User talk:ObserverNY

ET, EST, EDT

Not sure why you are so adamant using EST while we are in EDT. Regardless, we should use ET instead of EST or EDT. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a typo on my part ... LOL! ET is fine with me. ObserverNY (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

IB has no standards

This is offensive. Please consider formatting it as follows: Frankly, this is outrageousso that readers do not have to be subjected to such outrageous, anti-semitic language. I noticed you removed your potentially libelous statement and I am asking that you remove this one as well. The link remains, but the offensive phrase would be removed from the talk page. Thanks La mome (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty offensive that IB would authorize that school. Funny, calling Christians "pigs" doesn't bother you? News is news, I didn't title the article or create the url. Deal with it. ObserverNY (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Any and all name-calling bothers me. Calling Christians "pigs" is not on the talk page. That type of inflammatory language discourages others (both old and new editors) from wanting to edit. If you had any sensitivity, you would reformat it. La mome (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You simply don't get it, do you? How very sad. ObserverNY (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

La mome: Offensiveness exists, and there's much more of it on wikipedia than you seem to think. On the other hand, wikipedia is not a forum for discussing the merits or otherwise of the IBDP, so I'd suggest that it's not a point we should be pursuing anyway. ONY should know that. Ewen (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - I was unaware of the WP:SYN policy and it was well-cited by HelloAnnyong. I cited two outrageous facts. I am not the Principal of that school who uttered the offensive words, nor did I write the article. There is no evidence of IB EVER denying a school authorization. Of course, you are extremely capable of locating information and if you have evidence of schools ever being denied in IB's 40 year history, I would find it most interesting. As it stands, without contrary stats, IB approves 100% of its applicants. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's just flawed logic. Because you've never seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. All we can say is that the approcal rate is more than 0% and less than or equal to 100%. Anyway, this isn't a forum and it's not the place for original research. Ewen (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Flawed logic? Moi? You know, all of the best universities publish what their "admission" rate is. For example, I believe Yale's was < 8% of all applicants last year. That's because universities have "standards" to be met. But IB HAS NO STANDARDS for granting authorization. None. You may be interested in knowing that just this morning a document which was in response to a complaint filed by a UK resident with IB came into my possession. The reply from Director General Jeffrey Beard, dated July 31, 2009 stated that the King Fahad Academy "met and continues to meet their (IB's) standards". Clearly, a Principal who refuses to eliminate "textbooks" that denigrate Jews and Christians is okey dokey with IB. Shameful. Simply shameful. And hypocritical in the extreme. ObserverNY (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

p.s. - you convinced me to remove the suicide info by proving that an equal number of cases existed with AP/A-Levels. Are you chicken to find evidence of a school being denied IB authorization? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Talk:Van Jones

The comment you restored to this discussion was simple vandalism. Talk pages are for discussing how an article can be improved; when a user uses the talk page to simply insult the subject, it is distracting to the work of improving the article, and can be removed. You are right that we shouldn't remove comments about improving the article that we disagree with, but it's fine to remove simple vandalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen - I'm just a little adamant about other editors censoring comments on a talk page, it is not acceptable practice. In the future, I recommend that such comments be stricken so that the offending signature doesn't get lost in the history. ObserverNY (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since Glenn Beck has been talking about Van Jones, that talk page has been getting a lot of vandalism. If we left all those comments in place, stricken or not, the page would soon become nearly unreadable, and discussion of actually improving the article would end. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So has most of the vandalism been on the part of anti-GB people? I've just sort of been testing the waters at GB because I figured it would be a controversial article. I want the facts presented, but I've seen a few control-freak liber-loons in Wikipedia and I haven't quite been able to figure out yet who has "annointed" themselves as "liberal editor in chief" guarding the page. ObserverNY (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think you're not going to have any luck finding established, regular users who are actively pushing a political point of view, because people get blocked for that not long after they start editing. Most of the vandalism at Talk:Van Jones seems to be from people who want to insult Van Jones in a general way, but aren't interested in sharing ideas about making the article better. Of course, the Glenn Beck thing has also brought some conservative new editors who thought the article was a bit unbalanced in Jones's favor, and had some good ideas about fixing that, and none of their comments were removed- the only thing it's appropriate to remove is the stuff that is pure insults with no content. For example, the specific edit you restored had a full paragraph of racist invective. There's no one in charge of guarding the page; there are lots of experienced users who have it on our watchlists. I hadn't ever heard of Jones until I noticed vandalism to it while I was patrolling recent changes, and I am not really involved in writing the article- there are lots of people who know more about Jones doing a good job of that- I'm just helping out by warning and blocking vandals and removing vandalism, so the editors involved can get on with the work of making the article better. It isn't, in my experience, useful to try to divide Wikipedia editors into liberal and conservative sides, because lots of Wikipedia editors are from countries other than the United States, and have their own completely different political perspectives. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong- the full paragraph of racism wasn't in the edit you restored- I think it was the one I removed just before or just after yours. There's been so many that I get them a bit mixed up in my memory. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi FQ - thanks for the info. I don't know how much time I will have in the near future to contribute to both the Glenn Beck and Van Jones articles, but I am extremely interested in both and hope to make constructive, accurate contributions. Your attention to vandals is appreciated, I apologize for restoring that edit. As I said, there was one editor at the IBDP who took it upon herself to censor a comment I made on the talk page there, and she was rightfully reverted. Now that I understand what is happening at the Van Jones article, I appreciate your vigilance. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks. I may be a Democrat, but at Wikipedia, I try to make sure that I don't ever use my admin button to keep other perspectives from being heard- lively debate makes articles better, by making sure that articles don't become biased. Boy, the vandalism has been awful this morning, hasn't it? I hated to semiprotect the talk page- that's something I'm normally dead against- but since this morning's vandal keeps changing ip addresses, it seemed like the best way to give everyone a break from it so they can work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to work on that Democrat "problem". ;-) The way things are right now, I'm surprised anyone would admit to being a Dem OR a Repub! LOL! I think the semi-protect is a good idea, I don't have a problem with it. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There's a lot in which I agree with traditional Republican views- I like free market capitalism and personal freedom from excessive government interference. But I'm gay, so it would be stupid of me to ever vote Republican- it'd be voting against my own interests. -16:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think more and more Republicans are adopting the Libertarian ideology which is much more accepting of an individual's rights and preferences than say, the fundie Christian perspective. I don't care if someone is gay, as long as it isn't another female hitting on me. I happen to be of the mindset that being gay is physiological, not a "choice". I'm all about Free Will. ;-) But if your physiological make-up is such that it drives you to a partner of the same sex, I don't believe anyone should be punished for that lifestyle. On the other hand, I don't feel that lifestyle needs to be promoted to children in 1st Grade as what is considered "normal" for society as a whole. My daughter and I have many male gay friends and we just adore them! (and my daughter is a 20 yr. old registered Republican & art student ...LOL - talk about conflicting politics!) In art circles - Republicans either shut up or change the subject when it comes to politics) which makes talking about shopping at Neiman Marcus or Abercrombie all that much more fun. ;-) Tata for now ObserverNY (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think the GOP will catch up with the changing culture: one of the jobs of a conservative is to hold on to what's good about the past, and to be the last to change, and we need that, to keep us from rushing ahead blindly. As for schools, though- I don't think that people who talk about 'promoting' gay life in schools have an accurate picture of what's happening. ALL kids- no matter what kind of kids they are- arrive at school assuming that everyone's life is more or less like theirs. As kids talk about their lives in class, they learn that not everyone has whatever they have- two mommies, mommy and grandma, two daddies, mommy and daddy, a big house, a little apartment, a fish, weekends in the mountains... teachers help them learn that different kinds of lives are okay, because the alternative is teasing and bullying. It doesn't really work in a classroom for teachers to single out the kids with gay parents, and say, "Sarah, you aren't allowed to talk about your family, because some parents think your family is yucky." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, I certainly wouldn't condone that. I was referring to the CA teacher who brought her 1st grade students to her lesbian wedding. I think that is rather confusing for most children that age.ObserverNY (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I remember that story...I couldn't quite picture why the class was going to a wedding as a school outing at all. Doesn't sound like any elementary school I ever went to... I looked for more context on that story and never found any. I wouldn't have a problem with a teacher inviting kids and their families to her wedding, but I don't think it should be part of the school day, and it certainly shouldn't be mandatory. Then again, I think I'd feel the same way if she were marrying a man.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fun! I searched again, and this time I found the context. Here's the article I found. When marriage became legal in California, the teacher had taken the day off for her wedding. It was a parent who organized the trip as a surprise for her, not the teacher. It was a charter school, NOT a public school. And kids were allowed to stay at school, which two kids of the 20 in the class did. Those details make me feel a little less ooky about it- though, speaking as a lesbian teacher, I would personally be rather horrified if my class showed up unexpected at my wedding, even though I'd pretend I was delighted to see them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was California, yet California defeated Prop 8, go figure! Btw, charter schools do receive public taxdollars. ObserverNY (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

