User talk:Francespeabody

Welcome!

Hello Francespeabody! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Netsnipe ► 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Your Cedric Gore article

An editor has nominated the article Cedric Gore for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedric Gore. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Cedric Gore during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. -- Netsnipe 02:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:111 227.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:111 227.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:111 227.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:111 227.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sue Anne 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Gore

If you want to know what to do, just read two or three Wikipedia articles and see what's expected of a good article. Also, read WP:N carefully. Hope that helps. --Dweller 20:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just throw around accusations of racism. The article as it stands is just not good enough. If you improve the article, I'm sure most of those saying "delete" will change their minds. --Dweller 09:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD Cedric Gore

Hi - I think it's best to respond to you here from now on, we don't want to annoy people on the Discussion board too much, they can get cranky if the discussion isn't about the Articles-for-Deletion thing specifically.

But you made some very good points in your reply. I should stress that the guidelines we all currently use for this assessment stuff are not set-in-stone, they're being argued about right now (including us relying too much on Google - see Wikipedia talk:Search engine test) by all the users of Wikipedia (not just "the admins" - I'm not even an admin, and have only been here quite a short time myself).

You really shouldn't look at it as "us"/"them" against "you" - we're all just editors, including yourself, trying to make this encyclopedia better and hopefully enjoy doing it. So I really encourage you to join in whenever you feel like it in Wikipedia, and make new articles on anyone you personally feel is notable enough. If you can make the case for them being in WP, then they belong in WP. Don't be put off just because of this AfD - just go ahead and create them, and see what happens.

You've had a harsh introduction to Wikipedia, with having your first article up for deletion. The trouble is, we get companies registering and writing their first article about themselves all the time, and I think the Cedric Gore article was suspected as one of those. Don't take it personally, the guy nominating it is just doing his job.

The usual starting places for new users for "what is Wikipedia?" guidance are the Wikipedia:Five pillars and what Wikipedia is not. You should check these out if you haven't already. They are official policy, and do not get changed very often, although they do have ongoing discussions.

And the "vote" thing on the AfD page isn't a straight vote, it's a consensus thing that is weighed up by an admin at the end of the five days, and you can really make a difference by changing the article based on the comments you get, and making your case in the discussion, which you are already doing. So don't give up hope yet.

BTW, I have been doing a bit of research on Cedric Gore's businesses, particularly the Bandlink stuff, and I hope to be able to add some material that I think will help the article with this AfD, by expanding that part on the product, maybe a paragraph or two. If you wanna make changes to it after it's up there, that's never a problem (a big "rule" about WP is, if you don't think an article is right, change it, there's no one you need to ask permission of first).

And if you do have one or two relevant references on Gore in magazines like Black Enterprise, you must put them in the article, that is definitely classed as a "reliable source" and would help your case. All the sources don't need to be online, they just need to be well-known and detailed enough that someone could go and check them if they had to. If you need help on adding citations for magazines etc., there's info on code and style for this stuff here: Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style. Or you can always contact me on my talk page, or post questions on the Talk:Cedric Gore talk page, which I will keep an eye on.

You shouldn't be afraid of expanding the article, just because people were saying it was "like an advert", etc. That was just their first impressions. If you have more material, put it in, and see what happens.

Feel free to contact me on User talk:DaveG12345 if you have any general questions, etc. I'm no expert, but I know bits and pieces. --DaveG12345 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the new material to the article. It would be nice if you could find some references for the last quotes in the article. After researching the section I did, I am happy to confirm that Mr. Gore is definitely notable in my estimation. :-) --DaveG12345 05:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on "winning" the battle. --Dweller 08:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks on Dr. Condi Rice Talk Page

