User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling/Archive 3

Thank you…
…for the barnstar. I was glad to be able to help. . -- Avi 05:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America
Thanks for helping with the article, we do appreciate it, but please leave dates as 2006-10-10 fmt as it's less typing, auto adjust to user's viewing prefs, and is ISO compatible. If dates don't match this, yes, they should all be made one fmt. Rlevse 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeouch! I saw so few of those.  I just redid them all to the same format.  I'm still doing a few that have 06 instead of 6, for example.  Do you want me to change them all back?  Well, I give you permission to revert all date changes if you wish, but they were in different formats.  Tell me what I should do as I'm contributing since it's the collaborative scouting project of the month. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll revert to when you started the dates. Then since you want to help (THANKS!) change the others. I will help if you want. Rlevse 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite! I'll leave the date changes to you as I'm minorly confused about them now, but that's just me.  But I'll go ahead and make other changes like I have, usually just to grammar and the like.  But I added that great quote from President Gerald Ford.  I think that's a great start to the article.  The article describes Scouting, but it didn't have in it mention of the really great things it has done.  Like I added the reference to the astronauts and the popularity and longevity of the Pinewood Derby.  Scouting is clearly a pillar of American life and culture.  It is no wonder it is under constant attack by the ACLU and the like. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hallo. Just curious - what attacks do the ACLU make against Scouting?
 * Well, 81.104.161.147, I see this is your first addition EVER to Wikipedia! I feel honored, scouts honor!  But wikipedia talk pages are about improving wikipedia pages, not about political topics.  Therefore I will gracefully request you try a Google search on the terms to see for yourself.  But thanks for your interest! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Algae on Pansexuality
Yes, yes we are. :) Disinclination 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It sure was a funny mistake. I like to check words that look peculiar.  Most time it's just a misspelling.  This time it was the wrong word, but the meaning of the wrong word actually made the sentence funny!  I should have left it in!  Thanks for writing here, and enjoy your algae -- do you prefer red, green or brown? Sorry, I couldn't kelp myself.  And for that bad joke I'll flagellate myself.  Hey, if I keep this up, maybe you'll be lichen me more.  Now stop sponging off my user talk page.  Hey, I'm funny; I should win a phagotrophy for this! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh good lord. You make me raw-ful. Hehe. Get it? Rofl? It's nice to know that someone to going around checking these things. Just to make sure we're not fanatical about algae. :)Disinclination 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the Jay-Z article
Hello! First of all, nice work cleaning up the article! You attacked quite a few of the issues I've had with the article for some time now. One minor thing; you might want to have a look here for clarification about how stage names and full names should be formatted. Thanks! - -  weirdo actor tundefinedc - - 15:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU! My first Barn Star!  And I'll look into the naming policy.  Thanks again! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of banned books
Please don't cite websites like WorldNetDaily as sources -- they are far too partisan to be trustworthy sources for most subjects. (And also, you might want to try to clean up the formatting on your talk page so it isn't so wide...) Haikupoet 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugg, my formating was awful. I canned it.
 * I'll leave out the WND article for now, but I'm restoring the other as it does not suffer from what you say the WND article suffers from and as it has already passed muster with a number of other wikipedians. Note, however, the banned books article is totally weighted to one side--the WND article provided a little balance, but you excised it.
 * Can you, instead of just cutting out other people's work, suggest a way to cite to the same or similar information showing conservative books are banned from college campuses nationwide? This is a matter of balance, not of my political point of view.  I will mull adding an NPOV tag due to your removal of the only balance in the article -- indeed the title of the article is misleading as almost none of those books is banned in reality.  Challenged, maybe, but not banned. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The goal of Wikipedia is not balance, it is NPOV or neutral point of view. Please cite authoritative sources and note what it says under the contribution box "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Editing and getting edited is part of Wikipedia culture. Jessamyn (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New species
Thanks for that article, was a good read. It is amazing what is found in that part of the world. It is the same in New Guinea, where people are constantly finding huge numbers of new species when they reach an area they have never been. They even continue to find them in pre-explored regions. There were >20 found on a plateau last year, and it happened again this year! Plus, they found tonnes of new fish, in a coral which had not been studied by scientists. --liquidGhoul 13:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Alaska quote
Do you really think that warrents being in three different articles? Especially when your only sources is such a POV site? I say we put it to a vote.

Czolgolz 13:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in one of the articles, in the Talk page, I specifically raised the issue. No one responded.  For months and months. So there seems to be no problem.