They do get public dollars, but they often represent specific points of view- there are lots of religious charter schools. I'm guessing that, in California as in my state, 'Creative Arts' is code for 'school with lots of gay students and parents.' Such schools teach specific religions all the time, which wouldn't be kosher (hee) in a public school- the parents who go to charter schools generally choose one with an educational philosophy they like. I'm no fan of Prop 8, because I think it sets a dangerous precedent to let minority rights be determined by a majority vote. Majority rule, with guaranteed equal rights for all is at the heart of the Constitution. Everybody knows, though, that ultimately, the question of gay marriage is going to be decided in the Supreme Court, and all the various state laws and votes along the way are just paving the way to that decision. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of my kids attended a half day performing arts HS, 1/2 day reg. HS, which is the closest thing around me on LI, NY to a charter school. There was no religious affiliation whatsoever, but there was a large gay population. My son went on to graduate from SUNY Purchase as a lighting designer. Being a "clean cut" straight guy, he was the "minority" at Purchase... LOL! However, I believe the question of gay "marriage" should remain within the State's purview and should not be considered a Federal issue as marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. And though I do not subscribe to an organized religion (I was raised Jewish, married a Catholic), I can't help but feel that homosexuality is God's natural means of population control - which makes me a bit uncomfortable with gay adoptions. I mean, look at Rosie O'Donnell (ugh). Btw, I'd just like to add that it is very nice to encounter someone in Wikipedia who is comfortable having a casual conversation without lecturing me on Wikipedia protocol and etiquette. I have a couple of Nannies in here who like to scold me if I so much as say "boo" incorrectly. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think that, evolutionarily speaking, gay people make a lot of sense- people with parenting instincts but no kids of their own are good for a population, because they can take in kids whose biological parents die or are incapacitated. The 'gay gene' might not get passed on directly, but populations with 'spare parents' would benefit in a Darwinian sense. When I see gay people paying huge amounts of money to do in vitro fertilizing, though... I can't help thinking of all the damaged kids in need of loving parents, who'd be happy to have gay parents as opposed to living in the foster care system or with the parents they were taken from. If I ever have kids, I'll try to adopt, not a perfect baby, but one of those kids. Would you like me to lecture you on Wikipedia protocol? I'm quite passionate about the notability criteria.. :)-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely wouldn't like to lecture you on Wikipedia protocol... LOL! Right now, the evil editors at IBDP are plotting to get me banned here: http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User_talk:Candorwien I think it's hysterical. Talk about dysfunctional! Btw, I was adopted at birth, and you make a very good point about gays being able to be caring parents and saving children from unfortunate situations. I'll give that some thought. Of course, I was told by my adoptive parents that they got me through a Jewish agency and that my birth mother was Jewish, but they didn't know anything about the father except they thought he "died" before I was born and had red hair. (kinda like our German Shephard who broke her hip and was sent to the "farm") Anyway, at the tender age of 48, I came across my original adoption papers which revealed that my birth mother was a Methodist from Maryland and I have step-brothers or sisters somewhere! Now this would explain why I dropped out of Hebrew school, but talk about an identity crisis! LOL! ObserverNY (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

p.s. - I'm glad we're on the same page on the in-vitro issue. Huh? Do I sense a slight slide to the right? C'mon FQ!

Oh, I don't think it should be illegal. Everyone has the legal right to fuck up their life, and that of their family, in their own unique way- isn't that a good Republican point of view? But I think the moral high ground goes to the people who adopt kids who are already in the world needing homes, not the ones who pay $10,000 per hit of sperm for a perfect white infant. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be illegal, I just don't think it is preferable. ObserverNY (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Per your request: "Van Jones advocates conservation and regulation as a way of encouraging environmental justice and opposing Environmental racism. For instance in January 2008, from an “EON Deep Democracy Interview Series: Green Jobs Not Jails - The Third Wave of Environmentalism” Van Jones said: "First of all, we began to realize that we’re entering into a third wave of environmentalism in the United States. The first wave is sort of the Teddy Roosevelt, conservation era which had its day and then, in 1963, Rachel Carson writes a book, “Silent Spring”, and she’s talking about “toxics”, and the environment and that really kind of opens up a whole new wave. So its no longer just conservation but it’s conservation, plus regulation, trying to regulate the “bad”, and that wave kind of continued to be developed and got kind of a 2.5 upgrade because of the environmental justice community who said “what a minute, you’re regulating but you’re not regulating “equally”, the white polluters and white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don’t have a racial justice frame.” 99.142.50.33 (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is long enough that it cannot be taken out of context, it links to more information, if they want to learn about his beliefs, and what they are. I know that Harvard president advocated economic priorities in making decisions about the environment... which I think is self evident, that those societies with the most amount of money have more responsibility and ability to improve the environment... but that is my point of view... so I disagree that it is racial, but is economic, but I don't think my point of views can be seen from what I wrote... 99.142.50.33 (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out who is on the organizing committee (Van Jones)

Can you add this to the article? I'm retarded. JohnHistory (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Trutherismlite_and_a_second_Jones_tie.html?showall

OOPS, wrong one here it is...

http://www.rense.com/general18/march.htm JohnHistory (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Okay, agreed. But, you know the NY times isn't going to get to the bottom of this and I wonder how many good conservative journalists there are in San Fran? Van Jones is such an ass I wonder if hill make Obama fire him and not step down, but he is definitely toast. JohnHistory (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Nice job! It feels good to be a part of it. I was here a month or two ago adding his arrest into it and you wouldn't have believed how "clean" it was. I guess that was even true just yesterday. Obama's page is or was totally biased but the clique that runs that page is impossible to crack. They blocked me from even writing on my own talk page for 2 weeks and erased what I wrote there under the "rant" rule. It's the first thing you get when you google obama after his official pages, so you know that they literally "mind" that page every second. It feels good to actually see this work out for onceJohnHistory (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Van Jones is Gone Dude!!! Hell's yeah!

Hell yeah man, I just thought I would let you know. He resigned!!!!

We did it, man!!!! 71.245.236.40 (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Up late celebrating. I think this link says it all, bro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsaTElBljOE JohnHistory (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

A firm reprimand

Shame on you for not using preview! SHAME ON YOU!  :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! Hey, thanks for putting the protect on the page. I don't know if you saw that awful ni**er stuff that some moron put up. And they call ME lewd and vile! Geez! ObserverNY (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I saw it. Yuck. Maybe Glenn Beck should start having a "Racists never get laid" segment on his show... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I wonder if there are any gay racists? Would that be an oxymoron? I'm trying to recall if any of our white gay friends have ever expressed racist sentiments....hmmmm.... I went on a cruise this year and made friends with this fabulous married gay couple from Paris, adorable. They were actually politically conservative! You should have heard them trash healthcare in France. But I don't think anything racial ever came up in our dinner talks. Of course, I don't recall many blacks on the cruise, either. The sad thing is, this President IS causing racial divisiveness that had pretty much disappeared, which is why he was elected. Most Americans are very good people at heart. They know it's not right to judge someone by the color of their skin. But then, when a person of color lies to them and abandons all of his promises, the old stereotypes and ugly names get applied by those who feel they were tricked. Sad. It doesn't mean I support it (obviously by my request for you to block the racist user), but I understand the frustration and anger behind it. ObserverNY (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, there are gay racists. If you were reading the gay blogs for the last few weeks, you'd see quite the tempest-in-a-teapot over comments made by Dan Savage pitting gay racists against black homophobes... oh, everyone had something to say about that one. I don't think that Obama's causing the divisions by his actions; the racist comments were happening during the elections, too. I think that there are some racists who just can't wrap their minds around having a black president- in my opinion, that's what's behind the 'birthers'- they're people who just are not able to conceive of how a black man with such a furrin-sounding name ended up as President. The people screaming about him now are pretty much the same people who were screaming that he was a secret muslim terrorist african gay drug addict during the campaign. I think that he's been more or less true to what he said in his campaign- first priority was closing Guantanamo, second priority is health care reform, all done with lots of input from Congress. I kind of wish he'd taken a stronger, more direct hand in both of those, but it is the same kind of style of leadership he showed when he was campaigning. And I'm genuinely pissed off that he's not making good yet on his campaign promises to gay Americans, but I'm going to hold off on real anger until he's been in office for a longer time- I can understand why he's making health care his first priority. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't read the gay blogs. But you're wrong about "the birthers". It has nothing to do with his race. It has to do with Obama's inability to produce his original birth certificate and not being a "natural born citizen". Have you seen this? [1] Filed Friday in U.S. District Court. ObserverNY (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh, now you've disappointed me. His birth certificate has been examined by Hawaii officials. Hawaii officials have confirmed that it exists in their files. There's a scan of it all over the internet. It looks exactly like mine. There's no case there, which is why these cases have been thrown out of every court in which they've been filed. Pure conspiracy-theory nonsense, right up there with 'George Bush planned 9/11' and 'The CIA assassinated Kennedy.' It's been so widely debunked that I can't be bothered to even argue it. You could read Snopes or Factcheck or USA Today if you like, but I refuse to argue about it just as I refuse to argue about whether the Holocaust happened or whether people really walked on the Moon- because the whole thing is too stupid to dignify with a response. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports about the "hard copy" from Hawaii. It was a later copy that was reproduced on the Internet. I'll be interested how this turns out because the guy filing the suit would be committing felony perjury if his allegations prove to be false. If he obtained this last February, it seems to me he's spent the last six months making sure his case is as airtight as it can be. Time will tell. I'm just interested in the truth. ObserverNY (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't believe a word of that, and I'm surprised that you do. Surprised and disappointed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't believe the suit was filed? ObserverNY (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Removing content from someone else's talk page...

