Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 27 November 2010 (Signing comment by Westbender - "→Andrew Breitbart: new section"). 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. ~~~~

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)

No, that was descriptive. The advice was to go take a break and come back refreshed. Westbender (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Running to mommy" is not "descriptive". Your word games never end. That said, the "break" is oddly welcome. I see you are enjoying it as well by removing certain encyclopedic content from the Banned Books Week page. You left in that the ALA has been criticized, but you removed what is was criticized for. Well, I suppose it's better than the SPLC page which has essentially no acknowledgment of criticism whatsoever. It will, eventually. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The community can judge my edits. Westbender (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me help them. I just looked at your edit history, Westbender. Right from the very first edit ever of your total of 19 edits, you have been preoccupied with reverting me or editing otherwise related to me, except for 2 unrelated edits. Should I feel honored? There are not enough edits to even begin to consider if WP:HOUNDing is involved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF, and enjoy your block. Westbender (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I did, but given your continuing words games and edit history, it seems I and only I am the target of your edits here at WP. At some point it becomes apparent good faith is lacking. I am not saying I have yet reached that a conclusion on the issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There, I just edited idiot anal retentive jackass. Happy now? Westbender (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I was heavily considering to step in and undo my block, but your inability to admit fault is stopping me. If you can admit, as you've been told numerous times, that you should not have revert warred over the template (as policy does not support it), and that you will not continue to revert war to get your version, I will unblock you. In fact, if you'd taken into account WP:GAB as advised, you'd probably already be unblocked. But I'm not holding my breath. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Listen, I know this is not what you want, but you were honest, and I'll be honest too (as I have been). Honestly, I thought the policy viewed the BIAS tag removals as vandalism. I thought that because of WP:VANDTYPES and because of the text of the tag itself warning people not to remove the tag. With that in mind, I kept reverting the vandalism and stating I would continue to revert the vandalism. As it turns out, the community has informed me I was mistaken. I get that. But I also see this as a huge, major hole into which anyone can fall, totally innocently, like I did. So, since I really am contributing to Misplaced Pages and seek its improvement, and since I see a major flaw in this narrow instance that allows someone to believe VANDTYPES and to believe the words in the tag warning people not to remove it, I will bring this matter up for discussion on the Talk pages of the 3RR rule and the BIAS tag template. I think a few minor tweaks would have prevented this whole thing. I know no one wants to hear me say I am faultless, but isn't there anyone out there who can stand back for a moment and see the pitfall into which I fell, decide some tweaks would prevent such incidents in the future, then not hold me guilty of incomplete or inaccurate policy guidance that apparently does not align with community views on the matter? I followed Wiki policy to the best of my ability, even the literal wording of VANDTYPES and the BIAS tag. I hereby admit I am guilty of not understanding the policy is really what's in the community's mind, not what's written in black and white. But my sense of justice says changes should be made to prevent this from happening to the next victim.

Now, given that, if you wish to continue blocking me, well, what can I say. If I were in your shoes, I would remove the block immediately then participate in the discussion I will be raising on the 3RR and BIAS tag Talk pages, or raise it myself, or guide me in how best to raise it. A simple tweak is likely all that's needed. Perhaps people will even decide removing the BIAS tag is vandalism, like it appears to be in writing but not in practice--that would be the ideal end point in my opinion. For once, someone please do what's right, not what's popular. Please unblock me.

Whatever you decide, I will not further restore BIAS tags more than twice unless and until the policy or policies have been clarified, if ever. I now understand the community finds that to be edit warring despite the language of VANDTYPES and the BIAS tag itself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

