Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 22 November 2010 (→November 2010: + Cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 31 days

"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." - Supreme Court of the United States, ]

B This user keeps a weblog at Blogger as SafeLibraries. This user has a website, which can be found here. This user keeps delicious weblinks as Plan2Succeed.

This user supports the fight against mental illness.

Template:Archive box collapsible

This is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 31 days

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Misplaced Pages. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

Regarding your comment on the Lively debate

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would prefer if you didn't refer to me as one of those "apparant newbies who proposed it initially" and of which "one just made a personal attack". It wasnt us who initialy proposed the quote, it was me (and I stopped adding it the instant you called The Huffingten Post an unreliable source – though I'm still not entirely convinced). I didn't make the personal attack and don't want to be linked to it, nor am I a "newbie". I find those remarks offensive.

Kind regards,

Björnar

--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. You've followed me here to continue your efforts to confront editors instead of addressing issues. Lovely. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you feel the need to complain to others about me stick to the facts, and please refrain from condescending remarks. That's not to much to ask, is it? What was that again about "resolving the matter in a friendly fashion", about assuming good faith? Well, please do so. --DVD-junkie | talk | 18:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I said what I said accurately and otherwise you are putting words in my mouth. Now do you want to get back to editing or will you leave yet another remark here that accomplishes nothing? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly edit, but what's the use – you would simply revert me, as you did before, and I don't want to go against 3RR.

By the way, quoting you is hardly putting words in your mouth. And, if addressing your behaviour "accomplishes nothing", that would be regrettable, yet somehow revealing.--DVD-junkie | talk | 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation on Ugg boots

LAEC, you are cordially invited to participate in mediation here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have not helped. Too busy at the moment. Thanks for the invite. Continue to seek my assistance in the future. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Judith Reisman

I cannot begin to fathom why you would think dumping anti-kinsey rhetoric not about Judith Reisman on that talk page would be appropriate. Talk:Judith Reisman is to discuss the article about Judith Reisman.

If you want to launch an anti-kinsey campaign, she might be an ally, but please refrain from using her article and Misplaced Pages in general as a platform for such a highly POV initiative. Toddst1 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Toddstl, forgive me if I have caused you to overlook WP:AGF. The issue of whether you or I view the articles as my "launching an anti-kinsey campaign" is irrelevant, setting aside your failure to WP:AGF.

Those 2 articles from WND and the third one from Scope appear, from their titles, to contain information that may be directly relevant to matters on both the Kinsey page and the Judith Reisman page.

Further, I have not read the contents of the articles, and I explicitly stated that, and I only added them to Talk and did not insert anything into the main Wiki pages, so I have no idea how you conclude that I am "launching an anti-kinsey campaign".

That said, your following me here to state what you have stated and to accuse what you have accused evidences to me a clear bias in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. That will help me and other editors determine how much weight to assign to your edits, etc. I have not looked at a single one of your edits yet, so far as I recall, but I will in the future, and I suggest others do as well since Misplaced Pages policy compliance is far more important than supporting a Toddst1 WP:SOAPBOX.

Thank you.

Oh, I see you have removed my edits from the Talk page. That is very bad form. I will revert your edits doing so or otherwise restore my legitimate comments to the page, as well as the comments of others you removed in your zeal. If you begin a battle to whitewash the Talk page from legitimate comments, I will not hesitate to appropriately seek community involvement, and in this circumstance it appears your WP:SOAPBOX will fold. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear you are here to push your POV. I have no opinion on Kinsey, nor do I have a website promoting anti-kinsey views as you do. Take this as a final warning about POV pushing. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

See ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. I merely posted links to a few articles relevant to 2 Wiki pages, then only in the Talk section, then with very little commentary, if any. I specifically said I did not read the articles but from the titles they looked relevant. One commenter even added another article from the past that he said contained substantially the same information. He did that on the Kinsey page and it was relevant on the Judith Reisman page so I added the link there too. All this was done to address issues raised or that could be raised in the main Wiki pages.

I see now you have removed or affirmed the removal of certain information from the pages that appears to be confirmed in the newly provided links, based on the titles alone as I still have not read the articles. But that certainly does explain why you would go through the extraordinary step of effectively removing relevant links from a Talk page by the use of the collapse template.

I see you are a sysop with significant experience in Misplaced Pages. That, fortunately, does not make your WP:SOAPBOX any more reliable. I urge you to consider that merely adding the links to the Talk page was a totally harmless activity intended to allow the community to work together to improve the relevant Misplaced Pages pages. Indeed, the community started to do that, even adding another link, but you made it all disappear. Talk pages are for talking, not for pushing your POV. Please, clear your mind, all I did was add a few links and someone added another, all on the Talk page. That is perfectly appropriate Misplaced Pages activity. So much can be accomplished if we work together and not under a false cloud of "an anti-kinsey campaign."

And I see you filed an ANI against me. That is, in this case, an attempt to use procedural means to accomplish what you cannot by talk. Really, you can do better and contribute positively, no? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you Judith Reisman? Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. You are a sysop. I think you have special tools that will confirm that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You seriously misunderstand things. I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you that.

