Talk:The Political Cesspool/Archive 3

Edit request from 98.66.6.22, 1 October 2010
Request edit (addition) at the end of second paragraph following "According to the SPLC, the show has featured a Who's Who of the radical right, including members of the Ku Klux Klan; they say Edwards has probably done more than anyone on the American radical right to promote neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and other extremists."

EDIT (ADD): Supporters of the show argue that many of the same controversial figures who have appeared on The Political Cesspool have also been interviewed on major network television and radio broadcasts without arousing criticism from the SPLC or other liberal interest groups. (END)

98.66.6.22 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please create another request when you have done so. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Editorial NPOV?
I was under the impression that Wiki editors should display NPOV when working on articles. User Stonemason89 is clearly not impartial to the topic at hand.

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Third_Position_Party

On that talk page, pertaining to the American Third Position Party, Stonemason89 writes, "I don't agree with or support their political views at all..." Emphasis added.

The host of The Political Cesspool is a board member of American Third Position, an organization that shares many of the same political viewpoints as the aforementioned radio program. I think that this statement alone calls Stonemason89's objectivity into question.

Furthermore, Stonemason89 has edited The Political Cesspool's Wiki article 423 times, essentially to the point of obsession. Like many other editors who "work" on this page, a case can be made that his "contributions" are agenda driven.

I would, therefore, like to formally dispute the neutrality of this article. Can some one please advise the proper steps I should take in order to file such a complaint? 74.226.66.138 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The essence of an editor controlling information in an article is if s/he refuses to allow a valid reliably sourced viewpoint the weight that sources give it. Do you have sources that counter what is addressed in the article? Are there views that are not being presented here? It would help your case to assert that Stonemason is keeping the article narrowly defined.


 * On that score, edit counts for a particular article are not necessarily indicative that an editor is obsessed or controlling an article. It is not uncommon for editors who have worked on featured articles to have hundreds or thousands of edits to it, depending on how much the article is edited. The editors for Hilary Clinton, for example, have thousands of edits to that article because it's more frequently edited than this one.


 * Similarly, an editor need not agree with a topic to edit it. Many controversial articles are written by people who wish to understand the material better. Writing about Westboro Baptist Church, for example, does not require one to believe that soldiers who died in military service are burning in hell.


 * So if you plan to pursue this accusation, please provide proof that Stonemason is deliberately excluding information that is reliably sourced. --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you really feel as though someone who claims to strongly disagree with the program's mission statement can function as an objective editor of an article pertaining to its history and beliefs? Ever heard of conlict of interests? While Wikipedia is certainly no court of law, any judge in Stonemason89's position would be immediately taken off the case. I agree that one need not subscribe to the ideas of The Political Cesspool in order to work on the associated entry, but surely they should not be publicly opposed. Hence the name, neutral.

Leaving aside Stonemason89's apparent blogspot blog, the recent edits made by SlimVirgin have gone over the top, IMO. I would like an editor who has not previously worked on this article to serve as an arbiter. You do not qualify, Moni3.

The question of Stormfront being a syndicate was correctly resolved weeks ago. Now that decision has been reverted. That case is just one of many that proves that factual evidence holds no bearing on the wording contained within this article.

My question was not answered. How do I file an official dispute of neutrality? 74.226.66.138 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is not really an "official" dispute of neutrality. If you have general concerns about the article, they should be raised here on the Talk page. If you review the featured article criteria and believe the article should not be considered such, you can file an entry at Featured article review. In either case, to use your courtroom metaphor, you would have to provide concrete evidence that the article or its editors are not neutral. For example, you could present reliable sources that counter claims made in the article and that have not been represented in the text. You cannot make your case on discourse alone. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, kindly, Spike Wilbury. 74.226.66.138 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you don't get to request who works on articles.


