I want to support your decision to use SafeLibraries.org as your name, for precisely the reason that you give - it is more honest about your purpose in editing wikipedia than some arbitrary name would be. It lets people know that you are here on wikipedia for a purpose, a cause. It helps people understand your edits better if you let them know that right up front, as you do.
That said, I think you should probably reread the actual NPOV policy. You refer to it on talk pages but I'm not sure how well you understand it. More specifically, I think you should read the Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy. I think if you give these policies a careful read you will see that your intentions on wikipedia run counter to them. But as long as you insist on advancing your POV on wikipedia, I encourage you to keep your name the same, so that people will know immediately that that is what you are doing. Rlitwin12:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm not hiding anything. But let's be clear -- correcting or complaining about obvious bias does not mean the obvious bias is not there just because I am on another side of an issue. Rather is it precisely the strength of Wikipedia that many people from different backgrounds get to work together to improve the work available on Wikipedia. It's a wonderful thing. I just disclose what side I'm on. I will continue to point out obvious bias introduced and will continue to be a part of the community that makes Wikipedia strong.
I even agreed with you lately on the Propaganda page, and I never once mentioned that you are one of the American Library Association's leading propagandists! Perhaps because of your high position in the ALA and related history, you ought consider the soapbox policy yourself instead of complaining when I expose your propaganda and when you attempt to stifle input from people like me with whom you disagree. Be that as it may, I will read the pages you recommend and attempt to comply accordingly. Thanks for visiting. --SafeLibraries13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure you really did agree with me on the Propaganda talk page. I thought your comment was difficult to understand, and it made me wonder if you were following me. It would make me uncomfortable if you were in fact doing that. Rlitwin13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that category works by adding whatever article it's on to the page, I don't think it has | functionality to include just certain sections. The Day of Truth article was merged awhile ago, so the only thing I can think of to fix it would be to manually add "Day of Truth" to the activist events cat page. Homestarmy12:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC).
Hi SafeLibraries. I'm reaching out to you here. I looked over a lot of your additions, and I'd like to point out several things. First, I am glad you are editing WP, but I would like to see your additions more useful. You cite to sources that aren't reliable. WorldNetDaily is inherently an unreliable source for anything on this site. Have you seen their latest headline story that the US is forming a shadow government with Mexico and Canada? I am not saying that everything they have on their site is as ridiculous as that, but when you can only use that site (or similar ideologically-based websites) to support your points, you have to question why those people who write on it can only find those platforms for their views; they don't use any standards of journalism. Regarding the WSJ Op-Ed: this is not a news story, but an opinion piece. An opinion piece does not have to be fact checked or verified; just b/c the WSJ chooses to print it doesn't mean it has met any journalistic standards. I have not seen the documentary (I don't own a television), but in researching this issue the documentary was *not* just about Clinton, yet you chose to highlight. This is POV. I also note on your talk page that you say things like "this is not censorship, it is parenting" when referring to V-Chips and stuff. It is both. To censor something is to expunge, remove or block objectionable content. It is within a parent's rights (even responsibility) to censor what their children come into contact with. Granted, censorship as it has been used in the political realm has negative connotations, but its denotations are the same. You can't substitute the word "censoring" with "parenting" - they aren't the same thing, and it confuses your argument.