Fare thee well now, let your life proceed by it's own design. Nothing to tell now, let the words be yours, I'm done with mine. Toddst1 (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Fare thee well as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought we were done, then I saw your edit removing her background. You really should lay off this serious COI editing and self-revert. Good night. Toddst1 (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume you are talking about her writing a song for Captain Kangaroo. If you can set aside bias for a moment, I'm sure you can see that cherry-picked aside comment is intended to make her look like a buffoon. I'll bet every single person on Misplaced Pages can be made to look like a buffoon if you cherry pick the perfect phrase and place it on a Wiki page. If I recall, there were only 3 paragraphs to describe the Wiki subject, and one was devoted to her writing a Captain Kangaroo song. Clearly that is agenda pushing. Now there is nothing wrong with writing music for any show whatsoever, but the way it was present was completely WP:UNDUE. And I have no COI on anything other than my announced COI on libraries, and we are not talking about libraries here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This AN/I was closed with no action taken. Essentially, Toddst1's complaint was viewed by the community as a tempest in a teapot. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR notice

Please note that you have made three reverts at Alfred Kinsey in less than 24 hours, and any further reverts will put you in violation of WP:3RR, which will likely result in a temporary block of your account. Also note that 3RR is not an entitlement, and a continued pattern of reverting against the consensus of other editors may lead to sanctions even if you do not actually make four reverts within a 24 hour period. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. I am not engaged in an edit war as I explained in detail here and neither will I do so. Feel free to remove your 3RR notice as it does not apply.

There is, however, a number of people using procedural means or false and misleading statements and misquotes to stop or hide my edits, and this 3RR notice is yet another in that series. All have failed so far since I have followed Wiki guidelines and worked cooperatively with other editors. Notice I have taken no procedural action in return to stop what is beginning to feel to me like it could be some sort of Wiki compliance breakdown. I am leading by example and editing in compliance with Wiki rules and policies. I will continue to do so. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This 3RR notice went nowhere as no violation occurred. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A 3RR notice does not mean you have violated 3RR, it means you will if you continue to revert. Misplaced Pages's 3RR procedure requires that an editor be made aware of the policy before the policy can be enforced. The purpose of the message above was to make sure that you were aware of the policy and aware that you were getting close to violating it. As a broader point, an editor who engages in single combat with a group of other editors almost always loses, right or wrong. As a practical reality, if you can't persuade any other editors to support you, you aren't going to be able to get your way here. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We're beating a dead horse now, but the 3RR rule says, "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive." That's how I see it. No, you were not actively involved, but given the circumstance of the speed that a number of people were objecting to legitimate (and even compelling) edits I was making in a sort of pile on fashion that you see on pages people are protecting, leaving me feeling totally blind sided for perfectly fine edits (in the Talk section too, no less), I feel the aggression. I feel it again when you come back here in response to my simple statement that no 3RR violation occurred. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't violated WP:3RR but you are clearly edit warring. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, you should be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not edit warring. You tried to use collapse templates on me. That failed. You filed an AN/I on me that failed. 3RR action was taken about me. That failed. I simply have not edit warred, violated 3RR, or done anything wrong whatsoever. I added two links to a Talk page. That's it. Then I added an existing ref from a previous version to a statement someone added. That's it. That is totally normal and Wiki compliant editing. Including the few reverts I made for the legitimate reasons I stated.

All of your procedural efforts to block what I wrote or to block me in general have failed, yet here you are, yet again, yet again making false statements about me. I was not edit warring. I was cooperatively engaged, it was you who were and not. You use collapse templates on a few links on a Talk page no less. Other editors saw right through what you did and called it a tempest in a teapot and closed the AN/I you filed against me.

Better yet, it appears all your huffing and puffing has been for naught as there appears to be consensus to add the material some sought to blocked, and the collapse templates have been removed (by me) and have stayed removed.

You made constant false allegations about me. You misquoted me in a manner that made it appear I said something I did not. You have filed a procedural action against me that failed. You falsely claimed my POV/COI. You are now coming to my talk page, to what, to continue to harass me? To continue to put in writing what you have claimed about me that was false in the past and remains false? "You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits." So you said just now. The truth is, my reverts were proper and I have created a Talk page subsection to work with other editors after it became clear there was a need, yet here you are saying I should have done that, but I did, but you did not say that. I mean really, do you think you can just say one thing when it's the exact opposite? This is at least the second time you have done this.

You do not know me from a hole in the wall. All I did was add 2 links to a Talk page and you went off on me so fast it made my head spin. You then garnered your friends to join in on the feeding frenzy. All the frenzy was for naught as no action was taken against me of any kind and the page and Talk page has or will have the material you sought to remove, yet you come back to my page to continue what I now feel has become harassment. That's my opinion. That's how I feel. You are harassing me.