...is against policy. (aka - It makes Jimbo cry, or something like that.) Anyway, let him remove the comments. Gracias. APK that's not my name 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

APK- Huh? Some dude came into MY talk page and said this: [2] so I went and struck what I thought he was referring to. I would NEVER remove something from someone else's talk page - however it is perfectly permissible to remove whatever I want from my own. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I see that you struck through the word, but scroll down. You removed a large section of his talk page. APK that's not my name 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I have no idea how that happened - I certainly didn't wipe it. I think he wiped it himself! Someone tried to have him blocked and then he was unblocked and when I checked back later it was gone, but it wasn't me! All I did was strike "commie nutjob" or whatever it was I called the other editor.ObserverNY (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I checked the history and it appears the only explanation is that somehow I wiped out that huge section. I would never do that intentionally as I personally was incensed when another editor censored my comments on an article talk page. I entered my apologies on his talk page and have no problem with your reversion of my edit, except it unstrikes the "commie comment which then gets me in trouble with the other editor who yelled at me.....oh dear oh dear.... ObserverNY (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Look again. My edit was a partial revert. (the strike is still there) APK that's not my name 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Cool. ObserverNY (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I just erased it, no worries. JohnHistory (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory I kept the other stuff because it will be funny in times to come to look back on the historical record that we kind of had a little tiny part in. But, let me know and I will delete it, though it doesn't have anything bad I just didn't know if you wanted that gone as well. Either way. By the way, do communists think "commie" is slander or do they think calling it slander is slanderous??? hmmm???JohnHistory (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Hey JH - I just wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't trying to censor you - good grief, that's the last thing I would ever do! As I said, I've got this nutjob tracking my every move so she can "compile evidence" of my "gross transgressions" such as calling the lorax a "commie". (I'm sure she'll add this comment to her pile...hehehehe) Her goal is to get me permanently banned from Wikipedia.....LOL!... don't these people have ANYTHING better to do with their lives? Hope you have a nice Labor Day. Any chance you'll be going to D.C. on 9/12? ObserverNY (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ANI

I've opened a thread on WP:ANI about your last edit about me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh good for you HelloAnnyong! That was so polite of you to give me notice. ObserverNY (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Civility

Please go to User talk:JohnHistory and refector this edit of yours [3] to remove the clear personal attack William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't attack JohnHistory, what are you talking about? ObserverNY (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I see you worked it out. Sadly, you then deleted this message and proceeded to further incivilty [4]. So I've blocked you for 24h. Please read and abide by WP:CIVIL William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I forgot the actual block. Done now William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! Who's "inept" now Connolley? You mean people actually make mistakes sometimes? OMG! Imagine that. ;-p ObserverNY (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

for the record

Connolley - you said: : I see you worked it out. Sadly, you then deleted this message and proceeded to further incivilty. Yeah. I deleted the message. I have a right to do that on my own talk page. If APK and you hadn't butted in to talk pages you weren't invited to on an interaction between two editors where THERE WAS NO PROBLEM , there would have been NOTHING TO WORK OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE. I simply love how egomaniacal Wiki admins think they can police user talk pages. Did JohnHistory complain about my accidental delete? NO. He did not. ObserverNY (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Your block has nothing to do with the accidental delete William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't? Funny, seems to me that's how I came to your attention. I also noticed you haven't blocked a single other user in the recent block history. Frankly, I find your interference in my editing privileges suspicious. I have bigger fish to fry than to try and assuage your ego by requesting an unblock. Cheerio! ObserverNY (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To Wikidemon should you be cruising the Talk pages

WD - "What makes this suddenly an issue in July, 2009? By "everyone" I meant insiders. I have a hard time imagining that anyone on either side couldn't have found this if they had wanted or tried."" There ya go. You answered your own question as to WHY this became an issue in July. Especially by "everyone" meaning "Obama and His cadre of San Francisco/Chicago radical black nationals". So the questions are:

• 1. Is our FBI too stupid to run a Google search on these Czars?
• 2. Did the FBI run a Google search and our President was fine with every offensive/racist/Marxist quote this man and who knows how many of the other 30+ Czars have recorded for posterity?
• 3. How are these Czar positions even Constitutional if Obama is circumventing Congress' vetting process?

These are the questions the American public want answered. These are the questions FOX and ONLY FOX are brave enough to try and get answered. ObserverNY (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

time test ObserverNY (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Definitely. I know they seem to come to my page a lot don't they? Anyway, that is ridiculous and if you give some of them a cm. of rope they will hang you, while I consider myself pretty thick skinned and they can give me a mile of rope and I'm cool to swing it while they jump. Hell, some kid just called me a "twat" and can you imagine if I, or you said that? The illiberalness of modern liberalness. Sad. JohnHistory (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Gallimeil (sp?) is the one who unsuccessfully tried to get me blocked I think, and he was the one who kept, at 4am, reverting the article against the consensus. Be careful, don't let anyone trap you in the spider web that is wiki. I'm taking a little break. JohnHistory (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Notification

I mentioned your name in this thread. APK that's not my name 20:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how I have offended you. It was certainly not my intention, as we have certainly never interzcted, nor are we likely now.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

re: A comment you made.

I would like to reply to a comment you made:

• Oh, I get it now! Wikipedia is a project to build a libelous, left-wing lunatic, "ludicrous" encyclopedia run by fascist control-freaks who have nothing better to do than act as trolls for the Left. Got it. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think I avoid editing the US Political articles? ;-) But please, ... be careful about telling it like it is. Certain aspects of the US political spectrum are vastly outnumbered here, and I would MUCH prefer to see you continuing your work from the inside here. Sometimes when one is outnumbered, it's better to choose the battles carefully; tread lightly; and avoid waking the entire "network" of opponents. I appreciate your work. If I can ever offer any assistance, feel free to drop me a line. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hey ... CONGRATULATIONS! ... glad to hear it! Hope that doesn't mean you'll be leaving completely. To be honest, it (liberaliasm) is a self perpetuating cycle as far as the educational system goes. I'm remembered of an old saying I heard often growing up: "If you are not a liberal at the age of 25, you have no heart - if you are still a liberal at the age of 45, you have no brain". I wonder if that's where the Straw man terminology comes from? Cheers and best. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe, without verifying it, that that quote is from Winston Churchill. Anyway, the comment above was made on my talk page in address to a guy backing out of an argument he started, and attacking my character for stating the facts that John Stewart is a comedian on comedy central, and that Stewart stated as fact that he was "not objective" and that this is "my show." Thus, the person then backed out of debating the very study cited they cited which contradicted their findings, and the imprisonment of 100,000's of political prisoners during the Progressive presidencies of Woodrow WIlson and FDR, along with said presidents militarism.

However, I think that it is dangerous to the person themselves to tow the line, and mitigate their opinions/observations and freedom of speech too much. Wikipedia, due to the political imbalance you noted, loses, and has already lost a lot of credibility. If you look at a lot of entrenched editor and Admin's pages you will find them openly showing off their left wing affiliations and engaging in all sorts of slander. It is important to view your experience as someone not on the left on wiki from an almost anthropological vantage point, but to also be able to sometimes call it like you see it and not curtail your own being, your own human being too much in the process. JohnHistory (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

After all, as Bruce Lee said, to honestly express oneself is very hard to do and is the most important thing in life. Much more important then an online quasi-encyclopedia. JohnHistory (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Libertarian/libertarian

Howdy, The Libertarian Party is active in NY, see Libertarian Party of New York, but they are not very active. Our article claims they are fielding a candidate for mayor this year but their website was last updated to discuss the upcoming 2008 election so who knows. At the West Indian Day Parade yesterday I got to meet Frances Villar, the 2009 NYC Mayoral candidate from the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Wow, that lady has an interesting worldview. Years ago, back home in Louisiana, corrupt Gov. Edwin Edwards was in a bitter election fight with Klansman David Duke; Edwards' supporters had these great bumper stickers that read: "Vote for the Crook! This time it's important!" Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party just lost a bid to get its candidates on the ballot in Suffolk County, NY. :http://suffolkcountysheriff.com/news/how-the-board-of-elections-is-being-used-against-us/ ObserverNY (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's dirty pool. IIRC, Mike Diamond Jim Bloomberg is running (for an illegal 3rd term) as the nominee for the Republican Party and the Independence Party, he also tried unsuccessfully to get the nomination of the Working Families Party. I say we bring back the Know-Nothings, the Anti-Masons, the Bull-Moose Party, and the Whigs then let 'em all fight it out with sharp sticks. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dick Armey

Please see that article on ways that investigative journalism and resignation ought to be handled. It´s terrible. Look at the sources. Ghastly.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reality Check

Oh, I get it now! Wikipedia is a project to build a libelous, left-wing lunatic, "ludicrous" encyclopedia run by fascist control-freaks who have nothing better to do than act as trolls for the Left. Got it. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tip: Making Shit Up and attributing it to your ideological opponents is really bad way to deal with the real world. Further observation for you soldiers in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders: WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Only Conservative have to be respectful, not Liberals. Check. ObserverNY (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's good. Usually the best units get their name from the opposition as it would be. The 101st Fighting Keyboarders, it's got a certain right to it, does it not? if you look at our "soldiering" it is to balance, and honestly present things that the Left would most likely not. If there ever was a valid effort in wikipedia that would be it. You need us, because without us there is no balance. We are thus essential to the integrity of wikipedia and you should understand that. JohnHistory (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on IB Diploma Programme. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean the edit war you yourself jumped into, HelloAnnyong? Have you bothered to follow the discussion? ObserverNY (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, and I left several comments on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand your efforts to restrict the content of a Wikipedia article to 2008. ObserverNY (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've left you another message at the AN3 report you filed. Consider this both an edit warring warning and a civility warning. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The guy who started all of this against ObserverNY, and the source for said quote, was my talk page and yet Calton said this to me with no persecution while ObserverNY is being railed against for responding to it.

Here is just one little snippet that includes "were the words I used too multi-syllable", "But the breathtaking stupidity of your first response is too provoking."

"I said I'm not interested in "debate" with you -- were the words I used too multi-syllabic big? -- any more than I'd be interested in "debating" the president of the Flat Earth Society or the guy who used to run around town claiming he had PROOF that Stephen King was behind the murder of John Lennon -- where to even begin with people like that? -- but the breathtaking stupidity of your first response is too provoking." -Calton

I'm not advocating anyone be blocked, but how can you guys miss this and apply these rules so unequally? JohnHistory (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

In fact, ObserverNY was directly responding and quoting Calton when he used the word "lunatic". Here is Calton again, which ObserverNY is responding to directly.

