User talk:Factchecker atyourservice/Archive 1

This page 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.

Talk:Sherman Austin

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Talk:Sherman Austin. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Murderbike 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what you deleted, that I restored was the bot inserted notes saying who added what text, particularly, the text that you had added. It's VERY helpful for material in talk pages to be signed, so editors know who they are responding too. Murderbike 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[3][4]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Username

Hi. As discussed at the helpdesk, you need to request a username change at Wikipedia:Changing username ASAP. See Wikipedia:Username policy before choosing a new username to change to. Thanks.--Chaser - T 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

repeated citings

Yeah, I just learned how to do this. If you're gonna cite something more than once, you put something like <ref name="Smith">Smith, John. ''Some dumb book''. Publisher, 1999.</ref> for the first cite, and then <ref name="Smith"/> for each successive cite. Good luck! Murderbike 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DivaNTrainin

Please stop editing this article "Copwathch"until you are willing to follow Wikipedia guidelines, with specific attention to the rules found under WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources. Thank you. Divantrainin 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Diva. That's what I posted on your user talk page before you deleted it. I posted it again after you deleted it because it seemed you had simply ignored the message. I don't need a record of it because I can just cut & paste it out of the edit history of your talk page if I ever want to post that comment again. Please drop this childish tit-for-tat and start editing constructively. If you do not, I will support all future efforts to have you banned from editing again, or at least banned from editing the Copwatch article.Factchecker atyourservice 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, ban inc IMO.Factchecker atyourservice 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I will also support the ban. This user has repeatedly violated WP guidelines and refuses to engage other users constructively. His/her childish behavior is totally unacceptable. Mycota 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I posted on the Admin Noticeboard yesterday. Someone there said the vandalism "appeared to have stopped" ... I don't know how he figured that exactly but didn't want to argue. Diva pulled the same edit today so I posted it on the Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism page. Diva, if you're reading this, cut the crap and come to the table.Factchecker atyourservice 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Arv

as a tip please try to keep your summaries short when reporting as you did when reporting mrtobacco Shawnpoo 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That was another user who posted that report with 3-page "summary".Factchecker atyourservice 16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

my bad the report was so big i found the wrong name ;p Shawnpoo 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

SHRM article

A tag has been placed on Society for Human Resource Management, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Society for Human Resource Management and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Hello. I have replaced the Verifiability tag which you removed from the SHRM article. Please do not construe a temporary absence of commentary by other editors to indicate that "resolution" of a dispute has been achieved.

Additionally, I have added an NPOV tag due to the obviously promotional nature of the article, and also nominated the article for Speedy Deletion under the Spam rationale. I believe it will be necessary to start over from scratch with this article in order to achieve an acceptable encyclopedia entry.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I have added a request for you on the article's talk page. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For making fine decisions in general editing with a good attitude. Best Eustress (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RPI and WorldAtWork

I have tagged the Recognition Professionals International and WorldatWork articles as advertising. Since you appear to have written the articles in their entirety, I wanted to advise you of this and provide an opportunity for you to edit these articles yourself. If you choose to do so, please be mindful of the prior discussion under the SHRM article. If you do not wish to, I will do so.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I removed any advertisement issues, using your SHRM text as a template for the Intro. If there are further problems, skip the tag and go ahead and fix the issues—they're short, stub articles. --Eustress (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Palin Abortion Edit

Factchecker, you have just reverted my edit and put in the exact same reference (except that it is the Seattle Times article itself, instead of a Google News reference to the same article) I removed because the transcript of the interview the article is summarizing clearly shows that "would ban" is the reporter's opinion and not Palin's. Please revert your reversion of my edit and continue the discussion on the Talk page. Thanks!--Paul (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, first, there is no such requirement on using sources, at least none that I am aware of. Second, there are direct quotations available confirming what the reporter stated. The statement is now fully referenced and I will not be reverting it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Thanks. My goal is neither to praise nor to criticize Palin, it is only to comply with our NPOV policy which demands that all significant views that are verifiable and come from reliable sources are included in the article. I wish more people would see this as a matter simply of complying with NPOV. Unfortunately most of my edits have been criticized by editors active on the talk page - I wish there were more people active who shared (and valued) my approach... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your note - I hope you find the energy and time to participate more on the article talk page, we need to create a positive attitude towards collaboration! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

source-spamming

You don't need to apologize - I hope nothing I wrote questioned your ood faith! You really did remember something real, you just didn't remembe enough of it. This happens all the time and is nothing to feel bad about (you might just want to write a note to Jossi that you were sorry that in your zeal to uphold policies you judged his good faith attempt to hlep in haste ... but i am sure he understands too!!) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Strangers in a Strange Land

What I like most about the Sarah Palin article is that it puts me in touch with knowledgable editors like you. Your comments regarding the goings on at the rape kit thread are educational and informative. I also Wholeheartedly agree with your comments about editor:C-----t. There is something more than meets the eye there. I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding C-----t. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless C-----t pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective). Sometimes the things that are found in an editors "contributions" can be very interesting.--Buster7 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you do have some kind of relevant information, I'd caution you to take it to administrators sooner rather than later and avoid revealing it in a public context. It will lose a lot of credibility if you try to use it to torpedo the guy instead of going through the proper channels in a timely fashion. You might even get into trouble for it. As for my own sentiments, I just find the whole thing very frustrating. It's very hard to AGF. I feel if I were not devoting time to the article then a lot of massaging and reinterpreting and excluding of the sources would be taking place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

please see [[5]] here....and advise ASAP. What to do.....and when....it explains alot...confidential, please...I have shown only Homunq since he also has expessed problems --Buster7 (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just now shared with admin LessHeard vanU...thanks for advice--Buster7 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Much as I would like to view that as a gloves-off admission of an obstructionist editorial style, it looks more like a sarcastic commentary on typical edit-warring. I don't like the guy too much, and have suspicions about his motivations, but I really don't think you're going to get anywhere with this. I wouldn't even bother bringing it up.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your right. I didn't get anywhere but frustrated. Thanks for confiding and guidance. I'll drop it and move on.--Buster7 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And so we move on...

Of course you know what happens in court stays in court. You would be surprised how little I would ever mention politics in Real Life, as I have no time for it. I'm actually in a very good position in life where it would be very unlikely for me to be impacted by even the most incompetent administration, save something catastrophic, if that office really even had the power people believe it does! 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)

- Note, I don't know why everything has become block quoted. I needed to reply line by line**

I'll start by saying that your characterization of me as a bully couldn't be more off base.

In my opinion you've been lecturing people on policies you know nothing about and presenting yourself as if you have an authoritative say that overrides other editors.

I've made it my life's ambition to achieve things through consensus, and I've been quite successful in doing that. I'll dismiss your cheap snipes as you just not being WP:CIVIL, as I do understand such things can happen in the course of passionate discussion (apparently one that's far more passionate for you than for me).

You've repeatedly questioned my good faith. This is just as uncivil.

I will suggest that losing your cool and perspective, as you've done, doesn't serve you well under such circumstances. But whatever... you obviously could care less about advice from me, right? Anyway, I acknowledge that I have indeed been a WP:SPA for my few weeks of existence on WP.

And I am not saying that you should not be editing the Palin article, but perhaps you could show the slightest deference or even listen to people who have been in the trenches longer than you?

I've explained that elsewhere, and I need no approval from you for my actions and edits.

Of course.

Despite, as I constantly strive to improve, I wanted to see what seasoned, respectable and broad-based WP elite like yourself do,

I'm certainly no elite, but I have spent a lot of time, reading, re-reading, interpreting, and having my interpretation correct on, the core Wiki policies.

and lo and behold... you've contributed to virtually nothing except the Palin article for a longer period than I've been a WP member!

Just because I'm not CURRENTLY working on other articles doesn't mean I work ONLY on this article. If you look at my edit history, you'll see massive contributions to other seriously controversial articles. And if you look at the contributions... for whatever it may be worth... you might discover that my political leanings are closer to your own than you might suspect just from looking at my Palin edits. So.. not it is not a pot/kettle thing. I've just got a lot more experience.

Isn't that kind of a pot-kettle-black thing? Moreover, not a whit of your contributions have provided any "balanced" material whatsoever, but rather always represent a consistent drag to the negative side of the article's content.

Can you really look at the rape kit edit I made and still say that? Regardless, most of the editors show a "constistent drag" towards one side or the other. I've commented specifically on that. We're not editing in a vacuum. The majority of people editing the Palin article have strong views on the subject.

You've never put in a single, positive point about Palin.

I've fairly and strongly reflected defenses against criticisms. That's just as good as -- no, better -- than putting in trivial "positive" material that's not relevant to her notability. In any case, the balance of editors seeking ONLY to introduce positive material, while wrongfully excluding most negative material, coupled with the observation that we ALL have a view one way or the other, makes this conduct completely reasonable.

Please show me where I'm wrong. At least I have some edit history where I've tried to arbitrate, moderate and compromise towards consensus.

If you think I do not, then you are not reading my edit history closely enough.

Frankly, in comparison, I'm quite proud of my edit history so far on WP, whether that makes me WP:SPA or not.

The SPA comments were not meant to totally invalidate or question your contributions... merely to suggest that you might step back and take more of a hands-off approach while you learn.

I was a bit creeped out by the weird edit you make to Young_Trigg talk a week or so ago... it looks like you're tilting at windmills hoping to scare away bogeymen!

I made that comment yesterday, I think. It was completely fair. The article has not seen such a blatantly POV-pushing and policy-violating editor as Trigg. Not even the people I argue with today.

You need to chill out, man. No one is paying you to be a partisan (or at least I hope not).

Most assuredly not. I would be a horrible Obama campaigner.

What you and I will get at the end of the day is the same old gruel served in a different colored bowl. I live for collaboration and mental exercise. I loathe those who tell me I'm not allowed to use my brain, but instead must think inside the little squares they've painted. You'll want to look for another foil if that's how you hope to mold me as a Wikipedian.Fcreid (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your intellect, but you must come to realize that it's Wikipedia's job to reflect published opinion EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT. I do wish you the best and I'm sorry we have had such confrontational exchanges. Please read the blurb on my user page and understand that it is not my intention, but is an unfortunate result of taking a stand on a controversial topic.

