Hello, Wallamoose! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I have provided sourced documentation demonstrating various factual innacuracies in the sexual harassment section. A couple have been remedied, but others remain and the section is grotesquely biased as it contains allegations made by persons never called to testify before the committee . (Wallamoose (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

RafaelRGarcia has stated in the Discussion section of the Clarence Thomas article that Clarence Thomas is a "Perv". He deleted some of my talk comments. He has knowingly attempted to maintain false information on the Clarence Thomas page. I have tried to follow the rules of Wikipedia using the dicsussion page and RafaelRGarcia's talk page to communicate and explain why corrections to the Clarence Thomas Page are needed. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If you're being harassed by another editor, there are several options open to you. First, gather up the diffs so you can give evidence when explaining the situation. Then, you'll want to file a WikiEdiquitte Alert or a Request for Comment, whichever you feel is more appropriate for the situation. I haven't been able to look into the situation at all, since I've been extraordinarily been the last few days, so I can't tell you much more than that. Useight (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right. It does happen all the time. Basically all you can do is what you're already doing. It should eventually work it self out and I'll keep an eye on it. Let me know if you need anything else. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section I removed was that culled verbatim from the Newsweek article. The edits performed on the remainder of the (non-copied) section were matters of style and accuracy, and the least you could do would be to preserve those as good faith and paraphrase the rest of the material. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but you're reverting legitimate edits... Travishing (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section I added was included on the discussion page of the article, and that's probably the best place to discuss this. Removing entire sections of sourced, verifiable, and notable material is not a legitimate edit. It's my experience that paraphrasing often results in people questioning whether every single word is actually in the article sourced. So you're correct that I stuck very close to the sources for the information I added. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that cited pages 442-511 is not very good, it is a huge document and the relevant information is impossible to find. Useight (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting my edits. If you want to add a citation tag that's fine. But my link (unlike yours) includes detailed information on page numbers and links to the pdf files. I have been very generous in not removing your extraneous and biased edits. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, it doesn't include detailed info.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation gives page numbers yet you continue to remove it. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

RafaelGarcia's bad citations have been tagged for a long time. He has already been reprimanded for removing my citations and asked (again) to fix his (the ones I appropriately tagged specifically and that were already noted on the talk page and with a tag above the citations on the bottom of the article page). The RfC on the Thomas page and all of the dicussions have supported adding the information (only a single paragraph so far) of sourced material. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wallamoose is lying. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly tried to call new witnesses some 15 years after the hearings and keep adding new material. Many editors have asked you to cut the section down and balance it, but you've refused.

[Personal attack removed] Despite being caught in lie after lie you continue to harass me. Please refrain from posting on my talk page. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Kill them with kindness. CENSEI (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right, but I'm frustrated. Frankly, I was hoping with the RfC that I requested some time age, someone else would make the effort to balance and edit the article. I'm sick of dealing with [personal attack removed]. Also, I am AMAZED that anyone would argue the sexual allegations might have been the only issue in Clarence Thomas's nomination. And the efforts to smear a Supreme Court Justice with one sided POV is pretty disgusting. It's this kind of ignorance and radicalism that causes a lot of the world's problems. No joke. Thanks for your effort to encourage calm. I should take up yoga, or at least have some yogurt. Take care. And if I may be so bold as to offer a suggestion back: don't involve yourself in this dispute. It's not worth it. Many editors have tried to reason with Garcia. He's got issues.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Trust me, I got enough on my plate ... I dont want another pack on my back. Always keep in mind that someone with your ... how shall I put it .... editing interests can never expect help from most admins with these kinds of things, they are only there to hurt people like you, not help.

Dont let them post to your talk page, and don't let them provoke you. Take care and have fun. CENSEI (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pray for me.  :)(Wallamoose (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I liked your second change to the misallocation of Fed funds part. To the point and straight. I was going to let you know on your talk page, but figured I'd catch up with you later on down the road and let you know.

We'll see if it holds up though, the sources are opinion pieces which is why I went the "caused controversy route".

I think some of the bad writing in the article is because everyone is overly cautious. The article is so contentious that if you put "committed voter fraud" it will 1) be taken out immediately or 2)changed to allegedly had some of its employees investigated for possible engagement in voter fraud.