"This is a project to build an objective encyclopedia, not a chance for you to indulge your AM-radio blowhard/screaming town-hall-meeting-lunatic schtick. Yes, I get: there's a Negro in the White House! Run for your lives! Just change your underwear and get on with your life, already."

-Could you be more uncivil, yet it is Calton who then turns around, with others support, and goes after ObserverNY? What? What universe is this exactly JohnHistory (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

ObserverNY was essentially paraphrasing Calton's comments to me. JohnHistory (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I believe you're mistaken. This warning is about edit warring on IB Diploma Programme, an article in which neither you nor Calton seem to have been involved. Calton was never reported for, or involved, in the dispute that this section is about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones Wikiquote

it's up, and needs expansion: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Van_Jones Katmairock (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a conservative issues task force? Maybe there should be one, it's too hard to get things done as one editor. Katmairock (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

mark lloyd article

I am no Wikipedia expert, but I did find this. (I'm sure you know about it, maybe not)

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Template:Editprotected

If you have legitimate edits you want to make, just start putting them up on the talk page using that template.

Reliefappearance (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey relief - I had searched which admin put the full block on the Mark Lloyd, stupidly forgot to write down the name, but this admin didn't want ANY comments on his/her page and had a redirect to the spot where I requested an unblock for the article. Wikipedia is SERIOUSLY fucked up, pardon my French. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Only warning

You've been warned about making accusations and insulting people. Stop. Now. APK is a GLEEk 12:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

There is a discussion taking place at ANI regarding your conduct. APK is a GLEEk 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

More censorship

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Structural_Imbalance_of_Political_Talk_Radio&action=edit&section=1

this got you blocked ???

I bet if LaMome could she would send my computer a virus just so she could control my Internet usage, that's how disturbed I think this woman is. Fortunately, she appears to be rather inept technologically.ObserverNY (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sheesh.Bachcell (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Acorn on Glenn Beck

Maybe you can take a crack at adding the defunding of Acorn and dropping census work after Beck aired videos, since he's taking at least some credit for that. So far I mentioned Mark Lloyd and Beck on the same page and it's still up there. Bachcell (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Glenn_Beck_(TV_program)#Van_Jones

Re:Thanks

No probalmo :) I replied to the discussion here. If you and everyone else can put some effort into my proposal, I think this can be put behind us and benefit everyone. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 00:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

9/12 DC Protest

I went to the protest as well. Glad to see another tea partier! As for the article, I have to take an unbiased (as much as I can) stance to the debate. Wikipedia policies are there for a reason. While I personally believe FreedomWorks' estimate is more accurate since people were constantly coming and going from the grounds via the Metro, I have to go with the reliable sources (of which there aren't any yet). I was one of those that attended later and didn't arrive in time for the march, so I think the DC FD didn't include me in their estimate. I believe the truth will come out probably from some independent or conservative news organization that believes in not having bias in reporting. I will help you debate back some of the liberal arguments on the 9/12 protest talk page which are purposely trying to UNDERESTIMATE the attendance, but in the end I will side with real sources. There is no original research here. --Triadian (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Even Bill O'Reilly just used the 75,000 figure, which I think is a gross underestimate, but it really doesn't matter. I've pretty much given up on trying to provide balance to any of these articles. When they fight me on including a mention of Obama's flyover of the crowd in Marine One and the cite is the NYT, you KNOW it's pointless. I have a "following" of editors from the IBDP who "track" me to see if I say a bad word or <gasp> call someone a Liberal. Now APK has joined their ranks. I don't have the time or energy for such WP:DRAMA. I know someone who came into the rally from VA and was stuck on the Metro for 2 hrs. I came in off of N 1st so I was up by the Capitol steps. 75,000 people fit into a football field. From my vantage point, there were people as far as the eye could see and that 3rd St statement is bogus, the crowd extended way beyond that point. As I said, it doesn't matter. I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Haha, yeah. We came in at the South Capitol station and walked right up to almost the side of the stage, then circled around to Penn. Ave. People were coming in and out and it's hard to get an accurate count of the entire event. People were doing the march, some were on the Mall listening to the speakers, some just walked through. There were even grassy areas I believe where the permits prevented people from standing. There was also that African American Heritage festival thing going on at the Washington monument, so it's unsure who belonged to what event. --Triadian (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I see you already have had warnings about this sort of thing so this is the only time I am going to warn you. Do not engage in personal attacks such as calling other editors pathetic.

Our volunteers do not deserve to be subject to name calling and action to prevent this will be taken if it continues. I appreciate that you work in controversial areas, but that just makes it all the more important to keep discourse civil. Chillum 01:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Enough. You clearly have shown you have no interest in treating others here with respect. This kind of commentary is beyond the pale and seems to be par for the course with you. I don't care to play games of slightly escalating blocks, since you clearly aren't taking any of this seriously. Come back when you are actually interested in being more useful than a burden. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness! You're right, I have no interest in kissing the fascist asses of Wikipedia administrators and left-wing editors hellbent on suppressing facts and targeting those with a Libertarian perspective. Is there a special Barnstar for being blocked indefinitely? I sure would like to paste it on my page! LOLOLOLOL! ObserverNY (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		WAY TO GO! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ricky's brilliant block on articles: Disruptive editing: enough; comments beyond the pail found http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=314211399

LOLOLOLOL! It's PALE, not PAIL! Wait - no LAUGHING at intellectual bankruptcy allowed in Wikipedia! VERBOTEN!!!!ObserverNY (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Why bless your little heart, Heironymous Rowe! Gosh, I feel so special! Am I the first? I do so like to be a trendsetter. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, it seems to me you were blocked for consistently making unproductive ad hominem arguments instead of striving for consensus. You are not a martyr. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Martry? Why on earth would I want to be a martyr? Are you referring to my pretty Barstar? I consider myself a champion of liberty, not a martyr. As you can see from the comments by another user below, I am not alone in my perception of the POV of Wikiadmins and the vast majority of editors on this site. I can be accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" and "foul-mouthed" and that person doesn't get blocked, but I get blocked for calling the behavior of a bunch of editors "pathetic". Everytime I "strove" for consensus, the left-wing editors would declare a majority vote. I never cursed out a fellow editor. Homie don't play those games. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You were not blocked because of your POV, you were blocked because you of your personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and refusal to consider WP:POLICY. You went far beyond what is described in WP:IAR?. Reliefappearance (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey HelloAnnyong

I ASSURE you that I did not use your IP address, I would have no idea even HOW to do that, furthermore I am blocked so I can only assume that Rickitikitavi put you in the "pail" with me somehow. Of course, this is the only place I can post anything, but I'm sure you'll see this message. Sorry for giggling, though. You have to admit. It's pretty funny. ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hey xeno - I really don't appreciate being blamed as the cause for Wikiadmins blocking a bunch of other editors - I'd pretty much call that bullshit and feel I am owed an apology!

* CinchBug (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • unblock • user rights management)
   * 68.33.95.243 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock)
   * Block ID: 1572069 (BlockList • unblock)
   * Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ObserverNY"... ObserverNY (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

By the way, if you want, send your email to Grendo147 on Youtube. A lot is going on and I can respond there so that no one else will have it. Just look up that name and then send a message to me. You will need your own youtube account which I think you might like anyway. All the best.

1984 meet Wikipedia 2009. I think he just got the date and format wrong when he wrote it. So sad. JohnHistory (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

This is a Disgrace

I think this is corrupt. I see the most vile comments go bye by people on the left, while those in the center or right of it are blocked and banned. You think you are doing your cause a good service, but in reality you are just proving why any decent Professor does not allow Wikipedia as a valid reference and why it is not respected as it was even just a year ago. This is coming from someone who for years has just tried to bring basic honesty to a vast amount of articles. Anyway, the uneven hand is so blatant and easily documentable that it really does not speak well for the culture here. I have encountered so many times. So many insults, never punished. Yet I think I was blocked for a "fortnight" for calling one of them "juvenile" which they actually may have literally been. It is hypocrisy plain and simple. JohnHistory (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

If if gives yall any consolation, they even started looking to ban me. See my talk page for proof of it. It's a tough realm out here. --Triadian (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page usage

If you don't feel like using your talk page for its intended purpose while being blocked (namely, unblock requests), I can reblock you so you don't have that burden. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize how you sound, saying something like that? Do you realize what a disservice it does to Wikipedia as a whole for to be so flamboyantly authoritarian with this ridiculous weak bravado? JohnHistory (talk)JohnHistory

By the way, if you want, send your email to Grendo147 on Youtube. A lot is going on and I can respond there so that no one else will have it. Just look up that name and then send a message to me. You will need your own youtube account which I think you might like anyway. All the best. JohnHistory (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Hell if you want to use your "talk" page to "talk" he can block you again. I am laughing at how pathetic that concept is. They love this, that is how tiny their worlds are. This is the pinnacle of their power tripping, and it is downright sad! JohnHistory (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

There is a reason for this website, and it is not to make fun and insult everyone who disagrees with you. If people cannot or will not use the pages appropriately, then the privilege to use them can be removed. If you disagree, then file a report at ANI. Otherwise, if you want to personally criticize me, at least have the courtesy to do it on my talk page and discuss it with me. If you want to keep playing martyrdom, I'm not going to stop you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now how could I criticize you on YOUR talk page when I'm blocked? DOH! Great reasoning there, Ricky. ObserverNY (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Where's my apology for your Wiki software screw-up accusing ME of using other editor's IP's, hmmmm Ricky? Or is there some sort of rule that Wikistatists don't have to apologize for a gross faux pas? ObserverNY (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, you have been indefinitely blocked. The only appropriate use of this user talk page at this point is to post an unblocked request. If you do not wish to file an unblock request then please respect the block and stop using this page to criticize those you don't agree with and demanding apologies from software. Chillum 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum - Please link me to the Wikipedia rule which states a User's Talk page may ONLY be used to request an "unblock". Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If you don't feel like using your talk page for its intended purpose while being blocked (namely, unblock requests), I can reblock you so you don't have that burden. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Uhhh, when was I ever "unblocked? ObserverNY (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