LAEC was warned that he was on the verge of violating 3RR, but proceeded to do so. He did not fall into that hole, he jumped in. The suggestion that he will continue to edit war, "I will not further restore BIAS tags more than twice", is an indication that he does not get the issue here at all. The last time he was blocked for 3RR, for the same article, he asked to be unblocked so he could discuss the issue, and that was granted. I suggest that this time he wait until the block expires before pursuing changes to the rules under which he was blocked.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was warned, by people like you who were already seeking other means to stop me from editing, and who made excuses like that the BIAS tag is not really seen by anyone so it is not needed. You yourself, for example, despite your being s sysop, outed me on two pages in an effort to intimidate me. And here you are again ensuring the guy you outed, the guy you ordered to stop editing for COI reasons, the guy you helped stopped editing for 3RR reasons, remains blocked to further your agenda to cast me now and in the future as a bad person. You have unclean hands, Will Beback. But, thank you for illustrating the whirlwind of people like you and Westbender who will bend over backwards to assail me and who initiate these procedural actions to stop me from editing. Simply put, you can't or won't reason on the Talk pages, so you find procedural means to stop me. That's your problem. not mine. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So, instead of following the advise of people supposedly trying to get you blocked, which would have prevented you from being blocked, you decided you knew better and so you were blocked anyway. You can blame others, but it wasn't anyone else's fault. And no one was outed. You freely post links all over Misplaced Pages to your websites, which contain you name and address, and you've even added quotations from yourself to Misplaced Pages articles.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't stop, do you. Apparently, my response to Magog the Ogre was so effective that you felt the need to continue to come back here again and again to further mislead people.

You know the guy who started this 3RR action against me that resulted in a block 5 minutes later? TFD? Magog the Ogre told him, "There is no reason you should have been removing a tag placed on the article in good faith. Edit warring to do so is even worse. If you can't see the problem with that, then the problem is with you. There is plenty of agreement in the discussion over this that you were wrong to edit war over this." I'll bet that really bothers you, You even responded, "I agree with Magog the Ogre that there should not be a repeat of that."

But your attention is turned again and again to me, and not TFD. TFD, the guy who said, "The POV tag does not in fact attract people to the discussion because it is only seen by people reading the article." Wrong--why have the tag in the first place if it does not do that. TFD, the guy you assisted in this block of me: "It was not my intent to support the edit war over the tag." So, having done all this damage, having outed me twice, you continue to come back here and further spread your one-sided misinformation. People won't be buying it much longer. As to adding links, yes, a few, long ago, and I have thanked you for finding and removing them. Your half-stories never stop. I really don't know what bee got in your bonnet that you repeatedly come after me as you do.

"And no one was outed." Will, I was outed. Twice. By you. You even reverted yourself and properly hid the edits, though history comments revealed you might restore your outings. Fred Bauder got involved. You are flat out lying. You are a disgrace. Your sysop rights should be reviewed due to your actions and your admissions against your own interests. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote Westbender above, please "use your block as an opportunity to take a break and calm down". You can make your points without attacking your fellow editors. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy is outright lying, and he's an experienced editor and sysop who should not be outing me then lying that he didn't. This is my Talk page and I'm allowed to respond to him without it being considered a battleground. I'm not seeking him out and falsely smearing him like he is doing and has been doing here and on other pages for many days now. Even you have corrected him when you pointed out that, contrary to what he said, "I looked at LAEC's edits to Jay-Z, a non-political, non-censorship topic, over the last year. They appear to be constructive. I saw one post on the talk page over the same period. It seemed reasonable as well. To the extent that one can generalize by looking at one article, I would judge that LAEC can edit constructively on non-political, non-censorship topics." So thanks. I can. At the same time, I respond when falsely accused. Do not confuse that with battleground. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at Walter Siegmund's contribs. He is one of the people seeking to ban me: "I think a topic ban is overdue." Mind you, I never recall this guy ever once getting on a Talk page and discussing the issues with me. The guys going for the topic ban are just seeking a means to prevent my edits in the first place, likely because I have been effective on other pages in obtaining consensus for applying Misplaced Pages policy. If that happened on the SPLC page, for example, it would no longer look like an advertising brochure. So it is no surprise he has come here to support the others seeking to ban me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no rule that people need to engage with editors before engaging in a discussion about their behavior. And this line "The guys going for the topic ban are just seeking a means to prevent my edits in the first place, likely because I have been effective on other pages in obtaining consensus for applying Misplaced Pages policy." reveals some paranoia, let alone bad faith. Westbender (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment about bad faith from the guy who said, above, "There, I just edited idiot anal retentive jackass. Happy now? Westbender (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From WP:OUTING:

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. (emphasis mine)

You've posted links to your personal information. Your website clearly says who runs it. That's not being outed. If you would like to protect your personal information, remove all links to the websites you run, otherwise anyone can easily discover your real identity. AniMate 05:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not posted links to that information. No page I link from Misplaced Pages has my name or address. Yes, if you search around on sub pages you will find it, but there are no direct links to that information. I do not link to my name and address. I do not want my name and address on Misplaced Pages. It is an outing. Besides, his reacting to the outing was to delete and hide the edits. So even he knew it was an outing. That said, thank you for participating here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unless unintentional and non-malicious ..., attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." I am not requesting an immediate block on Will Beback under this rule. I avoid using procedural means to stop others from editing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't malicious, since it's reasonable to assume you weren't trying to keep your identity secret. All it takes is one click on your website and it's right there. Perhaps if you want this information to remain private you should remove the links to your website or update your website to remove your personal info. I get that you don't want it posted here, and that's why I think Will removed his posts. However, you make it so unbelievably easy to find your personal info, I would have assumed you didn't care about that being posted on Wiki, since anyone who is editing with you could look. You posted the links so people would open them, right? You can't complain too loudly when people post things you have made easily available. For the record, could you give us a list of what we can and cannot post from your website? Perhaps you could leave a note there saying "X is not to be posted on Misplaced Pages, but Y can be." AniMate 05:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, AniMate, I see and appreciate your point. Setting that aside and having nothing to do with you, it is unfair to apply a double standard to me. Why are we here? I am being blocked for not strictly adhering to Wiki policy when I restored BIAS tags removals despite the tags text and despite VANDTYPES. It seems strict policy adherence applies to me and common sense does not. Then, when I go to exercise Wiki policy to protect my privacy after Will Beback outs me, suddenly a double standard applies. Now, common sense applies and strict adherence is not demanded.

AniMate is right, common sense should apply instead of strict adherence. However, if common sense applied instead of strict adherence to policy, I would not be blocked at this moment. There's the double standard.

However, I do view what Will Beback did as malicious, especially in light of the surrounding circumstances that continue to this very moment as he is collecting diffs and seeking other fora to ban me. Also, I have been outed repeatedly before, but by newbies, so I did not view it as anything other than newbie exuberance. Will Beback is not a newbie. He is a sysop. He should or could have seen I was protecting my identity on Misplaced Pages. As it turns out, 2 people from West Bend, WI, outed me--not Westbender though, who just leaves uncivil comments during my block. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote a few days ago on this page, you appear to be using Misplaced Pages for advocacy and am researching your past edits to see if there is sufficient evidence of it for community action. I just came across this discussion, Talk:Banned_Books_Week#Proposing_RS_for_controversy, and these edits:, based on this source. Rather than trying to keep your identity private, you appear to have been trying to promote yourself and your activism. Since you'd already been editing Misplaced Pages for four years when you did that, I assume you knew what you were doing. The fact that you are attacking everyone who disagrees with you, and assuming bad faith for their actions, shows another disconnect from Misplaced Pages norms.   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, based off the feedback I'm getting form others and from you, I'm going to unblock, so you can participate on the discussion on the talk page. A few things to keep in mind for the future:

• If in doubt, err on the side of caution. If there is any chance you're breaking a rule, don't do whatever it is, get community input first. You can try posting at WP:EAR, WP:AN, or even WT:AN3.
• Take advice from other people, even if it's with a grain of salt. Will Bebeck above is a perfect example; he's an admin who's been here a long time, so he knows what he's doing. To quote the Bible: "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates correction is stupid" Proverbs 12:1 (a good saying regardless of one's faith).

If you have any questions, let me know. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I missed one thing: Will Bebeck is right. Stop edit warring - now and in general - or I'll have to reblock your account. Again, I'm not being very diplomatic about it, but I'd rather be blunt and a dick about it than block you and be polite about it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Finally!! Thank you!! And your history comment about WP:LAME says it all!! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

SPLC-o-pedia

Look at that. We are here because people are ensuring the SPLC page remains like an SPLC brochure. Yet the SPLC itself gets directly added into the Wiki page of yet another organization, just today, just now, in National Organization for Marriage. Lead section, no less, front and center.