 * The first part of the process, if you would like to proceed with this at your own discretion, is to open a Request for Comment/User conduct where you will be asked to provide proof that Stonemason89 is editing non-neutrally. You will be asked to provide examples, and after seeing quite a few of these, I know you're going to be asked for specific diffs, or links to edits that are found in the article history, that Stonemason89 either removed material he knew was valid and reliable or decided to leave it out to form his personal view of how the article should read. Keep in mind also that I blocked an IP address similar to yours yesterday for harassment, so it's no cognitive leap to figure that you are the same editor and this will be brought up at the RFC/U. Click the link above, fill out the RFC/U, notify Stonemason89 on his talk page. The RfC/U will be listed at a central location so people unfamiliar with this article or Stonemason89's edits will be able to see it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So since you blocked an IP similar to mine, that means that my points are not valid? Thanks for the heads-up, but I'll proceed by using the appropriate channels. 74.226.66.138 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Many Wikipedia editors are very proud of our ability to edit articles on subjects we find repugnant in a manner that demonstrates NPOV. Any accusation that an editor is failing to do so must be based on facts, not on ad hominem presumptions of guilt that reject our policy of assumed good faith. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An RFC plain and simple (see WP:RFC started at this page on the neutrality issue, is probably the best way to deal with that issue. An RfC/U is about an editor, not an article. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me as if anon IP was expressing his concerns more about Stonemason than the article. If, anon IP, you are objecting more to the content of the article, an RFC is the way to go. If your concerns are with Stonemason in particular, in this and The Third Position article, which seemed to me the essence of your complaint, the RFC/U is what you should be pursuing.
 * Your points are as valid as you present them. Feel free to do so with evidence. --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

James Edwards (radio host)
There's no indication that Edwards and the show are independently notable, so I'd like to merge them if there are no objections. The usual thing is to merge away from the BLP, and given that the article about the show was created first, it would make sense to keep this one. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead with the merge.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Klan?
The Political Cesspool has never interviewed a member of the Ku Klux Klan. A wacky allegation made by kooky liberal websites doesn't make something a fact. I am, therefore, removing said reference from the page.

Also, TPC is not broadcast by Stormfront. Once again, Media Matters saying it once was does not make it factual. That Stormfront replayed an archived interview with Pat Buchanan from Cesspool's website does not make it a syndicate. Sorry. This matter was once resolved, but I can see it was reverted - like everything else that has ever been objective about this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.120.56 (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I advise you to stop edit warring and develop consensus here before you remove anything else from the article. If you don't approve of the sources used, you can challenge them at the Reliable sources noticeboard or pursue dispute resolution. If you continue to simply remove anything you don't like, you will either get half of Memphis rangeblocked, or the article will be semi-protected longterm. Jumping IP addresses is going to get you nowhere. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey man I'm just trying to help you guys out. I only saw the word Nazi in the article about 100 times. I thought adding it 100 more times would only add to the quality work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.64.186 (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter that the show has never interviewed a "klansman" and you have no sources that say that is has? Or are you going to continue to fabricate most passages of this article to satisfy your anti-conservative biases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.68.197 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for facts sake, they did interview a current clan member, back in January of 2008 - Randy Gray. A visit to the show's page will display the archives. 98.188.197.222 (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean Randy Gray the Ron Paul county coordinator and elected Republican delegate? I heard no mention of the "Klan" in that interview you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.68.197 (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If he didn't mention the Klan in the interview, that doesn't change whether he is or isn't a Klansman. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's a Klansman for sure. See, . Stonemason89 (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work, guys! Now, we just need to go thru every article on Wikipedia that covers a show/publication that has ever interviewed Robert Byrd and write in their article that they interview members of the Ku Klux Klan as well. Because I know fairness and accuracy is what you all care about. I'll get to work on it right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Stonemason, Moni and Orange Mike --- I just saw that CNN has interviewed Robert Byrd in the past! Be sure to rush over and edit the CNN Wikipedia page to note that they interview members of the Ku Klux Klan, ok? Thanks! I'll keep looking for others...
 * Has your calendar stopped working? Byrd was with the Klan back before the invention of dirt; Gray was an active Klansman within the past couple of years! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, so now it matters whther they are current or former Klansmen, huh? Got you chasing your tail, huh? In that case, you should scrub all references of David Duke being a "Klansman" from this article.

