User talk:NBGPWS/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! —Kf4bdy talk contribs

Contents

Protest Warrior

Just like as on PW, blatant repeated vandalism can get you in trouble.

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neverborn (talk • contribs) .

Re-added per Kuzaar's recommendation. This warning is for your edits to the Protest Warrior article. Specifically, I am referencing your edit where you added "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!" to the "Examples of Protest Warrior signs." This was and is blatant vandalism.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

License tagging for Image:Pwka.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning for edits on Protest warrior

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Lawyer2b 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior Talk Page

Do not delete important sections of that page.

The warning was given its own section for a very specific reason.

You've already been warned repeatedly about this.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your questions

1) When is the last time Alan or Kfir particpiated in a PW counterprotest? Will they be counterprotesting Cindy Sheehan in Crawford? They're only 100 miles away. If not, why would the leaders of such an 'important' counterprotest organization fail to capitalize on such a significant opportunity?

I don't know if there has been one since the FR incident.

2) Why is the gallery section of the PW site no longer being updated with official galleries? Why are PW videos posted to youtube, but not to the PW 'video page'? Why is it no longer being updated?

There are rumors of a major PW site overhaul going down. There have been PW videos posted on the site in the last year, however.

3) It definately appears that Alan and Kifer are no longer actively involved in any manner of political discussion on the various PW fora. Please point me to any recent threads where either of them discussed politics. Please point me to any posts discussing politics by either them in the last YEAR.

It's Kfir, and you know this. That, unfortunately, is the only answer I have.

3b) It also appears that they are no longer actively counterprotesting either. I see no couterprotest activity from Kifer since he was attacked by the Freepers in Crawford a YEAR ago, and even longer for Alan. Please provide documentation otherwise.

See question 1.

4) What happened to 'Operation Butterfly'? What was 'Operation Butterfly'?

Apparently it's still going on. We haven't been let in on it.

5) Please address the obvious discrepancies in these statements and estimate the current number of PW's who actively counterprotest in real life in the streets:

"He (Kfir) heads up an organization of over 12,000 people worldwide. (most in the United States)" a PW member 2006

"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." article 2004

"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it." (a nationwide PW counterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA)" a PW chapter leader 2005

I assume the numbers are the total memberlist in PW Headquarters. Sept. 24, 2005 had 100-150ish for the nationwide DC protest. Interest is winding down due to the election being over.

Anything else? I put it here because PW talk is getting huge.

--Neverborn 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
It is not a platform for you to vent your frustration with a particular website, or organization.
If you have a problem with the way Protest Warrior is run, then contact the people who administer it.
Do not use the Protest Warrior talk page as a platform for your own views of Protest Warrior's goals, which are irrelevant to the discussion.

Ruthfulbarbarity 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning to ruthbar

WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I will be reporting your continuing insults and personal attacks. You have been admonished for your personal attacks by Wiki admins on mulitiple occasions. Expect another warning. Stop now.

NBGPWS 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning to you

STOP IT!

Immediately.

I have not engaged you in over a day, and do not plan on communicating with you in any way, shape, or form in the future. The next time you place anything on my talk page I will be referring your actions to administrative authorities.

I suggest that you cease and desist immediately.

Ruthfulbarbarity 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


I will continue to note your incivil behavior wherever and you attack me - on my page OR yours.

NBGPWS 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Protest Warrior as a hate group or islamophobe

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article. --Tbeatty 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Protest Warrior and your accusation of vandalism

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please AGF. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. It is considered a personal attack to accuse editors of vandalism when edits are made in good faith.-- Please see this so you know what is not vandalism. Tbeatty 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior and your personal attacks

This is your last warning. The next time you make a personal attack, as you did at Talk:Protest_Warrior#Centex_Anti-Racist_Action, you will be blocked for disruption.

FYI: I made an honest mistake that I owned up to on the talk page. Your personal attack response is unwarranted and unjustified (again).--Tbeatty 04:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR re: Protest Warrior

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

I have filed a report at WP:AN/3RR regarding your violation of this rule. --Neverborn 04:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 3RR violation on Protest Warrior for a period of 8 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. alphaChimp laudare 04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "{{{1}}}"

Decline reason: "Clearly in violation of 3RR. Sit out the (not very long) block, and then discuss these issues on the talk pages and with the users in question. -- Natalya 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

I believe user Lawyer2b should be blocked not me. By his own actions, he agreed to the insertion, even changing some text, and then repeatedly deleted this important info that he, in essence had helped write. This was a report on the actions of Protest Warrior by Anti Racist Action, a legit well established organization in existence since 1988, and the people deleting (and in my opinion vandalizing) the article by repeatedly deleting this important info have tried to misconstrue this article as a 'blog', or 2 individual's views, in an effort to squash the truth and all opposing views. [1] [2] I welcome full mediation of the Protest Warrior article.

NBGPWS 05:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1) I did not repeatedly delete the material in question. I deleted it once and explained to you on the talk page that I did so after reading a cogent argument there which pointed out why the sources upon which it relied were unacceptable under wikipedia policy. 2) I believe any time people have made edits to the article with which you disagree, they were done conforming to wikipedia policy, with edit summaries explaining why and with discussion on the talk page. Despite having been asked repeatedly to assume good faith, you consistently refuse and instead continue to make tiresome, baseless, and, quite frankly, offensive accusations. Your behavior has been documented here. Lawyer2b 13:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

With regards to your comments on Talk:Protest Warrior: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism warning is of no merit

Nobody would mistake my edit of Protest Warrior as vandalism, which is the deliberate attempt to compromise an article. At best, we have a difference of opinion, at worst, you're abusing the system. I don't want to make this personal, let's resolve the issue on Talk:Protest Warrior and not escalate it. Vpoko 00:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Same here

Your accusation of vandalism is a personal attack.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --Tbeatty 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I say this with the utmost sincerity,
NBG, please resist the temptation to increase the acrimony and divisive atmosphere on the talk page that accompanies the article on Protest Warrior.
You've received numerous admonitions in this regard-almost all of which you've chosen to disregard-and have been advised on how you can very easily rectify the problem.
Please take the constructive advice and criticism of your peers on Wikipedia under consideration before continuing your fruitless edit war.
Thank you.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruthfulbarbarity is showing a you too much leniency here, IMO. Next disruptive comment and you will be blocked for a couple of days so that you can re-consider your editing and your overall behavior. Wikipedia is not a battleground. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies!

I offer my sincere apologies to those editors I wrongly accused of vandalism. I am pretty new here, and have repeatedly been wrongly accused of vandalism by some of the much more experienced editors who have been working on the PW article - over what were merely content disputes, so I had an incorrect idea of what vandalism was. I will strive to be more circumspect in my comments and not throw around baseless accusations like they did. I ask that user Jossi take an active role in editing this article to insure balance.

By 'balance' I mean this.... There are 3 active Protest Warriors and 4 supporters who I contend use WP in an inconsistant manner and as 'weapons' to exclude much valid criticism and other info which they consider unfavorable to Protest Warrior. That is exactly WHY - *I* asked for FORMAL MEDIATION. Do I need to reference the thread on Protest Warrior asking members to skew the Protest Warrior article to make sure PW is viewed in a positive light?. I also ask that others refrain from accusing ME of vandalism which I gather is verboten per WP. "The only individual who's been vandalizing this article-repeatedly-is you." Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC) As civil-rights icon Rodney King once pleaded, "can't we just all get along?"

NBGPWS 06:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is to let you know that you are in gross violation of WP:3RR at Protest Warrior. The edits in question are [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. TheKaplan 07:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's untrue:

"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. WP:3RR

I think your use of the warning can be considered a violation too. Someone complained when I did it. I'll have to check.