No criticism should appear on the SPLC page, but the SPLC itself gets to have its own POV broadcast on the many Wiki pages of all the groups it labels the way it does which is primarly for fundraising purposes. And one more just now got labeled in that fashion.

Does anyone see a fundamental problem with this--no criticism on the SPLC page, but SPLC POV to encourage fundraising gets placed on all Wiki pages of all its targets? Is this SPLC-o-pedia? Think. I'm not opposed to SPLC. It's just that one way or another, Misplaced Pages policy is being flouted by people using a double standard to promote/protect the SPLC. The solution is to allow the SPLC page to contain criticism just like any other page.

Notice the other double standard. Like Westbender left in that a controversy exists on the Banned Books Week page but removed the contents of that controversy, notice in contrast how the National Organization for Marriage now contains both the existence of and the substance of the SPLC's POV claims. That's another double standard.

Are there people out there willing to apply Misplaced Pages rules to do the right thing and apply Misplaced Pages rules consistently to pages being protected by the many promoting the SPLC, and to the SPLC page itself?

Here are more sources for criticism of the SPLC:

• John Egerton, "Shades of Gray: Dispatches From the Modern South," Dec 1991, Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 978-0807117057, page 222
• Steven M. Chermak, "Searching For a Demon: the Media Construction of the Militia Movement," 30 Nov 2002, University Press of New England, ISBN 978-1555535414, page 94
• Gregg Lee Carter, "Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia," 31 Dec 2002, ABC-CLIO Ltd, ISBN 978-1576072684, page 338
• John B. Parrott, "Being Like God: How American Elites Abuse Politics and Power," 28 Aug 2003, University Press of America, ISBN 978-0761826156, page 99

Will someone please add them to the SPLC Talk page? I can't. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And, this just in, the American Family Association has just been festooned with the SPLC propaganda. At this point I think we can start to call it what it apparently is being used as, may we not? You can't really label dozens of organizations as hate groups by adding the SPLC tattoo, can you?

From the AFA page, added by 128.172.134.91 on his second edit ever, who then moved on to festoon Bryan Fischer with the homophobia/SPLC tattoo:

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a watchdog group monitoring neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, announced that it would officially include the AFA on its list of homophobic hate groups, citing remarks made by Bryan Fischer.ref http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda, Intelligence Report, Winter 2010 issue

From the NOM page, added by Exploding Boy:

The Southern Poverty Law Center included NOM on its winter 2010 list of anti-gay groups, a list based on "propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." ref name=SPLC cite web |url= http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners |title= 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda |publisher= http://splcenter.org |accessdate= 2010-11-22 |last= Schlatter |first= Evelyn /ref

Is anybody seeing a pattern here? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Try minimizing your commentary about what else is happening and speculations as to other editors biases. Just wait out your block, and then engage with the community constructively. Also, given your propensity to focus on criticism sections of articles, I'd hope you've read through this essay Misplaced Pages:CRITICISM. Westbender (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC page has a near complete lack of criticism, not criticism that lacks compliance with WP:CRITICISM. However, thanks for providing that link. I'll use it and WP:BRD as I take actions to seek Misplaced Pages compliance in all those articles the SPLC has been added to as a means to label many people and organizations in possible violation of WP:BLP, etc. And I have no "propensity to focus on criticism sections of articles". Rather, I see pages that are written as advertising pamphlets and adding criticism is one way to resolve that. For example, the Judith Krug page was a near word for word copy of the version that appeared on the American Library Association's web site, and she worked at the ALA for 4 decades. Criticism, among other things, is now present and the page is now Wikiworthy. Soon, the SPLC page will become Wikiworthy, as will all those pages where SPLC has been added prominently, like in the lead section, to promote the SPLC's POV that benefits its pecuniary interests. There's no other explanation for the prominence of SPLC quotes as to how evil various groups are, while at the same time the SPLC page itself has almost no criticism at all. I'm not anti-SPLC. What I am is pro Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is improved if, for example, the SPLC page is accurate and not merely an advertising brochure. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You do understand it is the community that decides what is "wikiworthy", right? Not you with some magic, infallible, wand. Westbender (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Westbender, I know you are new here. I promise you, I have worked many times with many different people improving many different pages. Your comment, "Not you with some magic, infallible, wand," is just you again violating WP:CIVIL. Even Will Beback warned you of this when he said on your Talk page, "Comments like this one aren't helpful. Even when an editor is being uncivil that doesn't give everyone else permission to act the same way. See WP:CIVIL." I really fail to see the apparent joy you get out of using your time to come here and harass me, as almost all your edits ever on Misplaced Pages are somehow related to me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Try editing now