The vast majority of those atrocities stories from the Superdome turned out to be just simple urban legends. Remember the story about six people dead and stuffed in the ice box, that was repeated over and over again on CNN???? I do. And it was a figment of someone's wild imagination. But what does any of this diatribe from francespeabody have to do with Dr. Rice??? The answer is simple. Not a thing. francespeabody in a racist and ignorant way is calling everyone who does not agree a biased white person, regardless of the fact that I'm not white. Then when I point this out to francespeabody, francespeabody states that he/she does not care that what race I am that as far as francespeabody is concerned I'm just white and my opinion is unimportant. This type of BS argument is NOT winning a friend over here and I'm making my third attempt to settle this peacefully. However, I read any more racial attacks then I going to have to take this to the next level. Seriously, francespeabody, for the third time do NOT refer to anyone else's race again (especially mine). Please, once again, review the Wikipedian rules on personal attacks and abide them. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please keep your comments and opinions about everyone's race to yourself and do not post it on these talk pages again. Thank you. -----BballJones 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire issue being discussed is about Race, thus this section and the ongoing debate here regards views of the black community toward a person they view to be a Race Traitor. In response to this, there has been evidence of arbitrary removal of contributions, the editing of contributions to make it less agressive. The revising of this article to suite a "Happier Gentler" time is plain B.S. I am speaking of your constant revision of history here. I want to have the Black community view known and documented as valid in the black public view.

You don't know when you are being racist yet when I cite one instance (Kanye West's dismissal as "Crazy") then I am being the bad guy. Take this to whatever level you wish to. Does that mean burning a cross on the site? I suggested that if you are a "Non-Black", you will not always understand the common view or even be in a position to be exposed to is as I am however, since you are not in the community either go into the community and find out for yourself, or trust that someone from that community posting public information from Black Leaders, is accurate. The section is called "Criticism" what else needs to be said about the information to be included here. You already painted her a rosy future in the last section so do you think she will ever be hurt for her political actions? Blacks are hurting as well many minorities by her actions today but she won't be subject to them unless she happens to find herself unescorted within the black community. Not that blacks would harm her, I am talking about the police treating her as they treat the rest of us.--Francespeabody 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Isopropyl 22:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Condoleezza Rice. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Diffs: [1] [2] [3] -Isopropyl 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying quite hard to stay out of this particular mess. The edit I made to the Condi Rice article was to remove the word "Basmati" which some anonymous halfwit had added. Frances, I would like you to calm down. You're clearly well-spoken and well-intentioned, but you're going about this the wrong way. One of the key points about Wikipedia is that, if something is controversial, everyone has to negotiate until we reach a mutually acceptable way to say the facts. Okay? DS 02:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly they are ganging up to keep the site sanitized. They just started reverting from the beginning, go back and verify that. Clearly Liberals just sit back and let this crap happen to us all the time. I went over to the Democratic candidate and politician sites and they are all full of negative remarks, uncited opinions, and many cases just lies but no one edits the truth into it. The thing that is making me irate here is that absolutely "NO" black opinion is allowed. --Francespeabody 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

You have been blocked for 72hrs for 3rr on Condoleezza Rice. It appears you have made 6 reverts. That's quite excessive.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks

You said: "If you are White and American, you have racism bread into you and if you do not admit or accept this basic notion, you are not worth debating." One of the things I was taught in school -- public school in suburban Alabama, no less -- is that the color of one's skin does not determine the content of one's character. I am surprised that you disagree so plainly with that ideal. --Dystopos 05:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, this sounds good but it ignores such basic levels of racist saturation within the US. You might have been told that "Color does not determine content" but by virtue of growing up White in the South you have implicit views of Race that you do not wish to see at this time. Do me a favor and I promise I will do whatever you ask of me from this point. Just listen to this NPR story and or read through the thoughts of one authors take on the issue of inherent white racism.

If you are willing to listen to what this guy has written about and offer some thought or comment about what this might mean to you, Whites generally, and the United States I would be humbled.

I know the "Ideal" messages school might relay but I know more about the historical revision of history to portray events untrue is huge desire among many. What is being done here is the same as what was done against Martin Luther King "during his time" by the FBI. Our government is again engaged in such things and the truth needs to be told.

All I am doing here is correcting the "View" held by Black people in the United States and abroad that their is a wide disdain for Condi, her policy, and her role in Government. It is not a small thing, it should not be dismissed any more than the FBI contribution on the MLK article but yet that is exactly what is being done here.