NBGPWS 08:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is your own 24 hour edit history on the PW main page, TheKaplan

19:28, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (removed pov pushing)
18:51, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Motivation - removed
18:46, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (re: criticism, see talk)
18:33, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (pov and grammar)
14:35, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Methodology)
07:41, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations - added cite)
07:40, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:31, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations)

NBGPWS 09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding protest warriors

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you've done with the article, I'd ask you to drop referring to Rush Limbaugh being on drugs when quoting him. Its an example of Poisoning the well and is something I've reverted elsewhere. Yes, hes a drug addict, and admitted it - but thats something for his article, which I believe carries such information. Damburger 08:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice taken
NBGPWS 09:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NBGPWS for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Vpoko 13:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your warning of User:Vpoko

I'd like to point out that it was incorrect to warn Vpoko over a content dispute on the Protest Warrior page. It has always been Wikipedia's policy (see WP:Vandalism) that only attempts to compromise the integrity of the Wikipedia project can be considered vandalism- in using a blatant vandal warning against him, it leads me to think that you are using warnings are vengeance on other users instead of their intended purpose, to remind users of the rules and bring them in line. As policy dictates, content disputes are NEVER vandalism, and the only appropriate time to warn such a user would be when he or she is in danger of breaking the 3RR. As such, I have alerted him on his talk page of this fact and reverted your warning. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Please see my apology above.
NBGPWS 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of HTML code ==

Please do not use HTML code, such as <P>, within the English Wikipedia. The only HTML code you should probably concern yourself with is <br>. You can use a colon (:) to indent a paragraph. By hitting return twice you can start a new paragraph.

That's how I got this paragraph down here.

Please also review our policies on what sources may be cited in an article, as well as our policy on neutral point of view. Thanks! Captainktainer * Talk 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exhausting the Communities patience

I believe your recent personal attacks, reverts, use of sockpuppets and other miscellaneous actions that have been well documented here and in other places have "exhausted the communities patience." Please weigh in here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:NBGPWS. --Tbeatty 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Here.--Tbeatty 06:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Friendly warning to Tbeatty

I believe your unfounded accusation of me using a sock puppet and you use of warnings and warning symbols on my page might be considered personal attacks, and violations of WP. I will be issuing an official complaint if I can determine that you have violated WP.

NBGPWS 06:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet was confirmed here. It was not meant as an accusation but as a statement of fact. If you think there is an error, you should take it up with the blocking admin who made the determination. As for warnings, I use them when I believe you have violated WP policy. I also report them so an admin can make a determination. Leaving warnings are not personal attacks but are part of an escalating process that culminates in adminstrative action. --Tbeatty 07:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


WP:NPA

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

During the 24 hr block, you may want to re-consider your attitude to others and your overall behavior. There is good material that you may want to read at WP:NOR, as well as Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot. Have a good rest. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "Which of my comments in the last 2 days did you consider personal attacks? I thought I was being pretty congenial!"

Decline reason: "But evidently trolling in virtually all of them. I would have blocked you for longer. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Thanks!

NBGPWS 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What L2B wrote below is PATENTLY and DEMOSTRABLY FALSE. One needs only to look at the PW history page. Go back a few months, before I even got involved, and you will see a documented history of active protest warriors and their conservatively biased supporters using Wikilawyering and violations of WP in an blatant attempt to exclude valid criticism that they think looks bad. This has gone on since DAY ONE, and with opponents much more formidable than myself, like Ben Burch, and RocknRev. I ask that L2B retract his TOTALLY false claim.

" Idon't know that a poll (or anything other than how things were handled before User: NBGPWS showed up) is necessary. The article was being edited and improved through a seemingly natural consensus and the talkpage seemed to be devoid of personal attacks, INCIVILITY (eyeing User:NBGPWS) and other assorted policy violations. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You allege that there are editors (PW members) who are clearly biased (and their PW membership certainly lends credence to that). They allege that you are biased (and things you have written lend credence to THAT). Since this creates an impasse, how about you take a short break from the article (a few days). I don't have any bias on this issue (I've never heard of PW before this), and I will be actively involved to make sure nothing POV gets in there. If I see users inserting POV things or bucking consensus, I will take it up with them. Is this agreeable? Vpoko 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, but I don't plan on taking ANY break. Once my ban expires I will be as active as ever but will try my hardest to keep my emotions in check. Go back in the archives. Archive 3 or 4, 5 for instance. You will see the SAME protest warriors using their SAME tactics against ANY and ALL editors who attempt to include valid criticism. Without exception, they have managed to drive off these well intentioned editors with wikilawyering, violations of WP, and persistance. Ain't gonna happen to me. I STRONGLY feel that all active protest warriors, their conservatively biased supporters, and yes, even those vehemently opposed to PW, should consent to let a team of POLITICALLY NEUTRAL editors take charge of the article.
NBGPWS 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please sign your comments.
Actually contemplating the advice you've been given by numerous admins and editors might also be a wise idea.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I consider your comment not only unhelpful, but given our past history, closer to harrassment and trolling, and WILL be noting it. I try to always sign my comments. My previous comment was signed, as is this one.
NBGPWS 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS, it looks like you still don't "get" it. You have misinterperted so many wikipedia policies (vandalism, personal attacks, POV, RS), that it's become obvious that you don't hold a monopoly on the truth. You do not, yourself, decide what is and isn't a policy violation - the community as a whole, and their elected administrators do. Therefore, if you have strong views, it's important that you dicuss them before taking action because there are many, many other people with equally strong and valid views. I also note you tend to accuse people of things after you, yourself, are accused of them. Case-in-point, you started using the term "wikilawyering" after I accused you of it, and you started accusing RB of trolling after an admin mentioned that you were trolling. Vpoko 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So ? As I learn more and more about WP, I learn to spot it when I see it! A lot of WP I'm not even familiar with until I've been accused of it. I read on Wiki to 'be bold' and 'jump in with both feet', so I did! This is what RB wrote ME only a few days ago, by the way:

I have not engaged you in over a day, and do not plan on communicating with you in any way, shape, or form in the future. The next time you place anything on my talk page I will be referring your actions to administrative authorities. I suggest that you cease and desist immediately. Ruthfulbarbarity 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Peace!

NBGPWS 23:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, NBGPWS, editing gets intense sometimes, in particular when we feel passionate about a subject. Now, I would like you to know that Wikipedia is actually an amazing place, in which edits have to be made within policies to remain in an article and these policies are there to assist you and other editors in making it work. Complaining and shouting, disrupting and attacking will not take you anywhere besides growing an ulcer. Be nice to others, be impeccable in your behavior, provide sources for your edits, and politely ask others to assist you if you cannot manage. That is what this community is all about. And it works... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I will take your advice to heart, and again encourage you to scour the archives. You will see protest warriors and their conservatively-biased supporters using their SAME tactics against ANY and ALL editors who attempt to include criticism. Without exception, they have managed to drive off these well intentioned editors with wikilawyering, violations of WP, and persistance. Here's a challenge Jossi. Spend an hour reading the archives especially the discussion pages. If can honestly say you don't agree with my assertion that they have conspired to exclude valid criticism - you can add another 6 days to my suspension.

Peace

NBGPWS 23:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The duration of your suspension is not a matter for debate. You can't unilaterally extend or curtail its length. The archives demonstrate that you have repeatedly thwarted efforts at achieving consenus, and maintaining a climate of civility with respect to the Protest Warrior article. This has nothing to do with familiarity with Wikipedia guidlines, but is simply a matter of basic etiquette. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
RB, please don't bait him. Your promise not to engage him was a good one - please keep it. Actually, I think we could all use a cooling off period. Accordingly, I'm taking a break. Vpoko 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to have a dialogue with Jossi, RB, and your comments, which strike me as trolling and provocations - your comments - after YOU promised that you would not engage ME, are unhelpful and counterproductive. Please quit attempting to bait me. Jossi can look in the archives to see who called whom "dim chimpanzee" not long ago.

