User talk:Xenophrenic

Notice to posters: Let's try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may also refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Thanks. Xenophrenic (Talk)

• Incivility: I reserve the right to remove uncivil or disruptive comments and/or threads from this talk page.
• Spam: I also reserve the right to delete any bulk messages that I regard as spamming.

Documentary about Médecins Sans Frontières work

Hi, we seem to be working in parallel about this documentary! If you would like to discuss, let's meet up on the Médecins Sans Frontières Talk page. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your email

Sorry I hadn't checked in a few days... But I just got the email you sent me last Tuesday. Regarding the user in question, I am afraid he actually did not send me his IP address via email. The one he sent was the 127.0.0.1 Wikipedia Dummy IP address, and not a real IP address, so I was unable to find the source of his blocked IP problem. When I asked him to resend, he balked, citing "privacy concerns". He DID say that he contacted the admin that issued the block, and got it straightened out with him. I don't know who that admin was, however, so you may want to see if he contacted Avraham, as he issued the IP block on the possibly related IP address you inquired about. He also issued the WP:IPBE for the user in question, so he likely knows what IPs he was using. See [1] for more information on the extent of the conversation we had on the matter. I hope this helps some... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Jayron32. I'm still waiting for a response and confirmation from Avraham. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just posted a request for an update to the list. As soon as I hear anything, I will let you know. Thank you very much for your patience! -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wars & Kittens

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

sorry it looked like an edit war to me. my mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, TomCat :) Looks like everything worked itself out. Stay well, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party Astroturfing

I'm assuming your comment meant you were for the new edit is that correct? Soxwon (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but it looks like I was late to the party. You guys appear to be mowing down the roadblocks and concerns at a good clip now. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing what one can accomplish once you realize we're all here for the same reason :). Soxwon (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party protests

IF you insist on using Google as a reference, that is fine with me. But don't censor other references in the article. The Squicks (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship? Thank you for your admission that your personal attack was unfounded. Not in so many polite words, of course, but through your response here, which is good enough for me. I, too, shall consider the matter closed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I insist on using complete sources, and not replacing them with inferior sources that do not contain the pertinent content. No references have been censored -- you are refering to an edit that you lost during an edit conflict as you kept reinserting your reference in rapid-fire manner without review. It appears to be fine now. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

TDC

Again? I believe I only marked it as closed once. -- Avi (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded the e-mail to them AND sent a reminder. They have not contacted you? Perhaps send an e-mail straight to ArbCom-l -- Avi (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded it again to func-l and arbcom-l saying that you're still patiently waiting :) -- Avi (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana has reviewed the evidence you submitted and feels that, without much doubt, all the accounts and IPs are related. As such, I've tagged all the accounts as socks of TDC. We're currently working to see if a range block could be implemented. Thank you for your patience over the past few months with this case. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Garafalo and Olbermann on the Tea Parties

I think you're being a little disingenuous in your explanation of a recent revert. While Olbermann is sitting in the interviewer's chair, he's hardly an unbiased party and essentially agrees with Garafalo's statements, smiling and nodding along with Garafalo's attempted witticism regarding the brain structure and pressure on the frontal lobes of Republicans, conservatives,etc. I think the recent edit by an anonymous IP is reasonable and should be left alone. Thanks -- Rydra Wong (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said he was unbiased. I also never said that he disagrees with Garafalo. Yes, he nods, and smiles a lot -- just as he does with most of his guests. He never specifically states his agreement, and to interject that assumption is WP:OR.

I appreciate your view, but if you still disagree, perhaps the article talk page would be a better place to continue this conversation. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dalton Trumbo

I have again removed the link to the official site for the movie adaptation as source for the information. The other link to Spark Notes should be sufficient. Web sites to promote a motion picture do not tend to be examples of original research, and simply compile information from other sources, and due to it's purpose (to promote the film) information can not be taken as non biased. We certainly would not cite most commercial websites that promote a product as impartial entities. It is not my intent to start an edit war, and I hope you understand this. If you would like to discuss this feel free to contact me.

Thank You(75.69.241.91 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Irbisgreif's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irbisgreif (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MSF FAR

I have nominated Médecins Sans Frontières for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Userbox offer

Considering the statement on your user page's "COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT", section #2 "Xenophrenic is not assuming good faith!" I offer you this user box in good faith. You can bend/edit it to reflect your views as I did for mine. Hope you have use for it and enjoy it as I did on my userpage.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your offer. While I did get a chuckle out of your modified user box, I'm afraid I must pass - I'm trying to avoid the use of all such descriptors and labels. I find them to be too brief and narrow to represent my actual views, feelings and traits, which are usually far more complicated and nuanced.

I'll trust your words that your offer was made in good faith, despite recent comments that might indicate the edited user box you display is less than accurate; it does use the qualifier "usually", after all. Best regards to you, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I dislike userboxes too, only that this one I found quite intriguing and couldn't resist. As for the "usually", of course there are always occasions where doubt comes in, yet at the end it is or can be resolved even w/o talking but rather watching. Guess you can agree on the latter (and yes, it was honestly in good faith). I stand to my comments yet my comments don't have to stay. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too, stand by my comments, even when their usefulness eludes less perceptive readers. As for lists; if I were to keep a "trust list", it would start blank and only be populated by those that earned their way onto it -- by that same standard, I'm confident I am on every list I desire to be on. Here's hoping all our future interactions land us on our respective A-lists. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ACORN

I see that you are a regular contributer to the page , and thought this might be helpful. I would have snt it to Eyesocket, but he hasn´t been active in a while.[2] Cheers.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me in the best spirit of collaboration :)[3] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you removed my change and labled it vandalism. On 11/23/09 Wade Rathke did a book signing and lecture at the University of Memphis (Memphis, TN). During the Q&A he was asked who paid the bulk of the money back to ACORN that had been embezzled by his brother Dale. Wade said that Dale had paid back some of the money over the seven years but when the matter became public the rest of the repayment was made by their father's estate. The gentleman had already deceased and the estate was about to be settled when the theft became common knowledge. (The article had suggested the money was paid by an unknown donor) Rathke also said (at the Q&A) the auditors informed him there was a problem. At this point he did not know if it was $5 or $500,000. He said when he found out the problem was Dale and the amount was $948,000 it blew his mind. The change made to the page was not vandalism. How you can think that is beyond me. If you want to confirm Wade Rathke's remarks there were 40 to 50 people present at the time including the department head. I also have Wade's email address. How many vandals do you know who will give you the subject's email for confirmation?? E. Zach Lee-Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.9.38 (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, E. Zach Lee-Wright,

I have removed edits of yours, but I did not label them as vandalism. This is what my edit summary said: (rem unsourced addition; returned wording to that conveyed by the cited source)

I am not doubting that you heard Rathke speak in Memphis, or that he answered questions about ACORN, but Wikipedia articles cannot contain that information unless it comes from a reliable source. You can click on this link for an explanation of what Wikipedia requires of its reliable sources. Among the 50 people in attendance, is it possible that one of them may have worked for a local newspaper or media outlet, and run a story on his lecture? Press articles, or possibly third-party recordings of the event might be usable as sources, but personal recollections by attendees can not be used. Email correspondence is problematic as well; do you know if Wade has published similar information on his blog or in newsletters, instead?

The editing and sourcing requirements may seem cumbersome, but those are the rules. Your edit was reverted due to sourcing requirements, and not because of vandalism. Perhaps you mistakenly read the edit summary for an edit by someone else. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting stranger and stranger... this user also left a complaint about the ACORN article on my user talk page, but according to Sinebot was using yet a different IP address... How many IP addresses does this person have? Whisperwolf (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the note he left to you on your talk page, Whisperwolf. I assume (E. Zach Lee-Wright) = (98.66.2.104) = (74.177.9.38). Both of the IPs geolocate to Memphis, TN, so it does appear to be the same person — maybe one is home, and another is from work or the University? As for being called a vandal, he is mistaken and probably misread the edit histories; neither of us called his edits vandalism. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock Farm......

I thought you might have a little input in this user. I have a strong belief he is a sockpuppeteer you may have had prior dealings with. User:Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou?, User:Fight the bias. Their is an Ani conversation over a quote they attribute to you at [[4]]. If you are aware of the root account it would def help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Discussions

September - Lengthy discussions between Gustnado and Xenophrenic about the WSI

Xenophrenic, you put a large amount of discussion relative to the subject on my talk page. All of it except the comments about etiquette belong on the talk page for the article. Because it would be rude for me to copy it there without your permission, I will ask you to put it there so all can share the discussion. I will point out two things that need to be debated on the main page, since you think they are relevant: the rally that Pitkin spoke at was not an SBVT rally, and there were thousands present. I challenge you to prove otherwise. I await you bringing those to the talk page (I have added a bunch there) I also want to challenge this that you left on my talk page: "I will continue to discuss issues with you until there is clear understanding, but that does not mean inappropriately sourced content remains in the article during those discussions." I presume, based on that, that I may remove what I consider inappropriate sourced content until we make a decision in the talk pages, Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Hi, Gustnado. Most of what I wrote on your talk page is inappropriate for the article talk page. Personal conversations about respective points of view; speculation about motives behind certain edits, etc., are best left on our talk pages. If you have specific article-related issues you'd like to discuss, just bring them up on the article talk page -- as I see you've begun to do already. Regarding the two questions you have asked here: I do not think the number of people attending that rally, or the sponsors of that rally, are relevant to the WSI article. You are correct that the rally was not technically an SBVT rally. A search of the C-SPAN archives for "Swift Boat Rally" produced that video here. The first 15 seconds of the video has the commentator referring to SBVT rally. There were SBVT members speaking at that rally. The rally was promoted on the SBVT website. The sponsor of the rally is Vietnam Vets for Truth, a 527 PAC that has at least 4 members in common on both the SBVT and VVFT committees, and both SBVT and VVFT share the functional goal of stopping the election of a presidential candidate. I'm sure you can understand my confusing the two; however, my point remains: It can not be simply described as a vets rally. As for the number of attendees, I have already proven to myself that you are confusing "hundreds" with "thousands" by enlarging the several panoramic views from that video and easily counting heads. Would my analysis count as reliable content for the article? No; but I have no intention of adding that to the article. Finally, regarding my admonition that inappropriately sourced material may be removed: don't read anything into it beyond what I stated. I'm off to read your notes on the article talk page now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with describing it as a VVT (not SBFT) rally. The numbers may not be appropriate. You count, however, is wrong. I was present at the rally and did my own rough count. For my own curiosity, which VVT committee members are SBVT members? For that matter, where is the list of VVT committee members? Thanks. 199.33.140.2 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I'd go with a count from a magnified wide angle, elevated still-photo of the whole crowd long before I would trust a "rough count" from someone attempting to eye-ball it from the middle of the crowd. As for info on common members from each group, I'd have to check my links to kerrylied.com and my notes on the DC chapter of freepers. Running into some deadlinks though; I'll have to check some archived stuff. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Your link? Here's mine to a reliable source stating 8000-10000: Washington Times . Gustnado (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC) "...organizers estimated at between 8,000 and 10,000." Enough said. I'll stick to photographic evidence, thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Life magazine says "hundreds", as does a late edition AP story dated Sept. 12th. Organizers and supporters of events will always inflate attendance numbers; "Washington Times" has no motivation to fact-check those assertions, and they aren't required to as long as they state the estimate came from the organizers. The article in Life cites "numbers from law enforcement", and the AP story mentions neither organizers or law enforcement as their source. Interesting note, according to this conservative site, "the Sept. 12 'Kerry Lied' Rally on Capitol Hill, which was organized by the Vietnam Veterans for the Truth in association with Swift Boat Vets and POWs for the Truth." Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC) The Washington Times, at the start of the piece, says "thousands." Later, when it uses the numbers from the organizers, it clearly labels that estimate as such. The Life Magazine reference is to a photo title, not a report. The photo you speak of has not been presented. My personal attendance is primary source material. I paid attention to the crowd, and disagree with the "organizers estimate" in that the crowd was more like 4000, not 10000. As for the Powerline Blog article... what is the relevance to anything? They don't give any numbers. Gustnado (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC) The Washington Times uses numbers from the organizers, correct. The link I provided is to a Life Magazine photo (Ghetty image, actually); the article in Life to which I referred is an article in Life Magazine. The other photo(s) to which I referred are still images from the C-SPAN video; you are welcome to perform your own analysis on them. You are, as an attendee or supporter, allowed to claim whatever number you wish - knock yourself out; Life, the AP and law enforcement probably couldn't care less. As for the relevance of the Powerline article about the rally in association with SBVT, I'll let you ponder on that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC) The Washting Times uses numbers from the organizers in one place and identifies the source. In other words, it is reporting what the organizers claimed. In the other part, which I cited, it does not use the same numbers, does not cite the organizers, and hence is reporting on the fact, not what anyone claimed. You originally claimed there were no more than 25 vietnam vets, while there were about that many just involved in organizing and speaking, and obviously one hell of a lot more in attendance - so much for your photogrammetry skills. As to the Powerline cite, why don't you tell me what you think it means and why it might be significant. I believe John O'Neil spoke, and he was the SBVT spokesman, and also a VIetnam Vet. What's the issue? If you are trying to tar VVT with the SBVT's undeserved reputation, have at it. There are one hell of a lot of Vietnam Vets, myself among them, who do not consider SBVT scum (or whatever pejorative you used) but rather combat veterans reluctantly coming back for one more, and important, battle. I know you disagree. VVT and SBVT both shared their disgust with Kerry's actions in 71/72 and their belief of his unfitness to be CIC. SO did the most VV's and almost all veterans' organizations. Your point? Gustnado (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Event attendance numbers from organizers/supporters/attendees are routinely inflated, and always suspect. The Washington Times published those numbers from those sources, correct. The summarized lede refers to the "thousands" it cites in more detail (with sources) in the body of the article - don't confuse that with independent "reporting on the fact" - that is just common article writing format. I didn't claim there were 25 vets there; I have no way of knowing how many were vets. I did comment, however, that it sounded like there were only 25 vets based on the sound of the feedback when vets were addressed. As a supposed attendee, and a supposed Vietnam Vet, you go right ahead and claim 8000 - it's your prerogative. You are also entitled to your opinions about people and the fitness of presidential candidates; but when someone besmirches the character and military service of an individual for political reasons, they qualify as scum in my book. Go right ahead and keep defending that; that, too, is your prerogative. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC) (outdent)First, I did not intentionally edit your edit. As can be seen, one letter was changed, so you are being a bit tendentious here. Obviously, when I had the section open (do YOU know of any way to edit without having the entire topic open?), I slipped and hit that, and didn't notice that. I disagree with your interpretation of the article. That's that. Gustnado (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I also am offended at being a "supposed" attendee and a "supposed" Vietnam Vet. That's just plain discourteous and gratuitous. As for the motives of SBVT and VVT, they felt that they, who collectively had far more experience with John Kerry in Vietnam than anyone else, should bring out what they felt was the truth about Kerry. For that, these American combat veterans were themselves smeared, threatened and accused of being partisans. In my opinion, when someone builds an entire campaign on an exaggerated short tour of duty, he opens himself up to questioning of his conduct and character during that tour, and who best to do it than those who fought alongside him and those who did not but fought in the same unit under the same conditions? When, after that tour, he is a top-level leader in an organization which is demeaning the conduct of everyone else who fought in that war, he again becomes subject to scrutiny. John Kerry besmirched the character and honor of every Vietnam Veteran, intentionally, for political purposes. His actions and those of VVAW caused untold hardship to many veterans (myself not included), as documented by Burkette. His own comrades in VVAW avowed that his goal was political - he was using them and they were using him. So by your own definition, John Kerry is scum - clearly provable scum (just read his Senate Testimony from 1971). Gustnado (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Regarding your claims to being a Vietnam Vet that attended that rally: It has been said that some people claim to be vets when they are not; it has also been said that even confirmed vietnam vets have "highly suspect veracity". You can stop being offended that I don't take your claims at your word, it's nothing personal. Others have made false claims here before, so when, during the course of a discussion or argument, someone subtly mentions they are a vet, etc., to bolster their position - I subtly indicate that I ain't necessarily buying it. As I said, it is gratuitous and insulting. Having doubts is fine. Asserting them, when not relevant, is insulting. I have a friend who is well known for uncovering phony vets - especially phony SEALS, and Burkette probably provides the best evidence of the phony VV phenomenon. I don't recall mentioning my VV status (and don't feal like searching for whether I did or not. I mentioned attending the rally to provide an indication that I have first hand knowledge - even if it would violate confidentiality to actually prove to you that I was at the rally (not to mention it wouldn't do any good). Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) No, what I said is not gratuitous nor insulting. Let's be very clear, You have chosen to be insulted; I have not insulted you. And I am still not taking your claims at face-value (and, yes, you have mentioned vet status twice now). Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Of course it's insulting, and gratuitous. Adding "supposed" contributes nothing to the discussion. You are welcome to your opinion of my status, but you are also welcome to keep it to yourself. Gustnado (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) No, it's not gratuitous nor insulting. I added "supposed" to contribute the fact that I don't necessarily believe it. Of course I am welcome to my opinion of your status, and of course I am welcome to keep it to myself - and would have - had someone not interjected that status into the conversation as if it had some bearing. Now who could that have been? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Regarding your mischaracterization, again, of my statements, what part of "when someone besmirches the character and military service of an individual for political reasons, they qualify as scum in my book" confused you? Name the individual Kerry besmirched, please. All of us, but to be specific: I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of one thousand, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony... I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. And again you fail to name an individual veteran besmirched by Kerry. I'll consider my point made. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Since we're discussing Kerry's speech to the Fulbright committee now, I took the liberty to fill out the above quotes a little further. Let's hear your interpretation of what Kerry was saying: This makes all Vietnam Vets look like monsters, especially all officers ("officers at all levels of command"). English language 101. He said, "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command", not "all officers are committing monstrous acts." You failed at showing Kerry maligned an individual vet. Now you are failing at showing he maligned all vets. So far you have shown us 150 monsters whose actions were known to some officers. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) The other meme pushed by Kerry and friends was the Vietnam Vets were victims, mentally damaged, and that was the prevailing narrative in news media and fiction for about 20 years. It was extremely harmful to many vets. Also, as far as I know, only one of the "stories" Kerry mentioned above has been verified (although obviously, in a war such as this, many more atrocities happened, but not as a matter of routine or policy). Yeah, I know what you mean. I can't believe we were dumb enough to fall for that "war can have psychological ill effects" on people drivle. I'm sure glad we laid that clap-trap to rest after 20 years. And the one verified story, raising a village (to save the village), is a popular one. Or did you mean the one story about us dropping more ordnance tonnage on Vietnam than was used in WWI, WWII and Korea - combined? Wait, the one verified story must have been about shooting civilians - no, wait, that never happened. Did you mean rape? No way, we'd know if something like that happened. Which verified story were you talking about? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) If you want "atrocities known at all levels of command", consider the Viet Cong's policy of terrorism against village elders, with horrible atrocities carried out as routine; consider the North Vietnamese treatment of POWs; or, even consider the Allies' bombing of German and Japanese population centers in WW-II. No, I don't want. We're sticking to the subject at hand, and attempts to point over yonder and say "yeah, but what about them...?" won't derail this. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Until I hear this speech replayed in 3004, I knew little about Kerry and was unaware of his VVAW activities. After I heard the speech (and read the transcript), I was angered, appalled and disgusted, and decided to look into it for myself. No, no, no. You got the lines all wrong. You are supposed to say, "The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating ...and it hurt me more than any physical wounds I had. -Joe Ponder". Or, "He dishonored his country, and more importantly, the people he served with. He just sold them out. -Paul Galanti". These are tried and true, and proven effective in conveying moving outrage. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) The above shows how little respect you have for those who disagree with you - me in this case. I am not going to play this game any more in your talk section. Your rhetoric immediately above, and below here, and your gratuitous use of "supposed" belongs in a blog comments section, not in a supposed discussion of facts between editors. Gustnado (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I have all due respect for those with whom I disagree. That said, you are welcome to use any reasoning you find convenient to extract yourself from the discussion of facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) What I found was not pleasant - Kerry riding on his gussied up war record after having trashed his comrades in arms; VVAW coordinating with North Vietnam; Kerry lying about his military service and the press buying it hook line and sinker (what day to you think he was discharged from the Navy? Are you aware that his military biography on his campaign site changed, page by page, on the day he partially released his records?). No, Kerry trashed us, and in fact he trashed you, if you are an American, because he vilified the whole country. For that, he is scum, by your definition in particular. Fortunately, he is now irrelevant scum. Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) What you found was exactly what you wanted to find, no more and no less. And Kerry never trashed me, nor my whole country. You seem to fail to understand that in my country, a person can speak their mind on practically anything. In fact, as I have been recently reminded, in my country, a person can also misinterpret practically anything to suit themselves. I've heard the tales you mentioned, and I apparently know more about Kerry's military service, his records, the VVAW, etc., than you do. We can go there if you'd like, but first things first, I'm still waiting for your specifics on how Kerry trashed all vets. Kerry argued that warcrimes (not the titilating cutting off of ears or shocking of genitals you seem to be fixated on) were being committed because of American war policy, and that is already a proven fact. It is interesting that when someone raises this publicly, it is he that is "trashing the country", and not those responsible for the crime. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) The rest of your comments read like cut & paste from the swifties playbook. I've read his senate speech, as well as everything from Burkett and his ilk, and from vets that actually served with Kerry, and more. The contentions that Kerry besmirched every Vietnam vet, or caused hardship to many vets has already been proven ridiculous and politically generated, and if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of all that BS, you have an open invitation. It's a well-traveled path for me, but be forwarned, I insist on facts, not Swettisms. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Keep in mind that many SBVT vets did serve directly with Kerry (his fellow boat captains worked with him daily on ops and at home base - they more than anyone knew how he operated because it was their job to watch each other - swift boats never went out on lone patrol). Only some of my information comes from Swett's web site. Much of it came from my own research (and it's darned expensive for a mere individual to purchase Lexis-Nexis searches). I also insist on facts, which is why I am no longer holding to Burkett's assertions about the supposed SID investigation. There is no evidence that the investigation happened. Burkett, of course, didn't know this at the time - he too was a veteran trying to make sense of things (have you read his Prologue?) and used the only source at hand (which, by Wikipedia standards, would have qualified as a reliable source until it was later discredited). I have met a numnrt of the swifties first hand, know a couple better than that, and find the smears of them to be wrong and repugnant, but consistent with the character assassination normally practiced by the left - Kerry in 1971 for example. "character assassination normally practiced by the left..." You betcha. Smears come from a direction, eh? Thank you for that telling insight. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I ask once again for you to provide the names of members of the VVT "committee" who were also members of SBVT. Also, I'm curious about archives of the VVT site. Who has them? I'd love to see them. I think SBVT is still online, so no archives of interest there. Tks. Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I've been able to find some of the archived links using www.archive.org, such as this one here, but the link pointers from my old notes go to some different version of their website. I haven't had time to track back through them yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

