User talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." - Supreme Court of the United States, [[US v. ALA]]

BThis user keeps a weblog at Blogger as SafeLibraries. This user has a website, which can be found here. This user keeps delicious weblinks as Plan2Succeed.

This user supports the fight against mental illness.

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

Regarding your comment on the Lively debate[1]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would prefer if you didn't refer to me as one of those "apparant newbies[...] who proposed it [the Lively quote] initially" and of which "one[...] just made a personal attack". It wasnt us who initialy proposed the quote, it was me (and I stopped adding it the instant you called The Huffingten Post an unreliable source – though I'm still not entirely convinced). I didn't make the personal attack and don't want to be linked to it, nor am I a "newbie". I find those remarks offensive.

Kind regards,

Björnar

--DVD-junkie | talk | 14:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. You've followed me here to continue your efforts to confront editors instead of addressing issues. Lovely. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you feel the need to complain to others about me stick to the facts, and please refrain from condescending remarks. That's not to much to ask, is it? What was that again about "resolving the matter in a friendly fashion", about assuming good faith? Well, please do so. --DVD-junkie | talk | 18:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I said what I said accurately and otherwise you are putting words in my mouth. Now do you want to get back to editing or will you leave yet another remark here that accomplishes nothing? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would gladly edit, but what's the use – you would simply revert me, as you did before, and I don't want to go against 3RR.

By the way, quoting you is hardly putting words in your mouth. And, if addressing your behaviour "accomplishes nothing", that would be regrettable, yet somehow revealing.--DVD-junkie | talk | 21:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation on Ugg boots

LAEC, you are cordially invited to participate in mediation here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have not helped. Too busy at the moment. Thanks for the invite. Continue to seek my assistance in the future. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Judith Reisman

I cannot begin to fathom why you would think dumping anti-kinsey rhetoric not about Judith Reisman on that talk page would be appropriate. Talk:Judith Reisman is to discuss the article about Judith Reisman.

If you want to launch an anti-kinsey campaign, she might be an ally, but please refrain from using her article and Wikipedia in general as a platform for such a highly POV initiative. Toddst1 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Toddstl, forgive me if I have caused you to overlook WP:AGF. The issue of whether you or I view the articles as my "launching an anti-kinsey campaign" is irrelevant, setting aside your failure to WP:AGF.

Those 2 articles from WND and the third one from Scope appear, from their titles, to contain information that may be directly relevant to matters on both the Kinsey page and the Judith Reisman page.

Further, I have not read the contents of the articles, and I explicitly stated that, and I only added them to Talk and did not insert anything into the main Wiki pages, so I have no idea how you conclude that I am "launching an anti-kinsey campaign".

That said, your following me here to state what you have stated and to accuse what you have accused evidences to me a clear bias in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. That will help me and other editors determine how much weight to assign to your edits, etc. I have not looked at a single one of your edits yet, so far as I recall, but I will in the future, and I suggest others do as well since Wikipedia policy compliance is far more important than supporting a Toddst1 WP:SOAPBOX.

Thank you.

Oh, I see you have removed my edits from the Talk page. That is very bad form. I will revert your edits doing so or otherwise restore my legitimate comments to the page, as well as the comments of others you removed in your zeal. If you begin a battle to whitewash the Talk page from legitimate comments, I will not hesitate to appropriately seek community involvement, and in this circumstance it appears your WP:SOAPBOX will fold. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear you are here to push your POV. I have no opinion on Kinsey, nor do I have a website promoting anti-kinsey views as you do. Take this as a final warning about POV pushing. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

See ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. I merely posted links to a few articles relevant to 2 Wiki pages, then only in the Talk section, then with very little commentary, if any. I specifically said I did not read the articles but from the titles they looked relevant. One commenter even added another article from the past that he said contained substantially the same information. He did that on the Kinsey page and it was relevant on the Judith Reisman page so I added the link there too. All this was done to address issues raised or that could be raised in the main Wiki pages.

I see now you have removed or affirmed the removal of certain information from the pages that appears to be confirmed in the newly provided links, based on the titles alone as I still have not read the articles. But that certainly does explain why you would go through the extraordinary step of effectively removing relevant links from a Talk page by the use of the collapse template.

I see you are a sysop with significant experience in Wikipedia. That, fortunately, does not make your WP:SOAPBOX any more reliable. I urge you to consider that merely adding the links to the Talk page was a totally harmless activity intended to allow the community to work together to improve the relevant Wikipedia pages. Indeed, the community started to do that, even adding another link, but you made it all disappear. Talk pages are for talking, not for pushing your POV. Please, clear your mind, all I did was add a few links and someone added another, all on the Talk page. That is perfectly appropriate Wikipedia activity. So much can be accomplished if we work together and not under a false cloud of "an anti-kinsey campaign."

And I see you filed an ANI against me. That is, in this case, an attempt to use procedural means to accomplish what you cannot by talk. Really, you can do better and contribute positively, no? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you Judith Reisman? Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. You are a sysop. I think you have special tools that will confirm that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You seriously misunderstand things. I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you that.