NBGPWS 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Vpoko,

In these comments, did you mean deleting the entire Wiki protest warrior entry, or the article/subject about abortion?

"My only issue is notability, but I think this whole subject lacks notability, and since we're humoring ourselves and not deleting this article, I guess the Kfir forum comment should be allowed (per Wikipedia:RS a personal website may be used as a source about itself

Thanks

NBGPWS 00:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest, sincerely, that both you and your opponent, take a deep breath and stop provoking each other. Otherwise, this is likely to result in more disruption, more animosity, and more blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Regarding reversions[8] made on August 25, 2006 to Protest Warrior

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

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Voice-of-All 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel this penalty is not applicable. Please actually read the edits. It was a content dispute with a user who deleted a CRITICALLY important link with NO edit summary, and no attempt to explain his actions until after he was caught. I merely reverted the article back to its previous version. Then another editor tried to explain his actions for him. One editor can't speak for another's actions, can they? Please unblock. Thanks in advance.

Plus..

"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours.'

Link to edits

1st revert: 03:42, 23 August 2006 original edit reverted: [67]
2nd revert: 06:59, 23 August 2006 original edit reverted: [68]
3rd revert: 02:37, 24 August 2006
4th revert: 02:45, 24 August 2006

Here is the discussion. You'll see that I CLEARLY state my reasoning, and was not trying to hide any edits, but undue what I felt RB was doing - making a few gramatical edits with the intention of trying to hide his deletion of a MAJOR link that had been a bone of contention for weeks.

Ruthfulbarbaritys refusal to use edit summaries

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "{{{1}}}"

Decline reason: "Clearly in violation of 3RR. Rich Farmbrough 12:09 25 August 2006 (GMT)."

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Suggest you look at WP:RFC if there are real problems with an article you can't handle without breaking 3RR. Rich Farmbrough 12:09 25 August 2006 (GMT).

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for spamming talk pages example. Petros471 09:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? That wasn't 'disruptive' nor was a trying to influence a vote! It's not like when Protest Warriors themselves posted on their own site, and on Free Republic trying to get people to vote to keep the article during an AFD vote! (and calling Wiki admins 'Commies'!) I object! (oh well.... at least I'll get some work done today! ;-)
Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial...A clarification has been offered on behalf of arbcom: "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved.
Free Mumia! (maybe not!) Free NBGPWS! (definately yes!)
NBGPWS 10:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM

You've sent this notice to several dozen users. Please review the guideline at WP:SPAM. Given your previous behavior, this aggressive cross-posting is likely to provoke sanctions. I would recommend that, in the future, you refrain from cross-posting, at least until you've acquired a less controversial relationship with the community.

As an additional note, frequently editors will use the "+" sign next to the edit button when adding new messages to talk pages. Your demand that editors add new material above the welcome message makes it more difficult to contact you, and places barriers to communication between yourself and other editors. I would recommend moving it to your user page, or bringing it to the top of your talk page, to make it easier for fellow editors to talk to you. Captainktainer * Talk 08:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read before posting, I was already given a 24 hr block for the alleged 'spamming' (see above)
NBGPWS 08:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you've already been blocked does not change the fact that you still don't seem to consider what you did wrong or against Wikipedia consensus. I was aware of the block, but you don't seem to be getting the message. Your behavior and the way you're interacting with the community is rather telling. Captainktainer * Talk 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. If you were aware of the block, why did you opine that it would LIKELY lead to sanctions? It already had! What admins have written is more telling.... "What the response to his (my) actions have shown me is that there are a large number of editors who are incapable of tolerating criticism in any form, and will go out of their way to collude and ensure that such criticism is never heard." That's why I await formal mediation. Toodles! NBGPWS 08:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see why you might get that impression, but I think you misunderstood me. A block is a singular event, with no lasting consequence other than a diminishing of trust. Pretty much everyone gets blocked eventually. I'll probably get blocked at some point. By sanctions I mean the punishments that the ArbCom often hands down - article bans, probations (where even a little slipup leads to a ban), even project bans and IP range blocks. Right now, once the block is over, you can go back to editing. Captainktainer * Talk 08:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the Admin's thoughts? Please read my recent comments to L2B. I advise that the PW's and their supporters take the Admin's suggestions to heart. Why IS that section on 'operation military shield' still there almost a day after the Admin said it needs to be removed? G'nite Capt NBGPWS 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS, Admins are entitled to their thoughts like the rest of us - their thoughts are not Wikipedia policy. Besides, how does anyone know an admin even said that? No link? No name? Vpoko 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Kuzaar on June 21. Did you read that RB claims you're on 'my side' now, since you dared question the notability of PW? LOL! NBGPWS 18:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's just say I've seen a lot of immature behavior related to this article, but it seems to be getting better. Vpoko 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean that Admin's thoughts are not policy? You mean that after Kuzaar ruled that 'operation military shield' can not be included in the article as documented factual history, that the editors can just ignore that? Thanks (even though my block is over I'm going to try to stay away from the article for a day or two - see what actually gets done without my chiding) NBGPWS 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
He didn't rule, he gave his opinion and we accepted it because he's an experienced, respected member of the community and made a logical argument. If we (as a whole) disagreed with him, we'd be free to ignore his opinion. Wikipedia runs on consensus; admins are regular editors, like the rest of us, trusted with making sure things run smoothly by implementing the will of the community. At Wikipedia, it's about who's right, not who has a title. Good idea staying away from the article for a bit - any muck that gets in there can always be reverted, and it's easier to make good contributions when your emotions aren't entangled with the article. We're all human and emotions get the best of all of us, sometimes. It's like in real life - if you feel like you're going to put your fist though a wall, best to go for a walk and unwind.Vpoko 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I made one helpful civil post on talk, and will leave it at that for today, unless I have to contest something. NBGPWS 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I humbly decline your offer related to Protest Warrior

I have no patience for those who have such extremist views, and acknoledging them by responding to them is not worth the "we are persecuted because we are right" (see: persecution of Christianity). --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you've been blocked again.

I'm sorry you've been banned again. I actually disagree that it's wrong to "canvass" and solicit other 's opinions and contributions to an article. Wikipedia is supposed to be written via consensus (while following policy, of course) and to say it's "wrong" to ask people to contribute seems to be contradictory and self-defeatist. You seem to have strong political views, as do I, and my invitation still stands to discuss politics via email or even chat. Lawyer2b 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern L2B.I didn't think my canvassing would be a WP Violation. I didn't ask people to vote or even edit a certain way. Some advice on the article, since I can't post anywhere but here. A few days ago, an admin commented that he was concerned that the criticism section had been gutted down to one sentence, something like "lefties on indymedia don't like protest warrior". So what was the response from the PW's? You PW's and supporters spent the 2 days while I was blocked discussing your rational of how you would get the (tangental to the article) Hammond warrant included again. Guess what? Except to you PW's, who consider this your 'watergate' or 'killian memos' moment, this info MATTERS NOT to the average Wiki reader wanting to find out more about PW. It's an issue of MINOR importance - except to you guys. Such is the myopia of 'group think'. There are 3 major articles on the 'crawford incident', fox, SF Chron, and a CBS news page to be found in the first 50 Google results of 'protest warrior' + crawford. You would have found them IF you had looked. I guess no one did, or did and decided not to include this info, as it didn't make PW's look like 'heroic Freedom Fighters' PW's and their supporters attempt to portray the group as.
Thanks for your offer to discuss politics, but I respectfully decline. I choose to only debate those people whose sensibilities are firmly grounded in the unfortunate realities of the two-party system here in the USA. Nader, Badarnak, La Rouche, and Clymer supporters need not apply! (Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan supporters ARE welcome though! ;-)
NBGPWS 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of the rule myself, but just as an FYI, there are good places on Wikipedia to post things like that so you don't have to go to individual user pages. Wikipedia:RfC is a good place, but I would only use that as a last resort. Also, Wikipedia:Village Pump is a good place for general wikipedia discussions, and people there are pretty helpful.
(the comment above was from Vpoko - thanks for the info!) NBGPWS 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point. I guess it is better to use an Rfc since it should draw a more balanced group of contributors to comment rather than one person going around soliciting only those who agree with his opinion. User:NBGPWS, I'm confused by your decline as you seem to have been interested in discussing our politics on the Protest Warrior talk page. I'll just leave you with that, while I'm a libertarian, I'm not a huge supporter/believer in the goals of Libertarian Party as I don't think it will ever be successful at electing libertarians. Should you change your mind I think we would enjoy chatting. Lawyer2b 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I might enjoy sparring as well - from your admission you seem to be reality-based, unlike many Libertarians, but I have very little spare time. I'm about to get heavily involved in phone work for the Dems, so we can take back the house (not as much hope for the senate) and get those impeachment hearings started! YEAH BOY!
NBGPWS 21:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