The issue that I have is not necessarily the reference (which I can't find, but I'm not that resourceful) would be the language used in the wording should the source be kept. Undue weight is very heavy there. Do as you please, of course, but we really should work on how the information is presented. Keegan (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP before adding the information again. Specifically this section which says that such potentially negative information should be "corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources". I don't see multiple, highly reliable sources there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) :To be perfectly honest, your blatant disregard to the BLP policy is appalling. When you have an admin, in your case two admins, telling you something - especially as we're both OTRS members so you clearly don't know the full story - it's best to ask questions, and stop reverting. I see that you're not interested in logical discussion so I won't waste my time. If you want information, instead of reverting and ignoring one of the most important policies that we have, let me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And with regards to your other changes which you made while reverting my edit, I apologize for missing that. I'll be happy to request on the protected article's talk page that that information be re-added. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - you should probably confirm this before an admin makes the changes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment; you're right. I've struck my above comments (if you'd prefer I remove them entirely, let me know). I did not mean to come off so rude however this is a situation where I believe we should have discussed things, rather than reverted. I've commented on the article's talk page and would hope you can follow up there. You're welcome to "take this situation to noticeboards" if you feel that will be beneficial. I have not willfully ignored any of your comments - and the other content that I removed was just an oversight, for which I apologized for. At this point, reviewing the four sources you've added, I think a case can be made for leaving them. Though some of your comments in edit summaries and talk pages were, at first read, only attempts at making a bigger issue than necessary. I think we both got a little carried away here. I apologize for my part in it and will shortly be leaving a comment for the admin who protected the article asking him to unprotect it, when you could (if you want) restore your edit. I wont do anything until I get word back from you, however. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight back at ArbCom

You are mentioned (implicitly) here[5]. PhGustaf (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe your comment over at the ArbCom discussion of Law's reversal of Sandstein's block is slightly inaccurate. On the basic idea that CoM is interested in ACORN in precisely ways that violate his Obama topic ban, I could not agree more. However, it is not the case that ACORN has endorsed only one candidate. The organization has made lots of endorsements over time, though indeed Obama is the most prominent one, and the one mainly motivating CoM. LotLE×talk 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Press release

Please explain how a press release from a notable organization on said organizations website is less reliable than the same press release picked up by another organization? It isn't. If you want to make an argument that the contents shouldn't be on the page for another reason, please feel free to do so. By claiming that it isn't a reliable source pertaining the view AIM is not a valid claim. The criticism about it being a reliable source would be valid if it weren't for the attribution or if the group were not one of the pre-eminent Native American Rights organizations in the country, but as the reference is to the stance of AIM it is perfectly a reliable source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the article talk page. The short answer is: It's a gross violation of WP:BLP, which requires reliable second and third-party sources for disparaging content. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, if you had cited BLP originally instead of RS, I probably would have looked at the edit and moved on. I disagree with you about the primary sources, I think they add value, and context (if somebody reads them they will see that AIM has an ax to grind, which is lost in the secondary source.) But frankly, I don't care enough about this article or Ward Churchill. You'll probably note that I've made all of a dozen edits on the WC page in the past 2 or 3 years. I'm actually surprised that Churchill survived my watchlist purge... but I've taken care of that now.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Do you think that User:NYsullivan is a sockpuppet for User:Balloonman? I'm not quite sure, but the creation of the new account at exactly the moment when doing so would apparently avoid 3RR for the latter looks suspicious to me. LotLE×talk 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, with the addition of brand new User:CU1989, I am entirely certain these are sockpuppets. Aaghh! Going through WP:SSP is way too much work :-(. LotLE×talk 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible, I guess. My assumption would be that User:168.103.215.166 (geolocated to Colorado ... home of the controversy) added the content to the article first, then registered an account name, User:NYsullivan, with which to continue editing that article 10 minutes later. Balloonman came in much later, and is probably unrelated. New User:CU1989 is much more likely to be related to 168.103.215.166/NYsullivan. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe you're right. I added that IP address to the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Report_date_October_9_2009.2C_22:56_.28UTC.29. I'm sure I filled out that report wrong in some respect(s), but maybe someone better familiar with the procedure can sort it out. LotLE×talk 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno for the common sense... if a user is going to use Socks, they are either going to start out with their main account, or they are going to avoid using their Admin Account all together bu starting out with Socks and stay with Socks. Plus, it doesn't make much sense for a user to goto the talk page and then use a Sock unless you really are out to assume bad faith.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMFAO!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice

FYI - I responded to you comments on my talk page. Gustnado (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting you to ANI

{wink}↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! My life is now complete. You have restored my self-confidence and my faith that I, too, might someday be part of the "in crowd". I promise not to waste this opportunity. But first, I must contact my drama coach for some brush-up... Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Churchill-related article

My opinion is that you aren't really being helpful or constructive. You're setting up hoops and saying, "Jump through these." If you want to improve the article, then offer a revised paragraph that resolves all of your concerns. If your purpose isn't to improve the article, then what is your purpose? Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I obviously disagree. The hoops (we call them Wikipedia Policies around here) must be jumped through, unfortunately. I agree that jumping through these hoops can be tedious and annoying, and that it would be much more fun to be able to add absolutely anything to articles without these requirements -- but that is not the reality of our situation here. As for me offering a revised paragraph, my version is already implemented in the article. The paragraph we are now discussing was introduced by Phoenix. I hope that clears things up for you. Oh, and as for your final leading question, it doesn't make any sense to me. Could you please rephrase? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It just seems a little like baiting to me, and as we've seen at WP:ANI, 64/Phoenix is a little excitable. You might be more successful if you try editing his proposed paragraph to comply with your strict interpretation of policy. Evidently you insist on unimpeachably reliable source like the New York Times cited after each and every period or comma, or you're going to keep reverting. Does that cover it? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It is not I that insists on reliable sources, it is Wikipedia. We are all constrained by that same annoying yoke. I might be able to edit his suggested paragraph if I only knew where he was getting the content he put in it. Perhaps he will enlighten us in his response. The article already conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results. Perhaps you can tell me what it is Phoenix would like to convey with his new paragraph? (I examined your contributions to that same article for examples of productivity - that didn't cover it.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that when the article conveys all those things, it doesn't cite any sources. It's a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:RS according to your standards of enforcement. But you have no objection to the unsourced passages where the article "conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results." You only object to that addition of further details, clarifying that it was the right-wing media that responded (and very effectively) to Churchill's challenge. I've reactivated this discussion on the article Talk page where it belongs, so that others may participate. Please don't delete it again. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've not deleted any discussions; perhaps you have me confused with another editor. I have, however, continued discussions on our personal talk pages when the content is inappropriate for article talk pages - see above. I've responded on the article talk page and your talk page as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to either your apology, or your embarassed silence, regarding the addition of the word "conservative." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And I look forward to your response to the many unanswered queries that remain on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nearly all have been adequately answered. Your dissatisfaction with the answers is noted. By the way, I notice that in an edit summary, you characterized John Fritch as a "student debater." This is inaccurate. He's an associate professor with a PhD, and head of communications studies; the photo doesn't suggest that he was a student at the time of publication.[6] Also, please read WP:WEASEL. The word "claimed" is cited as an example of weasel wording (not once, but twice) in the infobox on the right. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the issues were addressed by LotLE, correct. What gives you the misperception that I am dissatisfied? Sticking to reliable sources isn't that hard after all, is it? (Note: there are still 2 fact tags that need addressing...) Thank you for the info on Fritch - the "student" description was intended to be applicable to the debate project, not the individual. Not that someone of his age couldn't also be a student. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read WP:WEASEL. What is your specific point? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What part of "weasel wording" don't you understand? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You aren't going to tell me what your specific point is? I have to guess? I see the word "claimed" in the infobox, but I am not sure what relevance that has to our article. (Wait... are you confusing the weasel verb "claimed" with the nouns "claim" and "expose"?) Please read the guideline again, instead of just doing word searches.  :) Claims is the appropriate word to describe the claims; as "exposé" automatically implies discredited claims. You are using the weasel word. Would you like to make the correction? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind - I see another editor has already removed your use of "exposé"; problem solved. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the sock drawer

Apparently you an I are sockpuppets of each other. One of our anon trouble-makers of late has discovered a brand new administrative page, it seems: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SOCKMASTER#Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_-SPI_check_user. Make of it as you see fit. LotLE×talk 21:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. He even templated my page. My first instinct was to just let the checkuser run its course, watch the anon-IP eat some crow and then move on. But on second thought, this isn't his first attempt at harassment and personal attacks, so I may end up biting back. (BTW, if you really are me, will you please stop disagreeing with me on talk pages and edit summaries? Get with the program!) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you happen to see this latest bit from our shoeless friends: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admitted sockpuppetry by LotLE? They really do get annoying. I guess I really shouldn't even bother posting any clarification at all. Sometimes I don't bother, but I guess I'm in a bad mood about it today :-(. LotLE×talk 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the heading he posted under. Would you mind if I interjected myself into that discussion, or would you rather I not? Also, since socking seems to be the topic of the day, I recall the 71.* editor and 64/Phoenix both being previously accused of socking by Bali, Tarc, Scjessey and others -- did anyone ever follow up on that? Some of the accusers seemed really convinced. Editor 71.* geolocates to Illinois, near Chicago. So did Bryan and TDC/CENSEI. Also, 71.* went to the Free Republic article on his very first day of editing - an article (along with ACORN) frequently edited by these other puppeteers. All three edit from the same point of view, and all three spend far too much time dragging other editors that stand up to them through the various admin noticeboards. There may be a connection; or maybe there's just something in the Chicago water. I just wonder if it is something worth looking into more closely. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free, I would appreciate your input. LotLE×talk 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in (but i will anyway). Fellow is reasonably competent at using different IPs (at least he was) and I would assume the old SPI stuff would be stale.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...