Despite our disagreements, vehement at times, there's no hard feelings on my part.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

too many edits to make, too little time

Hi Factchecker- could you just give me a link to or the wording of the rape kit wording you now propose - not how you got there, but the compromise version you can live with, and a short explanation of why - I can't spend the time to go through the iterations and arguments, as throughout the last couple of years I've found that some folks on these pages go for excess verbiage and middle of the night edits to obscure and bully in their positions and I don't have the time or patience to go through it yet again. I've been focused on other parts of this article and other articles, trying to keep them balanced - so, I'm not up to speed on rape kits. I have what Fcreid says and would like to know what you say. Thanks Tvoz/talk 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should mention at minimum the police dept policy, Alaska state law suppressing it, the allegation that she knew, and the St. Pete Times investigation not finding any evidence of this. You could also include the comment by the deputy mayor, any sourced claim that no women were ever billed, etc. If we were *really* committed to neutrality we would also mention the Palin spokesperson refusing comment and the St. Pete Times comment that the campaign offered no evidence she ever opposed the policy. Personally I do not care how much space is spent addressing this as I think the article could stand to have more detail than it does. I am sensitive to the need to not have everything be ridiculously verbose, but on the other hand it seems somewhat pointless to let subjective concerns about article length substantively restrict the presentation of relevant material. So I don't know really what people would expect, if they are even willing to compromise on inclusion in the first place. I guess what I'm saying is I couldn't offer a submission other than what I already offered without a more concrete idea of what people expect the word count to be.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My complaint was about excessive verbiage on the talk pages - I agree with you that we don't need to worry so much about article length. Have ad that argument on other articles many times. Can you give me a diff for the wording you'd prefer? Tvoz/talk 06:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for barging in. I'm sure there's some WP:JERK policy I'm violating by doing so on user talk pages. Yes, I understand I'm long-winded, but I don't consider it bullying to elicit critical thought before entering contentious and inflammatory material into a BLP. I also appreciate that you sincerely want to bring this to a consensus edit, Tvoz. I object to anyone's contention there is an allegation provided of Palin's involvement. I'll even take a leap of faith and allow that a known Democrat partisan and vocal critic of Palin, eight years after an event and during her campaign, might be called notable. However, the exact "notable" quote, "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it", is not an allegation. The statement creates no burden of evidence to support the supposition, and is therefore nothing more than a musing. "Notable" or not, anyone can muse, "I find it hard to believe that so-and-so didn't know about such-and-such." It doesn't pretend to know the accuracy of the statement. It doesn't pretend to have evidence that it's true. It doesn't pretend to be anything more than Croft's own unsubstantiated thoughts. Fcreid (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

...yes, otherwise known as his opinion...Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please endure me for one final point, because it's critical we get this one right. While purely anecdotal, it's very telling that none of the major RS were willing to run this story in their mainlines, but only in rare op-ed pieces. That includes NY Times, Boston Globe and several others that would historically have pounced on an anti-Palin story that could be sourced. While we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand that the controversy exists, we must be very cautious here at WP giving a platform to something that's potentially libellous. Fcreid (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but it's not potentially libelous. I would vigorously reject your making analysis and assumptions based on which newspapers "should have published this story" or the notion that newspapers publish stories in their op-ed pages when they think the stories are baseless slander. More OR and going quite far out on a limb if you ask me. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your input too! At least we can be amicable while disagreeing emphatically, eh? :) Yes, suggesting that a person knew of something without a factual source most certainly is potentially libellous, i.e. "harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign". Ironically, citing Croft does not transfer that violation to him, as his comments clearly say he does not know whether she knew about that policy, simply that he can't imagine how she could not have known. Fcreid (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said. The comment wasn't libelous. Quoting the comment wouldn't be libelous. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Words are powerful things, and his words were clearly minced. Notice the analogy to, "I can't imagine the moon isn't made of cheese!" Note that I am not actually saying I think that, and I'm in no way suggesting it's true. I'm merely saying I can't imagine that it isn't! Damn politicians do that crap all the time! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so you think the moon is made of green cheese. Roger that, you are a foolish caricature of somebody or other. You are doing ridiculous rhetorical backflips trying to make it to look like the guy was being dishonest. He wasn't. You're also doing ridiculous rhetorical backflips trying to make it look like he wasn't saying he thinks she knew. He was.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm really not! I'm taking his words at exactly their face value, and I'm not even dissecting them. If he wanted to be on record that he knew that she knew, he would have said, "She knew about it."

Yet he wasn't saying that. He was saying he thinks that she knew. And he has damn good reasons for thinking that... reasons which he states right there in the quote.

If he wanted to be on record saying she should have known (i.e. it was within her purview to know), he would have said, "She should have known. (It was her job to know.)"

NYT opinion piece said that. Regardless, it's not your place to search for misleading, non-face-value ways of interpreting what the source said.

If he wanted to be record that he personally thought she knew, he would have said, "I think she knew." Instead, he simply mused, "I can't imagine she didn't know."

He said ""I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," He finds it hard to believe she didn't know. It is his opinion that it's probable she did know. Can we not argue what the meaning of the word "is" is?

It's a completely blame-free statement that, while tortured, relieves him of any potential other interpretation or liability. Anyway, despite his own tortured phraseology, don't you think we've unearthed enough Palin enemies in Alaska that someone would have since come forward to say, "Yeah, she knew... I talked to her about it!" Fcreid (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

He stated his opinion without asserting it as fact. Are you saying there's something dishonest about that? Your true intention is revealed in the last sentence. You think it's not true, so you're going out of your way to reinterpret the sources to support your belief. That is the essence of original research. In any case... I think the vast majority of people who would have heard such a discussion want Palin to win VPOTUS and are keeping their mouths shut.. similar to the way all those people refused to comply with subpoenas once they realized their testimony might be damaging to Palin's chances on election day.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Word to the wise: if you say you think the moon is made of green cheese, but you're not saying the moon is definitely, for sure made of green cheese, you're saying you think the moon is made of green cheese but you can't prove it. You still are saying you think the moon is made of green cheese. Therefore it is your opinion the moon is made of green cheese. If you were a notable critic of non-cheese-moon theories, your opinion would be relevant.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what if I really didn't think the moon was made of green cheese, but rather I just couldn't imagine it not being made of green cheese? And I will have to see if I can dig up my diploma of moon-cheesology. :) Fcreid (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so, you can't imagine the sun not coming up tomorrow, circumstantial evidence all points to the sun coming up tomorrow, but you don't think the sun will come up tomorrow. Roger that... you are a foolish caricature of a thought experiment. If people quoted in newspapers were all prone to such self-contradictory riddles and gibberish, I would agree that we shouldn't cite their opinions on anything.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"I just heard the moon was made of green cheese. I just can't imagine that the moon isn't made of green cheese!" Fcreid (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first off, (1) that makes no sense whatsoever unless the speaker immediately believes everything somebody tells him and can't see how it could be false, and is therefore unable to see how the moon could not be made of green cheese once anybody in the world has told him it is made of green cheese; (2) it's still obvious to anyone who understands English and isn't trying to play deceptive semantic games, THAT THE SPEAKER OF THE ABOVE SENTENCE THINKS THE MOON IS PROBABLY MADE OF GREEN CHEESE AND CANNOT FATHOM ANY ALTERNATIVE STATE OF AFFAIRS; (3) the idea that this hyperbolic statement, which is itself contrary to reason, has any meaningful correspondence to croft's original statement, "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," and that this profoundly flawed thought experiment somehow proves his statement doesn't imply he thinks she probably knew about the rape kit policy, is patently ridiculous; (4) AS I SAID BEFORE, you are going through ridiculous rhetorical backflips trying to "prove" two things that aren't the case -- namely, that Croft was dishonestly speculating without basis (he wasn't) and that he didn't really believe what he was speculating (he did).

I consider myself to be amenable to discussions, but I am going to have to ask you to subject your comments to careful analysis and scrutiny before you post them here.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, based on your own inclusion of OR above that Croft was neither speculating nor deliberately crafting his words, maybe we can have a more serious conversation now that I see a crack of light from an open door that allows rational interpretation of "other things". First, and I reiterate, if Palin knew about this, why isn't that position documented anywhere? If the matter was a state-wide spectacle, as you seem to embrace, it would have been raised at hearings, legislative sessions and the media. The dearth of contemporaneous evidence is deafening, Factchecker, and simply does not corroborate Croft's after-the-fact recollection. Next, the legislation was Croft's baby. He sponsored the law, and it's a good law, at least given that it did once result in a victim receiving a bill (although never in Wasilla). It would be unthinkable had he not interpreted all dissent as confrontational, i.e. Fannon. As sponsor of the bill, and given it was just Police Chief of Podunk resisting, why did he never contact the local mayor to make her aware of that resistance and to squelch it? Again, the supporting inaction is deafening. Finally, if you're not forthright about this last one, further discusion is fruitless... while Croft and Palin, as governor, actually have worked hand-in-hand and cross-aisle on legislation matters, he is on record as a vocal critic of the McCain-Palin ticket and is actively stumping for Obama in conjunction with his own bid for Mayor of Anchorage. He has a vested interest in Obama's victory. That matters. It matters in how words are parsed, and it matters on the weight we give to them. Fcreid (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is maddening, like talking to a child who has his fingers stuck in his ears. Your screed is so chock-full of ridiculousness I am going to have to respond clause by clause instead of sentence by sentence.

"Okay, based on your own inclusion of OR above that Croft was neither speculating nor deliberately crafting his words,"

First, I never said Croft wasn't speculating. I said he wasn't DISHONESTLY SPECULATING WITHOUT BASIS. And he wasn't... he *states the basis for his speculation right there in the article"

Second, I never said he wasn't deliberately crafting his words, I said he wasn't playing deceptive semantic games in which he is saying something he doesn't really believe. And he's not. He thinks Palin knew. That much is clear from his words. The idea that he is saying something he doesn't believe only comes into play when you assign him the role of "lying, dishonest campaign smearer". In any case *IT'S NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO TAKE COMMENTS FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE AT FACE VALUE* ... IT'S ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO TAKE THEM AT ANYTHING OTHER THAN FACE VALUE.

Once again, I am going to assert that you have near-zero understanding of Wikipedia policies. If you don't believe me, fine. I don't care if you're convinced or not. But I'm not going to argue "the finer points of utter nonsense" with you ad infinitum.

"maybe we can have a more serious conversation now that I see a crack of light from an open door that allows rational interpretation of "other things".

I have been having a serious conversation with you. You have been spouting utter nonsense. I'm sorry there isn't a more charitable way of saying this.

"First, and I reiterate, if Palin knew about this, why isn't that position documented anywhere? "

If anyone were trying to insert a Wikipedia claim saying "Palin knew about her appointee's controversial rape kit policy", this would be relevant. Since it's just a fact about someone's opinion, it's not relevant. If you're asking for my personal opinion on why it's not documented anywhere, it's because Palin is crafty about hiding her actions and intention because she feels her critics are untrustworthy or have no right to judge her. (Shades of Pentecostalism). This is evidenced, for example, by her conducting state business using her personal email account FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON THAT THIS PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS IS SHIELDED FROM THE SCRUTINY THAT THE OFFICIAL ADDRESSES SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO USE ARE SUBJECTED TO. But guess what? Even if I went and substantiated that extensively with my own investigation IT WOULD BE ORIGINAL RESEARCH and couldn't be reflected on Wikipedia.

And guess what? Your attempt to discount or refute Croft's claim USING YOUR OWN UNPUBLISHED ANALYSIS .. IS ALSO ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

And guess what? QUOTING CROFT ISN'T ORIGINAL RESEARCH, NOR IS A PLAIN ENGLISH PARAPHRASE.

"If the matter was a state-wide spectacle, as you seem to embrace, it would have been raised at hearings, legislative sessions and the media. The dearth of contemporaneous evidence is deafening, Factchecker, and simply does not corroborate Croft's after-the-fact recollection."