-deleted RB's comments already addressed by an admin - he continually forgets he promised not to communicate with me, and that he was asked not to bait me - next time he does, I may file a complaint-

NBGPWS 21:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits/Behavior

Please don't post messages on pages that are completely irrelevant to the topic of the page. It can be seen as spam and Wikipedia regards adding spam to articles or talk pages as a form of vandalism. Thank you.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both here in the Wikipedia community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as vandalism and you could get blocked from editing Wikipedia for it. You might not get another warning before having a block imposed, so be careful and be serious from now on.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-20 Protest Warrior, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. --Tbeatty 01:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN post

You may want to move your post at WP:AN over to WP:ANI where it is more appropriate and will get dealt with faster. JoshuaZ 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you sir! You are a scholar and a gentleman. NBGPWS 04:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re protest warrior

Thank you for your information regarding this nasty group, but I've really no time for fascist groups like that. It really makes me sick. I find myself unable to respond civilly to such radical fascists because I would never willingly accord them the privilege of courtesy and respect, of which they are not deserving. However, I thank and support you for informing others of this nasty group of people. Thanks very much, Tanzeel 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

RE: [9] Sorry, this strawpoll is closed, please direct your comments to the talk page. Travb (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - Thanks ! I didn't know it was closed NBGPWS 09:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Your recent comment on the Protest Warrior talk page was deemed totally uncivil. On its own it may have stood, but you have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of respect for Wikipedia policy in relation to conduct with other users. Therefore, I have decided to enforce a cool down period of one week to allow other users of the talk page to recover. Please understand that this action is not related to my mediation work. I hope you will choose to contribute more constructively when your block expires; thank you. —Xyrael / 08:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which comment you're referring to, but it really doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes, Protest Warrior is dead, defunct, kaput, and the PW's editing the article are now awakening to that fact. I doubt you will see many more attempts from PW's trying to hype their now non-existant org. (It's actually been on life-support for the last year after the leaders gave up on the org after their debacle in Crawford - but the PW's were in denial to that) One week? Too harsh, bud! NBGPWS 21:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed this in your edit history

  1. 09:31, 28 August 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zjhafeez (info on Islamophobic group) (top)
  2. 09:30, 28 August 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zereshk (Info on Islamophobic group)

-snip-

Please don't spam talk pages with the exact same thing. Thank you. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's almost a month old, and has already been adressed. NBGPWS 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Notice to Ruthfulbarbarity

NOTICE TO USER: Ruthfulbarbarity In light of our past history, I may consider any and all personal posts from you on this page an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me, thus possibly constituting vandalism and spam. You may post unmodified Wiki policy templates. Any comments may be removed at my discretion.

'Talk page vandalism'

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion...

NBGPWS 04:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tips for me

PLEASE LEAVE ALL MESSAGES IN SECTION ABOVE - THANKS

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing!
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

PLEASE LEAVE ALL MESSAGES IN SECTION ABOVE THIS ONE - THANKS

Notice to Ruthfulbarbarity

NOTICE TO USER: Ruthfulbarbarity In light of our past history, I may consider any and all personal posts from you on this page an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me, thus possibly constituting vandalism and spam. You may post unmodified Wiki policy Templates. Any comments may be removed at my discretion.

'Talk page vandalism'

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion...

NBGPWS 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I took your help box

and put it on my home page. Thanks and I hope you dont mind.Jasper23 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Omni Posted: 17 Sep 2006 05:02

Somehow, I doubt we'll GET anything official. A/K seem to be AWOL and of course I don't have any contact with Bob...

Seems they just took the easy way out.

Sgt_Nick_Fury Posted: 17 Sep 2006 20:04

I have to say I'm more then a little bit annoyed that there isn't anything official.....I mean I've bought the T-shirts, and Bumper stickers, and while I haven't been able to make it to any PW events as they are never CLOSE to my area, or work schedule.......I really have tried to support PW from the beginning, I think it would be at least nice to know what happened, and get a statement.

NEW FORUM at ....Fighting The Left.com NEW FORUM at ....Fighting The Left.com Until PW's site comes back up you can all use Fighting the Left.com

www.fightingtheleft.com/forum (NO POSTS IN EVENTS - WHERE THEY WOULD PLAN THEIR ACTIVITIES LOL!)

10/5/2006

Where: Uniion Square, New York, NY

Leader: Rct ddwnyc (New York City)

Status: Failure

Description:

Depending on how many people show up, I'll be there. The morons from "The World Can't Wait" are going to be yelling about everything Bush does. Lets be there to show these people that there is another side. They will be marching to Union Square. I figure that's a great time to meet up. I'll try to post or update later for more information on this event.

This is cancelled due to lack of PW's in attendence on this date.

Thanks Ex-Warrior!

NBGPWS 04:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When you have members and supporters of Protest Warrior (including yourself and some others) editing the article to fit their agenda including consistently deleting criticism of and adding information favorable to the group as well as rejecting sources critical of the group (all according to the plan discussed on the PW forum) then there is no point for me in using the talk page, is there? Wikipedia is not a soapbox, keep your propaganda at PW.com. Thank you. --Inahet 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't post on (or even read) PW.com and could care less what goes on there. What I care about is the article's integrity and that wikipolicies are applied consistently and fairly. Saying the organization is racist appears to be original research. Your logic about not discussing things on the talk page appears to be expedient, since to apply it consistently should lead you to the additional conclusion that there is no point in your editing the article itself, should it not? Lawyer2b 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive 11