That is censorship being called neutrality.--Francespeabody 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew me -- at all. And found me to have inappropriate attitudes or feelings, I would be inclined to listen to you. If my views on race were pertinent to my contributions to Wikipedia, I would be inclined to accept your criticism as a fellow editor. But since you have decided what is in my heart based on your own prejudices and have grossly misrepresented my contributions to this site, I am not so inclined. While the topic of implicit racism is of some interest to me, I will follow my own curiousity and conscience in pursuing it. I believe we can make more progress toward resolving the dispute at hand if we limit our discussion to the content of Wikipedia. You say that your concern is that the article's treatment of "the 'View' held by Black people in the United States and abroad" is incorrect. The solution I would offer would be to remove any reference to such a "View" (accurate or inaccurate), except in the case that its existence has made a documented impact on her life or career. An example of this would be the view held by the professor who resigned from Boston College to protest her speaking engagement or the view held by a prominent person who publicly encourages her candidacy for President. If you disagree and believe the topic needs to be covered in the article, perhaps you could draft a treatment of the topic in a way that you feel is most neutral and place it on the talk page for discussion. --Dystopos 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I figured, just some scared kid too afraid to look at herself in the mirror. You have no heart worth knowing if you think only the White slanted views that dominate wiki and traditional media are "Neutral" are not worthy of discussion. You kid yourself with the thought that you are neutral and you are not. I see that in your dodging of my comments and questions.

Please don't communicate with me further unless you are willing to look at yourself in the mirror and respond to my earlier comments. --Francespeabody 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What appears in my mirror bears little resemblence to the picture you would draw of me. You can believe what you wish, but your slanders are unwelcome here. If you take issue with Wikipedia's policies, there are active discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to which you are invited to participate. --Dystopos 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frances, my original concern was solely the diversion of the talk page of an article away from discussion that directly concerns changes to that article. Any Wikipedia editor can be concerned about actions that go against Wikipedia policy, and clearly Talk:Condolezza Rice was becoming a soapbox, something which Wikipedia is not. Editors can be purple polka-doted Martians, but if they have concerns the community should assume good faith. Not only did you not assume good faith, you "[used] someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views", in direct violation of WP:NPA. I do not have any disputes with you about content in the article. As such, my affiliations are even irrelevent from a NPOV standpoint. Please familiarize yourself with these policies and guidelines. I'd also appreciate an apology for Ai.kefu and ElKevbo. -Fsotrain09 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligize to the Liar, and the Censor? No massa, dohn tink me feel quite like dat jus now!

Who are you to question me? You have not been through life, called nigger to your face, denied the vote from threat of legal actions, followed in a store, or had to watch in utter helpessness as the world sat by and watched the full final blow of indignity fall on my New Orleans brothers. No, you have not done anything but step to the defense of these weak fellows who dare not speak for themselves less they be caught in more lies.

The assumption of Good Faith was overturned when after being harrassed, I found that Ai worked for the Condi organization. Is that Good Faith? No, why no demand of an apology from him for lying?

Stay off my talk page until you get a little more life under you and have studied black history some.--Francespeabody 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied black history, not that that is revelant to being concerned about your use of article talk pages as soapboxes or your personal attacks against other users including myself. I am a Wikipedia editor, and as such have a perfect right to be concerned about conduct that disrupts the building of this encyclopedia. Again, this is not, or was it ever, a concern about content. -Fsotrain09 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Conduct RFC filed

A User Conduct RFC has been filed against you. I encourage you to fully participate in the process, including making a statement or requesting assistance as appropriate. I am sorry that it has come to this and I hope this process is fair and swift. --ElKevbo 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Richest Black Person

As noted on the Condi Rice talk page, I moved our conversation here so as not to disrupt the progress on the article. For reference, the post you made that I'm replying to is copied below:

"Never heard any call Warren Buffet the second wealthiest White Person, or maybe you can tell me who the 143 richest White person is? I was making a point about the usage and rellevance of race in our society when it comes to labeling and perspective. Oprah is not just rich, she is "rich for a black". This distinction is something that finds its way into her Wiki Bio. The clarificatino does not find itself in any of the other top 100 white richest "people". But this is typically, try and start picking at the minor issue instead of investigating the truth of the matter. I noticed you answered not to a single other point but the hierarchacal redundancy in Bills placement. It should have been obvious for you to have seen my next logical move, one step down as if playing chess. Oh, but you are not looking ahead, just for any small move to try and dismiss the argument altogether. Well, you failed! "No Venn Diagram" (No commen sense)--Francespeabody 14:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Your example about Warren Buffet not being listed as the second richest white person is much better than your original example. (Assuming, of course, that you can tell me who the second richest black person is? And, by "looking ahead," surely you don't mean "making your argument for you"?) I don't really have a stake in the argument at all, I was just trying to refine your particular point. And like I said, your modified argument makes more sense than your original one. Thus, progress.

Also, why do you think that I'm trying to "dismiss your argument"? I don't even know who you are, I just wanted to point out that your logic could use work. Icewolf34 15:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condi Rice article

Hi Frances. I think your latest points are valid, important and highly relevant to the article. It was also good to see an experienced user and writer like Cberlet come in and emphasize this as well. I feel all the antagonism could have been avoided in the first place if users had been (A) more accomodating to sourced critical views (B) more sensitive and serious about how emotive this issue is. I get the sense that in the US, issues of race have become so corrupted, subverted and taboo that many people have lost the ability to see the wood for the trees.

I took a trip to New Orleans years ago - then, after Hurricane Katrina there was a lot of talk in Britain about the disgraceful racial divide during the emergency situation - my argument in reply was that New Orleans was a disgrace well before that hurricane hit. You take a look at the Hurricane Katrina article and see how many black faces compared to white faces there are in the pics. And how often race is mentioned at all? Keep it up and try to put forward the African-American viewpoint in articles where you see fit, it is neccessary and will help wikipedia overall. But at all times stay icy cool and stay away from commenting on other editors because it's all too easy to get banned round here! And that would be a loss, we need more editors with wider viewpoints. Good luck and give me a shout if you need any help.--Zleitzen 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support but I live in this country and everyone denies any racism. I get pulled over, followed around stores, been through the ringer up and down the south, (Miami was the worst) but we all go through it and it shapes our view so much. "Fuck the police" is not just a trite NWA Rap lyric, it reflects the mood of entire people regarding law enforcement. But the New Orleans thing, (I got engaged in City Park) but to watch that crap go down was a near out of body experience. The worst part was to hear how Whites around me cursed at the "Black Looters" and how bad blacks were acting. I thought for sure they would see this and if nothing else, just shake their head in dismay, but they started bashing us at this low moment. When Kanye said what he said, he did so in the manner of a child waking up to find Santa was actually his Dad. The disbelief in not just seeing your people disregarded but to further portray us as animals was just shattering to many in the community.

Regardless, I will keep with my postings. I do not think that pure passive dialogue works with the GOP since they themselves don't follow that rule. Consider that somehow a smart Vietnam War Vet (John Kerry) became a "weak minded know-it-all" after they smeared him, but the dumbest guy in the room is running our country and dodged the war altogether. You can't win that level of upset without aggressive tactics and language and the same tactics are being used here.

Thanks,--Francespeabody 22:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Condoleezza Rice article

