Ceemow

Hello Ceemow,

The James O'Keefe article undercover videos subsection has become a complete mess. That subsection is based on the main article, and is supposed to just be a synopsis of the main article, not a separate article which grows bigger and bigger and diverges in content from the main article. I have moved the new material over to the main article and inserted the main article's synopsis (the lede) in it's place, and put notices on the Talk Pages accordingly. The new material that you objected to has not been fully vetted, and needs to be carefully parsed out using the transcripts because it's obviously been redacted to whatever seems to be the most damaging statements. However, that work should be taking place at the main article's location, and not the James O'Keefe biography article location. Please begin by addressing the tin can issue you pointed out, then look carefully at the transcripts for the material from other cities and make sure it construes the material fairly. It's the only way to be fair and take the statements on a case by case basis. Earlier today I made sure that the tables posted links to the transcripts and I cleaned up the way it was organized. You may also want to carefully review (using the article history) what was formerly in the "Investigations by State Authorities" section on the biography article page and make sure nothing was lost when compared to the "Response by state and local government" section on the main article. --AzureCitizen (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Azure. Thanks for doing all that.

I think your idea makes far, far FAR more sense; and yes, i agree that the sub-section in question has become quite a curfuffle. It grew so large, it almost seemed to eat up the rest of the entry on O'Keefe, and it reads with a syntax that appears to argue with itself. Perhaps, considering the contentious nature of the subject, that may have been inevitable. But even just on the level of formal qualities (composition, pacing, voice etc.. ) it needed so much help.

I also most certainly agree that the information needs to be vetted case by case (without, of course, delving into "original research"), and I am happy to contribute to that effort as best as I can. I already have most of the material presented by the New Anonymous User vetted against both the transcripts and the investigations, and if it's necessary I can provide that data as the occasion may so warrant. Right now, while I do have a few pressing deadlines to meet before the end of the month, I nevertheless should be able to assist in contributing what I can as needed.

Thanks again for all your hard work, -and happy springtime!!!Ceemow (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Springtime to you too. The weather is turning beautiful, and in a way it's a shame to spend so much time at the keyboard editing Wikipedia, LOL.--AzureCitizen (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey There Azure, and once again, happy Spring to you and yours! (I dont know what it is like where you live, but in my area it's absolutely breath-taking right now!!) Regarding what you've said about it being a shame to edit Wiki when the weather is so nice, I couldnt agree more. And I have opted to indulge the latter more than the former.

However, I do now have a massive amount of notes from comparing the posted tapes with the posted transcripts, as well as with the unedited tapes from CA... but I havent exhusted all the material yet (its a really long process). To tell you the truth, I am just really sick of the whole thing (OKeefe, GIles, ACORN..., everybody!) Nevertheless, I am really quite shocked at the sheer volume of accesible information that was never fact-checked when this story made its rounds... not just here on Wiki, but in the general media discussion. I mean, much of the heated and angry hyperbole could have been totally obviated just by a little fact-checking. The issue did not need to be as complicated as it was delivered.

That being said, our article still remains incomplete until updates on the video narratives are supplied. We also should make a comparison between Volda's unedited words, and their edited presentation (as well as cite news-bulletins that made use of the partial quote... there are plenty.)

But honestly, I'd rather be gardening right now, and I dont think I have the energy to deal with the battery of denials from the anonymous user (I know that might not seem like I'm giving her/him the benefit of the doubt, but to say the least, s/he has already established a pattern.)

All the same, I'll save my contributions for a rainy day, because it's just too gorgeous out there right now. Between sunlight and my monitor, I'd prefer the former! LOL! Anyhow, enjoy the lovely weather (hopefully it is as such in your town), and I wish a wonderful season to you and yours! ---CeemowCeemow (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Saw your reply above, just wanted to comment that I agree with your ideas and more work should be done with the article, while at the same time it really is a good thing to take a break from it. If you stop and think about it, editing contentious articles on Wikipedia (e.g. politically mired ones like the ACORN controversy) is really one of the least enjoyable aspects of editing on Wikipedia. Instead of enthusiastically participating and feeling positive, it often leaves one feeling irritated, perturbed, frustrated, etc. A lot of energy is devoted to pulling and pushing specific wordings back and forth with other editors in an all too often disagreeable fashion, and you begin to question whether your own emotions on the subject are truly neutral and unbiased. Compare that with how you feel when working on a non-contentious article which deals with a subject matter you are personally interested in - editing those articles is a real pleasure!  :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Azure!

