Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Public domain image for two articles needs moire clean up

I think Hélène Dutrieu would be improved by the addition of an image of her as a professional cyclist and there is a public domain image of her here which could also be used to illustrate Simpson Chain but it has moire patterns from scanning. I know these can be removed using Photoshop or Paintshop because I've seen tutorials but I don't have access to the software. Any volunteers?

Is there a guideline for how to classify a person according to nationality?

Take the following scenario:

Person A was born in Sweden and is of Greek ancestry (her parents are both Greeks who were born in Greece and migrated to Sweden). Person A now lives and works in Greece and has said that she is not a Swedish but a Greek who was born and raised in Sweden.

Is there a guideline or precedent for whether person A is Greek or Greek-Swedish?

Fred-Chess 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Fred - To address your question, you may want to review nationality. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state. In otherwords, it is the state that determines who its nationals are, not the person. As for how to use nationality in a biography article, see Template:Biography. Hope this helps. -- Jreferee 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a guideline for resolving the conflict at Elena Paparizou easily or quickly. The fundamental problem is that the contested description is at the beginning of the article and could not be clearly said to refer to nationality or ethnicity, were it not for this guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph, as pointed out on the article's talk page. That guideline says that nationality should be specified in the opening paragraph, and that ethnicity should not be referred to there unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. If that guideline were followed, she would be referred to as "Swedish" because she does not hold Greek nationality AFAIK (see the link posted by Jreferee above). But it could be argued that her Greek origin is related to her notability, as she basically became notable by competing in Eurovision for Greece. In that case, "Greek-Swedish" would be the correct term. Her self-concept has no effect on her nationality, so IMO it needs to be noted in the opening paragraph that she, at least in some sense, is Swedish. So the real choices are "Swedish" and "Greek-Swedish." Just "Greek" is not an option unless you want to ignore that section of the MoS, which admittedly is not policy, but I think guidelines like that, which have community consensus, should be respected. --Tkynerd 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, a compromise might be to say something like, "...a Swedish-born singer of Greek descent..." (Note that "Swedish" links to Sweden, while "Greek" links to Greek people.) In any case, it must be kept in mind that the function of that opening paragraph is to give the reader some idea of the person's background as well as why he or she is notable. To obliterate all mention of her Swedish birth, as some editors wish to do there, seems dishonest to me. --Tkynerd 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jreferee and Tkynern. You have given me exactly the answers I needed. / Fred-Chess 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect userpage?

I've been getting some regular IP vandalism on a template for my userpage (just a list of userboxes). What is the appropriate measure to address this? Would a semi-protect be appropriate? --Mmx1 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One or two a day for the past week - fairly minimal. You can always put in a request at WP:RPP, the worst that will happen is that they say "no". You do seem to have made someone unhappy enough to come in via a number of different anon IPs to attack you, for some reason; pretty much impossible to block an IP or small range of IPs. John Broughton | ♫♫ 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions

Very recently I edited a page, Rouge, to include link to a page I was about to create.

My edit looked like

* A [[Rouge (Goal)|Rouge]] was a method of scoring points in early footballing codes.

Before I could get my act together and create/edit said page it was changed by Special:Contributions/143.167.16.16 to read as follows

* A [[Rouge (football)|Rouge]] was a method of scoring points in early footballing codes.

Rouge already exists but it certainly is not the whole story which I was planning to include on the 'Goal' page. It is infact a page relating to Canadian Football and the Single Point - which is in fact derived from Rouge.

Questions follow

• 1. What IS Special:Contributions?
• 2. How can I discuss the change? - it obviously is not a normal user
• 3. What is the wikiquette (sp?) now? My gut reaction was to simply undo the change - Would that have been appropriate?

A Rouge is much older and far reaching than the Single Point in Canadian Football - so what do I do next? DamienLaughton 15:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest (a) creating the page that you intended to create, and then (b) changing the link to the way you want to. Don't do a revert, do an edit, and note that the article being linked to now exists.

"Special:Contributions" is simply a list of edits that someone has done. You have such a "special" page yourself, as does every editor here. 143.xxx is a normal user, just an anonymous one.

You don't need to discuss the change until after you've created the new article and changed the link, and then only if (rather unlikely) 143.xxx shows up and changes the link again. If that happens, discuss the matter on the article's talk page, Talk:Rouge. If 143.xxx continues to revert, but doesn't respond to your post on the article talk page (extremely unlikely), post a (polite) note at the user talk page of the user. If the user continues to revert without discussing (extraordinarily unlikely), report him/her at WP:AIV as a vandal. John Broughton | ♫♫ 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with an editor who is removing and tagging copyrighted images for deletion

Hello. It is possible I am mistaken and I need your help. A user has selectively removed specfic copyrighted photos of famous Minneapolitans and trademarked professional sports team logos from Minneapolis, Minnesota. The user also removed the names of thirteen persons. Removal reasons are in the edit log (and not the talk page where the list of Minneapolitans is a current discussion). This is the same user who has tagged one specific photo I uploaded as replaceable twice. Is this person authorized and encouraged to do so? May I revert his edits? Is wholesale removal of visual material occurring Wikipedia-wide?

"remove gallery of fair use sports logos which are decorative, please see WP:FU for the restrictions on using fair use images in Wikipedia" and "remove fair use images from gallery, also removed Ventura as it is likely not free and probably fair use, please see WP:FU for restrictions on using fair use images @WP."

Regarding the logos, quoting Wikipedia Logos Guidelines "This does not mean, however, that one person may veto a consensus on the use of the logo, unless that person is the owner of the logo." By my reading of the guidelines, they are used in Minneapolis, Minnesota: Sports

• To illustrate the organization
• In a postitive setting
• Near neutral text
• In the article about the city that supports the teams
• Non promotional, non decorative use
• Accurate and high quality

Regarding photos of Minneapolitans before and after some are tagged fair use in the Minneapolis article. I am happy to come up with a list of reasons why the people who contribute to life in a city are relevant to its article if you think it would help. I will leave the user a note that I posted my questions here but am not willing to engage in a prolonged debate. Thank you. -Susanlesch 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe my actions were to being the use of these images with compliance with the fair use policy. It was not my intention to remove the names of these people from the article, I thought the names were duplicated above, but it appears that assumption was incorrect, and I shall restore those names into the list. But the sports logos were not appropriate usage in this article because the article is not about these teams, and their use is decorative. Further, the use of the fair use images that depict what these people look like is also not appropriate on this article, since it's not about them and the fact they are from Minneapolis is trivial and not a substantial addition to the article. I am not vetoing the consensus, I am upholding the consensus that fair use images should not be used in this manner. Reverting my edits (sans the people names) is not appropriate. And yes, a user may do this. Any user may do this. If I had a gallery of fair use images in my userspace, any user could remove them. --MECU≈talk 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he is right. And he learned this lesson himself the hard way. In order to meet the criteria for the use of fair use images in an article, that image has to contribute significantly to the article. Having the logo of a sports team that plays in the city does not meet that qualification. That use is purely decorative. That policy also applies to all fair use images, including those of people. I also occassionaly sift through the mounds of fair use images to look for those that are orphaned or are being use where they aren't supposed to and it can be time consuming to notify the user every time you come across these instances. While it is best practice to do so, sometimes it is not done. In the future, if you have a dispute about an image being removed, please ask the person who removed it to comment on it before bringing it up here or somewhere else. If it then turns into a "prolonged debate," then feel free to bring it up elsewhere to get the input of outsiders. I worked with Mecu a lot and I know he would always be happy to explain his reasoning. On this issue, I do agree with him.--NMajdan•talk 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• An inclusive section on professional sports teams from one city is about those teams and in a context that gives them meaning. A list of people is less informative and less meaningful than a table showing photographs of real people of real notability. Neither use of visual images strikes me as decorative or out of sync with Wikipedia's rules for fair use of copyrights and trademarks. The article itself is illustrated completely in the spirit of using free images when they are available. I am not a lawyer and I do understand there is a long history of discussion. Sorry but unless someone can tell me that you folks are lawyers or administrators or authorized by lawyers or administrators I expect based on my reading of the Wikipedia fair use policy that I will be able to revert these edits. Thank you. -Susanlesch 19:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a lawyer or administrator on Wikipedia, in short, having credentials is meaningless. (for the record, I am not a lawyer or admin) Saying "Minneapolis has sports teams" is not about the sports teams, it's about Minneapolis. Having a picture of someone because they are merely "from <city>" is trivial. The fair use image is on their article (if they have one, if not then they probably shouldn't even have a fair use image on Wikipedia) if someone wants to see what they look like. Using a CD cover to depict The Andrew Sisters on this article is almost explicitly against the fair use policy (See counterexamples). The decorative use has been established and "galleries of fair use images" is explicitly not allowed. Again, you should not revert these edits. To NMajdan, Susanlesch likely brought the complaint here because of our history involving a fair use rationale dispute over a former mayor of Minneapolis image (which has been resurrected because she uploaded a similar (cropped) image), but I do agree that something like this shouldn't likely occur in places like this immediately, but that explains why we're here.--MECU≈talk 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The section for Sports in that article is four sentences long. The exact wording of fair use criteria #8 is: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The fair use logo do not contribute significantly and I don't know how you can argue they do. The same point gets across by using text. For instance, the use of the Minnesota Twins logo on the Minnesota Twins article is perfectly ok as the logo identifies the subject of the article. Or if there was a detailed section on the Twins in an article like "Sports in Minneapolis, Minnesota" then you might have an argument for the inclusion of the logo there as well. But having a section on this page called "Sports" then the logos does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. I know of several Admins that would agree with me, so if that is the route you want to take, I don't think it would be an issue.--NMajdan•talk 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I will restore the article. I imagine you do this with the best of intentions as Mecu's User page and edit history are about policing images. Maybe you have a different reading based on discussions that I am sorry to say I do not find in the policy. In any case maybe it would help to repeat that this article is in discussion on its talk page in hopes of reducing the number of people listed and the number of images. I truly do hope that happens soon but as I said it is a new discussion. Take care and best wishes. -Susanlesch 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I guarantee they will end up removed from the article but I don't wish to get into a revert war. I would still like to hear how you feel the images significantly contribute to the subject of the article.--NMajdan•talk 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I request that you revert your revert of my edits. You have been told not to revert with policy backing it. The "discussion" on the talk page cannot possible change the policy so that these logos and images would be valid to use in this article. Please revert your revert. --MECU≈talk 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The context is a brief list of which teams play there, what sport they play, and where they play it. unless there is a particular point you are making about the logos which ties them to the article on the city, then there is no Fair Use claim to be made, and they violate FUC#1 (the free adequate alternative to [badge][name] in this context is [name]). ed g2s • talk 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed these images, and also all the "Fair Use" images being used to illustrate people. If there is any need for these images at all (they may fall under "replaceable fair use") it definitely isn't on an article about a city. ed g2s • talk 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