Sorry I forgot about your autoblock (as usual). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! It works! Thanks! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias warring

Please don't edit war with the bias template. You'd be more productive if you focused on describing such biases on the talk page rather than getting banned for readding a template. Thanks. Falcon8765 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. So I reverted once on general principles particularly given his history comment, twice on the strength of what you told him, but I won't do it further. And I did add a section to Talk asking people to assist in this area. Again, I won't do it further today. Thanks for commenting here. Let me say I see he has said things on his User Talk page that were intended to prejudice you against me. I am certain you will keep an open mind. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:3RR does not entitle you to up to two reverts, as you seem to imply above. ONly revert when policy and consensus allows, not on "general principles" or "history comment". You're playing with fire. Westbender (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but, as usual, the way you cast what is happening is not the complete truth. I also referred above to "the strength of what told him." Here is what Falcon8765 told BalancedAndFair: "Regardless, insulting other editors is not acceptable, despite whatever actions they may have taken. Please don't do it again and discuss whatever issue you have civilly. The template itself doesn't need consensus to be included as long as the person who added it starts a discussion, it's used to invite editors to join such discussion, see {{NPOV}}. Thank you." Westbender, please stop spinning everything I say. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bryan Fischer. 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. Westbender (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Westbender, you consistently make uncivil comments about or to me, and nearly 100% of all your Misplaced Pages edits are devoted to me or to reverting my edits. Now, you may be engaging in template abuse, whatever that is, but I have heard people speak of it.

I have not been edit warring on that page. I reverted an edit that restored an incorrect reference and removed a citation tag. I also reverted an edit that removed a BIAS tag.

Although the tag was removed in a disruptive fashion for the second time, I did not revert further. At this point, the BIAS tag is gone. I will not restore it. I have merely continued on in Talk discussing the page, just as Falcon8765 recommended.

No edit warring is taking place, not even close. Prove it otherwise. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stay on topic; my edit history is irrelevant to the fact that you reverted multiple times, thus, edit warring. Perhaps you should go find some other article -- outside your off-wiki domain of interest -- to improve. Perhaps there's something here you can do, without causing controversy. Westbender (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I said, "No edit warring is taking place, not even close. Prove it otherwise." Your response is that I "reverted multiple times, thus, edit warring." Please provide the diffs proving edit warring on Bryan Fischer. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You have reverted at least five times since 23:02 UTC last night. Given your block log, it's probably lucky for you that I've decided to protect the page instead. And yes, it wasn't just you that was edit-warring - it takes two. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim here is that I am edit warring on Bryan Fischer, hence the title of this subsection named "Bryan Fischer". Black Kite, you are known to me to be an experienced editor. In your opinion, do you see me edit warring on Bryan Fischer? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Given your block log, it's probably lucky for you that I've decided to protect the page instead." Now I understand why people make false claims about edit warring, like this current Bryan Fischer one. If enough smoke piles up, eventually some may see fire.

To think that I was so close to being blocked again, by you this time, just for making normal edits on the Bryan Fischer page, simply because a newbie who dedicates almost 100% of his edits to denigrating me or reverting my work comes here and makes a false claim of edit warring which is simply not true even in the slightest. That is truly outstanding that that is the hair line trigger it takes for people to block others. Just make a false allegation, then let others view all the false allegations as a whole and block the guy again.