I will continue to edit on Misplaced Pages any way and any where I like, and in a Wiki complaint fashion, and there is no amount of intimidation you and your friends can pile on me to scare me off. I have been though a number of scrapes where people like you wish to use Misplaced Pages for a certain political interest and have sought to bring various actions against me. Setting aside my early, inexperienced years here, all such actions have failed. Yours has too. Because I remain Wiki complaint, all such future actions will fail as well.

I'll work with you cooperatively, but you have to stop the harassment, stop the false accusations, stop the procedural steps to stop my editing, stop using collapse templates to remove legitimate edits I make to Talk pages, stop the violation of Wiki rules such as WP:AGF, then get off your WP:SOAPBOX. If you do that, we'll be fine. If you continue to harass me, I will continue to point out the form your harassment has taken. Clear? Your false statements here do not show me any improvement at this time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That was a mouthful. Perhaps step away for a bit, read over WP:COOL, and a bit of WP:AGF, and come back and edit something else later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.187.181 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to intimidate you and as I said on ANI, I am now involved, so I'm not acting as an admin. However, is a textbook edit war, whether you want to believe it or not. I'm a bit surprised that Looie didn't block you for it given the concerns already raised. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block mainly because no 3RR notice had been given. My notice that started all this came after those edits. If there was an earlier notice, I didn't see it. Looie496 (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You people don't stop, do you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINK

Please read WP:DEADLINK. There is nothing "reaching" about following that policy.

By the way, I don't actually have an opinion on the content dispute going on, I haven't read enough about it to have formed one, I certainly see a potential POV argument with that section. But deleting deadlinks because they are dead is quite clearly in opposition to the policy:

Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line.

Please revert. (Struck this as it's already been done by another editor, it appears.) --j⚛e decker 22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe, it suffered from various Wiki policy violations as well, hence the "reaching". If it is still there, then if and when I get a chance, I will work with the community to get it removed based on those various Wiki policy violations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the link is no longer in the article. So I need take no further action. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cheers! --j⚛e decker 02:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I see there's a Talk page subsection on it. You'll notice I asked Will Beback a number of relevant questions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, gotta run to dinner but I'll take a look when I return. Thanks! --j⚛e decker 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for both Phyllis Schafly edits

Both were improvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 17:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So many times you make normal edits like I just did and someone with an agenda assumes you were opposing their agenda. My talk page gets filled with such people, some of whom attempt to use procedural means to stop me from editing in a way they apparently dislike. What a refreshing relief when someone sees your edits as improving Misplaced Pages instead of opposing their agenda. So thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ex-gay and Donnie Davies

Hi! I think I have solved your (cn) tag problem on the Ex-gay article, thus I have removed the tag, and the Donnie Davies entry. Apparently, Donnie Davies is not a person (see link, and related articles that can be found via Google if you need to confirm). So... if I am correctly understanding that section to be intended for real people, I think that solves that problem - and if not (and fictitious ones should be included to), feel free to revert me. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. I thought it was a joke as well. But in an abundance of caution just in case someone had a Wikiworthy reason to keep the joke and knowing people can get touchy on that page, I added the cn template instead of just removing it in the first place. Thanks. Good call. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

COI

As an individual who makes a substantial amount of their living professionally criticizing the ALA, you are advised to read and follow WP:COI. Continuing to edit articles about the ALA, or closely related to the ALA is problematic, and needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My actions have been fully complaint with WP:COI. Please, join the line of people using procedural means to stop me from editing. Like them, you will fail precisely because I follow the rules.

And before making accusations, consider WP:AGF.

It wouldn't hurt to be truthful either. I do not "make a substantial amount of living professionally criticizing the ALA". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You alleged, then, that you are not paid to criticize the ALA and various libraries for not following a filtering regimin? Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite is not following WP:AGF. Hipocrite is possibly at the beginning of a pattern of harassment and intimidation relating to WP:STALK. Please, Hipocrite, reconsider before continuing down this path. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Hipocrite is possibly at the beginning of a pattern of harassment and intimidation" - perhaps you could WP:AGF as well.... Westbender (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have. His actions kept compounding. You, for instance. What compelled you to come here just to leave a statement about me instead of about building Wiki pages? Really, what possesses you to feel the need, almost a week later, to add such a comment? My advice to you is, don't answer the question, or say something polite. If a comment is not directed toward building a Wiki page, consider not making it. Did I go to your page and say things I don't like about you? No. Instead I made a nice comment on your Talk page. See the difference? I know you are newish here and you'll calm down soon. This message is an attempt to hasten the process for the benefit of all. I'll bet you are thinking this comment is directed at you and not a Wiki page. Correct, but the point is to help you to mature on Misplaced Pages and encourage you to contribute in a positive way. Please consider what I have said as if a loving family member gave you friendly advice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"If a comment is not directed toward building a Wiki page, consider not making it." Consider your own advice (and try to be brief). Westbender (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I predicted above you would come back with such a comment. Does this get tiring for you? Don't answer. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I just learned of this issue. A quick scan of recent newspaper clippings confirms that you are an activist concerning certain issues. Misplaced Pages is not a soapox, nor is it a battlefield. Despite your promise to avoid editing articles where you have a conflict, unless no one responds to talk page requests, you seem to have dominated the relevant articles. I request that you follow WP:COI closely and not make further direct edits to topics about which you have been a public activist.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, I have in the past and will remain having great respect for you. On this one you are not fully correct, however. I have and will continue to follow the COI rules assiduously--see my User page for my COI notice, for example. COI does not require me to do nothing while someone promotes his own soapbox on a page. COI also does not require me not to get involved.