Absolutely!! I agree with you 100%. It's actually been really nice to step away from this whole issue, and not be drawn into it so emotionally, or think about it so much. All the same, since I had a little time at lunch today, I added a quick update to the O'Keefe article, as some news has surfaced concerning his arraigment. This will have to be modifed, of course, after the 26th, when the nature of the arraigment becomes explicit.Ceemow (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good update, I've been wondering what would happen next in the court proceedings but haven't thought to check the news on it in some time. Will be interesting to see what the final resolution is! Quick note - the paragraph spacings have extra returns - I will fix that real quick in my next edit.--AzureCitizen (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Azure,

Its Ceemow again, hi! I bet you cant guess what i am messaging you about! Yes, the ever vacuuous black-hole that is the ACORN video article.

I had a question to ask you regarding the new inserts about Grennel and Langestein, and please dont feel rushed to answer.

I entered this question/comment on the discussion board for the ACORN Video Scandal

"on that note, I’d like you to look again at the Colombia Journalism Review article which faults Breitbart for having a dishonest political agenda in the timed release of his tapes... See here> [[1]] That citation was removed by a Breitbart supporter because he said that it gave "undue" weight to speculation on Breitbarts political motives. AzureCitizen approved the edit (and i'd like to ask him if he could address that again.)

So if that standard still applies, it applies to Grennels statement about Brown. Brown is no where near as central to this case as Breitbart, and the CJR article actually has footage of Breitbart voicing a political agenda with his tapes. If the standard of not including such material still applies, it should apply across the article, not just to Breitbart (Please lets get AzureCitizen in on this one, since he apporved the removal before.)"

Now, please dont take that question/comment as a judgement or pejoritively or anything like that. I am asking on purely formal grounds, doesnt the standard which was set about the CJR material apply at least as much to the Grennel and Langestein material? Also, if we include the Grennel and Langestein data, is the precedence then set to include material that would comment on, or offer insights into the political motives of Giles, OKeefe, and Breitbart (who are far more pivotal in this story than Brown?) Also, considering how completely disasterous the case with Shirley Sherrod got (did you check any of that out? Hooo-Weee, thats some bad juju there!), how much weight ought to be given to data from BigGov.com that doesnt seem to have backing from other reliable sources (or that have even proven false?)

Answer at your easiest convenience... I'm in no rush, I'm already getting sick of the whole matter all over again.Ceemow (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again,

It is a beautiful day here after thunderstorms and rain in the last 48 hours provided relief to the summer heat. Hopefully you've been enjoying similar weather in your neighborhood! With regard to what you're asking, I would certainly agree that if the Grenell editorial gets added, there is a very strong argument to be made for adding the CJR material in the context of O'Keefe, Breitbart, and the ACORN situation. My own position on the Grenell material so far has simply been one of tolerance for opposing views, but my patience is definitely getting stretched. We'll see how this plays out and what happens next... --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Azure!

I am happy to say that we are having fantastic weather. But as much as I do love a good thunderstorm, I have an outdoor project that got put back a few days because of some recent (and very welcome) rain showers.

In fact, i should be out there preping for my installation... but i got sucked into the whole ACORN thing again... not to mention some fanciful online window shopping (would that be "Windows Shopping"? lol!... okay, bad pun.) Computers can be so addictive to me sometimes, but I blame no one but myself.

Anyhow, thanks again for your quick response, and for bringing more clarity to the matter. Your input is always so helpful. Have a wonderful week!

