This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, I'm here to try and help mediate the various disputes in occurance surrounding this article. If no one has any objections, I suggest we keep discussion here for the moment. There have been a lot of civility issues with users here, so I'd like to request that for the duration of this mediation topics above this point in the page are left in their current state and that we conduct communication here. Additionally, I would like to gently reinforce the need for observance of the guidelines on civility here. Because it appears that a lot of circular discussions have formed, I'd also ask that you allow me to guide what we speak of, but please understand that I have no special authority and am only trying to suggest a way to make progress. Specifically, it'd be nice if specific inflammatory remarks could be left for now until an appropriate point in the mediation when they will be more helpful. So, does what I am saying sound reasonable to you? Are we ready to proceed? I'm ready to hear opinions on this now, and I'm sorry for the late response to the posting of your case. Thank you. — Xyra e l / 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B, I disagree with your interpretations of both my actions and my motives, but since both of us are partisan parties to this debate, i'll repost the conclusions that a DIS-interested, nonpartisan Wiki admin. insightfully reached less than a week ago:
...it appears to me, at least, that an effort is being made, in the light of some controversies that have surfaced, to sweep dirt under the rug regarding actions that some people have found questionable surrounding this community. This is being done under the claims, apparently, that NPOV allows no place for criticism (unquestionably false, especially when the topic of an article is a controversial organization) and the guidelines for biographies.The second one is far more concerning to be, particularly in that it appears that the effort appears to be one with the intention of gaming the system and bending rules to cover what they normally would not, in an effort to make the subject of the article look more or less controversial than it is. To do this in either of the directions that apparently interested editors would have is a disservice to the readership of Wikipedia. As (if I recall correctly) I have said above, I would fully support the involvement of a mediation entity such as the Mediation Cabal to help exclude interests from influencing the neutrality of this page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No-can-do with the spill-chuck request, RB. I olny use speel-chick on the atricles, knot talk, Sorrys! NBGPWS 01:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What Kuzaar noted IS still happening - with users like Morton D's edits - and Tbeatty's deletion of the Alexa data (without ONE word in the edit summary) important factual info which Kuzaar and Vpoko said IS fact, NOT OR, NPOV, and CAN be included. (now added back in) Let's allow Xyrael to do his job, OK? Thanks NBGPWS 01:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B, like the good lawyer you are (or will be) I think that you tried to 'argue your case' in an 'opening statement' rather than let the mediator 'examine the evidence'.
NBGPWS 05:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice to user Ruthfulbarbarity
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption.
I'm not the one - user RB is - who both defended another editor ignoring an Admin's ruling on WP, (op Military Shield) but then also falsely stated that my contributions on another issue (Alexa stats) violated WP POV when the same Admin, and the ONLY disinterested nonpartisan editor who cares about this article (Vpoko) had just ruled that they hadn't! I will abide by any Admin or Mediator rulings.
NBGPWS 05:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
My comments coming a little later - I have to work today. (being a freelancer is nice as I can work my own hours)
NBGPWS 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a start but it is not THE solution to the ongoing problems that this entry has faced since day one. You might want to read the very first page in the archives.
NBGPWS 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice to user Ruthfulbarbarity
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption.
NBGPWS 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding what actually happened during the 2 days I was blocked - this is what I wrote to L2B:
"You PW's and supporters spent the (majority of the) 2 days while I was blocked discussing your rational of how you would get the (tangental to the article) Hammond warrant included again. Guess what? Except to you PW's, who consider this your 'watergate' or 'killian memos' moment, this info MATTERS NOT to the average Wiki reader wanting to find out more about PW. It's an issue of MINOR importance - except to you guys. Such is the myopia of 'group think'. There are 3 major articles on the 'crawford incident', fox, SF Chron, and a CBS news page to be found in the first 50 Google results of 'protest warrior' + crawford. You would have found them IF you had looked. I guess no one did, or did and decided not to include this info...." (criticism deleted in the spririt of harmony)
NBGPWS 06:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice to user Ruthfulbarbarity
You are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to personal attacks and trolling.