It was raised in hearings and the media. Witness the Frontiersman article, witness the hearings. And once again, IT IS NOT YOUR JOB, AND YOU HAVE NO STANDING, TO CLAIM A RELIABLY SOURCED PUBLISHED CLAIM BY A NOTABLE FIGURE IS NOT CORROBORATED, NOR THAT IT'S A MESS OF LIES BECAUSE IT WASN'T PUBLISHED IN 2000. You can say it to your friends, to your family, but not on Wikipedia... because THAT WOULD BE ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

"Next, the legislation was Croft's baby. He sponsored the law, and it's a good law, at least given that it did once result in a victim receiving a bill (although never in Wasilla). It would be unthinkable had he not interpreted all dissent as confrontational, i.e. Fannon."

Ok, so the law was Croft's baby. He'd get madder n' a' snake if anyone opposed it. I'm not sure where you are going with this. If you're trying to suggest that we not reflect his views because he's bound to be critical of anyone who opposed the laws, please read WP:BLP ... and stop trying to suggest that.

"As sponsor of the bill, and given it was just Police Chief of Podunk resisting, why did he never contact the local mayor to make her aware of that resistance and to squelch it? Again, the supporting inaction is deafening. "

First off, do you have a source for that or are you just making it up? Second, where are you going with this? Are you going to try to say that if Croft didn't contact Palin in 2000, this proves she didn't know, or this proves it wasn't controversial, or what? Once again, if you're pulling analysis out of thin air, IT'S ORIGINAL RESEARCH. ONLY IF THE ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED CAN IT GO IN WIKIPEDIA. Why can you not understand this simple bedrock policy?

" Finally, if you're not forthright about this last one, further discusion is fruitless..."

Further discussion is indeed fruitless, but it's not because I'm not forthright.

"while Croft and Palin, as governor, actually have worked hand-in-hand and cross-aisle on legislation matters, he is on record as a vocal critic of the McCain-Palin ticket and is actively stumping for Obama in conjunction with his own bid for Mayor of Anchorage. He has a vested interest in Obama's victory."

This makes him a Palin critic and opponent. Your repeated suggestions that this somehow disqualifies his criticisms are nothing short of absurd. Once again I direct you to read Wikipedia policies, especially WP:BLP and WP:Verifiablity.

"That matters. It matters in how words are parsed, and it matters on the weight we give to them. "

TRUE... FALSE... TRUE

It CERTAINLY does not allow us to reinterpret what was said to have a meaning opposite the obviously intended meaning. It requires THAT WE ATTRIBUTE THE WORDS TO CROFT AND NOT PRESENT IT AS A MAJORITY OPINION. WOULD YOU FREAKING READ WP:WEIGHT BEFORE NAME-DROPPING THE RULE??

I have no interest in continuing this discussion further. I'm a big fan of real life and there is a brick wall outside so I will just go bash my head against it. Please don't post here anymore unless you have some epiphany that makes you think, "I've seen the error of my ways!" Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Factchecker, but I'm of the ilk that subscribes to the theory that rules must be broken if they don't pass a basic smell test. If you're looking for some lackey whom you can whip into line like a rented mule here, you've rented the wrong mule. I may be a n00b, but I'm not your bitch. Fcreid (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, keep breaking every rule in the book to force your slant onto the article. I can't stop you and 3 other full-time policy-ignoring ownership editors at once. Just don't try to come here and tell me you're justified in rewriting the 5 pillars whole cloth. And for the third time, please leave me alone.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Preserved for posterity (and irony)

The statement about a clear majority is false; but even so, consensus doesn't mean unilaterally ramming your way down the throat of numerous other editors. Please see WP:What_is_consensus?.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so stop unilaterally cramming your already defeated ideas down the throats of the majority of editors.LedRush (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection of Candidate's Bios

Hi Factchecker, Please express your opinion in the discussion at "Should the election bios stay fully protected through the election": [[6]] Thanks, IP75 (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hokey mom's Hitler salute

Good catch! I'm only surprised that it survived so long. So long, Writegeist (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes it's impressive what people think they can slip in. Next we'll see a supposedly "earnest discussion" on whether Palin has stopped beating her husband.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning for Sarah Palin

Your enthusiasm is commendable, but WP:3RR still applies.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Using a tag-team is not a way around 3RR, nor is 3RR a way around NPOV, Verifiability, etc. Warn away.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Warning" from one of a WP:TAGTEAM? That's rich. Writegeist (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Wasilla

Well said. "Clap,clap,clap".....--Buster7 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a funny one. The Associated Press's initials AP could stand for Anti-Palin or Anybody but Palin. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ermm... color me confused? (For the record, that's "burnt sienna".)Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of humour, on my part. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Remarkable, Factchecker, your patience with you-know-which tendentious fellow. Bravo. I ask only that, when you are (deliberately, it seems) goaded to the outer limits of your patience, you express your admirable honesty with a little more regard for your safety. Keep up the good work. — Writegeist (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

       *                                     THE TEXT BARNSTAR
      / \                     Which is an insufficient reward in so many ways,
     /   \              granted for the reams of text laid down by the honored recipient
- - -     - - -           as a bulwark against WP rule-barrages during the Great Siege  
 \           /              When the Great Siege started, we were all a lot younger
  \         /       Ergo, it is fashioned after a pre-alpha version of a Space Invaders invader.
   |  / \  |               And the bestower doesn't know where to access barnstars. 
   |/     \|                  Anarchangel (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Anarch, I appreciate your support and I'd just like to thank my friends and family, not to mention THOSE SLIMY LITTLE BASTARDS KEEP GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER AND I'M RUNNING OUT OF LIVES ArrrrrGGGGGH SHIP DESTROYED GAME OVER ! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, I scored twelve points.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Duty calls...

I'll be on the road for a couple weeks, and while I won't be without Internet access, I'll likely be without time to participate substantively in our always energizing discussions. I'll try to drop in periodically, but I didn't want you to think I'm gone without notice. Despite that we sometimes disagree on substance, please know that I sincerely respect you and your opinion. You have a great gift of an analytical mind. Fcreid (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I arrived at my hotel earlier than expected and thought I'd wrap up our discussion from earlier today. What follows is pure WP:OR, so remove it from your talk if you wish. Anyway, I've no doubt the McCain underlings would also like for us to believe Palin blew their shot at the White House, but the statistics don't support that. In fact, the only time McCain came within striking distance of Obama was after Palin joined his ticket, and even after the campaign completely botched handling her (more on that momentarily), their point spread with Obama never dipped below where McCain initially trailed. If it's the McCain campaign's position that he needed Palin to get an extra ten or so points, I suggest maybe they have had the wrong presidential candidate to begin with. Instead of blaming Palin, they should look for the person who emptied the campaign coffers with nonsensical attack ads against Obama claiming that Ayers once bought him an ice cream cone. That was symptomatic of their entirely off-message and off-target campaign. McCain was and remains the undoubtedly more qualified presidential candidate, but both he and his campaign failed miserably in conveying that to the American people.

As far as Palin goes, she didn't do poorly because of who she is, but because of who she isn't. What we witnessed was the most poorly executed marketing pitch ever! For example, what RNC rocket scientist thought it was a good idea to lavish her with $150K of Sak's goodies instead of running the family through the same Wasilla Sears-Roebuck where they (and the rest of America) always shop? Who's brain-child was it to hire an overpriced coiffeuse rather than running the family through the same Wasilla Mall Super Cuts where they always go? Above all, whoever suggested shielding her for a month to "train" her how to pronounce Iran's "ArmyDinnerJacket" properly (thanks, Writegeist) rather than letting her be available to the press should have been fired without question.

The campaign's biggest blunder was keeping Palin shrouded in mystery and baiting the press and public by doing so, which basically led everyone to question her intelligence, her religion and her qualifications. That's why even today we have people trying to inject crap that she sacrifices goats and whatever. On her religion, Palin should have spoken directly to America and proudly stated, "darn it, I believe deeply in God, and I always look to the Bible for inspiration... but I've never pushed my beliefs on anyone, and I won't push them on America." Similarly on abortion... "yeah, I cherish unborn life above all else, as you can tell by the decisions I've made in my life, but my record shows I uphold the laws of our nation on abortion." Finally, on her academic prowess and her perceived inability to hold her own intelligently, she should have just been herself and not who the press wanted her to be. Some reporters would have been enamored by her down-home charm, sincerity and real deal article. Yes, some elitists in the press would have attacked her, but Americans can see through that, and she actually would have earned more support than she lost.

There will always be some cross-section of "centrists" who could never accept Palin, e.g. those who cannot fathom how a woman could oppose a "woman's right to choose", those who feel a mother of a large family has no place in politics, those who think a politician has to be an unabashed intellectual, etc. Fortunately, that group is not representative of the real America. to close, I bet we haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin, and it wouldn't surprise me that you and I have a long, healthy relationship here. :) Fcreid (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmhmmm, you wouldn't happen to be on a trip to Miami, would you? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I think this is all fantasy on your part. For example, Palin couldn't credibly say "I believe deeply in God, and I always look to the Bible for inspiration... but I've never pushed my beliefs on anyone", as you suggest, because she *has* tried to push her beliefs on people (e.g. the 1997 abortion ban). Likewise, if she were to say "yeah, I cherish unborn life above all else, as you can tell by the decisions I've made in my life, but my record shows I uphold the laws of our nation on abortion" she would be leaving herself wide open to criticism that she appears to have attempted to undermine or circumvent these laws by participating in a politicized maneuver to get a local hospital to ban abortion on its premises. In other areas she has "tested the waters" trying to gauge the response to potential attempts to push her beliefs on others: saying she believed creationism should be taught in schools, only to quickly backpedal and change her position to supporting "allowing creationism to be discussed" in public schools (which, I'd like to mention, also amounts to pushing religious beliefs on the voters), also asking the local librarian how she would react if asked to remove books.

You also seem to be suggesting that Palin's failure to answer questions or perform competently in the interviews is somehow the fault of those preparing her. After weeks of preparation, she still bombed the interviews, couldn't name a freaking newspaper. You're saying she should have had even LESS preparation?

The fact is that there is really nowhere in America that lacks significant educational opportunity. Kids from Nebraska and Alaska go to Harvard and Yale, scientists in Indiana make major breakthroughs. There is no imaginary barrier preventing white people from red states from pursuing the growth of their intellect. Palin and her husband are simply people who have chosen not to follow intellectual pursuits. There is nothing wrong or criminal about it, but it makes her fundamentally unqualified for the position of VPOTUS. "Reverse elitism" of the sort we've seen during this campaign is ironically similar to the old bogeyman among poor black people of "acting white" -- i.e., if you try to advance, try to educate yourself, you're rejecting black people by "acting white". Calling highly educated people "elitists" is just poor-white code for "acting white". It's sad and ironic. No matter how much catchy lingo or populist rhetoric you pile on top of it, lack of education, lack of knowledge about the world, is absolutely a minus and not a plus.

"Being herself and not who the press wanted her to be"... I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. If she is running for VP, she needs to be who the press and the people expect her to be. If that means worldly, knowledgeable, educated, then she needs to be worldly, knowledgeable, and educated. If being herself means not being those things then it's going to count heavily against her and you really can't blame that on the press. Resorting to name-calling, insulting the press as "elitist", is just a childish way of trying to mask or distract from the deficiency.

