into the article of ANY politician running for office next Tuesday, no matter HOW much I despise their views. Some of them are working OVERTIME doing just that.

Yeah sure, everyone else is biased, but you. I already mentioned your stark and aparent bias on the AfD, maybe you should reread that section.

You didn't get my point. At all. Yeah, I'm partisan, but there are some lines I won't cross, which 'they' do, and one is trying to affect even a SINGLE vote via editing on Wiki. Look at ANY politician running for office next tues, and you won't see a single edit from me . Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess we will agree to disagree.

Just because you don't do x, doesn't mean you are any less partisan. Putting articles which don't fit your POV, I would consider massively partisan. The idea is that you should add verifable sources to these articles you disagree with, not delete them outright. I know finding verifable sources is more work, but it is more effective. You were trounced in the AfD, and you are close to being in an AfD. In otherwords, your partisan wikiediting is a failure. You can be partisan and get your point across, you just need to do it right. You are doing it all wrong, and you will be booted if it continues.

We are not talking about the other guy, that is a red herring falacy of logic. Please look it up. I use falacies of logic all the time in my partisan debates.

In otherwords: your level of partisanship does not decrease simply because someone is more or less parrtisan. The bottom line, is that you are incredibly partisan, and you are falling into the same traps that many others novice editors fall into. You need to realize that the other sides arguments have merit, and the only way you can be an effective editor here on wikipedia is use reliable sources, and when someone deletes those reliable sources, and you kindly ask them to stop, and they adminently refuses to stop, diplomatically use the "wikipolicy sword". Deleting articles and sections of articles you don't like is not only rude, but it is counterproductive, and against the spirit of wikipolicy. We are here to build an encyclopedia remember? My partisan edits and POV have stood for months, sometimes years. Why? Because I use reliable sources, impeccible sources, exhastive sources and I compromise with partisans and allow their voice to be heard too, those who refuse to comprimise, I use the "wikipolicy sword".

Your edit style is disruptive and a losing strategy, I can't say that enough. I have seen it a million times before, from all poltical views. If you keep it up, which you probably will, you will be indefinetly banned. The writing is on the wall. Now all I need to do is sit back and watch the train wreck. Travb (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Friends/Special Friends

I had your old account on my watchlist, so I noticed the name change. May I ask a favor or request of you?

I notice that on the top of your page you have a "Friends" and "Super Friends" list that seems modeled after Morton Devonshire's little list. We could duck and weave all day on what "Special Friends" means, but I think you and I both know that it divides people into a "Friends" camp and an "enemies" camp. It wasn't okay when Morton did it (in fact, it drove me up the walls fuming), and I really don't think it's okay that you're doing it, either. It divides the Wikipedia community further along ideological/personality lines.

Right now, it's looking like you're getting more attention than you might like from people in high places. At the very least, you might want to pull down the list in the interest of not attracting more attention than absolutely necessary. Captainktainer * Talk 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. Thanks for the advice. By the way, the Super Friends category and a sock puppet account playing off my user name were created by Tbeatty. Fairness And Accuracy For All 03:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That explains a few things. I'm glad that I was able to communicate with you and work against one of my little pet peeves. Happy editing. Captainktainer * Talk 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My solution: User:Travb#Important_wikiusers and I lump everyone together. I am glad that I saw this talk page topic, because if my User:Travb#Important_wikiusers section is attacked and deleted, Morton Devonshire's "Super Friends" will be a casulty of this new policy too, and I can use his "Super Friends" section to argue the validity of my own section. There is nothing like an external enemy to bring two ideologically opposed editors together as allies. :) This worked faulously in Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse with User:Rjensen, the most intellegent conservative wikieditor I have ever met, and someone I edit warred with for months on Business Plot. This pages history is a great case study in effective edit wars which actually make the article better and more balanced than before. Travb (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't mind too much lumping all users together. It's when the lists start getting separated (like the Kelly Martin /B brouhaha) and categorized (like Morton's page used to be before he refactored the whole thing) that I get nervous. We're already factionalized enough, particularly on the left/right spectrum, and there's nowhere near enough good faith running around. Even innocuous lists can become problematic if not carefully managed. Captainktainer * Talk 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Captainktainer, notice how User:Captainktainer is such a diplomat? He got you to remove that section, because he was nice about it. He obviously has been on wikipedia a long time, and knows how to get what he wants. i.e. you get more bees with honey then vinegar. I need to write more like User:Captainktainer.