Let's look at the three examples you provided.

1. Banned Books Week. That page is much improved with my input. But let's set that aside for now since it has recent activity, so let's look at the other pages in which I have significant impact.
2. Content-control software. That page is greatly improved thanks to me. The changes were made with consensus of the community. I just saw the problem and brought it up to the community. The problem was that it used to called censorware. That is a very loaded name, and intentionally so. It is, essentially, POV. So I raised that with the community and together we decided content-control software was encyclopedic whereas censorware was not. Censorware still remains prominent on the page, but it is not the name of the page now. That was thanks to me. What was my COI, that Misplaced Pages has rules to follow and I acted within those rules to affect positive change? I am happy I did and so is the Misplaced Pages community.
3. American Library Association. That page is vastly improved thanks to me. First off, it was the first major page on which I was involved and my sense of Misplaced Pages rules was not as well developed. So I can admit now that I was not aware of the COI rule in the first place. I eventually changed my name to SafeLibraries.org so as to be very clear who I was and someone complained about that, so I'm LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Point is, forgive me for being a newbie and not behaving perfectly--we all go through a learning process. That said, my input was invaluable. That page was a near perfect copy of the the ALA's own web site at that time. Essentially, the ALA was using Misplaced Pages as its soapbox. I came along and as a result the page is now encyclopedic instead of being an ALA echo. The page stays in its current form that I helped bring about precisely because the Misplaced Pages community knows the page is now far superior to what it was when the ALA used it as its mirror. I am happy I contributed to that page and I would do it again, only with more experience now.
4. Banned Books Week. Yes, let's discuss that again. BBW is another page that ALA was using to promote ALA's soapbox. I came along and others joined in and the page is now much improved. I am aware of COI and I am and will continue to comply.

You have ordered me "not make further direct edits to topics about which you have been a public activist." COI rules are not so bright edged. I will continue to make edits as I see fit and in accordance with Misplaced Pages rules.

I have person after person using procedural means after procedural means to get me to stop editing. I edit on pages that are both on the left and on the right of the political perspective. Yet only my edits that are perceived to be on the right are challenged not with talk on the talk pages but with procedural means to stop me from editing or with demands like that I should "not make further direct edits to topics about which you have been a public activist."

Will, I'm telling you I have been through this plenty of times and each time (past my newbie stages) I have come out on top and I may continue to edit as I had been editing. So I will continue to edit on the BBW page as I see fit and in compliance with Wiki rules. I strongly encourage you to engage me on the Talk page and bypass the procedural means to stop my edits. You have enough experience to know it's a waste of time for all if you don't have a solid case. Since I follow COI rules, you don't have a solid case.

And if people are newbies using the BBW page to promote their soapbox and I revert, say, longstanding text that offends the personal sensibilities of someone, that is not editing as a result of COI. That's just common sense editing any Misplaced Pages editor would do anyway. My COI may cause me to put the page on my watchlist, but after that I may follow Wiki rules just like anyone else.

If I added my own articles on BBW to the main page, or added those articles like Thomas Sowell's one calling BBW "National Hogwash Week" that I thought people should see, that would present a COI problem. Other things would too. But I'm not doing those or those other things.

That said, thanks for writing here, I really do respect you, and I look forward to working with you and others on a variety of pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you assure me that not a single edit you've made to those articles has promoted your activist POV?   Will Beback  talk  07:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it true that you have a financial interest in "censorware", or other library-related issues? I saw that assertion somewhere, excuse me if it's incorrect, but it is relevant.   Will Beback  talk  09:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, you appear to be reverting the edit of someone you describe as an involved party: "rv - interested editor Danbackhaus needs to discuss this in talk and not edit war". You started a thread at Talk:West Bend, Wisconsin#Danbackhaus COI. I get the feeling that you consider that to be a problem. This is looking increasingly like a battleground for off-wiki disputes.   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct that you believe adequate COI disclosure in this matter does not include your RL name, blog, published remarks, etc?   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to get a sense of persecution here. Will Beback, you have 10 times as many edits as me and you are a sysop. Yet you are making statements like, "Is it true that you have a financial interest in 'censorware', or other library-related issues? I saw that assertion somewhere...." Hearsay, no? And you have outed me on 2 pages in violation of Wiki rules. I am beginning to feel WP:HOUNDed. Another example would be to complain that I am "actively engaged in editing Misplaced Pages articles in his area of activism," then to provide an example where I have not edited in two years. I have followed WP:COI rules and feel you are violating WP:AGF, among other things. I am beginning to lose respect for you and I am wondering how someone with your behaviour can be a sysop. I raise evidence of COI compliance above and you totally ignore that and continue rolling right on with your persecution.