Show me the diffs where I edit warred on Bryan Fischer. If there are none, then this matter is void ab initio. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You were edit warring with me , which was an extension of the edit warring you were doing here: , . You moved the edit war to a different page, and now you're taunting someone to call you on it. Done.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go update the SPLC page. Seems the Family Research Institute has been deemed a hate group. About darn time. Have a great Thanksgiving! --BalancedAndFair (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For the Bryan Fischer page, you produced two edits. One reverted your revision that removed a citation tag and moved a ref from the correct sentence to the wrong sentence. The other reverted your removal of the BIAS tag. When you removed it a second time, I did not revert again, nor will I. Neither of those edits is edit warring. Thank you for proving that this Bryan Fischer subsection is void ab initio as no edit warring occurred on Bryan Fischer.

And stop outing me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As to your first paragraph: Wrong! As to your second: the "stop outing me" charge didn't work when you were using it against Will Beback, and it's not working now. Stop using Misplaced Pages to push advocacy for your off-Wiki censorship hobbies. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. 3RR is a fairly bright line, and if you make more than 3 reverts - of anything - on the same article in 24h then technically you should really be blocked. On Bryan Fischer, your multiple edits (UTC) at 23 November 23:02-23:07 were removing content added previously, you then readded the BIAS tag at 23:51 (another revert) and then two standard reverts at 24 November 17:03 & 17:55. Now that's anything between four and seven reverts depending on how you count it, but regardless it's contrary to WP:EW/WP:3RR. Not only that, but your 17:03 edit summary was "rv v" when it clearly wasn't vandalism. Still, this is all moot now because the page is protected, so can we please work out if Fischer is notable or not on the talkpage? Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked BalancedAndFair indefinitely for coming here with the sole intent of harassing you. That said, stop edit warring, now, and pay attention to the warnings. I'm going to unlock the article - I highly suggest that if you reinstate the the bias tag, and another editor removes it, that you let it be. In fact, I highly suggest you abide by WP:1RR per day because I will be watching you. Please use the talk page for disputes; do not simply revert other editors. Please do not take this as harassment from me: if you can abide by community norms, you will have my utmost support. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

FINALLY! THANK YOU! What a huge weight off my shoulders! I have BalancedAndFair, Westbender, and Will Beback after my every move, the first two with the nastiest of behavior, I have Will Beback and BalancedAndFair talking together about gathering diffs to start an ANI and ban me, and never once does anybody help me in the slightest, until you. Fred Bauder helped me with Will Beback's outing of me. BalancedAndFair outed me, I informed OTRS, but that was yesterday and I know of no response yet. So, once again, THANK YOU so much! I'll follow your suggestions about 1RR, etc.

I think the problem is a group of editors assume everything I do is a problem because they assume I have an agenda in mind instead of Wiki rules. When someone who does not know I'm supposed to be bad comes along, then there's no problem. For example, last night someone added the SPLC's anti-gay claim to the lead paragraph of some page, I reverted that for POV. That edit of mine is the very type that has been drawing instant attention to me by BalancedAndFair, Westbender, etc. That guy who first added it immediately added it back in. Ckatz reverted it again, thus removing it, then remarking on the Talk page that that other editor violated BRD. EXACTLY! I really feel this is the reason why the likes of BalancedAndFair, Westbender, and Will Beback spread as much misinformation about me as possible (like I'm being accused of calling people demons!!) so that they can prejudice editors against me, instead of doing the right thing, like Ckatz and Fred Bauder did, and like you have just done.