Chalcedon Article

NBGPWS 06:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey NBGPWS

I know you must be upset by the happenings on the ACLU page. What can I say? I cant blame you? However, now is the time to let the dust settle. Further antagonism on the talk page can only lead more conflict. We further our own goals by acting in a civil and polite manner. From now on, lets try to respond to commentary and not create our own. I think this will help us in trying to improve the ACLU page. Stepping back helps us prevail in the long run. We should prove beyond all doubt that we are the responsible party in this matter. Jasper23 03:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I will see how Scribner responds. He already refused to address the bogus 9.5 Million dollar claim, but added it back into the article. He also keeps repeatedly deleting my well sourced and documented 'religious liberties' section. He also has accused you and me of being sock puppets. I'm having a hard time AGF in light of his actions. NBGPWS 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I totally understand. I would be mad too but I came in right in the middle of your edit war. Lets be respectfull civil and kind, but lets also never give up. Eventually people will take notice and we will be able to make the article less pov. In wikipedia, how you say something is more important than what you say and as important as what you do. Let the other editors be mad at themselves. Also, imagine if I was your sockpuppet. This would be the weirdest conversation. Jasper23 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I only got here a couple days ago. Scribner immediately started any 'war' that exists. He thinks he owns this article. NBGPWS 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Let's let it go for tonight. We can take another stab at it tomorrow. What do you think? Jasper23 04:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I won't edit anymore tonight unless he reverts the article. I'll won't add to the talk page except to counter any false charges either. Hopefully, he'll cool down, especially after he finds out that his paranoia about sockpuppety was unfounded. Nite! NBGPWS 04:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I plan on doing. Yeah, that sockpuppet thing is pretty funny. Jasper23 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I've fixed your archiving for you, and given you the above archive box. It makes everything easier. Ryūlóng 06:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir or maam! You're a scholar and a gentleperson! NBGPWS 06:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

AGF

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. --Tbeatty 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility warning

Warning Please stop your disruptive behaviour, or you may be blocked for a longer period. We invite you to contribute constructively, but will not tolerate your continuous personal attacks. —Xyrael / 16:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both here in the Wikipedia community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as vandalism and you could get blocked from editing Wikipedia for it. You might not get another warning before having a block imposed, so be careful and be serious from now on.

The above unsigned template was added by Ruthfulbarbarity 03:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC) NBGPWS 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tips for me

PLEASE LEAVE ALL MESSAGES IN SECTION ABOVE - THANKS

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing!
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

PLEASE LEAVE ALL MESSAGES IN SECTION ABOVE HELP BOX - THANKS

Notice to Ruthfulbarbarity

NOTICE TO USER: Ruthfulbarbarity In light of our past history, I may consider any and all personal posts from you on this page an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me, thus possibly constituting vandalism and spam. You may post unmodified Wiki policy Templates. Any comments or inappropriate warning templates may be removed at my discretion.

'Talk page vandalism'

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion... NBGPWS 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bush as Hitler

You have recently re-created the article Bush as Hitler, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooops too late! It's a valid topic. Check the link for dozens of citable refs. NBGPWS 04:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Philip Gronowski Contribs 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It was unintentional. People were deleting the article without notifying me. I'll take it to the deletion board before recreating it again though! NBGPWS 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please realize that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to post your personal opinions, nor those of other people. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not my opinion! It's a valid wordwide phenomena! Check out the link please Bush = Hitler NBGPWS 05:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you had in mind with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush as Hitler - but it is not the way things are done. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I put in the right place in the Oct 22 deletion log? Maybe a different title would help. NBGPWS 05:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the article has been speedy deleted Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and blocked from recreation, that page serves no purpose, since there is no article for anyone to look at and discuss. Pages in that section are only for AfD deletions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion --ArmadilloFromHell 05:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Where can I discuss the proposed/deleted article? Please visit this link and then tell me that it's not a valid phenomenon! Bush as Hitler Thanks NBGPWS 05:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys - read THIS:

  • Overturn see how it fares at AfD, but G1 is clear that even partisan screeds aren't speediable. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oct 22

  • However copyright violations are, and this was almost nothing but a quote. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please undelete my article! Thanks NBGPWS 08:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How about having an article 'people compared to hitler' as its hardly an allegation unique to Pres. Bush. Damburger 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

People compared to Hitler would get fast deleted for the same reason that Bush as Hitler would, unsubstantiated opinions and flamebait. Any article for "people compared to Hitler" should quite simply re-direct to Hitler himself. Piuro 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think Hitler comparisons are notable enough for mention, but too trivial for the article on Hitler himself (I have the feeling there's some more important issues that should focus on ...). It wouldn't be partisan because a large portion of the people compared to Hitler have also compared their political opponents to Hitler. Its a classic cheapshot, which should also be mentioned. Damburger 00:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Like you said, it is a classic cheapshot. Almost nobody who is compared to Hitler warrants the comparison, and even then, it is nothing more then unsubstantiated opinion. Now were someone a neo-nazi on a crusade against the Jews, then I might see a reason for a mention in a comparison article, but if we're going to break Wiki down to covering articles of who petty insults are directed at then things are just going to get silly. Piuro 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Petty doesn't mean not notable. When Silvio Berlusconi compared a German MEP to a concentration camp guard, it was extrordinarily petty - but it was also newsworthy throughout Europe and mentioned in Wikipedia (I'm actually surprised at how little coverage it got compared to something like Nipplegate, but I guess thats to do with how many Americans we have here). Damburger 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DRV

The consensus on DRV supports the actions of me and other administrators who deleted your article. Is there anything else we can assist with? I'd be more than willing to help explain further if there's still any confusion about the 'why' of it. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - Please suggest a neutral way of naming this important topic so it doesn't get deleted. As the link proves, it's a documented wordwide phenomenon. After more thought, I agree it shouldn't just be limited to Bush. Some on the right are fond of calling Senator Clinton "Hitlery", and some compared President Clinton to Hitler.
The Gallery of "Bush = Hitler" Allusions
There is a Wiki page on PETA's holocaust comparsion. This is even more important. PETA's Holocaust Ads Thanks NBGPWS 03:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:GabrielF/911TMCruft

I'd strongly encourage you to take your thoughts to WP:MFD instead of edit warring; probably better for everyone involved. Luna Santin 04:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24 hours, for 3rr violations related to this dispute. Please reconsider disruptive, WP:POINT sorts of things in the future. Thanks. Luna Santin 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - no problem. Please have some admins check into the deletionists schemes. I'd willingly accept a 30 day block if we could weed out these malicious POV pushers! NBGPWS 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's part of why I've only blocked you for 24 hours. If you find a healthier way to seek resolution, good; if not, bad. Please try a less disruptive path. WP:AN and WP:MFD both come to mind. Luna Santin 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 In case you don't know, you've been listed on WP:AN/3RR for over an hour. I would consider being more civil; it seems to mention on WP:3RR that although users do not own their own subpages, their user space is "theirs" for project-related purposes only, and users can thus decide against other users over what content can go in their own user space. Tuxide 07:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see it till too late. Thanks though. NBGPWS 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

24 hour block

On the one hand, this is a 3RR violation, and probably a WP:POINT problem. When I suggested a more productive means of resolving the dispute -- namely, MfD -- I was ignored in favor of continued disruption. On the other hand, it's out of article space. I'm not opposed if anyone cares to review this, but for the time being I've given NBGPWS a 24 hour block for continued disruption and edit warring. Luna Santin 07:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Tbeatty and GabrielF are part of the deletionists who AfD for 'fun' and purely out of politics.
  • Comment  :Comments from the deletionists:
  • 04:22, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (noting no more AfDs)
  • 04:21, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (all gone! now what will we do for fun?)
Deletion Squad History What an outrageous misuse of the AfD process! Deleting articles 'for fun'. NBGPWS 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The 911cruft page is a PUBLIC page, and I cited WP saying so.

in general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site.

They are just upset that their schemes have been made public, and deleted anything I posted to that page. Tbeatty edits my comments ALL the time. Take a look at HIS history! tbeatty's history These POV deletionists are RUNNING rampant over Wiki, and you better get a handle on them. You can ban me for all I care. Conservative POV pushers are making this place nearly worthless to research ANYTHING related to American politics, and then they actually even go back to their far right-wing sites and BRAG about how they 'got over' on the Commies who run Wikipedia. NBGPWS 07:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to propose far left-wing articles for deletion, on that page, go ahead. Porn (or sexual positions) just aren't relevant. (Oh, and I would have given you 48 hours for 3RR, WP:POINT, and WP:CIVIL.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The proper venue for discussion is WP:MfD, not disrupting the page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Derex!