I further feel you are colluding with others to persecute me, one of whom is someone known to me to be defamatory to me and one other outside of Misplaced Pages in multiple and nefarious ways affecting our families and our good names, and over the course of years. It appears that he has obtained an unwitting ally in his efforts. You were concerned that "his is looking increasingly like a battleground for off-wiki disputes." Well your actions tell me you have four square joined someone in his battleground for off-wiki disputes, and that person may be acting illegally in his off-wiki battle. Will Beback, do not become his ally.

I will respectfully ask you now to withdraw your questions and curtail your persecution, at least that's how it's starting to feel to me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you stop editing those article, in compliance with WP:COI, I'll drop the matter. I am not "colluding" with anyone, and haven't contacted anyone about this, on- or off-Wiki. However if there aren't satisfactory answers to my questions I will look further into this, starting with a review your edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you have added links to your website.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2618497/posts?page=30#30
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2618472/posts?page=32#32
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2618522/posts?page=8#8

Please read WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET. You've violated both.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, that link you claim I added to my site was merely a change from a site that went dead, 404, and I happen to have an archived version. And that would be 1 edit in the over 9,000 I have made. My suspicion of your WP:HOUNDing of me is beginning to gel. Back off if you don't want attention turned to your actions here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You say "claim" - are you disputing that you added a link to your personal website? Since you have not responded that you will comply with WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX, I am going to be reviewing your edits further. I see that there has already been one user RFC regarding the same behavior. I also see other editors making similar complaints. Unless you're willing to commit to changing your behavior there may need to be another RFC. If you want to investigate my actions in this regard you are, of course, welcome to do that. But it gives the appearance that you are attacking me instead of addressing the issue.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, there is no issue. You are persecuting me. You have just admitted so.

Be that as it may, you'll find my edits are all Wiki-compliant or otherwise honestly made. I'll continue to edit as I have been, and your persecution of me will not stop me one iota. And that 404 link that I used my own site as a backup version for, excuse me for having a backup version of something that went 404.

By the way, I do not believe your claim that you are persecuting me independently at all. Information you used to persecute me could have only come from someone else. That someone else is known to me to be spreading misinformation external to Misplaced Pages and getting others to join in his efforts. He is now doing it in Misplaced Pages, and you are his first recruit. I do believe that if you knew the full extent of his actions, you would not assist him further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you to back off and your response is to say, "I am going to be reviewing your edits further." Others like you have all given up when they see I was (past my newbie stage), am, and will remain Wiki-compliant. Feel free to join the crowd. And for pete's sake, WP:AGF. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

All I have done is come to your talk page and ask you to comply with Misplaced Pages' guidelines and policies. You say that all of your edits are in compliance. I assume that means that you have not used Misplaced Pages to advocate for a cause. Even a brief review seems to belie that assertion. I am not concerned with your first edits, but I assume your "newbie" phase ended a couple of years ago.

Can you share the name of the person you're accusing me of colluding with? What is this special info that only he or she would know?   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"All I have done is come to your talk page and ask you to comply with Misplaced Pages' guidelines and policies." False. You have come here to badger and bully me. You have outed me in violation of policy. You have said you will follow me around to review my edits. You have done more than that. That's a far cry from "ask to comply with Misplaced Pages' guidelines and policies." And I do not need to response to a bully's questions. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You can assume bad faith if you choose. As for outing you, that's absurd. To your credit, you have made no secret of your identity as the person who runs SafeLibraries.org. As the operator of that website and plan2succeed.org you have been an outspoken advocate, and you've been quoted by name in newspapers on many occasions. All of that is fine and you're entitled to say whatever you like on your websites and to reporters. But when you come to Misplaced Pages to advocate for that same cause then there's a problem. You have accused other people of violating WP:SOAPBOX, so I assume you must be familiar with its language. Just in case, I'll repeat it here:

• Therefore, content hosted in Misplaced Pages is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

I have seen edits in which you add negative material about people or causes that you have advocated against in real life, and you've added removed negative material about people or causes that you've advocated for in real life. And that's despite numerous complaints from other editors stretching back years. As for reviewing your edits, I was meaning your past edits. If you make further edits to article related to libraries or content filtering software, despite your admitted COI and advocacy, then that's more direct problem and may require a more direct response. I'll ask you again, as I did at the start of this thread, to please stop editing articles on topics in which you are well-known activist.

Though it's unrelated to the libraries and filtering software issues, your canvassing for support on FreeRepublic is also very troubling. It adds more weight to the view that you are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for advocacy.   Will Beback  talk  08:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my persecutor is back.

"But when you come to Misplaced Pages to advocate for that same cause then there's a problem." I have not come to Misplaced Pages to advocate for a cause. If I did, I could go hog wild like the advocates for, say, Media Matters for America or, say, the American Library Association go hog wild.

