User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

SafeLibraries.org

Can an organization create an account? I don't know, you might want to check. Greetings, regardless. Welcome, I'm aware of your resent ACLU posts and I'd like to complement you on your willingness to debate and civility. Very much meritable on your part. I'd like to offer encouragement to you and let you know you can always come back to an issue. No one owns an article WP:OWN Don't leave wiki, OK? Scribner 07:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Partial Reverts

SL, you ask how you can revert a major change without reverting subsequent minor changes. So, of course, I expect that it's me you probably are intending to revert, I'll of course still tell you how it's done. hehehe. THe short answer is I don't think you can't-- you have to manually edit the page so that its code reflect how you want it to look-- you can't automatically just revert some edits but not others-- the software isn't smart enough to do that, I don't think.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds if you know how to do copy and pasting. Let's say the history looks like this:

Time 0 - Pre-editing --- "The Earth is round. The Fox is red."

Time 1 - Major Edit --- "The Earth is flat. The Fox is red."

Time 2 - Minor Edit --- "The Earth is flat. The Foxes are red."

You want to keep minor edit, but revert major edit. if the Major and Minor edits are modifying the exact same sentence, you're out of luck. But in the example I gave above, the minor and major edits concern different parts of the text.

So, first you look at the code for Time 0, and copy the text you want to revert back to. By copy I mean, highlight it, copy it to your clipboard. In this example, you'd copy "The Earth is round".

Then you go to the main article page and edit it. You will delete the line "The Earth is flat" and paste over "The earth is round" instead. Meanwhile, the minor edits done to the Fox sentence will be unaffected.

Let me know if this wasn't clear enough. This sort of thing's a lot easier to explain in person, and explaining it online sometimes makes it hard to understand. I know it sounds like a lot, but it's actually a pretty quick process once you get used to it.

Happy reverting! :) --Alecmconroy 17:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny! No, I wasn't intending that for you, but I was wondering how you did it to me! I suspected it would be done manually, but I thought perhaps you know a wiki way that was easier. So I'm not reverting, yet. I want to take the time first to look at the history to see who added the section in the first place and who developed it. Then I can present a case for any changes that is pretty solid. Thanks for the information. By the way, the Earth is round so I would a revert, but I might edit to Redd Foxx. --SafeLibraries 17:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

question mark and comma butterfly

Hi I'm a wee bit concerned about the addition of particular species of butterfly to the general interest of the butterfly article. My arguments against having them are 1. There is nothing remarkable or odd about the species 2. If more contributors decide to add species to the list then that list will be huge. keep in mind that there are easily more than 10K butterflies in the world. 3. If the names are what made you put it there then I'd recommend you look at joker, punch, judy,... oh heck i could go on. I would appreciate it if you would take these points into consideration and remove your edit yourself. --Viren 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. But please consider this. There is a Question Mark page on wikipedia that has nothing about the Question Mark butterfly. It's a no brainer to redirect people to the Butterfly page. However, that page had no information about the Question Mark. Therefore I added it precisely because it needed to be differentiated from the puncuation question mark. Perhaps a section should be added for interestingly named butterflies, and you've named a few, interesting on its own, but also to differentiate them from other things of the same name.

And what if someone attempted to find info on the Question Mark by searching on question mark. They would be frustrated. The more information the better, I say. Of course you are the butterfly expert so perhaps it could be reworded or moved accordingly, but I think the arguments I just presented are just as valid as yours. So what do you say? --SafeLibraries 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a stub for Polygonia interrogationis, and changed the redirect on Question Mark, which seems to be the preferable thing to do. I have images of that species, so can add them in the next few days. I also did a redirect from Question Mark Butterfly to Polygonia interrogationis. --Cotinis 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks! Or, in this case, thanks?????????????? --SafeLibraries 00:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Cotinis. Thats exactly what I was gonna do. SafeLibraries, you may take off the 2 butterfly links now. Your arguments have been addressed. --Viren 06:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks all. --SafeLibraries 08:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Have I got the place for you!

SL,

As you know, I've done lots of thinking about you and your cause lately. Anyway, I just came across this and immediately thought of you: There's are two sites you should look into Wikinfo and Wikireason-- they use the same software as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikibooks. But-- unlike Wikipedia, which insists people not use it as a soapbox, these two sites actually encourage people to write from a specific point of view.