This is a dispute over a user page, and an extremely controversial one at that. It co-ordinates editors with a particular outlook for AFD snowballs, which I can't differentiate from vote-stacking. The whole situation is really ironic, since the usual snowball swarm has now turned into a revert swarm of someone posting an article that you'd think they'd want to AFD. Anyway's I'm not even sure 3RR applies outside of article space, much less on a subpage of user talk page. At the least, Tbeatty's call for a LONG ban is inappropriate, unless he is referring to himself, in which case I fully endorse it. This is really a matter to be settled at RFC or at the Village Pump. Derex 05:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bud! I'm gonna give you one of those cool gold star things once my ban expires! The deletionists are SURE upset that their evil schemes are being brought to light. Good work on your behalf too! You might take a look in the Protest Warrior article archives, where they BRAG about 'getting over' on the 'Commies' who run and admin Wiki! The Cons will all be crying on Nov 8! They're so sure that they're going to lose power that they're already crying like little girls! NBGPWS 07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I'd be glad for a change in the real world; the great majority of people would. However, I'd be just as apalled and opposed by this crowd's techniques no matter what their agenda was. In fact, I've voted to delete several of the articles they post because many really don't belong. Just goes to show that the page is completely unecessary, since clearly bad articles get the boot regardless. I suspect that GabrielF started that page in relatively good faith for his own use. However, someone (Morton I think) has advertised it to several of his political compatriots, hence the recent evolution into a conservative AFD noticeboard. Regardless, whatever policy may be, it's wrong to have these private noticeboards. And despite their claims, it was private, because notice was passed around on user talk pages instead of publicly announced. How the hell is anyone supposed to know about a user sub-page serving as a noticeboard? Their claims that it's harmless since anyone could read it are hollow because you can't read what you don't know about. I hate this sort of gamesmanship. I'd like to see a small yellow-box template at the top of every AFD listed there making notice of that. Another one for every AFD that gets votestacked. They shouldn't object, since they claim it's all aboveboard. Derex 08:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
What votestacking? Telling people about an ongoing AFD is not stacking anything. Rogue 9 19:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? Informing people of an AFD cannot stack anything? Might I direct you to what the official Wikipedia position actually is? WP:SPAM#Votestacking. Users have been banned for mass contacts about votes before. Derex 23:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware that the official Wikipedia position is unmitigated bullshit; I didn't need that pointed out. AfD procedures are supposedly an open debate; closing the proceedings to people who are interested in the article in question just because someone else happened to tell them isn't very conducive to that. As it stands, AfD is already heavily biased towards deletion because there is a not insignificant number of people who hang around AfD all day looking to off someone else's work rather than helping with articles. Rogue 9 07:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we at least agree on the last sentence. As to the rest, no, telling people is not in itself votestacking. Doing so in any sort of selective manner is. For example, it's perfectly fine to notify all past commentors on an article talk page, but not only those who dislike the article. Or, to tell past AFD participants, but not only those who voted delete, as the chap I referred to has a habit of doing. Derex 07:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example from one chap heavily involved in the noticeboard in question. Found 50 people with conservative user boxes and and informed just those people, based on that criterion. Is that not votestacking? That's exactly why Jimbo wanted userboxes gone. Interestingly, one Morton devonshire, well-known at the page in question, attempted to delete that Votestacking of policy the day after an admin referenced his actions under it. Derex 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You might also take note of the arbcom response to a request for clarification on this issue "If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article". People are upset, a dividing line has been crossed. Derex 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Also see "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view," from same policy. Also to the remarks, "precisely" isn't really a very helpful comment, particularly when a shorter equivalent of the dittoed comment was "you're wrong". Derex 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall being contacted. I get my information the same place you do. Centralyzing information is what Wikipedia is all about. --Tbeatty 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (provocations from RB removed in accordance with WP) NBGPWS 02:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Andy_Stephenson

You need to seriously tone down your personal attacks and hysteria on the Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Andy_Stephenson. WP:NPA is policy, and you could be blocked if you continue. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling my contributions 'hysteria' is perjorative and incvil (I'll let it slide this time) - but perhaps more importantly - if you had been paying attention, or read the voluminous postings above - you might have figured out I WAS blocked - for 24 hours! Cheers. NBGPWS 06:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

chronicles

I erased your comment about relisting in the course of erasing my own (without which it makes no sense). I hope you don't mind. I decided that rather than truckle to ridiculous off-point arguments, I ought to just say what's right. I had been trying to refactor for a while but kept getting edit conflicted. Strange how if you disagree with someone, then you somehow forfeit all rights (in their minds). Derex 20:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. I had to figure out who did it though. It's amazing how some of the people I'm dealing with just delete or refactor other people's comments. One of 'em even crossed out all of Ben Burches comments on the Stepehnson DRV then kept reverting me when I tried to restore them, leaving MY name there to try and have people believe that *I* had crossed out Ben's comments! NBGPWS 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm dealing with the same thing right now with Zer0. I decided to amend my comments to reflect my considered views (see above). He persists on reverting. This business of editing and "re-factoring" other people's commentary is just about the most obnoxious thing I've seen here. It's one thing to elide a curse word or insult with an asterisk, but this crowd feels free to completely change things. Fascinating how the acolytes' manners mirror the prophet's. Derex 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I had NO idea that Nuclear was ZerO till just now! Zero's Past Behavior NBGPWS 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the second time you've referred to N as a NeoCon, which confuses me as I'd say he's pretty plainly not a neo-conservative. I'd say that arbcom has already assessed Z's behavior, without help from N. My brief experience with Z has been entirely congruent with that assessment. As to removing remarks; it's well-established wikipedia practice that editors can cleanup their own talk pages as they see fit. Derex 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you know him from elsewhere (online pseudonym)? I think you actually can delete warning templates; the diffs are enough to show you've been warned. Z has deleted 3 or 4 today alone. I might add that I _really_ dislike people involved in a conflict adding templates themselves. It just seems, well, prickish & more intended to bait than to inform. You ought to just say your piece in plain words if you're involved. Derex 02:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • MY BEHAVIOR??? You want me to post some saved text from the Protest Warrior Infiltration Crew where you all trolled forums trying to disrupt them, including a BLACK NATIONALIST FORUM where white PWIC members posing as Blacks posted EXTREMELY insensitive race baiting taunts???? HUH? NBGPWS 03:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
RB knows me orginally from the forums of the obscure 'counter protest organization' named Protest Warrior, where he posted as Wrathbone. I came into contact with a group of 4 or 5 of these pro-war 'warriors' at a antiwar protest a few years ago. Their MO is to try and incite antiwar protestors, using provocations and insults, into violence, and capture it on video. (think college republican version of the Westboro Baptist Church) I joined their forum after seeing their signs, and reading their outrageous lies about 12,000 members and active chapters in every state ( RB admitted not long ago that he would likely be the ONLY protest warrior in all of NYC/ NJ at one of their smoke-and-mirror 'operations') made it my mission to expose the lies, and found other kindred souls who they pissed off to no end like Rev Tyler Protest Warrior Exposed Sadly, the founders abondoned the dying org built on hype, possibly because they failed to turn it into a 'cash cow', closed down their forum and now the 'warriors', and their conservative supporters are bitter. NBGPWS 03:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you rambling on about now? NBGPWS 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you use your obsession to write to flesh out Kfir's Wiki article! Maybe you can add childhood hobbies, favorite TV shows, his dog's name, favorite foods, his favorite color. Stuff you devotees think important, like his childhood reading habits! NBGPWS 03:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one month