Setting all that aside, let me ask you an out of the blue question. You have repeatedly gone out of your way to expose me on page after page. You decry the many articles in which I appear in the media. You call me a "well-known activist". The question is, in your opinion, am I noteworthy enough to have a Misplaced Pages page named after me? If my persecutor writes the page, I wonder what it would look like.

As to FreeRepublic, I made a polite, non-pushy statement, and on one issue, at one slice in time. You wanna find any more such instances? Good luck. You know, I'm not taking the time to track down each of your edits here and external to WP to determine that each one exactly aligns with my personal sense of what's right and wrong, and if not announce it to the world. Is your life so empty that you have chosen to take such action against me? I guess I am noteworthy!

"And that's despite numerous complaints from other editors stretching back years." Oh, Will Beback's edits never receive numerous complaints stretching back over the years.

Then you complain, "I have seen edits in which you add negative material about people or causes...." I'm getting complaints right now for adding a BIAS tag to the Southern Poverty Law Center page. I did it because the page looks like an advertising brochure from the SPLC. There are a number of people there protecting that page from containing anything negative whatsoever, except the fourth to the last sentence of that huge page. However, I have people supporting my view that the page is indeed biased and needs more criticism. Eventually the page will be improved as a direct result of my intervention.

I had the same effect on a number of pages American Library Association members created and maintain to promote ALA interests. Had I not obtained consensus that such pages were non-Wiki compliant, they would to this day most likely be non-Wiki compliant. You see, my COI gives me an interest in certain issues others may not notice. I then work with the community to effect change. Sure, people who protect those pages on behalf of the ALA oppose my edits. That does not make my edits suspect, as you are implying if not openly stating.

For example, someone on the Banned Books Week page keeps promoting a censorship map as the ALA's, citing to an LA Times piece saying so. I have, however, produced legitimate and even compelling evidence that the ALA plagiarized the page given I presented information about the actual creator admitting he is not connected to the ALA, and indeed now he is connected to another organization. Further, I have produced evidence, words of the author himself, that the map is not really well put together. So I have a COI. Am I not supposed to provide the evidence as I have over and over again, obtain consensus, then remove the offending material? You have complained that I remove such material, haven't you?

I will continue to do such things while I remain as compliant as possible with Wiki rules, including WP:COI. Where you see I have not been so complaint, with any rule, assume it is an honest error and ask me to resolve before running off and outing me, etc. On the whole, however, I have made or led significant improvements in a number of pages, including those where I have had a COI, and those changes have remained in place for years without my having to do anything. Since the point of Misplaced Pages is the improvement of Misplaced Pages, I'll keep contributing as I have. Care to drop your persecution of me and instead join me in constructive changes? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fred has significant experience here as has said he does not necessarily view Will Beback's action as hounding. Since I respect Fred, I hereby state Will Beback is not hounding me. That said, Fred also said what matters is how I edit. So, Will, I have dropped my claim of your persecuting me, will you go easier on me now and just respond to individual edits as you see fit? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any comments that indicate you will stop editing topics related to your activism. Therefore, as I said before, I will review your past edits. You appear to have started editing in 2005, and got an account in June 2006. I assume that by 2008 you were no longer a newbie, and so I'll limit my review to edits since then. I will bring my findings to the community to decide what, if anything, should be done.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC

You are a free man and I need not respond to a bully. I tried to resolve this with you, but you just keep charging ahead, as you just did, without hardly ever actually discussing any specific problem on a Talk page anywhere. You are just going to skip Talk and attempt to stop me from editing completely on the topics in which I have been effective in improving Misplaced Pages.

Let me add here a comment I just added on Fred's page in response to your and your friend's effort to BAN, AN, RFC me.