Francespeabody, the changes I made to the article once it was unprotected were based on the discussion which was carried out on the talk page after the shouting died down about who was a racist. At least three editors, Zleitzen, myself, and Dmeranda contributed to the version which I posted. Regardless of your suspicions about me, your responsibility as an editor is to seek consensus and not to take ownership of the article. This is the substance of the RfC that was filed against you and I had thought that you were prepared to be more willing to cooperate with other editors. I still hope that is the case, since, as Zleitzen notes, you do have an important perspective and an unflagging will to see this article become top quality. --Dystopos 05:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how three contributors who share the same political POV is going to provide a NPOV regarding the issues that I was speaking to. --Francespeabody 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sole mechanism for eliminating POV from articles is collaboration. By WP policy all editors must seek neutrality so attracting attention to an article should usually have the effect of discouraging persistent POV attacks. This, of course, works best when the POV issues are obvious, and not of the insidious type that you assert. The tactic that you have used -- of taking sole responsibility against what you perceive as a legion of biased opponents -- may be admirable from within the context of your own moral universe, but will not survive as an editing practice unless others agree that there is bias to be overcome. Without that support, your point of view is just that... a point of view. If Wikipedia is the victim of an overarching bias you may have to aim higher in your efforts such as contributing to and helping implement policies that deal with systemic bias and recruiting the voiceless to participate as editors. --Dystopos 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You continue with the angle that you are capabable of NPOV. No one is is capable of NPOV regarding a Political isssue here in the US at this time but least of all you. One has only to read your contributions to see that you clearly have no interest in neutrality. I have admited my POV from day one while everyone conservative has to have the rock they hide under lifted. (see Ai.Kefu)

The game at hand here now is how much truth can be added by the liberal P'sOV before it is sanitized and censored by the conservative side. There should be no pretense of neutrality here or on any other political site just a much more modest goal of contributors finding some semblance of "balance" between the two distinct P'sOV in the overall article. There is no way the article can remain "Fluffy" with no mention of her deeds and or disdain from the entire black community and the other communities of whom civil rights are trampled on. I just wish the large negative View about a Condi would stop being sanitized summarily.

If you cannot admit that neutrality is impossible from you or any other conservative or liberal contributor then the conversation we are pretending to have can come to a quick cessation and we can just agree to disagree so we can resume with the rapid fire edit/revert/bashing/revert/censorship... activity that will lead to the ultimate freezing of the article--Francespeabody 07:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of creating "balance" between competing assertions in order to ensure neutrality is usually at odds with the need for accuracy. To quote from WP:NPOV: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." This is, in fact, what I have endeavored throughout my participation in Wikipedia, and yes, I believe myself to be capable of improving the neutral tone of articles. It is not an automatic process, but it is a discipline I practice. When you say "least of all, [me]" regarding the NPOV content of my work, I believe that your analysis is faulty. If you truly believe me to have been contributing to Wikipedia in defiance of policy, I urge you to bring your charges by a process that can settle the matter (See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes) rather than to continue attacking me personally. Also, I continue to be amused that you identify me as "a conservative" merely because I have opposed some of the content you wish to add to this article. It is your irrationality and bad faith, not your politics, which I have opposed. --Dystopos 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Your replacement of the overview section with the views of the founder is completely unacceptable. The founder's views are relevant, but it appears he doesn't control even "official" statements of the group, so they do not override other views of the group. The criticism section should remain, but only with sourced statements. (And I haven't looked at the conclusion section. Perhaps it doesn't belong there.) Please feel free to note which statements in the criticism section require sources, even though I reverted those changes, as well.

I hope that you can learn to work with the other editors, or your viewpoints, however relevant, will almost certainly be removed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that "Your" views over ride the "Founders" views and that is wholely unacceptable. If you belong to the group or were hired to represent them at the PR level that would be one thing but clearly you are opposed to the group so there is not basis for your edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Francespeabody (talk • contribs) 05:21, August 8, 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "represent" groups. It describes them neutrally from a third-party point of view. For that reason, the founder's view is explicitly unacceptable. See WP:AUTO. --Mmx1 05:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The founder's definition is being "Cited" as the description of the organization. Neutrality is preserved by that position. You are suggesting that you are more equipped to define the group moreso than the founder and I as a contributor have decided to cite the founders definition.--Francespeabody 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The founder's definition deserves a place in the article, but not necessarily in the introduction. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cited" means it is used as a reference and a foundation for neutral statements. Such as "Fetzer, the group's founder, claims that....". Inserting his comments verbatim in the intro, is not a "citation". --Mmx1 02:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the founder, I am a contributor citing the founder's definition which I was able to find online, as the most appropriate definition of what the organization is.

What you are suggesting is absurd. You are saying that it is not appropriate to inquire what the group is about directly from the creator instead relying on the opinion of someone else who clearly is opposed to what the group represents.

Lets look at this from a more personal view. Do either of these argument examples seem resonable when applied to other topics?