"[I]ncivility is roughly defined (on Wiki) as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress.."
NBGPWS 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
MY behavior came into compliance (not complaince as you spelled it) days ago.
NBGPWS 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to be more helpful and bipartisan, I added this description of Op Liberty Rising. Why don't you guys linkify it, and pick which MSM account of it you would like to link to it? (IMHO, it should be one from after, not before, and not as partisan as 'front page mag'. There is a whole Wiki article on the 04 RNC protests, where PW is mentioned too. Feel free to rewrite it. Since I wrote the first section this one might sound too similar.
"During the 2004 Republican National Convention, Protest Warrior staged "Operation Liberty Rising" in opposition to those protesting the RNC. This event received attention from the Main Stream Media both before and after it occured."
NBGPWS 06:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you READ what I wrote?
"Why don't you guys linkify it, and pick which MSM account of it you would like to link to it? (IMHO, it should be one from after, not before, and not as partisan as 'front page mag'. " [1] [2] [3] There are more too. [4]
NBGPWS 07:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Added MTV link - most indepth coverage
NBGPWS 07:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to help you out and you still want to argue! LOL! READ all the accounts. MTV is by FAR the best, as far as WP - as it has names, and ages, AND hometowns of several PW's which lends tons of credibility, and the reporter actually describes what he witnessed. Did you actually READ the content at the links I listed??????? NBGPWS 08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
HUH ???? Are you arguing this account violates RS + V? That it is NOT the most appropriate of the 4 I listed? Once again I ask, did you READ it - and the others? MTV account of Op Liberty Rising
NBGPWS 08:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you counselor! I was a little suprised myself, that the best coverage, indeed the only article that covered the '5 W's' extensively was the one from MTV. I'll add the "crawford incident' back in, using the last wording, but substituting an acceptable source.
NBGPWS 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A friendly suggestion to user Ruthfulbarbarity ...
Why don't you take a stab at re-writing the criticism section. 'You know a lot of big words'.
Maybe you could upload a new pic of Alan and Kfir too. Mine got axed by the orphan-bot!
NBGPWS 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Did Alan legally change his name from Davidson to Lipton? Any of you PWers know why he changed his name? (I guess that doesn't matter as long as he legally changed it) If he did not legally change it, should he be referred to as Lipton, Davidson or Lipton née Davidson? ('née' improperly and incorrectly edited from correct 'né' without permission by Ruthfulbarbarity - who, thus far, refuses to edit it back) (By the way, neither Alan nor Kfir have shown up here after an invitation was extended to them a couple weeks ago to attest that they're still actively 'leading' Protest Warrior)
Alan Davidson Specific Example
Thanks!
NBGPWS 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.
NBGPWS 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL ! HOW WRONG YOU ARE ! I STRONGLY suggest you correct the mistaken edits YOU made to my CORRECT usage! NOW.
née: used to indicate a woman’s birth name or maiden name, e.g., Martha Washington, née Martha Dandridge; literally "born".
né: masculine form of née.
What I wrote WAS 100% correct.
Lipton né Davidson = Lipton born Davidson
NOW.
NBGPWS 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see the egg dripping down RB's face from here. He shouldn't feel too bad. I was wrong about 'pore' vs 'pour'.
Nee is from French (where it is spelled née), and it is the feminine form of né, the past participle of naître 'to be born', eventually from Latin natus, the source of English native. It is first found in English sources in the mid eighteenth century.
In actual usage, nee does not mean simply 'born', but something like 'formerly called'. One sees it in all sorts of extended senses--introducing the original name of a person using a pseudonym, even introducing an original name of anything (e.g. "the Acura SLX (nee Isuzu Trooper)" (New York Times, 1996)).
Along these lines, recent years have seen the introduction of the masculine form né in English, used similarly but of men: "NWA's main man is Easy-E (né Eric Wright), considered the Pavarotti of the rap world" (Daily Telegraph, 1990).
NOW.
I should note that you may 'know a lot of big words' - but certainly not all the small words - specifically two-letter words - precisely..... 'né' - LOL ! PWN3D ! ROFLMAO !