That SPLC matter is old history. I am actively involved on SPLC right now. Go ahead and find one problem with my editing there despite the obvious differences. Further, I edit pages of all political stripes. For example, for the co-author of "The Joy of Gay Sex," I got his photograph approved and posted on his page. You also have to admit that the issue really is that I am not afraid to edit where others are protecting pages. For example, ALA pages have been created and maintained to appear like Misplaced Pages copies of ALA pages. My input has led the effort to turn them into Wikiworthy pages. Is it my fault other people are using Misplaced Pages to promote their interests? Is it my fault the SPLC page now looks like an SPLC pamphlet and I am leading the effort to change that? People there are actually removing the BIAS tag and you're not supposed to, but I put it back up. Is that a problem to anyone here? You guys know exactly what it is like to edit on a page that someone or some group is protecting. That is what I do. Shall I stop? Sometimes people who oppose me realize what I'm doing and change their opinion of me. Like Orpheus. Is he wrong? I have gathered a number of opponents who can't stand that I am able to remove Media Matters for America references wherever they are strewn about by MMfA soapboxers. That's right, soapboxers. Numerous procedural actions were brought against me by numerous people. They all ended up on the losing end of the stick. Misplaced Pages needs more editors like me willing to do the right thing instead of being scared out by bullies protecting a page. Look at my edits and Talk page comments now on the Judith Reisman page. You see any problem there? The number of people who oppose me for purely political reasons it truly outstanding. Shall I be topic banned so that the soapboxers may continue to, for example, keep the SPLC page looking like an SPLC brochure? I led the effort to change the Censorware page to the Content-control Software page. I won a lot of enemies there. But it was the right thing to do and it remains to this day. Misplaced Pages is better. Should I have been topic banned on that one? People were going around and labeling people as homophobic by added the category Homophobia to anyone they opposed for soapbox reasons. Yes, soapbox. The community worked together to stop that soapboxing, and again it stands to this day. Again, I gained a lot of people who did not like me after that. Should I have been topic banned from improving Misplaced Pages in that case? So go ahead and pick and choose a spot or two where I have not been perfect, but who is, and it was probably out of innocence. You wanna topic ban me on all those pages I have improved despite the political headwinds precisely because I have tacked to the Misplaced Pages winds? Misplaced Pages has gotten a bad name for this kind of behavior, but I know it is not Misplaced Pages per se doing it, it is the soapboxers, and the Misplaced Pages rules enable me to steer clear of sanctions every time. I will continue to edit as I have been editing, and if you find any problems, raise them on the Talk page -- don't just seek a topic ban to make your life of protecting pages easier. Look at those people drooling to stop my editing. BAN, AN, RFC. It's really sick that they find my editing so offensive that they need to stop me from editing the pages I edit. Who's really being offensive? They don't even go to the Talk pages to discuss issues. No, skip over that. Go for the throat. It hasn't worked before and it won't work again, thanks to Misplaced Pages rules. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reisman

Hi, I have been attempting to edit a bit for NPOV but it is a mile away from my interest field, I will say, to have a good look through the cites and check that there is decent reporting regarding the content. regards.Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'd rather be doing something else too. Thanks for leaving a note here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what else? Because of the same type of bias that the guy is displaying, media reports are frequently biased. It's like a bias echo chamber. They write biased articles, then they come here and use Misplaced Pages to trumpet them. Clever, really, but unfair and untruthful. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

re: Edit warring at Southern Poverty Law Center

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR does not apply in this case. The BIAS tag says do not remove until the dispute is done. The dispute is proceeding on the Talk page, and quite politely, I may add. To remove the tag knowing it says not to remove it borders on vandalism, though I have not accused anyone of having done such. I'm following WP:AGF. The proper thing to do would be to partake in the Talk page discussion instead of jumping in line on the number of people trying to use procedural means to stop my editing on pages that are being protected for obvious partisan reasons. That SPLC page looks like an SPLC brochure, hence the BIAS tag, and the community is working cooperatively to resolve the issue. Further, the tag gives notice of the issue so others can join in to ensure Wiki policy compliance. I will continue to restore the tag each time a partisan removes it, and 3RR is not valid in such a case. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A 3RR report has been filed here. TFD (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And 3 minutes later, I got blocked with no chance to respond. I have been forced to rewrite my reasoning on the unblock request below. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well look at that. It was 5 minutes after I received notice. 5 whole minutes. Guilty until proven innocent. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Now we see why such actions are brought against me. Because past ones can be used to justify current ones. I'm guilty of the past. See, for example, "Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I blocked simultaneous to Courcelles' action above, after considerable thought, because I think you are all guilty of obnoxious edit warring. However, the user has edit warred a lot before. It now looks like you can talk about it on his talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)"

November 2010

Template:Z10

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

Request reason:

The BIAS tag says not to remove it until the matter is discussed in Talk. Yet people keep removing it. The BIAS tag is not an edit. Rather, it is notice to the community of the existence of a dispute. It is an invitation to the community to join in on the dispute. It is the very nature of Misplaced Pages to create a community and build a page. The removal of the BIAS tag prevents that very purpose. It limits the people who will see and partake in the dispute. On the SPLC page, the tag was properly placed because the page looks like an SPLC brochure. The only criticism that exists is in the 4th to the last sentence of the entire huge page. Without a doubt that indicates the page is biased. I and others have been working cooperatively to address the issues. There are, however, partisans who are there to protect the page from losing its character as an SPLC brochure. One of those people twice removed the BIAS tag. Eventually he stopped after another editor convinced him of the legitimacy of the the need for the BIAS tag. He is also the very person who raised the 3RR issue, and in literally minutes may editing abilities were removed. That is unfair giving his twice removing the tag then being convinced otherwise. Essentially, you could argue I was set up. I could not even respond on the page on which he placed his complaint as a result of this block. For the above reasons, please unblock me forthwith as the block is totally unjustified in this particular case. Note, for the reasons that the BIAS tag is there to invite people to partake in the discussion and since the tag itself says it should not be removed until resolution, I ask others to restore the tag, and I will do it myself if needed. Doing so is righting a wrong, not edit warring. This block for edit warring is misplaced. From the 3RR rule: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Exactly. I added the BIAS tag. And such a tag is not "another editor's work." It's a tag. It's notice to the community. It's Misplaced Pages sanctioned notice to the community. The notice advises people not to remove the notice. The conversation is actively occurring, and, with me blocked, and with no BIAS tag to invite others, the SPLC page will remain an SPLC brochure. Certainly that is not in the interest of Misplaced Pages. Please, reverse this unfairness ASAP. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Tags can only be added with edits; they can only be removed with edits. Therefore, edit warring over tags is still edit warring. Furthermore, adding a {{bias}} tag is altering another editor's work by implicitly stating that it's fundamentally flawed and otherwise not suitable for the reader. --slakr 05:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