Also, I find it interesting that an avowed delegate of the Democratic Party is an editor of a page featuring a conservative talk radio show. After taking into account the associations that you and Stonemason have I don't think anyone who reads this article is going to have a hard time figuring out why it is so slanted and hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Either way, I think you should scurry along and update the CNN wikipage to let it read that they have interviewed former members of the Ku Klux Klan. this is very important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront (Part 2)
Since it was already established that Stormfront doesn't/didn't carry the show, and since it was also previously established that Media Matters isn't a reliable source, I was wondering why the falsehood about Stormfront carrying the show has reappeared? That they aired a tape of a Cesspool interview with Pat Buchanan makes them a syndicate? Come on, team! That's bad - even for this article - which is saying something! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to take that issue up with SlimVirgin on her talk page, since she was the one who wanted to re-add the bit about Stormfront to the article (after I, and a few other editors, had decided it would be best to remove that segment for the time being to prevent more trolls from showing up). Stonemason89 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that trying to reason with her would go over about as well as it has with the owners of this page. Is Slim Virgin your boss? Why don't you go ahead and do the right thing and remove at least that one inaccurate statement. There will still be plenty more in the article, so you don't have to worry about that. I'd do it myself, but you've blocked the page to keep anything objective from getting placed.

This article is grotesquely biased against the show in question. It is overleoaded with repetitive criticism (from unreliable sources of questionable objectivity) and very short on the praise that Political Cesspool has earned. I think the least that can be done is to remove the most ridiculous of the ridiculous allegations, that being the Stormfront silliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, here is a prime example of a pointed question not getting dealth with. Stonemason knows that Slim Virgin will be as unwilling as he to remove the passage, so he passes the buck. This is vulgar.

And how can someone with the apparent blogspot of Stonemason even be allowed to have a say in this article at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, that blogspot does NOT belong to me, but to someone attempting to impersonate me. Please see the disclaimer on my User page. If you continue to claim that that blogspot belongs to me, you will be blocked for making personal attacks. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As dishonest and biased as you've been with your work on this article, I think we should really just let people make up their own minds. The blogspot page in question and this Wiki article read very, very similarly. The fact that the Stormfront lie still stands serves as futher proof. Have you once added any praise of the show to counterbalance the repetitive criticism that you've heaped on the article from unreliable sources? My offer still stands to provide you with this content for entry into the article, since the article is locked and only the owners of this page are allowed to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an extremely valid point being made and the silence is deafening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On this topic, I really don't think the statement that Stormfront "broadcasts" the show ought to be in the article. They "make the show available for download" but that's not really the same thing. It's clear that Stormfront loves the show and has connections to it (see [ http://www.stormfront.org /radio/Stormfront-Media/index3-06-10-08-112.html this] for example—they post press releases related to TPC) but they don't broadcast it. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
The Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League are listed as the sources for most of the repetitive ciriticsm that is placed in the article. By no standard of measurement should they be considered a reliable source. If they are, then every lunatic fringe website on the internet must be also. And if they are, you should start quoting the countless conservative websites that love and praise Political Cesspool. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Well, probably not on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your valid complaint capital is being used up, anon IP. Several avenues of formal protest have been pointed out to you to pursue if you feel the article or its major contributors are biased. Follow them, please. Otherwise, posting slipshod on this talk page, implying that the editors who have treated you fairly in responding to your requests are incompetent and Wikipedia is rife with injustice, makes it seem as if you do not have reliable sources to counter what is being presented in the article, or you are simply too lazy to find them.