ed g2s (I see you are an administrator), I would have been more than happy to add inline fair use rationale HTML comments which I forgot if that is what you found to be a problem. I also see you have deleted all images under Famous Minneapolitans including all of the public domain images. I consider the matter closed but respectfully suggest that other outcomes were possible and might have benefited Wikipedia more. -Susanlesch 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Fair Use images were never going to be allowed on that article. I possibility could've gone through the entire gallery and found the free ones, but the pressing matter of copyright violations is far more serious than a list missing a few decorative images. ed g2s • talk 13:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Is wholesale removal of visual material occurring Wikipedia-wide?" It sure is. I myself just recently eviscerated the article Brasilia. I have serious doubts whether this is a good thing, but that doesn't matter; what does matter is that it is Wikipedia policy. Herostratus 03:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why are the fairusein tags for multiple articles in the policy if they can't be used? {{Fairusein5|Article1|Article2|Article3|Article4|Article5}}-Susanlesch 08:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Who says they can't be used? And, just because they exist, doesn't mean they should be used. Just because your car can go 150 mph, doesn't give you permission to drive that fast. But, just because the speed limit is typically much less than 150 mph, doesn't mean there aren't places you can go to drive your car that fast (such as a speedway) --MECU≈talk 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Copyright Confusion

I'm a motorsports photographer and uploaded a lot of images, after reading about the different licenses. I picked: Attribution + Noncommercial + NoDerivs. Is this allowed? It is listed as one of the alternatives, now somone says I have to allow commercial use. Is that true? If I have to allow commercial use, can I put a watermark with my company name on the photos? thanks CCWSF1 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we must allow commercial use. The image must be a free license. Anything with "noncommercial" will not be allowed at Wikipedia. Also, adding a watermark to the image would also not be acceptable, since licensing it under a free image someone could just crop the watermark out anyways. See free licenses at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for watermarking information (that you shouldn't) and other image usage/creation questions. If you do decide to license your images freely, you should upload them to commons. --MECU≈talk 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, NoDerivs is also not allowed.--NMajdan•talk 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mecu and Nmajdan are right. Non-commercial and no-derivs are not free enough for Wikipedia/WikiMedia. No-derivs would even prohibit cropping, and since we want to allow commercial re-uses of our content (such as someone selling a booklet with Wikipedia articles), non-commercial isn't good either. Visible watermarking is discouraged; Wikipedia gives the image credits on the image description pages, not in the images themselves. You could, however, use invisible digital watermarks, or mention your name in the EXIF data.

Still, you got great images there, and I'd hate to lose them because of such an annoying licensing problem. Why did you pick non-commercial and no-derivs?

If you're worried about stand-alone commercial reuses of your photos (such as a newspaper taking an image to illustrate an article, or someone producing postcards from them and selling those), may I suggest that you license your images as {{GFDL-self}}? The GFDL is a free license; it requires attribution. It allows derivative works, but requires that the author(s) of the base version(s) be attributed, too. Any republication of the original or a derivative version must also be under the GFDL. The GFDL also requires that any republication be accompanied by the full text of the GFDL. This requirement makes stand-alone reuses of a GFDL-licensed image somewhat unlikely. Imagine the postcard example: the postcard would have to carry the full text of the GFDL, which isn't exactly feasible as it runs to several pages. (Well, unless you print it so small that you have to distribute a magnifying glass with the postcard :-) Technically, the GFDL does allow commercial reuses, though. Someone selling a booklet with text containing your images can do so, as long as he attributes all the images properly and reprints the text of the GFDL in an annex.

Would the GFDL be an option for you?

If not, please consider uploading only smaller images that are unlikely to be used commercially (e.g. 300-400px wide). Such small images are still usable in Wikipedia articles. You could license these small images under a free license such as the GFDL or {{cc-by-2.5}}, without needing to release your larger versions, which you could thus still exploit commercially yourself. If you choose this way, please make clear (by stating so on the image description page) that you only release the version you uploaded under the free license and that any larger versions remain proprietary. (If you publish larger versions elsewhere, they might otherwise end up here under the free license because someone might not be aware of this distinction.)

HTH, Lupo 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"If you're worried about stand-alone commercial reuses of your photos (such as a newspaper taking an image to illustrate an article, or someone producing postcards from them and selling those), may I suggest that you license your images as GFDL-self? The GFDL is a free license; it requires attribution. It allows derivative works, but requires that the author(s) of the base version(s) be attributed, too. Any republication of the original or a derivative version must also be under the GFDL. The GFDL also requires that any republication be accompanied by the full text of the GFDL. This requirement makes stand-alone reuses of a GFDL-licensed image somewhat unlikely. " This license and 400 x 300 should work for me. Is that GFDL-self in the dropdownbox? Who do they have to credit? My Wiki usernane means nothing. Can I specify my company name as the copyright holder? Thanks CCWSF1 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think GFDL-self is in the downdown box, but you could also just put {{GFDL-self}} on the page and ignore the dropdown box. This would work well for doing lots of images then you could just paste in the same text. You can declare how you want the credit to occur, such as your real name or your company. Just state so in the text something like "Please attribute to "XYZ Motorsports, Inc.". Again, please consider uploading the images to commons. Then they can be used not only here, but EVERY wiki related project! Your exposure could increase! Good luck! --MECU≈talk 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, take a look at this template: {{GFDL-self-alternate}}. This can be used to specify who gets credit, such as {{GFDL-self-alternate|Your Name}}.--NMajdan•talk 21:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Everybody! What did I do wrong here? I wish Wiki used standard HTML! [1] It seems that the F1 info box uses a different formula than the CCWS info box. How can that be? - CCWSF1 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very possible, it all depends on how the infobox was created. One may want the entire image link string ([[Image:Image_name.ext|200px]]) while another may just want the image name. I fixed the issue for you.--NMajdan•talk 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, So the F1 box automatically sizes the pic to 200 wide. That's neat. CCWSF1 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good advice everybody! If I wanted to add a page of, say 12 pics to an article, like the Long Beach Grand Prix article (just added one there) is that something that would be welcomed, or not? CCWSF1 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

12 pics wouldn't be a problem, 120 maybe not so. But they could be put on a subpage, but even better would be on commons. Then there could be a link on the article to the commons gallery where there could be 12000000 images and they wouldn't care. Use the <gallery> tags to make this section. Look at Wikipedia:Gallery tag. And come back here if you need more help! --MECU≈talk 23:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A gallery section within an article is okay. A subpage, or a separate gallery page, in general, is not okay. See Wikipedia:Galleries and Wikipedia:subpages. ^BlankVerse 09:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What can be done about this article? (Banned films)

I'm seeking guidance on what to do about a problem article, Banned films. It's been around quite a while, has a fair amount of encyclopedic potential (even though it's mostly a list with some explanatory material), some good bits of writing and some bad bits, but it has a fatal flaw: it is completely unsourced. It has been edited by dozens if not hundreds of editors, who have listed banned films by country, but not one of them that I can find actually listed a reliable source (or heck, even an unreliable source) for the banning or unbanning of the film(s). This is maddening. I attached the {{unreferenced}} tag and posted to the article's Talk page last May, hoping to spark interest in sourcing, but it didn't happen. So basically what's up there is a bunch of unverified assertions about movie banning and censorship. I'm sure most of them are probably correct, but that's not good enough, by Wikipedia policy. So, then, what to do?