Example 1. You are Jewish and tried to argue that; in a Wiki entry about "Nazisim Beginnings", Hitlers definition of how the Nazi party got (perhaps extracted verbatim from Mein Kampf, would be less relevant than say Alan Dershowitz's thoughts on the topic extracted from an Op-Ed peice in the Times, because in your view, Hitler's definition seemed to one-sided and preachy.

Example 2. I am black and tried to argue that Louis Farrakhan would more neutrally write the "Overview" entry for the "Leakey Foundation" than the groups namesake Louis Leakey. The reason I give for this choice is that "to use Leakey's comments on the subject, no matter how precise his summary, could only be a "soapbox" for his opinion and agenda.

Does either example seem reasonable to you if you can access the source and get an unadulterated definition?

The entry I am including is very thorough, and includes highly important information such as founding members, date of origination, what they believe, what they don't believe, and anything someone researching the group would want to find out. You have a userbox for "This user is opposed to online censorship." but that is clearly your intent here as you are simply removing relevant information under the thin argument of "saving the world from a soapbox". I am not on a soapbox. I want to get the most information out there as possible.Francespeabody 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmx1, I have cited the "Founder in the article" please read the article before reverting.Francespeabody 02:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--Aude (talk contribs) 03:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Francespeabody (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AudeVivere, you have blocked my account and did not block the "Mmx1" account for the same offenses.

First, he attacked and I included the attack in the discussion we had and second, I have been editing the article and not just reverting it. There were at least 3 edits in between the reverts I made and he made "NO" edits yet I am blocked.

Either Block both parties, remove my block, or offer some explanation as to why his attack during his revert "22:18, August 9, 2006 (hist) (diff) Scholars for 9/11 Truth (bullshit. This is not Fetzer's webspace and verbatim reproduction of his POV will not be allowed.) " is acceptable.

I looked over this. First of all, Mmx did not break the 3-revert rule, so there is no cause for an immediate block. The edit summary you mention is not an attack, but is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and I have reminded Mmx1 of that. However, you need to cool off; you've been much MORE vicious in your comments than Mmx1 has, and you're lucky I wasn't the admin looking into this in the first place, because your block would have been longer. When you come back, you are to respect the work of your fellow editors. Read WP:OWN and WP:CON, and WP:BRD, and WP:CIVIL while you're at it. Mango juice^talk 04:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying I was "Much" more vicious but offer no indication as to what qualifies as "Much More". That is as arbitrary an assessment as the decision to block me and not mmx1. I have come to expect that from this site however as it seems mostly in the spirit of censorship then discourse. Even you instead of offering positive instruction, you make your first order of business to threaten me with what you would have done had you my balls in your vice instead of other admin and the other tidbit to "cool off". Thanks! You guys are like the middle school hall monitor that gets a little power and feels the need to just flex it without conversation, discourse or investigation. The three users Arthur Rubin, Mmx1, and Rootology together effectively ganged up and reverted the article well over 3 times in regards to my contributions but not only do you ignore their actions, but you find me in contempt for what they were doing.

The problem is, I did not simply revert, I actually edited the article each time. I also did not revert in a consecutive series of edits, but in response to different reverts. I maintained discussion, and replied in the edit summary as to why and what I was editing before I saved my changes but you just ignore all of that, slap mmx on the wrist. What was it, you "reminded" him he was bad? I could have been "reminded" too, but upon reflection, the threat you prefaced this lates response with was more effective. I feel better about Wiki and its members now.

Regardless, I will just start making minor absurd edits for future reverts before saving changes.Francespeabody 05:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the definition of revert at WP:3RR. --Mmx1 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to these rules each of you are in violation which is my point exactly.

Look, I exspect censorship from a Marine/Gov't loyal contributor. Especially in the current political environment where wire taps are viewed as Protective, internet privacy is irrelevant, a president can invent and enforce any law he chooses, and Guantanamo is synonymous with "due process".