Sincerely, Ceemow Ceemow (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't fall for it

Hi Ceemow, hope your weekend looks to shape up nicely! I'd like to add a quick word or two for your consideration about trolling. When someone wants to antagonize someone, they are often far more interested in how a person reacts to their edits rather than the actual concerns of the edits themselves. The most effective method for dealing with this is not to "bite" in the first place, or as Wikipedia's policies like to say, "don't feed the troll." For example, if someone posts an ad hominem attack on a user's Talk Page posing as continued discussion, the user could simply wipe the comment away with the edit summary "removing silliness." End of discussion, and end of any further investment of your time in the matter; it forces the trolling person to give up, or risk being taken to ANI for harassment if they continue. Just something to consider for the benefit of furthering constructive editing, since participating in Wikipedia is supposed to be enjoyable!  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Azure. Youre absolutely right. Thanks for the good advice. I plan to take a bit of a hiatus from all this anyways, just to wash it out of my system. When i come back, I have a few articles in my sites that are actually about topics that make me happy, and whose Wiki entries could use some support (folklore, the arts, etc...) Of course, i still have plenty to contribute to this topic, but I think a cooling off period is more than called for right now.

Thanks again for being the voice of sanity in all this weirdness. And have a fantastic rest of the summer!Ceemow (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Explanation Of Editing History- Why I have stayed on the ACORN topic

This message is principally addressed to User:Phoenix and Winslow. I actually want to answer some of P&Ws questions, now that I have had a chance to cool off from our previous heated exchange (which anyone can access in the history of this talk page, if they want.)

P&W, first, if you werent so aggressive with me, I would have happily answered the more appropriate of your series of (what I consider to be harassing) questions (eg, its no business of yours why I joined Wiki, and the guidelines of this site are very explicit to that effect). You said in your message to me that you didnt want to harass me, but your questions were presented with a roundhouse of accusations that mirror generalized approach represented by the Grennel insert. Also, if you didnt try to tag me, I wouldnt have felt compelled to seek arbitration (the process of which is not posted, but confidential, see the dispute resolution page for confirmation.) I honestly don’t want to take this matter farther if we can diffuse it on our own (so take the time to cool down as well), and so I am going to answer some of your questions.

• You asked me if I am a part of ACORN or the Democratic Party or any other "progressive" organization.

Thats an intrusive question, and you should be careful about the McCarthyesque tone of your approach, which is specifically precluded in the guidelines of this site. All the same, the answer is NO.

I volunteer in food relief because I can lift heavy objects, cook and clean... to me (and to most people) its not a political issue, it’s a human one. I’m not the only person who thinks that. You’d be surprised to know that a local city councilman (I don’t know if I can name him here) who represents Minnesota Independents, and who campaigns for Rand Paul and the Tea Parties, also volunteers for the same food banks that I do (in fact, for Food Not Bombs, most of whose members share his disdain for big government, even if they dont think health care reform is tantamount to Triblinka... imagine that!)

That man and I have nothing in common, nor do I have many beliefs in common with most FNB volunteers (most are vegetarian, I'm not... not that its any of your business.) The same is true for the Sisters at Sisters of Charity (eg I think condoms are good, they dont.) Again, the SoC can hardly be called "progressive" (what do you think would happen if you got Mother Theresa and Chris Hitchens in a room together?) Nevertheless, in these groups, we can all work together and be friends, regardless of our personal beliefs.

If you have ever volunteered in food service yourself (and you really should... go through a Church if you want to keep it conservative), you’d see that’s its a much more politically, religiously and culturally diverse scene than you must think.

So please don’t try to “deduce” my voting record, or what "cause" in which i'm supposed to be, from a few comments I made about volunteering. Remember Shriley Sherrod, and the fact that a snippet of information is not a biography. I volunteer at our local home for the elderly as well... does that make me part of a “cause”?

• The one legitimate question you did ask was the singular representation of the ACORN videos (and matters cognate) on my account. Thats a legitimate question, and if you hadnt come out with fists a’flying, I would have happily shared my explanation with you.