NOW.
NBGPWS 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
NB, I didn't insult his intelligence, I pointed out that he was wrong (and he is) in a jocular manner. RB's a pretty smart guy!
NBGPWS 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Warning to user Ruthfulbarbarity Correct the erroneous, improper edits you made to MY correctly-spelled comments - specifically "né".
NOW.
If not, I will file an official complaint for vandalism.
NBGPWS 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS, you have been warned to not accuse others of vandalism due to content disputes, and to stop using warning templates when they are inappropriate.
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.
-- Neverborn 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
NB, when he edits MY text, titles, and comments, and then is informed that his edits were 100% wrong, and is provided PROOF [5] and then REFUSES to correct the incorrect and improper edits he made to MY text - that constitutes vandalism. (maybe)
Cheers!
Note to user Ruthfulbarbarity (né Wrathbone). If you care to make corrections to my edits and revert them to my original correct 'né' spelling you may due so, and remove my notation of your improper edits.
NBGPWS 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL !I would have appreciated it if you had reversed the improper and incorrect edits you made to my spelling after you were asked to also, Ruthfulbarbarity né Wrathbone ! Ain't life a bitch?! As you don't edit other people's spelling on Protest Warrior or even here, your actions and motives are puzzling to say the least - That is unless you are deliberately trying to provoke me, in which case they're perfectly coherent.
NBGPWS 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The content (and credibility) of your flimsy excuses has gone from simply weak to thoroughly preposterous. You were dead-wrong when you corrected né to née, but your actions after the fact, and lack of action, speak much louder than your errors with language. The fact that you have obsessively-compulsively focused on and edited MY words on this informal discussion page - content with no encyclopedic value - rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this error has been OBVIOUS for DAYS, says it ALL. "Very few major news organizations have ran stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."
NBGPWS 07:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
One MORE time for you...
'The fact that you have obsessively-compulsively focused on and edited MY words on this informal discussion page - content with no encyclopedic value - rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this GRAMMATICAL(added for RB) error has been OBVIOUS for DAYS, says it ALL. "Very few major news organizations ' have ran ' (sic) stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."'
"Most people make the same errors repeatedly, because they don't seem like errors to those making them. If your family says, "our dogs have ran away on several occasions," that's what you will say unless you (a) learn it's wrong and (b) break the habit. I can tell you it's wrong, but only you can break the habit. The best way I know to extinguish habitual writing errors is to write them down. Make a "to do" list of habitual errors. An entry might look like this: run--ran--have run (NOT have ran)."
One MORE time for you...
Present Tense = Run / Past Tense = Ran / Past Participle = (Have) Run / Incorrect Usage = (Have) Ran
Are you following me, Skippy? If not - see here Grammar Errors
Rudimentary grammar - but as you said... "not that you would actually know that" - or notice - as you are too busy obsessively-compulsively editing MY spelling HERE!
Understand NOW? Jeezus!
NBGPWS 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL !
Maybe you can get L2B to explain it to you. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of you constantly correcting my spelling and grammar, but ingoring the grammatical error of the article using the incorrect and improper version of the Past Participle of the Verb 'run' - specifically ' HAVE RAN ' instead of the correct ' HAVE RUN ' .
NBGPWS 21:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to question the commitment some here have to actually improving this article - rather than just arguing or deleting content they disagree with. Believe it or not - my query about Alan changing his last name yesterday was asked in good faith. It was also potentially important. Men changing their last names is not that common, and not always done with innocent motivation. On the other hand maybe he did so due to threats from some crazy anarchist? Who knows? I thought I'd ask. Face the facts. This article is crap. I'd be mortified if it was an article on MY organization - even if that was a 3rd grade glee club. When I suggested to another editor (Ruthfulbarbarity né Wrathbone) that he re-write the criticism section and expand it yesterday - he blew me off. That section and reactions, in particular, are embarrassingly poor, and NO ONE here seems to care enough to edit them. I would like to float the idea that someone who knows how add a temporary article page, (see archives for when this was adopted) and maybe those of us who are actually interested in this article can get to work on it there? What do you guys think of that?