Good analogy, and wryly worded (re: hunting rifles and fishing poles). The same thoughts crossed my own mind when I saw what was posted yesterday. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

CEC

I saw the anon Fast food edit too, and as much as i hate it. it is on the template, i am reverting for now. i am checking with the original creator of the template for his\her logic on including it. I'll see if he/she will remove CEC and peter piper pizza from it. the other pizza places clearly belong but these clearly don't. i would do it myself but some editor get pretty possessive of their work. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed CEC from the template, as it clearly doesn't qualify - and I'll be updating the article to reflect that. I don't know enough about Peter Piper to make the same change, so I'll leave that to you. I don't think it was the template creator that added CEC. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart issue has been archived

December - Lengthy discussions between Valerius Tygart and Xenophrenic about Tygart's BLP editing violations

Hello Xenophrenic. I'm keeping a link to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Shopping for an appropriate forum and taking note of Nuclear Warfare's final comment in that thread. If there is any renewed edit warring, or any more usage of socks in content disputes, things may be different. It seems that the editor concerned has agreed to stop using socks and stop reinserting the disputed material at Bill Maher. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Hi, Ed. The contested content has been reinserted by Tygart again, against the concerns of at least two editors. I have reverted his edit. I have read Tygart's most recent response on his user talk page, and based on that I do not agree with your conclusion that he has agreed to stop edit warring. He appears to be telling you to butt-out ... am I misunderstanding him? It also appears he is standing by his denial of ever using socks abusively. The "many people use the 140.xxx IP" excuse is new, however. Why do puppeteers always have roommates who edit Wikipedia articles? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Tygart seems determined to insert that disputed info in Bill Maher's article, but your attempt to keep it out might appear perfectionistic. You have been the main person reverting his changes, and you continue to assert a BLP defence for your reverts, though there's never been a filing at WP:BLPN. It appears that some blogs may have snapshotted part of the Maher story and may have been focussing on a fragment; may even have got some details wrong. It's improper to cite blogs for negative BLP information, but surely the basic point is correct? Aren't you within range of negotiating a fully-sourced version of Maher's opposition to vaccination? You can open an WP:RFC if you think Tygart won't follow consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Your recent comment shows that you have looked into this issue in more depth than the other peripherally involved admins; thank you for that. Not that I fault the other admins - 20+ pages of repetitive talk page argument is enough to scare off any review deeper than a cursory glance. If I could use up just a little more of your time, I'd like to explain the situation in a little more detail from my perspective. I'll try to be brief. (OK, so I failed miserably... -X) The more recent exchanges between myself and Tygart have focused on sourcing technicalities, as you have noted, but that isn't the main or even significant problem with his edits. I've allowed the discussion to dwell on sourcing because Wikipedia's rules in that area are more clear, and because I've found support from another editor, User:Henrymrx, that also sees sourcing problems. Tygart is trying to source his content to two opinion pieces from critics (Hemingway & Gardner) of Maher, and a blog opinion by "Orac", another critic of Maher. Unfortunately for Tygart, the quotes from each of these sources differ from each other, and from the version he is trying to add to the article. Minor differences, true, but the real inaccuracy lies in the meaning and context being ascribed to the quote snippet by the critics. You know how defamatory information on the blogosphere works - Hemingway's article mentions Gardner; Gardner's article mentions Orac; and each of them twists and skews a snippet of a quote to support their criticisms. BLP policy doesn't allow this kind of sourcing, and I intend to continue being a "perfectionist" in that regard. "...but surely the basic point is correct?", you ask - and the answer is no. Maher, as a comedy talk show host, frequently says some caustic and over-the-top things, and being "politically incorrect" is all part of his schtick - but he has made himself clear about his views on vaccination and health in general. He understands the basic mechanics and science of vaccination, including the benefits, and has frequently acknowledged this during his past routines. However, he is also highly critical of big pharmaceutical companies, suspicious of government and wary of "for-profit" science — and as such has voiced concern that western society is addressing health issues too much with vaccines and drugs instead of better nutrition, exercise, less environmental pollution, etc. He is personally against vaccination for himself, and very critical of mass-vaccination of the populace. A controversial position, to be sure, and worthy of criticism especially by the medical and science community, but not to the extremes Tygart would like to see expressed in his bio. Take a look at Tygart's very first edit and cited source to see the "basic point" he would like conveyed about Maher: Maher is perhaps unique among modern public figures in rejecting the germ theory of disease. He believes that microbes play no role in human illnesses; this is the basis of his opposition to vaccines. In an interview he said "[ Germ theory ] is another theory I think is flawed. And that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory even though Pasteur renounced it on his death bed and said Beauchamp is right. It's not the invading germs. It's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes. It's the swamp they're breeding in." (cited to: Gardner, Martin (2009), "Bill Maher: Crank and Comic", Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 33, Issue 6 (Nov/Dec) ) As demonstrated in that paragraph, Tygart would like to paint Maher as a germ theory denier - as someone who doesn't even understand germs and vaccines - and worse, so extremely so as to be "unique among modern public figures". He cites an opinion piece that, in addition to the above paragraph, also quotes "Orac" in referring to Maher as a "credulous idiot" and flaky. This extreme misrepresentation of Maher was inserted into the section describing Maher's views - as if factual, and not just a critic's interpretation of Maher. Now contrast that with Maher's more detailed explanation of his personal views: Vaccination is a nuanced subject, and I've never said all vaccines in all situations are bad ... Yes, I read Microbe Hunters when I was eight, I have a basic idea how vaccines work. That's not -- or shouldn't be -- where the debate is. I admit, its hard to get as clear a picture of my beliefs, as you could, say, if I had written a book on vaccines, versus someone in the setting of a talk show. So I understand why its easy to take bits of things I have said and extrapolate into something I actually have never said ... let me just tell you want I do think ... someone needs to be representing the point of view that says the preferred way to handle flus is to have a strong immune system to begin with, and getting lots of vaccines might not be the best way to accomplish that over the long haul ... so correcting nature is sometimes the right thing to do. And then, sometimes its not. For me, the flu shot is in the "not" category ... I know, there are vaccines that have had their battles with the bad guys and won -- great! And if you have a compromised immune system and can't boost it naturally, as in poor countries where the children are eating dirt, then a vaccine can be a white knight -- bravo! Does the polio vaccine have the power to prevent children from getting polio, and did it indeed do just that in the 1950s? I believe it does, and it did. But polio had diminished by over 50 percent in the thirty years before the vaccine -- that's a pretty big fact in the polio story that you don't often hear and which merits debate. It may be the case that the vaccine should have been used anyway to finish polio off, but there are some interesting facts on the other side. So yes, I get it ... Is it worth it to get vaccines for every bug that goes around? Injecting something into my bloodstream? I'd like to reserve that for emergencies ... If one side can say anything and its not challenged, then of course dissent becomes heresy in the minds of many. I don't trust the mainstream media to be thorough or exacting enough to inform me as much as I need on this subject. Sorry, they're just not up to it. While we're on the subject of bacteria, let me say clearly I understand germ theory also -- I believe they also covered that in Microbe Hunters -- nor have I ever said I was a "germ theory denier." What I've been saying is that Western medicine ignores too much the fact that the terrain in which bacteria can thrive is crucial and often controllable, which shouldn't even be controversial. I don't care what Louis Pasteur said on his death bed -- it was probably, "Either the curtains go or I do" -- that's not the point! ... There are consequences to vaccines and antibiotics. Some people want to study that, and some, it seems, want to call off the debate. Instead of setting up this straw man of me not understanding germs or viruses, let's have a real debate about how much we should use vaccines and antibiotics. Of course it's good that we have them in our arsenal ... I believe in science and I believe in studies to determine the truth ... Is it conspiracy theory to believe that American medicine too much treats symptoms and not root causes of disease? ... I would make an analogy to Republicans and Democrats: in both politics and health, I don't commit to either party because I'm on the side of the truth, whoever has it. In both cases, I'm an Independent ... I don't think its "anti-science" to pause and consider that point of view. Maher's position is controversial, indeed, but he is also rightfully upset that certain critics have taken snarky snippets of his comedy show discussions and used them to paint him as a total nut-job -- a misrepresentation Tygart would like to perpetuate in Maher's biography. Ed, you asked if we can negotiate a sourced version of Maher's vaccination position, and I, too, already asked myself that very same question. That led to this edit of mine: here, where I noted Maher's skepticism about the severity of the flu; his opposition to getting vaccinated himself; the fact that his remarks have sparked criticism and his response to that criticism. Tygart has been slowly modifying the content he has been inserting, mostly in response to inaccuracies and original research that have been pointed out to him. His latest content looks simply like this: During a 2005 interview of former NIH administrator Bernadine Healy, Maher stated: "I don't believe in vaccination either. …That's another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Bechamp was right: it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes, it's the swamp that they are breeding in."[43][44][45] Tygart is basically just inserting a partial quote now, without context or pretext. When I ask him what this quote adds to the article, he can't give a clear answer. The article already quotes Maher twice saying he is against getting vaccinated, and the article already explains Maher's belief in the importance of healthy body (terrain) over more vaccinations. So what does inserting this quote snippet possibly add? Of course, my question is rhetorical, as we both know that his reason for adding the quote is to give the misleading impression that Maher is clueless about germs and diseases - when he isn't. When I asked Tygart why he wished to misrepresent Maher's views in this way, his response was, "The quote is genuine. As for “misrepresenting” his views, he does seem to have backed off in the 22 Oct interview. That should be reflected in the article." In other words, it's OK if we ask Maher if he has stopped beating his wife, as long as we also include his explanation that he has never beat his wife. We don't write BLPs that way. Maher never "backed off"; he simply explained how Tygart's misrepresentation was incorrect. Sorry for the lengthy response, Ed. The nutshell version: Tygart wants Maher's BLP to give a false impression to readers. The same impression a small handful of Maher's critics have spread in their opinion pieces. Tygart is failing to add the content to the Maher article at present due to sourcing violations. Should Tygart ever actually locate a reliable source for citation, then he will run smack into the much more formidable hurdle of, "We must get the article right." - from WP:BLP. As for Tygart the editor, I have mixed feelings. Having reviewed some of his earlier edit wars, I find myself siding with his postions but not his methods of editing. I don't like the many lies and deceptions he has used during our discussions, nor do I like the many incivilities ("Not representative of his views"? It's a goddam quote, doofus!), but I do see that he has made many constructive contributions as well. Overall, not a very pleasant experience. I can guarantee if I open an WP:RFC, it ain't going to be pretty. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the detailed response. It does appear that Maher is trying to enjoy the privilege of saying things that appear contradictory. Though it may add to his appeal as a commentator to seem lively and contrarian, he does run the risk that people will attempt to summarize his views in a pedestrian manner, by stitching well-sourced quotes together. If they do so, they are following Wikipedia policy, including BLP. This is so even if it makes Maher's position seem hard to justify. I see you as defending an image of Maher's rationality that may not be shared by very many people. In the long run, consensus will need to govern, wherever it leads. It's not our duty to make Maher seem more rational than he actually is. Your Bechamp quote above, if it comes straight from Maher, is certainly includable. If you think Maher has given a better rationale for his Bechampism somewhere else, it might be added to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) It appears we disagree on WP:BLP policy. Summarizing the views of a living person in a pedestrian manner, by stitching well-sourced quotes together, violates BLP. What you describe would be fine for meeting WP:Verifiability in regular articles, but for BLPs, "Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." You will note that our policy on BLPs admonishes us that, "We must get the article right." The emphasis in these statements is not mine, mind you. We're talking about the section of the Maher BLP describing his views and opinions. We're not discussing a controversy section or a criticism section, nor are we discussing views and opinions about him. When faced with two different sets of information on the same thing, (1) a summary of a viewpoint made in a pedestrian manner by stitching together disparate quotes, and (2) a summary of a viewpoint given as an actual explanation of that viewpoint by the holder of that view, you'll pardon me if I insist on following the Wikipedia policy to "get the article right." I cannot reconcile "summarizing in a pedestrian manner" with the actual policy requirement, "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Please correct me if I am missing something here. I note your view of Maher as a contrarian and not rational. That's fine — I don't know him well enough to have formed such opinions, so I won't be debating you on that. I will say, however, that having read extensively beyond the short quotes and quips recently being discussed, I do not see where he has been contrary. I also note your misperception of me as "defending an image of Maher's rationality" - again, I don't know enough about him to defend or criticize. Please do not misconstrue my defense of Wikipedia's BLP policy as a defense of Maher. I've edited many different biographies of living people that have said and done some strange things, and whether I agree or disagree with the personages, our BLP policy applies equally to each of them. One could add thousands of eyebrow-raising quotes gleaned from Maher's 300+ televised shows, stand-up performances and personal interviews - but that doesn't mean we add quotes to the Maher article with the only justification being, "because he said it!" We don't listen to Maher comment that Baccus needs to wake up to find an intern's head in his bed, then rush to insert that under Maher's opinion about interns. In a properly written biography, any direct quotes should be able to be easily replaced by simple and accurate prose. Given that, how would you write the simple prose describing the viewpoint presumably expressed by your "Bechampism"? Perhaps that will help us with a solution; if it is an actual view held by Maher, we should be able to find ample reliable sources for it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC) The lengthy comment by Maher that you included above is one of the more complete statements of his views that I was able to locate. I also listened to some of the Youtube clips, one from a CNN show, and the other from David Letterman. His views really don't add up. On the one hand, he says 'the science isn't there.' Then he says, he does believe the germ theory of disease, and some vaccinations are worthwhile. But then, 'why would you shoot a disease into your arm?' He's free to believe as many things as he wants to that sound like contradictions to the scientifically-trained public, but then he shouldn't claim to be misunderstood when people complain about his views. I don't see why it is up to Wikipedia editors to clarify Maher's views on Antoine Béchamp when he decides to make a few colorful remarks during a TV show in support of a 19th-century scientist who did not believe in the germ theory of disease. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I, too, have listened to the CNN clips (several), 2 of his appearances with Letterman (including the one where he says all the pharmaceuticals are poisoning David, and David says he agrees), and his views do add up (not that I agree with all of them). He is constantly saying the science isn't complete, the science isn't 100% conclusive, the science isn't "there", and this doesn't contradict at all with his critical views concerning vaccinations. In fact, such statements are usually a prelude to his criticisms about many aspects of "western medicine". What you call "contradictions" are merely statements that don't fit neatly into one of the two extremes of "thoroughly defined and understood medical science" at one end and "medicine = hokus-pokus" at the other end. His statements are not mutually exclusive. It is very possible to understand the science, acknowledge the benefits and at the same time be critical of the imperfections and laudatory of alternatives — and it is here where you will find the more intelligent scientifically trained public. It's the quacks that are found at either extreme. As for your comment that it is not up to Wikipedia editors to clarify Maher's views based on an unclear colorful comment he made, you are correct, unless those editors intend to place said comment in the 'views' section of a BLP. This is even more applicable when Maher has since corrected (in multiple sources) the misrepresentive interpretations of that 5 year old quote. (Even Tygart agrees the Bechamp blurb doesn't represent Maher's views, but feels that it did 5 years ago and he 'commends him' for learning better.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I am very happy to finally see a rational discussion of this taking hold. I have to say that I too have had reservations about Xenophrenic’s posture of "defending an image of Maher's rationality”… I have never put it so starkly as that, but I have said that his stance seems most POV to me. Of course we do not “add quotes to the Maher article with the only justification being, ‘because he said it!’” We do so because some quotes matter. And some quotes are unusually revealing. His statements on vaccines stand to influence many people (despite his status as a “mere comedian”) & deserve to be examined closely. All this would be better pursued on the Bill Maher talk page. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Welcome, Tygart. Now that you finally see what a rational discussion is, you are encouraged to participate in kind. If we continue it on the Maher page, I'll ask you to refrain from making comments about editors, like the one you made above. If you feel the need to continue with such comments, stick to my talk page where I will respond. Article talk page guidelines tell us to keep the discussion focused on article improvement, but I don't impose such restrictions on your comments that are made here. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive rewrite/vandalism(?) at Tea Party movement

This is an FYI, I suppose, but there has been some substantial rewriting attempted at the old Tea Party protests page, now moved to the Tea Party movement. It also split off a daughter article, Tea Party protests, 2009. Instead of freeing up editors to keep the moved page more topical and keep the '09 protests paired with all the historic info and developments, a concerted effort has emerged that in my view is not much more than page blanking and deleting anything that seems to paint things in a negative light.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching that since earlier this morning. Some of what you described is indeed happening, but there are several editors involved and I've been sitting on the sidelines and waiting to see where it goes. There is some significant and highly relevant content that won't remain scrubbed from those articles by POV editing, but I've been holding off editing until a basic framework develops for each of those articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How about your view on whether the Tea Party movement is "grassroots" or not?--Happysomeone (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Swiftboating

I wonder if its time to take this one up a level? --Snowded ^TALK 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Giles

Hi Xeno. Would you mind taking a look at the Hannah Giles article history? An anonymous IP has three times changed the language that the videos "appeared to show" ACORN employees advising illegal activity to "showed," which ignores the fact that the edited videos are disputed and the only law enforcement investigation to examine the unedited copies concluded there was no illegality and that the tapes had been edited to support an agenda.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it has settled down for now. I think once the video conspiracies article is improved and cleaned up, the related linked-articles like Giles, O'Keefe, ACORN, etc., can be brought in line for conformity. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily RS/N

I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any contribution you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the fact that you removed my name from that section title at the Talk:Tea Party movement page. That made me happy.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You might find this interesting as well

This may also make it difficult to determine who is actualy responsible for what. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done

I have Coffee Party USA on my watchlist, so I've seen how much work you do 'minding' that article. Thank you for doing that. (If I looked hard enough, I'd probably find something I could quibble about, but that is not important. Keeping a contentious article in good shape is important to Wikipedia, and you've done that very well.) Cheers, CWC 09:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not much more than vandal patrol, really. Political articles tend to draw more activity of that nature, it seems. Thanks for the thanks, though. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ellie Light

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ellie Light. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Light (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing thread to keep the peace

I'm going to put back the entire thread and then collapse it. I'm having a bit of trouble with the code for collapsing a thread. If you know it, please let me know. I tried it earlier and it collapsed everything from our thread on down which I don't want. Suggestions?Malke2010 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. To collapse a section of text, you can put {{collapse top|Description of the collapsed content}} before the section of text to be collapsed, and insert a {{collapse bottom}} at the end of the section of text to be collapsed.