So I'm trying to be super neutral on there. But anyway. I think we're both tired (I noticed some typos in your recent posts). So I'm going to hit the sack. Thanks for your tips. We'll see what tomorrow brings (today actually). (Wallamoose (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Stay strong, good night.Bali ultimate (talk)

RafaelRGarcia has admitted to stalking me (bottom of page) and has refused to stop. The problems with this individual predate the posting of these accurate headers. Because of his activities I feel it's important that anyone viewing my page be made aware of the issues involved and the type of person I'm dealing with.

Since you've taken an interest I hope you'll put a stop to his abusive behavior.

Once again we have an example of a user failing to obey the rules and harassing me. I've given up on bringing it to the attention of Admins as I've been unsucessful in getting the situation resolved. It's been a waste of their time and mine, so I go about my business as best I can while having to deal with this individual who displays serious emotional and mental problems.

You can also check out his post on the ACORN discussion page: Revision as of 21:41, 8 October 2008 and 22:35, 8 October 2008. Had he ever been on that page before stalking me and posting harassing comments? And also his posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop posting there. And his reverts of my good faith edits on Rehnquist. (Do you want details?)

Regarding the Clarence Thomas article, it's not appropriate to maintain a smear job on a Supreme Court Justice (who RafaelRGarcia has repeatedly referred to as a Perv), and I've been patient and worked through the appropriate channels to the best of my ability to address this. If an Admin. wants to resolve the problem that would be great.

A dispute resolution process has begun on the talk page there, and I hope it will be successful. I'm looking forward to working on other projects (as I did when I left that page alone after posting and RfC the last time we had this problem). In the interim nothing has changed so I'm trying again, despite the difficulty in dealing with RafaelRGarcia's stalking, harassing and inappropriate behavior.

I don't have the time to refute every allegation against me, but I think it's pretty clear that this user has serious emotional and mental issues and is taking them out on me. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As I am not the only person who assists on WQA, you will need to reply on the WQA page itself. BMW(drive)

I'm sorry ... did I see you claim that I have defaced your Talk page? I was out of the country for a few days. Please show me where I "defaced" your page. BMW(drive) 10:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks, WP:PRESERVE is one of my pet peeves too, a policy too often neglected especially in contentious articles. I even wrote an essay over the summer contending content inclusion shouldn't be a popularity contest, WP:NOONUS, contra another editor's take on the matter, WP:ONUS. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby award myself a good citizenship award for extraordinary patience in the face of a harassing stalker. Such patience is truly remarkable, and it's unfortunate that administrators have refused to put an end to the madness. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Do I need to file a WikiAlert on RafaelRGarcia? His stalking has continued and its been disruptive to other editors.

I've been too busy to check the WikiAlert page for a little while, but I also posed some questions for you and anyone else who wanted to answer.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.

(Wallamoose (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I hadn't read it. But I have responded to them now. I don't know what AGF is. What about stalking? He has already been warned about this on this very page.

My concern with your recommended rephrasing of my headings is that Rafael has pursued me around Wikipedia and sought to incite conflict. So I felt it was important for anyone who came to MY talk page to understand what I'm dealing with. I am willing to consider changing the way they are worded, but first his stalking needs to stop. You haven't addressed it, and as my comments on the WikiAlert page indicate, you've been grotesquely unfair.

You have also seemed to suggest that I have used inappropriate lanuage with other editors. And if this is the case I would ask that you cite examples. In fact, I've made an extraordinary effort to work collaboratively on some contentious articles and haven't had any major incidents of which I'm aware. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I responded to your request that I change some headers.

"My concern with your recommended rephrasing of my headings is that Rafael has pursued me around Wikipedia and sought to incite conflict. So I felt it was important for anyone who came to MY talk page to understand what I'm dealing with. I am willing to consider changing the way they are worded, but first his stalking needs to stop. You haven't addressed it, and as my comments on the WikiAlert page indicate, you've been grotesquely unfair.

