User talk:Getaway/Archive 2

Relevance

Could you please show collegiality and cooperation, and engage in a dialogue over the relevance of the two brief paragraphs of explanation of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals that I add to articles about Guantanamo detainees?

I have added this paragraph to well over one hundred Guantanamo detainees. And it has been present in some of those articles since April. During the past five months you are the first person to feel these two brief paragraphs are irrelevant. Please consider that this might mean your views aren't shared by others. -- Geo Swan 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I put this explanation on Talk:Khaled Ben Mustafa for why I reverted your edit. I am not planning to revert every instance you excised. But I call on your sense of collegiality, your sense of cooperation, and your willing to extend others the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith and engage in dialogue about the relevance of these two paragraphs before you remove them from any other Guantanamo articles. -- Geo Swan 21:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sekula-Gibbs AfD

I voted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shelley_Sekula-Gibbs (with comment) a couple days ago - am I missing something else I was supposed to do (I normally stay out of AfD voting and the like, but thought this one went overboard)? -Souperman 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem on voting. Take care. --Myles Long 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A request...

Since you have a finely-tuned BS meter, can you take a look at Huntington, West Virginia sometime? I've writted some of it, moved around a lot of it, and have been slwly working to make it a decent article. However, I can admit that I have a somewhat biased view of the city. Any comments or ideas would be greatly valued. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Brown v. Board of Education

Hey, I'm just quoting from the article. And I'm not a lawyer. But generally (a) a minor cannot sue, and (b) a minor's mother clearly would have standing since she has a significant interest in getting a good education for her child. Unless you have another source, I think you should leave the article's wording as is. John Broughton 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding signatures

Hi, it seems that you have mistakenly forgotten to sign your edits to AfD's recently (I saw it happened twice already), and I just wanted to remind not to forget signing your responses with ~~~~. It does everyone a big favor because it makes it easier for us to know who made what comments.

Thanks, and happy editing!

--Nishkid64 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hutton Gibson

I'm not sure why you keep on reverting Robert K S's edits to the article. I don't see anything unsourced in what he says. Andy Saunders 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be very beneficial to both of you and the encyclopedia if you could sort out your differences on the article's talk page instead of participating in a revert war. theProject 20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Be careful. You're pushing 3RR on Condoleezza Rice. Isopropyl 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney

I have recently reverted (for the 5th time) your changes to the potentially provacative botton section of the Cynthia McKinney article. I'm taking this up on your talk page because it is only you and perhapse one other user who is making and defending certain versions of that article. Anyway, to sum up, the is one source currently cited is CNN which states:

Despite her defeat, McKinney was unbowed, unleashing a stemwinder of a concession speech in which she barely mentioned her opponent but praised leftist leaders in Cuba and Venezuela, took aim at the efficacy of electronic voting machines and offered several swipes at the media.

There is no source that uses the word marxist, and the two words do mean very different things. If you could find a transcript of her speech, we could write exactly what she said, but with this source we can only guess and changing the wording is confusing. You obviously feel that this particular CNN corespondent's writing is biased as so wanted to change it. The best solution in controvercial situations like this is to use a direct quote, to point out that the text came from CNN so people can decide for themselves whether it has a left wing slant as you would think, or is in fact an objective news source. If you can think of any other way to improve the article, please do, and it would be especially good if you could find more sources. Do not return the article to its former form however, as it is nothing more than POV vandalism and can be reverted despite the 3RR as potentially libelous. Please remember wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thanks. Musaabdulrashid 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

sean hannity

Your removal of the critique in regards to Hannity's incorrect statement that the picketers at a soldier's funeral were "anti-war leftists", as opposed to radical homophobes, is flawed. You claim, correctly, that Phelps calls himself a Democrat, at least in name. However, Hannity never mentions anything about the picketers being "democrats", but rather he claims that they are "the anti-war left". Phelps may call himself a "democrat" based on some strange tradition he has, but to therefore consider him "left-wing", despite his clearly non-liberal stance, is severe spin at work. How do his actions give any indication of a left-wing lean? His stance on gay rights? Religious tolerance? He may dislike George Bush, but he hates Clinton just as much. There is nothing factually innacurate in the criticism. Get your spin straight. --Jackbirdsong 23:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

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.

--Nlu (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|You blocked me even though Kuzaar and I had agreed on how the article should be written. Also, I did not revert him, I made changes to his edit. I added other citations. You reverted me and took those citations out. This edit is unjustified. I was discussing my changes with Kuzaar. Please read the talk page.--[[User:Getaway|Getaway]] 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)}} For the record, I would like to agree with Getaway above- we appeared to have just come to a consensus on the talk page, and he was making changes to a version that I think we both thought was appropriate. I think, as well, that he should be unblocked, particularly in the light of some of the things that he made known on the talk page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Kuzaar. Gamaliel reported me to Nlu because I reverted Gamaliel twice on the Sean Hannity article because he was not providing a source for his personal opinion that he kept putting in the article. Then after I got him to cite a source for his opinion, I then added more information to put his information in context. I also reverted Gamaliel on the Fred Phelps article, asking that Gamaliel to cite a source for his opinion that Phelps's church is a "hate group" (I've already told you that I think that they are a "hate group" also, but as Wikipedian we just can't put our opinion in an article) and not just rely on his own opinion. He eventually got one, but he was obviously mad that I reverted him for the same thing twice in two different articles in the same day. Gamaliel is an admin, so he reported me and Nlu blocked me, on Gamaliel's request. It just comes with the territory when you have a POV dispute with an admin, they have the power to block and they are a little overzealous in their use of it. No big deal. Admins generally do not like to put told to follow the rules--when they caught with their hands in the cookie jar. At any rate, this block is supposed to be removed in 24 hours. Have a good weekend!--Getaway 19:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Phelps