Anyway, the wardrobe flap was just a footnote. Nobody voted for Obama because of Palin's fancy new suits or Trig's baby slippers. And a minor poll bounce doesn't really indicate Palin was the right choice... you could have expected a bounce no matter who had been picked. Not for nothing, but a Lieberman pick would have produced a bigger bounce and might well have led to the Presidency.

Your dicussion of "centrists" (your quotes) is just as inane. Yeah, legions of centrists are aghast that Palin is a woman yet thinks abortion should be illegal. No, we're not confused or perplexed about why she thinks that way. We get it: she's a Bible thumper. Nothing new to see here. Cf. Inherit_the_wind. No, a politician doesn't have to be an Ivy-educated intellectual elite... but the President and VP have to have a strong intellectual basis no matter what sex they are or how charismatic they are or what religion they ascribe to. If you feel that the "real America" is comprised of people who look down upon education and intelligence and seek to elevate to the Presidency or Vice Presidency an average person lacking any special ability or qualifications that fit the job description, I'm going to suggest to you that the "real America" is not going to elect a President anytime soon.. and should not. Local politics are the appropriate venue for rank populism.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Florida but rather Harrisburg, PA for a week, followed by ten days in Honolulu (which I'm trying frantically to reschedule until the new year and after my youngest graduates from college and heads off to his new life as a Canadian citizen with his bride!) What's going on in Miami? On the topic, I think your mistake is assuming all anti-abortion advocates hold that position as an extension of some religious ideology. On the contrary, I strongly oppose late-term abortions, when an unborn child would otherwise be viable, and (unlike Palin) I strongly oppose capital punishment. I consider both to be murder and would not support them unless not doing so would directly result in more catastrophic loss-of-life. Personal freedoms, which I cherish even more deeply, can never be extended to permit the taking of human life. Despite my positions, I haven't been to a church in 40 years, except for weddings and funerals, and I consider myself agnostic in the most literal sense, i.e. that science will never prove or disprove the existence of a supreme deity. In that respect, religion will always be part of the human condition because there will always be a void of human scientific knowledge. Moreover, I contend that morality is an innately human quality and not derived from any religious doctrine, but it is often reinforced by most. Morality, to me, is a simple concept that is the impetus for us to do the right thing when an alternative would actually have been the easier path. With all that said, I saw an interesting factoid on the bottom of the USA Today front yesterday at the hotel that showed four out of five Americans feel politicians lack moral guidance in their leadership. Thus, I think you again understate how much you are in the minority. Fcreid (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider people who oppose partial birth abortion to be "anti-abortion". I oppose partial birth abortion as I have yet to hear any possible situation where it could protect the physical health of the mother. As I understand the procedure, by the time the "abortion" part of it is performed, the physically dangerous part of the "birth" has already occurred. As I understand, it's a similar situation for other types of late-term abortion. My opinion is that in the final stages of pregnancy, abortion should only be allowed when there is a physical threat to the mother's health posed by childbirth, if it's even possible for such a threat to emerge at the very late stage. So, when I talk about people who are strictly "anti-abortion", I'm talking about people who oppose abortion at all times, including the first several weeks after conception. I also assume that all people who oppose abortion at this earliest stage do so based on religious conviction, because AFAIK there is really no ideology or group of people, other than religious ideologies and religious groups of people, who hold that a recently fertilized human egg is "equivalent to a human life".

I firmly support the death penalty. There is no absolute right to life which trumps the rights of other people. If you take a life in a criminal fashion, in many cases the state will be justified in taking your life. For me, that is the bottom line beyond which there is no grounds for discussion. The only problems I see are with administration of the penalty, the chance of executing an innocent person, etc. But leaving that aside, at least for serious and violent crimes, I do not buy into the notion that it is more important to rehabilitate the criminal than to punish him and to provide a deterrent against others who might commit a similar crime – this completely ignores the reality of crime committed for profit. For example, someone who commits murder for financial gain is both beyond rehabilitation, and undeserving of it. Some might say, "We can turn his life around,"; I say, "Make sure there's a nice fat air bubble in that first syringe." My personal opinion is that the death penalty is the only tolerable deterrent to the most heinous crimes (I say "tolerable" because we won't tolerate torture.)

Again, I do not think there is any non-divine argument against very early-term abortion. And I certainly agree that politicians can be seen to lack moral guidance in their leadership, as 4 of 5 Americans said in that survey. But it certainly doesn't follow that those 80% of Americans had abortion or other religious-themed topics in mind when giving their answer.

Fcreid, I completely respect your opinions, but this debate takes up an awful lot of time and energy, which at this exact moment I ought to be devoting elsewhere. When you post here, I cannot resist the urge to respond or rebut. The Palin article seems to have cooled down a bit. Perhaps we could slow down the pace of our debates? I could use a breather.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur and likewise. Appreciate the healthy mental exercise, my friend. I'll be around, and there's much I could and should be doing too. Thanks. Frank Fcreid (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Understand completely...

I was also a bit surprised to see both Anarchangel and then Tom go after that section today. It had actually achieved a relatively NPOV presentation through *too* many hours of discussion. I'll keep an eye on it to ensure it's brought back to the prior consensus edit and, if not, muddle my way through copying it from the past diffs. Hope all is well. Fcreid (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, post again here if you seek a block or otherwise need a "vote" on the subject. I posted a warning on Tom's talk page, but he deleted it. When I went back to re-insert it, I noticed he has already been blocked for edit warring the Obama article. Profoundly unsurprising. I will also post a note on Anarchangel's page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you. Enjoy the weekend. Hopefully it's quiet! :) Fcreid (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect is gunning for you, Mr. Man. Word to the wise. see [diff]

Gotta love how he says he has nothing to do with it, eh? Reminds me of the second or third day I was at -Palin-, with Collect making sure Rafael R. Garcia got blocked for 5 reverts, and then Collect himself goes off and does 12, the same day. I have em all printed out. Same admin, too. Anarchangel (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC) And, heh, Hi, Fcreid. Anarchangel (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"the St. Petersburg Times article reporting that their investigation found no evidence is essential to properly reflecting the balance of published material on the subject."

I thought so too, for too long. Took a break, came back and realized it was all smoke and mirrors. See Discussion Anarchangel (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Anarch. It's fairly clear to me that not only did Palin know about this, but she also specifically fired Stambaugh, replaced him with Fannon, and cut the budget item funding the city's budget to pay for the rape investigations, for the express purpose of implementing exactly that policy. This is additionally clear to me from the evasively worded statement that she never believed the victims should have to pay, while refusing to answer the question about whether she in fact knew about the policy at the time.

The problem is, all of this is original research. Yes, the media have been derelict in their duties by not forcing Palin to answer definitively on this subject, but unfortunately here on Wikipedia, the media reports, deficient as they may be, are what we are stuck with. Given the inconclusive media accounts of the issue, we are forced to simply reflect both sides of the issue, as reported in the news. Additionally, since it is a BLP, we need to give an ever-so-slight bias in favor of the article subject. A negative can never be proven, but still we must reflect that St. Pete Times report. On the other hand, I think the critical side of this issue is badly underrepresented, but this seems to be an unavoidable consequence of having to reach a compromise among editors with diametrically opposed points of view, especially with so many users and new accounts committed to "the other side" -- even if, in your view and my view, "the other side" is completely wrong. Because of the consensus aspect and the extent to which the actual governing policies apparently do not matter, this whole thing becomes a delicate political issue. Thus, please realize there is a sense in which your attempts to renew a push on one side of the issue actually threaten the balance of what has been compromised upon, reducing the likelihood of further cooperation. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're trying to say, but, "an ever-so-slight bias"? I see this. We have no proof of many things we would like to. It is a BLP so we tread lightly. And, hold it. We don't have to uphold the St Pete Times. I think it is actually a pretty good article in that it touches on a large number of issues. But on the other hand, it comes to bad conclusion about all of them, and doesn't deal with any of them thoroughly. It misrepresents Ann keyleigh or w/e her name is, as an activist? She was Palin's secretary, for crying out loud. Like she is going to convict herself of conspiring with what Palin did at that time. No way. And yet they don't mention this fact at all, they pretend she is -only- a hardcore critic, like, that side has been given a voice, let's move on, when in fact, she -couldn't- answer and not be tarred with the same brush as Palin. She is a critic like everyone else who has been worked over by Palin. Stein and Stambaugh, who Palin used to go to aerobics class with. Who she planned the city with. Who she built the city with. Soon as she gets the chance it is off on a merry courtship dance thru the woods with the NRA and John Birch Society and Alaska Independence Party, and -snick- goes the knife in the back to her former best buddies.

Let's look at this a different way. We -do- have proof. We know that Palin does the budgets. We have a budget line,Huff with a budget pdf link the line item got cut, it had the funding for the rape response team on it before and the rape response team was cut. And what is a rape response team? Some training, along with the kits. Instead of just sending them off to the hospital. Which is why we don't have evidence of them charging. We -do- have evidence of the hospitals charging, it was a big deal at the Congress hearings. So they were just pawning them off on the hospitals once Palin's cuts went through. We have the number of rapes as low, by the way, sorry to be the harbinger of ill tidings, but they are even lower than shown in that link. city stats, note it is sexual assaults not rapes that is 10 that year. The one piece of evidence that Collect has come up with this whole time is precisely that. An FBI page (I don't have the cite handy). That's bad for notability, but we can establish notability without it, and it is equally bad for Fannon, who was bellowing about thousands of dollars in the local paper. The local paper apparently very much didn't like Palin at one point, despite what you'd think. Also bad for Palin, who cut the budget for something that would not have cost much. You see? all this stuff has been shunted to one side by the tagteam. The line item by Ferrylodge, because it was in Huffington Post and he manufactured this unreliable status for Huffington that is nowhere in sight. I have a wiki comment from an experienced user, brought by Fcreid, bless his heart, who produced it as proof that Huff was unreliable, when it in fact says it is reliable. We have Palin at the hospital, (I don't have that cite to hand, but it is in the archives, and I can find it) lurking over people wanting to have abortions and telling the hospital what to do, so we have motive for interfering in women's sexual rights, that she thinks it is all 'overblown' and they ought to 'stop whining', sort of thing. Not that we can say that, but the material brings that to the table. And we have the Congress minutes, HB 270 (interesting point here. do you remember the Knowles quote with the 'we don't charge for fingerprinting'? The minutes show that it was Croft who said that in committee. Either Knowles gave it to him to say in there, or Croft stole it from Knowles and then Knowles stole it back, or Knowles stole it later. Which is all nothing, but it could mean that Croft is up there in importance in the Congress, and his interview would be the more notable) in which they mention "Mat-Su Valley". There are 5 towns in Mat-Su valley. The biggest by far in 2000 was Wasilla. The next biggest was Palmer, and we have a quote from the police chief there saying he would spend every last dime before he charged. In contrast to Fannon. The other 3 are even smaller than Palmer, so the likelihood that it wasn't Wasilla the Congress were speaking can be proven to be small. We have the CNN interview of Croft with a vid clip link saying he doesn't see how Palin could have missed that Fannon was opposing the law. For 6 months he was resisting this law, basically prevaricating about how much money it was going to cost, pretending he was only thinking of the taxpayers, and Palin isn't reading the newspapers? No one told her that her Police Chief was doing that? She didn't think it was her business as mayor what her employee said about city policy? A person who has inquired about bookbanning policy in her library? I think we can agree she likes to keep a tight rein on things. In fact, I think we can agree on all this, scratch that. I apologize if I made it sound like you don't agree with this stuff, I am just showing you what we lost during the big showdown when we were outnumbered. But all we have to do is type it out, I have all those links, in one big folder. Anarchangel (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

More rape kit stuff, eh? :) Thanks, Factchecker. I've been following along nearly every day, and I'll chime in tonight or tomorrow. The removal of the paragraph is one extreme. The omission of the fact that Palin never commented or that there is no evidence she was aware of Fannon's position is the other extreme. I think what we crafted several weeks ago balanced those extremes in a very neutral way, so I'm not sure why there's this momentum again to pull it to those extremes. Fcreid (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am just fine leaving it the way it is/was. It's so thoroughly politicized I don't think either side can hope for much more at this time. And I am sick to death of arguing about it... also annoyed that it keeps getting deleted, day after day. /cry Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur. And no worries on the debate. I think we're all pretty thick-skinned to be here in the first place. Compromise is what it's all about with political stuff like this. Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Veteran of wiki weasels

Re: Palin article - Collect and I are now old war buddies. The guy loves a fight and will get a petty and non-responsive as anyone I've ever seen.