P&W, you have to understand that, because of the contentious nature of this topic, and the fact that so many people put a kind of “emotional stock” in it, this article had served (from its inception) as a platform for heated political conjecture more than a record of fact. As such, blatantly false narratives, specifically intended to mirror those established by Andrew Breitbart, were injected into the article with no proper vetting.

Since I had developed an early fascination with this story, I felt compelled to correct much of that inaccurate information (which again, had totally suffused the article.)

For example, many people who echo the Breitbart meme wanted to insert material that this story was “ignored by the MSM.” Thats not true at all, and can be proven as such. I saw this story on CNN the Saturday morning after it was released on Fox (which was Friday evening before.) It was on Wolf Blitzer. As you can see from the article, Turner.com posted a list of its own airings of the story as a response to the false claim that they were “ignoring" it. They didnt ignore it at all. That idea (of MSM "ignoring" the story) was invented as part of the way the story was sold, and articulates the same alarmist identity politics which the Grennel insert represents ("we conservatives are ignored!" again, a false meme based on emotional identity and media posturing, not fact.) Just because so many people pushed that narrative, or want to believe it, or think its true "from a conservative perspective" because "ABC's Charlie Gibson wasnt in on it" (while ABC's Jake Tapper was), doesnt make it true.

Its a verifiably false claim.

James O’keefe even wrote a statement when the story broke explicitly saying that he refused to meet with CNN producers when they called him for comment. It was posted the very morning after he released the videos. How can he say at one point that his story was ignored, and then at the other, “I refuse to meet with CNN” (on the very day he launched the story?) He says "they troted out Joe Conason etc...", so how then does that qualify as "ignoring the story"? He cant fault them for giving Conasons perspective and not his, when he activley refused to provide his own. The whole narrative was a blatant contradiction, and a self-promotional lie demostrable as such. And we cant make this encyclopedic entry a repetition of that provable lie, even if its part of "the conservative perspective."

But this article initially echoed the narrative that the MSM "ignored" the video story, the “conservative perspective” as you might call it. And that narrative is provably false. So I started to submit material that corrected that information. And as a result, I wound up having to defend myself at length to a number of people who insisted that doing so made me “part of ACORN.”

Since then, this article has been a rabbit hole of vetting provably false information, and keeping the article honest and verifiable as per reliably sourced updates.

And I find myself yet again having to counter material that is hyperbolic, and even contradicts itself as reliable. With all due respect, you know that the Grennel insert contains false info with respect to this article. Brown didnt “time” his investigations, he was appointed to them. That singular reference doesnt merit a place in this article, but you see how overblown the discussion gets when that simple, logical point is advanced.

Again, thats because of the “emotional stock” invested in the topic of this article.

This pattern is consistent with all articles related to this subject. The ease of Wikipedia makes its possible to throw in provably false information and circulate it as truth. This subject (the ACORN videos) has been a remarkable case on point.

• Also, I'd like to insert a portion of what I left on P&Ws talk page (in response to LAEC's question)--

when I say “I know a lot about this subject,” I mean that I had developed an early fascination with it (because of the sensation it created), and have collected as many materials on it as I could. Contributing to and researching for this Wiki article has been part of that process. That’s why this, and articles related to it, suffuse my user account. I mean, I took O’keefe’s challenge literally, and actually read his transcripts, watched both his posted and unedited videos, and compared them all with other reliable information on the subject (it’s a very long and boring process, but I recommend it if you want to see a graphic demonstration of the real formal issues posed by this story.) I have also archived his own statements from BigGov.com regarding this event, and those of his colleagues as well, in addition to news reports and updates. So yeah, i have a catalogue of information on this topic ranging from several perspective. But that doesnt pose a COI.

So that’s why my record shows an exclusive dedication to this subject. If I am to be “tagged” for that, it wont be by someone who has expressed unequivocal hostility towards me.