By "reblock" I think he means to reset the block without talk page privileges, that is what I meant. The whole purpose of a block is to prevent someone from editing Wikipedia, your access to your talk page is so that you can request an unblock and no other purpose. If you cannot convince someone to unblock you then you should not be editing here. Chillum 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum - So is it fair to assume by your lack of inclusion of a link to an actual Wikipedia policy regarding uses of User Talk pages, that Ricky and your insistence that a talk page's SOLE purpose is to request an unblock is just an arbitrary rule that Wiki admins like to throw around without any backup? Frankly, I haven't decided yet whether I want to request an unblock. Let's just say my opinion is "indefinite" in that area. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict) ONY, I honestly hope that you're able to work through this. So much of what you have to offer is honest, factual information which could benefit this project. I hate to see good honest people chased from the project. I've seen many a good editors pushed to the point of frustration, where it leads to retaliation and I hate to see that. If we stick to addressing the content, and not the editors, there's a much better chance of countering a lot of the POV that pervades the US Political areas here. I'm willing to help where I can, although I do admit that I seldom get involved with the US political arena, simply due to the sheer numbers that claim "consensus". I'll watchlist your talk page, and if I see any chance at all to unblock, I'd certainly be willing to plead your case. Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  14:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ched. Thanks for the kind words. See, I tried sticking to the content, rahlly I did. But you know, when you get accused of being a sexist for merely referring to another editor as a 'her' (who goes by the name Candy) and of posting fraudulent information by another editor who clearly has a reading comprehension problem, and then they all gang up on you and go running to ANI every time I try to make an edit and fight me on every well sourced fact I try and add, it just ain't worth it. At least I see the fact I added about the C-SPAN coverage of the 9/12 rally is still there. (oops, I shouldn't have said that, now someone will probably run and edit it out.... LOL!) The pontificating by the Left about "good faith" and "being welcoming", is as hypocritical as Congress refusing to accept the apology Congressman Wilson gave to the President. There's a difference between a healthy debate and a constant edit war to include FACTS when the administrative faction that runs this site is clearly partisan and authoritarian without just cause. A girl can get pushed just so far without pushing back, however the Left NEVER sees themselves as the cause or throwing the first punch. Double standard and I fear, grossly out numbered. The whole consensus thing is a joke. I've had training in consensus building and the way it is SUPPOSED to operate is nothing like the way things are run around here. ObserverNY (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Believe me ONY, I do understand your plight. I can completely understand the frustration that people gather here. For myself, I've decided to stick to the high road, not engage foolish children in their "but my professor told me so" rhetoric, and pick my battles carefully. I chose to stick my nose into this particular page because I think your points have merit. I know that some editors can get away with things that other editors can not. That is not something I can change. What I can change is little, but if I pick the right things to work on, then it's worth it. I see a great deal of value in your efforts, and I'd like to see you continue to edit here. Consensus at WP doesn't really work the same way as it does in the real world, so we have to play with the cards we are dealt. An unblock request with the promise not to speak of other editors in a derogatory or condescending manner is something I can work with. WP is only a website, but I think it's a noble and worthwhile effort. I understand if you've grown weary of the battle, but there are positive things that can be done here. I'd like to see you editing here, and I hope you'll consider things from a "big picture" standpoint. Nothing drastic is going to change over-night, but change comes from within much more effectively than it does from the naysayers. All my best. — Ched :  ?  18:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking this user from posting here

As long as ONY follows the guidelines in WP:TALK there is no need to block them from posting to their own user talk page. Yes, we can block them for personal attacks or incivility here, but we can't block them for posting something besides an unblock request while blocked. Samboy (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant issue is use of Wikipedia as a discussion forum. If the editor is blocked, cannot edit here, and doesn't seem interested in being unblocked, there is nothing gained by continuing this. If I don't see any improvement in the decorum (largely, losing the attitude), I have no concern with protecting this talk page and moving on. Again, however, feel free to discuss this with me further at my talk page if you'd like, or explain your concerns at ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a liberal bias

I've worked with you on the Taxpayer March on Washington article, and I have to make an observation: It's important to realize that Wikipedia's job is to be neutral. WP:NPOV is one of our pillars. This means we try to have our articles best reflect what mainstream sources say about it.

For example, in Taxpayer March on Washington, you tried to say the attendance numbers were disputed. They weren't. All mainstream, reliable sources said either "tens of thousands" or a number between 60,000 to 75,000+. The number in the article right now is 75,000+, with a section below pointing out that fringe sources give higher estimates, since said fringe claims have been reported by reliable sources.

If you don't understand why it is anyone claiming more than 100,000 people at the rally is a fringe source, you don't understand Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Just as we don't use liberal sources claiming only 40,000 at the rally, we don't use conservative sources claiming 2,000,000 at the rally. That's Wikipedia policy. Neither highly biased non-mainstream liberal blogs nor Conservative blogs meet Wiki's standard to be a reliable source here. Samboy (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Samboy - I question the reasoning behind those who claim the UK Daily Mail is an "outlier" source and therefore doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. The Daily Mail reported "up to a million". Refusing to allow that cite into the article appears to be a biased attempt to restrict a range of reliable sources. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If you read Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington, I pointed to a discussion about Daily Mail's reliability (click on this link to read it yourself). In short: There were a lot of questions raised about whether the Daily Mail can be considered a reliable source. Also telling: Why don't any sources that are generally considered reliable sources quote a figure higher than 100,000? Do you feel the entire mainstream media (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) has a biased liberal slant to the point they do not accurately report news? Samboy (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• sidenote: I actually saw not too long ago an editor make the claim that Fox News did not meet the WP:RS standards. The best part of it was that said editor was actually an admin. I didn't know whether to laugh my ass off ... or to cry my eyes out. No particular point in regards to this particular thread .. just an observation. — Ched :  ?  18:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Samboy - To answer your question re: the NYT and WAPO, uh yeah, WAPO by its own Ombudsman's admission stated that WAPO gave much more positive coverage to Obama during the campaign than McCain, even admitting that Obama deserved "greater scrutiny than he got". [5]. In fact, Hannity has begun calling the "mainstream" media the "fringe" media because none of the major papers seem the least bit interested in reporting on real news, the way FOX does, case in point - ACORN. ObserverNY (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

One more thing, give me one reason why the UK Daily Mail cannot be considered a "reliable source"? A European paper which doesn't have a horse in the race is much more likely to provide an unbiased estimate than WAPO or the NYT. Of course I'd love to see an aerial photograph and an independent grid analysis of the crowd. Are ANY of your "mainstream" media outlets endeavoring to obtain that information? If they are, I haven't heard anything about it.ObserverNY (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

From the link on the Talk page re: the Daily Mail: However, its general news reporting, other than on UK politics - on which it's highly slanted - is of quite a good standard. The specific item quoted by the original poster is a piece by its foreign correspondents; I see no reason not to regard that as a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC) It would appear that it was resolved that the Daily Mail is an acceptable source, so why was Tarc permitted to remove this edit without being reverted? [6] Thanks, ObserverNY (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

OK, I'll ignore the distractions, well, except to point out that, yes, the NY Times have talked about ACORN's despicable behavior. You, of course, have the right to feel that the sources Wikipedia considers reliable sources all have a liberal bias, but coming to the Wikipedia and trying to change long-standing consensus about what is a reliable source without reading what we have to say puts you, at best, in a difficult position. Yes, neutral is a subjective impression, but I think it's reasonable to conclude mainstream newspapers are more reliable than conservative blogs. If you feel differently, you may be more happy editing the Conservapedia, where they have different ideas about what kinds of sources are reliable.

This isn't about being conservative or being liberal. It's about finding the truth. Yes, one person's liberal (though I find it very unusual you think the Wall Street Journal has a liberal bias) is another's person's neutral; and, yes, one person's conservative is another person's neutral. But a large number of editors, both conservative, liberal, neutral, whatever, have come up with a consensus about what kinds of sources are reliable, and trying to edit against that consensus without explaining why said sources are unreliable (using something more substantial than "they're liberal") isn't going to win any friends here. Samboy (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea that there was 2 million people there is ridiculous. The estimates for 2009 Inaguration, March for Women's Lives, and the King March were around 1 million and each time the place was completely mobbed. As far as I could tell the Taxpayer March didn't even take up half the space. Reliefappearance (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one is completely unbiased, and as far they are neutral, or probably more accurately described as uninterested editors and admins, they naturally are only few in number because they're uninterested, or neutral mindset on the topic means they are much less likely to get involved in it. Wikipedia is left leaning, I think that is why conservapedia was created in the first place. At least they put it out there and don't masquerade as something they are not. Either way, one of the most obvious signs of this phenomenon on Wiki is how unevenly the rules are applied. I find people on the left can call you every name in the book and no one says a thing. In fact ObserverNY was blocked originally, and chastised for basically paraphrasing the disparaging remarks and personal attacks of another editor on myself right back at them. That very same editor felt comfortable enough (Calton) to come here and tell her she was out of line, etc. I mean could you be more of a hypocrite and feel more secure then to do that? Anyway, one just needs to be able laugh. JohnHistory (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

JohnHistory - Calton has been blocked too Samboy (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Samboy - referring to my citing of WAPO's Ombudsman's statement re: WAPO's left-leaning as a "distraction" is EXACTLY the sort of disingenuous tactics employed by the Left in Wikipedia. Now whether you consider yourself a Liberal or not, really makes no never mind to me because you fight to uphold the Liberal POV and employ their "control and distract or at least accuse of distraction" tactics. You asked a question, I gave you a direct and honest reply WITH A CITE and you call it a "distraction".