I was wondering whether you'd like to comment on his latest - "Because I say so" - activities on the Helen Jones-Kelly talk page. He's on pretty thin ice with his argument that we should include information that's been refuted by a later official investigation. Could use your POV (either in favor or against) his view. Let me know. Mattnad (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely concur on your assessment of him. He either has zero grasp of policy and zero ability to follow a logical train of thought, or he is deliberately being as disruptive and willfully ignorant as possible. Take a look at this little ditty he authored. Initially I gave him a very strong benefit of the doubt, as he claims it was intended as humor, but as I see more and more of his behavior I see that it describes him to a T.

In fact, I fully expect him to Wiki-stalk this conversation and file a complaint somewhere that I am failing to assume good faith -- even though he not only never assumes good faith, and readily indulges in accusations and dripping sarcasm without provocation, but also offers no indication whatsoever that his actions are taken in good faith. By and large, his preferred method is to ignore policy, ignore any attempts by other users to discuss policy, meanwhile offering his own completely fictitious and novel versions of what he thinks the policy should be, and also to abuse, threaten, and harass the other editors who attempt to do anything he doesn't like or that he feels is critical of Palin. I have had extreme differences with numerous editors on this article, but generally they make an attempt to see the other side and compromise when agreement can't be reached on each point. Collect does not. (Nor does Tom/ThreeAfterThree, but that's an entirely different ball of wax.)

That aside, while I sympathize with your having to deal with him, and would like to help, I simply do not have the time. I don't even have the time to discuss the Palin article and am about to cut that dialogue off so I can focus on real life. I am very sorry and wish you good luck. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Like you, this is a hobby for me. For Collect, I think it's his life. I actually don't mind his antics on the talk pages, but his article additions are generally poor writing. Most of the time he adds or maintains singular facts that suit his agenda, but offers no genuinely constructive contributions. That's the greater tragedy of what he and his ilk do to Wikipedia. Mattnad (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

His actions help to destroy the credibility of Wikipedia. If you want a laugh, take a look at this somewhat hilarious "debate" I'm having with him, in which he basically refuses to read English words the way they are meant to be read. He simply will not acknowledge reality and believes that he can simply say something and it will be so, even if it flies in the face of all possible reason. Thus he also thinks he can re-write policy on the spot to suit his immediate demands. Please don't comment on it, though. Take a look at it here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientists, UFOs, and 3 people who lie

   * Scientists design an experiment in which three people are asked if they have seen UFOs. Their hypothesis is that if none of these people have seen UFOs, then UFOs do not exist. All three say they haven't. The scientists report these findings, saying, "We found no evidence of UFOs. No one that we talked to has seen UFOs".

The points:

* UFOs represents a degree of disbelief which one might expect facts to be received by someone who does not know and accept the scientific method. If you're thinking right now, of course UFOs don't exist, why would it matter, then you do not have the right attitude to the scientific method yet to be editing Wikipedia. Listen and learn. It matters because the data is wrong, the hypothesis is wrong, the conclusions are wrong. Your or my or the scientists' assumptions about the hypothesis do not matter; if someone proves through the scientific method that UFOs exist, then they do, as far as we know, until someone proves differently.
* Now if, on the other hand, you thought, but UFOs aren't likely to be seen, so it doesn't relate to the St Petersburg report, because the chance of them finding what they were seeking would be much higher, if it existed, well done. But the thing in question happened 10 years ago, pretty much within the walls of the City Council, or the Police Department, and the required evidence is of a pretty narrow focus for the purposes of verifiability, which would affect witnesses too (is anyone going to believe what I say, all I saw was X, and then it is my word against theirs anyway, and I don't need the hassle, and it isn't like anyone broke any laws or anything, so why bother, even). And even accepting that there is a great difference between the likelihood of UFOs and the likelihood of there being good evidence for the St Petersburg team, it is the difference between being hit by a meteorite and knowing that a meteorite was kept in the storage area of the local museum; if one didn't have access to the museum's inventory lists, one just wouldn't know, even if one worked at the museum.
* Furthermore, this is the only fault that UFOs as part of the hypothetical scenario has. For the sake of argument, let's change UFOs to a green 1997 Mercedes, any model you like. Looking for proof of the non-existence of a green '97 Mercedes doesn't change the above argument, because the hypothesis that Green Mercedes don't exist would still be possible, according to the scientific test for evidence. No good scientist would design an experiment to find out, there is too much good evidence that they do. But if they hypothesized that, then the scientific method, used properly, would always prove it if it was true, and show no evidence, or evidence to the contrary, if it was not.
* The survey sampling is not quantified. St Pete talked to 'people in Wasilla'. So, more than one. Other than that, we don't know.
* The survey sample is, one can only assume, seeing as the St Petersburg news team cannot reasonably be expected to have covered the entire Wa-Su Valley, at best insufficient to account for variability or even error, and at worst laughable. No, I take that back. It is laughable, at best.
* The hypothesis could never be borne out by the method of asking the people, even if the sample size was the entire planet. People lie. And as regards the thing in question, they wouldn't even have to. They don't even have to get out of town before the cops come to question them, because the St Petersburg press aren't cops. They don't have any significant clues to know who to ask, other than common sense, no one even has to answer them, and if they did answer, the great likelihood is that more bad things would happen to them than if they lied.
* Most importantly, even if the whole planet, not lying, testified, the hypothesis can still never be borne out. It is a negative. UFOs might not have come to this planet. They might be observing from somewhere in the Asteroid Belt. They could be too small to see. Doesn't matter, really. The point isn't the explanations of why, the point is that science always admits when it doesn't know. It never assumes. Scientific knowledge is tested very thoroughly and rigorously, and only if it never can be challenged by evidence does it even become a Theory. So, this information is rock solid, and yet it is called a Theory. That's because even that much evidence is still nothing to Science, it can be blown away tomorrow by new evidence. Scientists -never- assume. Apart from our bad scientists above. And you want to print them on Wikipedia? Not if I can help it. Anarchangel (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Same Palin section deleted, same deleter: Tom Anarchangel (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Reverted it yet again. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeking to have you blocked

Unfortunately, after so many attempts to get you to stop deleting this material, I don't see any other practical course of action other than to seek administrative action. Please be advised I have requested that you be blocked from editing the Palin article due to your ongoing and repeated deletions. Sorry it had to come to this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice, why don't we seek some type of dispute resolution rather than this? --Tom 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

At no time have you given any indication that you were amenable to discussion or compromise. You have simply deleted it over and over and over again. Even while "seeking comment" in an RFC you have just continued to delete the material. Frankly, I only have limited time to edit Wikipedia and cannot afford to waste time in arbitration with someone who is simply trying to toss out roadblocks with no intention of stopping the problematic behavior. Your conduct has warranted blocking multiple times, and I have let it slide -- and the result has just been more work for me, undoing your continued deletions. On top of that, we held discussion on this for weeks and all you really said was "this goes in the Fannon bio" while repeatedly deleting it. It's disingenuous to now claim that you seek discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not miffed. Really!

You may not notice because it's buried in the middle of the section now, but yesterday I replied to your "...Writegeist 'voted' to cut this merely because he was miffed that I deleted these comments in which he openly mocked the names of Palin's children, with no intent whatsoever to improve the article, just using the talk page to ridicule Palin..." with:

Actually no, Factchecker, it had nothing to do with your deletion — I didn't give it a second thought. You should know from my post to your talk re. deletion of previous material — also of a totally frivolous, irreverent and irrelevant nature — that I don't bear malice. You are almost always, IMO, reasonable and fair. Oh dear I've gone all gooey. Give me a moment to compose myself. That's better. Anyway, my "vote" was, in fact, entirely to do with having a weak grasp of the subject and opening mouth, or rather tapping keys, before engaging brain. Now that I've labored through the squillions of words squandered on the issue at issue, I appreciate the nuances better. With the result that I have totally come around to your argument for inclusion. I just forgot to mention it. Sorry! And Threeafterthree's obdurate, autocratic editing doesn't help anyone in a collaborative endeavour.

Just wanted you to know. — Writegeist (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin image

Bummer! You could've told me before you "wasted" a revert (no patience, tststs... :) ). I checked by myself and found out, that the "consensus" was based on no response on the talk page [7] and also no response after the switch [8]. After some time you somehow consider (or confuse) it with consensus. Neither-the-less, I was considering reversing myself. Consider having a reverse good from my side if of course I'm conform with it and it doesn't fall under canvassing, I mean the bad kind of course).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it was just intended as a little tongue-in-cheek joke. As for the image itself, I actually have not paid attention to any of the prior discussions, and I'll admit I based my decision entirely on my opinion that the picture with the green jacket looks really crappy, while the one with the red jacket is quite snappy! But I think we might both agree that it's not a huge deal. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. Not a huge deal at all as I made clear on (Palin's) talk page but funny how some get so hooked on this (...not the first time...) :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

edit war at Sarah Palin

Be aware that you are edit warring at Sarah Palin, and if necessary, you may be blocked to stop the disruption. Note that edit warring does not include exceptions for being "right", so that is no defense of your actions. Stop repeatedly reverting the article, and instead use the talk page to work out your differences. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn the "disruption" was the same editor deleting the material over and over again after it was added by compromise among numerous editors. I'm gratified that you have also warned Threeafterthree against this edit warring, but profoundly disappointed that his deletion stands, even though it was unwarranted in the first place, and now I will be blocked if I restore it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend!