• All of that being said, I am tiring of this whole affair, and I am going to take a break from this whole subject. That doesnt mean I don’t plan to contribute vital information (and caveats) when necessary (we still need to add the update about Juan Carlos Vera’s court case... thats at least more relevant to this subject as anything about Brown.) I just want to step away from it for a while, because its become too exhausting.

• P&W, as you are “concerned” about my editing history, you’ll be glad to know that I am planning to edit articles about things that actually make me happy, rather than try to counter this depressing exercise in cognitive dissonance. Now please understand, its not that i'm trying to gather "street-cred" to give me more credibility on this article (I could have done that a long time ago if I wanted to, and i know that my credibility has been established by my own contributions, which i stand by 100%.) Its more that i am just sick of this argument, and want to step away.

• I have explained why I have been active on these pages, and considering the subject, my reasons are more than justifiable. Furthermore, everyone who has contributed to this article (even those with whom I have locked horns) knows my integrity, and knows that I have only included material that was entirely verifiable, factual and reliably sourced. I stand by that 100%.

• Lastly, I am going to remind you that the article cannot be made a counterpoint of “the conservative perspective” versus anyone else. That template is not proper for an article of this type. it should read as a factual event, not a non-specific comparison of ideological platforms. Read the wiki essay on “Wikipedia is not a democracy”. If a narrative is provably false or misleading, it does not merit inclusion just because a particular demographic “feels” so strongly about it.

For now, with much respect to you all (yes, even to you P&W), have a wonderful weekend!Ceemow (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello boys! Do you think it might have been appropriate for you to notify me when you chat like this? Particularly since Xeno thought it would be appropriate to notify Ceemow when a similar chat appeared on P&W's User Talk page?

You wouldn't be forming a clique and protecting each other while you formulate your attacks against others who disagree, would you? That would just be dreadful. Let's all try to get along, and try to improve the article.

Kthxbai! MyNameIsDenise (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction: Xeno did nothing of the sort. You have Xeno confused with User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and his comment here. Propagating inaccuracies does not go a long way toward "getting along." Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Denise,

Xeno never notified me of anything on P&W's page. Xeno has never notified me of anything at all. I dont know how you got that idea. Please dont suggest any unwarranted assumptions about a "clique"... Xeno and I have never messaged each other. I found out about P&W's talk-page entry on me because P&W posted a similar one on my talk page (which I have deleted because it was rife with snark.)

Denise, please understand that the above is my attempt to diffuse tension between myself and PW, and provide my position by putting my cards on the table, and giving him honest answers to the more appropriate of his questions. So please dont issue inflamatory and unjustified speculations about what you think you know of other people's activity or relationships. You are not helping, in fact youre just making things worse with these baseless insinuations and harassment. (btw, everything you post, including this loaded and misleading insinuation, is on your editing record now, just like the rest of us.)

Considering that you jumped into the conversation with the hasty declaration that "My answers to the questions above would all be the same as Wikidemon's. Excellent work on the research by P&W covers the verifiability", its rather disingenuous of you to talk about "cliques."

Additionally, just the other day you declared that its a violation to misrepresent other editors. But that is precisely what you are doing here (not to speak of the articles talk-page). I dont know how you can seem so enthusiastic for a courtesy which you've violated just a day or two after preaching its value. You should try to exercise a sense of self-awareness. We all should.

With all due respect, I'm going to ask you to please cut the crap.

Also, I did put up a notice on P&Ws page about this, before i posted it, and the above statement is explicitly addressed to him. If the conversation is one you are following (and you seem to be doing so), then you would have seen it on his talk-page first. That being said, I dont see why I would need to specifically notify you of anything, unless I had a concern requiring your feedback.

Now try to cool off, and dont jump to conclusions. As you said, "its just Wikipedia."

Have a good weekend. Ceemow (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction: Xeno did nothing of the sort. I have Xeno confused with User:AzureCitizen and his comment here. Propagating inaccuracies certainly doesn't go a long way toward "getting along." I'm sorry, I mistook Azure for Xeno. To that degree I was inaccurate and I do sincerely apologize.