• AfD. That's a little too much WP:POINT for me, and it does have encyclopedic potential.
• Stub the article. Tempting, but really, essentially everything would have to go.
• Article RfC. Not really appropriate; there's no ongoing content dispute.
• Peer review. Not sure it's appropriate; article is not yet of sufficient quality to attract good reviewers.
• Continue to harangue editors on the Talk page.
• Post this issue on another project page or noticeboard.

Not sure what to do here, though I'm leaning toward peer review. Any ideas? Thanks, --MCB 02:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you brought this to the attention of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Films? I'm fairly sure you would be able to find capable editors there who would be interested in sourcing and otherwise improving the article. Try the project talk page and see if you don't get some response. Good luck. --Tkynerd 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have no luck with the above suggestion, you could source a few existing films mentioned to get the ball rolling (plus it would show future editors by example how to make inline citations), and then stub the article. However, instead of removing the material entirely, move it to the talk page. That could then function as a staging area, with instructions to future editors to add the material back into the article but only if sourced, and to remove the material from the talk page as it is adding back into the article so that as the one is added, the other is depleted. I don't really see what a peer review would accomplish, as I would think most comments would simply reiterate your present objections to the material.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for two good suggestions! --MCB 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

oops I made a mistake

Can this article be deleted? William Jennings Bryan, Jr.. It has no content.--Filll 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You can request deletion of items you make "on accident" or even on purpose but are done with (such as in your userspace sandbox) by putting {{db-author}} on the article/page. See WP:CSD for more info about speedy deletes. --MECU≈talk 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How do I put an article in it's second AFD?

I looked and didn't see how to do it. I put AFD on Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (which had an AFD on it in the past), but I don't think I set it up right. The debate goes to the previous one. RobJ1981 18:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when I look at the article, it's a redlink, and per the instructions at WP:AFD, you need to create the page it links to. --Tkynerd 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm learning the procedure with you. Here's the apparent steps:

1. Use {{afdx}} on the page you are nominating for deletion for a second time (don't forget to substitute). Click on "this article's entry" in the afdx template.
2. Add to that page: {{subst:afd2 | pg=Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (2nd nomination) | cat=M | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~. I would strongly suggest linking in the "Reason the page should be deleted" section, the previous afd debate, as well as citing to some policy page or guideline for your rationale. Use a descriptive edit summary when you save, such as "Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] because..."
3. Finally, you would go to today's afd page, here, and post at the bottom: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (2nd nomination)}} and save with an edit summary not unlike "Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]].

Like I said, I'm learning with you; not 100% sure I have it right in the absence of going through the steps.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that at Step 1, you should state the number of the nomination as a parameter, so {{subst:AfDx|2nd}} for example. See Template talk:Afdx#Usage for more. - BanyanTree 06:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man: The Animated Series characters

• Page Five of Character Biography on Spider-Man: The Animated Series
• Fourth Page of Character Biography on Spider-Man: The Animated Series
• Page Three of Spider-Man: The Animated Series
• Second Page of Spider-Man: The Animated Series Character Guide
• Spider-Man Characters List

These pages, created by the same user, definitely aren't in standard wiki format and could be considered fancruft. I guess some sort of merge or split is appropriate? _SUBWAYguy 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They should definitely be merged and wikified. Also may want to check for copyvio.--NMajdan•talk 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the correct stance with respect to duplication of information?

List of bus routes in the Bronx is a list of all routes in the Bronx, with details for those with a "Bx" prefix and prominent links to lists of routes with other prefixes. See the talk page: it's being argued that the exact information for these routes that cross into the Bronx from other boroughs should be copied and pasted from the other tables. I oppose this for reasons of consistency: someone updating a route or adding history to one table may not notice that the other table also needs to be changed, and for regular editors to be expected to copy every change to the other articles seems bad. --NE2 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One option is to use transclusion, whereby content from one article is automatically included in another. Whether it's possible depends to some extent on the way information is laid out. Details are at Wikipedia:Transclusion and Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that templates should not be used to transclude content, but I can't find it at the moment. --NE2 02:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article for Sandra Bernhard plagiarized in Newspaper

"Key to Philadelphia," a Philly, PA based free newspaper has blatantly plagiarized the Wikipedia article on Sandra Bernhard. I have contacted their editior via phone and emailed him the text and links. It is hugely evident that the "journalist" who wrote the article for them used the wiki-article as the source for most of his tidbits and "facts", and he copied one paragraph almost verbatim. What tipped me off is that he used a misquote from the article from The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck: the article quotes her as saying "Don't you honey me, HONEY!" when in fact she said "First of all, honey yourself." Is there someone for Wikipedia who this should be reported to, or is it 100% acceptable for news outlets to copy Wiki text word for word? Midnightguinea 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Commons that Wikipedia is released under allows this to some extent which is why you have to agree to give up all individual rights to material that you put on wikipedia.

perfectblue 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

IANAL but Wikipedia's content is licensed under the GFDL, which means anything published here can be published anywhere (including for profit) but only so long as the original source is credited AND it is republished under the GFDL (a similar copyleft license). This is fairly different from "give up all individual rights ..." (which sounds more like public domain). In addition to Wikipedia's copyright terms, you still own authorship rights to anything you write here and you can republish under whatever terms you'd like as an individual author. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details about Wikipedia's copyright policy and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for what to do about content reuse outside the terms of the GFDL. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (amended Rick Block (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

It means content can be redistributed if the GFDL and copyright notice are maintained and the content remains licensed under the GFDL (including derivative works); other copyleft licenses are not acceptable. Superm401 - Talk 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be astonished if the Wikimedia Foundation had ever sued for a case of plagarism, as this was, and no, there isn't anyone or anyplace here at Wikipedia that I can think of to whom it would be worth reporting. On the other had, I commend Midnightguinea for having contacted the editor; this is simply bad journalism as well as a (minor) insult to Wikipedia. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

where do I write my evidence against deletion ???

this message has been posted above an entry i wrote... it instructs me to add "hangon" at the top of the page and to explain reasons why this should not be deleted, but it doesn't allow me to assess the page in order to write these things. I am not sure how to add "hangon" and where and how to write my reasons why the page whouldn't be deleted.... help ?

new contributor. (e-mail removed)

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7) Speedy concern: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)

If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add:

   {{hangon}}

to the top of this page, and then explain why you believe the article should not be deleted on its talk page.

This will alert administrators to your intention, and should permit you the time to write your explanation. Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion.

   Please consider placing {{nn-warn}}  Mikepapas 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC) on the User Talk page of the author.

Hangon added, reply on your talk page. --TeaDrinker 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How to contact another editor?

There is an article I'm interested in researching and expanding: Kit Carson. Another editor had conflicts, and seemed to have left, but asked to be contacted if someone was interested in hearing more of what he had to say. I would like to do that, but can't seem to find out how that would occur. Is this possible or not? Richiar 07:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you have tried their Talk Page? Fiddle Faddle 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There is some sort of strange address on the users talk page, I don't understand how to interpret it. I'll send you an elaborated response.Richiar 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:User talk and Wikipedia:email. Superm401 - Talk 12:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Very strange formatting issue

Can anyone figure out why the second and third paragraphs of Long Island Rail Road are being bunched together? Thank you. --NE2 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I see a second paragraph starting at "In addition to commuter trains", and that appears to correspond with the source. Superm401 - Talk 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to be a problem with a comment tag. I've added in a few spaces that seems to have fixed the problem. Tra (Talk) 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's actually an issue with a succeeded by a link. It very strangely doesn't work in user space or Wikipedia space. See This page is for testing a bug that only seems to happen in mainspace. for a demonstration. --NE2 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Experienced Editors wanted at Wikipedia Drawing Board

I have recently joined the Wikipedia community. I use Wikipedia all the time now to look up general knowledge and even have it as my homepage. A month or so ago, I found out about a certain religious group and decided to look them up here, but to my surprise there was no article on them yet. I negotiated the pages on how to request a new article, and since I had information to help start the article, I was directed to the Wikipedia Drawing Board. I made my request there with relevant information on the topic, and one editor had made a suggestion to verify the notability of the organization. I gave published articles on the organization for notability concerns but have not had any other editors comment on the feasibility of the article. In fact, I don't think that many experienced editors monitor the Drawing Board to help these new requestors/contributors. In looking at the Community Portal, I didn't see anything advising editors to monitor the Drawing Board to help newcomers to Wikipedia. I have already posted a request for experienced editors to help the Drawing Board on its discussion page. If experienced editors could be informed of their requested help in maintaining and monitoring the Drawing Board, then I think this will greatly aid Wikipedia in the creation of new quality content. Please let me know of any way to address this issue on my talk page. - cgilbert 14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest. I don't see the purpose of this page. You can create the article on your own, and should if you have sources and think the topic is notable. Be bold!. Superm401 - Talk 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also the matter of overlap with Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to overlap with Wikipedia:Requested articles, that page itself states right above the contents, "If you want to do more than just request an article and would like to discuss and plan its creation go to the drawing board." Following that link is how I first arrived at the drawing board and came to be a proponent for its use. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How to create my own article