I think it is perfectly appropriate for you to come on here with a conservative viewpoint to ensure that liberals don't take liberty with the truth. But from my perspective, you are coming on here and taking liberties with the truth from a Conservative viewpoint. This helps nobody, least of all this website that I care about deeply. I'm a liberal, and a proud one. But I am more interested in ensuring my views are based on an accurate factual basis, or at least as close to one as I can muster. Otherwise, I'm only supporting my pre-conceived notions, which may not be accurate. I've been proven that some "facts" I've taken for granted in the past are actually completely wrong. It's embarrassing to me personally to espouse a viewpoint only to be shown up that it's based on inaccuracies or outright lies. In some ways, I understand where you are coming from; but I personally am on WP because I want to learn from conservatives by building consensus and agreement. I don't want to persuade them of my viewpoints, especially with faulty information. I don't know if any of this means anything to you or even if you care, but this is my effort to reach out to you and explain why I take issue with your additions, your sources and your edits. Not all, but many of them. What I hope you take away from this comment and others that have been left on your Talk page is that WP is a great place for us to learn from each other--learn from each other--and not only try to persuade each other that we are, in fact, right. After all, I care more about the accuracy of the facts that inform my perspective than I care about being able to say, "I'm right, you're wrong." I just don't see the world like that. I hope you continue to edit, but I would enjoy seeing the quality of your sources and edits improve. Dave --DavidShankBone20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
On the American Library Association page I removed the reference to WorldNetDaily and substituted a reference therefor to the ALA's own web site. For the ALA, there is no higher authority. Please don't shoot the messenger. I did not make up what it says on the ALA web site. And as to that WSJ article, you have to admit, conservative or liberal, that the article was directly relevant to the main wiki page. Anything I may have said on the Talk page might be POV but I only added a link to the article and a very brief description on the main page. And I have even removed the phrase "Democratic Senators" even though it is the truth that they were the ones threatening freedom of speech in the USA, the title of that wiki page. So I listen and react as you do as well. My edits where not based on conservativism, only the actual truth. And claims that you made that certain sources can't be trusted solely because major media will not publish them, well you know full well that the major media suppresses information they do not what the public to know. Consider today's news about the government memo showing the USA needs to leave Iraq. It's in the news, it can be trusted, right? Wrong. More of the memo came out and, after the semicolon, the memo made it clear the USA needs to stay in Iraq. Only the major media does not want to admit that. Now that's the truth. That's why the major media is shrinking and alternative news sources are flourishing. You just can't cut them out as you are trying or you are yourself engaging in POV arguments. Be that as it may, I think my more recent edits are more to your liking. --SafeLibraries21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
SL, you may or may not be right about the Mainstream Media, but generally I think you are right. I certainly would like to see more coverage of the two wars we are involved in. But this misses the point: the MM still theoretically ascribes to journalitsic standards, the kind taught in universities, and blogs and other ideologically-driven sites do not. Does the MM mess up, or cover everything we think they should? No. But WP and our editing must draw a line somewhere, and WP policy has rightfully drawn it on sources that employ fact-checkers, and whose business models will come into jeopardy if proven wrong or inaccurate. These blogs and NewsMax, DailyKOS and the like are appealing to anger and emotion on politically-charged issues and if they are wrong there is no accountability. That's why they are not acceptable as sources. This site can not be a haven for conspiracy theories to be worked into main articles that are not about conspiracy theories unto themselves. I'm sure in your line of work you are aware of the Franklin Coverup Scandal article. If you feel there is a conspiracy that is being underreported, create an article on it and let other editors judge whether it, like the Frankling Coverup Scandal, merits its own page. But working conspiracy theories and fake controversies (sorry, I don't buy the Banned Book Week thing as a controversy) into main article pages is a good way to get yourself in trouble on here. Just to let you know; you should take some time to review policy more. --DavidShankBone16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comment in the RfC that "I will immediately investigate what action I will take within Wikipedia and what other action I will take legally against you": I strongly suggest you remove that statement or you may be blocked. See WP:LEGAL. JoshuaZ18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's all be calm now. I did not say I will sue anyone. I said, "I will immediately investigate what action I will take within Wikipedia and what other action I will take legally against you," if you quoted me correctly. So essentially I was "threatening" to think about what I might do. Is threatening to think a violation of any policy, Wikipedia policy that is, not George Orwell. Indeed several people, in response to this statement, informed me of the wiki avenues of redress.
In exchange for being calm, I too am being calm. Despite the defamation and libel to which I have been subjected as a means of minimizing my arguments, I too have remained calm and not filed any actions within the wiki world against the defamer.