These would be a great outlet for you to write an article on what you think is wrong with the ALA, and Wikinfo in particular has quite a lot of users, so you'd be sure to get some visitors that might not otherwise come to your own Safelibraries site.

In fact, I think it's SUCH a good idea for you to make such an article that I took the liberty of starting one for you on Wikinfo. See the stub I wrote on Wikinfo: Criticism of the American Library Association. I don't know the issues like you do, so, I didn't write very much-- but I strongly encourage you to round out the article so Wikinfo users can understand your criticisms of the ALA. (you have to register to edit, but... it only takes 3 seconds)

--Alecmconroy 11:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! I'm going to look there right away! Here we see the power of people working together. But, learning from you, take some time to add things. Thanks again! --SafeLibraries 12:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You are coming close to violating WP:3RR with your constant readdition of the link to ACLU. I suggest you stop adding links when multiple editors remove them. Ladlergo 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I wasn't aware of this. Now I'm not sure what vandalism is, but when a person adds a site that provides balance and someone then immediately deletes it for a bogus reason that is actually a POV, and where the effect is to reduce not increase wikiworthy information, am I not allowed to restore that page?

Now looking at the ACLU page, I added a really right on article by a legitimate, wikiworthy source, but the article was critical of the ACLU so it was immediately removed. (I was actually surprised that the person was implying a victim of the Castro regime, a Cuban, was "non-noteworthy.") So I reverted to put it back. And again it was removed. So I reverted a second time. Then another person removed the link but suggested that if it was really relevant, it could be writted into the text. So I did. I did not do the third revert. I wrote a new paragraph about the ACLU's law suit and the counterbalancing article. Then someone left in the link to the ACLU article I added but again cut out the counterbalancing article. Another person then added back the counterbalance and changed the language to remove any possible negative language. Then you came along and editted further, but also leaving in the counterbalancing link. So I view that as 2 people besides me agreeing with me that the idea is valid and well as having counterbalancing opinions.

Given that, it appears I did the right thing, although not perhaps in wikiperfect fashion. So again thanks for telling me about the 3RR rule.

And what do I do when someone keeps cutting out information in an obvious POV fashion instead of providing positive input and guidance as you have?

Thanks again. --SafeLibraries 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Obsessional point of view

Alecmconroy wrote to you: "Lastly, SL, let me once again caution you that you are editing with an "obsessional point of view"-- that is, editing articles related directly to something you care deeply about and are an advocate for."

I think your complaint on the censorship talk page that I was personally attacking you was uncalled for and unfair, and could potentially affect me. I may have been a little cold toward you but I have not attacked you. Pardon me for using the word "obsessional," but as you saw in Alec's explanation it has a technical meaning in wikipedia. Rlitwin 04:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you do consistently argue by calling my credibility into question while never, perhaps almost never, addressing the issue directly. Your only arguments are ad hominem. I am trying to encourage you to address the arguments head on instead of disparaging the messenger. And as I said, it's really you who looks less credible when you make such poor arguments, not me. And it was especially arrogant of you to imply my contributions are invalid on a page that, using a blurb at the top, specifically invited people to get involved.

By the way, while I did not yet look up the definition of the word obsessional, the ALA has had for about 40 years an obsessional goal in convincing people that it is "age" discrimination for anyone other than a parent to keep a child from inappropriate material for children, and to bypass the parents the ALA awards inappropriate books for children with the highest awards and writes glowing reviews to ensure the widest possible distribution. And on the Printz Award page of which you are complaining, that's the very use of the Printz award. Just look at the Printz 2006 winner where that author admitted he would not give his own award winning book to his own 12 year old if he had one, yet the ALA would and does. The ALA even lost big in US v. ALA, SCOTUS 2003, where the SCOTUS said it's "legitimate, even compelling," to separate children from inappropriate material, yet the ALA refuses to respond accordingly and continues to push its agenda. My own kindergartner was given an inappropriate book by an ALA librarian using an ALA list of books approved by the ALA for kindergartners.

So what's more obsessional -- wanting my child not to get inappropriate books the ALA recommends, and I have to do this each new school year, or 40 years of the ALA's ensuring children get access to inappropraite material despite public outcry and even despite the SCOTUS and 40 years of ensuring parents are misled as to the contents of books? --SafeLibraries 12:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I have used any ad hominem arguments with you and have always focused on the issue. The one exception could be yesterday when I referred the Censorship article contributors to look at the talk pages of other articles to see what you were about. I see now how that that was unnecessary. But all the other times we have debated on talk pages I have stuck to the issue and not referred to your credibility at all. So what you are saying there is simply not true. Anyone interested in seeing for themselves can view these talk pages: Talk:American Library Association, Talk:Library Bill of Rights. Besides a few words on the Censorship talk page yesterday, those are the only places where we have intereacted, unless I'm forgetting something minor. I don't think readers will find anything there that supports what SL is saying here. Rlitwin 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are the Library Juice blogger, right? Would you care to do a story about SafeLibraries.org and any of the many other organizations opposed to the ALA's policies, such as PABBIS?