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

Request reason:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Decline reason:

I actually read that amazing bunch of wikilawyering twice. If you want to pretend to be a lawyer, then let me say this: jurisprudence shows clearly that removing a tag in good faith is not vandalism in situations like yours - it may in and of itself be disruptive, but will never count as vandalism in relation to 3RR or edit-warring situations. Your block is 110% founded in policy, and additional complaints otherwise will lead to removal of your talkpage access for the duration of your block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

What a friendly note. 110% friendly. Totally grounded in Wiki policy. Thank you.

I will bring this matter up on the 3RR page or with Jimbo Wales himself. This matter is wholly unjustified. 110% unjustified. The text "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" led me to believe the tag must not be removed until the dispute was resolved. Silly me for believing the clear language of the tag.

The 3RR text and WP:VANDTYPES needs to be changed to specify that BIAS tag removal is not vandalism despite the clear language of the template as it appears when placed on a page, or the BIAS template needs to be changed to remove the text "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" or to change it to "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved, but its removal will not be considered vandalism". Or 3RR application could be changed so that when someone appears to have acted in the best interests of Misplaced Pages or reasonably thinks he has, some leeway is given, like merely a warning instead of a block. On the other hand, that might be "wikilawyering", so maybe I should just shut up and let other people believe "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" actually means what it says.

Misplaced Pages rules almost always result in a just decision. Not this time, or at least not when enough people oppose someone who sees the Southern Poverty Law Center page as the SPLC advertising brochure that it is and think it's fine that one of the page's protectors can stop someone like me positively engaged on the Talk page in discussing the meat of the BIAS tag concern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Many Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, essays, and instructions make requests of editors. "Please use an edit summary". "Please sign your talk posts". Failure to follow those requests is not vandalism. There's no policy that says a {Bias} tag must be left on an article until there's unanimous agreement to remove it. (Though that's a good goal.) And there's certainly no exemption from 3RR for edit warring over tags.

More worrisome is your failure to listen to input. You were told that you were wrong about the revert issue, but you went ahead anyway. Since then several admins have explained to you that you are interpreting the rules incorrectly, yet you continue to insist that you are right. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption. Do you still insist you are correct? Will you continue to revert the {Bias} tag when your block expires?   Will Beback  talk 

Also, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, it's not therapy, and it's not a justice system. It's an encyclopedia project. The rules and procedures it has are just whatever's necessary to help get the job done. They aren't an end in themselves. A core policy is "ignore all rules that get in the way of accomplishing the goal". That said, this block seems to be in full compliance with all of Misplaced Pages's policies and principles.   Will Beback  talk  13:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a fundamental injustice in this particular instance. I am considering taking this matter to Jimbo Wales. My 3RR block was basically for believing the words in the BIAS tag that say the tag should stay up until the dispute is resolved and for believing that tag removal in such an instance was vandalism, which WP:VANDTYPES says it is, or so I believe. I promise you those two things backed me up in restoring the BIAS tag, or so I understandably and innocently thought. I will be proposing changes as a result of this debacle, as I described above. That way the next guy doesn't innocently fall into the same trap. Once that happens, it will be clear what are the rules, and I will act accordingly. I am hoping the decision will be BIAS tag removal will be vandalism in the circumstance where active Talk is occurring about the issues presented, as it was in the SPLC case. Until then, I won't be restoring that tag in violation of 3RR anymore as it is currently applied in this case, despite the language right in the tag and in VANDTYPES. I think WP:AGF has been totally lacking in this case. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than continually arguing, and threatening to run to mommy, perhaps just use your block as an opportunity to take a break and calm down, and return to the project with constructive energy. Westbender (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I just ended my previous comment with, "I think WP:AGF has been totally lacking in this case." Thank you, Westbender, for illustrating the point yet again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "continually arguing" is really funny. I was warned of the block then blocked 5 minutes later. I got 5 minutes to respond and I was unable to do so. Guilty until proven innocent in 5 minutes, which is impossible. I mean I had written a response and when I went to post it I was already blocked and my response was never considered. So I got no argument. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WHere did I not assume good faith? I'm offering advice, that I suggest you take. Westbender (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"ontinually arguing"? "hreatening to run to mommy"? That's advice? That's good faith? You have a pattern of continually harassing me, as you have just done. Have you had enough fun yet? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)