I've never heard of you before, JoshuaZ. The motivation that causes you to come to this page of someone you don't even know for the purpose you have is beyond me. Perhaps if we met at a water cooler at work, we might even like each other and, say, talk about that outstanding, rare Mets double play last night. So I say we all remain calm. --SafeLibraries23:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with thinking about using legal avenues. However, since we live in a highly litigious society almost any mention of such avenues is consider a legal threat since it has almost all the same intidimation effects as for a more explicit legal threat. Such comments therefore fall under WP:LEGAL and should be avoided. JoshuaZ01:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Based on your comments and my interest in adhering to wiki policy, I reread WP:LEGAL and I did not find your view supported therein. Have I missed something? --SafeLibraries10:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The phrasing is almost certainly close enough to constitute a claim of legal action or threat of such under the policy as it is commonly interpreted. Regardless of whether the comment falls afoul of the precise letter of the policy it carries with it all the associated problems. JoshuaZ16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, no. I have remained civil towards he who made the claim and he has remained civil toward me, unlike what that policy suggests. Perhaps even better than merely civil. However, I do appreciate your concern for my welfare. Thank you very much. --SafeLibraries21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Short answer, yes you do still need to change it. The reason I removed the other users comment because it said you were blocked, which is not true. (However, I did block you for a few seconds before changing my mind, since you had been editing a while, and that is probably why he/she left it). The page actually does not just discourage certain usernames, but forbids them, which you can see here. Your current name, as well as "SafeLibraries", both fall under the "Usernames that promote a company or website" criterion. If you have any other questions, please let me know, Prodegotalk14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is so peculiar. Here's a guy "Avraham" who posts without writing his name, then blocks my name for violating policy, yet his own name is a violation of policy! You have to love the hypocrisy here! No names of revered religious figures are allowed, and "Avraham" is revered by Jews, Moslems, and Christians as the father of all!!! I mean the pure hubris of this person blocking me, SafeLibraries.org, but going around as Avraham. And nevermind my apparent willingness to voluntarily change. Oh no, "Avraham" has to block me immediately! No more edits to Elmo! No more edits to Glass Flowers. But I suspect the real goal is no more edits to the American Library Association. I hereby nominate "Avraham" as a violation of wiki policy. Anyone know where I can go to register a complaint about "Avraham" using a religious man revered by billions of people from 3 major religions? --SafeLibraries18:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Username does indeed prohibit "Names of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs". However, such names are prohibited only when they are exclusively religious references. User:Avraham is no more an exclusively religious reference than User:Mary is a reference to the virgin Mary. Your username, by contrast, bears no interpretation other than a URL for a website. However, if you request that your username be changed on this talk page, I will post a request on your behalf to Wikipedia:Changing username. Once your username is changed to comply with Wikipedia:Username, you will be unblocked. John25419:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, John254, I'll change my name. Don't know what to yet. And I do want my old info tied into my new account so I can continue editting the near hundreds of pages I edit. I think I read that's possible. I'm no expert so I appreciate any help I get. Also, I don't always have time to devote hours at a time so I'll do my best. I think my name will have something to do with libraries, but will not in any other way be connected to web site. Maybe LibraryZorroDefenderOfTheMeek, how about that? Too long? --SafeLibraries21:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Unblocked to request name change
You have been unblocked. Please contact a bueracrat at Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the instructions there for having your name change and your contributions kept. Thank you, and good luck! -- Avi23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Your request to change your username to "LibraryPaulRevere" was denied as a bureaucrat deemed the new username you requested to be inconsistent with Wikipedia:Username. Additionally, as you have continued to edit articles under your existing username, you have been blocked until the username change process is completed. You may make a new request to change your username on this talk page. I will then post a request on your behalf to Wikipedia:Changing username, with a link to your request on this page. Once your username is changed, you will be unblocked. John25403:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Phew, John254, thanks. I continued to improve pages and revert vandalism while the name change process was in process. What a sin! Be that as it may, here is my proposed new name, and I thank you for helping me here.
THANKS TO AVI AND WAROFDREAMS FOR RESOVING THIS ISSUE AND UNBLOCKING ME! I might have thanked you earlier but I couldn't even update my Talk page! Thanks again. Hmmm. I see in preview it still says my old name. Guess I have some changes to do myself. --SafeLibraries03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Grandmasterka for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Someone else can submit the name change request for him. In the mean time, the user has continued to edit under this one.
Your IP address is 24.225.139.202.