You have also seemed to suggest that I have used inappropriate lanuage with other editors. And if this is the case I would ask that you cite examples. In fact, I've made an extraordinary effort to work collaboratively on some contentious articles and haven't had any major incidents of which I'm aware."

Yet I received no response. Then when I was busy working on another project you defaced my talk page and removed a record of my attempts to request suggestions and help in dealing with harassment. Please explain.(Wallamoose (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The material below was deleted by an Administrator. I won't speculate on why they would take out the record of my attempts to get help.

For the record this individual has now resorted to stalking me around Wikipedia. If anyone can suggest how to get rid of this pest please let me know. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Your edits are, quite rightly, listed in your contribution history, and anyone and everyone is able to "stalk" anyone and everyone else. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a page about this subject. I'd suggest both of you read it to keep this from escalating anymore. Thanks, Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the information you've provided puts a stop this behavior. He's also ignored my request to stop posting on this discussion page. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

You've wikistalked me since last month, so you have no right to complain. I just started to check your contributions elsewhere today, and I now see your pattern of edits and how much conflict you're generating. You've been abusive in your language towards me and other editors, so you'd never be successful in getting action leveraged against your opponents without also getting in trouble yourself. I'll stop posting on your talk page when you stop talking about me. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The abuse continues. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

No prob. Once you say not to post on your talk page, you can revert further posts. Other than that, I'd really suggest you guys let it go. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have proceeded to file a WikiAlert regarding this RafaelRGarcia's ongoing stalking. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You can defend yourself. I would avoid fanning the flames too much though. Sometimes, people feed off of making others mad. If you remain civil while defending yourself, either he'll get bored and move on or more people will come to your side. Ya' know? Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not holding my breath...  :) Thanks as always. I appreciate your guidance. Futile though it seems at the moment... Do you have any comment on a fire with fire approach?  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No comment... I asked an admin to look into the wikialert. Cheers! Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Rafael Garcia is changing the title of my report on him.

04:35, 11 October 2008 (edit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=244511722&oldid=244511540

Amazing!!! (Wallamoose (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

{{helpme}} Hi, I was wondering if someone can point me in the right direction or answer a few questions I have.

1) Regarding citations, is there a policy that stops a user from demanding citations to well documented and basic information? For example, "George W. Bush is a controversial figure in American politics". Obviously this can be cited, but does it have to be? My question relates to an issue where straightforward summarizing and the paraphrasing of basic facts is being blocked by a malicious editor. Is there anything that stops a user from abusively requesting citations for each and every word in a basic statement? I guess I kind of know the answer, but I don't really understand how to stop someone with malicious intent from endlessly using the tools of Wikipedia to impose their will. How does one stop this ownership issue from happening?

2) What are the guidelines for a talk page? My understanding was that this is my space to express myself. But I've been forced to remove a statement about a user stalking me. If someone is stalking me don't I have a right to let users reading my talk page know? If a situation is unresolved this seemed like a good place to post notice.

3) I understand the importance of consensus. But what happens when one or two editors don't agree with the rest of the editors? Even after dispute resolution and the recommendations of various Admins?

Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

1. Yes. Read the policies on verifiability and reliable sources for a better idea of what does and does not need to be cited. However, just because something may not need to be cited because 'everyone knows', it doesn't mean that it needs to not be cited. You should also keep in mind cultural bias; what 'everyone knows' where you're from isn't the same as what 'everyone knows' where I'm from.
2. You can place anything in your userspace that doesn't violate other policies. That means, for example, no personal attacks, and that you should demonstrate good faith by keeping things polite.
3. You work your way up the chain of dispute resolution. Ask for a third opinion, start an informal mediation case, then try a request for comment, then move on to formal mediation, and then you can go to the arbitration committee as a final resort. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrinceOfCanada's answer is helpful. Here's some more.

Any uncited assertion can be removed from article text. If you want to write that George Bush is controversial and other editors ask for a citation, you must cite one or more reliable sources which say, spot on, that he is controversial.

See WP:Talk. Article talk pages should only be used for discussing reliable sources and how they might be used to build the article. User talk pages are given wider scope, but Wikipedia isn't MySpace.