Hi Getaway. I'd like to start off by thanking you for your contributions to the Phelps article. I know that sometimes heated debate can give rise to bad tempers, but (now that you've explained a little of your background), I can understand why you might be given over to that sort of thing in issues regarding that hatemonger Fred Phelps. That Al Gore worked him to garner constituency with his crowd is a pretty shameful claim, and the reliable sources we've turned up present a strong claim for it. I also appreciate your comment on the talk page that since we both seem to be interested in the same things, we could both do with a little assumption of good faith. Sometimes, I know, when I'm editing, I sometimes forget that it's another person on the other end of the article. Anyway, I just want to remind you to keep on editing, and I'm sure that if enough editors like us with the encyclopedia in mind put their hands to it, we'll end up with something that looks like an encyclopedia. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lauren Weiner

I saw your ES comment that you intend to create an article on her because she "clearly qualifies". Before you invest a lot of your time drafting such a thing, I wanted to alert you that there was an article on her a while back. There was dispute about whether she was notable enough for a separate article. There was an AfD process (or that might've back when it was still called "VfD"), and the result was that the article was deleted. A new article on her would be subject to speedy deletion as the re-creation of deleted material. JamesMLane t c 02:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, we have articles on notable miscreants of both parties. If you contend that we have an article on some Republican who's as low-level as Weiner, let me know and I'll join you in voting to delete it. JamesMLane t c 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps & Gore

Do you honestly believe that Gore knowingly embraced Phelps? Here, 'knowing' means knowing of his vocal and virulent hate-mongering. No politician is that stupid, even if he did agree with Phelps. Note that Westboro never held any public protests until 1991, so you can't just presume widespread national knowledge. I could certainly conduct the same sort of exercise to imply that the Geoge Bush embraces NAMBLA. It's one thing to document Phelps' support for Gore. It's another to try to emply that Gore knowingly supported Phelps and his views. If you can document it, please do. But insinuating it is unacceptable. Derex 08:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs

With respect, your edit summary of "Restored links that were NOT dead in anyway, probably vandalism", the two links I removed were indeed dead when I removed them (I wanted to see her website, tried both links, and got not-found errors instead); I see today that they now both redirect to her real campaign website. If you'd checked my wikipedia edit history you would have noticed that I am not only not a "vandal", but rather that I routinely revert vandalism; I would appreciate it if you could refrain from casting assertions of vandalism in the future (especially when you can easily check any editor's contribution history). Anarchist42 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I call as I see them. And I will in the future. Have a good day!--Getaway 23:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. If I may be so bold as to request a clarification: are you claiming that the removed links were indeed not dead when I removed them, or rather that my edit was (in your opinion) vandalism? I ask because I wish not to, in the future, either remove relevent live links nor engage in vandalism. Anarchist42 03:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Take a look at your user page. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please go away

I never accused you of making up quotes, so I don't see why you're assaulting my talk page with lengthy comments on the subject. I find anyone who gets their information from Rush Limbaugh dubious, not because the information is necessarily false (although I'm sure it's not a paragon of accuracy), but because it is presented without any context, as a political polemic, rather than as part of any kind of intellectual discourse. No would you please stop bothering me, and go back to writing about KKK supporting arch-segregationist senator Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK who loved segregation and the KKK and segregation, or whatever the hell it is that you do on wikipedia? john k 20:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Getaway, if I were interested in the subject, I would surely see your defense of yourself at Talk:Robert Byrd. There was absolutely no need to take it to my talk page. Please don't spam my talk page in the future with comments that belong on article talk pages. If you have some specific question to ask me, or if you want to take up with me something that I said that is not appropriate to discuss on the article talk page, feel free to contact me, but I find it irritating when people contact my user page for this kind of thing. john k 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Your don't like the fact that I defended myself, I pointed out that my quote was correct, and I just did not roll over and take the criticism that was leveled at me. I fully understand why you are upset.--Getaway 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care whether or not you defend yourself. What I care is that you not spam my talk page for no reason. I saw your comment on the article talk page. I don't need you to repeat it on my talk page. john k 23:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of all that is good and merciful, if you want this end then freaking go away. Its over. Go. I know what you said and its in the edit history. Just walk away.--Getaway 12:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

Hello, Getaway. I noticed recently that you placed the {{fact}} template on a quote attributed via a reliable source. Additionally, in a subsequent edit to the same page (on Sean Hannity), you asserted that the the organization Code Pink and the protest by Fred Phelps were mentioned in the same broadcast. I just needed some clarification on exactly why you did these two things. As to the former, the cited article has that precise quote in it. As to the latter, the article cited specifically says that on the date the Fred Phelps piece was broadcast, it was the week after the Code Pink broadcast. Please be careful in your analysis of sources so that we can avoid confusion regarding sources in the future. Thank you. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, per the question regarding whether to call what happened in front of Walter Reed regarding Code Pink a vigil or a protest- the current version is NPOV. Code Pink called it a Vigil, Hannity called it a protest. In order to neutrally frame the debate, the assertions of both sides need to be taken into account and neither side given more weight than the other. In saying that Code Pink called it a protest, you are giving unnecessary weight to one argument over the other, which is inappropriate, according to WP:NPOV. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You said earlier that we would both do well to listen to what the other side has to say. I agree, and that's what I've tried to do on the Sean Hannity page. I've got what I think is a neutrally-worded version of it, and it appears, to me at least, that what you've tried to do is use it to discredit the people the article's subject disagrees with. I opened a section on the article's talk page for you to voice concerns, if you want to bring the discussion there. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding the Sean Hannity page- I have made two reverts and one rewrite of a sentence today. However, I have attempted to talk to you on the talk page of the article, and here, and you have not responded on either. I have posted some new questions I would like to see responses to there. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Getaway- after talking with some administrators that involve themselve with political and other sources, I think I'm going to change the article. The user SandyGeorgia brought up some very interesting points, that maybe the criticism sections aren't appropriate for the article in the first place. Like I told her, I'm not used to making really bold changes in articles, so I'm going to see if I can't condense the waaaaaay bloated section currently containing all that criticism down into a single paragraph or two describing how some people find him a controversial figure and some of the disputes surrounding him. I think probably all the sourced stuff was put in in the first place by someone trying to badmouth him, which obviously isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you'd like to help, you can help me tear the article up at User:Kuzaar/Hannitemp. Thanks. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Hi there. I note that on the talk page for the Native American Studies page you've called, quite strongly, for Ward Churchill's removal. While fully agreeing that the man is a fraud in many ways, I don't think you can take away from his being one of the most quoted professors within the discipline, and therefore deserving to be mentioned in the article regardless of his political opinions or racial origins (all of which is pretty well covered in various places on Wikipedia. Would it be OK with you if that particular talk page comment were removed? Anyone who clicks through to Churchill's article will be pretty quickly made aware of the controversies and idiocies surrounding the guy. Vizjim 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Heh. Our political ideals might be pretty far apart - I'd happily call myself a leftist - but I salute your observations on Wikipedia, and on Churchill. Who, I'd add, seems to be embraced by some on the basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend": why people of the left never understand what Orwell was warning us all about I'll never understand. I've stayed out of the Churchill pages apart from some very minor tweaks, and intend to continue to do so (I've got more than enough going on over at List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas anyway - good luck to anyone willing to be involved in the whole morass, but there are 400-odd published Native writers I want to worry about first). I will, however, remove him from that list of scholars on the Native American Studies page as your arguments are pretty convincing - particularly the Citation Index part - and we'll see if there's any blowback. Good to meet a sane Wikipedian - see you around. Vizjim 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Native American Studies