It would look something like this on your edit screen:

{{collapse top|Annoying discussion with Xenophrenic}}

Discussion...

More discussion...

Even more discussion...
{{collapse bottom}}

I see you've also been asking around about how to archive talk page content, and also how to set up an infobox that will display the subject's religion -- I can't help you with those. I've been messing with this for many years, and I still screw those up. I can probably hunt down the procedures though, if no one else has been able to help you yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, for the above. I couldn't figure that out. Gwen Gale has collapsed the thread. Hoping to archive it, though. My bot isn't working again. That's another issue. The infobox is hard. The scientist infobox has had the religion bit deleted. Don't know why they decided that. So adding it back for Dr. Farmer would involve code, etc. I tried substituting the Info Person template but that excludes his work, etc. Can't win on that one. Can't seem to find the procedures for fixing it anywhere. And I spent a lot of time yesterday looking.Malke2010 11:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to tell you, I thought this edit summary was hilarious [7]. XD Malke2010 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might :) By the way, while I didn't say it in so many words, I did appreciate your "Collapsing thread to keep the peace" initiative above. Thanks for offering that olive branch. You and I have different perspectives on things, so we are destined to have our disagreements and even arguments -- but there is no reason we can't still remain civil. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And judging by recent edits, we're not all that far apart on perspectives. :) Malke2010 17:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

Please go to talk page and vote for section title. Thanks. Malke2010 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I commented, but as usual... it ballooned into quite a lengthy essay. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution. Should we give it a try?Malke2010 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Check email.Malke2010 06:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I read it. Did you know that I have family that consider themselves Tea Partiers? A couple of them have even gotten off their keesters and attended some rallies. Are they racist? Not at all. Do I think the Tea Party movement is racist? Of course not. But that isn't what we are discussing. We're not trying to figure out how we can make the movement look racist. We're trying to figure out how we can address the public perception and media narrative about "racism and the Tea Party movement" in the article, because it really is a big thing. It does need to be addressed, because editors are going to continue to insert stuff about this incident or that incident if it isn't first addressed in a fair and encyclopedic manner. I'm stepping out for a wee bit. More later, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is Tea Partiers. I think this is the media cherry picking signs and protesters and giving it the tea party label. And the fact that the tea party movement leaders are having to hire security, etc., to get separate out the fringe says a lot about how the media isn't covering the whole story. I did not know they were doing that because it doesn't appear in the mainstream media. But they never fail to photograph the fringers. And this is my concern for the article. It will become bloated with incidents like that but without any mention of who is really doing it. The Tea Party protesters will get painted with the same brush. They're concerns are financial. They are against the policies, not the man. And demonizing Bush during protests was never seen as racist or a problem by the media. It's too easy to claim racism because Obama's black and the nut brigade is showing up.Malke2010 12:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea party Breitbart thing

Did you mean to also remove the Breitbart reference from the "Incidents" section? Have I missed a meeting? Malke2010 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did -- that was one of the primary reasons for my revert of Freedom Fan's / Arzel's edit. Please see the the section on the talk page titled: Clarification for Arzel and read the 3 links there for my explanation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your diffs, but I didn't check out what they were inserting/half deleting. And there's nothing about it on the Tea Party Protests. Maybe we should abbreviate what's there a bit more so it doesn't get added again?Malke2010 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with either having the complete Breitbart stuff in the article (which means it includes Trumka's direct response, and the AP follow-up story that shows Breitbart cites non-relevant videos as proof) OR with having the Breitbart stuff removed completely (since TE and Cptnono also removed it) as irrelevant (because Breitbart wasn't there; wasn't involved; was stupidly trying to "prove a negative" that the incident didn't happen, which can't be done; and he was just political grandstanding). Complete NPOV content insertion is fine; complete removal is fine. Freedom Fan's partial, incomplete, skewed POV version (along with numerous inaccuracies he has since tacked on) is not fine -- and that is what I keep reverting. The links show that this has been an issue since April 16, yet Freedom Fan has not discussed and resolved his problematic edits on the talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no need for it then. Probably should wait a bit for trimming anything else. What about the Obama race thing? I've been going over a lot of articles and a couple of videos off and on today and it's looking like the Obama comment about race had do to with the Congressman yelling out "Liar" that Jimmy Carter commented on. And then, the Today show video seems to be more about the fringers. I'm not sure now how the connection with race specifically against Obama is a valid one.Malke2010 21:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama's opinion, as conveyed by Gibbs, was sparked by the "You lie!" outburst, but some of the sources covering it have extrapolated that to cover a much wider range of criticism of Obama ... which may or may not include the tea partiers, depending on the source.

On a related note, I see you are stripping away just half of the Breitbart content again, leaving an unbalanced remainder in the article. Changes like that really should be discussed, and agreed upon, on the talk page first. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article should not take sources from one incident and apply them to other situations. That's OR. The Breitbart thing seems to have taken care of itself. I think it got deleted again and last I checked, nobody's added back. May it R.I.P.Malke2010 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah, it's back again. If you'd like to remove Breitbart (and take the Trumka, and "wrong video" stuff with it), I won't fight you on it. You can leave the blurb about the Nat'l TP Federation letter requesting that the CBC provide any addional evidence they may have about the incidents in the article if you want, as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, what are you doing with the 'outrageous' thing? It's POV. Don't put that in. And BTW, we've got an IP putting an advert for tea party funding into the astroturfing section. He's up to 5 reverts today, not including his own self-reverts. I left a message on his talk page.Malke2010 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The "outrageous" wording comes straight from the cited source. In fact, Williams was asked about those things he says specifically because they were outrageous, so it goes to the core of what was being conveyed by the source. You could always put it in quotation marks, I guess. I didn't even realize you had edited it out ... I was trying to fix a broken citation I had messed up. As for the IP reverting beyond 3 times, I would probably list him at the 3RR noticeboard if he persists. That place is already too much of a battleground :( Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well use quotes. Otherwise it looks like Wikipedia is saying he's outrageous. Something like, "the Washington Post called his comments outrageous, etc." I had already fixed the cite. The IP has backed off so I didn't go to 3RR/N. I think it's 'outrageous' that the IP is advertising a website that funds tea parties. XDMalke2010 20:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I don't know how to make a new section but I just wanted to say to Xenophrenic: I admire your technical communication skills :)Cozzycovers (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

photos wanted

Hi Xenophrenic, do you happen to know of any pics we can use as an example of inappropriate incidents? The section is dense with print and I thought a nice illustrative photo, maybe a fringe type with a sign, etc., would help break it up.Malke2010 22:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

tea party

Please see this section on the talk page.[8]You've readded an edit which is redundant and does not need to be there.Malke2010 21:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pat Tillman's death

Xenophrenic,

I have recently added information, extracted from a US Army CID report that reflects there was an ambush of Serial 2 just before they fired on Serial 1 (Pat's unit). I have even gone so far as provided a link to the report so folks can read this. My post of information is supported by this official CID report of investigation, though it may be contrary to the popular information that is out there. I believe folks are confusing the information between there were no hostile forces that fired on Serial 1, veruses the hostile forces that fired on Serial 2. We need to present the facts are they are, that being Serial 2 was under the belief that Serial 1 was part of the ambush. Please review the CID report and you will what I am talking about.

Scarabaeus2 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to article talk page for discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on removing the following direct quote from a source (USA Today source #25) cited earlier in the section???

Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along. "Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott. Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.41 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you'll note what the edit summary says, (rem redundancy), it should be selfexplanatory. That content is already present in the article. The previous paragraph in that article states:

When officers and soldiers were asked, they said they were certain the shooting was accidental. According to one of his fellow soldiers, Tillman "was popular among his fellow soldiers and had no enemies.

...and it is cited to that same USA today article. In addition, your same edit also removed other content without explanation on that article's talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The dailymail website you cite is not a reputible news source, but rather an online tabloid. A URL pointing to another website, is not 'sourcing,' but rather internet smoke and mirrors. In reference to the following daily mail statements (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-473037/Was-pin-boy-Bushs-War-Terror-assassinated.html#ixzz1CvtV5lj3):

"Now comes a new and even darker possibility. A growing body of evidence suggests that Tillman died neither at the hands of his nation's enemy nor in the tragic, accidental confusion of "friendly fire"; rather he was shot with three bullets in tight formation in the forehead at very close range. If so, this is evidence of murder."

and

"Astonishingly, long-hidden details of his death support the murder theory: medical evidence never did match up with the scenario of friendly fire; those three bullets from an M16 combat rifle could not have been fired from farther than ten yards; there were special forces snipers in the group immediately behind Tillman's platoon."

....... Neither of these articles is properly sourced, and plain inaccurate. They countermand known and undisputed testimony (previously cited in this article) that the deadly shots came from an M249.... moreover, there is no indication that these tabloid sensationalists even realized that the two weapons use the same ammunition. And perhaps you have never served in the military and do not realize that a tight grouping from a vehicle mounted (possibly stationary) light machine gun such as the M249 from approximately 40 yards, is not "evidence of murder" or magical snipers, but average marksmanship. And a meeting with Chomsky (we'll have to take Noam's word for it) is at best circumstantial, and not the smoking gun motive it is made out to be. Additionally, this article countermands itself, because first it claims that the shots were fired from 10 yards away, then that some mystical 'snipers' missing from all other testimony (including all the members of Tillman's fire team who also nearly lost their lives that day) were 'BEHIND' the other Serial... which was it.... were they 10 yards away, or behind the other serial. Either way, this 'news' publication is vacantly deceiptful in its discourse.

So this is what it boils down to: This seems like a good article, and you seem to have had a part in it, so I thank you. The U.S. Army, and its leadership (possibly as high as the president) were calously neglegent in their deceiptful dealings with the Tillman family and the public, possibly on a massive scale... And yes, none of them were properly punished for this wrongdoing. Having been under fire myself, the unit level actions, and the insuing coverup are worthy of criminally neglegent homicide and aiding charges!! But let's stick to facts and reason... insinuating an assasination or even deliberate killing is simply baseless according to the references supplied throughout the article. I followed the links referenced for these claims (some copied above), and you seem like the type of person to agree that an accusation of such weight requires more than slanderously contrived theories in an online tabloid.

Also, in reference to your above statement that the item is redundant, you are correct. I apologize for including redundancies, but thought it very important that the statement confirming an accidental killing punctuate the article. Would like to hear your thoughts, and come to an amenable stylistic compromise. Regards, O.T.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is the UKs second largest-selling newspaper (not just online), and whether or not it is "reputable" is a matter for WP:RSN. (I personally do not know enough about the source to have an opinion either way.) I'd suggest raising your concerns there. If you feel there is content in the Tillman article that lacks in reliable sourcing, then you should raise that specific issue on the article talk page. Other editors with interest or knowledge on that subject matter will be watching that article talk page, and not my personal talk page here -- so the article talk page is the proper venue. Continually deleting sourced content or reverting other editors without discussion and consensus will likely result in blocks and page protections. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your recommendation on the method needed to dispute this article. Perhaps I did go about this the wrong way, but I'll blame that on my inexperience with Wikipedia (as you can tell I'm so new I don't even own a login yet). I'm not even sure how this blocking and protection thing works, but it seems to make sense that constant stylistic disputes would cause this forum to become a zoo. However, in this matter, I am serious about preventing slander. Unfounded claims of conspiratorial premeditated murder of Pat Tillman, further defame his name and detract from genuine factual accounts of the real army PR white wash which occurred. By all accounts (and I've read most out there, in addition to some of the actual redacted investigation notes) any claim of premeditation in this is wholly false. The only purpose these slanderous claims accomplish, is to allow those who should be held accountable for the Army's propaganda to escape since the genuine fact finding of the Tillman family is lumped with these nutty conspiracy theories. The U.S. National Inquirer may be ranked among syndicated news sources just like this Daily Mail, but referencing it as a source in an article is plain yellow journalism. Thank you. Best O.T.S.

Bill Maher

Hi, Xenophrenic!

I was just wondering why you deleted my edits in the Bill Maher page. I'm a huge fan of his (have been for years) and am currently rewatching all the Real Time with Bill Maher episodes (from 2003 onwards). I just thought I'd read up on Bill on Wiki and discovered that the Political Views section is a little thin. I'm absolutely certain Bill has expressed the views which I included in my edit, numerous times at that. How come you deleted them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivisexionist (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Vivisexionist. The content was removed because it wasn't cited to a reliable source. While you may be absolutely certain that the content is accurate and relevant, the rest of us readers need to be equally certain. Can you please provide a citation to reliable sources supporting your edits? Thanks. By the way, my edit summary should have been more descriptive, but the edit was accidently entered before I added comments. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and detailed response. I will try to find citations and I hope there are transcripts of the shows somewhere. Vivisexionist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivisexionist (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Xenophrenic from Barmispain, I have to ask. Why have you removed my edit which categorizes Bill Maher in American Jews and Jewish comedians? I don't believe it is because you dispute that he is American or that he is a comedian (though some may not be sure about the latter). Your action presumably relates to the correctness of his ethnicity. I'm always very careful to follow Wikipedia guidelines when it comes to biographies and particularly categorization, and would only categorize someone on the basis of referenced material. Maher's Jewish ethnicity is based on referenced information and this is correctly cited in the article. I notice the latter has been in the article for a material length of time. I don't want to start of ping-pong process of inclusion and deletion of information in this article, so please let me know why you insist on its non-inclusion. (I notice that you have removed other categorizations of this individual before, as well.) Do you have information that proves that Maher is not Jewish?Barmispain (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

nndb is not a reliable source, and there are no reliable sources in the article stating he is Jewish. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party

this edit. You know that there was a reason for removal. Try to ingage in talk rather than make uncivil remarks in the edit history along with the previous claim that I was making POV edits. Arzel (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, why did you use the word "vandalism" in your edit summary when you reverted Xeno's edit of 12:13 15 July 2010? Reading WP:NOTVAND makes it clear that those are uncivil remarks in edit summaries when used in such fashion. From now on, please refrain from using the word "vandalism" in your edit summaries when describing other editors positions --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I said boarderline vandilism because of a limited effort to engage in discussion and misleading edit comments. Arzel (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, please do not misrepresent the situation; especially on my talk page, where you know your misstatements will be quickly corrected. Given the possibility that you have misread or are confusing one edit summary with another, I will copy my edit summary here just so we can be sure we're on the same page:

(restored content deleted without explanation)

As you can see, that is not an uncivil edit summary. If you'll look a little more carefully at the edit previous to mine, you'll see that an editor had deleted content without giving an explanation for the content removal, and without participating in the existing talk page discussion -- so my edit summary was not only civil, but accurate. As for your suggestion that I should "engage in talk"; please note that I have already been discussing this very issue on the talk page, which leads me to believe you are probably confusing me with another editor.