And Reliefappearance - after I very delicately and without invective questioned why the cite to the UK Daily Mail where "up to 1 million people" was deleted, you come back with "The idea that there was [sic] 2 million people there is ridiculous." Did I assert 2 million? No. Your attempt to distort my representation of a verifiable source to be a "fringe" viewpoint is also disingenuous and a typical tactic employed by the Left. So here we sit. Me blocked, not really caring to argue anymore with close-minded people who refuse to believe the photos right before their eyes and reliable sources from the UK. To say there were only 60,000 people there is the most ridiculous, "unofficial" statement to date. And as for your mainstream media, INCLUDING BILL O'REILLY, to run with the 75,000 figure - is even more astounding. The signage representation (text) is still very slanted, as far as I'm concerned. ObserverNY (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The idea that there were 1 million people there is also ridiculous. Happy? EDIT: Washington Times Sept. 13 "Rally leaders estimated the crowd at about 75,000, but others said it was larger than that. Organizers had expected between 25,000 and 50,000." [7] Reliefappearance (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the Liberal disbelievers - this videographer attempted to get a shot of the crowd as far back as their camera could take in. I was up in front by the Capitol steps. You could not see the end of the crowd and there are other photos documenting the crowd completely surrounding the reflecting pool which is beyond the reach of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDHIrfpA-qo&feature=related God bless America and screw anyone who dismisses and seeks to minimize the historical significance of the sincerity and heartfelt passion of the patriots who turned out on 9/12 to engage in their Constitutional right to peacefully protest the direction this country is heading in. ObserverNY (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hi Ched - I'll think about it. Getting the truth out shouldn't be such a battle. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Distraction: I ask a simple question and don't get a simple answer. It was a yes-no question; I didn't ask if you felt WAPO was a reliable source, I asked if you felt the mainstream media was a reliable sources. You admitted you didn't feel they were a reliable source. End of discussion; you choose to hold a minority view that will make it difficult for you to make edits on political articles that are neutral.

OK, another simple question: Do you understand that it is your behavior (and not your political views) as an editor that blocked you? Samboy (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Prove that my view, (and WAPO's OWN view) of the mainstream media is the "minority view".

• 2. Are you the etiquette police? Are you going to take me out to the woodshed and spank me for having a sense of humor? How is it that stalking, running to ANI at the drop of a hat and ganging up on an editor isn't considered "bad" behavior? Hmmmm? Oh that's right, when Liberals do it, it's acceptable. I forgot. ObserverNY (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

OK, it sounds like you can't see why your behavior resulted in your block. As for proving things, that's not the Wikipedia is about. I will not engage you any more until you understand WP:NOTTHEM. It was your behavior that resulted in the block. Seriously, if you want to become a productive editor again, read and understand WP:NOTTHEM. Samboy (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

She never was a productive editor. Reliefappearance (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds more like someone isn't interested in why their behavior resulted in a block. There are plenty of users here with your point of view. There are plenty of people who have been blocked for behavior like yours. You can be part of one but not the other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Animal Farm aka Baby it's No Lie

I think I am going to write a song or a poem about all of this in general with the above title. Wikipedia -Animal Farm- mind swirling, hmmm. Napoleon and Snowball, etc. Well, maybe it will come to fruition soon. JohnHistory (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Chorus

Welcome to the Animal Farm -Get ready to disarm-There's a pig and blanket too-But don't you call it a zoo. JohnHistory (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Not bad off the cuff.

Cuz ban you we will do! There's a star on the barn, maybe even two, But if you're Conservative We'll kick you in the hoo hoo. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict) Look, maybe I'm the foolish "Boxer" in this whole "The world's a stage" production, but moaning and groaning doesn't change the content. I don't mind helping, but I can't do it on my own folks. Ya need to play by their rules, and beat them by simply taking the high road, sticking to facts (and their are plenty to be had), and not provoking the powers that be. Enough adults and clear thinking people start putting an effort into this project, and eventually we'll balance out the numbers. The truth is out there - let's bring it home, and not add to the "collateral damage" list. Please? — Ched :  ?  19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but can we not have a sense of humor in the process? Does that needeth to be'th destroyed'eth as well? JohnHistory (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

NO LAFFING!!! Goddamit John History, Ched is making a reasoned plea for sanity and now look what you've done! I'm afraid I don't share Ched's optimism for achieving any sort of balance in the near future. No sane individual keeps constant company with tyrants and patients in an insane asylum. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I never said "near" future ... big picture .. long range. Anything of value is worth working for. As far as the company one keeps? ... I keep my friends close, and my enemies closer. ;-) — Ched :  ?  20:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay Machievellio man. I keep my friends close, and then I bear hug them! BTW, Ban her forever she may have called us "insane". JohnHistory (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

(edit conflict) Ched - I have enough trouble dodging that red laser dot the Swiss assassin hiding in the woods in my backyard has trained on my forehead.....LOL.....and by no means did I mean to imply that you are not sane. I just can't seem to work within such a Borg-like environment without cutting loose a little. Please feel free to e-mail me at info@truthaboutib.com if you want me to take a look at a specific article and suggest an addition, I could do that. But there's no way they are ever going to reinstate me with the lynch mob over in IBDP and frankly, I don't want to give them the satisfaction of begging for an unblock. ObserverNY (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I can't believe this! I thought you were my friend! I though you the somebody who finally understood me deep inside in my special place! Oh my god! Do you know what it is like to feel your soul implode? Do you! Do you!!! JohnHistory (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

← Well, when they come for me, at least I want to know that I tried. ;-) — Ched :  ?  20:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnHistory & Ched - you two really lifted my spirits and warmed the cockles of my little heart. Does anyone even use that word anymore? Cockles? Can Wikipedia ban you for that? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That is one of the sweetest, yet saddest things I have ever heard. No, I won't let them ban you for that! I just won't!! But, you got one thing wrong! you're heart is a big one lil tiger lady. JohnHistory (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Don't forget 1984. I can't believe they give you WP:TRUTH when they explain to you that the truth is not allowed on WP, and that you can't use Glenn Beck or Worldnet Daily on Van Jones or ACORN because they're not WP:RS, when those have been the ONLY reliable sources. The New York Times and ABC News have been the LEAST reliable possible sources. You can say that Jimmy Carter says that opposition to Obama is because of racism, but you can't say the Glenn Beck thinks Mark Lloyd ever said anything favorable about Hugo Chavez, even with a live video of his own words. Isn't this the new WP:SPEAK. Heck, the guy even asked me to "come back and help improve the article" after hitting me over my head with a tire iron. Sheesh. What's this rule "you can be subject to a block if you persist on adding edits without a consensus. Is there such a rule, or is it just WP:BULL****? Bachcell (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Check out Glenn Beck. The man is on the cover of Time and the subject of a New York Times story, both sources giving full credit for taking down Van Jones and ACORN and there is still NO mention of either incident. How can that be explained? BTW, maybe we should take down a list of the most egregious scrubbers and their most ridiculous excuses for deleting footnoted edits, and keep track of who the good guys are for reference. Bachcell (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bachnell, there are no good guys and bad guys on Wikipedia. You both have a serious problem understanding how this site works. I suggest you step over to Wikinews or find a Conservative slanted Wiki to edit. Wikipedia is neutral. You really have no place here. Reliefappearance (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You know what? That's a very good idea Bachcell. Except I would advise you not to 'list' it anywhere on Wikipedia for now, as you know 'lists' are verboten and entitle other editors to arbitrarily delete what you write from article Talk pages, even though Wiki rules say they shouldn't. ObserverNY (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wiki policy says that political grandstanding should be removed from talk pages. That includes just about every single one of your edits Observer. Your ad hominem arguments, personal attacks, and conservative POV editing has no place here. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

neutrality non-existent

My dear Appearance who provides no relief at all, pray tell, how does one enforce WP:NEUTRAL when there is no neutrality in any WP:verify sources in this day and age on controversial political issues? Case in point from the March on Washington Talk page:

Time Magazine has an article mentioning the attendance controversy. To wit: "If you get your information from liberal sources, the crowd numbered about 70,000, many of them greedy racists. If you get your information from conservative sources, the crowd was hundreds of thousands strong, perhaps as many as a million, and the tenor was peaceful and patriotic." Samboy (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And if they come to get their information from Wikipedia? Frankly, those "Liberal reports" don't deserve to see the light of Wikipedia's server. I WAS THERE! There were NO ARRESTS. The crowd was FESTIVE and PATRIOTIC. There were AT LEAST 800,000 - 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE THERE. THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE RACIST SIGN IN THE CROWD!!! You say you want the truth to be presented in an encyclopaedic manner, yet you work overtime to block editors who seek to constructively contribute information, factual information if they happen to be coming up with sources that are more conservative than lib. Then to dismiss that claim because Liberals are ALWAYS neutral, as the conservative argues reasons for inclusion of their source, then the Libs deliberately distort and dismiss the Conservative/Independent's talk post or requested cite. Then we get the "this is not a forum" this is not a "soapbox' blah blah blah, while editors like Mike are allowed to blather on for half a page and no one criticizes him for the same thing. Double standard, absolute hypocrisy. It is a pattern. It happens in every article where politics is involved. So you can pretend that a whole lotta people around here are "neutral", but I beg to differ. The left becomes the etiquette police and starts stalking you on your user talk and other editor talk pages and then go running to ANI at the drop of the hat to try and get what THEY label, an "obstructive" editor from being able to edit. Yes, THEM exists in Wikipedia. De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have never cursed out another editor. I have never threatened another editor. And I resent your comment that I "never was a productive editor". I find that to be rude and nasty. ObserverNY (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You lie. I had no hand in getting you blocked. You were blocked for YOUR actions, YOUR diffs were posted. YOUR comments are what got you blocked. Not me or anyone else. Reliefappearance (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page usage

It has been 48 hours since your block. You have taken no action to contest your block and your page has become a magnet for user conflicts. A talk page is not intended to be a permanent soapbox for a banned user, so I have configured your block so you are unable to edit this page. If you wish to contest your block, please contact the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or email the blocking administrator. If you wish to use this page to contest your block, email me or another administrator and the block of your use of this page will be removed for that purpose only. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnHistory. Thank you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lloyd

I'm not sure where this came from or why it's on that page, but all I did was semi-protect the page from IP editing due to offwiki collaboration to denigrate the biography of a living person well within the bounds of the protection policy clause: Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view).