Although some policies, such as WP:BLP, trump consensus, more often than not, if you don't agree with a consensus, the only non-disruptive way to go forward is to find other experienced editors who agree with you and politiely try again. This can take time. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You have the patience of a saint. Do I need to remove the help me notation? What do I do after my questions have been answered?(Wallamoose (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Nope, that's already been done. For future reference, if you put 'tnull|' inside a template, it turns the template into plaintext. So you used {{helpme}}, and we put {{tnull|helpme}} which turns it into {{helpme}}, when we've answered your question. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks again. For the record I haven't had a situation where I was unwilling to abide by consensus. But I am dealing with a situation where no amount of consensus or Admin input seems to resolve the content disputed by a single editor.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding: "Any uncited assertion can be removed from article text if you want to write that George Bush is controversial and other editors ask for a citation, you must cite one or more reliable sources which say, spot on, that he is controversial."

What if there are 100 articles saying Bush is the greatest president ever, and 100 saying he's the devil? This demonstrates he's controversial, but I don't know how you would cite that?

Also, why isn't there a preference for online sources that can be verified rather than assertions from books that may not be valid and are far more difficult to check? After all Wikipedia is an online resource and not a library.

(Wallamoose (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You'd need to cite a reliable source which comments on those 200 articles taken altogether. In practice, there is a preference for online sources but in principle both fall under the same tests for reliability and verifiability. Printed sources can be quoted in citations, but need not be. '''This is how text is bolded on WP's wiki software''' (This is how text is bolded on WP's wiki software). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. That would seem to make it very difficult to consolidate a lot of information into a good summary. The B in <> seemed to work. But I take it that is not the proper method? Sorry for bugging you so much. You're an angel.  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

'''Bold text''' creates Bold text, hope this helps. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 18:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Burner :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand, Wallamoose? Put the text between three apostrophies on either side and it'll show up bold. Use two and it'll show up in italics. Click on the edit tab and look at the source of this message. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, roger. I was just curious about the <B> seeming to work too, but it's not an important issue and I will use the method y'all have been kind enough to point out. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Okay here's one for you.  :) People seem to like cutting the heck out of quotes. Is there a way to put the fuller quote somewhere in the citation or another place? Sometimes it's a great quote, and there's not a great citation for just that quote, so it would be nice to give people the opportunity to read it more fully. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And do new comments always have to go at the bottom? Or can you use colons to insert an intermediate comment into a discussion (as long as it doesn't break up an existing comment). And can I edit people's comments on my page? Like if someone says, "If you spend the next 100 years studying you can be a genius" to "You be a genius". Is it a good faith test? Shortening comments is okay but not in a way that changes the meaning? (Wallamoose (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Longer quotes can be included in the citation itself, which will show up in the reflist. Don't ever break up individual posts by interspersing comments within them. Don't change other users' comments at all, in any way. However, you can delete them altogether from your talk page (but not an article talk page), or archive them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about a series of posts. Six different comments and I want to answer the third one. Does my comment have to go at the bottom or can I put it after the one I am addressing?(Wallamoose (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Clearly, you would post a further indented comment directly under the post you're answering. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to change my own comments after the fact? Are there any rules governing this I should know?(Wallamoose (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You shouldn't change your own comments later, although correcting typos is ok. If you want to take something back later, Strike it out like this (click on the edit button to see how I did that). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I didn't understand some of these issues very well, but I think I get it now. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

How do I request a block on anonymous edits to the Barney Frank page? There are a ridiculous number of malicious edits and personal attack. Gracias.

I see that conflict and keeping up with the craziness on here can be a time consuming and frustrating part of Wikipedia, so I hope my helpers take the time to stop and smell the roses... on and off the computer. They deserve it!(Wallamoose (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I believe WP:RFP is the place. Switzpaw (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have a question about Admins and footprints. I notice that a record of most edits and such are kept in user and page logs. I'm curious about the "underworld" where it appears Admins can make changes and leave no footprints. What's up with that? Neo can you hear me?(Wallamoose (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In minor edit conflicts like the following, should I just ignore it, get a third opinion? What's the best route? Anyone?

"Some of ACORN's voter registration programs have been investigated for alleged fraud."