With regard to the ongoing discussion about your proposal to remove certain the polling data, you still have not made a case for its removal. Your initial objection that the poll was only of the Seattle area has been shown to be inaccurate. According to the news link provided by you, "Similar to nationwide numbers, about 20 percent of registered voters in Washington state identify themselves as strong supporters of the Tea Party movement. University of Washington Professor and pollster Matt Barreto decided to delve into the social and political opinions of that 20 percent." The poll sample was of 1700 folks from Washington State, and the specific findings were based on results from strong supporters of the Tea Party movement, not some special "fringe" group of TPers that don't represent the "real" TPers.

Finally, in your haste to revert, you apparently overlooked and wiped away other edits that included reference formatting, etc. Please use a little more care. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand polling. You cannot use a poll from one limited subset of people to frame the entire US. It might be possible to include if Washington State was a bellweather state, but it is not, and has never been. Arzel (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All polling is of a limited subset of people, and the poll we're discussing isn't trying to "frame the entire US"; it is examining Tea Party movement supporters. It might be possible to exclude if reliable sources indicate so. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to please stop making dishonest edit summaries, like you do here [9], which reverted my edit here [10]. I can't remember if I've warned you in the past, but have noticed numerous incidences with other editors asking you to quit it. I don't know is it constitutes vandalism or a personal attack, and frankly I don't care. The biggest problem would be the disruption it causes and the confusion to other editors that may not understand your sense of humor. Thanks. †TE†Talk 06:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, TE! Here is my exact edit summary:

(Undid revision 373845909 by ThinkEnemies (talk) restored content deleted without explanation; returned sourced polling data per talk)

Looks honest and accurate to me. I did revert your edit that deleted the "after receiving sharp criticism from other tea party leaders" content. I did return the polling data that had been previously boldly deleted, for reasons explained on the talk page. No humor intended. Perhaps you have my edits confused with those of someone else? Let me know if I can be of any further help. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPA

Ceemow is a textbook example of a single purpose account. Literally 100% of his edits—not 90%, not 99.99% but 100%—have been on mainspace and article Talk pages for ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, the related Wikibios of Mr. O'Keefe, Mr. Breitbart and Ms. Giles, and three User Talk pages (where he discusses nothing but this extremely narrow subject matter). TMCK was discussing this on my User Talk page, and defending Ceemow as you are: by deleting the entirely appropriate SPA tags.

Then he ran away.

If you'd like to pick up where he left off, I offer a cordial invitation to my User Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, P&W. I responded on your talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, why did you remove the {{collapse}} tags on the article Talk page? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Taina Elg

Just curious. Why did you revert my edit re Elg's place of birth. Any definitive proof she was born in Helsinki? Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rms125a! I based my edit primarily on Elg's autobiography, and in particular on this bit of information from the forward of Varpailla maailmalle:

Taina Elg was born at the Boije Hospital on the Boulevard in Helsinki, but the family moved soon to Turku. Taina's mother was a Russian emigrant pianist, named Helena (Lola) Dobroumova, her father was a pianist named Åke Elg. They were divorced when Taina was three years old. Taina and her mother moved to Sortavala, then to Suojärvi, then to Impilahti, where Taina's maternal grandparents had a big villa. From there they moved to Helsinki, from Helsinki to Mariehamn, from there to Viborg. Then the Winter War began and they were evacuated to Rantasalmi. After that they moved back to Helsinki, where Taina started balet classes at the age of 10 in 1940.

I understand Helsinki & Impilahti have both been used to describe her birthplace, and she did live in both locations, but most sources put her birth in Helsinki. Do you have reliable sources that contradict this? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, sounds good to me. Thanks for your detailed response. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Xenophrenic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 683 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. George Edward Smith - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Statistics at Restoring Honor Rally

Howdy again! Have you noticed the discussion over at Restoring Honor Rally regarding the statistical estimates of the crowd size that attended the August 28th event? The relevant portion begins here starting with the page being put on lock down for 7 days, then if you work your way down you can see the proposals. Don't know if you have any interest but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching it. With the article currently protected, I may hold off on commenting for a little bit while the more vocal editors there hash things out. If the discussions work their way into a "deadlock", I'll see if I have anything constructive to add. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the source for Beck predicting before the rally that the media would diminish the the crowd size through estimates? ThanksThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up. I recall Beck, during one of his radio shows, making a comment that he expected the media to minimize or underestimate the attendence, and he also indicated that he would be ready for that. Accusing the media of bias is a daily routine for Beck, but finding his exact words about coverage of his rally turn-out will take a bit of digging. A quick search turns up these similar examples of the coverage he anticipates, but they aren't the ones I'm looking for on the crowd size specifically:

• "You know, I don't know if anybody's even going to cover it. They can cover it in the newspaper... No, no. They'll cover it, but will it be the truth? They'll cover it any way they want. The stories are already written. It doesn't matter." Fox
• "You watch the media. They'll paint it any way they can." Fox
• "My prediction is that this will be covered incorrectly, they will take one line from somebody or one thing or they will find one person on the stage that shouldn't have been there and or there will be somebody in the crowd, whatever, they will focus on one thing." Beck

...about the media's anticipated coverage of the event. Still looking for complete transcripts of radio shows... Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Very entertaining. :) As you said previously, you like to swim in the deep end... AzureCitizen (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Cinequest

Hey Xenophrenic, we're editing our wiki page Cinequest Film Festival and have run into some issues. We noticed that you reverted most of our recent changes. Can we chat when you have a few minutes. Thanks! --Opsal.matt (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I always have a few minutes; what specifically would you like to discuss? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We're trying to re-write our wiki to make it more neutral and update some of the events over the years. In your opinion, we should reference claims as much as possible so that they are verifiable versus stating claims as fact? Would this distance our edits from the marketing language that has been reverted? Opsal.matt (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

When editing Wikipedia's articles, content additions should be cited to reliable sources, and the content should be written in encyclopedic, informative fashion. Several of the previous edits were reverted because they had removed content without explanation, or had undone formatting and links. In addition, wording that carries a promotional tone, or directly copies wording from the organization's website, is likely to be reworded or removed. Do you know if the more recent events to which you refer have been covered in newspapers, magazines or trade periodicals? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll work with our PR and Mktg teams to find the articles so we can properly cite each edit. Thanks Xenophrenic! Opsal.matt (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived Talk:Restoring Honor rally

Hello, I archived Talk:Restoring Honor rally for two reasons, 1) my browser kept crashing when I viewed the page and 2)It would help the mediation process if the angry conversations were archived. Thanks --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of the ongoing conversations are the "angry" ones that you describe, but you also archived all of the current discussions -- some less than an hour old. Perhaps you could remedy your browser deficiencies without disrupting ongoing discussions? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that some of the arguments are less than a hour old. But they are the same argument that were at the top of the page. Continuing would be Wikipedia:Beating a dead horse. The continuing debate is at a draw, that is why I proposed a compromise. Not to mention that the dispute crashes browsers :). Best, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

'turf wars

Astroturf article lists numerous conservative examples of astroturfing, but very few liberal examples. One recent example associated with Obama and democratic support, 'Ellie Light' letters to the editor, was removed because it 'referred mass-mailing, not astroturfing.' which I'd argue isn't the case.

Why the bias? Valkarie63 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Valkarie63. Astroturfing is neither conservative nor liberal. As for the Ellie Light incident, that doesn't qualify as "astroturf". That was an individual doing a mass-mailing. Every letter to the editor was signed by Ellie Light, not by unique names, so there was no attempt to appear as many different people and no attempt to appear as a big grassroots effort. Just one person mailing to a lot of newspapers. As for "bias", I'm not sure what you are asking. Care to elaborate? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that a-turfing is party-independent and is used by both parties to various extents. Article to be fair/objective (if that is the goal) would show that in content and in numbers. 'Ellie' was intended to appear from different people in different cities with different addresses with the same purpose: to portray 'grassroots' support for the president when it was from one person/organization. Following the definition presented for astroturfing, this is one example of " political campaign that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior."

If the "content and numbers" of 'turfing incidents appear to lean to one side or another, it is possible that there just happen to be more on one side than the other; but feel free to add appropriate and reliably sourced content to "balance" the article. "Ellie" was not intended to appear as different people; what other names were used? As for claiming different addresses, 'Ellie' did that to meet the requirements set by the newspaper editors that letters should be from local residents in order to be printed. While that is certainly dishonest, it is in no way "astroturfing" and wasn't "formally planned by an organization". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to get how the readers of the 42+ papers that carried the letter would reasonably conclude that they were part of the 'mass mailing' campaign as you call it. To the readers, the letter intended to influence public opinion from someone in their community when in fact the citizen was 'planted' to promote one view as a 'grassroot' letter. It was dishonest but also disguised as spontaneous citizens expressing their opinion when it wasn't. Taking a different approach on this before pursuing other examples, was would have to be different for the Ellie letter to be considered as an astroturf example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.61.102 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

All letters to editors of newspapers are intended to influence opinion, and the 'Ellie' letters are no different. You say, "It was dishonest but also disguised as spontaneous citizens expressing their opinion..." -- it was a citizen (not the plural "citizens" as you said) expressing an opinion. There was no attempt to appear as many people. Much the same as when a campaign office of a politician emails their talking points to millions of people, it goes from one source to many recipients -- just as the Ellie Light letter went from one source to many recipients. It's not astroturf; it's politics as usual. If you could cite some hidden "organization or group" behind the effort, then you might be able to make a case for astroturfing, but there wasn't any -- and that is why the article on it was eventually deleted. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xeno - I'm curious to know how the Paul Krugman opining qualifies as a valid, supported example of astroturfing, especially when compared to other examples and submitted but deleted examples. It wasn't a mysterious deletion because I annotated the edit with comments on fit and standards you provided earlier. What gives? 67.170.96.66 (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Krugman's opining doesn't qualify as an example of astroturf. You can find the definition of astruturf here. Also, how a situation compares to other situations is not part of the definition of astroturf. The edit I reverted had no explanatory edit summary. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So the last entry of Krugman opining on what is astroturfing should be dropped from the list of political examples, correct?

67.170.96.66 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? You still haven't stated why it should be. No one is claiming that Krugman is an astroturfer. I also don't see where he is expressing an opinion of his own. Looks like he is talking about reporting by TPM, LA Times, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question: why is Krugman's talking about reporting done by another source about a POSSIBLE astroturfing example listed as an example?! You yourself said that his opinion doesn't qualify as an example, and it certainly doesn't meet the definition you provide. Maybe another (better) question to ask is how did this edit get reviewed/approved in the 1st place...if by your own logic it doesn't meet the definition or standards bar you're setting? 67.170.96.66 (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "me myself" said "Krugman's opining doesn't qualify as an example of astroturf." It's true; giving opinions isn't astroturfing. People give their opinions every day and no one accuses them of astroturfing. Were you going to answer my question? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What question did you want me to answer? Why the Krugman line should be dropped from the examples list? 67.170.96.66 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Guess this is where it ends? Thanks for the opportunity to learn 1st hand how 'pedia content and user contributions are managed, policed and protected.Valkarie63 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Still no answer? No matter, you are very welcome and I am glad I could help. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know

You have a friend here.TMCk (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I warned the ip. Looks like sockpuppetry. Any further action needed? --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea on the warning. How do you know he's a sockpuppet?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions and what he has said about me, I guess I must be doing something right. Thanks for reverting the trolling, TMCk, and for warning the guy (gal?), Ronz. Malke, I can't say for certain that socking has absolutely occurred, but the ducks are quacking loudly:

207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs) - Registered to New York State Unified Court System

24.193.146.146 (talk · contribs) - First edits on a New York Court Competition

Wikigirl33 (talk · contribs) - Only edits on a New York Court Competition (got logged out and edited from the IP above?)

98.116.113.166 (talk · contribs) - Tag-team edit-warring in January with 207.x & 24.x on Harry Smith (television) and others

TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs) - admits to being IP 207.x here

...would definitely head the list if I were to file a SPI, with geolocations near New York (near the PA border), Court Systems and editing the Coffee Party USA article (within minutes of each other) being the common denominators. That, and the obvious love of tendentious edit warring with Xenophrenic. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious use of sockpuppetry to get around or avoid a block. I'd hold back on a SPI report at this time, but then I'm very conservative on the use of SPI. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

4+ reverts all on January 2, spread across multiple accounts, on the afore-mentioned Harry Smith article, indicates abusive socking to avoid a block (and that is just one example). He is also effectively avoiding scrutiny, since the numerous warnings and blocks he has already received has been spread across many accounts, and therefore doesn't look as severe. I'm not motivated to file a SPI just yet, but I have a hunch a checkuser investigation will be part of an inevitable, larger disruptive editing complaint. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally article

My apologies. However, AzureCitizen has also made three reverts in the same period without explanation. Editing is deadlocked because certain editors decided to waltz in and undo everything we fought over for a month. For that reason I am going to request that the page be locked again until we work it out. Again. BS24 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I see an explanation from AzureCitizen about his edits on the talk page. Perhaps you missed it? As for requesting that the page be locked until the problems are resolved, you could just opt to not edit the page until the problems are resolved. That way, the edit warring ceases, and other editors can still make productive edits to the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

...or you can push forward with having the page (or the editors that oppose your edits, I see you suggested) locked and blocked. Perhaps your method may turn out for the best, as it will surely draw more eyes to the situation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic, just a note to let you know that you were discussed here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following that, too. You do know that IP address has been blocked before as a proxy, right? Hopefully all the sniping will subside soon, and productive editing resume. Best, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware that it had been blocked before as a proxy - how can I figure out something like that in the future? --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon it as I was checking the IP's contribution history, by clicking on the "Block log" link. There are tables, somewhere, of common proxy IP ranges that bots use to identify proxies. Any of the checkuser admins could probably give you more detailed information than I could. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know, I've never clicked on the "block log" link before and thus learned something new today. Thanks! Here's to hoping things quiet down and get resolved amicably... --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise/civility I have taken out the edits to the issues summary which were critical of you. I just want to end this process once and for all, and we need your cooperation. BS24 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your mediation talk page concerns, I have removed the sockpuppet piece. I completely agree with you and User:AzureCitizen, who I am working with for a fairer mediation request page, that the proposed mediation should focus on content and not other editors. If you have any other concerns, please contact me, or add them to the Additional issues section of the mediation page. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous's talk page.
Message added 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Restoring Honor Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Sockpuppetry of BS24

I think you're right and a proper investigation is the next step. I've never launched one and will try to take care with it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This was not hard to do, and your research made the task easy. [11] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I thought we were moving away from personal attacks against editors. Guess I was wrong. BS24 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the personal attacks against editors has indeed subsided. Are you indicating you are aware of recent incidents? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Forced break...