Fare thee well now, let your life proceed by it's own design. Nothing to tell now, let the words be yours, I'm done with mine. Toddst1 (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Fare thee well as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought we were done, then I saw your edit removing her background. You really should lay off this serious COI editing and self-revert. Good night. Toddst1 (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume you are talking about her writing a song for Captain Kangaroo. If you can set aside bias for a moment, I'm sure you can see that cherry-picked aside comment is intended to make her look like a buffoon. I'll bet every single person on Wikipedia can be made to look like a buffoon if you cherry pick the perfect phrase and place it on a Wiki page. If I recall, there were only 3 paragraphs to describe the Wiki subject, and one was devoted to her writing a Captain Kangaroo song. Clearly that is agenda pushing. Now there is nothing wrong with writing music for any show whatsoever, but the way it was present was completely WP:UNDUE. And I have no COI on anything other than my announced COI on libraries, and we are not talking about libraries here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This AN/I was closed with no action taken. Essentially, Toddst1's complaint was viewed by the community as a tempest in a teapot. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR notice

Please note that you have made three reverts at Alfred Kinsey in less than 24 hours, and any further reverts will put you in violation of WP:3RR, which will likely result in a temporary block of your account. Also note that 3RR is not an entitlement, and a continued pattern of reverting against the consensus of other editors may lead to sanctions even if you do not actually make four reverts within a 24 hour period. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. I am not engaged in an edit war as I explained in detail here and neither will I do so. Feel free to remove your 3RR notice as it does not apply.

There is, however, a number of people using procedural means or false and misleading statements and misquotes to stop or hide my edits, and this 3RR notice is yet another in that series. All have failed so far since I have followed Wiki guidelines and worked cooperatively with other editors. Notice I have taken no procedural action in return to stop what is beginning to feel to me like it could be some sort of Wiki compliance breakdown. I am leading by example and editing in compliance with Wiki rules and policies. I will continue to do so. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This 3RR notice went nowhere as no violation occurred. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A 3RR notice does not mean you have violated 3RR, it means you will if you continue to revert. Wikipedia's 3RR procedure requires that an editor be made aware of the policy before the policy can be enforced. The purpose of the message above was to make sure that you were aware of the policy and aware that you were getting close to violating it. As a broader point, an editor who engages in single combat with a group of other editors almost always loses, right or wrong. As a practical reality, if you can't persuade any other editors to support you, you aren't going to be able to get your way here. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We're beating a dead horse now, but the 3RR rule says, "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive." That's how I see it. No, you were not actively involved, but given the circumstance of the speed that a number of people were objecting to legitimate (and even compelling) edits I was making in a sort of pile on fashion that you see on pages people are protecting, leaving me feeling totally blind sided for perfectly fine edits (in the Talk section too, no less), I feel the aggression. I feel it again when you come back here in response to my simple statement that no 3RR violation occurred. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't violated WP:3RR but you are clearly edit warring. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, you should be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not edit warring. You tried to use collapse templates on me. That failed. You filed an AN/I on me that failed. 3RR action was taken about me. That failed. I simply have not edit warred, violated 3RR, or done anything wrong whatsoever. I added two links to a Talk page. That's it. Then I added an existing ref from a previous version to a statement someone added. That's it. That is totally normal and Wiki compliant editing. Including the few reverts I made for the legitimate reasons I stated.

All of your procedural efforts to block what I wrote or to block me in general have failed, yet here you are, yet again, yet again making false statements about me. I was not edit warring. I was cooperatively engaged, it was you who were and not. You use collapse templates on a few links on a Talk page no less. Other editors saw right through what you did and called it a tempest in a teapot and closed the AN/I you filed against me.

Better yet, it appears all your huffing and puffing has been for naught as there appears to be consensus to add the material some sought to blocked, and the collapse templates have been removed (by me) and have stayed removed.

You made constant false allegations about me. You misquoted me in a manner that made it appear I said something I did not. You have filed a procedural action against me that failed. You falsely claimed my POV/COI. You are now coming to my talk page, to what, to continue to harass me? To continue to put in writing what you have claimed about me that was false in the past and remains false? "You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits." So you said just now. The truth is, my reverts were proper and I have created a Talk page subsection to work with other editors after it became clear there was a need, yet here you are saying I should have done that, but I did, but you did not say that. I mean really, do you think you can just say one thing when it's the exact opposite? This is at least the second time you have done this.

You do not know me from a hole in the wall. All I did was add 2 links to a Talk page and you went off on me so fast it made my head spin. You then garnered your friends to join in on the feeding frenzy. All the frenzy was for naught as no action was taken against me of any kind and the page and Talk page has or will have the material you sought to remove, yet you come back to my page to continue what I now feel has become harassment. That's my opinion. That's how I feel. You are harassing me.

I will continue to edit on Wikipedia any way and any where I like, and in a Wiki complaint fashion, and there is no amount of intimidation you and your friends can pile on me to scare me off. I have been though a number of scrapes where people like you wish to use Wikipedia for a certain political interest and have sought to bring various actions against me. Setting aside my early, inexperienced years here, all such actions have failed. Yours has too. Because I remain Wiki complaint, all such future actions will fail as well.

I'll work with you cooperatively, but you have to stop the harassment, stop the false accusations, stop the procedural steps to stop my editing, stop using collapse templates to remove legitimate edits I make to Talk pages, stop the violation of Wiki rules such as WP:AGF, then get off your WP:SOAPBOX. If you do that, we'll be fine. If you continue to harass me, I will continue to point out the form your harassment has taken. Clear? Your false statements here do not show me any improvement at this time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That was a mouthful. Perhaps step away for a bit, read over WP:COOL, and a bit of WP:AGF, and come back and edit something else later.

Not trying to intimidate you and as I said on ANI, I am now involved, so I'm not acting as an admin. However, [2] [3] [4] is a textbook edit war, whether you want to believe it or not. I'm a bit surprised that Looie didn't block you for it given the concerns already raised. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)