Yes, this is an area that definitely needs the attention of conscientious and knowledgeable editors. I came late to that page and haven't had much to do with the choice of notable scholars, other than adding Gerald Vizenor to the list. At least he's not disputable! To be upfront: my interest in the area stems from being a doctoral student working on Native American literature (actually working mainly on the 'fake Native' phenomenon), and my knowledge base is almost exclusively literary. Somebody adding bio's for significant professors dealing with legal issues would be fantastic. If you are going to concentrate on this area I would recommend looking at the Indigenous peoples of North America project, and of course the professor test. Wikipedia's whole notion of notability I find troublesome, as it seems almost designed to maintain a lowest common denominator form of acceptability - but then again, it's not my club and I don't make the rules. Out of interest, what's your tribal affiliation? Best, Vizjim 05:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

etymology of "White nigger"

This is all original research, so I do not feel comfortable putting it on an article space or even an article talk page, but here is the basic origin of the phrase.

Growing up in the same area as Byrd (note that I am about 60 years younger than he, however), I heard many older people use the phrase "there are white niggers, too". Now mind you, most of these were decent, honest people that worked hard all of their lives, helped neighbors in need, volunteered at church, etc. But, like many people of the time and region (note that this is NOT an apology, but a discussion of some of the more-embarrassing aspects of Appalachian culture), they harbored deep racial prejudices towards African Americans. Phrases like "white nigger" and "white trash" were attempts by people to show they were not racists, as they thought that they were showing that white people can be bad people, too. But, as is obvious to you and I, all those phrases really managed to accomplish was to show that the persons using them were not nearly as enlightened as they believed. Instead, all they really managed to show was that they beleived that the default state of Blacks in America was, well, "trash" and "niggers."

So it is likely that Byrd was not talking about anyone in specific, but rather quoting something he heard from others that were in denial about the fact that they were still, indeed, racially prejudiced against African Americans. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Youngamerican: Thank you for the explanation. It helps put it in context--assuming that your explanation is on target. Considering that I have not heard a better explanation before I tend to believe that you are correct. Have a good day!--Getaway 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

3rr

In this edit, you have violated the three revert rule (1, 2, 3, 4. I have made every effort to get you to provide sources for your unverifiable statements as opposed to resorting to adminstrative intervention, but I'm going to have to insist that you stop repeatedly undoing my edits, in part or in whole, more than 3 times on any given article in any given day. If you were to provide sources for your unsourcable statements, I would, and have, obviously let them stay. Attempting to revert war with me over the removal of tags, however, will get you, and not me, blocked. JBKramer 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not violated 3rr in disputes with you. JBKramer 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You (Getaway) wrote: "What a BS comment of a Wikipedian"

Next time you make comments like that, maybe you ought to check the citation already provided in the text first (in this case from the New England Journal of Medicine), which states the exact comment of that Wikipedian. --Naus 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And even if it were BS, saying so is a violation of WP:CIVIL. John Broughton | Talk 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush twins

Please note that threats of revert warring (and then partaking in it) violate various policies on Wikipedia. Notably, WP:3RR and WP:POINT. Please also note that you would be violating WP:CONSENSUS. Removal of well sourced information, which is not contrary to WP:BLP will be considered as vandalism and as such, all of these are likely to get you blocked.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I always assume good faith. But assume good faith isn't a blanket coverage allowing for threats of disruption such as the one you made on the article in questions talk page. My comment above is a warning, to show you that such actions (as threatened by yourself) would be seen negatively and may lead to a block.

Also, as another editor has said, the article is not the Al Gore III article and therefore what is included in it is not the same as that article. Note also that inclusion of a single sentence outlining a verifiable fact does not make an article POV. It does not give the information undue weight. Please revisit WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

Finally, if you think the information should not be included, take it to the talk page and build a consensus on the issue. As it stands, consensus seems to be pointing towards including it. -Localzuk^(talk) 18:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just noticed that you are also engaging in the unilateral removal of well sourced information from the article mentioned in the below section. I would advise you to stop this bahaviour as it is likely to lead to at least an WP:RFC regarding your behaviour.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Strothra 18:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Speculation

Thank you for reverting your own change to the very draftish article that I had in my userspace. I am fully aware of wikipedia rules against speculation. The section you deleted, and then reverted back, was intended to be some initial thoughts that I would seek sources for. It is quite acceptable, I believe, to cite experts who are speculating about something.