And yet the accurate fact still stands. You were discussing me and your false accusation here at Ceemow's User Talk page, and (unlike the warning you were fortunate enough to get) I got no such warning. I see that a little bird has flown in and deleted the discussion, but it will appear in the history of the page.

A lot of great stuff is hidden in those page histories and it'll be fun to read it at RfC. I suppose I should warn you that you're already being discussed elsewhere, but so sorry! No links for you!

Bye for now boys! MyNameIsDenise (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Immature bad faith behavior is best to be ignored.TMCk (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see someone is up to the usual again. There is no requirement to notify other users when you discuss them on a private Talk Page; the notification to Ceemow was to inform him that other users took issue with the SPA labeling, and in fairness he should know of community objections to the effort to label him a SPA. Second, threatening to bring in old Talk Page histories from Ceemow at RfC presupposes there is even going to be an RfC over whether or not Ceemow must wear a SPA tag, based on an essay. It would be very interesting to see how an RfC like that would be treated by the rest of the community. That being said, I echo TMCk's remark that the best way to handle bad faith immature behavior is to ignore it, and if you haven't done so already Ceemow, please read my comments above in the section "Don't fall for it". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last post here for a long time, since it has become clear that I'm not welcome here. Azure: I wasn't referring to the SPA RfC, I was referring to the content RfC. Azure, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are policies, not essays. But now that you mention the SPA RfC, that'll be fun too!

I don't see why Ceemow won't just accept the SPA tag. With so many supportive friends to vouch for him at the content RfC, most people would ignore it anyway, don't you think?

And splitting hairs about the notice requirement? Honestly, Azure. You know what you were doing here. "One set of rules for me, and another for thee." Common courtesy, if nothing else, required a notice on my User Talk page just like the one you gave to Ceemow. And I won't soon forget it.

That's all for now. Have a fun weekend! MyNameIsDenise (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ceemow, I am not a SPA expert. You know on my Talk page I announced my COI on a certain issue. Why not use the SPA tag? I wear my COI proudly. You can wear your SPA proudly too. I am impressed you have a library of special info on the topic of your SPA. But since my COI is libraries, I can't say much else. ;) I don't see anything wrong with having a COI and announcing it. Similarly, I don't see anything wrong with having a SPA and announcing it. Why not accept the SPA tag? I see no harm, but as I said, I am not a SPA expert. By the way, I can see the annoyance in someone pushing the label on you or someone pushing a COI on me. I got a wikihounder who keeps pushing something false on me at this very moment. But if you voluntarily accept the SPA tag, that makes the tag harmless, no? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made my points clear above, and I haven't much more to say about it. If it is necessary for anyone to review my history or my reasons for staying on this topic, well, both are at your convenient disposal. Posting my explanation above saves me the trouble from repeating it on the article's talk page. I believe that being clear about my history ought to answer any questions others may have as to why i have been exclusive to this issue; and my editing history is, as always, easily accesible for all and sundry. If i am required to wear any tags, it will be by the council of a neutral party, not because a person who has been repeatedly and openly hostile to me is pressing to do so, while simultaneously posting a number of attacks, accusations and intrusive questions (all accesible in my history.) (btw, please know that i am not refering to you LAEC.) The same is true if I choose to edit other topics.

As for some of the truly odd behavior that i see devolving from this matter, i am rather speechless... and that doesnt happen too often. I see no reason to keep it going.