Oh Kelly Martin, RIP. Funny you should bring her up, she is an inspiration to much about what I wrote here. She had a part in getting me indefinetly booted. stubborn egotistical woman. Can I talk ill of the dead, or is this also against wikipolicy? Travb (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't been on Wikipedia that long. Only since April as a registered user. I just try to treat people on Wikipedia like I try to in real life. It doesn't always work, haha, which is why I'll never be an administrator. Ah, well.

As for whether it's acceptable to say naughty things about those who have left the project, in general it isn't appropriate to do so. They may always return to the project, and then what has been said cannot be unsaid. I had to warn a user today about placing various comments on WikiWoo's userpage; even though WikiWoo is a known vandal and sockpuppeteer, community decorum still applies... with some reasonable deviations given the disruption caused by that user. Captainktainer * Talk 06:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we have the same "special friends"

User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Sch.C3.A4denfreude

You may also be interested in the village pump article I wrote:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Politically_motivated_AfD.27s:_the_elephant_in_the_room

I've been following that - good reading - well argued. Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest finding an admin that is either neutral or sympathetic to you, maybe Thatcher, and complain that they are baiting you, which they are. Travb (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll ignore 'em for now. I could care less what Moran Moron Morton does, writes or thinks. (strikethroughs OK per Admin see) Gonna be pretty busy until next Tuesday anyway. Working on a phone bank calling voters in tight races. I think we start in Tennessee tomorrow. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a broken two party system like America has, you can vote for bad or worse, I am casting my ballot for bad this year, as I always do.

I will vote straight democrat for the congress and governor, but I don't know about anyone else. I think maybe I will simply not vote for the rest.

In my state, there is this troubling idea that you can vote for all judges, even supreme court ones, if I am not mistaken. Like the founders believed, there really should be checks and balances against "unrestrained democracy". That idea is alien today in a Big Mac super-size society which erroneously thinks that more always = better, but the founders [who most people unfortunatly worship like prophets in the Bible, (see American civil religion)], beleived differently. I am rambling. Good night. Travb (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Third party neutral

I have asked Thatcher to watch your page, and the other editors who you have had edit disputes to unwatch your page, the full conversation is here:

User_talk:Thatcher131#If_you_the_time_and_patience and User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Suggestions

I have suggested on this page, that you voluntarily commit to not voting on or editing any AfD for one month, as User talk:Thatcher131 suggested I and another user do. I have voluntarily committed to not editing AfDs for one month (until November 30), despite the other user not voluntarily doing this. If you voluntarily did this, this would show that you have good faith intentions, and are willing to comprimise, if you or the other editor refuse, then it arguably shows that you don't.

It is important to get that "arse" image you have changed with other wikieditors.

Again, it is voluntary.

I have spent way to much time tonight with this. Goodnight.Travb (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd never agree to that unless 'they' did. I'll try not to start any AfD's MfD's or ANI's unless I absolutely have to. I'll vote in AfD's, but will be less mouthy. How's that? I'll be pretty busy helping the DNC win the Senate to do much editing for the next week anyway. We already got the House won. It's so certain that they already shifted almost all of the emphasis onto the Senate. I'm SO looking forward to 'The Hearings'! - - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and your willingness to comprimise, I have been busy these past few days, and I just opened up my account after a 6 day hiatus. Travb (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Food For Thought

This says it all about the current Partisan POV of Wikipedia:

"I count 42 mentions of Bin Laden in the main Clinton article. By contrast, this main article for Bush has a grand total of TWO mentions of Bin Laden. (In fact, the main article on Bush had ZERO mentions of Bin Laden until I recently raised this issue myself in the "Discussion" area). I find this incredible. If you read the 2 articles, you pretty much get the sense that the fact Bin Laden remains a free man today is entirely due to Clinton. I've seen a lot of pro-GOP bias over the years on Wikpedia, but this issue sets a new low for this "reference" resource." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 (talk • contribs) 14:14, October 30, 2006. (on the GW Bush Talk Page)

Ain't that the truth! (All for naught come Nov 8 too!:-) - F.A.A.F.A 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been around quite a while here. I do think that prior to a year ago, there was probably a slight liberal bias. There were certainly more liberal editors, but they generally tended to be quite careful of POV issues. I'd say today there is a fairly dramatic conservative bias, and your example is a good one. I have my opinions about why this is, but I won't speculate aloud. Derex 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was a Republican until the middle of this year, when I felt my party totally left me (and this country) behind and I joined the Democrats. I can understand why Derex probably wouldn't want to talk about it, but in my humble opinion, which I shall keep on this talk page, is that the conservative bias is becasue Wikipedia is being "Freeped" like CNN polls and other media which some conservatives feel is biased or not sympathetic enough to their viewpoint. It's one thing to add more information to gain perspective, it's another thing for one to promote their viewpoint on all.--Folksong 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to 'America's Party', FS. Both you and Derex are right. About a year ago there was an organized effort on several Conservative discussion forums to recruit Conservatives Republican GOP defenders to become more active on Wiki. It worked. - F.A.A.F.A 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I do Anything Wrong?