I do not believe that articles in one's userspace are subject to wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:V. You are welcome to add to the article if you are interested in it, but I would appreciate your not deleting parts of it, and I suggest that it would be a waste of both your time and mine for you spend any further effort pointing out where the article does not yet yet meet standards which do not apply to it at this time. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 01:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:Michael S. Steele: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Strothra 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Altering warning templates

Please do not alter warning templates that have been placed on your user talk page. Changing the text of these templates gives the impression that the user placing the text is the author of the text you altered. Gamaliel 23:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not the appropriateness of the warnings, the issue is that twice you have altered the text of comments, essentially forging messages from other editors and having them writing things they did not write next to their signatures. This may be your user talk page, but this behavior is inappropriate regardless of where it happens on Wikipedia. If you don't like looking at the templates, archive your talk page, and if you want to have your say, post your message with your own signature under the template, but don't make it look like other editors are saying things they did not say. Please do not make me point this out to you a third time. Gamaliel 03:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is inappropriate. You are talking to me as if I am a five year old. It is disrespectful and childish. You should be ashamed of yourself. This kind of talk is what hurts Wikipedia and embarasses Wikipedia. Jimbo would never find your comments helpful or adult. The bottomline is that another Wikipedian was using the Wikipedia Templates to attempt to gain the upper hand in a POV disputes and now you are acting badgering and childish in your defense of their inappropriate behavior, adding insult to injury.--Getaway 18:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What is childish is your lashing out at me because you didn't get your way. If you feel that you have been the victim of inappropriate behavior, there are numerous means at your disposal to seek redress. Forging messages from other users is not one of them, nor is lashing out at someone who points out your inappropriate behavior. Gamaliel 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing that I said to you is inappropriate behavior. I expressed my opinion about your behavior, which is completely appropriate. I have nothing to apologize for and I won't. You simply do not like what I have to say. That is simply a disagreement of opinion. You don't like it. That is your opinion, but your dislike of my opinion does NOT make my opinion inappropriate. I don't see what you are accomplishing from this discussion. You do not like what I have to say about your behavior that is not against the Wikipedian rules, it is simply something that you don't like. There is a huge difference. Have a good day!--Getaway 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

Getaway, what you called toning down the language was the finishing piece to altering the very meaning of the response to criticism. Mentioning Spencer by name was not necessary, good edit. But the reference points to a much stronger critique than various "political motivations". As such, this claim is only a claim. We need to respect its integrity as a claim, however, whether we agree with it or not.PelleSmith 20:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What qualifier do you propose other than "radical" or "Right Wing". The criticism isn't directed towards "moderate conservatives", or "fiscal conservatives" for instance. Just bacause something is a label doesn't make it inherently POV.PelleSmith 21:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see latest version. No POV, and it conforms with the Critics section.PelleSmith 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Those figures you decided to remove come from demographics in the entry. And here I was thinking you had actually read the entire entry.PelleSmith 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Snide comments are not helpful.

Getaway. Please edit a bit more carefully. Also don't justify poor edits with snide comments like "7 million Muslims in the U.S.??? Who made up this number. It contradicts the next sentence and it contradicts reality. Removed permanently" and "That is still a huge range. And what is based upon? Someone's feelings?" as you did here. It makes good faith alot harder to imagine when you do that. As I mentioned those statstics come from the various estimates used below in the entry. If they don't exist then prove it and remove them. That would be helpful. I put the tag on the page so people would actually dig the references up. Thanks.PelleSmith 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Touche. I'll gladly not leave such snide remarks on your page again. But my frustrated "And here I thought you had actually read the entire entry", was left on your talk page, in communication with you, and not in an edit summary. However, as you point out, it can easily be seen as snide. My deepest appologies. Now, please do figure out if any of those demographic estimates are wrong or not based on real surveys. That, again would be the productive way of working on the article, as opposed to simply deleting material. Also if you would sign your post on my page with your user name instead of that IP I would much appretiate it. If that IP isn't you, and you didn't leave that comment, then I will gladly delete it from my userpage and chastize them for impersonating you. All the best.PelleSmith 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You win. Have a nice day.PelleSmith 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Z

User:Z is more interested in making these kind of weird allegations rather than concentrating on editing articles. It would be better if you can ignore her altogether.-Bharatveer 05:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers." I am sure you know that but I just want to reinforce this since I have run into a bunch of your comments about not caring what other users think and stating the belief that editing is a process of overwriting others' work. No, it is a process of discussion to write better articles. Please stop using needlessly abrasive language to address others and stating your opposition to discussion with them. gren グレン 09:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions on the Stem Cell Debate - just passing on the word of Debatepedia

Noticed your many contributions and interest in the stem cell controversy article. Just thought I would point you to the Debatepedia (wiki debate encyclopedia) article on stem cell research. [1] You may find this a better forum for methodically presenting the different, third-party points of views in these debates. A bunch of us have started going over to it for this kind of thing. Loudsirens 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

Please see my talk. Cheers. <<-armon->> 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More Al Gore stuff

I am hesitant to even broach the subject with you, but I am just curious as to your source that Gore III has "checked himself into drug treatment programs." Are you referring to a court-mandated after-school-special kind of thing that they make everyone who gets busted on possession do? --Dmz5 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

you added back the nobel nomination stuff on the gore and limbaugh pages. when you did you mentioned that it had something to do with a decision made on the gore page. what decision are you talking about? please respond here so i can follow. thanks Brendan19 13:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Its all right here on WP:CIVIL

In case you are wondering why I find your tone on Talk:Islam in the United States troubling and also why another editor has explained to you that despite your accusations I have myself been within the bounds of civility, I suggest reviewing WP:CIVIL. Especially since when I try to suggest a more civil tone your response is always that I'm the one being uncivil and not you. We don't have to agree in order to refrain from establishing an uncivil environment. If you want diffs or quotes of phrases that quite clearly fall under Wikipedia's examples of uncivil behavior I will be glad to provide them to you, but I'm sure you are adequately aware of them yourself. Anyway all I'm asking is that you read WP:CIVIL. Have a good one.PelleSmith 04:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not copy and paste my comments from your talk page onto entry talk pages as if I left them there. Also, please note that entry talk pages are for discussing the entry only. User talk pages are for the type of comments I left above. Thanks and have a good one.PelleSmith 13:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand please do use my talk page for such discussion. Best.PelleSmith 16:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My talk page.