Hell, by those standards, I should be thankful for "censorship" as the new "Liberty". Well as Joe Lieberman has shown us, "times they are a changin'." Don't understimate creativity. That is where the conservatives always lose. They are virtually incapable of creativity. It is why Hollywood is so "left & democratic" as they are the creative types and tend not to have the same limitations as our red faced, red party friends.

Read my edit and contribution history and see just how many times as I have been called names or disparaged by conservatives and other editors, but I have never opted to just "rat" them out for reverting, or editing in an opinion. I got balls to big for that, but it never fails to amaze me how quickly you guys run from a conversation you can't win, and how often you beg for the help of your mommy or daddy admin. Is that the semper fi tradition? Call daddy when you can't argue a point? I have come to expect conservatives to consistently censor thoughts and ideas they disagree with. Historically you guys also burned books, authors, and speakers as a first action rather than pretend to offer debate.

I have always felt a bit of pity at that being the first step and not a last resort but, like the Iraqi's throwing rocks and blowing themselves up, you gotta use what limited tools you have available and in this case, I guess that means calling for "admin" help when you get in a tight spot? Semper Fi: Always Faithful "to take the easy route"! Someday, you will grow a backboneFrancespeabody 06:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to have assumed I took a side regarding your edits. I must not have explained myself. I don't actually have a position on it, but revert-wars are very unhelpful to Wikipedia, which is why we have the 3-revert rule. I think you haven't read it, so let me clarify: no single editor may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in any 24-hours period. None of the individuals reverted more than 3 times, I checked. The fact that a "gang" was reverting you is, in fact, a good clue that you should stop reverting: that means that several other editors disagree with your edits. That's why I was referring you to WP:CON which is the Wikipedia guideline about "consensus." As to me telling you to "cool down," I was clearly right to do that. Look at these two huge rants you've left here. You're upset, right? Well, I guess I can't blame you, I know it's frustrating to be blocked... all I ask is that when you return, you not escalate the conflict because you got blocked... that road leads nowhere good. Instead of making your wholesale edits, you should discuss with other users; WP:BRD is about the "BOLD, revert, discuss" process which is how most of the editing gets done around here. And while we're at it, let me remind you that I found out about this situation because you posted an unblock request, which I came here to evaluate, not because someone else asked me to help. Mango juice^talk 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could have been "reminded" too but was banned and then threatened by you in response. The policy here is often to ban first and ask questions later. I think I am just about done with Wiki. It is a laughing stock of an encyclopedia lampooned daily in the press and print world. "The Onion, Daily Show, Colbert Report" have all picked on it for just the kind of thing I encountered daily as an editor here. It seems that censorship is the core issue behind almost all of what afflicts the site yet when it is called out by a fellow contributor, it gets some phony "we are all friends being neutral" rhetoric lobbed back and no progress is ever made. You say you are following the "rules" even if you are, there are higher rules like "truth" which should trump the petty stuff but that whole "just following orders" excuse is so typically self defeating it embarrasses me to say I am human.

At what point does a person ask the tougher question like "what is the truth" and hold that question to a standard that trumps all other things? Example: That is why men get hanged when a Judge decides DNA evidence won't be used. No one is interested in truth, they would rather hang an innocent than seek or pursue the truth. Does it matter that the DNA evidence came in on a Thursday at 4pm after the evidence cut-off time for that judges jurisdiction or does it matter more that the evidence shows clear innocence? You would be the guy saying, "3 revert rule" clearly states no evidence therefore all that follows is inadmissable. You are that guy who gasses Jews and says, the rules as you interpeted them suggested that was within the guidelines laid out by the almight founder of "Wiki" and you are the guy strip searching 80 year old women on airlplanes in search of bombs because the "rules" clearly state search everyone. NO COMMON SENSE is left in the entire world but we in the US are committed to our stupidity moreso than most.

What ever happened to good ole common sense. Go back and read through what was posted in the exchanges and try to fix the article. Offer something constructive to the world and stop haggling over the small stuff. You make no mention of the substance of the article just enlightening me about the rules. Thanks!Francespeabody 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TCI.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:TCI.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ReyBrujo 04:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cedric Gore for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cedric Gore 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/Cedric Gore (2nd nomination) 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. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]