What did I do? Nothing. I just said on the talk page my opinion of how the article could be better, which is what the talk page is for. To talk about how to make the article better. Did I edit the John Kerry article? NO, I did not. Do I think that it is important for people to know how the soldiers who were supposedly being criticized felt, yes I do. If John Kerry said something about Hilary Clinton, then someone on Wikipedia would have put her response. But I don't see why you do not want the soldiers response, and I still do not see why you have a problem with me putting my thoughts on how to make the article better on the talk page. Also, I don't see why you complained about my editing when I didn't edit anything. Bcody 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No electioneering on Wiki! 'Keep control of the House'? LOL! - F.A.A.F.A 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I said They might, or might not, keep control of Congress, If you had read what I had wrote in the first place then you would have seen that. I still don't see why you have a problem with me using a disscusion page for what it is used for, and I thought I made it clear before, I didn't even edit the article. Bcody 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pre Election Desperation Syndrome

"Voters want Democrats, rather than Republicans, to control Congress by 52% to 37%, a 15-point margin. The spread matches the widest ever recorded on this question in a Journal/NBC poll."

What we have happening here on Wiki with the John Kerry article, and all over the Internets, now has a name.

It has been officially coined as Pre Election Desperation Syndrome. -They're behaving like cornered rats! - F.A.A.F.A 07:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know what your background in PolySci is, but you might want to check the historical accuarcy of that particular question... Piuro 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"The spread matches the widest ever recorded on this question in a Journal/NBC poll." - That's the qualifier. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hacking Democracy

Beef up the article if you want it to stay, I am at work so I do not remember certain names etc, but something like this:

The documentary followed Bev Harris, an activist for Black Box Voting as she attempted to discover if the Diebold voting machines could be tampered with, and if in their previous election use, contained any irregularities. During the course of the documentary multiple methods of tampering with the votes are shown. The first is through editing of the database file that contains the voting totals, the second is through the program that tabulates the votes named GEMS, coded by Diebold, the last was through hacking the information on the Accu-Vote card to keep bad records. The final method was tested by the Tallahasse Department of Elections supervisor X, and showed contrary to a previous Diebold statement, the person attempting to rig the vote would only need access to the card and not the voting machine nor tabluation software.

Or you can go into detail about the attacks, also mention Bev finding the GEMS code online, finding that that county had false tapes from the machines. These are things that will make the documentary stand out as more then just another film, credit her and this documentary with exposing this stuff as well. As much as you complain about my voting on conspiracy articles our beliefs run pretty parallel, our methods just obviously differ. --NuclearZer0 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD for Hacking Democracy

(reposted from Tbeatty's userpage)