 * I have seen this behavior before and there are avenues to deal with editors who would rather use emotional accusations than provide proof. If you really have a point to make, make it then with sources. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to go through the system have been attempted, as you well know.

Emotional accusations? I asked specifically if the SPLC and ADL were reliable sources and you danced around the question. I'm sure you'll now respond that they are, which is bogus. But, if they are, then the countless conservative websites who have praised Cesspool should have an equal amount of statements added to the main article. If you'd like me to collect a sampling of these for placement, I'd be happy to do that.

Again, I'd place them myself but you have made it sure that nobody can edit the article but liberal approved lackeys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Attempts have been attempted? Have you opened an RfC? Have you taken the article to FAR? What has been done aside from complaining on the talk page?


 * QED: Emotional accusations→"liberal approved lackeys". No longer listening. Bring proof. Get sources. If you are successful in this kind of arguing in real life, sources is the language Wikipedia speaks. Learn it quickly, please. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is emotional to say those who own this page are liberal? That's actually a fact that's apparent when reading this trash. And since you've blocked this page from being edited, and won't make amends when facts are brought to this talk page, what good will it do to bring complaints to your friends who would review the RfC and FAR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is only locked from being edited by unregistered users. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true, Andy. I know of several registered users who have attempted to objectively edit this article only to be named "sockpuppets" or be blocked for various nefarious reasons. Why is it locked at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's locked because you were removing content and undoing the edits without comment or consensus. You would get blocked and then come back with a different IP address. In those cases, the article has to be protected so you are forced to discuss and obtain consensus before editing. We operate on a consensus model here—you have to develop consensus for controversial changes to an article. I've actually been searching for more reliable sources to work into the article, but my patience for doing so is being worn thin by your stream of ridiculous comments like the one you just added at the bottom. If you're actually interested in making progress here and not just trolling, you'll learn to work within the system. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me? * I * was trying to remove content? If you'll geolocate me you'll see that I live in Dyersburg, which is 2 hours from Memphis, and that today is my first visit to this page. What happened to assuming good faith and being welcoming? If you can make unproven accusations about me, as you just did, then why am I being threatened with being blocked for pointing out the comments that Stonemason made on his apparent blog. There is certainly more evidence to back up my claim (that Stonemason has a vindictive agenda) than yours.

There wouldn't be "trolls" as you call them (I call them people concerned about the lack of objectivity in this article) if this article wasn't so flagrantly biased and one-sided. Everyone who works for Cesspool is a Nazi and everyone who has ever met them is a Nazi. We get it. Now, how about plugging a source that has been complimentary of the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the second time "74" has claimed that that blogspot belongs to me. As I have made clear in the disclaimer on my userpage, it is NOT my blog (rather, it was an offwiki attempt to impersonate and smear me). "74"'s comments re: that blogspot are violations of the no personal attacks policy. I warned him once before to stop making those comments, and he doesn't seem to have learned his lesson. Because of this, I've posted a level 4im warning on his talk page; if he continues making personal attacks, a block would definitely be in order. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Reaching out
Has anyone here actually tried to reach out to the staff of the show? I'm willing to bet that this pitiful excuse for an article has been written without the subject in question ever once being contacted to prove/disprove the assorted questionable content of the article. But that's cool. Since you read the SPLC's blog, which is God's Holy Word, I guess you know everything there is to know about them. Facts be damned. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The staff of the show is by definition not a neutral or reliable source. I would say this of the staff of any subject, from Microsoft to G.W. Bush. We need information from more impartial sources. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And you'd count the Southern Poverty Law Center as an impartial source? That's a joke, right?

And I bet the show's staff knows more about who carries their programming than Media Matters, wouldn't you agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Mike, the show's website is referenced many times in the article here. Is it a reliable source it when it confirms a fact you like, and unreliable it when it disproves other lies? Just looking for clarifcation.