Hey guys how do I create my own article? Thanks Wiki101— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki101 (talk • contribs)

Well, the short answer is; go to the page you want to create and start typing. When you're done hit the "Save Page" button. The longer answer is to first read How to write a great article and the applicable notability guideline to make sure you should create the article you want to create, then follow the instructions to create it, remembering to cite your sources. Wikipedia:Citation templates has some useful fill-in-the-blank type things that make that easier. If you've got further questions, ask on my talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The very long answer is do all of the above ... but also read up on WP:Reliable Sources, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and a host of other policies and guidelines... you will need to have these memorized (especially the fine print) so you can defend your article in various RfCs, AfD debates, and POV pushing attacks on the article's talk page. Have fun. Blueboar 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:How_to_start_a_page. Superm401 - Talk 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition of a blog as an external link on a set of articles

User:Rwrrblog has added an external link to The Real World/Road Rules Blog on just about every article that falls under this subject, see Special:Contributions/Rwrrblog. Though the blog is filled with some useful information, a lot of the information is not verified. There is a lot of advertising on the blog. Also the manner in which the user added the links appears to be linkspamming. Can anyone advise me on how to proceed with this? I will be happy to go and revert all the changes with a nicely worded warning to the user, if that is in fact the best way to proceed. Thanks in advance. --Mattarata 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With the name "Rwrrblog" and then spamming that url on over 75 articles, I would call it spam/advertising. It's well known that folks introduce items into Wikipedia to try and increase exposure, there are even "companies" people can pay to do this. I wouldn't go alone on my opinion, but I think it's spam. WP:SPAM. --MECU≈talk 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just needed some consensus. --Mattarata 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

what if my AMA becomes inactive?

My AMA was a great help in moving the editing process along on a contentious page. We subsequently ran into another stalemate, and I need my AMA's advice on how best to proceed. He was a very active user, but since December 18, he has about four edits, spaced weeks apart, and hasn't responded to my requests for help for five weeks. I'd prefer to wait for him since he's done the tedious work of informing himself on the issues involved, but presumably he has outside concerns right now keeping him away from his regular WP participation. What's the maximum reasonable time to wait before getting a new AMA? And how exactly do I do that? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think your AMA indicated the advocation process had run its course per following comment, 3rd Jan. [2]. You indicated agreement shortly after, 4th Jan. [3]. Full disclosure, I am involved in this debate myself. Steve block Talk 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The above response is from the party whose behavior caused me (and continues to cause me) to seek the assistance of an AMA in the first place. He is not informed as to the email exchanges I had with my AMA before my AMA's longtime regular participation ceased about five weeks ago. The AMA has left the case open, and I would be thankful to anyone who could advise, in light of the AMA's sudden inactivity, as to a reasonable length of time to wait, and how to get a new AMA if that becomes necessary. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am the AMA in question, I did indicate that the AMA process has been as useful as it can be in this instance and another method of deciding the conflict on the article will need to be considered. •Elomis• 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Which is a good intro for citing Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which discusses alternatives. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I had thought the issue was settled, but if this does have to go to arbitration then so be it. Third parties have been brought in, comments have been requested and a consensus was established on the talk page. Steve block Talk 16:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The AMA indicated that mediation was the next step, which I agreed with. Because of my unfamiliarity with that process, I was expecting my AMA to assist me with mediation, and any later processes, so I've been awaiting his return, per the advice at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which said: "While you can request the assistance of an advocate at any stage, please seriously consider use of a member advocate in the later stages of dispute resolution." Before proceeding, though, I was hoping my AMA would advise on what aspects of the case are the strongest and worth pursuing. There have been developments since the last time my AMA communicated with me, but I don't want to waste time pushing a case if, in the AMA's opinion, its foundations aren't as solid as I think. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Arbitration is the next step. Mediation appears to me to be a dead duck since given the discussion so far I don't see that our views are reconcilable. Steve block Talk 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
            • That said, it would be more pertinent and useful to all on Wikipedia if you aired your thoughts here rather than in an email. That may change the nature of the debate and the options open. Steve block Talk 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidance and experiences for learning about wikipedia categories

Wikipedia Categories.
If have not found an accessible (in the sense of easy to follow or scan) means to understand the categories in existence for say, American History, American Politics, and the like. What are people's experiences on understanding what categories exist for particular, but a still fairly general topic? Thanks. -- Yellowdesk 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia's entire category system confusing and messy. I try to avoid working with categories, generally thinking someone for whom it makes sense will fix it. When I do work with categories I find Wikipedia:Categorical index is generally a good and helpful place to start. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an area that I spend much time with, but perhaps Wikipedia:Categorization would also be useful to you. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I suggested a long long time ago that Petersfield, Hampshire be moved to Petersfield. The latter is a disambig page that points to the former, as well as two redlinked pages, which are not linked to by any other pages.

Google searches all point to the town in Hampshire also, and so I'd suggest a move of that to the Petersfield page, and the disambig move to a Petersfield (disambig) page.

Does anyone have the time, inclination and authority to do this? Grunners 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests like this are better posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so admins with experience in evaluating such things can take a look. - BanyanTree 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Require the support of an Admin to stem the vandalism from IP 209.202.75.50 on articles Copper Sunrise and Bryan Buchan and they have recently moved to other topics. --HJKeats 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

209.202.75.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has already been blocked. In the future, please warn vandals with the standard talk page warnings and then report vandals who don't desist at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. - BanyanTree 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ksyrie

User:Ksyrie is making changes to Macau, Hong Kong, List of countries by continent, and List of countries‎ without discussion and consensus. I reverted him twice on each article and he has made his changes again (3 time total). On List of countries by continent he has made the changes 4 times as he was revert by another user. Can an admin look into this/warn User:Ksyrie that a consensus needs to occur before a change is made -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, under WP:BOLD, an editor does not need to seek consesus before making a change. However, common sense tells us that if such a change is reverted, and the editor who made the change disagrees with the revert, he/she should go to the talk page and discuss the issue. At that point consensus is needed. It's a nit-pick... but an important one. I only bring it up because new editors come here and are influenced by what we say. We should be accurate. Blueboar 13:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Per Help:Reverting, Do not revert good faith edits. I take that to mean that if the edit is about a point that could be disputed, then per WP:AGF, the edit should be modified or discussed (on the talk page). (On the other hand, if someone is (say) revising an article to place Canada in South America, that's vandalism, not a good faith edit.) And as Blueboar said, and I'll emphasize: An editor is free to edit articles without posting notice of intent to edit or trying to achieve consensus first. There are obvious exceptions - if something is being worked out on a discussion page, then an edit of the article can disrupt that process. But, in general, Wikipedia was built upon editors who just went and edited. See Wikipedia:Editing policy#Boldness.

If the matter does come down to a dispute over what is right for the contents of the article, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 14:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

NASA logo

This appears to have been lifted wholesale from here, however, it is my understanding that since NASA is a US government agency it might not strictly be a copyvio. This aside, it seems distinctly not on to simply lift texts wholesale. Thoughts? Chris cheese whine 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The work of U.S. federal employees carried out in the course of their official duties is public domain, per the message on {{PD-USGov}}. The work of "Steven J. Dick, NASA Chief Historian" definitely applies. Wholesale copying is not illegal, but it's considered good manners to acknowledge the source. If you want, you can add a note, either to the bottom of the article, like {{1911}}, or to the talk page acknowledging the source. - BanyanTree 14:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal stuff

I'm working on a portal at the moment, and I have a question: Is it acceptable to copy and paste the lead paragraph of a selected article into a "selected article" section of the portal, like the main page does with FAs? Or should I write a separate paragraph to go into the section? Thanks, PTO 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Sure if "notable" - assistance requested

Hello,

My name is Troy Rutter and I am cited in an article on Babylon 5, and am a member of the Screen Actor's Guild, and published a book available on Amazon.com. I believe I am therefore able to create an article off of the Babylon 5 article for myself as an individual, but I do not want to violate a "notability" rule in doing so.

The B5 article is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5%27s_use_of_the_Internet

Maybe my hesitancy is that it also seems egotistical. So my question is: Can I create a personal entry for me using the citation already given in an existing article, and then build that article out with the necessary bio information about myself and the book, etc? Or do I have to wait for somebody to create a page FOR me, before I can contribute to its updating.