I have blocked you for one month due to your inability to remain civil as demonstrated by posts to User talk:Tbeatty and previous blocks for the same rationale and report on the personal attack intervention noticeboard[11].--MONGO 04:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey MONGO! Trim down that URL pal, you're munging my user page! One month....OUCH! (PA refactored) Seems that Wiki is much more concerned with faux civility than by deliberate malfeasnce by editors with a political axe to grind.NBGPWS 04:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Trimmed...cool it or your block will be indefinite.--MONGO 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Repeat blocks by multiple admins=problem.--MONGO 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It would take me about 180 seconds to get a new IP address and username, if I actually CARED too. I don't. Let Wiki get overun by Conservative axe grinders who go back to their far-right wing boards and BRAG about 'getting over' on the 'Commies' who run Wiki - since that what your actions are, in essence, helping to accomplish. It doesn't hurt ME one bit, just Wiki. NBGPWS 05:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll continue my campaign here

I will be bringing Tbeatty, and another's BLP actions up for Arbcom review. They are on the BLP patrol, but many feel they apply BLP to try and exclude valid sourced criticism. They apply BLP whole classes of people, orgs and even payal! Tbeatty argued that an article which mentioned problems with Paypal fundraising violated the BLP of PayPal!!! VIOLATED THE BLP OF PAYPAL! LOL ! He slapped a BIO template on the political org Protest Warrior. Some feel that these actions are done VERY knowingly, and with a plan and purpose not in accordance with Wikitruth, or whatever it's called. I thought it wise to ask Tbeatty to explain his actions first. He said he had violated WP POINT in the past, when he introduced a list of Suspicious Deaths Associated with President Bill Clinton, admittingly violating Pres Clinton's BLP rights. More documentation coming to the proper venue soon.

NBG's insult to Repubs refactored by NBG!

NBGPWS 05:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More truth from NBGPWS

NOTICE TO USER: Ruthfulbarbarity In light of our past history, I may consider any and all personal posts from you on this page an unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me, thus possibly constituting vandalism and spam. You may post unmodified Wiki policy Templates. Any comments or inappropriate warning templates may be removed at my discretion.

'Talk page vandalism'

"Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion...NBGPWS 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked him to not post here again.--MONGO 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Now please review my charges about TBeatty's misuse of BLP to see if there was perhaps good reason for my slight lapse of civility - concerns which seem to be more important to some here than EGREGIOUS INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS of BLP, even arguing that it should apply to Paypal!!! You will find that there was good reason for my outrage, and might trim down that ban to 24 hours, then instigate a formal investigation into Tbeatty's intentional misuse of BLP, while acting as a self-appointed member of the BLP patrol, who insists he has 'special powers' as such !!! I thank you in advance for your cooperation! (Did you name yourself after that guy who farts all the time in Blazing Saddles?) NBGPWS 05:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll look over the links you have posted. MONGO is a joke handle based on the character from the movie Blazing Saddles...I don't recall the farting bit as I think that was just a random group of cowboys with too many legumes for dinner. For the record, Wikipedia doesn't have to mention every tabloidish information just for the sake of mentioning it. But I will examine all links and if I see evidence of violations of WP:BLP, I will address it.--MONGO 05:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll post the links here. Nothing enflames me more than editors misusing WP to grind their political axes. NBGPWS 05:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted tbeatty's comments as an attempt to bait me further. Please ask him not to post here too, Mongo. Thanks NBGPWS 05:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have instructed him to not post his comments here again. If you are planning to file an Request for comment ofr a case with arbcom, I will unblock you, so long as those pages and your own userspace are the only ones you will promise to edit on.--MONGO 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't have that much self control, and would probably get axed for good! LOL ! NBGPWS 06:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. incident one - Tbeatty, a self-appointed BLP patrol member who presumably must know BLP, argues that BLP should apply to unnamed 'conservative bloggers' on an unnamed site, and that BLP should apply to PayPal! incident one (I even have better documentation of that coming)
"I asked earlier, I'll ask again: how is it possible for this article to violate WP:BLP when it's not a biography of a living person? VoiceOfReason 03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)"
"The good people who were defamed at PayPal and the conservative bloggers accused of contributing to Andy's death are, indeed, living people. --Tbeatty 05:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)"
incident 1b
NOTE TO DEREX - THIS HAPPENED ON OCT 24, 2006, NOT MONTHS AGO NBGPWS 07:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not agreeing with what he did there. However, I'm much more concerned about _adding_ violations than a probable misuse of policy to remove something. The former makes me outraged, the latter just indignant. .... Keep in mind don't let yourself be baited. I did a few days ago, very stressed, and got myself blocked for the first time. Really annoyed me that I gave my antagonist the satisfaction. Derex 09:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well I took that malicious act REAL personally cause I 'knew' Andy Stephenson (albeit only via email exchanges) so the Wiki RepubliCon Cabal who deleted his entry SOLELY because it reflected VERY badly on the (mostly) Conservatives bloggers, Freepers and Scamdy Posters who HOUNDED Andy Stephenson, even on his DEATH BED, and even SENT Conservative MOLES posing as 'investigators' INTO the HOSPITAL, now want to ERASE ALL EVIDENCE of their EVIL, possibly LIFE shortening MISDEEDS from Wikipedia. They won't like the new 'Hunting of Andy Stephenson' piece due to be released (by people who can document every exclamation mark and comma) soon. Not one bit! It NAMES NAMES, and websites too! (insult to Repubs refactored by NBG) NBGPWS 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw mention of that something about that "hounding" in User:Crockspot/Conservative_Underground#Notable_events. I would imagine that the deletion would get overturned because there clearly wasn't a "consensus". However, if there is indeed new stuff coming out on him, then that makes it easy to re-create the article. Ordinarily, there would be a prejudice against that, but not if the objection was notability, and there is new evidence of it. Patience. It is customary here to pay more attention to civility than to substance, so keep it civil and your substance will be much harder to dismiss. Derex 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That editor is living in an alternate reality in another galaxy far far away from Galaxy Wiki Reality if he thinks he will be able to enter 'notable' events about what may or may not have happened on CU, unless they have been documented by WP RS V NP MSM sources. I worked with the editors and mods on the Protest Warrior article for months, and every claim they made regarding events and forum 'happenings' was rejected unless it was reported in the MSM Media. One of their most 'famous' operations was one high school kid posting racist islamophobic signs (a PW Trademark) in the class rooms and halls of his high school. This was in the article for ages. The kid submitted his sorry account to tons of far-right wing blogs, and because it had been posted on David Horowitz's blog, the PW's argued that this was a MSM documentation of the event. When an Wiki mod looked at it, and saw that it was merely a reposting of the kid's childish screed word-for-word, it was axed too. I'll keep an eye on that page, thanks. NBGPWS 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This was EGREGIOUS INTENTIONAL VIOLATION of WP for outright political axegrinding, using a BOGUS BLP defense by a self-appointed BLP 'expert' ! NBGPWS 06:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That entire DRV is a mess...and I try (ususally) to stay out of messes. What I will do is request that a neutral admin take over examining your links by posting at AN/I.--MONGO 06:29, 25October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm sorry that I'm a hot-head at times, but truth and justice are more important to me than faux civility with people whose unconsionable actions I abhor! I've been called part of the 'angry left'. There might be just a smidgen of truth to that ! LOL ! NBGPWS 06:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for posting to the ANI Mongo. Note to any other admin visiting that I have MANY more documented cases of Tbeatty violating BLP, including him slapping a BIO template on the political organization Protest Warrior and claiming that BLP applied to the whole organization (which he supports) but it will take me 12 - 24 hours to compile them all. NBGPWS 06:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reduced your block to expire in 48 hours. A resumption of incivil behavior may lead to an extended block.--MONGO 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reprieve Mongo. I think I have this thing figured out. I've been studying the masters. They just edit, put as brief a description as possible in the edit summary and engage others in discussion infrequently and then in a perfunctory manner . I'll give it a try. NBGPWS 10:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep cool. I've poked around, and can see that some people are itching to get you booted. Don't take bait, or fall for a 3RR set-up. And please, don't yield to the temptation to add your own spin when others do so. It's much more satisfying and productive just to neutralize theirs. Not meaning to be preachy here, but it's an easy pitfall when emotions are high and you're dealing with a POV-pusher. Good luck. Derex 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw that. They're wrong about my name! It now stands for Nothing But Goodness, Protest Warrior (and others) Spincontrol. If PW's cofounders and members (many who are active here) had been honest about the size and efficacy of the group, they wouldn't have had so many problems. The cofounders repeatedly counted every person who ever signed up (including the 33% sockpuppets) on their (long disbanded) message boards as 'active members' of the ORGANIZATION Protest Warrior. They fed these fabricated falsehoods to the gullible right wing press like David Horowitz and Human Events. The PW's started repeating them here. Look at the archives of PW, For many moons it was nothing but spin. One prominent PW who is active here, repeatedly claimed on Wiki that PW had '12,000' members. They claimed they had active 'chapters' in every state. TOTAL LIES. One national chapter leader who was actually honest admitted (on PW) that he HOPED that 100 people TOTAL, spread out accross 5 cities, would participate in their most important event. The PW's are VERY bitter after their cofounders gave up on the org after one of them was attacked by Freepers over a year ago. http://www.rocknrev.com/pw/pwned.html They were the subject of derision all over the internets for months after this, and it totally took the wind out of the cofounders sails. They were never again active politically with the org, or on the forums. They pulled the plug on the forums weeks ago, but somehow the PW's never got the message. I did sign up to concentrate on PW, but now enjoy editing many other subjects and topics too. I wish the PW's well. They're going to be VERY upset and possibly vindictive come Nov 8! I'll probably take a Wiki break for a week after the elections to let the Cons cool down. Cheers. NBGPWS 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You know that PW / Freep thing is sourceable?[12][13] You clearly can't get rocknrev in, but the San Francisco Chronicle should do the trick. Derex 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure it is. It's in the PW article too. In past events. They always delete links to Rocknrev. Too much documentation on their evil deeds there for them. I don't even try to add them anymore. I just found another gem to add where Kfir claims that the real agenda of the Anti War Movement is to promote Communism! He's still fighting the Cold War. Wow... just wow. LOL NBGPWS 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Provocations and Incivility by Ruthfulbarbarity who was advised NOT to post here by MONGO deleted in accordance with WP. (Wiki needs the equivalent of the Ignore feature) NBGPWS 04:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You should think twice about baiting a blocked editor, particularly over the blocking admin's warning on the matter. NBGPWS has already made clear to you that he doesn't want you on his page. Derex 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Derex - I could post his quote where he promised a Mod he would NEVER post on this page again. That was weeks, and dozens of broken promises ago. Truly man of his word, like so many of his political ilk. NBGPWS 04:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RB's comments removed in accordance with WP. NBGPWS 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Well here's your edit which my remark followed. I see some pretty obvious baiting there. I do not see anything else at all, no discussion of facts or the article at all. Derex 05:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RB's comments removed in accordance with WP. NBGPWS 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