It is certainly appropriate that I received my first WP Barnstar award from you. Here's to a long and productive friendship, in spite of and perhaps resulting from our differing perspectives. Enjoy the holiday season. Fcreid (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Replication of a discussion appearing on Palin talk

Here, in a nutshell, is what has come out of the news coverage:

1) Palin fired the guy who had the city paying for the kits; 2) ...replaced him with the guy that started, or wanted to start, charging the victims' insurance; 3) ... cut the funding for the budget item that had been previously used by the city to pay for th exams; 4) a state law was proposed banning the practice of billing victim's insurance; 5) debate on this issue continued for months, with Fannon being a central opponent of the proposed law, and the controversy made it into the local papers at the time, with Fannon complaining it would have cost the city up to $14,000 a year to pay for the exams ; 6) at least one notable critic (a political opponent) has said on record that she probably knew; 7) a NYT opinion piece opined that if she didn't know, she should have known; 8) a Palin spokesperson specifically addressed the issue by saying Palin had never believed rape victims should ever have to pay for an evidence gathering test, but refused to answer a specific question as to whether Palin knew about the policy or not

I could go on, but that's the nutshell, and it's all been thoroughly discussed before.

Now, of course there are all kinds of ways in which all this information might be inappropriately woven together to produce an OR conclusion that Palin DID know, or was behind the policy, or any number of other conclusions that were never reached in any particular source -- all of which would be inappropriate. But none of the versions that's ever been put into the article, from my original attempt to reflect it in an NPOV fashion, to the more recent compromise version which you keep deleting, suffer from such weaknesses. In fact, I believe the central objection to my original version was that it was simply too long. Regardless, since a compromise was reached, and it's brief and conservatively worded, I think we should preserve it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Um -- nope. You misstate facts multiple times. First -- the police department did not exist in Wasilla until 1993, and the official records show a trivial number of TOTAL sexual assaults. Cite already given. Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams. Third, the Police Department asked for budget monies, and there is no evidence Palin cut one cent from the budget asked for, Fourth, the state law does NOT stop the A;aska Cares insurance from paying for rape exams, Fifth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until it was enacted, Sixth, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Palin knew anything at all about a policy which affected so few people (not a single case of a person being billed has shown up, and you know that the media would have reported if they found even a single case) Seventh an edtorial is only worth citing as an opinion, not as a fact per WP guidelines, Eighth, if a spokesperson does not know a "negative" how is the spokesperson supposed to handle the question other than saying she does not know and so can not answer? Ninth, this has been an editwar, and I would have hoped you had learned a lesson from being quite nearly blocked. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)This is more of the same nonsense as before. You haven't refuted a single thing I've said -- in fact you seem intent on refuting things I didn't say!! See below. I have put my quotations of you in italics. PS, I notice that most of your arguments not only don't refute mine, but are based on your own analysis of primary sources. My arguments, on the other hand, are based on already-published analysis made by reliable secondary sources. Please also note that I wasn't suggesting the 8 points I outlined above should go into the article itself... merely using those points to argue against your claim that this whole thing is somehow unrelated to Palin and that the published accounts don't even suggest any connection... a claim which I find patently false, and which I was raising those 8 points in an attempt to refute.

Um -- nope. You misstate facts multiple times. First -- the police department did not exist in Wasilla until 1993, and the official records show a trivial number of TOTAL sexual assaults.Cite already given.

Are we in the same universe? Did I say all of this occurred in 1989? Did I say anything at all about sexual assaults other than rapes? How would what you've said even begin to contradict or refute what I said?

Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams.

Is this supposed to contradict something I said? Please help me understand by showing me what I said that this contradicts. I said Stambaugh had the city paying for the rape kits... this is supported by one of the references; I said Palin fired Stambaugh... also supported; I said Fannon started charging, or wanted to start charging, victim's health insurance companies for the exams... also supported. Mounting arguments to refute things I never said is quite different from refuting the things I actually said!!

Third, the Police Department asked for budget monies, and there is no evidence Palin cut one cent from the budget asked for

One of the sources says "Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. That budget line was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure, but it did not specifically mention rape exams."

So, please explain how this is not evidence of exactly what it says, e.g. that the fund used to pay for the rape kits was cut by Palin? And don't go flying off the handle as though I'm trying to put the budget line item into the article itself. I never tried anything of the sort.

Fourth, the state law does NOT stop the A;aska Cares insurance from paying for rape exams,

That's wonderful, but I never said it did... I said the state law prohibited victim's insurance from being billed. A statewide program (is it even an insurance program?) that has nothing to do with any individual victim is not "the victim's health insurance". The law prohibited anyone from billing the victim's health insurance, as clearly stated in the Frontiersman article... "The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur."

Fifth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until it was enacted,

OK, sources are ambiguous on the timing. It doesn't matter all that much... the point is that he was a central opponent of the law while the debate went on. See also "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it", attributed to Croft in the CNN article.

Sixth, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Palin knew anything at all about a policy which affected so few people (not a single case of a person being billed has shown up, and you know that the media would have reported if they found even a single case)

Yeah... and I'm pretty darn sure every revision I've ever put into the article explicitly stated there was no evidence she knew about it. So don't you think it's highly deceitful for you to suggest that I put something in the article saying there was evidence? And don't you think it's wrong of you to completely distort my point #6 above, which clearly states "at least one notable critic (a political opponent) has said on record that she probably knew", which is borne out by the quote above from Croft? Shall I reword it slightly? "At least one notable critic has stated his opinion that she probably knew" ? To me, it's clear that it's a fact about an opinion either way.

Seventh an edtorial is only worth citing as an opinion, not as a fact per WP guidelines,

I never tried to cite it as anything other than an opinion. This issue goes straight to your fundamental misunderstanding about policy. Facts about opinions are still facts. So if you say in the article that it's a fact so-and-so has an opinion, that's being presented as a fact about an opinion.

Eighth, if a spokesperson does not know a "negative" how is the spokesperson supposed to handle the question other than saying she does not know and so can not answer?

If the spokesperson didn't know, she could of course have said "I don't know the answer to that." The source doesn't say she answered the question by saying she didn't know... the source says the spokesperson didn't answer the question ...

Ninth, this has been an editwar, and I would have hoped you had learned a lesson from being quite nearly blocked.

The edit war was initiated by Tom every time, from the times he deleted it over and over again while the rest of us tried to reach a compromise, to the time where he began deleting it over and over again long after we reached the compromise. I came no closer to being blocked than Threeafterthree/Tom, who after all is the one who has deleted the whole section 25 times, even continuing his deletions after we reached a compromise.

So, while your edit summary says "8 errors out of 8 -- a record!" it would appear more like it was ~~ZERO~~ ONE error out of eight (a pretty minor one on timing... Fannon was still a central opponent even if it was only after the law was passed), but ~~EIGHT~~ SEVEN separate distortions of my words by you, plus a frankly deceitful implication that *I've* been edit warring this issue all by myself. This is plain abuse. You make me waste time refuting nonsense in an effort to make it look like there is some basis for what you are saying. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bravo

You have made a commendable effort to do the impossible. Your expediture of time and effort is praiseworthy. But you may as well talk to the wall in front of you...if you know what I mean (and I think you do!). Should the pot ever come to the boil and the issue of editor conduct move to a higher court, be sure to let me know. I would imagine there are a number of good-faith editors that have had similar interactions.--Buster7 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my reservoirs of patience are currently empty at the moment though. That article is no man's land and operates largely irrespective of policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. On top of everything, certain editors return and right away ...it's fully protected. Reminds me of early September. Gobble, Gobble!--Buster7 (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

She sure draws a crowd still, to say the least! Happy Thanksgiving, folks. Fcreid (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotta laugh. The moment the GOP stooge shows up the article gets locked on a sanitized version of the rape kits info. Déja vu! The more I see of the administration here the more I suspect it's Dumb and Dumber* and a bunch of sockpuppets. *"According to the map we've only gone four inches." — Writegeist (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Go to WP:DR

If you need help solving a problem, please go to WP:DR and seek one of the 6-7 methods for getting outside, uninvolved editors to join in the discussion and break the deadlock. I am not interested in deciding who is right and who is wrong. There are many methods of getting people to solve the problem. I am just not interested. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the part where I don't take any side in this matter is lost on you. I am not endorsing the current version as better. Indeed, if I did revert it myself, it would imply that YOU are somehow right, because I took a positive action to put the article in YOUR preferred state. I am taking no action. See Wikipedia:Protection policy, where it says "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version". I am under no obligation to put YOUR version of the article up any more than I am to put HIS up. If this is unsatisfactory for you, then seek outside opinion at WP:DR. If lots of other people who have never worked on the article before agree with you, after that process the article can be changed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Just not interested." Oh joy, a summa cum laude graduate of the Pontius Pilate School of Wikipedia Administration. And Factchecker, as interest isn't all that's lacking in this one you're just not going to get through to him/her. Chances are there are other, sharper knives in the drawer. This one gets his/her jollies as a "recent changes patroller." (Nuff said?) Patience! — Writegeist (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology Accepted

Re: ":Campaign pamphleteering is not relevant for a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)"
If you don't get the following, it is my fault for being cryptic.
Of this statement, it could be said (but not in discussion): "Apology accepted." Anarchangel (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

":Congrats on mmisapprising an example of a short question with a long preamble with "conflation of a charge of murder." Clear example of White Queenism. Collect (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

White Queenism? What? Being helpful to Alice albeit in a cryptic way? (guilty) Claiming to have done 'six impossible things before breakfast'? (not usually) Living backwards in time, like Merlin? (newp) Of great speed, outdistancing the White King? (um,) Or eventually turning into a sheep? What does he mean? Anarchangel (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I try not to attempt making sense out of what he says. It's pretty hard to take any of it sincerely. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a gem. "Your indignation is insulting". I want that carved on a brass plaque, along with the other Top Ten Not so Great Whines of Our Century. More usefully, perhaps, unless you knew it already, 'six impossible things before breakfast' is given an homage in Hitchhiker's Guide, as a slogan of Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Anarchangel (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

…..in the matter of abuse it is sometimes worth hearing from those affected, those on the ground, in the trenches---the common everyday editors of Wikipedia. There is a long list of like-minded editors in this regard...this "against distorting the product" regard. Should this matter ever come to Arbitration the shared findings of various editors,culminating in agreement,should be made known. I apologize for my vagueness. I hope you both understand why. Stay in touch. Thank you very kindly.--Buster7 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are not forums

Factchecker, please refer to WP:TALK. thanks, --Tom 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a SPA?? --Tom 17:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what WP:Talk says. You are directly ignoring it. The comments you deleted were not treating the talk page as a "forum". It's a good faith presentation of, and query about, a source. If the source isn't appropriate, address that in the comments and say it's not appropriate, instead of simply deleting the other user's comments. By repeatedly deleting them, you are violating WP:Talk. Stay off my Talk page with your fake, abusive threats. By the way, this was nothing at all like the "Hustler porno" guy who kept posting his crap on the talk page. That was obvious abuse, since in addition to the salacious material itself, he had repeatedly ignored the discussions in which he was repeatedly told the source was completely inappropriate and to stop posting about it. When he refused, I went in and deleted his nonsense myself.