Opus Dei, Censorship, and Courts

SL, thanks for your kind words on my talk. I do applaud your continued and increasing use of talk pages. I have to be honest, I'll be surprise if you convince people, but if you're going to try, that's the way to do it. I don't know if it'll work, but I can almost guarantee you that the only way you're going to get the pages changed is by talking about it and building consensus-- if you try to make controversial changes yourself, everyone will just revert you, get mad at you, and then ban you if you keep it up. Talking about it-- you might changes some minds, you'll definitely educate some foks about your point of view, and if truth is on your side, you may even convince enough people to get the media attention your organization needs (and which it will get eventually, I have no doubt).

I'm really glad you stepped into that Opus Dei controversy, because it's a perfect example the "notability tests for a controversy" that I've mentioned to you with ALA. Currently, it seems likes criticism of the ALA, in general, hasn't really hit the national consciousness yet. Opus Dei, however, clearly has. Look at this bibliography-- there are have been four full-length books published devoted to criticism of Opus Dei. There have been several books written in response to these criticisms. There have been articles on the controversy in Time, CNN, Fox, and every other major new source. Opus Dei is even the main villain in a blockbuster movie. And even with all that, I still haven't been able to get the controversy discussed in a non-biased way, and it could easily take quite a while still before that's accomplished. So you see, it's not just the ALA-- it's just always very difficult to introduce minority criticism of an organization. It's hard enough when you have the whole media backing you up-- it's practically impossible without it.

The real irony about the whole Opus Dei controversy, the thing no one involved in that debate knows or would believe about me is this: I don't even AGREE with the criticisms of Opus Dei. LOL. I'm sure everyone there thinks I'm a hateful atheist with an axe to grind against their organization. I'm sure several folks at a different article currently think I'm a America-obsessed war hawkish US Marine who hates the anti-war movement. At one point, people thought I was a gay activist. hehehe. All in a day's work once you start trying to work towards neutral points of view, instead of working towards points of view you agree with.

But I digress. So, I was going to ask you: you said "It is not censorship to keep a child from reading porn". Why not? I would say that it _IS_ censorship, the very definition of censorship. But the question is: Is censorship always bad, or is it sometimes justified? You see my point? I agree with the censorship article that such access is censorship, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think it's bad.

Similarly, I'd point out that the supreme court doesn't actually comment on morality, they just comment on legality. You've mentioned this a couple of times about the ALA losing the big supreme court case. But just because something's legal doesn't mean it's moral-- ask anyone who's Pro-Life. The ALA has their opinion on how things should be and other people have their opinions of how things should be-- but the courts aren't saying how things should be, they just say what's legal. For me, this isn't an ALA issue, specifically, it's just one of my many geeky rants. People are always quoting supreme court judgements as if the supreme courts are: For abortion, or For censorship, or Against Bush, or Against the war, or... etc. But the thing is-- they're not ruling on the issues, they try hard to be blind to the actually issues, and focus just on the law of the things, the constitutionality-- not the morality. :)

I know, I know... I'm a nit-picky geeky.

--Alecmconroy 07:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The word is just the wrong word to use. Parents keep their childen from a lot of things. It is not censorship to keep your child from running freely into the road. That's parenting. It is not censorship to use a V-chip to filter out inappropriate material for children. That's parenting. It is not censorship to keep a child from reading about inappropriate sexual activity. That's parenting.

The problem arises when organizations try to take away your right to parent by substituting their own judgement for yours. The problem is even worse when the US Supreme Court sides with the parents but the losing party in that case decides not to comply with the Court. That's when it changes from mere difference of opinion into defiance of the law. Do you or I get to openly and repeatedly flaunt the SCOTUS?

So I see your point that such "censorship" may not be bad, but the word just doesn't apply in that case.