Please, keep an eye on me. I encourage that 100%. You may be Magog the Ogre, but I view you as Magog the Angel. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - and actually I suggest you pay attention to Will. He's been around a long time and he doesn't come to Misplaced Pages with an ax to grind (at least that I know of). Even without reviewing his comments to you, I imagine it is entirely possible and even if your best interests for you to heed them - again, even if he isn't on your "side." Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. And I'll bet with one less person harassing me, it'll be easier for me to edit without wild accusations being made about me that draws the attention of others, including Will. I have always respected Will. About 2 weeks back he changed like overnight and adapted the Westbender/BalancedAndFair way of viewing my edits. Maybe BalancedAndFair being indef blocked will help resolve that issue. Then there's another issue with Will. After going through that recent WP:LAME incident, I brought my concerns to the likely fora for discussion. Will Beback showed up to poison the well so, e.g., the first response to me was "I don't think this has been a problem for anyone but you. Calling other editors 'CABALDEMONS' is a personal attack - please assume good faith." I don't know why anyone would be interested in discussing the substantive issues after that. Since Will was a participant in that recent 3RR incident and even outed me, we already know how he feels, so his giving the tipoff to everyone else who might respond that my concern is really nothing is another problem I am sensing with Will. And Will being as respected as he is makes his statements like that have even more effect. Indeed, no one else has responded. There's no discussion. I really do not appreciate Will's doing that, and I do not think it benefits Misplaced Pages to cut off debate. He's not on anyone's side if he's cutting off debate and prejudicing people against others. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

you sure like to bloviate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.166.43 (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Hi. I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Heck I even followed BRD and encouraged a newbie to do so and he responded by attacking me. So, on the talk page I even said, "I'll be practicing 1RR for a while so I won't revert it myself". I couldn't be more careful. Would you please explain what was the transgression this time? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And let me ask you this. Assuming I get the usual stream of people only making ad hominem comments about me, am I allowed to just remove them off my talk page instead of responding? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

On another page an editor said to me she was really pleased to work so well with other editors. Actaully, it was the Bryan Fischer page. She said, "Incidentally, I'd like to congratulate all the participants in this talk page for its welcome absence of trollery. We don't all agree all the time, but we can disagree in a constructive way. (Sanity rather than fear is being retained)." Really, I'm confused as to this latest block. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove anything you'd like from your talk page, save unblock requests during your block. I recommend you don't remove any constructive comments, as it's seen as a type of disruption. Also, to address the issue: you did not follow BRD. You reverted twice. Given that this is your third edit war since I unblocked you on your own recognizance, and I specifically gave a warning regarding more than 1RR, I've had to block your account. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand. I specifically reverted a guy once. When he restored it, I simply asked him to consider BRD, and after he attacked me, I went to the Talk page and asked the community to look at it, specifically saying I could not revert further due to 1RR. There was another guy with a different edit though similar, and I only reverted him once as well. I simply do not see what you are saying. Sorry, I suppose I must be really think. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

1 2. Cmon bro, you're trying to tell me you didn't know you'd reverted twice? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

One reverted was this: The Family Research Council is classified a hate group for its broad opposition and denigration of LGBT people.

The second reverted was this: /ref The Southern Poverty Law Center has also designated the Family Research Council a hate group. ref name="SPLC-18-List" cite news|last=Waddington|first=Lynda|title=Groups that Helped Oust Iowa Judges Earn 'Hate Group' Designation; SPLC Adds American Family Association, Family Research Council to List|url=http://iowaindependent.com/47947/groups-that-helped-oust-iowa-judges-earn-hate-group-designation%7Caccessdate=25 November 2010|newspaper=Iowa Independent|date=23 November 2010 /ref ref name="WaPo hate" cite news|last=Thompson|first=Krissah|title='Hate group' designation angers same-sex marriage opponents|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112405573.html%7Caccessdate=25 November 2010|newspaper=Washington Post|date=24 November 2010 /ref

They are totally different edits made by different people.

Further, I did not revert further after the other guy failed to practice BRD.