 * The show's website may be deemed reliable for certain information about the show, per SELFPUB. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Goethean. Now that that is established, how about reaching out to the show or consulting its website to prove some of the many disputed statements of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mistake!
I don't know how this could have slipped passed Stonemason, Moni and Mike, but when I re-read the article just now I was actually able to find one sentence that didn't refer to the show or its hosts as racists, Nazis, White Supremacists, or anti-Semites.

You need to fix that right away before someone reading this article doesn't get its intended point - which is to make sure everyone knows that the decent Christian men who do that show are actually evil Nazis who hate everyone.

You must make sure that every sentence in this article reconfirms your liberal opinion about this radio show. Whatever you do, turn a blind eye to the publications who have favorable commented on the work of Cesspool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.118.59 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I started an ANI thread. Anonymous IP informed on his talk page at 74.226.118.59 --Moni3 (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront issue
The lead makes three claims about where this show has been broadcast:


 * Formerly broadcast on radio station WMQM
 * Formerly broadcast on Stormfront Radio
 * Currently broadcast on WLRM, a Christian radio station

Of the three, the second keeps on being disputed. Is this because it's false, or was it broadcast on Stormfront in some significantly different way from the other two broadcasts? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends on your definition of "broadcast". They never added it to their live, continuous broadcast. What they do is make certain archived copies of episodes available on their web site. One assumes TPC furnishes permission for them to do this, but nothing is stated in the sources. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was broadcast in any sense with the show's blessing or permission we should include it. But if Stormfront is just randomly hosting material they like, without permission, then we shouldn't. The source says "Stormfront, which has streamed Political Cesspool ..."  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is something here about them bidding a fond farewell to the Political Cesspool. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Check out [ http://www.stormfront.org /radio/Stormfront-Media/index3-06-10-08-112.html this] link as well—they publish press releases about TPC and other content. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This research smells kinda WP:ORish, doesn't it? Secondary sources, anyone? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the threads before you made this comment? We're discussing why various editors have disputed the statement in question. Just above you suggested that primary sources should be used for certain information. Are you now saying that we couldn't use Stormfront's web site as proof that they do or do not broadcast TPC? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Andy, I'm happy to defer to your judgment on this. I don't really know what [ http://www.stormfront.org /radio/Stormfront-Media/index3-06-10-08-112.html this link] means, and whether it constitutes "broadcasting," or whether they were just picking up material without the Political Cesspool being involved or being paid for it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, if it falls under WP:SPS then that's fine. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Francophone Help Wanted
The Political Cesspool has just been covered in a French newspaper, Le Journal du Dimanche. I can't read French so I don't know what the article says, but I think it might make a good source for this article. Is there anyone who would be willing to help translate? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I used Google Translate. It's about Eddie Miller, not really about TPC. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in another book
In case anyone is interested:. Not sure if the book will end up being a RS, though. The cover doesn't mention who the author is. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a collection of Wikipedia articles, "published" by Books LLC! Not exactly a reliable source. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edwards featured by CNN last week
Since CNN interviewed Edwards last week without insulting him this article probably won't make the cut here, but unlike most of the sources Wikipedia uses to cover Political Cesspool, this one actually is reliable.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/index.html?hpt=T2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.69.149 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of station descriptor
User:Anupam felt it necessary to remove the adjective "Christian" before WLRM's "radio station" phrase. Not sure why he felt that was necessary; I've restored the article to its original writing.Rockypedia (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd, I thought I'd done that this morning, glad you did it. It's slogan is about bringing the Gospel to Memphis, I don't see a problem. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012
In the "Guests" section, where Merlin Miller is mentioned, please mention that he is the current nominee for POTUS of the American Third Position Party.

Ddcm8991 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please provide the exact text you are requesting, per instructions in the template. -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Filmmakers Merlin Miller (A Place to Grow, Jericho), who is the 2012 presidential nominee of the American Third Position Party,......"Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddcm8991 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)