NBGPWS 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
So he legally changed it ?
NBGPWS 03:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I already MADE a suggestion - the one you I made to you - the one you rejected:
"Why don't you take a stab at re-writing the criticism section. 'You know a lot of big words'.
Maybe you could upload a new pic of Alan and Kfir too. Mine got axed by the orphan-bot!"
NBGPWS 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a photo of Alan and Kfir for close to 2 years until it was deleted not long ago. Evidently the PWers and supporters who maintained this entry thought it important, at one time. The photo and, even more importantly, the layout integrity of the article weren't important to the CURRENT crop of PWers 'maintaining' this entry though. After the previous deletion, you PWers didn't even bother to edit out the 'missing image info' or empty picture box, which disfigured the article for weeks, so I took it upon myself to upload a new pic. I don't think a pic of Alan and Kfir is of 'paramount' importance - I don't think it's important at all - I thought YOU PWers might like to see it replaced. I agree with Vpoko - almost "nobody is going to read this article" anyway, so it really doesn't matter to me. I was merely trying to be helpful.
NBGPWS 07:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 19:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that those involved in this dispute are not willing to let this mediation process kick off. I don't think it's appropriate for me to try and mediate informally here because of this, and so if there are no real objections I will be closing this mediation soon. Thank you. — Xyra e l / 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Ruthfulbarbarity continues to obsessively-compulsively focus on and edit MY words on the mediation and discussion pages - content with no encyclopedic value -- rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this GRAMMATICAL (added for RB) error been OBVIOUS for DAYS, and brought to his attention. "Very few major news organizations ' have ran ' (sic) stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."' I consider this an intentional provocation and an attempt to bait me. [6] [7]
NBGPWS 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL! But you only correct MY spelling and grammar - and ignore the obvious error in the article noted above - and when you made an ERROR editing my spelling - as in you did when you mistakingly corrected 'né' to née - you refused to correct it back to the PROPER and CORRECT spelling when you were proved wrong. Your actions aren't fooling anyone.
NBGPWS 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Eef it maks u fell any butter, User:NBGPWS, Ruthful has scene fit to proufrede and koreckt my edicts as well. ;-) Lawyer2b 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Im knot distorting yer wordz and makieng them unreeddable. Im corecting youre spilling, gramer an puncaution. Like yuo told me after I PROOFED yer use of 'née' was wrong and the edit you made to my words inkorrect and impropir "There's nothing preventing you from reverting my edits, if you feel that I have erred." You wood half korrected the ARTICEL - specifcly ' HAVE RAN ' to ' HAVE RUN ' if you hat aktualy kared abuot korrect and propper spilling and gramar.
NBGPWS 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for yer interpetation. There was no raeson for ruthbar né wrathbone to knot have corected the eror he made to MY tects when proofed wrong, and ascked to eithor, or for him to KNOT half corrected 'ran to run' if he ACTUALY WAS concerned with correckt spilling and gramar. The edits hees made on this TALK page, witch haz no encyclopeadeicic valuu, are the axtions of somone tring to controil and fcuk with othrz, not somone who kares about corect spilling and gramar. I doan want to edit 'ran to run' cuz somebodee wil probbably accuze me of sumthing badd!
NBGPWS 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I sujest yuo looque in teh mirrer, ruthabraility nè wrathboone.
NBGPWS 02:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow. This place is a regular hotbed of maturity. Crockspot 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 05:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Kwestion 4 ruthbarbitty né wrathbone:
You tawked abuot sum peoples legaly changeing there names all teh time when I asxsed you abuot Alan Lipton nè Davidson, butt(sehkts) you dint never anser my kwestion!!! Did Alan legaly change hiss name frum Davidson to Lipton ?
Tanks!
NBGPWS 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Doant forgette, ruthabraility nè wrathboone, yuo yurselve sed :
" I do not need your "permission" to make edits that I deem proper and necessary. If you have a problem with them, then simply revert my changes."
LOL !