Just an FYI, I'm going to be in a travel status throughout the weekend and into next week until Wednesday or Thursday, with little chance to edit, so I won't be around much for talk page discussions with SpecialKCL or the RHR Mediation page (which seems to be crawling along at a snail's pace anyway). Just wanted to mention it lest it seem like I just disappeared, LOL... AzureCitizen (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't missed much; things have been 100% uneventful in your absence. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

Xenophrenic. You might want to take a look at [12].TMCk (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and also for the words of advice you offered on that situation -- even though they unfortunately went unheeded. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy page. I think it looks better. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It still needs a lot of work, but you did a huge amount of the tedious reference clean-up; thanks for that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: Hi. I have no idea how the YouTube refs got reinserted. I don't even use YouTube. The edits I made were specifically indicated in the edit summaries (i.e. spelling correction of Leoning to Leonnig; possessive tense ("Giles's"); space between words, etc.) Is it possible someone else was editing at the same time and their edits got piggybacked onto mine while my very slow dial up service was processing? Otherwise I really have no idea. As I say I have no interest in YouTube and would not have dealt with anything to do with YouTube unless I hit a wrong key somewhere while I was typing but that doesn't really explain it does it. Anyway to fix whatever had happened on my watch I went back to your edit from 11:28, 29 October 2010 (whose summary states "See Talk Page; rem non-reliable source and deadlink YouTube links and citations") and redid my own minor edits from there. Hope everything is OK now. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification - WND RSN

Within a current RSN, I have quoted an observation of yours made to a prior RSN on World Net Daily as an RS. I believe I have made both a fair and relevant representation of your prior comment but I am alerting you should you wish to further clarify or, perhaps, contribute further comment. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No need to respond, just FYI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ACORN

I actually thought the word "Murder" was vandalism, cleverly inserted into the URL title, as I hadn't read anything about ACORN workers being accused of murder or confessing to it. However I see that was not the case but at the time I was manually redacting the YouTube snafu (see above; which I still don't understand) and didn't get that the "murder" confession was one of the "absurd" confessions made by the former ACORN employee Tresa Kaelske, which was not specified in the Wikipedia article text. Got it now. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The YouTube thing was probably just an edit-conflict mixup, as we were both editing at the same time. No worries. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, is it necessary to include the adjective "Democratic" re politicians such as Scott Harshberger, Jerry Brown, and Charles Hynes? I don't think there is any reference to Schwarzenegger as "Republican". It sounds partisan. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have commented further on the article talk page. I mentioned your concern there. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Checked out "broken" link, to which you referred. It functions fine without the "/", not that it is a big deal. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I removed the '/' and it worked fine. You probably just hit an extra key during your edits. Thanks, by the way, for cleaning up the refs, etc. I noticed you had to redo some of your work a few times when the article kept getting reverted. Watching you have to repeatedly fix the spelling of Wolf Blitzer's name was getting frustrating. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Restore Honor

Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at 82.135.29.209's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Bwilkins's talk page.
Message added 11:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [13] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your riddle too hard for me

I don't know the answer to your riddle, so I ask someone for help. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SpecialKCL66

SpecialKCL66 is real suspicious. It was created on Oct. 10 2010, has been blocked for 3RR and edit warring [14], is contentious and prone to ad hominem attacks (according to an admin: "I have rarely seen such a clear case...of an editor who blames others for their action[s]"), and this the kicker, has a precocious familiarity with Wiki protocols and Wikilawyering, WP:ANI, forum shopping (going to another parent) etc.... SpecialK also has a fondness for one of BS24's tagging articles with nuetrality tags, showing this hardly a week after starting to edit. [15],[16] I asked the newbie if this SpecialK was a clean start. Given NYyankees51's compulsive nature, this all smells of duck. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Superhead

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination for this redirect. According to Per User talk:PhilKnight#Karrine Steffans and the source mentioned there, this redirect doesn't qualify for speedily deletion. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

hello

Saw your comments on the mediation cabal page. I've been waiting for you to show up.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke! I did a brief fly over to remind the mediation participants that just because a proposal appears to only have one supporter in the mediation, that does not mean that proposal isn't widely supported by other Wikipedia editors outside of the mediation. It can't be stressed enough that consensus is achieved by agreement among the participants, and not by counting votes. You won't be seeing much of me at that mediation; the holidays are fast approaching and the joys and stress of the season will be consuming more of my time than usual. Good luck with the mediation (remember to keep a cool head), and I hope the holidays find you in good health and spirits. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you, too, Xenophrenic. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally

Hi Xen, I saw that Arzel undid your valid change. I brought this issue up on the talk page. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed; I read it; I fixed it. Per the cited CBS source, "CBS News elected to use the higher estimate." If there were only one estimate, as Arzel wrongly asserts, then CBS would not have had to choose between multiple estimates. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You fixed it incorrectly. The statement implies that there were multiple estimates of 87,000. This is not factually true. Arzel (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The text in the lead says, "scientific estimates placed the crowd size around 87,000". All of the scientific estimates noted in the article do indeed fall "around 87,000". That text "implies" nothing more to me, so perhaps it is a matter unique to your personal perception. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You noticed; you read it; you fixed it; problem solved. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Good idea. Could you also append that to the Honor Rally talk page, so all are aware? BTW, I'm beginning to suspect benign neglect on the part of ArbCom. Any ideas on how to sound them out> --The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get us another mediator to either take over the project, or at least fill in during Wgfinley's absence. As for the ArbCom ... there is not much I can say; they operate mostly behind closed doors and without any apparent urgency. I think we just need to wait on the results, but we certainly don't need to put the mediation on hold. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tea Party racist sign image

If you take it to deletion review and want a supporting view, drop me a note. This was an obvious case of fair use. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg

Hi Xeno,

I was just adding up the editors for your deletion review and was wondering if I'm missing anyone. Omitting the two editors with zero previous edits, I have the count at:

Keep	Delete
User:Xenophrenic	User:Angusmclellan
User:BigK HeX	User:PhilKnight
User:NightDragon	User:Stifle
User:Jack1993jack	User:SchuminWeb
User:Dcoetzee	User:ThinkEnemies
User:Imnotminkus
User:Dylan Flaherty
User:CartoonDiablo*

_* Uploader of file -- No comment despite three separate notifications

• This may be subject to change

Not sure how much the vote matters, though. Do you think this should be mentioned at the TPM talk page if the review results in a relisting? †TE†Talk 00:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding the name of the editor that submitted the image and introduced it to the article; I'll go out on a limb and guess that he would be pro-keep. You are right that the vote doesn't matter as much as establishing that the image can or can not be used under the "Fair Use" rules, without clearly violating WP:NFCC. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I just removed my asterisk. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't want to be too presumptuous. Removed mine as well. †TE†Talk 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Xeno, little late to the party. How'd it get deleted in the first place? Did somebody complain? Is it a copy vio? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Xeno my friend, I've commented on the deletion thing. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Think, not at all. I made my intentions very clear in the section above, so you were quite right to place me in the left column. I'm happy, because this is my big chance to be on the left for once. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. I think the primary complaint was that Wikipedia's "fair use" of the image might deprive the cited source of commercial value, which would violate WP:NFCC#2. Since that source required several variations of much higher resolution to illustrate the assertions made by the source article, the version in use by Wikipedia cannot possibly "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." (Note that Mediaite says the image closest to the original that they could obtain was a high-res version here, from the Houston Tea Party website.) Not to mention the fact that there are 100+ documented uses of that image across the interwebs already. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, looking at the higher-res image you just linked, I noticed that the offensive term was clearly written on a separate sheet of paper that was later attached to the sign. (Presumably, he misspelled it even more on his first attempt.) Out of curiosity, is that detail noticeable in the lower-res image that we had prior to the deletion? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

According to an exclusive interview with Robertson:

The photograph in question, available in hi-res here, depicts Robertson holding a sign that says “Congress=Slaveowner, Taxpayer=Niggar.” The misspelled n-word appears to have been duct-taped over the original sign, which Robertson claims read “Congress=Slaveowner, Taxpayer=Slave.” He says he never taped anything over the original sign, nor did anyone else. He says the photo must be a fake.

Robertson further claimed that he would provide a photo of the "unaltered" sign (but he still never has), and photo experts have since determined that the image has not been photoshopped or faked. I've also seen reports (rumors which I can not confirm) that the sign originally said "nigger", but Robertson was told to either stop displaying the sign or change that word; so he taped a misspelled version of the word to the sign. I don't recall how much sign detail was visible on our lower-res image. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

TinEye is a really cool tool. Bookmarked. †TE†Talk 17:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said when I first discovered it on Malke's talk page! (Just send me a bill for any royalties, Malke...) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, my friend. In the meantime, I've dropped off a little early Christmas gift. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For Xenophrenic. This is in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a collegial community. Well done, my friend. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Malke! My first Barnstar; I guess that means I am no longer a barnstar-virgin, and I owe it all to you! Oh wait, there must be a better way to word that...  ;-)

Here's hoping you have a fantastic Thanksgiving. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

in regards to your self-revert, my talkpage

Don't worry about clutter or abrasiveness. I would restore your post but I'll leave that up to you, perhaps you could simply strike/remove the 'limited' from 'limited opinion.' -PrBeacon (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I put it back. I had been typing it out in segments before you posted your latest response, but with many interruptions (I was simultaneously making phone calls and working on other projects), and didn't notice your comment until after I had saved mine. Yours conveyed much the same thing, without all the excess verbiage and examples (and my trademarked snarkiness). By the way, your observation that I could have worded the article talk-page header better is spot on; but I tend to follow the old newspaper editor's adage that "A headline must grab the reader and command him to read the article, even if it goes a little over the top..." Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, after her most recent comments, I'm finding it difficult not to suspect we're being trolled. If I respond anymore at all, it will be to tell her to take it to ANI. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor

Any info on the mediation? (OK to leave response here) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AGK has responded, and says he'll try to find another mediator for us. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

re TPM

Great line at Talk:TPM -- "Duh!" stories don't usually have news articles written about them, while "Huh?!" stories usually do. Your recent post there and the earlier exchange with Lucy-Marie make me wonder why we got off on the wrong foot at the Restoring Honor rally, re crowd size. Anyway, I thought you might also like to weigh in at the SPLC page where a couple of POV-warriors are wearing down the regulars there. (I'm relatively new at that article but unofrtunately I'm familiar with their tactics from other articles like MMfA and Fox News). Regards, -PrBeacon (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to interfere with the hug-fest, but I should probably mention that both Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are currently hot spots. Dylan Flaherty 03:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit

... isn't humor as much as it is largely true. ;) †TE†Talk 21:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Heya, stranger :)

The only true parts of that edit were the names Giles & O'Keefe. I'll take your "wink emoticon" as an indication that you already know this. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, my wink was aimed at acknowledging that the edit lacked balance. If you don't know -- I'll advise you to learn about these stings and what they yielded. They [O'Keefe and Giles] didn't get the exact same responses aiding in their prostitution business and the young illegals they were bringing in, but, they received more than enough help from certain locations. We know better than to argue about known facts, right? †TE†Talk 08:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did learn about the antics of O'Keefe and Giles -- both about what they "received" from the people with whom they spoke, as well as what they tried to make the public believe they received. We know better to argue about known facts, of course; I shouldn't need to advise you to not argue from a position of lack of facts. Get the whole story. Would it be an imposition if I were to ask you for just one specific example of the most damning "yield" from O'Keefe and Giles? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, your edit summary states: "no partisan conspiracy groupies here, so we'd better stick to the facts". What does that mean? Aren't you the one that is asking me to illustrate the most "damning" events that led to the defunding of ACORN?

Do you want my opinion of what I found to be the most objectionable, or are you asking me to repeat what the media and Congress says was the worst?

Should I also explain why water is wet and fire is hot?

We're cool, you know. I just don't understand why you would be digging in as some kind of conspiracy theorist. †TE†Talk 08:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course we're cool - that's why I am engaging you on this issue, instead of just waving you off as another parroter of a partisan meme. I've come to expect at least a reasoned argument from you (whether or not I agree with it, or whether it proves to be 100% based in fact), and that is what I've been trying to draw out of you. I've seen the videoes manufactured and released by O'Keefe/Giles/Breitbart, and the damage they did before they (and the edited-out parts) were investigated and closely examined. I have also seen the results of those investigations into the videos, and into ACORN, conducted after it was too late. It turns out the videos were heavily edited to falsely convey a sinister storyline; there was no criminal activity on the part of the ACORN employees; investigations by the Government Accounting Office and IRS found no mishandling of money; and O'Keefe & accomplices are presently defending themselves against several lawsuits.

You mentioned "aiding in their prostitution business and the young illegals they were bringing in", which sounds a lot like the original fabricated storyline, rather than the actual "aiding in protecting a fleeing prostitute and underage illegals from an abusive pimp" reality, gleaned from the unedited and full version of the recordings. You do see the disconnect, right? You asked me, "Aren't you the one that is asking me to illustrate the most "damning" events that led to the defunding of ACORN?" No, I am not -- you have misunderstood my question. We all know what led to the ludicrous defunding reactions, before anyone bothered to actually look into the edited "videos" and ACORN. (See Sherrod for a similar demonstration of reactionary lunacy to misleading video editing.) I was asking you to give me an example of what you think is the worst thing that can be pinned on ACORN from the O'Keefe productions, POST-investigation into said production. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick note

Just a quick note/FYI, the quote from the "dead link" actually comes straight out of the CA AG Report at the bottom of page 4 in footnote 2. Figured you'd want to know that if you missed it previously... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good find, and thank you! I have also seen sources describe it as a disputed "claim" made by the AG. As far as I know, the $5 million claim was a misstatement advanced by a couple former (dismissed) disgruntled ACORN folks that have been filing their own lawsuits. I've been going round & round on this point with a special purpose account on the Rathke article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the deadlink source with the St Augustine Record source. I see the deadlink source was dated October 2009, which predates the April, 2010 CA AG report -- so I doubt that report was the original source. Do we have a resolution to the investigation being done by the Louisiana AG ... or was it shelved? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You found the best solution - I didn't realize it pre-dated the CA AG report.  :) Unsure as to how the LA AG investigation was resolved (would be interested to know), but you're probably on the right track thinking it was shelved or dismissed... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gacy

Hello, Xenophrenic! I can't find the copy I used to have of Sullivan & Maiken, but the sources I have say 18 months:

Foreman 1992, p.63 - "A model prisoner, Gacy won parole, and on June 18, 1970, after serving only 18 months of his sentence, he walked out of prison a free man - although subject to provisions of parole."

Linedecker 1986, p.47 - "Even if Gacy hadn't been paroled after eighteen months," Judge Van Metre pointed out, "he would have been out in less than five years."

Even this source (which appears to be based on the Sullivan/Maiken source) says 18 months. Can you quote the exact sentence from the source? We've got to go by a consensus of sources, and I'm curious as to what the source says. Thanks :> Doc talk 09:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, Doc. I used Google books to take a peek at "Killer Clown: John Wayne: The John Wayne Gacy Murders By Terry Sullivan, Peter T. Maiken"; I entered "parole" in the search box, and found the following text on page 276:

Shortly after noon on the appointed day, Gacy's best friend from Waterloo, Clarence Lane, picked him up at the release center in Newton. Gacy had been incarcerated for twenty-one months of his ten-year sentence. (Here's a link)

I'm not real sure why there's a 3 month difference between sources, but I did notice in the Linedecker 1986 source, page 40, that the judge gave Gacy 84 days of credit for time served (spent in the Black Hawk County Jail during the proceedings prior to his sentencing). I also see in the Linedecker 1986 source, on page 36, it says:

In September and again in October, Gacy was referred by order of Judge George C. Heath, of the Tenth Judicial District Court of Iowa in Black Hawk County, to psychiatrists for evaluation of his mental health. (Link)

September would be 21 months before his June 18, 1970 release date. Also, according to Linedecker (page 37), Gacy was entering his plea in court as far back as November 7, 1968 -- that's 19 months and 10 days before his release date, so he has certainly been incarcerated at least that long. It appears he spent 3 months (84 days) in the county jail during his court proceedings, and was then sentenced to 10 years and transfered to prison, where he did an additional 18 months before being released. You are welcome to handle the wording of that any way you see fit. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome - thanks for the links, too :> I hate it when reliable sources contradict each other, and it's always a challenge on how to handle it. Three months is probably an eternity in prison, and it's weird how the "of his sentence" part was included in the one source. We'll figure it out, but it's not a huge deal. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Breastfeeding - poor latch

Hi Xenophrenic, and thank you for finding a reliable source for this! You've probably just made [[::User:Mother18|Mother18]] (talk · contribs)'s day. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Mr. Stradivarius!

I've been running into a lot of editors recently who have been inserting links to their personal websites into Wikipedia articles, usually as a way to increase traffic to those websites. When I glanced at the website cited as a reliable source, I saw that it was created by the less-than-professional sounding "Clip Sisters", and had a sales pitch at the bottom for anyone "Interested in buying this power point or any of the information you see on this site". My first impression was this was just another instance of website promotion, so I deleted it. Your reversal of my edit prompted me to look for more suitable references to cite that would allow us to keep the content in the article. That's when I located this list of higher grade references also used by the very website Mother18 had cited, including some medical journals. If Mother18 cites those journals directly when introducing related content in the future, she shouldn't run into the same difficulties. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Western State

If you have a Linkedin account you can view O'Keefe's full profile. Under education he says Western State law school. Not sure how to cite such a source, but in any case the article that says he went to UCLA is incorrect. I think the journalist just assumed UCLA because Lila Rose went to UCLA. Ogo (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ogo. The problem is that LinkedIn does nothing to verify that the person making the account is actually the person in question, or that the information added to the profile is accurate. As such, we can't reliably state that the information is accurate. Even if it were allowed, which I do not believe it currently is, it would fall under the restrictions for self-published sources about themselves, which can be found at WP:SELFPUB.