Are you telling me that's a violation? If it is, can you not see I had awareness of 1RR and attempted to follow it? If there was a problem, why did you not just give me a hint. Now you have given people more ammunition to continue to harass me. I really do not appreciate this in the slightest. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy who wrote that nasty comment above already laughed at me for being blocked again. Is this really necessary? Does it look like I'm going wild? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I reread 1RR. I made a mistake and assumed edit warring meant warring with a single person. Now I see "An editor must not perform more than reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." So now I see it pertains to the page, not just to people. I'm guilty. I apologize. I understand now. I will not violate 1RR further. Will you please unblock me? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will consider it. The problem is your editing behavior overall lends to edit warring before discussing, and I see that as a problem. Give me a bit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My behaviour is fine with other editors who behave, mainly polite and/or experienced editors. Look at the Talk on Bryan Fischer, for example. Someone even praised how great it was that we were all getting along so well. Then TFD showed up, made ad hominem comments about me, ignored the work we did as a community, and he's the guy who kept removing the BIAS tag that I reverted before I knew what would happen. I am telling you ther are quite a number of people like TFD who harass me on a regular basis and make false claims about me that causes other to doubt me, like you. Please, go look at the Bryan Fischer Talk. See that it's like a mini microcosm of what I face simply because I make edits that people think are political on pages they are protecting. Look at what TFD said. Was that right? Look at what Tom Northshoreman said about me. How about the botton of SPLC talk -- see Dave Dial and Blaxthos? Do you think I have a fair chance as all with people like that protecting pages? How about this. People bring actions against me but I don't do it back. Do you suggest I start doing that? Balxthos called me a vandal for adding a BIAS tag that people are discussing and the article is improving. Should I do anything about that? Should I start fighting back instead of letting these people tag team me? Please, guide me. It is totally silly how these people gang up on me, complain about me, and suddenly I'm the bad guy. It's not that way with decent editors though. Ask Black Kite. Heck even ask Limulus who was originally really annoying with me. Ask the other editors on Bryan Fischer or on just about any other page where I am not drawing personal attacks. TFD, Dave Dial, Blaxthos, Westbender, Tom Northshoreman, these are people who go on the attack instantly and work together to stop me from editing. It's really quite frustrating. I saw you warned TFD, but that was it. He really suffered no consequences for his behaviour that been gone on for what, years? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright I've unblocked you again. I can't well block you for violating BRD when you only do it twice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And you can see below I'm trying to take some action to control the harassment. Thanks again. And if there is such a thing as removing "unjustified" blocks from my block record, that would help cut back on harassment as well. You have been a doll. Magog the Angel. No need to respond. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

LAEC Will Remove Harassing Comments, Templates, and Outings

New news for my Talk page.

• I will be undoing all harassing comments as minor edits and without comment.
• I get to determine whether or not it is harassing. If, for example, it sounds polite but it is really just a lull in a continuation of a pattern of harassment, I will remove it.
• Any comments or history notes that are WP:OUTINGs will not only be reverted as minor edits and without comment, but will be handled as an OUTING, wasting everyone's time, so just don't do it. I do not want my name or address on Misplaced Pages. The web sites of mine that I link do not contain my name or address on page I link from WP. Every single time I am outed, it has been malicious in nature. I have been outed about 5 times by about 4 editors, including 1 sysop.
• Even if not strictly viewed by me as harassing, any comments that contain any content that relates to me personally or to any other editors will be removed, and I get to make that determination.
• Harassment that consists of templating me for rules violations will be reverted as well. See WP:HUSH. If you are one of my regular harassers and you find a legitimate reason to leave a legitimate template, ask someone to leave it for you.
• A look at my Talk page reveals a pattern of harassment by a number of people, some of whom have dedicated entire accounts to attacking me or reverting my edits on certain pages in a manner that violates a number of WP rules and policies. One has even been indefinitely banned due to this. I simple will not allow my Talk page to continue to be used in this fashion.
• The results of leaving such personal attacks and the like on my Talk page has not been good for me as the complaints, when viewed by otherwise objective sources, begin to get people to thinking where there's smoke, there's fire. I'm removing the smoke.
• The above rules may change as the WP:CABAL members change tactics to evade this rules.
• It is hoped that a reduction in the harassment left visible on my page will result in a reduction of my being blocked, and that these rules will further that goal.
• These rules are intended to be observant of WP:HARASS. That says, e.g., "If you feel you are being harassed, first and foremost, act calmly (even if difficult). It is hard to over-emphasize this." Undoing all harassing comments as minor edits and without comment is intended as the means by which I will act calmly. It is hoped things will become WP:CIVIL as a result.

Everyone else is welcome to continue on as if the harassers never visiting my page nor outed me. Thanks everyone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart

How is this revert justified as original research? While the source may be questionable, the insertion does appear to be based on the content of the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westbender (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)