Getaway, I have responded on my talk page. Feel free to delete this comment after you read it.PelleSmith 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

re:Dear CltFn: What is our goal of your editing of the Islam in the United States article? I'm just trying to understand what you are trying to accomplish. Look forward to your answer. Thanks,--Getaway 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The goal as in all wikipedia articles is to produce an accurate and helpful article that is balanced and verifiable.--CltFn 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as the ongoing debate , I am simply trying to add the links to the videos that substantiate the following statement.

The public displays of fringe Muslim groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society in New York City have served to project negative images of disaffection not representative of the wider Muslim community in the eyes of witnesses.

• Video of Muslims in the US pledging disloyalty and desecrating of the US Flag
• Video of Muslims promising a holocaust for the US.

--CltFn 00:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Language

Getaway,

Can I beg you to please refrain from using the term "BS" which is a well known acronym for a profanity, when editing Secularism, as you did here. The editing on Secularism has enjoyed a very civil tone (at least as long as I've been privy to it), one which I'm sure other editors there would love to preserve. Please don't take this as an accusation or a criticism but simply as an initial appeal to edit Secularism with neutral language. Thank you, sincerely.PelleSmith 14:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, where the problem actually is.--Getaway 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-wrote section

Getaway, I rewrote the section. Tell me what you think. Prominantly I removed the wording that stated emphatically that decisions "are" made on religious grounds. Cheers.PelleSmith 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And it now has a citation.PelleSmith 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Boxer

Regarding your edit to Barbara Boxer, I'd encourage you to read an article before editing it. The matter you add was already covered under "Foreign Affairs". I've moved your text up to just after the existing paragraph so that editors can merge them. -Will Beback · † · 23:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rice

Please take it to the BLP notice page before continuing your one-man campaign to censor the article's Talk page. --ElKevbo 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL & edit summaries

In editing Sean Hannity I came across some of your edit summaries which are inappropriate and not the is spirit of Wikipedia: removed unsourced, probably POV information. Read the citation, it does not state he was no longer associated with the NYU station, just a delerium of a Wikipedian Sentence MIGHT be true, but there is no citation after months of asking for one and it has the smell of liberal Wikipedian BS " certificates, hah. Bill Clinton and Al Gore both are college drop outs

Looking further, I see a troubling pattern of hostile edit summaries: reverted BS commentary of anon Wikipedian Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox and Nbauman has been using the Rice talk page to spout his point of view and show off his hatred a strong black woman Removed the so-called quote about rape and incest. It was a flat liberal fantasy lie. He never stated that and it is NOT in the George Will article. Removed permanently. More POV rmd. deleted the BS http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=101106054 Rmvd the title, Controversy, POV horse hockey. Also, it is controversy for Boxer, not Rice. Boxer is one who stuck her big azz foot in her mouth, not Rice. Section is clearly POV] PelleSmith is not editing in good faith. He has not responded to the poor grammar of the Wikipedian commentary Sounds like the BS commentary of a Wikipedian. When is stem cell research policy based upon religion alone? BS, BS. Explained why I removed the racist, toothless hillbilly Democratic Underground BS and so on and so on... all the way back to some of your first contributions removed false statments. The CNN articles cited do NOT in any way back the BS put there

Edit summaries like these and the partisan behavior that's come with them are unacceptable. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, and Help:Edit summary, and reconsider your method of interacting with others here. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, please be aware that revert warring damages Wikipedia. Please don't do it, instead try and discuss the issue on the talk page of the articles in question. If you continue reverting you will likely end up blocked under the 3RR rules.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Contentious editing

If you're sole purpose on Wikipedia is to add negative/embarrassing information about living people, you're going to run into trouble. Be aware that editing in a disruptive manner is grounds for blocking an account, regardless of 3RR. I'm not telling you this to intimidate you. I have no problem with you adding relavent information to articles if it is done in good faith and with the spirit of BLP and Civility in mind. Your editing history and talk page dicussions, however, belie a contentious and provocative editing pattern. I don't see a single note on your talk page thanking you for a productive edit (not related to an edit war). Might I suggest taking a Wikibreak from editing controversial bios, and instead work on some bios that legitimately need help. Here are some suggestions:

• Cai Lun
• Hammurabi
• Louis Daguerre
• Pierre de Fermat

Thanks for your consideration. Kaldari 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Call it a threat if you want. What I'm saying is that if you continue editing in a disruptive manner I will have to file an RFC about your behavior. Please read over Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Kaldari 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

When I said you were skating on thin ice, I was referring to your editing style in general, not just that one edit. I'm not interested in splitting hairs, but your edits to Al Gore III (and other articles) have not been especially helpful. I'm not here to be a censor or agree/disagree with any political POV. (In fact I'm known as a rather outspoken administrator when it comes to opposing censorship, believe it or not.) However, I also take WP:BLP very seriously. Wikipedia is a serious project with serious goals and we don't need to waste time and money fighting off lawyers due to embarassing trivia being continually added to biography articles, especially when we're talking about non-public figures (or border-line cases) in which we should at least be trying to show some type of respect for people's privacy. In case you're not aware, Brad Patrick (the interim executive director of Wikimedia) spends most of his waking hours talking to irate people and their lawyers about content in Wikipedia that they find libelous/disparaging/unflattering. The more we can limit that type of interaction, the better. People like Al Gore III really shouldn't even have articles in Wikipedia. But since it seems there will never be consensus to delete it, the best I can do is to try to make it as clean and NPOV as possible. I'm not sure, however, what your motivations are. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Judging by your talk page comments on the Al Gore III article, I would say you are more interested in embarassing "Gorebot Jr" than substantially improving Wikipedia. I'm certainly not compelled to assume good faith when there is ample evidence to the contrary. Kaldari 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, at least now I understand why you're making these edits. It's a political tit-for-tat between the Bush daughters and Al Gore III, huh? If you want the Bush twin articles cleaned up, list them on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I'll keep an eye on them myself as well, although it looks like you're already doing a decent job of that. The problem with tit-for-tat is that it never solves any problems, it only escalates them since no one is being consistent about following their own rules. If you want help policing the Bush twin articles, I'll be more than happy to assist, but you need to be consistant about how you treat all articles regardless of political affiliation. Remember, Al Gore and George Bush will be long forgotten in 20 years, but Wikipedia will still be here. We should be writing articles that will stand the test of time and will still be useful, balanced, and informative when our children get around to reading them. Kaldari 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You were right about the Bush twin articles. They were at least as bad as the Gore III article, if not worse. I've tried to clean them up. I guess we'll see how long it lasts. Kaldari 06:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a notice about the articles to the BLP Noticeboard. Kaldari 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Political tit-for-tat is, in all probability, a violation of WP:POINT. As Kaldari said, the solution to a problem in one article is not to create a problem in another, as retaliation; it's to fix the problem, and to request help if you're not able to do that alone. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 05:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch yourself