New section

Mongo:

I just read this post of yours:

"I reduced his block and he should be unblocked in a day and a half from now. There is a method to my madness".--MONGO 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Thanks NBGPWS 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My hope is that faced with a long block, that it can be used as a method to inspire you to follow our guidelines better.--MONGO 06:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that NBGPWS 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Derex,

You, or Edison or Ben Burch might want to take a look at the latest additions to the Democratic Underground article by Jimxchue, about the Secret Service contacting them. I know from many months working on the PW article, that unless and until this gets WP RS V coverage, it's totally against WP to include this info. I used to post about significant events described on the PW forums, (one of their Chapter leaders used to dress as a Suicide Bomber with a fake bomb vest, until he was detained by the SFPD Bomb Squad!) and they got axed every time. Had several mods explain WP about blogs and forum postings in detail. Jimxchue knows better than that.

NBGPWS 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RB's comments removed in accordance with WP. NBGPWS 06:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting. So you don't consider Skinner to be either reliable or verifiable as a source? I believe I was very fair with my addition and I applaud Skinner for protecting people's privacy, even if he doesn't agree with them. He got something right (for once). I'm taking that part back. In reading DU's privacy policy, it seems that Skinner normally would have no problem handing over people's information to others (who are probably willing to pay money for the information). His tune obviously changed when it came to the Bush Administration, however. Jinxmchue 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure that what he says is 100% true, and is probably even notable enough that some other source will cover it, at what time it will be inclusionable. At the moment, coming only from DU, an online forum, it's not acceptable under WP RS V, and I think you should know that. NBGPWS 06:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jinx:

"Self-published sources, as the WP:RS page you linked to says, are not acceptable unless they are, for example, a professor publishing an article about whatever subject. In this case, it can be externally linked but not cited as an assertion of fact". --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC) See

NBGPWS 06:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources.

The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown. However, film credits on IMDb are provided directly by the Writer's Guild of America and can be considered reliable.

Self Published Sources

Come on Jinx, you really didn't think you could get that in did you? NBGPWS 06:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Posted on another user's talk. Beatty agrees with me : "DU and the Secret Service - This is a primary source and probably should be removed." but then complains that my comment above is a violation! "Latest violation of policy. Let me know if you file ArbCom or RfC. It's not hard finding evidence."--Tbeatty 08:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow .. just wow.
NBGPWS 09:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Info on protest march redacted in accordance with WP on advice from MONGO. NBGPWS 18:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS 08:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comeon, man...let's not be advertising...this looks like trolling to me...so have a look at this guideline and lets, well, simply, please calm down. Please archive the above comment when you block expires. Thanks.--MONGO 10:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

DEREX

re The PW Article and CWC's last edits

Re: (2) Re numbers at RNC 2004: MTV quotes Alfia as saying "there's 200 of us" but has nothing else about how many were there at the time, so I went with 200.

The MTV link says 75, and this is actually a very well sourced and documented article. It lists names, hometowns, ages, etc. Secondary reporting sources will ALWAYS take precedent over a 'claim' by a primary source. Remember, Kfir is the person who claimed that PW had 12,000 active members!!!(up from 7200 at the RNC) Cheers

NBGPWS 00:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

CWC's Funny! Kfir was quoted as claiming 'there's 200 of us' at the exact same event where the reporter counted 'roughly' 75. Whose claim do you think is more accurate? I KNOW whose claim gets precedent under WP, and it's the independent non-involved third party reporting source. 75

NBGPWS 00:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

N, I am monitoring the PW article, as it seems to be a problem area, and had already noted that myself. While I thank you for drawing the DU article to my attention, it would be best for you to wait until your block expires before pointing out any specific editing issues. A block is to be taken seriously, and I have no wish to interfere with its intent. Thanks. Derex 00:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice which I will take after refuting one last scurillous accusation. I love their claims that *I* am the main source of their problems. I arrived in mid 2006. Take a look in the archives. This article has been a battlefield since day one. Here is a quote from Oct 2004, a year and a half before I ever arrived, and one of the very first comments archived:
"The current edit is sheer propaganda for the Protest Warrior group. Troll edits of the article by Protest Warrior members are abusing Wikipedia for extremist propaganda. Restore to neutral and lock the version or delete article."
No comment.
NBGPWS 06:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/b/g/User_talk%7ENBGPWS_Archive_1_1d6b.html"