I hope everyone has a great weekend, and a fantastic rest of the summer. Toodles.Ceemow (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't truly odd behavior considering your editing style and history. P&W has concerns about you being a SPA, you can't blame him given your history. LAEC seems to have the same opinion and is kindly nudging you not to deny it, as you can't. AzureCitizen questioned whether your narrow editing pattern was a cause for concern, some time ago. I outright accused you of being an employee of or otherwise affiliated with ACORN after your persistent POV pushing and and page filling rants. You come and go based on ACORN related news. Disappearing and only reappearing for O'Keefe's arrest or the latest pro-ACORN news is SPA, I think your latest return after a couple months is due to Breitbart's Sherrod controversy. Now you have plans to edit outside of your single purpose, but it appears to be in response to P&W's tagging. †TE†Talk 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ceemow, when I was first on Wikipedia, I edited only library-related stuff. That caused big problems for me, like it is apparently causing for you. The advice I got was to start editing other articles on other topics not related to libraries. Then, once I had such experience, I could include library articles back in with the other edits I would continue to make. That is exactly what I did, and it has worked to resolve concerns about my editing. Even if you are a ACORN editor, if you follow that same suggestion as well, I think things will improve for you as well. I am guessing that the acceptance of the SPA will obviate your need for following that suggestion that worked for me. That gives you flexibility to stick to your one subject with a SPA tag or broaden your editing as I did, coincidentally with a COI tag. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello TE, weclome back. Now, I'm not interested in resurrecting old ghosts, but since you brought it up, may I mention not just the rigidly POV stance which you (and P&W, etc..) have consistently taken on this issue, but also the fact that you had violated several of this sites rules in trying to find and post my location and identity? Why do you folks have an obsession with that?... I mean, based on your own editing histories, I could just as well make the case that you are adding material as per the agenda of the Freedom Works meme... i mean, thats just as applicable here, if not more so.

But I am not interested in hunting you down and policing your off-line lives.

As far as I am concerned, the behavior of P&W and Denise (much like your own questionable actions beforehand) is best left to the discretion of neutral parties and/or site administration. And I would say the exact same thing for my own actions (although i have never become as blatantly invasive and out-of-bounds as you had.) Your own striking posture here highlights your own POV as much as it does anyone elses.

I have explained myself above as far as this issue is concerned, and my page-filling rants are only in response the the volume of proof some editors need in order to understand the actual vetting process. If you misrepresent material in order to achieve a political point, that requires scrutiny to remedy. If there's a pattern of it, it requires both scrutiny and time.

For example, remember how you denied Leonings commentary about the financial figures on the tape (you said that it was nonexistent, when it was right there in our cited sources), or when you insisted that "nobody was foolish enough to believe Okeefe was dressed like a pimp" (despite the Fox N Freinds report in which they explcitly present OKeefe himself as such)? You had neglected to fully vet your material, and you seem to resent me for doing so. These might just be mis-steps in your own research, but they nevertheless seem to push a false and politically charged narrative. Like P&W, you need to be careful, and check what you are inserting.

Now, as I had said, i really am done. Come on everyone, its the weekend. Get some sun... falls almost here. Ceemow (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Meatmen article

Hey- I think it's great that you've expanded the Meatmen article as it was previously lacking, and it would be impossible and undesirable to not include the fact that their lyrical content is controversial but I think that the article in its current state is overly negative against the band for a Wikipedia article. By comparison, the Anal Cunt (who are far more offensive than the Meatmen) article tends to use neutral language such as 'the idea of containing insults in their songs' and 'more extreme examples of racism and sexism', which is a far less POV statement than claiming that 'the lyrics to his songs explicitly single out gay people for harassment' and that they promote 'scathing racism' and 'homophobic violence'. This is extremely biased, even if it's technically backed up by a source, as it is a point of view which can be countered by the equally valid claim that Tesco does not intend his lyrics to be taken absolutely literally. I hope you see the difference between saying that something is offensive and saying that it is actively intending to stir up hatred? Even if that were Tesco's intention, they should be separate statements. I've deliberately not changed anything as I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm a huge Meatmen fan (I'm assuming you are too- if you have a dislike of the band because you dislike their lyrics then perhaps you're not the best person to write a neutral, encyclopaedic article about them!) and, as I said before, the article has always been lacking. I know there's not much information on them online but there is enough to write a better biography and more detailed history than we have now, and the information about their lyrical content presented in a neutral fashion would be a good addition to an overall more informative article. Obviously I'm happy to help with this. --Gpmuscillo (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)