Additionally, I'm not an SPA. I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while and most of the articles I've edited have nothing remotely to do with Sarah Palin or anybody like her. You will, however, please note that Fcreid and probably others editing the article are definitely SPA's. Do let me know where you're going with this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider this a warning. Cease warring ocver the inclusion of that nonsense. Blog essays are not useful to us here on Wikipedia, (except sometimes on articles about notable blogs such as Daily Kos) and discussion of them here is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I note your warning, but I am pretty sure it was inappropriate. First, I wasn't even "warring for inclusion of that nonsense". Just undeleting the comments discussing it in the first place. If it is truly not a fit subject or source, it should be a simple matter to dispose of that in Talk. Deleting the comments, instead, was not appropriate at all. I have encountered situations where it was appropriate to delete comments rather than rebut them, and this was not one of them. I notice that you didn't warn Tom for warring the same issue. And by the way... the London Review of Books is not a blog. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's worth noting that at least one other admin did not find your block warning to be appropriate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your patience with this person is exemplary. Nevertheless I note that she singled you out for criticism at SP talk and has just summarily deleted your totally honest defence (that your response had been to routine attacks on you which had gone unremarked). It seems that when she indulges in responses that appear inappropriate and overly officious, they sometimes also appear to be motivated by selective personal animosity. Therefore I can't help thinking it would be more helpful to civil discussions at SP talk if she recused herself from sysopping there. — Writegeist (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, but my patience for this is about at an end. I think there are just too many people who would rather pretend this issue never happened rather than address it in NPOV fashion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The list

I will now make my comments under the user's name and sig it so people won't confuse my comments with our list. I do this not to diminish the user's opinions but to further demonstrate why the list is a flawed concept that was implemented with mistakes.

Also, I removed the name because it didn't exist, not because it was misspelled. How can I know what usernames you've misspelled and which don't exist? I wish you'd not try to read all of my actions in the worst possible light (including your repeated assertions that I want to ignore other's opinions).LedRush (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing your comments on my talk page which innaccurately accuse me deleting names for being misspelled.LedRush (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If that user's opinions are valid, then there's nothing wrong with the list. But if you're saying the list is wrong because it references that user's opinions, you're saying that user's opinions aren't valid. Get it?

No. You are deliberately misrepresenting my opinion on the subject. My point has been that the straw poll is a guage of where we are now, and the list undermines this. Also, the list was not well made, so it doesn't even help the discussion anyway. I have been very clear on this. Their opinions were valid at the time (I will assume anyway, as I haven't scoured the talk pages as you have) but I don't think are helpful for the current discussion. That's it. Please stop treating me like I'm beating your mom...I just made a simple and polite argument.LedRush (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Next time I do something and think I am acting honestly or in good faith, I will just consult you, and I'm sure you will correct me and inform me that I am actually deliberately distorting something, with malicious intent. And since I am apparently clinically incapable of having an honest discussion, you are relieved of any burden of assuming good faith, treating me civilly, or otherwise acting as though I am a human being.

Anyway, how does the list undermine the straw poll's ability to guage the opinions of editors who are still editing the Palin article, when all it does is recap previous positions held (or thought, by me, to be held) by editors previously debating this issue? Because to me, it sure just looks like a reminder that the current batch of editors is not the only batch of editors that have expressed a strongly held opinion on the subject.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to slaughter puppies and spread vicious lies about people in the media while thinking of ways I can fatally undermine the very fabric of civilized society and Wiki-discourse. I assume this fits in well with your view of me? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As for reading another person's actions in the worst possible light, your own behavior provides a perfect example. I mistyped someone's user name in the list by forgetting to include an _underscore_, and you replied with a comment that the username doesn't exist! (As if I had tried to slip in a fake name.) If you were assuming I act in good faith, you would have concluded that I had just mistyped the name instead of suggesting it's fake. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested or implied that the tried to slip in a fake name. I actually assumed that the guy either had his account deleted or deleted it himself and therefore shouldn't be listed. If I were to make a list like you, I would have just copied and pasted most stuff (because I spell very poorly) and so typos didn't factor into my thought process at all. But this is again an issue of you making unwarranted claims about me, which, it seems, stems from you transfering intent to my actions which aren't there. This is yet another example where you've decided to attack me personally rather than respond politely to a civil post by me.LedRush (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted claims, you mean like your unwarranted claim that I am deliberately distorting things, just above this? Or personal attacks, like you repeatedly stating flatly and unambiguously that not only do I edit in bad faith, but you have seen conclusive proof of this? I mean.. talk about transferring intent that isn't there. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My claim above is not unwarranted. I have clearly and unambiguously stated why I made my argument, but you have repeatedly attributed a completely different and sinister motive. Either it is a deliberate misrepresentation or something worse. Talking about the past seems not helpful now as I've tried to bring this discussion to the present in a civil way. I have apologized twice already for any past incivilities, but you stubbornly refuse to do the same here. You made a baseless personal attack on me on a noticeboard and have failed to provide any proof of what would justify this attack.

I will repeat my last post from the SP Talk page so that we can continue the discussion here...

You said "You, Led, and Kelly are all dismissing these users by implying that they had "propagandist motives" when they debated this issue and suggesting that we should now ignore the positions they took in the debate." I never said or implied that anyone had "propagandist motives, I never dismissed any users, and I never suggested that we should now ignore users. [In fact, I have explicitly said the opposite.] Please show an example of me doing this in relation to your post or apologize. The closest I can find to your assertion is that I mentioned the point of the straw poll was to see where we were after the partisan attacks associated with the election have ended. This is, of course, directed at both sides of the fence and wasn't attributed to any specific editors or any political parties or positions. The same was true of the Obama article...after the election the partisan attacks from both sides died down, and people were generally able to strike a more civil tone. I had hoped the same would happen here, but...

Your assertion of courtesy being a two-way street is correct. We have both had heated disagreements in the past and I admit that I have not always been civil, (though I would meet Wikipedia's standards of civility). For that I apologize. I have apologized in the past when I have made mistakes or crossed lines. But when I start a new discussion I treat people with respect. However, you continue to make personal attacks on me, create strawmen arguments, and say I've done things I haven't. Seeing I have proven your above statements about me are false, I would appreciate an apology.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't get blocked like Writegeist did. Just drop it already. Led won't apologize properly and you don't have to. The best thing you can do right now is be the first to stop. Let Led get the last word in and be done with it. Kelly has nothing, except perhaps powerful friends, which we couldn't do anything about anyway. Chill. Please?

If an admin deletes after what I noted about Kelly's request for deletion, then we can RFC to include, where at least we get it seen by people who are fresh to the discussion. I would prefer not to bother the people at ANI, unless the admin really messes up. Either way, it's all good. Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree completely with Anarchangel's characterization of my apology. I have cited a specific example where I came into a discussion with civility and Factchecker made a baseless personal attack and he refuses to apologize. I, on the other hand, with no examples of being uncivil being brought to my attention, have apologized now a few times for any unspecified remarks which were uncivil. If Factchecker has a specific example in mind, he should bring it up...I think I have proven that I can say sorry when I do something bad and that I am wrong when I've made a mistake. I would hope that Factchecker would have the courtesy to say he was wrong when he attributed motives to my posts which just weren't there.LedRush (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In reply to some comments above, I will say "Hogwash"... you specifically said on more than one occasion that you know I edit in bad faith (which is doubly false... I don't edit in bad faith and you don't know it, either, because I don't). You even went so far as to explain that you were justified in assuming bad faith because you had supposedly seen conclusive proof of some sort or another that I edit in bad faith.

I brought this to your attention repeatedly and nothing you have said so far was an apology. Then you come to my talk page, after repeatedly and publically refusing to take this "discussion" to an appropriate venue such as an admin board or user talk page, insisting on making the accusations repeatedly and in public, despite being repeatedly reminded that AGF specifically says that's not to be done, and accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting your statements, which is again false, since (a) I don't think it was a misrepresentation, and (b) if it was a misrepresentation, it's beyond my understanding of how this could be and you have yet to explain why it is. Notice, please, that you also claim, as a basis for your accusations of "deliberate misrepresentation", the claim that I wrongfully attach a "sinister motive" to your positions, but that is exactly what you continue to do to me, even here on my talk page.

Again, you have not apologized, nor really made a convincing explanation that I have actually been engaging in personal attacks (I haven't... saying you are wrong, and saying why I think that, is not a personal attack). Saying you have apologized is not the same as actually apologizing, nor can there be any apology if you don't admit that you were wrong about something at some point.

Anyway, I find no reason to continue this discussion, nor do I find your particular style of debate to be productive, nor civil, logical, or factually accurate. In short, please stop posting on my talk unless we begin a new discussion at some point, and if you wish to make scathing (and untrue) complaints about me, please do it elsewhere. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I will stop posting on your talk page, but I must answer your assertions about me. It is true that after I felt that I had been repeatedly insulted, attacked, and had my ideas misrepresented by you, I would assume bad faith when you continued to do so after I pointed out that it wasn't correct. Perhaps my feelings were wrong, but I believe they weren't. However, I will apologize if my answers insulted you unduly. Despite our history, I hope that we will be able to have constructive dialog on the Palin page. I try to take every new debate as a new beginning and not allow too many holdover feelings.LedRush (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Post Election Fall-out

The above thread begins with the mention of "a list"...Where does this list exist? There seem to be many firestorms that have started in the past few weeks. I've been off-line and it is a challenge to keep up. Quality, good faith editors are being banished. Something stinks!--Buster7 (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see [9].

This was an attempt to tally previous editor comments on whether to include the rape kit issue at all. I originally had you listed as being "for inclusion", but then someone pointed out a comment where you had specifically said you were against it, so I switched my listing of you to "against". Now you seem not to be listed at all, though.. not sure how that happened.

Anyway, I apologize if I offend you by trying to reflect your position without contacting you directly (and apparently doing a bad job of it!) but given all the flak I've taken I was afraid I would be accused of "Canvassing". As it turned out, I feel I received a lot of unnecessary and negative personal comments as a result of posting that list. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense whatsoever taken. I understand the predicament. After posting the above, I investigated further and deduced what it was about. I was also surprised I wasn't included but figured it was just an oversight. (The archives wander here and there) But FL mentioned my stand and Anarch correctly commented that it was early in the rape kit in-or-out debate so no harm done. If I were to respond today I would continue to be against inclusion. It has created an enormous waste of precious time over such a minor issue. I commend you for your determination and fortitude. While the following is often used in attack mode I present it in the friendliest terms possible..."Let's move on"...:>)--Buster7 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"many"

I can understand your frustration on the Palin page, but I believe your postition is correct and I doubt that this minor improvement can be stopped if properly addressed. We haven't gotten along in the past and almost never agree, but why don't we buck trends and get along while agreeing to make the article better through a simple change of a word? It's a start, anyway...LedRush (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks for your support. I will probably need to work on this later tonight or tomorrow morning, though, as it will take a pretty thorough listing of sources to make the point I'm trying to make, and that will take some time. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think you need to. The discussion of weight for this purpose needs to occur on the talk page and therefore doesn't need to be cited as if it were in the article (at least per my understanding of the rule). The list may be good to demonstrate the point on the talk page, but if Colllect is blocking for the sake of blocking or if he truly believes the commentary was equal, it will be almost impossible to "win" this argument. I am going to enlist KC for an explanatiion of policy so we know by what rules we need to convince people.LedRush (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I had already written a little dissertation on the subject when I saw your comment, and I couldn't bear to let all that work go to waste, so I posted it anyway. Thanks again for your support on this.. that was a pretty thorough debate you went through yesterday. Hopefully I've demonstrated the position more or less conclusively for the time being. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. I guess this will end up taking weeks to resolve, if at all. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Collect really hasn't argued back. To my knowledge, Killer has explicitly said that this type of language is ok and therefore Collect's only remaining argument would be that the statement is factually incorrect and that an even number of people supported both. Fcried has already conceded this issue and I don't think Collect can win on this. Quite honestly, I would be ok with making a stronger statement about how many commentators disagreed with Palin's interpretation, saying "most", "a vast majority", or "virtually all"....I've only seen one example of a dissenting view. Having said that, those would be harder to argue and may not be worth the bad feelings to get introduced. Did you find any source which talked about how many commentators agreed with (or didn't agree with) Palin's interpretation? That would go a long way to closing out what I see as Collect's only remaining "legitimate" objection.LedRush (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with "many". I think the debate over "most" or anything like it would be even more of a headache, not worth it. Unfortunately I don't think we'll find such a source which synthesizes the reactions of journalists to Palin's reaction to the report. I think you were right that we don't need one, but it's somewhat moot at this exact moment since Collect still seems to be arguing that WP:Weight doesn't apply here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add a non-commentator opinion to the report from this: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/553680.html

"Palin's characterization of the report is wrong, Sen. Kim Elton said later Saturday when told of the governor's comments. The Juneau Democrat chairs the Legislative Council, which authorized the investigation and released the report.