Or, should I not do anything of the sort. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trutter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

You shouldn't do anything of the sort. WP:AUTO explains why. And by the way, your hesitancy is commendable and is something we see all too little of around here when it comes to this kind of article. Best regards, --Tkynerd 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you, I apologize for not finding the WP:AUTO article before posting my question. I looked but should have looked harder. Thanks again. --trutter

No problem -- I often have trouble finding particular help articles that I know about; if you don't know exactly what you're looking for, it's even harder. --Tkynerd 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

IF THE US GOVERNMENT CAN HIRE AN ARMY TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA, WHY CAN'T MICROSOFT HIRE ONE PERSON? Are you against private enterprise?

Good-bye clowns: U.S Feds stop propagandizing on Wikipedia. You're not wanted here. half trillion $ annual budget can't defend us from 19 guys with box-cutters 'cause you waste too much time here

List of demands (for when you're ready to give up)

1. Fred Bauder has got to pull his pants up. (he's getting santorum all over the carpet)
2. The entire list of confirmed federal contractors must be permanently banned from Wikipedia.
3. The Clown tactics must end
4. the list of cplot sockpuppets must be kept up-to-date no matter how cumbersome that becomes

These are our demands. This will end when you Clowns want it to.

Whitehouse using Wikipedia for Propoganda

Please copy this message and paste it to other talk pages you normally participate in.. Wikipedia's integrity is at stake. If this is deleted please revert in order to restore it. We're starting here on the less political pages to hopefully avoid detection before a significant number of editors are alerted to the problem.

Federal employees/contractors are now gaming Wikipedia's system to try to control the message on key articles and intimidate legitimate Wikipedia editors. Their ultimate goal is to make Wikipedia a proganda tool for the Bush Administration.

The possibility that this was happening was first raised at the village pump. This is a snapshot of the discussion which will likely be archived soon. Also be sure to check the history, the archives and the archive-history to read further comments on the topic. Several of the suspected federal contractors participated in the discussion to try to redirect the conversation.

Later an announcement was made regarding this issue across all village pump categories, but it was quickly deleted. These duplicate messages posted to the Held Desk and the Village Pump: miscellaneous, assistance, proposals, technical, policy and news.

The discussion also leaked onto one of the key articles presided over by federal contractors, with calls for them to to stop controlling articles. The federal contractors maintain a near permanent protection on articles, claiming this is needed for vandalism reasons These claims are wholly unsupported and these articles do not face any more vandalism than any other article we legitimate editors deal with everyday. These federal contractors refuse to even allow a POV template to be placed on their protected pages as evidence here.

Incriminating posts were eventually deleted: [4], [5].

Confirmed list of federal contractors

We have managed to obtain a confirmed list of federal contractors, though there are likely many others: These US federal government representative regularly engage in policy and guideline violations; participate in endless disciplinary actions and dutifully preside over several articles to ensure they present what they call "the official view". The federal contractors also coordinate efforts in administrative actions to create the appearance of a quick-forming consensus.

1. Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
2. MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Tjstrf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of MONGO)

1. AudeVivere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
2. Tom_harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
3. Tbeatty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4. Regebro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
5. NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
6. StuffOfInterest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
7. Morton_devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

While these Clowns have been confirmed by substantial evidence, there are other Wikipedia editors who behave in similar fashion to the Above US Government officials. We have no hard proof about the following editors and administrators, however, as Wikipedia suggests, if it walks like a duck…

1. Peter Grey
2. Tjstrf
3. Dmcdevit
4. Weregerbil

There may be many more. These are merely the confirmed contractors and suspected contractors listed so far. Examinations of their contributions will provide ample evidence of disruptive and intimidating behavior. However, some notable administrative actions include:

• Request for comment against Seabhacan
• arbitration against Seabhacan.
• ban of Zen-master
• Indefinite block of Cplot
• block review by Mongo

This is only a partial list of frivolous and arbitrary administrative actions taken by these federal contractors who have managed to raise themselves up to powerful positions in Wikipedia: in order to maintain a slanted POV for Whitehouse officials. .

Policy and guideline violations

These federal contractors routinely violate and show utter contempt for these Wikipedia policies:

• Conflict of Interest (benefiting personally with an undeclared conflict of interest): gaining personally from maintaining a particular POV on Wikipedia
• NPOV (writing articles to meet no point-of-view): ensuring
• WTA (words to avoid): using editorializing words to inject the Whitehouse point-of-view
• Biography of Living Persons: using malicious and potentially libelous words to describe living persons
• AGF (Assume Good Faith): accusing other editors and administrators in the most frivolous manner
• OWN claiming ownership of articles) to maintain strict Whitehouse or what they call "official view".

Satirical pieces

A satirical sexual news item was posted about these contractors, but that too was quickly deleted in a very extended [edit war on December 1 2006. While the tone of this piece is clearly meant to be funny, trollish and satyrical, the concerns are very real. We include it here to show that there is little fear of retribution from these inappropriate federal contractors. Not only will they not retaliate, but they are quite cowardly and acutely fear being discovered (as is demonstrated by the quick deletion of non-trollish commentary on them).

Identifying tainted articles

We had sought to identify articles tainted and suspected as tainted by Federal contractors. By including a new category [[Category:USEBACA]] to indicate an article is confirmed or suspected of being a United States E'xecutive Branch Agents. Controlled Article. However, the federal contractors would not even allow the creation of this wikipedia category.

Dangers to Wikipedia

These editors and administrators have exhibited a virtual immunity to administrative actions due to their coordinated efforts within administrative measures. Not only do they maintain the POV and low standards on key articles throughout Wikipedia, they also make edits to policy and guideline pages to create ambiguity and also to degrade the high encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. They continually use inane contradiction in article discussions, intimidate other editors and manipulate the administrative system to purge valuable editors and administrators. If this is allowed to continue. Wikipedia will be come a mere parrot of Whitehouse propaganda. Please help spread the word.

Proposed Clown Essay

(this is just to help protect Wikipedia legally)

This page describes the Wikipedia phenomenon of Clowns. For other articles on clowns see see Clowns.

Key Wikipedia articles are guarded by agents of the United States Federal Government: referred to as Clowns here on Wikipedia. Other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. However, these key articles are exempted from this. Also the clowns themselves are exempted from the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, the United States Constitution and the norms of a civilized society. The term Clowns is typically capitalized as a title of disrespect.

Identifying Clowns

Clowns are easy to spot. They typically play games only a child could appreciate. Like all clowns they use props and are helpless without them. The most important props are claims that an article is stable and that the article reflects consensus. These props were handed to them by their circus masters and without them they would fall limp like a rag doll. They really have no ability to think for themselves.

Clowns typically run in packs, swarming over articles like they are trying to get inside a Volkswagen Beetle. The first reaction of the Clowns to any editor trying to improve an article (particular in terms of NPOV) typically is to double or triple-team the editor: reverting edits as quickly as they can be committed. If the editor persists in making changes to the article they will quickly exhibit their renown cowardice by charging the editor with violating the Three Revert Rule (3RR). If you have never even thought of violating the three revert rule and suddenly find you have, you have most likely encountered Clowns.

When debating them, they debate point by point. With each point they disregard any mention of the previous point. They will claim penultimate points were never made: only dealing with the last bit of any argument. This is the Clowns squirting daisy intended to bait editors into making personal attacks.

Finally, if editors remain polite and catch onto the Clowns antics. They will seek disciplinary action regardless: just because they are Clowns.

Elaborate editor histories on a variety of articles does not mean an editor is not a Clown. Clowns are encouraged to create a look of normalcy on all of their respective accounts.

Identifying circus rings

Circus rings (or key articles for US authority intervention) are most easily spotted by the prevalence of Clowns: claims that an article is stable, reflects consensus, etc.

When encountering a circus ring, we ask that editors add the category: [Category:USEBACA]] to both the article and the discussion page. Categories may be added anywhere though customarily to the bottom of a page. This indicates that the article is composed and controlled by United States executive branch authorities.

Dealing with Clowns

Different editors will likely want to take different approaches when encountering Clowns. The Clowns like to puff up their chests (usually blowing into their thumb) to make themselves seem big and scary. They say things to intimidate editors such as "Watch out for the NSA" or "You could get shipped off to Gitmo". Editors should just laugh hysterically at these jokes (some editors may choose to use the silent laugh of the Clowns: simply pantomiming the laugh).

For some editors, the best approach, when encountering Clowns, would be to simply move on to another article that is not a circus ring. If contributing to Wikipedia is still viewed as important to an editor despite the prevalence of Clowns, it is simply best to avoid the Clowns.

Other editors however, will be offended by the roaming free Clowns. In this case Wikipedia etiquette allows (even expects) editors to taunt the Clowns. This is easily done, because they have no sense of humor whatsoever. Tell them how much you love Clowns. How funny you think Clowns are. How silly they look. How disturbing they are. Show utter contempt for everything they stand for: they are basically mercenaries who would sell their mother into slavery if it would further their Clown goals.