The disagreement is over the word alleged. I have read this is not a Wiki-approved word. And I also think it's redundant. They're not investigating alleged fraud. They're investigating fraud. I'm not so much asking for the answer to this issue as much as how to deal with it.

Other examples include people endlessly adding "some" and "sometimes". If I dispute it they say I have to prove that ALL or ALWAYS is the case. But my position is that in a sentence like "ACORN endorses Democrats", it doesn't say all or always, and if they want "some" or "sometimes" they should show a case where it isn't true.

Again, I guess I can't ask who's right, but just for an opinion on how to deal with it. Although if you want to tell me how right I am, which I already know :) , I'm always happy to hear it.(Wallamoose (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Walla, I came here for a different reason but I hope you don't mind if I try to answer the above. The issue I see is that despite your good intentions and the intentions of many others, Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now became a drama-fest both immediately before and in the last 24 hours following the full page protection. In good faith, you and Bali have continued onward into a specific content discussion, which is very cool, but the rest of the folks who would ordinarily be contributing to that type of discussion (to help establish consensus for the change) are either engaged in the dramafest (myself included), doing other things, or disengaged totally for reasons of their own. Sorry that these important discussions are getting overlooked, I'll try to help you and Bali move them along.

If it were another article, I would suggest WP:3O to get a 3rd opinion from an uninvolved editor. You can opt to do that now, but I, for one, would not want to step onto that WP:BATTLEFIELD until the bombs stop dropping.

The reason I came here is related: I wanted to commend you for being very friendly, agreeable, interested in the policies and their application, and engaged in working collaboratively on ACORN both before and after yesterday's zaniness. While we (and others) might be on opposite ideological sides politically, many people on the ACORN talkpage have commended you for your efforts to make the article better, and I'd like to add to the chorus. Nice work! --guyzero | talk 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, that's awfully nice of you. I get a little caught up in the drama too sometimes, but generally I've been appreciative of the efforts of others who seem to want to work toward the best possible article. I'm less concerned with the rules sometimes and more concerned with providing good information, so that sometimes seems to trip me up a bit. But I very much appreciate your kind words, don't worry about that page too much. It will all work out. I've start working on the "Yo" page to get a break. Maybe you want to let me know what you think.

I agree with your answer. A third opinion might be nice, but it's pretty hot in there. I feel weird about asking for help for such trivial matters, but I guess that's how it's done and people are happy to weigh in on those types of matter. I just feel a bit like a tattle tale.

Thanks again. And for the record, the Full page protect on that article is now being used by one side in a largely partisan dispute as a blocking maneuver of any and all edits with which those persons disagree. I don't agree with that approach and I don't think that's the purpose of full page protect, but it's not a battle I'm willing to engage.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And as far as my politics go, I like to see the best arguments of all sides presented so we all have access to the best information available and we can all make informed decisions. A lot of people on here want to put in POV or keep out legitimate information that they don't agree with. I've tried to be pretty accomodating because one person's notability is another person's irrelevancy. I'm not big on dates and history, but I love the issues and controversies of both sides. So I guess that gets me into some trouble, but I think ideas matter, and I like to see them presented fairly and with a generous spirit of inclusion. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Walla, my view of the full page protect is in the novella here: Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now#Arbitrary_Break_to_refocus_on_consensus so I won't spam your talkpage with my views over this unfortunate chain of events. The good news is we can make edits to the article via an administrator, so nothing is really frozen, there is just now an electric fence that forces consensus before any edits to be made. Once you feel that consensus is behind a change, make a new section, place {{editprotected}} in the section, and then succinctly list the change and where it should go in the article and *BOOMBOW* the admins will swing by and take care of it. cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on anything in that talk page? If you're not kidding you should be. I'm with MJB on this one.  :) Keep hope alive.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Walla, I replied to you on my talkpage. regards, --guyzero | talk 18:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Fo Shizzle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. After deletion to be for stuff back contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Waterden (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an outrage! Can anyone believe the censorship on Wikipedia. Fo shizzle my nizzles we can save this page!!!(Wallamoose (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sadly it seems there will Fo shizzle be no Fo Shizzle. But the present article does point to the izzle. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]