I am not a administrator, nor do I threaten at all. It just seems on the Brownback page that you seem a little too cocky. I would encourage you to simply state the facts and arguments and not worry about making statements of courage. We are here to help provide balanced information, not start fights. I supported your broadcaster paragraph, but would encourage you to take the encouragement in stride without the added vibrato. Nerdland 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page

Please don't summarily remove portions of articles and expect those changes to stick (as you did with Shelley Sekula-Gibbs). You should give some prior warning on the talk page and try to achieve some sort of consensus; this avoids the sort of edit war I'm seeing in the article's history. And if that consensus, or something close to it, can't be achieved, maybe the edit shouldn't be made!--JesseBHolmes 15:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The length of Sekula-Gibb's term is office is worthy of note (and of inclusion), as it is unusually short. Don't take it personally, but the consensus seems to be that you are mistaken in your view; I believe an administrator would agree with this consensus. --JesseBHolmes 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't much more to talk about, so you needn't bother responding, but you should adopt a less confrontational style. This isn't a personal confrontation; it's a disagreement about a Wikipedia article. So don't take it personally. --JesseBHolmes 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice musical abilities

Hello Getaway. OK, no trivia section in the article about Condoleezza Rice. However, the problem with that paragraph about her ability to play piano is that, in my opinion, that is out of place in the early life section. It refers to facts that break the time continuity of the section. What about opening a new section for this paragraph? For a comparison, Tony Blair's article has a number of miscellaneous sections about facts that are not directly related to his political career. Thanks. Miguel Andrade 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This comment was left on my talk page: Miguel Andrade: Thanks for the comment. I would agree with your comment about her earlier life, but there is two ties to that era in his life: (1) her name is a derivative from music and obviously she was named at birth with a musical name and (2) there was period in her early life when she wanted to be a concert pianist. Also, I would agree that her talent with the piano is tied to her career in that she meets with hundreds of diplomats every year and she plays the piano for many of them. For example, later in the article, there is reference to her playing the piano for the Governor General of Canada. So, if you feel the need to move the information, then how about the section where there is a discussion of her concert with Yo Yo Ma or her private concert for the Governor General.--Getaway 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is that the early life section should refer just to things that hapenned in her early life. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. I don't care too much. Miguel Andrade 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on Friends University article

{{warning|The following is a personal attack that your left on the talk page of the Friends University article: your unsupported assertion that I am violating wikipedia:point on the Friends University talk page and your false accusation that I edited your comments there. This is a personal attack. {{No personal attacks Interestingstuffadder 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)}}

Your accusation of personal attacks

It is not a personal attack to point out that consensus is against you. It is also not a personal attack to discuss the patterns your behavior on wikipedia has followed, as evidenced by this usertalk page. Interestingstuffadder 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion page formatting

I did not edit your comments on the Friends University discussion page. I simply formatted the discussion for organizational purposes (I made the new section you created a subsection of the discussion it referred to. Organizational formatting of this type in no way constitutes editing your comments. Interestingstuffadder 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

Actually, when a user has a history of imposing his own views against consensus and seems to be repeating that behavior, I think this is completely relevant when he appears on the scene after a compromise has been pretty much been hashed out and tries to impose his will on an article. Please show me a policy that characterizes mentioning a user's history where it appears relevant as vandalism. And, by the way, your mention of wikipedia:point against me did not appear to assume good faith and is more clearly a personal attack than anything else either of us has said. Interestingstuffadder 20:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My edit

I messed up on the revert. Sorry about that. Thank you for informing me of my mistake--Cylonhunter 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Levin

Please take a look at the talk page for Levin. I too fought against including this particular link, however after much consensus and a mediation on the page, it was determined that it should be kept. I got some concessions in return on some really unnotable and partisan crap that was being added for the sole purpose of trashing the article's subject. I urge you to look at the talk page history and comment there before deleting again. This page has attracted the rather obsessive attention of one particular editor with a well known Liberal POV who relishes political revert wars. Would be best not to stir him up again. (You probably know him already from the Rush Limbaugh page!) Thanks. NYCTommy 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

your "warning"

I was quite justified in removing that "warning". I had a valid rationale, as a long-term, experienced good faith contributor, for disagreeing with the basis of that warning (I wanted to point out that your actions were part of a pattern of behavior, which definitely is relevant to how they are intepreted). I explained as much here and don't want my usertalk sullied with accusations that may or may not be justified by wikipedia policy (you never really cited a specific policy that unambiguously established my behavior as a personal attack). Also, notice that I changed my line of argument soon after you complained. I did so in the name of civility -- although I still maintain I did not attack you personally, I decided that bringing up your past actions could potentially be unhelpful to the spirit of congeniality that I believe helps wikipedis function well. As for the content of the Friends University page, yes, I realize that the disputed section is gone. Fundamentally, I realized that consensus shiufted against me and I was willing to accept this. This is even more evidence that I am a good faith contributor who should be dealt with in a civil way. Interestingstuffadder 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Brownback quotes