In light of your involvement in the Andy Stephenson debate, your nomination of this documentary seems suspect. Even if the consensus was that Stephenson was non-notable, a point I will concede even though I was on the other side of that debate, this documentary seems to be prima fascia notable. Deleting Andy Stephenson as not notable for lacking sources is one thing; deleting this article makes it appear as though you have an agenda for trying to remove the issue of electronic voting scandals from wikipedia wholesale. I want you to know that I am not accusing you of anything, and please note that I mentioned NOTHING of this in the AFD itself, and have no intention of doing so. It just looks suspicious, and this is a friendly warning. --Jayron32 06:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing what you think is notable about it. It has only one review in the NY Times. It's had a month to generate references and details. It has nothing on IMDB (and IMDB has pretty esoteric stuff). The reality is that there are no "electronic voting scandals." My agenda is only to have an encyclopedia with verificable facts, not a willy-nilly collection of everyones pet project/conspiracy theory. In the end, "Hacking Democracy" is an non-notable documentary. I'm also not sure what your warning me for? --Tbeatty 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, electronic voting, and specifically its unreliability, has been the topic of NUMEROUS discussions on all major news channels and shows. In the last week, I have seen and heard probably a few dozen discussions and bits specifically devoted to it on CNN, NPR, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. etc. As a topic, it rises above wild conspiracy theories. We aren't talking about any widespread conspiracy to defraud the american public. We are talking about the fact that the Diebold machines and others have had serious security concerns raised about them. Such concerns are verifiably part of the national conciousness. WRT the Hacking Democracy documentary, it isn't just some indy film that showed up at some student film festival. It appeared on HBO, and was seen by many people. It was a notable film by that standard. The only thing I am warning you of is that it appears you are making a WP:POINT that there is no serious public discussion of electronic voting vis-a-vis its reliability. That is patently and plainly not so. Implying that it is a "conspiracy theory" implies that it is the concern of a lunatic fringe. While conspiracy theories DO EXIST around the issue, it does not make the issue itself non-notable. The Kennedy Assassination has conspiracy theories, but it is by itself a notable event. We can discount the conspiracy theories surrounding it without dismissing the subject itself. Electronic voting unreliablity, and the public discussion thereof, is equally as notable, the existance of any conspiracy theories surrounding the issue notwithstanding. --Jayron32 07:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Electronic voting is indeed a real issue. "Hacking Democracy" however is not the notable documentary on this topic. There is no "scandal". HD lacks reviews. It lacks major coverage as a documentary. It lacks any awards. It's empty page on IMDB is a testament to how many people have seen this film and filled in the details. It is objectively not-notable regardless of what you believe of its content. THis article was not about Electronic voting it was about this specific documentary. Not notable. --Tbeatty 07:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Snowball says otherwise. Derex 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of my warning is that there appears to be a pattern of nominating multiple articles dealing with Electronic Voting for AfD. Again, I am not accusing you of anything; you may very well be an expert on the issue, and involved in editing numerous articles on the subject. I will also concede that your prior nomination for Andy Stephenson bore out: Concensus was reached that he was non-notable, my efforts to the contrary notwithstanding. This one however seemed weird. There were NUMEROUS reviews cited in the AfD in MUCH more than the NYTIMES, many papers seem to have reviewed it. A google search turns up lots of blog discussions, but also a first page serious review in a reliable source (salon.com). Even more damning, google news search turns up a HUGE number of reviews in real papers (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Arkansas Times, The Register, Boston Herald all on the first page alone). Don't hang your only hope on IMDB. This shows up in so many other places, IMDB notwithstanding, it passes notability and verifiability with flying colors. Anyone, you included, could have taken 30 seconds to find these reviews on Google and avoided the whole nomination from the start. --Jayron32 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that I snowballed it for consensus reasons, not notability, I am not sure what your point is. --Tbeatty 07:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And, that consensus was that it is notable. Derex 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive this talk page?

What I always do, when I want to put something behind me, and not be reminded of the bad feelings and controversy, is I archive my comments, sometimes immediatly. (See my talk page template for the policy behind this). That maybe something you maybe want to do now, or in the future. Travb (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your warning

Please tend to your own house: [2]. Everything you are accusing me of you yourself are guilty of. In fact, I actually have not urged people en masse to come to Wiki for the sole purpose of influencing the site. You have. (Ben, too.) Also, I rarely ask the few CUers who are experienced Wiki editors to get involved in things - they usually get involved on their own. Jinxmchue 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --NuclearZer0 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Posting your message on multiple talk pages is spamming. You're already on probation. I'd hate to see you get banned. I know that you're very upset and bitter over the humiliating election losses, but you don't need take it out on me. Maybe you should take a Wikibreak? - F.A.A.F.A. 22:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:SPAM. Not all messages posted on multiple talk pages is considered wrong.[3] And your faux concern for his Wiki status is betrayed by your personal attack(s). You're really not helping your case when you make comments like that. Jinxmchue 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend acknowledging old sins and focusing on improvements you've made. As best as I can tell that's what you've done in practice, so just be up-front about it. Most of this RFC is based on ancient history, and that's frowned upon, as RFC's are supposed to help correct on-going behavior. Derex 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping in to make you aware that TBeatty has certified the RfC, and there was 2 days left anyway. Thank you for attempting to report the information repeatedly, however its listed at the top of the RfC. I thank you for realizing it was in the wrong location. --NuclearZer0 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a FYI: MONGO, one of the co-signers to that RfC, has admitted to working for the US Department of Homeland Security (See: User_talk:SkeenaR#Proof and the diff [4]). Isn't that cute, an abusive administrator working on behalf of the DHS and spending his time deleting pages and banning critics (See: Block Log NBGPWS where he treatened you with a permanent ban as well). Tinhatliberal 11:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So? He's not on here as a DHS employee. I've got a paying job too, how about you? Nice contribs there, socky. Derex 11:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't advise you how to act under an RfC file against you, other than to say that impeccably appropriate behavior should always be exercised. Try to take criticism with grace, and know that two wrongs don't make a right. I have faith that you can be an upstanding, constructive, non-combatant editor if you want to be. A good thing to do would be to demonstrate that.