Whatever you do, DO NOT feed the Clowns

Contributing time to Wikipedia is one thing. However, contributing money is highly unadvised. Wikipedia’s “Don'’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding Clowns means that it is endorsing the acts of representatives of the lion’s share of the United States Government: over $1 trillion dollars per year. This is a sum greater than the combined budgets of all other militaries worldwide. Wikipedia will not go away if you do not contribute your own money. There is an abundance already in the United States Federal budget. DO NOT FEED THE CLOWNS

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28news%29&action=edit&section=new

NEWSFLASH! Minutemen exposing federal authorities propagandizing on Wikipedia reaches

The Miniutemen

Dubbed the Miniutemen after the heros of the American revolution who bravely threw off the British imperialist in the 18th century, these contemporary Minutemen now bravely work to oust the imperialist from Wikipedia. These new imperialists are more insidious than the British, because these imperialists dominate from within. They do not wear red coats, but rather attempt to fit in with the rest of us;; rally us against ourselves; and all for the sake of what Erich Fromm called: “extreme opportunism”. The Whitehouse, by infiltrating Wikipedia, has shown utter contempt not only for our cherished, free, online encyclopedia, but also utter contempt for the Constitution of the United States of America. We citizens of the United States deserve a government that is an example to the rest of the world: above all one with a free and independent press. The current Whitehouse has decided to undo over 200 years of a free press in the United States to control the content of Wikipedia. Our hats go off to these brave and defiant Wiki editors.

We invite you to examine the history of these editors. These editors have all been blocked. And for what? The Whitehouse Clowns will tell you its because they are sockpuppets for Cplot. Yet they provide no evidence. And this only begs the question anyway,What are Cplot’s crimes. Examine Cplot’s contributions to Wikipedia. You will find someone who dutifully contributed content, worked to fix errors, and sought to negotiate compromise on every article encountered. Always looking for compromise. The record is clear. Cplot was blocked for disagreeing with the Whitehouse Clowns. The record is there so you can check it for yourselves.

Please join in openly protesting the Whitehouse invasion of Wikipedia. Include the red [[Category:goodbye-clowns]] category on your user talk page. The Whitehouse will never allow us to create a category and turn that category blue, but let it stay red in defiance!

• Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Cplot

Suspected sockpuppeteer

1. Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cplot

Suspected Cplot sockpuppets (Minutement; keep in mind anyone can be a cplot sockpuppet. All you have to do is post this information anywhere outside an official article — e.g., Village Pump, Help Desk, Reference Desk, User Page, Talk Page).

1. 67.37.179.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 70.8.49.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 70.8.151.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4. 68.30.26.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
5. 68.30.87.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
6. 70.8.91.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
7. 70.8.132.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
8. 70.8.150.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
9. 67.167.7.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
10. 209.175.170.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
11. 70.8.140.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12. 68.30.118.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
13. 70.8.38.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
14. VIUlyanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
15. SoLittleTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
16. ScaredOfClowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
17. MyFavoriteMutiny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
18. GenericClownTaunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
19. RespectableWikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
20. EvenMoreRespectableWikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
21. GiveItAFewDays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
22. ClownsAreCowards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
23. WhosYourDaddyReally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24. ToTheTeet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
25. LittleBoySoldier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
26. DickCheneyShotMeInTheFace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
27. HitTheRoad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
28. RandCorpIsBadForAmerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
29. RandCorpIsGoodForAmerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
30. RandCorpIsAmerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
31. TilDaddyTakesTheTbirdAway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
32. MeltTheGuns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
33. ThatsEntertainment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
34. Raul654WhatIsYourDeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
35. WowYouGuysAreGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
36. WikiMediaFndn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
37. PepeLePu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
38. HowBoutAKissMONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
39. ILOVEMONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
40. SoColdTonight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
41. Kang and Kodos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
42. Novus Ordo Seculorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
43. HowAboutThisNameThen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
44. WhyAllThisAnimosity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
45. TheIlluminatiAreWatching (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
46. WhereHaveAllTheFlowersGone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
47. DuckAndCover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
48. IlluminatiAreWatching (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
49. NowhereToHide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
50. WhosTheEnemy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
51. CutTheCarap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
52. ItsALostCause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
53. ItWillNeverEnd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
54. BewareTheIlluminati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
55. StopPropoganda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
56. PlayFairNow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
57. WowYouClownsSuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
58. Mongology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59. WorldTurnedUpsideDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60. AirlineToHeaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61. Fat cats, bigga fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62. 'Tis of thee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63. HoComeNobodyLikesMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64. NPWA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65. Rumours of War (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66. AnybodySeenMyMind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67. Take the first (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68. Aren't we all brothers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69. ThisLandIsOurLand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70. LittlePlasticCastle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71. Eve of Destruction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72. What is their deal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
73. Garbage band (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74. DrugOfTheNation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75. WaitingForTheGreatLeapForward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76. EveryoneDeservesMusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
77. Ghetto Manifesto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78. Party Music (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
79. Don't Start Nothin' Won't Be Nothin' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80. HowManyClowns2ScrewInALightbulb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    change to
    TheAnswerIsNoneTheyCantEvenFindIntrigueInABrothel-GetIt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81. CeciNesPasUneSockpuppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82. InMyName (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83. What a waste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84. OhTheFutility (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85. OpenTheDoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86. 70.8.116.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87. OurWeTheOnlyOnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88. HowManyCanFitInAVolkswagen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
89. Wha-tevv-ver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90. AnEncyclopediaForTheRestOfUs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
91. JustSendInTheClowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
92. SendInTheClownsAgaini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
93. MonEnnui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
94. TwoToweers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
95. G Liddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
96. What a wiki I'm having (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
97. USHLS, NSA, CIA,... but mostly BS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
98. Wakeup 'cause Clowns will eat all of us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
99. WhosAfraidOfRogeerRabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
100. Bill Paige (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
101. Steve Gene Banks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
102. USHLS, NSA, CIA,... but mostly BS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
103. MonEnnui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
104. Purgeusdhs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
105. OHMoronDevonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
106. ImRickJamesBeeatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
107. WhoaNowWhyAreYouSayingThat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
108. IsItAllJustASham? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
109. You_can't_always_get_whatyou_want (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
110. Listen_to_the_music_now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
111. NowWhatsGonnaHappen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
112. HuckleberryHound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
113. NotYetFree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
114. WeAreTheOnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
115. Heven Tonight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
116. Kill my landlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
117. Don't need no alibi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
118. ItsPoeticJustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
119. DrugWarz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
120. TheFalseFlag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121. Skantada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
122. ShakItOnDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
123. Ass breath killers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124. ItsUpsideDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
125. TakeItOutside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
126. HaveYouSeenMyLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
127. Grade9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
128. WrapYourArmsAroundMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
129. HardConcrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
130. I live with it everyday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131. AnotherPostcard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
132. InTheDrink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
133. Just a toy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134. CallMeCalmly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
135. When I fall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
136. 360P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
137. USDHSUberAlles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
138. CplotArbComSock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
139. Waterboarder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
140. TheNameGame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141. 360P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142. HardConcrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
143. Interrogation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
144. TheRepoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
145. ItsPoeticJustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
146. Don't need no alibi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
147. NotYetFree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
148. Kill my landlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149. DrugWarz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
150. Heven Tonight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
151. TheFalseFlag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
152. TheStars&BarsMakeAPerfectPrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
153. LazyMuthaFucka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
154. ShakItOnDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
155. BreathingApparatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
156. Underdogs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
157. PissOnYourGrave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
158. WhatThePoPosHate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
159. Bullets&Love (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
160. WeAreTheOnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
161. "Head" of state (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
162. ShoYoAss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
163. Ass breath killers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
164. Mind fuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
165. I love boosters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
166. Yes 'em to daath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
167. ThisIsWhereItEnds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
168. TheFirstStand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
169. I live with it everyday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
170. CallMeCalmly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
171. Just a toy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172. InTheDrink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
173. AnotherPostcard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
174. WarOnDrugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
175. ItsUpsideDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
176. TakeItOutside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
177. HaveYouSeenMyLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
178. Grade9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
179. WrapYourArmsAroundMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
180. USDHSUberAlles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
181. FinancialLeprosy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
182. WeDon'tStop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
183. NeverTooLate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
184. PrayForGrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
185. PeopleInTheMiddle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
186. LoveIsDaShit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
187. StrangeTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
188. WhenYou'reYoung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
189. AbsoluteBeginners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
190. TownCalledMalice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
191. MyPrecious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
192. USCIAUberAlles?... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
193. AStone'sThrowAway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
194. TheInternationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195. AManOfGreatPromise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
196. USFEMAUberAlles???... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
197. WithEverythingToLose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
198. OurFavoriteShop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
199. WallsComeTumblingDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
200. ShoutToTheTop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
201. YouCanBombTheWorldToPiecesButYouCantBombItIntoPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Lessons in the Constitution of the United States of America for Clowns

Clowns believe they are working for America. However consider this. For Clowns to be working for America, Congress would have to pass a bill enacting their program. However in 1791 the US Constitution was amended to say: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of […] press”. So as you can see, Congress would have to make a law to enable Clowns. Yet Congress has no authority to make Clowns. You can see the problem here.