You don't really want the Brownback page being filled up with quotes. While I don't know of any, I am certain Brownback, like all of us, has said some pretty unpresidential things. Besides, this is what wikiquote is for. Have you added your quote there yet? Jerimee 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

please try to follow some of the rules

The 3R rules and the What Wikipedia Is Not rules are pretty good. I know you are aware of them, but maybe you can read them over again. It can't hurt . . . Jerimee 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at the dispute at Sam Brownback, and I have to say that my initial impression of the dispute is not favorable towards you. The issues in dispute appear to be very minor matters that should be able to be resolved amicably, but your throwing out of terms like "POV pushing" and "censorship" certainly doesn't help matters, and is going to stop immediately. If you'd like to, please summarize your perception of the dispute in a couple of sentences and we'll see what we can do to bring this towards a resolution. Gamaliel 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Sam Brownback. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer 23:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Limbaugh

Your presence is requested for mediation. -Ste|vertigo 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Rice Polls

Thank you for adding the citations re: Rice's poll numbers. The language remains misleading, however. The citation you provide re: Polling Report shows that the Excellent/Pretty Good number is below 50%. So, calling the results "highest favorability" is not accurate. Please revise the assertion. Regards,Ohioan1 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohioan1 has been repeatedly trying to insert wacky poll information into the lead and making edits that can best be described as political commentary. The account edits nothing but the Rice article. It's quite wacky as far as I can tell, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's some random middle school student or a sock puppet of someone with an axe to grind. -- Mgunn 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a dumb question. Why is wikipedia allowing polling data when polling data has proven to be extremely inaccurate at times? Isn't wikipedia an encyclopedia not a political news site--Cylonhunter 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Limbaugh

I didn't delete it. I put it back. I think you wanted to put your remarks under someone else's comments. I think it's notable for now as it's a current event. I also think it's a bit of a publicity stunt. --PTR 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 48 hours

You have been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on Rush Limbaugh despite a consensus against your insertion of the Nobel Prize nomination. Also, under the definition of most admins, you violated 3RR on said article by continuing to reinsert the Noble Prize info that had been inserted by others several days before your edits. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no concensus on whether Nobel info for Rush Limbaugh should be on Rush Limbaugh's talk page. That is simply incorrect. I also did not violate 3RR. I know that you may disagree with me on including Limbaugh's nomination for a Nobel, but that is not an appropriate reason to block me.--Getaway 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You reinserted the removed section 4 times in under 3 hours.[2][3][4][5] Please assume good faith on Woohookitty's part, I'm sure s/he was only doing his/her job as an admin. The 3RR guidelines clearly state those who have been blocked before (such as you) may be dealt with more strictly, receiving blocks even if they do not exceed three reverts. When your block expires, please join us on the talk page. If we cannot resolve it there, we can always find some way to resolve the dispute peacefully. Vassyana 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think that I was showing bias, then you do not understand what admins do nor my methods. I don't care what either side thinks, personally. I go by what the consensus is. That's what I'm here to do. I hadn't even looked at that article until last night. Assume good faith. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reset the block because of your use of User:BballJones as a sockpuppet. Please just take the 48 hours and do something else. Using socks does not help your cause. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet use

Good faith is not the issue. The issue is that the evidence was pretty solid that that user and you are the same person. First of all, BballJones has a very sparadic edit history, which is common among sockpuppets. Secondly, several times, he's appeared out of seemingly nowhere after several weeks/months of no edits and reverted to a version you supported. Here is an example of him not editing for 4 days and then returning to revert back to your version of the Fred Phelps article. Here is a case of you reverting to a version by Bball almost word for word. This last time he edited, he appeared immediately after you had been blocked. Here is an edit to the Sam Brownback article by you shortly before you were blocked. Here are 2 edits from Bball just after you were blocked. The summaries are strikingly similar. And we also have this comment concerning Limbaugh on a talk page right after you were blocked. Why would Bball not make any substantial edits for 5 1/2 months (only one edit in that span) and then return to make edits on subjects that you have a major interest in (Limbaugh) or had just made edits to (Brownback)? And we also have the fact that you two seem to have the exact same interests. Both of you have made extensive edits to Condoleezza Rice, Fred Phelps and also topics involving Limbaugh and other conservatives. Plus, we have the thing where Bball was blocked but didn't make any comments saying that he shouldn't be blocked. I've been at this a long time and I know of very few users who have been blocked for conduct issues but then stay silent. Most are upset about being blocked, which is understandable. Nobody wants to be told that they can't do something. But. Silence from this user, which usually indicates a sockpuppet in my experience. And the final evidence that Bball is you is that the last time Bball edited extensively was immediately after you had been blocked on September 15th for a 3RR violation. And again, he hit articles that you had just edited on. Here are edits he made on the 17th compared to those you had made just before you were blocked. Same section of the article. Same POV.

This all adds up to you being the same person as Bball, which is why I blocked both of you. It's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence. I'd suggest not using Bball or any other sockpuppet when you are blocked. Instead, I would suggest following our policies and guidelines. Because it's a slippery slope. The more times you violate policy, the longer the blocks will be and the less of a leash you will get from other users and administrators. And from looking at your edits while preparing this stuff, I can safely say that you need to work better with others on here. I have absolutely no problem with people editing from a certain POV. In a way, our articles would be colorless if we didn't have passionate editing. I'm all for passionate editing as long as the user doing the editing is respectful to others and to our policies. Several times (including twice in the last few weeks), you've crossed that line. It's like with the comments up above. I blocked you for violating 3RR (by most definitions) and for edit warring despite a consensus. Instead of just taking the block, you assumed that I personally disagreed with your views. That's immaterial. I actually have no opinion on what you are trying to insert into the Limbaugh article. I only care about the fact that you violated 3RR despite a consensus. And even if there wasn't a consensus, you still violated 3RR by most definitions. It had nothing to do with WHAT you said. It had to do with the methods you used to say it, if that makes sense.