NBGPWS 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
To User:Ruthfulbarbarity:
Discussion on talk pages is not Encyclopedic Content submitted for 'peer review'. Please stop. To take liberties with the monumentally memorable line of speech from 'The Planet of the Apes', spoken by the great actor and tireless defender of the 2nd amendment Charlton Heston - and offered only in good humour - again I suggest: "Keep your stinkin' paws off my text, you damned dirty ape !" I hope you are enjoying your Worker's Day, Ruthfulbarbarity! :-)
Basic rules for all talk pages
Sign your comments (see above)
Log in. (Read why here.)
Use coherent formatting.
Copy formatting from others.
Indent with colons (:), not with tabs.
Break up very large paragraphs.
Be civil at all times.
Don't make personal attacks
Don't SHOUT
Do not edit other user's comments.
NBGPWS 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.
NBGPWS 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Warning to Ruthfulbarbarity !
Regarding your improper, unapproved, illegitimate, unsanctioned, Illegal and Illicit disallowed edits of my talk and discussion comments:
You told ME to 'look it up' and it would prove you right. Once again, after 'looking it up', I am right, and YOU have proven WRONG. Show me EXACTLY where you claim WP says you're allowed to edit my talk and discussion comments.
Basic rules for all talk pages
Do not edit other user's comments.
Until you document, with WP that overides the WP which I posted - proving that you are allowed to edit my comments on talk pages - you are hereby ordered not to edit my talk or discussion comments !
NBGPWS 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity wrote regarding his improper, unapproved, illegitimate, unsanctioned, Illegal and Illicit editing of my talk comments:
"If you don't want your writings mercielessly edited, then do not subject them to peer review. That is not a recommendation I just conceived of, but one which is part of Wikipedia guidelienes. You can check it out for yourself, if you're so inclined."
CITE YOUR PROOF !
NBGPWS 06:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL !
Your non-answer to my charges of skullduggery, and inability to back your specious claims amount to a concession that you were wrong, and that you hereby agree to stop editing my comments. GOOD ! It's about time ! I hope you learned your lesson, Ruthfulbarbarity nè Wrathbone ! 'Shape Up and Fly Right' is what I've always said ! NBGPWS 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I added the Crawford incident back in, with CBS sourcing. Did that 'operation' have one of those trademark clever and patriotic-sounding PW names? If so, I can't seem to find it! Will one of you guys ask Kfir? He doesn't reply to my queries for info, nor requests to show up here and affirm that he's still actively involved with PW!
Thanks!
NBGPWS 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I added this link. Good article from 'The American Reporter' Seems to be available through Google Cache only.
NBGPWS 01:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an official WP warning template ((notyours))
You were wrong....
I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,
Again.
NBGPWS 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
WARNING to Neverborn. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. NBGPWS 04:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
In light of the fact that approx half of the current revision of the article was written or contributed by me - your charges that my goal could be to 'ruin the article' are so far removed from reality that they can only be construed as a baseless personal attack. I suggest you seek advice on effective insults from Ruthbar. Your faux warning above impressed me as only silly and childish - lacking any 'bite'. I actually chuckled out-loud at its insipidness ! Cheers. NBGPWS 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
The group maintains a website as an organizing and information hub. It also acts as a source for the many slogans and signs presented by Protest Warriors at protests, as well as offering various tutorials on sign creation.
Could one of you PW's provide the links to the 'various tutorials on sign creation' ? I couln't find 'em.
Thanks
NBGPWS 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Good addition, Neverborn - but you're conflating two events into one.
The first two links document the MAF/RM/PW protests on Saturday Sept 24 (crowd 100-200), the third link Free Republic's protest on Sunday - the one which drew approx 400. This one: "We are preparing for as many as 20,000 people, just to be on the safe side," said Kristinn Taylor, a leader of FreeRepublic.com, one of the sponsors." It's also improper to call it 'Protest Warrior's Crowd' when PW was only one of three orgs sponsoring the demonstration. Also, did PW secure a permit, or were you protesting on the permit of MAF or RM? Will you post a new corrected version for discussion here, or would you like me to? NBGPWS 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The third link doesn't mention PW. It can't even be used, let alone crowd figures from it. If you find a MSM link that says PW's were at the FR rally on Sunday, that could work. NBGPWS 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll post the info again.