On the otherhand, if a reliable source conveys information about a subject, we generally accept that information unless it is disputed by another reliable source. We can't just act on our own personal beliefs that a reliable source is just making assumptions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

which tp edit did you mean?

is any of the text in the current article yours, if so where? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Mine? I doubt it, as I only enter content from reliable sources. If you are asking if I have added new sourced content to the article that wasn't there previously, then yes. The content on the newly formed National Tea Party Federation, for instance. But the majority of my edits consist of reverting vandalism, improving formatting, minor wording changes so that content from sources is properly conveyed, and other gnomish work.

While I have your attention, maybe you can give me your opinion on something. When it comes to defining the TPers policies and positions, which of the several major groups holds the most influence, if any do? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

the beauty of the tp is it is a single issue group, taxes. many people try to add other issues, but none are universally accepted in all tp circles except the founding issue, less tax. this is also the reason for the broad acceptance, most of the 53% of the adult population thinks we pay too much. some of the 47% who dont pay income tax also understand lowering tax rates would actually increase tax revenue overall as more jobs and investment would result. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fairly certain 99% of Americans would like to pay less tax. That doesn't sound like a TP-specific concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading is Fundamental

Copied from this talk page and this talk page to here for further discussion:

More illuminating commentary. Thank you. I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo, but you are welcome to interpret my comments as such if you feel it helps you in some way. To answer your only question: Take it as it was given, as serious communication (no sarcasm or innuendo), especially the part about your editing the Steffans BLP (not all "BLPs", as you have again misread). My intent was to suggest that the Steffans BLP would be best handled by dispassionate (about her, and her "life", and her reputation, and her "noteriety", etc.) editors. If you have trouble understanding me (you wouldn't be unique, as I occasionally am not as clear as I could be), simply let me know and I'll do my best to clear up any confusion. Heh, or you can keep jumping to wrong conclusions and keep ending up with nothing but misinterpretations -- *shrugs* -- your call. By the way, I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.

One request, The Gnome: could we please continue this (if that is your want) on either your or my talk page? We've cluttered Fæ's page enough, and we've even strayed from the original issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The sarcasm and the innuendo in your correspondence are in the eye of the beholder, of course. Let's just leave your text up for all beholders. No more need be said on this, as I imagine more of it will be coming down the pipeline. On an unrelated note, I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised.

One last request, Xenophrenic: could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article? When I said I inted to stay away from (appropariately) editing it, I was clearly pointing out my previous involvement in it, which again involved the duo of you and Malik Shabazz, a truly exhausting and dispiriting experience. I never implied I'm in any way passionate about the subject or the article. You may be confusing 'persistence' with 'passion'; not the same thing. Or you are simply throwing around ad hominem labels. Recap: You insinuate I'm not dispassionate; prove it. Or, else, sail on.-The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've noted above, "I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo", but I've said you are welcome to 'behold' my comments any way you wish -- at least we agree on something.

• "...I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised."

You appear to have misread yet again. Here is what I said: "I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually." Glad I could clear that up for you.

• could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article?

Of course -- but just so we're clear, I suggested that dispassionate editors would better edit the article, not that you were incapable of editing it. Your comments about "snow-whiting" and "noble endeavor" are the basis. When you see me remove poorly sourced content from this BLP, you make remarks that convey to me that you feel text is being 'supressed' because it is, in your opinion, negative or unflattering, instead of simply in violation of Wikipedia editing standards. That leaves me with the impression that you have already formed beliefs about the subject of the article, and that you would rather see those personal conclusions in the article instead of encyclopedic content that meets Wikipedia's requirements. In addition, you have referred to multiple editors as "a duo", further reinforcing the impression that not only do you feel your personal conclusions are being supressed, but that there is a concerted, collaborative effort to do so, instead of simply acknowledging that more than one editor has considered your edits problematic. There is no conspiracy here. Finally, reviewing your recent input on the article talk page and Fæ's talk page, fully 80% of your comments are about editors, and their alleged motivations, or their user pages, or misrepresentation of their comments to you, etc., while leaving a bullet-pointed list of actual article improvement concerns completely unaddressed.

Hopefully that more clearly explains why I feel the article would be better served by more dispassionate, less-invested editors. Preconceived conclusions about the article subject, conspiracy theories about cabals, and the combative nature of focusing on editors instead of article improvement are unproductive. Malik's very first sentence in his response to the latest round of content issues states: "I don't feel strongly about including it one way or the other, but it's got to have solid sources." I feel the same way. Do you have any interest in helping to achieve that goal? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well. I've had quite a few discussions with other Wiki editors, through the few years I'm here, and not all of them were quiet affairs but I have to concede first prize to you for sarcasm. Even when you seem to be denying the existence of sarcasm in your texts, you cannot help being sarcastic! Case in point, what you wrote above: "You appear to have misread yet again. Here is what I said: 'I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.' Glad I could clear that up for you." Really? Well, go ahead and carry on, hone that snarkiness to a fine art. I happen to consider snarkiness extremely counter-productive in a collaborative effort, such as Wikipedia editing. Therefore, the rest of your text is rendered meaningless. It is quite clear that you are not in Wikipedia to contribute and/or collaborate in a honest and straightforwad manner (e.g. you refuse to abide by one of its most fundamental principles) but for other reasons, which I care not analyse. Please stay away from this Talk Page. It's been soiled enough. Sail on, now.-The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Really? Well, go ahead and carry on, hone that snarkiness to a fine art. I happen to consider snarkiness extremely counter-productive in a collaborative effort, such as Wikipedia editing."

Yes, really. And you are welcome to your opinion. I, on the other hand, find it frequently breaks down all-too-formal-barriers and allows for even more productivity. But to each their own.

• "Therefore, the rest of your text is rendered meaningless."

Huh? Where did that come from? If you don't have a reasonable answer, or need more time to formulate one, or realize you cannot, just say so ... no need to come up with non sequitur leaps of illogic.

I see you have also declined my request that you provide a diff showing the alleged violation of which you have accused me (no surprise there). One of Wikipedia's hundreds of fundamental principles, the WP:AGF guideline suggests that editors "should assume good faith". Identical in practice and function, my personal guideline is "do not assume bad faith" -- and I then go Wikipedia one better by refraining from making any unfounded assumptions at all (which, by the way, is fully supported by the very page to which you linked). Try it sometime; it does wonders for the advancement of contribution and collaboration in building this encyclopedia.

If you don't want my responses to you, then do not address me. Simple enough. Also, I don't sail; looks like fun, though. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was serious, by the way, when I asked if you had any interest in helping with the proper sourcing of content in the Steffans article. I know you've indicated that you are "on the sidelines", but your input as one of the proponents of the content at issue would be valuable. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

On your recent post to ANI regarding review of an administrator's conduct.

Hullo. I did look this over, albeit in something slightly less than my usual depth.

I was initially taken quite aback by the content of the talk page you referenced. (And seriously, thanks heaps for coming out with all the diffs and all layed out and well formatted. It's a breath of fresh air.) But it seems to be quite out of character for this person. Maybe you've just rubbed them up the wrong way somehow? (Noting of course that everyone has to own how they respond to being rubbed, just saying.)

I've left a note on their talk where I hypothesis you're cut from 100% troll meat, by the way.

If this doesn't quiet down, please do feel free to leave a note on my talk page, I'd be happy to attempt to broker a detente. I'm quite effective, usually both parties end up hating me so much for my blundering and ham-fisted communication that they forget entirely what the beef was they had with each other.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to stop making that joke-at-my-own-expense, lest I accidentally make it true by repeating it too often. Is there no place in this binary world for any nuance? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I failed to mention before that I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from reverting F for a little while? This may be tantamount to asking you not to edit it, I realise, but the article isn't going anywhere and it might help cool things down. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've refrained for a while; going to go back to editing now. In particular, I'm concerned about the loading up of the Talk page with material that WP:BLP policy otherwise won't allow in the article. Doesn't BLP cover Talk pages as well? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

TPM parentage

Hey Xeno -- I ldon't kow about the rest of JLMadrigal's comments -- and I don't know why SignBot hasn't added a signature for him -- but I looked at the Atlantic reference, and it does in fact refer to Paul as the intellectual godfather of the TPM. (I found the WP Ron Paul article interesting in that regard as well.) Jo3sampl (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing that some have referred to him as the "intellectual godfather" of the TPm. My concern was that he was being described as the founder of the present TP movement, which he isn't. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvio problems - Wade Sanders

Hi Xenophrenic, I have been directed here by your Complaints Department. Please could you take a look at Talk:Wade Sanders#Possible copyvio and offer your thoughts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've addressed the issues on the article Talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You havent explained your edits on the article and are dangerously close to edit warring over it. Please reconsider and come talk about it. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You should read the article talk page. Missed you, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot

I have to admit, I'm one too.[17] There's nothing wrong with bots per se, but their quality is directly related to the skill and attention of their algorithm writers. ;) Even so, that posting is disturbing. A few stock phrases are one thing, but duplicating an entire conversation is another.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

LOL, looks like we were thinking the same thing at the same time. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In the span of about 20 minutes, I had edit conflicts with you on 3 different articles. Yours were always a split-second before mine; I guess I'm getting rusty ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Coffee Party related articles & 3-Day old account:Galafax

• FYI, there is a posting on ANI regarding your editing on Annabel Park; the user lodging their concern apparently forgot to post the usual ANI notices. AzureCitizen (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're being discussed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a FYI that you are listed as a disputant on a report on this board. The thread in question is Coffee Party USA. Have a nice day. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notices. Galafax has also posted at the 3rd Opinion noticeboard as well, but appears to have removed that request. It would probably be better if all of these identical discussions were rolled into a single location just to cut down on the confusion. I'll refrain from commenting until a proper venue is selected, and a neutral summary of the existing issues is generated. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DRN had them close down the 3O request (Otherwise it's canvasing). When I saw the ANI thread, I cross linked both postings and made the suggestion that one should be closed down to unify the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance, Hasteur. The new Galafax account hasn't edited since he posted his request at various venues. As of this bot edit, the ANI thread has been archived. As for the remaining DRN thread, Galafax's statement completely misquotes me; Galafax links this diff, and then claims I reverted it (I didn't; that was a different editor). There is really nothing at that thread to which I can respond to at this time. As I noted above, I'll be quite happy to comment if a neutral summary of actual existing issues is ever generated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

...that thread, too, has scrolled off into the archives. I'm going to consider the issue closed until he reappears under another name. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe BLP concerns

Hi, the material I removed with this edit is inappropriate because it makes controversial claims about a living person in the encyclopedic voice, rather than merely summarizing noteworthy criticisms and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Please note that there is an exception to the three-revert rule for "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." (See WP:NOT3RR) Please discuss this material on the article talk page before reinserting it. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC) FYI: I've submitted a report at the BLP noticeboard here. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. Please raise your specific concerns on the article talk page for discussion. I've looked at the diff of your edit, and I do not see the "controversial claims" to which you refer. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe

Thanks for working on this and keeping me informed. Editors have been incorrect in using material from RS; I have found more inaccuracies in this article than almost any other, including changing words in quotes. Also think the Lead is getting overweighted with lengthy quotes. Made some changes to the Hoyt material - he didn't have the raw footage at the time, as it wasn't released until after the California AG had released its report. (Something I had noticed a while ago.)Parkwells (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary gave me a good chuckle

Hey, I logged in and checked my watchlist and saw this edit by you, and your edit summary gave me a good chuckle for whatever reason. It just sounded funny. I'm super tired and needed a good laugh! :) John Shandy` • talk 13:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Xenophrenic, I just wanted to let you know that you are mentioned by myself in this ANI post. Thanks,  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Remarks allegedly made by Clinton, Berry, et al

not only is the qoute in a rs, (ill let you look it up since i am making the point it does not belong in wp, ergo, why no source listed, but i will eat my hat if i am wrong, see user page for proof i will actually eat it.), but 3 other people, with high lvl clearance, witnessed her say it. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You are making the claim, so I'd appreciate if you'd direct me to the reliable source upon which you are basing it. By reliable source, I mean sources that would meet Wikipedia's standards for such a contentious assertion about a living person. I have looked, and I see no sources, and would consider that assertion to be nothing more than 'National Enquirer'-style rubbish or political chicanery. If "the point you are making" is that such rubbish doesn't belong in Wikipedia because it isn't reliably sourced, then you will get no argument from me. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some would say that Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them, but civil rights apply to all people, Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights. i cant stand getting quotes out of context, if you can provide a source for the above, i will strike my post and issue an apology. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours. And I asked first (see above). You took the Obama quote out of context, as described on the TPm talk page. You haven't yet provided a source for the alleged Clinton quote. Now, I see that you have finally produced a source for a "Ramirez and Berry" statement, but that source contradicts (and certainly doesn't support) the alleged Berry misquote you also posted. Where is the source for that? Oh, wait ... I see now. You claim it is from Robert R. Detlefsen's "Civil Rights Under Reagan", page 141? Sorry - your misquote isn't in that source, either. You didn't think I'd check? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Alan Grayson

I have asked for a third opinion on the infobox issue and it's now listed there under active disagreements.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

hey

Didn't realize you were in the protect ip page. (I had had a copy open most of the day so I was looking at cache.) I'll go work on some of the other stuff that needs doing, so we don't trip on each other. I've only looked at your first edit, it looks fine though. Elinruby (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit while I am editing; it is no bother to me. It's a multi-user system, if not the best design. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Half a barnstar each to Elinruby and Xenophrenic - you guys bicker like cats and dogs, but somehow the result of your personal friction is damn good joint editing. The current state of the SOPA intro is something to be proud of, awesome job. Keep fighting I guess? Sloggerbum (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

SOPA

Why undo my templating of a reference? The reference was put into its right form and added an archive. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. The change to the reference citation was inadvertant. I had rolled back an edit immediately following that reference, and your change apparently got caught with it -- it should be fixed now. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, and I was just confused and didn't revert as it may of been reverted on purpose. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a separate candidates/opposition section pretty useful when people are actively looking for anti-SOPA challengers to support instead? [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel831 (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to create an article for those people, if you believe it would meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic requirements and if you believe you can find suitable reliable sources from which to draw. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA

Hi Xenophrenic, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been well covered by the numerous responses already posted there. I see a wide variety of proposals, none of which seem to satisfy everyone. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating Smith copyvio note

You removed a noteworthy fact cited to highly reliable good quality sources here. Your reason seems to be objection to the characterization in the edit summary of this matter as "widely reported in news" - which it was. Examples:

Time [19], Forbes [20], International Business Times (twice) [21][22], Atlantic Wire [23]...

Also via well known secondary outlets (TechDirt, Mashable etc) usually considered RS for BLPs.

If you feel "widely reported" in the edit summary would be a poor description of this, or risks a BLP issue, just ask me to revdelete the edit summary, or if I'd mind you doing it. I'd have agreed, though it's useful and significant for clarity. Reinstated bare fact with an edit summary that is specific and verifiable to high standards but tried to avoid egregious mentions, hence giving extra detail for you here instead. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: if you actually meant you would like not to have mentions of time, forbes or "wide reporting" in the ES without them being verifiably cited in the article, that makes more sense. The link for Forbes is already in the article, the links for Time and IBT are above, please go ahead. Also do you want to collapse this section? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, FT2. "McCain has a black baby!" and "Obama is a secret Muslim!" allegations were also widely reported, and I'm not oblivious to the intended impact. However, my concern is that it fails to meet the "High quality reliable sources" requirement of BLP. Reading *all* of the sources shows that he hasn't been "found guilty" at all, and actual reliable sources don't stretch that far. Should we really be citing blogger Tassi for the criminal accusations you've edited into a Wikipedia article? I understand that he is the villain of the hour, but seriously...