User:MBisanz applied to full protection, it is all in the page history and logs for the page. Please be a little more civil and less accusatory. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

ObserverNY, per your email request, my discussions with the blocking administrators, and the gracious consent of Ricky, I am going to unblock you. (see: this). Now, I do request that you read through and familiarize yourself with a couple of our policies and guidelines.

1. WP:NPA This is not negotiable. It is a fundamental policy established to ensure that everyone is treated with respect here!
2. WP:CIV Stick to this and you can't go wrong.

Now, there have been issues brought up about the use of talk pages. Our primary function here is to build an encyclopedia. We're not here to insult, insinuate, or belittle others. While a great side-effect of WP is that we can develop friendships, that's not what the site is designed for. If you run into a situation where others disagree with content on an article, it is best to use the article talk page to discuss the content. Always address the content of the edits, do not start berating an editor just because they don't agree with you, or have made errors. Our user talk pages are primarily designed for one-on-one discussion with another editor about Wikipedia content, policies, procedures, and practices. It will never be acceptable to have editors collaborating about how "bad" another editor is. Several things that will explain this:

1. WP:NOT The primary things that we should not be doing.
2. WP:NOTFORUM We're not here to blow off steam about real world events, we're here to document them in an encyclopedic manner.
3. WP:NOTMYSPACE There are plenty of free things out there to do blogging and socializing.
4. WP:SOAP We all have are views about the material, we're not here to pontificate our own personal opinions, but to work towards WP:NPOV articles.

This is not to say that you can't talk to friends and say hey, did you see "this article"? .. or what do you thing about "this edit"?. It's not going to get you banned to even drop a note to a friend that says: "how was your weekend"?, but remember that our primary goal is to build an encyclopedia. If you wish to just chat about the latest events surrounding a subject, then options such as blogs, email, and WP:IRC are available, as well as many other free IM tools. If you need a hand getting something set up for that, feel free to let me know, and I'll be glad to help.

In a sense I am putting my own reputation on the line here, and placing my trust in your desire to help improve our project. A bit of advice that a very wise wikipedian once gave me was: "If in doubt ... don't" I apologize for the lecture ONY, but it is important that you follow the policies and guidelines here. There will be many eyes on your edits for a while, so please don't let me down. Best of luck, and happy editing. — Ched :  ?  22:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't let you down. Thank you Ched. ObserverNY (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

File source problem with File:Glenn beck time cover full.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Glenn beck time cover full.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding. I am new to this and can't quite figure out what is considered proper procedure or where to go from here. I downloaded the jpeg from a website to my computer and then uploaded it to the Wikipedia page but stopped at that point because I'm not quite sure what to do next. I'll ask over at the Media copyright questions page. Thanks again. ObserverNY (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Glenn beck time cover full.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Glenn beck time cover full.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care. I tried to add something to an article, I tried to follow Wiki policy and get approval to make sure my edit was in compliance, if you want to "speedy delete" it without any real reason or discussion, go right ahead. Not worth fighting over. ObserverNY (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Try not to get frustrated, and take a look at what the message actually says. You might well be able to save this image, but it requires you to add a valid "fair use rationale" for the photo which seems to be the problem right now. I'm not an expert on image copyright so I can't provide a lot of guidance for you, but I suggest you add the "hangon" tag as suggested above and try to get help from an administrator on the image talk page, or contact User:Ukexpat and ask for some guidance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Bigtimepeace, but Ukexpat already removed the image from the Glenn Beck page and I spent too much time already today just trying to do it right in the first place. I can't invest any more time in it, its not that important to me to constantly have to go through Wiki-plea bargaining on every little thing. ObserverNY (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's fine obviously, but in fairness this isn't about "plea bargaining" and there's no politics connected to this. It's just that we have extremely strict rules about image copyright, and anything that is uploaded without a proper rationale is usually deleted pretty swiftly. It can be annoying but we do need to do our best to make sure Wikipedia does not use copyrighted material inappropriately. As I said there may be a valid fair-use rationale for this Time cover, but I'm not sure about that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If no one can suggest to me what a "valid fair-use rationale" would be, I am at a loss to try and figure out what one might be, and therefore will never again attempt to add any sort of image to an article as it is way too complicated. Thanks anyway. ObserverNY (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

WikiMedia Commons

Here is a link [8] to Glenn Beck related photos from WikiMedia Commons. I wasn't sure if you knew about them.Shinerunner (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you shinerunner, but I guess I am just too stupid to understand why the TIME cover is not acceptable. No one seems willing to provide me with a simple explanation without redirecting me through 20 different Wiki policies. ObserverNY (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Image copyright is one of the tougher areas to understand. I found the only way to get something uploaded is to take the photo myself, be a government photo or it has to date pre-1923. A copyrighted image like the magazine cover you wanted to upload can only be used in an article about that specific issue of the magazine. Using it in any other aritcle on Wikipedia would be considered a copyright violation. I had other editors who specialize in images tell me that Wikipedia is stricter than they need to be but I guess that's to avoid lawsuits. Shinerunner (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, shinerunner. As I said before, I guess I'm just too stupid to understand this. The Glenn Beck article specifically referred to this specific issue of TIME and therefore I thought it would be appropriate. C'est la vie. ObserverNY (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

9/12 Project

Hey, welcome back. I'm glad you were unbanned. I just started the 9/12 Project (soon to be 9-12 Project page) article and I need help developing it. I really just slapped something together. I was hoping you'd be interested in helping me make the article into something worth having on Wikipedia. --Triadian (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Triadian. I would be honored to help you on the 9-12 Project. ObserverNY (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Van Jones. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ObserverNY (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

With all due respect, if you look at the sequence of events prior to the time I stepped away from my computer only to just return to this notice, you will see on the Talk page that I was attempting to AVOID an edit war with annoynmous who 3RR'd first. I requested other editors to weigh in and refused to engage in further debate until other editors do. To be honest, I haven't even checked back at that page yet to see if anyone else weighed in. I think this block is not justified, that I attempted to gather input. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Decline reason:

Clear breach of 3RR. It is mandatory to discuss instead of edit-warring. This is a highly lenient block given your history of disruption and clear willingness to use reversion to strong-arm your preferred versions into place. CIreland (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Oh. Hmmmm. so I guess Wikipedia just blocks people and then never looks at the unblock requests. Okey dokey. ObserverNY (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

A long wait doesn't mean that no one has looked at your requests; many admins routinely monitor the list of unblock requests. A long wait means that many admins have read your request, but none of them have chosen either to unblock you or to decline your request, and have left it in place for someone else to review. There are many reasons an admin might do that. I don't speak for anyone else, but when I reviewed the request, I was reluctant to unblock you since I know you're at Wikipedia primarily to promote a political point of view, but I didn't want to just decline your request, since I also know you've been making real efforts at discussion. So I left it up for the blocking admin and others to see. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello FisherQueen. Thank you for your input. It just seems to me that Wiki admins are awfully quick to slap an authoritarian block on someone, but then when the blockee appeals, all of a sudden they've got better things to do than make a decision to uphold it or reverse it. I'm not referring to you, as you provided me the courtesy of a response indicating that at least you have read it. As you can see from above, Ched was kind enough to appeal my last block. I feel as though I have let him down, despite my diligent efforts to be civil, respond only to edits on Talk pages, and seek collaboration from other editors. Whatever will be, will be. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

CIreland - excuse me, but did you bother to read this: [9]

Of course - that is why I wrote "It is mandatory to discuss instead of edit-warring." i.e. rather than discuss and edit-war. CIreland (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

call for other editors

Look, I don't want to get banned for WP:3RR. Will somebody else please address the environmental justice/eco-capitalism New Republic/Huffington Post issue with annoynmous? Please? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Or where the whole delete/revert/delete issue over "sympathy" began? [10]

Or how many reverts annoynmous made first? [11], [12], [13] ? Why wasn't annoynmous blocked for 3RR? ObserverNY (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You were both blocked for your disruption. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. So now it's disruption, not 3RR? Yet my appeal was declined due to "clear 3RR"? Whatever. So much for trying to reason with alleged adults. ObserverNY (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Is it possible that your 3RR was disruptive? The two are more or less synonymous, so I don't get your logic here. It's a little like saying, "I was arrested for stealing, but this citation says theft- so I should clearly be released, since they can't even decide what my crime was." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I really don't care anymore, FQ. I'm reminded of the old Steve Martin line, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal!". Here I plead for other editors to weigh in so I wouldn't get blocked for 3RR, and then I get accused of not "discussing". Or "disrupting". Or "3RR". No warning. Just a block slapped on. Total bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And here's the bigger question - disruptive to WHOM? Only the other editor and I apparently were editing the article over the course of those few hours, no one else weighed in, I was reverting what previous editors had agreed was not appropriate to the article, so again, if anyone was being disruptive it was the other editor who committed 3RR FIRST! I only just found out that he/she was also blocked, but that just seems to be the easy solution to a problem instead of the just one. Or so it seems to me. ObserverNY (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• I've left this note on the article's talk page, but I thought it'd be helpful for you to note: To assist in resolving this dispute, you both may wish to consider dispute resolution. Hopefully by now you both realise that edit warring is completely pointless as it only leads to blocks. I'd consider starting with WP:3O, or take it to a relevant noticeboard (e.g. reliable sources board or the content board. Best of luck. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

An unlikely message from the liberal APK. _{(pro-life libertarian = liberal?)}

Thank you. APK say that you love me 05:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Fair is fair. And no way does a pro-life libertarian (moi) = liberal. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Determined an accident

I don't believe it was necessarily an accident and neither does the report close off that possibility. We must follow the sources, not just endorse some editors summation that agrees with Zeitchik's. This is a BLP. A Coast Guard report mentioned in yesterdays edition of the area newspaper certainly a WP:RS and it is POV for WP to say "was determined" in the way you are insisting.