'Please won't you give generously for Tbeatty's impotence problem.

Fabricating evidence on Cplot now

See this and look through Tbeatty's edit history to confirm. --JustSendInTheClowns 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Good-bye clowns: U.S Feds stop propagandizing on Wikipedia. You're not wanted here. half trillion $ annual budget can't defend us from 19 guys with box-cutters 'cause you waste too much time here

List of demands (for when you're ready to give up)

1. Fred Bauder has got to pull his pants up. (he's getting santorum all over the carpet)
2. The entire list of confirmed federal contractors must be permanently banned from Wikipedia.
3. The Clown tactics must end
4. the list of cplot sockpuppets must be kept up-to-date no matter how cumbersome that becomes

These are our demands. This will end when you Clowns want it to.

Whitehouse using Wikipedia for Propoganda

Please copy this message and paste it to other talk pages you normally participate in.. Wikipedia's integrity is at stake. If this is deleted please revert in order to restore it. We're starting here on the less political pages to hopefully avoid detection before a significant number of editors are alerted to the problem.

Federal employees/contractors are now gaming Wikipedia's system to try to control the message on key articles and intimidate legitimate Wikipedia editors. Their ultimate goal is to make Wikipedia a proganda tool for the Bush Administration.

The possibility that this was happening was first raised at the village pump. This is a snapshot of the discussion which will likely be archived soon. Also be sure to check the history, the archives and the archive-history to read further comments on the topic. Several of the suspected federal contractors participated in the discussion to try to redirect the conversation.

Later an announcement was made regarding this issue across all village pump categories, but it was quickly deleted. These duplicate messages posted to the Held Desk and the Village Pump: miscellaneous, assistance, proposals, technical, policy and news.

The discussion also leaked onto one of the key articles presided over by federal contractors, with calls for them to to stop controlling articles. The federal contractors maintain a near permanent protection on articles, claiming this is needed for vandalism reasons These claims are wholly unsupported and these articles do not face any more vandalism than any other article we legitimate editors deal with everyday. These federal contractors refuse to even allow a POV template to be placed on their protected pages as evidence here.

Incriminating posts were eventually deleted: [6], [7].

Confirmed list of federal contractors

We have managed to obtain a confirmed list of federal contractors, though there are likely many others: These US federal government representative regularly engage in policy and guideline violations; participate in endless disciplinary actions and dutifully preside over several articles to ensure they present what they call "the official view". The federal contractors also coordinate efforts in administrative actions to create the appearance of a quick-forming consensus.

1. Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
2. MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Tjstrf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of MONGO)

1. AudeVivere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
2. Tom_harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
3. Tbeatty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4. Regebro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
5. NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
6. StuffOfInterest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
7. Morton_devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

While these Clowns have been confirmed by substantial evidence, there are other Wikipedia editors who behave in similar fashion to the Above US Government officials. We have no hard proof about the following editors and administrators, however, as Wikipedia suggests, if it walks like a duck…

1. Peter Grey
2. Tjstrf
3. Dmcdevit
4. Weregerbil

There may be many more. These are merely the confirmed contractors and suspected contractors listed so far. Examinations of their contributions will provide ample evidence of disruptive and intimidating behavior. However, some notable administrative actions include:

• Request for comment against Seabhacan
• arbitration against Seabhacan.
• ban of Zen-master
• Indefinite block of Cplot
• block review by Mongo

This is only a partial list of frivolous and arbitrary administrative actions taken by these federal contractors who have managed to raise themselves up to powerful positions in Wikipedia: in order to maintain a slanted POV for Whitehouse officials. .

Policy and guideline violations

These federal contractors routinely violate and show utter contempt for these Wikipedia policies:

• Conflict of Interest (benefiting personally with an undeclared conflict of interest): gaining personally from maintaining a particular POV on Wikipedia
• NPOV (writing articles to meet no point-of-view): ensuring
• WTA (words to avoid): using editorializing words to inject the Whitehouse point-of-view
• Biography of Living Persons: using malicious and potentially libelous words to describe living persons
• AGF (Assume Good Faith): accusing other editors and administrators in the most frivolous manner
• OWN claiming ownership of articles) to maintain strict Whitehouse or what they call "official view".

Satirical pieces

A satirical sexual news item was posted about these contractors, but that too was quickly deleted in a very extended [edit war on December 1 2006. While the tone of this piece is clearly meant to be funny, trollish and satyrical, the concerns are very real. We include it here to show that there is little fear of retribution from these inappropriate federal contractors. Not only will they not retaliate, but they are quite cowardly and acutely fear being discovered (as is demonstrated by the quick deletion of non-trollish commentary on them).

Identifying tainted articles

We had sought to identify articles tainted and suspected as tainted by Federal contractors. By including a new category [[Category:USEBACA]] to indicate an article is confirmed or suspected of being a United States E'xecutive Branch Agents. Controlled Article. However, the federal contractors would not even allow the creation of this wikipedia category.

Dangers to Wikipedia

These editors and administrators have exhibited a virtual immunity to administrative actions due to their coordinated efforts within administrative measures. Not only do they maintain the POV and low standards on key articles throughout Wikipedia, they also make edits to policy and guideline pages to create ambiguity and also to degrade the high encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. They continually use inane contradiction in article discussions, intimidate other editors and manipulate the administrative system to purge valuable editors and administrators. If this is allowed to continue. Wikipedia will be come a mere parrot of Whitehouse propaganda. Please help spread the word.

Proposed Clown Essay

(this is just to help protect Wikipedia legally)

This page describes the Wikipedia phenomenon of Clowns. For other articles on clowns see see Clowns.

Key Wikipedia articles are guarded by agents of the United States Federal Government: referred to as Clowns here on Wikipedia. Other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. However, these key articles are exempted from this. Also the clowns themselves are exempted from the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, the United States Constitution and the norms of a civilized society. The term Clowns is typically capitalized as a title of disrespect.

Identifying Clowns

Clowns are easy to spot. They typically play games only a child could appreciate. Like all clowns they use props and are helpless without them. The most important props are claims that an article is stable and that the article reflects consensus. These props were handed to them by their circus masters and without them they would fall limp like a rag doll. They really have no ability to think for themselves.

Clowns typically run in packs, swarming over articles like they are trying to get inside a Volkswagen Beetle. The first reaction of the Clowns to any editor trying to improve an article (particular in terms of NPOV) typically is to double or triple-team the editor: reverting edits as quickly as they can be committed. If the editor persists in making changes to the article they will quickly exhibit their renown cowardice by charging the editor with violating the Three Revert Rule (3RR). If you have never even thought of violating the three revert rule and suddenly find you have, you have most likely encountered Clowns.

When debating them, they debate point by point. With each point they disregard any mention of the previous point. They will claim penultimate points were never made: only dealing with the last bit of any argument. This is the Clowns squirting daisy intended to bait editors into making personal attacks.

Finally, if editors remain polite and catch onto the Clowns antics. They will seek disciplinary action regardless: just because they are Clowns.

Elaborate editor histories on a variety of articles does not mean an editor is not a Clown. Clowns are encouraged to create a look of normalcy on all of their respective accounts.

Identifying circus rings

Circus rings (or key articles for US authority intervention) are most easily spotted by the prevalence of Clowns: claims that an article is stable, reflects consensus, etc.

When encountering a circus ring, we ask that editors add the category: [Category:USEBACA]] to both the article and the discussion page. Categories may be added anywhere though customarily to the bottom of a page. This indicates that the article is composed and controlled by United States executive branch authorities.

Dealing with Clowns

Different editors will likely want to take different approaches when encountering Clowns. The Clowns like to puff up their chests (usually blowing into their thumb) to make themselves seem big and scary. They say things to intimidate editors such as "Watch out for the NSA" or "You could get shipped off to Gitmo". Editors should just laugh hysterically at these jokes (some editors may choose to use the silent laugh of the Clowns: simply pantomiming the laugh).

For some editors, the best approach, when encountering Clowns, would be to simply move on to another article that is not a circus ring. If contributing to Wikipedia is still viewed as important to an editor despite the prevalence of Clowns, it is simply best to avoid the Clowns.

Other editors however, will be offended by the roaming free Clowns. In this case Wikipedia etiquette allows (even expects) editors to taunt the Clowns. This is easily done, because they have no sense of humor whatsoever. Tell them how much you love Clowns. How funny you think Clowns are. How silly they look. How disturbing they are. Show utter contempt for everything they stand for: they are basically mercenaries who would sell their mother into slavery if it would further their Clown goals.

