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. ~~~~

Debbie Schlussel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Matters

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

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

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

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

Well, there are some reasons right there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MMfA, Ad Hominem, and Possible Bias

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

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

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

ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

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

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

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

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

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

ANI Discussion

I have initiated an WP:ANI discussion about your systematic removal of citations that link to Media Matters.[1] Please drop by to respond. Thanks, LK (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is uncensored

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your support is being claimed...

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

Talkback

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

Six-Day War

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

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

West Bend Library

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

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

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

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

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

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

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