We really should be discussing this on the article talk page. Would you mind if I copied this to that location for continued discussion? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That would work. The difference in this case is there's a specific copyright holder who has specifically stated it's his photo, and specifically stated copyright was violated in its use when he learned of it. Forbes, a major business magazine, and Time, both published on it as did many others. We have not one reliable source saying this isn't the case. Even Smith did not issue a statement denying the violation. Words like "theft", "hypocrite" and the like were used, headlines read "X is a copyright violator" with no qualifiers to avoid legal action, nobody sued, the headlines weren't retracted. So unlike the random conspiracy theories, it's verifiable and reliably sourced, even for a sensitive BLP point. I wouldn't have added it otherwise, and having added it I gave it minimal mention to avoid undue weight. Hence my surprise at your concern. I was also surprised you added "apparently" which is not sourced and crosses into breaking NPOV/NOR, as sources are clear it was a violation, not "apparently" one (on the same facts). I think that word has to be removed, but again, it's not something to rush on, if you want to consider it a bit. Thanks for discussing though, and if there's still an issue, let's keep talking. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What the photographer actually specifically stated is:

• "I switched my images from traditional copyright protection to be protected under the Creative Commons license a few years ago, which simply states that they can use my images as long as they attribute the image to me and do not use it for commercial purposes. I do not see anywhere on the screen capture that you have provided that the image was attributed to the source (me). So my conclusion would be that Lamar Smith's organization did improperly use my image. So according to the SOPA bill, should it pass, maybe I could petition the court to take action against www.texansforlamarsmith.com."

The fact that you don't have Smith's side of the story should be a red flag. And an editor as experienced as you should know that we don't cite story headlines for our information, as those tend to be notoriously over-the-top to grab a reader's attention. No qualifiers in the headlines, you say?

• The Author of SOPA Is Also a Copyright Violator (Sort of) -- The Atlantic Wire

And that article never really says he is guilty; it just quotes the photographer. No, the sources (reliable ones, I mean ... not the blogs trying to create a story here) are not clear that it was a violation. As for the word "apparently"...

• The pretty picture in the background? Apparently Smith didn’t attribute it to DJ Schulte, the photographer who took it. --Time

We could test this out on the BLPNoticeboard just to be sure; should be no scarcity of input given all the commotion surrounding this issue. Look at the bright side: it will certainly lend even more visibility to the "ironic" incident. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA process for court order

Penyulap inadvertently undid your undo of my change from earlier. My reasoning behind that edit was, as in the edit summary, the separate process for IP holders, which the next paragraph details. Since IP holders have to first notify the ad networks and payment processors before seeking an injunction against a specific company, it can't really be grouped with DOJ's ability to seek a blanket order forcing all payment processors/ad networks to comply. If I have something terribly wrong, just replace the text again. Thanks.--Res2216firestar 02:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the "undo" was inadvertent. Thank you for the additional explanation -- I see the reasoning behind you edit more clearly now, and I've reincorporated most of it with a minor change. The first sentence was intended to be a collective statement about both "court order" processes, with the subsequent text explaining each one. The wording was probably derived from this in the cited source:

The bill, called SOPA, would allow the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders to seek court orders requiring online advertising networks, payment processors and other organizations to stop payments to websites and Web-based services accused of copyright infringement.

Let me know if the present wording can be improved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Firestar, it would be helpful if you could add a note about changes of mind like this to the talkpage of the article, it's difficult for me to keep track when it's on user talkpages, just makes me look as if I'm warring, when I'm so doing my best to help everyone on that page. Penyulap _talk 08:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Xenophrenic, I wanted to invite you to join a discussion where I asked about you here I hope you'll come along and have a chat. Penyulap _talk 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA

Cirts idea and the solution, can you see any problems with it ? Penyulap _talk 20:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

As his history shows, he is pretty difficult to deal with. I bet he is a helluva guy to pal around with in real life.

Incidentally, he is "Ike" on Cleanup.atf, that is where all the new accounts came from yesterday to build his "consensus".AceD (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of John Kerry VVAW controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Kerry VVAW controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification

As I was intent on changing my position to a simple Keep in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy petition, I have asked the closing admin to consider re-opening the AfD to accommodate that position change. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Any reason besides the one you gave in your edit summary?

You reverted this external link without a reason. I was/am curious. Swliv (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason, besides the one I already gave. Per WP:EL, external links should be kept minimal in articles. It had nothing to do with the actual content of the link (I haven't looked at it, in fact) -- I merely reverted an addition to an already too-long list. So why, you may ask, did I revert that one, and not the link you added just a couple days ago? The short answer: I've seen your edits around Wikipedia (SOPA related articles, I think?) and they appear legitimate, whereas 100% of the edits made by User:Chrisbis have been to linkspam external links to the DIPEx Charity website into various Wikipedia articles. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thnx. Mea culpa. Y, to SOPA, a bit; real. Cheers FN. Good to be off on a right (or left) (or correct) foot, with you, for sure. And, FBFW, you've now steered me toward ... DIPEx .... \:-| I need intriguing distractions like a .... Swliv (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Feeling like a cat leaving a dead mouse offering at the doorstep. Swliv (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm stunned that such a widely linked-to individual doesn't yet have his own Wikipedia article. :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

STORM

Why redirect to "Revolutionary movement"? It provides absolutely no information about STORM, nor should it. In fact that article is essentially a dictionary definition. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Howdy. The BLP to which you redirected also provides absolutely no information about the group, nor should it. A reader looking for information about the group should be given reliable information about the group. The "Revolutionary movement" article cites examples, and this could be just such an example (see the full name of the group), but is presently in stub format. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Steffans talk page

Please stop edit-warring over the talk page. If you can't participate in a civil discussion about possible WP:OWN behavior, maybe you need to take a short break from the article. (Please note that I'm not offering an opinion on the merits of the complaint.) Think about it. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Malik. Please don't confuse an inappropriate posting of unrelated commentary about editors with a "civil discussion about WP:OWN behavior". The editor posting the garbage has clearly stated, "So rather than discuss it I await mediation" ... so I am waiting for him to initiate that mediation. He hasn't raised a concern on the article talk page that can be "discussed", despite being asked several times. Can you offer a suggestion that will help move things productively forward? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've re-read User:Warmtoast's messages and while I see your point, I think it's better to leave the message alone than to edit war over it. I just left a comment in response to the editor's latest message, which included numerous diffs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Xenophrenic. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perdue

Regarding your revert at Bev Perdue, the source does exist, but an extra character was added when the link was put in the article. You can see it here. (I didn't revert your edit because I don't necessarily think it even belongs in the article. No action requested.)  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Frank. Since I got a 404 error when following the initial link, I had already assumed that was the case. I was able to locate The Blaze source by simply searching for the article title, and then noted that article was just parroting this WITN story -- but thank you for taking the time to provide that link anyway. I won't be reverting my edit, but if I were, it would be to simply state that she was against the amendment, and perhaps to quote her Mississippi quip. It certainly doesn't warrant its own useless "Controversy" header (the current "Political positions" section is fine for this), nor the previous editor's "drew ire" qualification and focus. Information on public figures political positions is fine for these BLP articles; partisan word-play sparring between Governors ... not so much. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree; again, no action was requested. My note was as much for your benefit as anything; if someone comes back and says "YES IT IS THERE" you don't have to take the time to dig through and figure out what they're talking about.  Frank  |  talk  22:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bill Maher

I suppose we could just say taking "Maher & his sister". It is sister, right? I think he only has one sibling. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy

Seriously? You bounce clearly relevant information that is thoroughly backed up by government sites and documents. You do this solely because the links go through another site whose _URL_ you object to? And you say that you are not even going to review the information? Unbelievable. Kcmurphy88 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Believe it. Please read WP:BLP, especially the parts about sourcing. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification

Hi Xenophrenic, I mentioned you here. Best wishes, Draco^E 18:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bill Maher edit undo

The youtube link was the audio of the person cited. It is an appropriate use of an audio or video recording and it supports the statement I added to the article. You deletion was inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkzin (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It was removed as non-notable tabloid trivia. If your addition conveys encylcopedic information of interest to readers, then I'm sure you can find that information conveyed by a WP:RS. YouTube is not a reliable source. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. When you recently edited Tea Party movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

CNN article and other news agency references

Hi Xeno. I and others (see the CNN talk archives) would like to keep this article free of references of other news agencies. You reverted a removal of such a reference, justifying this change as wording from the supporting citation. First, this should be a direct quote in double parenthesis if you truly wish justify inclusion based on that alone. Second, though most importantly, it is irrelevant whether ten other agencies were specifically 'worded' in the citation as this article is on CNN, not Fox, or MSNBC or whoever else may be mentioned in the citation.

This is a slippery slope that has, after some battles, already been fought back and won. This article is as neutral as one could hope to expect considering the topic. If we allow all of these other news agency references to creep in again, I fear it will turn back into the CNN vs Fox vs MSNBC battleground that it previously was (and that the Fox News Wikipedia article sadly still is). I will remove the reference in 24 hours if I do not hear back from you either here or in the CNN talk page. I know you would like to keep the conversations here, but the talk for this article already has a section and I'd like others to see it so that there can be consensus. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Responded on article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at Zero Dark Thirty - closed

See WP:AN3#User:Mollskman reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: ). You appear to have reverted the article yourself during this time period, and you have made at least four groups of edits on September 2. An edit such as this one, marked as a copy edit, seems to change some of the disputed language, such as 'selectively edited.' If you will agree to avoid the article for seven days, the case might close with no sanctions against you. If you want to dispute the 3RR, consider commenting in the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ed! It appears that I slept through all of the drama and fireworks; the editor who reverted at least 4 times in a 24 hour period has already been blocked, and the case closed. I do still wish, however, to respond to the message you left me. If you'll indulge me, and allow me to momentarily don a wikilawyer hat and ruthlessly parse the crap out of what you said:

• You appear to have reverted the article yourself during this time period

Yes, I did. So did Mollskman, Belchfire, Orvilleunder, StillStanding-247, North8000, AzureCitizen, and even InfamousPrince, if the removal of tags that I inserted is considered a revert. Out of all these editors, only Mollskman reverted more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. A "revert", defined as any edit that changes existing content, is a legitimate and necessary part of the editing process.

• you have made at least four groups of edits on September 2

No, I made only 3 groups of edits on September 2 (and a total of only 4 groups of edits to that article *ever*, at the time of this edit). I believe your error stems from splitting my first 3 edits to the article into two groups, when they were actually all part of the same editing session -- broken only by my brief detour to that article's Talk page to leave multiple comments before I continued editing. You can verify this by checking my contributions for that timeframe. With that error rectified, I have to ask: What's your point? I've been known to make twice that many "groups of edits" on a single article, especially during weekends when I have the time available.

• An edit such as this one, marked as a copy edit, seems to change some of the disputed language, such as "selectively edited."

Seems to? Oh, it definitely does -- make no mistake about it. Just as this previous edit by Mollskman, also marked as a copy edit, seems to delete that identical disputed language. I could argue that I was just mirroring a similar edit with a similar summary, but if you'll look closer at our two edits, you'll see that my edit also fixed punctuation (note the close-quotation mark addition in the lead) and reference formatting ... you know, actual copy edits -- and was accompanied by a lengthy, simultaneous (within 15 seconds) explanation on the talk page that wouldn't fit in that edit summary. By contrast, Mollskman's edit merely deleted 3 words that he didn't like, under the misdescription of "copy edit". If your concern is about edit summaries matching the edits, then I feel you are addressing the wrong editor. If your actual concern is that I undid another editor's deletion of those words, then please set that concern aside; my return of the deleted sourced wording was at Mollskman's direction. Please review the most recent discussion and let me know if you disagree:

The use of OPSEC has created a selectively edited video critical of Obama. Does the source call it a selectively edited video or does it talk about editing practices as you point out above? Call it what RS have called it and then talk about its editing style and practices. --Mollskman (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The cited reliable source did indeed convey that the OPSEC video was selectively edited, but if you wish the article to also convey more detail about the selective editing that was done, we can certainly do that. My preference was brevity in that section, but let's give your suggestion a go. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

ok. --Mollskman (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I called it what reliable sources called it, as requested by Mollskman. Relevant source links: ABC News and from The News Journal: The group, Special Ops OPSEC (for operational security), says in a selectively edited video that Obama has deliberately leaked classified information about the 2011 SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden and has claimed too much credit for it.

• If you will agree to avoid the article for seven days, the case might close with no sanctions against you.

The case already closed with no sanctions against me. Frankly, had I seen your comment before the case closed, I would have balked and immediately asked you to more clearly explain the reasoning behind your suggestion. (I also would have questioned why you did not make the same "avoid the article" request of the actual guilty party.)

• If you want to dispute the 3RR, consider commenting in the report.

I've just looked at that report, and I don't see anything in it that I would have disputed, or anything that would benefit from additional comment from me. There was definitely a 3RR violation, and I pretty much agree with everything discussed there.

_____________________________________________________________

Okay, I'll remove the wikilawyer hat now. Someone close to me often says, "wearing that hat makes a person's butt look big" — (that's her off-handed way of saying wikilawyering makes a person look like a big ass). She's probably right. Speaking instead as simply an editor to an admin: Thank you for choosing to visit a contributor's talk page with options, rather than reflexively whacking with the block-hammer anyone and everyone even remotely involved in a reported editing squabble. Too many admins do the latter, in my opinion, to the detriment of the project. I can appreciate your approach, even while I disagree (see the above arguments and clarifications) that my editing behavior was in any way inappropriate.

I still intend to edit that article (and eventually, related articles too, as I have reviewed numerous reliable sources related to the subject -- might as well make productive use of the information). Those edits may include the reverting of other edits, but that does not automatically equate to edit warring. Sometimes the revert will be at the behest of the contesting editor, as in this case; or as part of WP:BRD -- and I always push for constructive discussion; and I simply don't cross the 3RR bright line. I don't understand how someone with basic grade school math skills could ever violate 3RR, it's simple arithmetic; "edit-warring" in general, however, is obviously subject to wide interpretation. Something raised enough of a red flag that you were prompted to stop by and leave me a note, Ed, and that still has me concerned. If I'm missing or misunderstanding something, I hope you'll let me know, otherwise I'll consider your note a general caution. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I left you a note because you made a dozen edits to the Zero Dark Thirty article during the period when Mollskman was accused of edit warring. My initial thought was that more than one party might need to be sanctioned. You certainly came close enough to the edit war to smell the gunpowder. In that light, your confidence that it is easy to avoid 3RR by simple arithmetic could be misplaced. Regarding 'copy edit', you seem to argue that Mollskman's misuse of that term justifies your own. Mollskman is hardly a good example for others to follow, and you have much more experience. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow - I really threw up that wall of text? I guess I was having a better holiday weekend than I realized. Sorry about that. To clarify in short (I promise!), I understand why I popped up on your radar ... I certainly was there. While I am very confident that I will avoid crossing the 3RR bright line, please don't confuse that with confidence that I will easily avoid being challenged about general edit warring. To the contrary, I have no confidence in that at all, as such challenges are based largely on the unpredictable subjective perceptions of a reviewing admin - and that actually scares me. I tend to smell a lot of gunpowder, especially around this time every 4 years - but I do what I can to avoid becoming collateral damage by engaging in discussions, seeking resolutions and refraining from edits when legitimate concerns are raised, but there is no defense against subjective arbitrariness. Re: 'copy edit' -- perhaps I was unclear; I said I "could argue (his use of the 'copy edit' description justifies my identical use)" but I didn't (because, as you point out, that really is no justification) and instead argued that my edit actually did contain 'copy edits' while Mollskman's edit did not. I concede, however, that I should have added a "see Talk page" to my edit summary to cover the restoral of text. Finally, if you've looked closely at the article talk page, you've probably noticed that my reserves of "good faith" in my interaction with Mollskman have been almost exhausted by his onslaught of personal attacks. It's not helping matters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Saw your comments on the article's talk page after having been gone for the last 48 hours. Wanted to pass along this article if you hadn't already come across it in your travels... apparently, Fred Rustmann commented on Fox News in 2005 that there really wasn't any inappropriate security breach with regard to the administration and the leaking of Valerie Plame's information. Ironic, isn't it? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BP, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Department of Justice and Clean Air Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

BP mediation

Hi, I noticed you have been helping at the BP talk page. Would you care to join us in a mediation process? Here is the section at BP talk. petrarchan47tc 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Has this been put on the back burner? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan Grayson

Hello sir.

So the Congressman wants the picture I have been uploading to be his Wikipedia profile picture.

We appreciate your attempts to protect his wikipedia page but please allow the picture I am submitting to stand. We have submitted all necessary documentation for the release of the picture to the public domain.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patientg (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The image I believe you are talking about is presently tagged as not having sufficient permissions on file. You may wish to look into that. You should probably have the congressman's office submit the appropriate paperwork, and as for what the congressman wants, I have received no indication. Also, I can't protect pages here; you would need to contact an administrator. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have submitted the release of the image to a moderator and it was accepted. Do you have an email I can send the release to as well that would satisfy you?