The first two links (15, 16) document the MAF/RM/PW/FR counter-protests on Saturday Sept 24 (crowd 100-200), the third link (17) documents Free Republic's rally on Sunday the 25th - the one which drew approx 400 vs the 20,000 hoped for. (much to the delight of us lefties) These are separate actions on different days. I think this is a photo of Sunday's event Lonely Freeper Rally NBGPWS 23:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's my edit:
During the Sept. 24, 2005 Anti-War Protests in Washington D.C., Protest Warrior, along with Move America Forward, RightMarch and Free Republic counterprotested those opposed to the war, and also displayed their support for the war and troops. [13] [14]
NBGPWS 06:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The boards just went down about five minutes ago, replaced with a message saying that they will be down until "further notice." Just thought I'd toss that out there; I've no idea how long that'll last. Rogue 9 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"Friday, September 15, 2006
Protest Warrior Forums Nuked
Well, it finally happened. The owners of Protest Warrior have nuked the forums. Rumor has it they (the forums) were a "waste of band width" and had become " an embarrassment to the organization."
The PW site is still up, but for all intents and purposes, the organization is dead. There were something like 14000 registered members on PW. 14000 people looking for an outlet for their anger, their energy, their ideas, and their American pride. It will take some doing, but I'm sure one of my intrepid friends will start up another site, another movement. And I, for one, will be signing up and jumping in with both feet. Bring on the fight!!"
A claim of 14,000 'members' LOL ! Anyone who claims the number of total registrations on any intraweb forum equals active members is deranged. I probably accounted for 100 registrations! LOL ! Ruthbar, I encouraged you to take over before PW collapsed ! Now its too late. We'll have to make some MAJOR changes to the article now. I'll go easy on you PW's for a while, as I know your lives are shattered. NBGPWS 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
And now that NBG has been blocked, maybe we can get something done. Rogue 9 14:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You obviously need to read it too.
"By the way, the correct spelling is "germane," you hyperactive, dim chimpanzee."'Ruthfulbarbarity 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Why haven't PW's 'leaders' come here, as requested, to attest that they're still 'in business'?
NBGPWS 06:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity, why is there no explanation from Kfir and Alan on the PW site (or anywhere else) as to why they pulled the plug on the forums - the essential place where PW's 'activities' are planned? You seem to be in touch with them via email. Don't you know? NBGPWS 08:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The emails I sent don't exist? LOL! I suggest you be more careful of accusing me of being a liar on these pages. I will find the relevent WP for your education. see No explanation for Kfir's refusal to help the PW quoted above I see. It seems he wanted to rejoin this mythical 'headquarters' you talk about. They didn't even bother to respond. NBGPWS 23:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I would also appreciate it if you quit trying to provoke me, Ruthfulbarbarity. One need only look at your recent and frequent unwanted commentary to my talk page (removed in accordance with WP) to see the proof of your actions. NBGPWS 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you inflate the number of times I've been blocked from the actual number of 4 to 6 says all anyone needs to know about your relationship with the truth. Enough chitter chatter. Back to work. NBGPWS 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It was 4 times NBGPWS 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason to start a new section to discuss this, just do it. NBGPWS 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, I'm here to try and help mediate the various disputes in occurance surrounding this article. If no one has any objections, I suggest we keep discussion here for the moment. There have been a lot of civility issues with users here, so I'd like to request that for the duration of this mediation topics above this point in the page are left in their current state and that we conduct communication here. Additionally, I would like to gently reinforce the need for observance of the guidelines on civility here. Because it appears that a lot of circular discussions have formed, I'd also ask that you allow me to guide what we speak of, but please understand that I have no special authority and am only trying to suggest a way to make progress. Specifically, it'd be nice if specific inflammatory remarks could be left for now until an appropriate point in the mediation when they will be more helpful. So, does what I am saying sound reasonable to you? Are we ready to proceed? I'm ready to hear opinions on this now, and I'm sorry for the late response to the posting of your case. Thank you. — Xyra e l / 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B, I disagree with your interpretations of both my actions and my motives, but since both of us are partisan parties to this debate, i'll repost the conclusions that a DIS-interested, nonpartisan Wiki admin. insightfully reached less than a week ago:
...it appears to me, at least, that an effort is being made, in the light of some controversies that have surfaced, to sweep dirt under the rug regarding actions that some people have found questionable surrounding this community. This is being done under the claims, apparently, that NPOV allows no place for criticism (unquestionably false, especially when the topic of an article is a controversial organization) and the guidelines for biographies.The second one is far more concerning to be, particularly in that it appears that the effort appears to be one with the intention of gaming the system and bending rules to cover what they normally would not, in an effort to make the subject of the article look more or less controversial than it is. To do this in either of the directions that apparently interested editors would have is a disservice to the readership of Wikipedia. As (if I recall correctly) I have said above, I would fully support the involvement of a mediation entity such as the Mediation Cabal to help exclude interests from influencing the neutrality of this page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No-can-do with the spill-chuck request, RB. I olny use speel-chick on the atricles, knot talk, Sorrys! NBGPWS 01:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What Kuzaar noted IS still happening - with users like Morton D's edits - and Tbeatty's deletion of the Alexa data (without ONE word in the edit summary) important factual info which Kuzaar and Vpoko said IS fact, NOT OR, NPOV, and CAN be included. (now added back in) Let's allow Xyrael to do his job, OK? Thanks NBGPWS 01:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B, like the good lawyer you are (or will be) I think that you tried to 'argue your case' in an 'opening statement' rather than let the mediator 'examine the evidence'.
NBGPWS 05:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice to user Ruthfulbarbarity
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption.
I'm not the one - user RB is - who both defended another editor ignoring an Admin's ruling on WP, (op Military Shield) but then also falsely stated that my contributions on another issue (Alexa stats) violated WP POV when the same Admin, and the ONLY disinterested nonpartisan editor who cares about this article (Vpoko) had just ruled that they hadn't! I will abide by any Admin or Mediator rulings.
NBGPWS 05:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
My comments coming a little later - I have to work today. (being a freelancer is nice as I can work my own hours)
NBGPWS 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a start but it is not THE solution to the ongoing problems that this entry has faced since day one. You might want to read the very first page in the archives.
NBGPWS 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice to user Ruthfulbarbarity
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption.
NBGPWS 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding what actually happened during the 2 days I was blocked - this is what I wrote to L2B:
"You PW's and supporters spent the (majority of the) 2 days while I was blocked discussing your rational of how you would get the (tangental to the article) Hammond warrant included again. Guess what? Except to you PW's, who consider this your 'watergate' or 'killian memos' moment, this info MATTERS NOT to the average Wiki reader wanting to find out more about PW. It's an issue of MINOR importance - except to you guys. Such is the myopia of 'group think'. There are 3 major articles on the 'crawford incident', fox, SF Chron, and a CBS news page to be found in the first 50 Google results of 'protest warrior' + crawford. You would have found them IF you had looked. I guess no one did, or did and decided not to include this info...." (criticism deleted in the spririt of harmony)
NBGPWS 06:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice to user Ruthfulbarbarity
You are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to personal attacks and trolling.
"[I]ncivility is roughly defined (on Wiki) as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress.."
NBGPWS 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
MY behavior came into compliance (not complaince as you spelled it) days ago.
NBGPWS 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to be more helpful and bipartisan, I added this description of Op Liberty Rising. Why don't you guys linkify it, and pick which MSM account of it you would like to link to it? (IMHO, it should be one from after, not before, and not as partisan as 'front page mag'. There is a whole Wiki article on the 04 RNC protests, where PW is mentioned too. Feel free to rewrite it. Since I wrote the first section this one might sound too similar.