Block duration: To find when your block will expire, click on my contributions and follow the Block log link. If you have no current blocks listed, then it is most likely that you have been "autoblocked" (see below).
AOL users: Please read Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users first.
Username blocks: If the reason given is "username", "user...", or "contact an administrator for verification purposes", then you or someone with whom you share an IP address has most likely been blocked for choosing an inappropriate username. To request a change in username and be unblocked, please follow these instructions.
I see no reason you should be blocked now. Please log off, log on, and try one more time. -- Avi04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Didn't help. Does this help:
04:58, 25 October 2006, Grandmasterka (Talk) blocked #286028 (expires 04:58, 26 October 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "LegitimateAndEvenCompelling". The reason given for LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's block is: "Someone else can submit the name change)
No, Avi, and I even logged out and in again. Still cannot edit. Well, you have worked very hard to help me. I really appreciate it. I'll guess I'll just have to wait until the block expires. Thanks anyway.
Still getting this:
You are not blocked from reading pages, only from editing them.
(Note: If you had clicked a red link you were blocked from starting a new page).
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Grandmasterka for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Someone else can submit the name change request for him. In the mean time, the user has continued to edit under this one.
Your IP address is 24.225.139.202.
Block duration: To find when your block will expire, click on my contributions and follow the Block log link. If you have no current blocks listed, then it is most likely that you have been "autoblocked" (see below).
AOL users: Please read Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users first.
Username blocks: If the reason given is "username", "user...", or "contact an administrator for verification purposes", then you or someone with whom you share an IP address has most likely been blocked for choosing an inappropriate username. To request a change in username and be unblocked, please follow these instructions.
Thank you; it is a pleasure. If I were in your shoes, I'd want someone to help me out . Remember, sysops are not only banhammer-wielding rogues ;) PS. I've unblocked #286042, although I do not know if that will help. -- Avi05:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
AhA! Try it now. I tried unblocking "SafeLibraries.org" and it did not return an error, which implied that "SafeLibraries.org" was still blocked. Perhaps… -- Avi05:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
general guidelines concerning userpages on Wikipedia
Hi and welcome to your new username and userpage. It is considered against the guidelines to have polemical information on your userpage. Please see Wikipedia:Userpage, specifically Wikipedia:Userpage#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. If you'd like to turn over a new leaf here at Wikipedia, I'd suggest keeping your personal political statements on your own website or at least on a subpage of your userspace. It's going to be very hard for you to argue that you are editing from a NPOV if your userpage out and out says that you have an agenda w/r/t the articles that you are editing. Jessamyn (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll read that policy. Just note what polemic means. When an organization, any organization, refuses to be guided by the US Supreme Court case it lost and as a result children continue to be injured nationwide, an "aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another" is essentially required. Are people to sit back and allow that organization to endanger children in defiance of the US Supreme Court? My opinion, of course.
Now perhaps Wikipedia is not the place to do that. But where Wikipedia is or rather was a major source of propaganda for that organization and in violation of various Wiki policies, then it is imperative that Wikipedia includes someone willing to ensure the application of Wiki policy. I just happen to be one of those people and I just happen to say so, so that I do not mislead anyone myself about my edits. But I'll check into that policy now as I wish to comply with Wiki policy.
I didn't think there was a problem explaining why I choose "LegitimateAndEvenCompelling" as my username, and some contextual information is required for the explanation. Further, note I made no links to my web site. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling15:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here is that policy, and here are my responses:
Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia.Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. Examples of unrelated content include:
A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities DON'T HAVE THIS
Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia DISCUSSION IS RELATED TO MY WIKIPEDIA NAME
Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia I HAVE ALMOST NO PERSONAL INFO
Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the creative commons, etc. A FEW PARAGRAPHS IS NOT EXTENSIVE
Other non-encyclopedic material AN ORGANIZATION'S REFUSAL TO FOLLOW A US SUPREME COURT CASE IT LOST IS NOT NON-ENCYCLOPEDIC
I AM NOT DISPUTING "A TOPIC WIDELY VIEWED TO BE A 'SACRED COW' OR BEYOND REPROACH." DEFYING THE US SUPREME COURT BY MAINTAINING AGE IS NOT A REASON TO KEEP INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL AWAY FROM CHILDREN WHERE THE US SUPREME COURT SAYS IT IS "LEGITIMATE AND EVEN COMPELLING" TO DO SO IS NOT A SACRED COW AND IS NOT BEYOND REPROACH.
Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project DON'T HAVE THIS
Communications with people uninvolved with the project or related work DON'T HAVE THIS
Images which you are not free to use (see below) DON'T HAVE THIS
In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site. Many free and low-cost web hosting, email, and weblog services are widely available, and are a good alternative for content unrelated to Wikipedia. You might also want to consider Wikia for wiki-style community collaboration. I DO HAVE A SEPARATE WEB SITE THAT IS FAR, FAR MORE EXTENSIVE THAT WHAT'S HERE. THE COMMENTS HERE PERTAIN ONLY TO WHY I AM CALLED LEGITIMATEANDEVENCOMPELLING.
The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption. MY EDITS ARE MAINLY IN NUMEROUS TOPICS OTHER THAN LIBRARY-RELATED ISSUES. AND A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF MY LIBRARY-RELATED EDITS ARE NONCONTROVERSIAL. ANY EDITS THAT I DO MAKE THAT ARE CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL ARE USUALLY ONLY CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL BY MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS DEFYING THE US SUPREME COURT.
Redirecting your userpage to another page (other than your talk page or a subpage of your user page) is frowned on by some people. Doing so makes it difficult to follow links to your userpage and thus to leave you messages or to look at your contributions. The exception, of course, is if you redirect the userpage for an older account of yours to the userpage of your current account. I DO NOT DO THIS.
LaeC, I am not the policy-maker or enforcer for Wikipedia. I was offering a helpful suggestion regarding your userpage and regarding your ability to make edits that other people will accept as being NPOV. Jessamyn (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I know and I thank you. Since you raised the issue, others may have the same concerns. Therefore I detailed line by line why I fall within the policy.
I appreciate your suggestion that having such information on my user page my lead some people to think I am on a soapbox with regard to the American Library Association. They may believe as they wish, but the truth is that ALA pages like that one had no balance at all until I came on the scene.
I am proud of the work I have done to ensure one-sided pages have become wikiworthy pages, and this includes non-ALA pages. My interest in the ALA's deceptions are only relevant to my being drawn to Wikipedia in the first place. Now that I am here I am perfectly within wiki policy to turn propaganda pages into wikiworthy pages, and, with the hundreds of thousands of pages here, it should be no wonder to anyone that my work regarding the ALA naturally predisposes me to editting ALA pages.
Honestly, I would not be here in the first place but for the existence of the ALA propagandistic pages that used to be here. Had the ALA written pages that were wikiworthy, instead of exact copies of pages from the ALA.org web site, I would never have gotten involved in the first place.
We all know Wikipedia is no one's property. Unfortunately, that's not what all ALA members believe, and that's why to this day I have a following of ALA members constantly ensuring that my actions are monitored minute by minute so that I do not run afoul of the ALA's public image. Well, this is Wikipedia, not ALA.org. So my soapbox runs afoul of ALA.org rules, but not Wikipedia rules. Adding balance to a propagandistic page is not a soapbox. Disclosing the constant controversies that ALA volunteers to inject itself into, such as awarding oral sex books as the best books of the year for 12 year olds, is not a soapbox -- rather it's compliance with Wikipedia policy.
So again I thank you for the suggestion but I am sure unbiased Wikipedians agree my edits as a whole are not affected by my concern that the ALA may be violating the US Supreme Court and endangering children in a way the law was meant to stop, the very law the ALA advises libraries how to sidestep (similar to how they advise libraries how to sidestep the USA PATRIOT Act designed to uncover terrorists -- hmmm -- I see it's not in the Controversy section). Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling19:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Any soapbox is a soapbox, which is against Wikipedia policy. The guidelines are not about striving for balance, they are about striving for neutral point of view, encyclopedic content and not using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Jessamyn (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for contributing here. Looking forward to our continued collaboration in the future. Hopefully I'll create neutral edits right from the start. Now where am I going to put this old soapbox.... --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