"Finding No. 1 says she violated the ethics law," Elton said. "Anybody who suggests that the report does not say she broke the law, they just need to read the report. They don't even need to read all 300 pages of it, just page seven or eight.""

Would you mind if I suggested deleting all the commentary stuff but adding the lawmaker's opinion?LedRush (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that if you delete the Kansas City Star comment, then we're not giving any weight to the view that seems to agree with Palin.

Actually it seems a little more complicated, and figuring out what to do isn't helped by the fact that the current Google news link to it is broken. I'm only able to find an excerpt presented with an opposing excerpt, but from what I've seen, even though the KS Star bit does not explicitly address Palin's assertion, or say it was correct, or say that the report vindicates Palin, it does say that the report is incorrect, or at least seems to say the report's conclusions were mistaken.

It reads: "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both the complete right to perform and other very good reasons to perform." So, that's not quite the same as saying that Palin was correct in saying the report vindicated her, but the commentator is saying that Palin is vindicated by the alleged failure of the report to be convincing or to substantiate its conclusions.

I'm really not sure what's the best course of action, but I think we ought to keep both Palin's somewhat loopy assertion, and at least one comment from a journalist or politician speaking in defense of Palin -- whether it's a comment saying the report vindicated her (if we can find one), or a comment saying the report failed to successfully attack her, I'm not sure.

Also, I really need to knock off for the day pretty soon. I will try to revisit this tonight, or if not, then tomorrow morning. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Sarah Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Kelly ^hi! 17:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was already aware of the article probation, thanks. I'm not sure why you felt the need to template me. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This template was unnecessary as Factchecker was a part of the probation discussion process and he had done nothing to merit this warning. It's use, in and of itself, may be considered uncivil under these circumstances.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no incivility intended, honestly. Feel free to remove the template if you like. I'm just trying to ensure the process is followed. I even added myself to the list, and I was the person who initially proposed article probation and helped author the probation page. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 17:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

union busting

I don't really know if you have any interest or strong views on unions or union busting, but I know you've put a lot of time into making and improving Wikipedia articles. While I know we don't always agree, I thought your input on this article could be helpful as some of the conversations and disagreements there are longstanding and, because there are only 3-4 regular editors, getting new opinions is hard. I've nominated the article for peer review, but if you have time or interest, I'd be grateful if you could take a look and see if you can help make the article better.LedRush (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will take a gander at it on Saturday or Sunday and try to find some common ground. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, that's a serious talk page. I wouldn't complain if you were to hit me up with, say, a 25 word executive summary of the main lines of argument and the main players involved? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure...it is daunting. I didn't want to do this in the beginning because I didn't want to get accused of canvassing. However, I doubt we are near each other politically (though I could be wrong) so I doubt I can be accused of bringing over people ideological cronies. There are two specific problems and one large ongoing one. I'll start with players, the larger issue, and finally the 2 specifics.

Players:

Richard Meyer: He is basically the owner of the article, writing the original. It was a massive task. He is a union member.

Godlzsetjn (I am getting his name wrong, which he hates...sorry): He is new on the scene and is decidedly pro-union. He also wants to make the article more internatinal.

Jbowersox: He is probably a different incarnation of other anti-union editors, and possibly an employee of the Burke Group, a union busting firm. He may be banned soon.

Me: I noticed the article because of a Wikiquette Alert and have tried to make the article more NPOV, as many editors have complained about it then left after being shouted down.

Major Issue:

I believe the article was one of the most POV I had ever seen on Wikipedia. It is written completely from the side of unions and described efforts to prevent unions as "evil", management as "tyrannical", and similar terms. I have gone through about half of the article and changed phrasing to remove overt POV, but have done little, if any, structural work.

Specific Issues: There are two issues about a proposed intro. I have given up most of my objections to Goldzsetjn's suggestions, except 2. His suggestion is:

Union busting is a term used by labor organizations and others to describe a wide range of activities undertaken by employers, their proxies, and governments, which hinder workers from organizing, joining and maintaining trade unions. While the right to join and form trade unions is recognized as a universal human right,(footnote to UDHR) union busting subverts the exercising of this right via the sowing of discord amongst union members, challenging unions via law courts, strike breaking, lockouts, violent suppression, the sponsorship of anti-union organizations, and the creation of employer-controlled trade unions, among other activities.

--

I think the phrase "union busting subverts the exercising of this right" is not needed because 1. the second sentence says joining a union is a universal right and the first says union busters want to prevent people from joining unions. The information is already set out, but by repeating it and presenting it this way, I think union busters are portrayed too negatively. Also, it omits a sentence on language that many people outside of unions use to describe union busting activities (which has a negative connotation). My counter proposal was this:

Union busting is a term used by labor organizations and others to describe a wide range of activities undertaken by employers, their proxies, and governments, which hinder workers from organizing, joining and maintaining trade unions. While the right to join and form trade unions is recognized as a universal human right,^[1] union busters employ a range of activities to subvert trade unions, including sowing discord amongst union members, challenging unions via law courts, strike breaking, lockouts, violent suppression, the sponsorship of anti-union organizations, and the creation of employer-controlled trade unions. Other terms used to describe union busting or opposition to trade unions are: union avoidance, preventive labor relations, anti-union, counter union organizing, and union free.

This puts the emphasis of union busters as an attack against unions and not as an attack on the right to form unions. It also lets people know that there are other terms for these activities which are more pro-management (or anti-union, if you will.)

This isn't really 25 words, but perhaps it's better than reading the whole page. LedRush (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely better than a full reading. I can tell this will be a doozy. From a casual glance, though, I'd say your suggested passage is better than the one it's intended to replace, which seems to be strongly POV-pushing and presents its sources poorly. Just a quick example of what I mean, it takes a bit from the UDHR (saying that it's a universal human right to join a labor union), and then presents that statement as if it's the Gospel, instead of attributing that position to the UDHR explicitly within the text. My view is that, with controversial topics, it's best to cite sources as explicitly as possible and make it clear who, or what entity, has stated a given opinion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I will get started on this over the weekend, but it seems like it will be a long term project to make any significant accomplishments. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well... I read about half the article, the last 1/3 of the talk page including Jbowers' dissertation, and part of the sock puppet accusation page. It's a little much to tackle all at once -- I'm going to read a bit more and watch how the discussion develops (as well as the outcome of the sock case) before I start commenting. I notice you are already BFF with Goldsztajn! ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gold and I started off ok...now he is calling me a neoconservative, disrupitive, acting in bad faith, and he implies I am a sock puppet and have a conflict of interest. Cerejota has filed a wikiquette alert against me. This article may be more trouble than it's worth. I am just reticient to leave after putting so much time to make one of the worst article on Wikipedia (in terms of POV) into something much better. The article had enough information to make it very promising...oh well. I thought after the blood bath on Palin all I would need is an open mind and a willingness to compromise (even beyond what I thought was good). Um....no. Well, if you get a chance, run over there and see what you think. Even if we disagree, I'll be happy to have someone make a decision that allows this thing to end.LedRush (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiversity project on Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections

Hi Factchecker atyourservice. I started a project on Wikiversity a few weeks ago but got distracted by other things for a while. The project, Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections, is a research project aimed at describing the process of creating good, NPOV articles about topics that tend to stir very strong points of view in those contributing to the articles. The 2008 elections seem a good subject for the study, since it was a very "hotly debated" topic for a long time, but unlike similarly long-disputed topics (such as the Middle East Conflict), it has a slightly more defined starting point and ending point (though of course many of the articles are still being intensely debated).

The Sarah Palin article is one of the first "beta" studies, so since you were involved with improving that article, I hoped you could help experiment with the Sarah Palin resource. I would also greatly appreciate any feedback or ideas you have about some starting questions about the project as a whole. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Update on me

I am ruinously sick and looking for a job at the same time. Nothing is comin' up roses. I'll be back within a month, hopefully. Best to all. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you feel better and good luck! --Tom 18:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to have you back! :) Fcreid (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, not quite back, really, just "popping my head out". (I bet some people will envision that differently from others!) I'll really be "back" in several weeks,I hope. Glad to still have you at Palin, and I'm keeping my eye on it, but when I come back I plan to focus more on this union related article that Led has been working on. Till then, take care. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect Report

A fine and well-represented display of what it is like to work with Collect. Thank you most kindly... :-) ...A comment on the other "outside viewpoints" would be appreciated and broaden the scope of observing and reporting on Collect's effect on WikiWOrld.--Buster7 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect: PROD template

Fyi, Collect put a WP:PROD template on this article which you created: [10]. As apparently he did not inform you (notification, though a recommended courtesy, is not compulsory), I am taking the liberty of doing so myself. As I noted on the article's Talk page, I removed the tag (reason in the edit summary) and showed Collect the courtesy of posting to this effect at his Talk, which (of course) he deleted. Collect now has the option of submitting the article to AfD, where it would be open to discussion. Writegeist (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've userfied Wikipedia:Argument_with_Collect to User:Factchecker_atyourservice/Argument with Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Write, I wouldn't have caught that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pong

sure :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pong again. I don't put my email address on my page because I don't want spam-bots to pick it up and tell me how to enlarge my penis/breasts/bank account/etc. :-). Just send to me through the WP mail service and I'll get back to you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I share your sentiment, but am otherwise at a loss on how to enlarge my penis, breasts, and bank account. Looks like I'm stuck with spam :( Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

2 unanswered questions

Please see Admin:User talk:FayssalF. Lets see what happens!--Buster7 (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

I am contacting you because you commented on this topic recently.

Following a recent RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Descibing Collect

Thought you might enjoy......http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned --Buster7 (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This page 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.

^ "Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." Article 23, Clause 4, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html#a23

[1] "Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." Article 23, Clause 4, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html#a23

[1]