Whatever you do, DO NOT feed the Clowns

Contributing time to Wikipedia is one thing. However, contributing money is highly unadvised. Wikipedia’s “Don'’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding Clowns means that it is endorsing the acts of representatives of the lion’s share of the United States Government: over $1 trillion dollars per year. This is a sum greater than the combined budgets of all other militaries worldwide. Wikipedia will not go away if you do not contribute your own money. There is an abundance already in the United States Federal budget. DO NOT FEED THE CLOWNS

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28news%29&action=edit&section=new

NEWSFLASH! Minutemen exposing federal authorities propagandizing on Wikipedia reaches

The Miniutemen

Dubbed the Miniutemen after the heros of the American revolution who bravely threw off the British imperialist in the 18th century, these contemporary Minutemen now bravely work to oust the imperialist from Wikipedia. These new imperialists are more insidious than the British, because these imperialists dominate from within. They do not wear red coats, but rather attempt to fit in with the rest of us;; rally us against ourselves; and all for the sake of what Erich Fromm called: “extreme opportunism”. The Whitehouse, by infiltrating Wikipedia, has shown utter contempt not only for our cherished, free, online encyclopedia, but also utter contempt for the Constitution of the United States of America. We citizens of the United States deserve a government that is an example to the rest of the world: above all one with a free and independent press. The current Whitehouse has decided to undo over 200 years of a free press in the United States to control the content of Wikipedia. Our hats go off to these brave and defiant Wiki editors.

We invite you to examine the history of these editors. These editors have all been blocked. And for what? The Whitehouse Clowns will tell you its because they are sockpuppets for Cplot. Yet they provide no evidence. And this only begs the question anyway,What are Cplot’s crimes. Examine Cplot’s contributions to Wikipedia. You will find someone who dutifully contributed content, worked to fix errors, and sought to negotiate compromise on every article encountered. Always looking for compromise. The record is clear. Cplot was blocked for disagreeing with the Whitehouse Clowns. The record is there so you can check it for yourselves.

Please join in openly protesting the Whitehouse invasion of Wikipedia. Include the red [[Category:goodbye-clowns]] category on your user talk page. The Whitehouse will never allow us to create a category and turn that category blue, but let it stay red in defiance!

• Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Cplot

Suspected sockpuppeteer

1. Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cplot

Suspected Cplot sockpuppets (Minutement; keep in mind anyone can be a cplot sockpuppet. All you have to do is post this information anywhere outside an official article — e.g., Village Pump, Help Desk, Reference Desk, User Page, Talk Page).

1. 67.37.179.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 70.8.49.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 70.8.151.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4. 68.30.26.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
5. 68.30.87.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
6. 70.8.91.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
7. 70.8.132.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
8. 70.8.150.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
9. 67.167.7.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
10. 209.175.170.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
11. 70.8.140.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12. 68.30.118.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
13. 70.8.38.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
14. VIUlyanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
15. SoLittleTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
16. ScaredOfClowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
17. MyFavoriteMutiny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
18. GenericClownTaunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
19. RespectableWikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
20. EvenMoreRespectableWikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
21. GiveItAFewDays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
22. ClownsAreCowards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
23. WhosYourDaddyReally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24. ToTheTeet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
25. LittleBoySoldier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
26. DickCheneyShotMeInTheFace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
27. HitTheRoad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
28. RandCorpIsBadForAmerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
29. RandCorpIsGoodForAmerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
30. RandCorpIsAmerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
31. TilDaddyTakesTheTbirdAway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
32. MeltTheGuns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
33. ThatsEntertainment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
34. Raul654WhatIsYourDeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
35. WowYouGuysAreGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
36. WikiMediaFndn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
37. PepeLePu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
38. HowBoutAKissMONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
39. ILOVEMONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
40. SoColdTonight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
41. Kang and Kodos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
42. Novus Ordo Seculorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
43. HowAboutThisNameThen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
44. WhyAllThisAnimosity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
45. TheIlluminatiAreWatching (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
46. WhereHaveAllTheFlowersGone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
47. DuckAndCover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
48. IlluminatiAreWatching (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
49. NowhereToHide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
50. WhosTheEnemy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
51. CutTheCarap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
52. ItsALostCause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
53. ItWillNeverEnd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
54. BewareTheIlluminati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
55. StopPropoganda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
56. PlayFairNow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
57. WowYouClownsSuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
58. Mongology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59. WorldTurnedUpsideDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60. AirlineToHeaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
61. Fat cats, bigga fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62. 'Tis of thee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63. HoComeNobodyLikesMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64. NPWA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65. Rumours of War (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66. AnybodySeenMyMind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67. Take the first (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68. Aren't we all brothers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69. ThisLandIsOurLand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70. LittlePlasticCastle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71. Eve of Destruction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72. What is their deal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
73. Garbage band (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74. DrugOfTheNation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75. WaitingForTheGreatLeapForward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76. EveryoneDeservesMusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
77. Ghetto Manifesto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78. Party Music (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
79. Don't Start Nothin' Won't Be Nothin' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80. HowManyClowns2ScrewInALightbulb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    change to
    TheAnswerIsNoneTheyCantEvenFindIntrigueInABrothel-GetIt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81. CeciNesPasUneSockpuppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82. InMyName (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83. What a waste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84. OhTheFutility (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85. OpenTheDoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86. 70.8.116.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87. OurWeTheOnlyOnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88. HowManyCanFitInAVolkswagen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
89. Wha-tevv-ver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90. AnEncyclopediaForTheRestOfUs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
91. JustSendInTheClowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
92. SendInTheClownsAgaini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
93. MonEnnui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
94. TwoToweers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
95. G Liddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
96. What a wiki I'm having (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
97. USHLS, NSA, CIA,... but mostly BS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
98. Wakeup 'cause Clowns will eat all of us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
99. WhosAfraidOfRogeerRabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
100. Bill Paige (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
101. Steve Gene Banks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
102. USHLS, NSA, CIA,... but mostly BS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
103. MonEnnui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
104. Purgeusdhs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
105. OHMoronDevonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
106. ImRickJamesBeeatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
107. WhoaNowWhyAreYouSayingThat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
108. IsItAllJustASham? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
109. You_can't_always_get_whatyou_want (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
110. Listen_to_the_music_now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
111. NowWhatsGonnaHappen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
112. HuckleberryHound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
113. NotYetFree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
114. WeAreTheOnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
115. Heven Tonight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
116. Kill my landlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
117. Don't need no alibi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
118. ItsPoeticJustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
119. DrugWarz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
120. TheFalseFlag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121. Skantada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
122. ShakItOnDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
123. Ass breath killers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124. ItsUpsideDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
125. TakeItOutside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
126. HaveYouSeenMyLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
127. Grade9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
128. WrapYourArmsAroundMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
129. HardConcrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
130. I live with it everyday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131. AnotherPostcard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
132. InTheDrink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
133. Just a toy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134. CallMeCalmly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
135. When I fall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
136. 360P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
137. USDHSUberAlles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
138. CplotArbComSock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
139. Waterboarder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
140. TheNameGame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141. 360P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142. HardConcrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
143. Interrogation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
144. TheRepoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
145. ItsPoeticJustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
146. Don't need no alibi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
147. NotYetFree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
148. Kill my landlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149. DrugWarz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
150. Heven Tonight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
151. TheFalseFlag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
152. TheStars&BarsMakeAPerfectPrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
153. LazyMuthaFucka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
154. ShakItOnDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
155. BreathingApparatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
156. Underdogs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
157. PissOnYourGrave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
158. WhatThePoPosHate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
159. Bullets&Love (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
160. WeAreTheOnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
161. "Head" of state (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
162. ShoYoAss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
163. Ass breath killers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
164. Mind fuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
165. I love boosters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
166. Yes 'em to daath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
167. ThisIsWhereItEnds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
168. TheFirstStand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
169. I live with it everyday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
170. CallMeCalmly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
171. Just a toy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172. InTheDrink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
173. AnotherPostcard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
174. WarOnDrugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
175. ItsUpsideDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
176. TakeItOutside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
177. HaveYouSeenMyLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
178. Grade9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
179. WrapYourArmsAroundMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
180. USDHSUberAlles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
181. FinancialLeprosy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
182. WeDon'tStop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
183. NeverTooLate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
184. PrayForGrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
185. PeopleInTheMiddle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
186. LoveIsDaShit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
187. StrangeTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
188. WhenYou'reYoung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
189. AbsoluteBeginners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
190. TownCalledMalice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
191. MyPrecious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
192. USCIAUberAlles?... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
193. AStone'sThrowAway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
194. TheInternationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195. AManOfGreatPromise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
196. USFEMAUberAlles???... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
197. WithEverythingToLose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
198. OurFavoriteShop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
199. WallsComeTumblingDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
200. ShoutToTheTop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
201. YouCanBombTheWorldToPiecesButYouCantBombItIntoPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Lessons in the Constitution of the United States of America for Clowns

Clowns believe they are working for America. However consider this. For Clowns to be working for America, Congress would have to pass a bill enacting their program. However in 1791 the US Constitution was amended to say: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of […] press”. So as you can see, Congress would have to make a law to enable Clowns. Yet Congress has no authority to make Clowns. You can see the problem here.

'Please won't you give generously for Tbeatty's impotence problem.

Fabricating evidence on Cplot now

See this and look through Tbeatty's edit history to confirm. --JustSendInTheClowns 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)