(I give up. I'll list this at the BLP notice board, I guess. (BTW here's the link if you'd like to comment there: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Incident_.22determined_an_accident.22_.28in_case_where_reports_leave_open_possibility_of_suicide.2C_per_subject.27s_belief.29.3F.)) ↜Just M E here , now 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

hi observer

was that you on the Glenn Beck the other day talking about the IB thing? lol. Reliefappearance (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

you actually watch the guy???Bachcell (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why, yes it was. ;-) [14] ObserverNY (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Derrion Albert‎

Derrion Albert‎ is the railroad tie beating guy GB talked about. It's pretty neglected and could use some work, it's got zero traffic. Bachcell (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Was it actually a railroad tie? Because my husband and I were watching the vid and I said, "That looks a lot more like a 2 x 4 to me" and my husband said, "yeah, maybe a 4 x 4 , but definitely not a RR tie!" ObserverNY (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

For someone on pretty thin ice,...

You are really pushing it here. Look, I'll be blunt. It's against policy to be cursing like that and even though some editors can (and do) get away with it, you aren't one of them, so I wouldn't push my luck if I were you. You managed to get through the rest of the discussion being your typical aggressive self and I won't argue about that, so cut out the cursing. If you cannot control yourself, I think we can try a topic ban on the subject matter first before locking you out and throwing away the key, so to speak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington march

Just so you know, the IP 208.68.235.28 did not remove the material, just reordered it. So you may want to look and see which ordering you prefer. Morphh ^(talk) 17:49, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

ohhhh. I checked the history and guess I didn't scroll down all the way, just saw the large blank spot. Which one do you like better? ObserverNY (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I guess I see it in two ways. I think the current flow is a bit better from a timeline perspective, but the other one moves the more important information to the second paragraph and puts the less important stuff last. So... I'm not really sure - either way is fine with me. Morphh ^(talk) 18:09, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Morphh - I just went and read it both ways. I like the "controversy" part as the 2nd paragraph (media bias). In fact, much of the 3rd paragraph is redundant and could be eliminated, imho.ObserverNY (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ANI

I've opened a thread about your actions today at WP:ANI#User:ObserverNY vandalizing and puppeting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh good. I'm so happy for you. Did you add that you called me a racist? ObserverNY (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What "consensus" in what section of the talk page?

Re: your revert of my edit and direction to look at the talk page of the Glenn Beck article (11:51, 3 October 2009 ObserverNY (talk | contribs) (46,781 bytes) (Undid revision 317664473 by Kelly A. Siebecke (talk)please see talk page for consensus)...exactly where is this "consensus" and where do I find it on the talk page? the talk page for this article is enormous and it's impossible for me to find exactly what you are referring to without specifics. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - 4th section from the bottom, in the break part of Appropriate Weight. You can see we went through quite a lengthy bit of collaboration to come up with that final paragraph before it was inserted. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Okay - got it. However, I did revert to the statement you deleted which made a clear distinction between the seattle event and the mount vernon event. As it was, the statement about the seattle event gave the reader the impression that the two events were related - I brought this up a day or two ago, with no response and no one changing it - this is why I changed it myself. I was unaware, however, about the consensus regarding the number of protesters outside of safeco - I had no agenda in re inserting the number of protesters (as your comments seemed to suggest). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted both of your recent edits. 1. The contribution amount was deemed to be "negligible" and not worthy of inclusion. 2. Your changing of the chronological sequence of events makes the paragraph confusing. 3. Please engage on the Talk page before undoing work which took other editors days to agree on. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It took other editors days to agree on making the paragraph look like two unrelated events were related? How stupid is that? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It was "Glenn Beck Day". If you are unable to comprehend that the two events were indeed related, I think you need to ask yourself who is being stupid. ObserverNY (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I moved your anti-Beck spoof website paragraph

-- to a new article here: "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." Would you be interested in helping to expand the article to perhaps help keep it from being deleted? ↜Just M E here , now 20:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi JHMN - that wasn't "my" anti-Beck spoof paragraph. Thanks for the invite, but I find nasty satire like that very offensive to a fine individual like GB and have no interest in preserving it. ObserverNY (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

<Mumbles to self about my own stupidity!> ↜Just M E here , now 20:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I don't think you've really tried to behave and your conduct continues to be a net negative to this project. As a minimum, I will only consider a unblock if you first agree to a topic ban on all IB-related articles, broadly construed. Also, I am watching your user talk page again, and if this goes into the same pattern of behavior as before, I will protect this page, leaving you with only email as an option. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ObserverNY (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please block me from IB. Please. Help save me from myself, Ricky. But please allow me to continue editing elsewhere. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Decline reason:

No reason for unblock provided. It is not technically possible to block an editor from editing specific articles.  Sandstein  07:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Someone else can consider this but I ask that they review Wikipedia:ANI#User:ObserverNY_vandalizing_and_puppeting before deciding. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's your prerogative, but you did support and offer the IB subject block. ObserverNY (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I just saw Sandstein's reply. So riddle me this, why would one Wikipedia administrator offer a topic ban when another says it is impossible to implement? That makes no sense. ObserverNY (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The topic ban was at a minimum. Frankly, I don't see anything that indicates that you are going to be acting better on your third chance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't WANT a 3rd chance at IB. I am requesting a permanent topic ban on IB, but be allowed to edit on other topics where clearly I have made positive contributions without this sort of conflict. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As I understand it, topic bans work like so: You swear not to edit articles and pages related to a particular topic, and if you break your promise, you get blocked. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 12:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I like candy! ;-) So I swear on my dear departed mother-in-law's grave that I will never ever ever allow my fingers to take me to a Wikipedia IB page from this day forward and am unbookmarking it and unwatching it as soon as I'm done writing this. ObserverNY (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That would include IB schools' pages and talk pages as well. La mome (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'll throw in the talk pages of every editor that "contributed" to the IB series, which includes LaMome, Tvor65, Candorwein/Candy, Truthkeeper, Pointillist, Ewen, HelloAnnyong, Cinchbug, am I forgetting anyone? However, I hope that ALL of those editors will respectfully LEAVE ME ALONE as well and not stalk me and try and cause trouble on other articles I may be editing if reinstated. ObserverNY (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ObserverNY (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I swear that I will never ever ever allow my fingers to take me to a Wikipedia IB page from this day forward and have unbookmarked it and unwatched it. I'll also throw in the talk pages of every editor that "contributed" to the IB series, which includes LaMome, Tvor65, Candorwein/Candy, Truthkeeper, Pointillist, Ewen, HelloAnnyong, Cinchbug, (am I forgetting anyone)? However, I hope that ALL of those editors will respectfully LEAVE ME ALONE as well and not try and cause trouble on other articles I may be editing if reinstated.ObserverNY (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Decline reason:

You've abused your editing privileges too often to be given yet another chance. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment for reviewing admin: Discussion at WP:ANI#User:ObserverNY vandalizing and puppeting seems to agree that an indef block is to be preferred over a topic ban. I have no opinion myself.  Sandstein  09:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to leave one final point on this page. Isn't it interesting, how after their campaign to have me banned because they were !gasp! oh so offended by my vile tongue and what they characterized as uncivil behavior, that the guardians of all that is IB in Wikipedia haven't bothered to continue discussion or do any substantial editing. They were too "uncomfortable" to edit because of my presence. They found it "disturbing, disruptive", I suppose basically traumatizing. What a load of hooey! Because the proof is in the pudding that their only agenda is to protect what they see as "theirs" from "interlopers" who might add facts in a manner that doesn't show their product in the best light. Free of the lugubrious Lisa at last! LOLOLOL! I notice how LaMome had to run back and change "Must be enrolled in" to "must attend". That was a BIG fight for her. What a win. So sad.

I've got bigger battles to fight than the socialist control-freaks who run and reside in Wikipedia.ObserverNY (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Maybe this is the Proof You Need....

Baby, I know it's hard, it's taking it in stride. I know it's dark, like an alley cat's yellow eyes. But we know. We know what's deep inside...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgiDPg9Nmo 71.245.236.40 (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory (The Hated One)

Maybe one day, on some lonely ride, I'll find you there kick'n it like a lonely lie. A Coney Island daydream...A ferry Go-Round Ride... extra pickles???71.245.236.40 (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8HxnhD4c6k

Awwww, a Lawng Guyland band! Hehehehe. ;-) You know, Billy Joel lives just down the road from me. He's a VERY bad driver! [15] ObserverNY (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Wiki-IB Police

I just love how HelloAnnyong and Candorwein accuse people from 3/4 of the way across the country of being me or that I "put them up" to trying to revert a perfectly legitimate addition to the Reception section of the IBDP. Attempting to justify their reverts with lame biased excuses, they cannot conceive that there are actually other people in the world who support the presentation of FACTS about the IBDP. What they consider "discussion" is nothing more than gang censorship of FACTS which don't reflect their Wikipedia advertisement for IB in the most positive light. Tsk. Tsk. ObserverNY (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)ObserverNY