 * Now, on the John Green page, this being a John Green quote about an award winning book of his, this being a quote that he would not give his own award winning book to his own child if he had one due to its inappropriateness for certain ages, this being a highly unusual quote, it is perfectly encyclopedic. You do not think it is interesting that the guy wins an award for his book for 12 years olds from the American Library Association but he himself thinks it's only appropriate for 14 year olds and up?  You think this happens everyday so its ho hum?  The ALA is actively promoting sexually inappropriate books for young children, and here, the author of one such book says he would not give even his own book to his own 12 year old if he had one.  This is highly encyclopedic.


 * Your claim the quote is from a POV site is irrelevant since I did not cite or quote or even mention any controversy from that site. I merely quoted a single sentence as it was relevant to John Green himself.


 * Consider also the way in which it was presented. I used almost no words of my own, providing only his own quote, and perhaps a connective word like "although."  Are you suggesting "although" is a point of view phraseology?  Well, then, change although to "and."  Would that make you happier?


 * Now, as to the other pages, leaving out the quote is point of view. That's right.  Now quoting John Green in this case leaves one with the impression the book and the Award is honky dorry in the world.  Well, it is not.  And that is not my POV.  That is based on John Green's own statement.  I am merely placing his statement on those pages.  And that particular quote also belongs on the Looking For Alaska page and the Prinz Award page.  Not the YA Literature page, and I did not put it there, or similar such pages.  But to leave it out, indeed for you to take it out, even where it was already discussed in Talk and no objections were raised, that is the definition of point of view.


 * Further evidence of your POV is that you complained it was on 3 pages. One would think you might have removed it from 1 or 2 pages.  But no, you removed it from all 3 pages.  Pure POV.


 * Further, John Green made that quote. He is likely proud of it and would make it again.  Who are you to cut out his own quote from his own wiki page? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I see on the Looking For Alaska page you made a change more in keeping with wikipeditude. It's quite good really.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I finally had time to get back to this (newborn daughter). Generally, blogs are not legitimate references in wiki. I'm sure the site you cite is fine, but there's no way of telling whether the site's author is really quoting, or taking something out of context, or making it up. If the rules apply to other articles, it applies here too. Also, I think the quote is kind of ramrodded into the article (see my change to the main book article). Finally, I don't think the quote warrents a triple inclusion, I doubt even 'ask not what your country can do for you' is in wiki three times. I'd reccomend it be included in the looking for alaska article only. If you absolutely feel it must be in more than once, I'd say in the award article. If you have no objections, I'd like to remove it from the author's page, I think the subject has been sufficiently covered elsewhere.

By the way, have you read Looking for Alaska? It's a great book. Czolgolz 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Librarian and young adult author

PS when responding to someone, it's a good idea to write in their talk page, not your own, since they probably won't check yours.

Regarding reversions made on February 20 2007 to Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006
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 8 hours. William M. Connolley 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Block
I made an addition. After some intermediate disagreement, someone else rewrites it. This is the consensus that wiki is all about. Then a series of newbies with IP addresses either being actually different people or the same person using different computers, removes the rewritten material by the other editor without explanation, initially. I put it back. They do it again and again, and I put it back, each time clearly explaining why it belongs that any unbiased person would at least consider. Then ElKevbo says I violated a revert rule. I cannot believe reverting vandalism or whatever you want to call these out-of-policy cuts by newbie?/newbies? of someone else's work could violate any wiki policies. Jimbo Wales himself could not possibly look and say, well, the vandals cut someone's work repeatedly and this other person kept putting it back, so let's stop this other person from righting the wrongs done by the vandals, or whatever they are. With the series of edits by similar but different IP addresses, all with few edits under their/his/her belt(s), I did not know what to do besides restore the other person's material they kept taking down. Yes, I initially added some of the material, but it was completely redone, except an actual quotation, by a third party. This team of people or single person kept taking it down under the circumstances described. Please advise how to handle that kind of situation. Even now the material excised needs to be restored until policy is followed, but this ElKevbo action prevents that. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to stick within WP:3RR. As to the page in question: in general you want WP:DR. If an anon is being unreasonable, then seek advice, possibly get the page semi-protected, but stick within 3RR William M. Connolley 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That's it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful you don't revert 3+ times on censorware either. We can't have 2 separate articles, so the redirect is correct - but others can revert, don't get yourself blocked. Secretlondon 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)