I ask you to read US v. ALA. Then consider how the ALA continues to argue it is age discrimination to keep children from inappropriate material. You'll see what I mean. --SafeLibraries 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

SL- I think the problem here, a semantic problem, is that you want to insist that a word carry both a positive and a normative meaning. In your usage, censorship means something like "preventing something from doing something in a way that is morally wrong." Which is fine enough, but if you double up the definition like this, you (and anyone talking with you) suddenly needs three more words in order to cover the full range of possibilities:

• preventing someone from doing something in a way that is morally right (you call it "parenting")
• doing something morally wrong without preventing someone from doing something
• doing something that is not morally wrong and does not prevent someone from doing something

Obviously, this throws a wrench in the usual flow of conversation. And the effect is to create a kind of circular reasoning. Unless we come up with all the new words you demand that we use, you have simply eliminated the possibility of discussing whether or not it is morally wrong (or right) to prevent someone from doing something. Ethan Mitchell 16:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethan Mitchell. Happy to see you here. You may be right. Perhaps I need to really think it out, write it well, and have people understand what I'm saying -- 3 elements. Perhaps.

But censorship is not my real gig. My gig is the application of US v. ALA to the ALA, and the application of other laws and cases to the ALA, because the ALA could care less right now and children continue to suffer nationwide. So I need to get the definition(s) of censorship from those sources. Any way I may be defining it, my real goal is to follow the rule of law and have others follow the rule of law, not to make up my own rule of SafeLibraries. The ALA has its own rule of the ALA (it's "age" discrimination to keep kids from inappropriate material) that apparently trumps the rule of law (it's "legitimate, even compelling" to keep kids from inappropriate material) -- I will not be doing that because 2 wrongs don't make a right. --SafeLibraries 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Revert

Oops, that was an accident. I thought you were changing it from singular to plural.. --Ptcamn 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Formal request to change name

Hello, SafeLibraries.org. I am formally requesting that you change your user name. Your name could be seen as a direct advertisement for your website. Additionally, as anyone who visits your website can see, you have a very strong viewpoint on the ALA. I am not suggesting that you are incapable of writing NPOV material, however your user name implies that your organization endorses your edits, and as your organization is certainly POV, it gives the very strong impression that your edits are POV.

I am also bothered by the potential precedent your name may set. My understanding (and I may be wrong on this, as I've not been able to find any policy to back me or refute me) is that Wikipedia user accounts are just that: an account for a single user. Having a user name that indicates that a group of people is editing articles is ill advised. It also raises legal questions. Are you entitled to speak for all parties in the SafeLibraries.org organization? Do all the members of that organization agree to license their contributions under the GFDL?

Please consider making a voluntary name change. I feel strongly about the integrity of this project, and I hope you understand my concerns.

Brian Schlosser42 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you regarding the integrity of this project. Will someone please provide me with the wiki policy page regarding names, and, since I'm new, specifically point out where I should look to see why I should change my name? I have no problem changing the name after seeing that it's required.

My name is not an advertisement for the web site. Rather, I choose it precisely because it clearly identifies who I am -- it's more honest, in my opinion, to make edits as SafeLibraies.org than as Born2Run or other arbitrary name. My edits, hopefully, are based on provable facts, not on my point of view or my feelings. Therefore, I feel that if my edits are unassailable, it is irrelevant who I am personally.

Thanks for writing here. Let's see what others say. --SafeLibraries 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Username. You can request your name be changed at WP:CHU. Thank you, Prodego ^talk 02:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. "Usernames that promote a company or website: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked."

Forgive me, I did not read this before I created the name. I'll go voluntarily change it now. And I thank you for pointing this out politely to me. --SafeLibraries 03:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your query

Hi, SL.O. Thanks for your interest. I would not advise you to get involved on any particular side in this dispute. People who have have been stalked and harassed mercilessly by sockpuppets -- I don't wish what I've gone through on anyone, even the person doing it to me.

Couldn't help notice your exchange above. You might want to check out the link below, number seven in the list: here.

Cheers, IronDuke 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And if I editted the page I think you are talking about, you can see I made a lot of minor changes. (I then worked on some other college's page too.)

"7. Do not add an external link to your signature. However, external links to Wikimedia projects are acceptable. For example, Talk page." Yes, I see what you mean. It appears my signature is an external link. But I click on my signature and it goes to my Talk page, internal to Wikipedia. I have not added an external link to my signature. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --SafeLibraries 06:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Most welcome. And just FWIW, I have no problem with your sig, but you may well get grief for it from someone at some point. IronDuke 14:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)