Peace. - Che Nuevara 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Che is right, but I'll give you specific advice. It doesn't do any good for you to point the finger at someone else. Be accountable for yourself; admit errors with grace, and focus on improvements. Then, actually improve. NuclearZer0's role in this has been pointed out by others on the RFC, and that's where it's going to be most effective in establining a context. However, you really do need to really act impeccably at this point. To the extent you are provoking people I can't support you. However to the extent that people are provoking you, let me share with you this wisdom that Khaosworks laid on me a couple years back, and of which I should be more heedful.

I find that nothing fazes a provacateur more than refusing to be baited. It not only doesn't give them a reason to strike back, but that inability drives them crazy since I'm not giving them what they really want - the satisfaction of biting back. I take my shots carefully, and in as subtle a manner as I can.

Derex 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my off-Wiki comments

I'm being completely serious and sincere about this. I shouldn't have made those comments and I thank you for pointing them out here. That and the comments others made about it helped me take a step back and realize that it was wrong. Jinxmchue 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I suggest that you and your Wiki buds make sure you have your emails enabled, and if you feel the need to vent, email them. A lot of people who don't edit Wiki don't understand the dynamics and issues here anyway. Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 05:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding comments on my talk re: Chad Castagana

I didn't remove anything from the article. My edits all were additions, such as cn templates, a category, and a template to the talk page. I even left the FR cite, just tagged it for additional citation. Crockspot 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The information I deleted was superfluous. There is simply no reason put everything he ever posted on FR as well as his profile in this article. This article is not about FR and what he posted there. Nor is the article about the chain of events that led blogs to associate him with FR. The article is about Costanga, and with the limited information we have from him from reliable sources shouldn't be much more than a stub.--RWR8189 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What he wrote is inclusionable and even REQUIRED by the article. He is notable BECAUSE of these actions (threats). I will list everything I can find which he wrote as noted in the afadavit and the actions he was charged with as noted in the afadavit and other RS, including calling Nancy Pelosi a 'cuntface' (moving discussion to talk page)

RfC

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to userpage

This edit to User:Morton devonshire's userpage is unacceptable and you know it. If you can't get along with the other editors here, then you should seek out another forum. If I see this nonsense one more time, I will be forced to block you from editing. Please keep arguments centered on the material and not the editors. Thanks.--MONGO 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since tbeatty is apparently so upset over a little playful fun between other users that didn't even concern him he must be opposed to any and all such stunts. Or not. Take a look tbeatty's own sock puppet - he created an entire sock puppet account User:Fairness_and_Accuracy_for_Aquaman Tbeatty's Super Friend Sock Puppet account solely to 'vandalize' my FAAFA page and taunt me. (did I run to an Admin?} see Is it OK to create a sock just to play with another editor's page? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 07:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on dude. You've been given a chance to redeem yourself, and to some limited extent, you have, yet you keep pulling these childish pranks. Two wrongs don't make a right, Golden Rule, yada yada yada. In spite of the gains that you and I have made, you still illustrate that my initial contribution to your RfC was spot on. Prove me wrong and fly right. - Crockspot 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement

Can you please reduce your endorsement of my outside view on the Seabhcan RfC to just a signature. Comments like the ones you left can be seen as baiting and I do not endorse that nor wish for it in my section. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

hayes

Thanks for the comments -- I agree, Hayes (now Cheney's official biographer!) is still a key source of much misinformation on this topic despite being thoroughly discredited. I signed on the Seabcan RfC but my knowledge of his interactions is pretty limited - I based my signing on the evidence presented on the page (which is pretty minimal compared to what is claimed; hardly a real basis for an RfC!).csloat 23:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your username

If your username reflects what you expect from Wikipedia, I suggest you look elsewhere, though you probably already know that. Thanks for trying to help the project, though it's probably not going to do much, sadly. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 02:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)