So. Keep up with the passionate editing. But try to respect the other side's views as much as your own. And try to assume good faith. Just because someone blocks you doesn't mean that they disagree with you. That's not why people get blocked. They get blocked for flouting and violating policy. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Bball is a meatpuppet, which under our policies is just as bad as a sockpuppet. From WP:SOCK:

"A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Wikipedia with one agenda."

"These accounts are often described as "meatpuppets", a name perhaps inspired by the band of the same name. They are often difficult to distinguish from real sock puppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual."

So it still isn't a good thing. And it's still blockable. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A friend of yours is editing the same articles you are and it's influencing things. It's making it look like there is more people on your side than there really is. As the Meatpuppet policy states, the Arbcom considers meatpuppets and the original user as the same person. And as the assume good faith guidelines state: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include constant vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." You admit that Bball is a friend. And he's editing the same articles you are without really attempting to become a full-fledged Wikipedian. Thus he's a meatpuppet. And so you've forfeited the automatic right to have good faith assumed in the case of BBall. Do I assume good faith in regards to your normal, everyday edits? Sure. But I can't anymore when it comes to this meatpuppet because it is against policy. I would suggest simply steering clear of meat and sockpuppets. If a friend is going to help you out on an article, they need to be a real Wikipedia user and not just someone who helps you out. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Condoleezza Rice (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III and BLP policy

I know we've discussed this before, but I would like to reiterate that adding information about Al Gore III's use of marijuana as a 13-year-old is a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy. I'm not interested in arguing further about this. I've been generous in allowing editors to tread the gray area on this policy, but I'm drawing the line here. Please respect both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's BLP policy. Thanks for your cooperation. Kaldari 20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I did put the information back in the article. However, I have been recently attempting to verify the information through proper reliable sources. Also, you do not unilaterally make, interpret, and/or enforce Wikipedia policy. Please do not write message with the underlying assumption that you do.--Getaway 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator, it is one of my responsibilities to interpret and enforce Wikipedia policy. Kaldari 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even assist you in working out disputes with other editors, but before I can do that you need to give some kind of indication that you acknowledge the problems with your editing habits. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you want to express your political opinions here, at least try to be a little more subtle about it. Edit warring and muckracking are not going to get you very far. Your edits will have a much better chance of surviving if you actually make an effort to edit from a neutral point of view (and tread carefully around WP:BLP). I'm well aware that there are plenty of other editors out there who are pushing POVs (on both sides) and I'm sure it can be frustrating to deal with if you are passionate about an opposing point of view. If you choose your battles carefully, however, and approach things diplomatically, you may find things significantly less frustrating. If, however, you are only interested in pushing your views by any means necessary, Wikipedia would probably be better off without your efforts. Kaldari 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will ask Eleemosynary to stop the wikistalking, but in return I would like to ask you to try harder to avoid controversy and edit warring. Believe it or not, some people actually take seriously the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just the world's biggest pissing contest. Try to be respectful of that goal. When in doubt, ask yourself "Would Encyclopedia Britannica publish this?" I would also suggest you try writing for the enemy some time as it may give you a new perspective as an editor. Let me know if you need any further assistance regarding conflicts with other editors. Kaldari 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Drew Gooden's Personal Section

The reason I keep writing that Drew Gooden requests he be referred to as the Big Drizzle is because he did. Please see this article: http://slamonline.com/online/2006/10/drew-gooden-80s-baby/

I have, once again, replaced the wording with the appropriate citation. Please leave the article, which you are incorrectly editing, alone. jfialkoff 15:35, 7 June 2007 (CST)

Drew Gooden's Personal Section

I don't think you are in a position to say what is and is not too much emphasis on a player's hair. If you google Drew Gooden, you will see that this is, to many people, the most important thing about Drew Gooden. Additionally the media has made it a point of consistently pointing out Drew Gooden's interesting personality.

I have, once again, replaced the wording with the appropriate citation. Please leave the article, which you are incorrectly editing, alone. Should your unnecessary and unfair editing of Drew Gooden's article continue, I will seek other avenues of correcting your behavior. jfialkoff 17:44, 8 June 2007 (CST)

Seconded. Eleemosynary 19:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I don't know you but as a completely out of the mix 3rd party editor I would like to ask you to review this article for me History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. jee jah lah gey ah gee guh ha tle email ah yah. LoveMonkey 02:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive lock

The current lock was put in place by Nick, not me. The BLP policy does allow admins to lock the article if they believe the policy is in danger of being violated (i.e. pre-emptive locking). As soon as there is some agreement on how to proceed on the talk page, I will gladly remove the protection. Kaldari 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III

While I don't concur with everything in your message to me, Getaway, I think we both agree that there is something very strange going on with this article. Thanks for the note. Robert K S 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm sure you know this, but Noelle Bush isn't a twin. Robert K S 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was merely making the point that for many, many months I have been attempting to make the point that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Wikipedia is going to treat Al Gore III with kid gloves, concerning his arrest record, then we need to treat ALL other Living Persons with kid gloves, concerning arrest records. The twins' articles were just long, long overly detailed outlines of Chuy's and drinking incidents over and over again--down to the detail of which particular Chuy's in Austin it was, what time of day, etc. I believe that there articles have been cleaned up and I also believe that Noelle Bush is a closer comparison to Al Gore III. Once again, my point about applying the rules equally and fairly was stomped on over and over again by partisans who believed that it was just wrong to internally compare articles in Wikipedia. By definition, that is unreasonable. We need to attempt to have a fair and consistent application of the Living Person rules. That's all.--Getaway 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

hi guy

It seems you have already been warned about using sock and or meat puppetry in the recent past. Are you and Verklempt sock puppets and or meat puppets. ?? Say it ain't so. I am assuming good faith. Seek consensus. Albion moonlight 08:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this comment has been taken care of in the proper way. Albion moonlight's allegations have been hammered into nothing.--Getaway 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)