"During the 2004 Republican National Convention, Protest Warrior staged "Operation Liberty Rising" in opposition to those protesting the RNC. This event received attention from the Main Stream Media both before and after it occured."
NBGPWS 06:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you READ what I wrote?
"Why don't you guys linkify it, and pick which MSM account of it you would like to link to it? (IMHO, it should be one from after, not before, and not as partisan as 'front page mag'. " [1] [2] [3] There are more too. [4]
NBGPWS 07:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Added MTV link - most indepth coverage
NBGPWS 07:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to help you out and you still want to argue! LOL! READ all the accounts. MTV is by FAR the best, as far as WP - as it has names, and ages, AND hometowns of several PW's which lends tons of credibility, and the reporter actually describes what he witnessed. Did you actually READ the content at the links I listed??????? NBGPWS 08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
HUH ???? Are you arguing this account violates RS + V? That it is NOT the most appropriate of the 4 I listed? Once again I ask, did you READ it - and the others? MTV account of Op Liberty Rising
NBGPWS 08:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you counselor! I was a little suprised myself, that the best coverage, indeed the only article that covered the '5 W's' extensively was the one from MTV. I'll add the "crawford incident' back in, using the last wording, but substituting an acceptable source.
NBGPWS 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A friendly suggestion to user Ruthfulbarbarity ...
Why don't you take a stab at re-writing the criticism section. 'You know a lot of big words'.
Maybe you could upload a new pic of Alan and Kfir too. Mine got axed by the orphan-bot!
NBGPWS 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Did Alan legally change his name from Davidson to Lipton? Any of you PWers know why he changed his name? (I guess that doesn't matter as long as he legally changed it) If he did not legally change it, should he be referred to as Lipton, Davidson or Lipton née Davidson? ('née' improperly and incorrectly edited from correct 'né' without permission by Ruthfulbarbarity - who, thus far, refuses to edit it back) (By the way, neither Alan nor Kfir have shown up here after an invitation was extended to them a couple weeks ago to attest that they're still actively 'leading' Protest Warrior)
Alan Davidson Specific Example
Thanks!
NBGPWS 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.
NBGPWS 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL ! HOW WRONG YOU ARE ! I STRONGLY suggest you correct the mistaken edits YOU made to my CORRECT usage! NOW.
née: used to indicate a woman’s birth name or maiden name, e.g., Martha Washington, née Martha Dandridge; literally "born".
né: masculine form of née.
What I wrote WAS 100% correct.
Lipton né Davidson = Lipton born Davidson
NOW.
NBGPWS 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see the egg dripping down RB's face from here. He shouldn't feel too bad. I was wrong about 'pore' vs 'pour'.
Nee is from French (where it is spelled née), and it is the feminine form of né, the past participle of naître 'to be born', eventually from Latin natus, the source of English native. It is first found in English sources in the mid eighteenth century.
In actual usage, nee does not mean simply 'born', but something like 'formerly called'. One sees it in all sorts of extended senses--introducing the original name of a person using a pseudonym, even introducing an original name of anything (e.g. "the Acura SLX (nee Isuzu Trooper)" (New York Times, 1996)).
Along these lines, recent years have seen the introduction of the masculine form né in English, used similarly but of men: "NWA's main man is Easy-E (né Eric Wright), considered the Pavarotti of the rap world" (Daily Telegraph, 1990).
NOW.
I should note that you may 'know a lot of big words' - but certainly not all the small words - specifically two-letter words - precisely..... 'né' - LOL ! PWN3D ! ROFLMAO !
NOW.
NBGPWS 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
NB, I didn't insult his intelligence, I pointed out that he was wrong (and he is) in a jocular manner. RB's a pretty smart guy!
NBGPWS 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Warning to user Ruthfulbarbarity Correct the erroneous, improper edits you made to MY correctly-spelled comments - specifically "né".
NOW.
If not, I will file an official complaint for vandalism.
NBGPWS 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS, you have been warned to not accuse others of vandalism due to content disputes, and to stop using warning templates when they are inappropriate.
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.
-- Neverborn 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
NB, when he edits MY text, titles, and comments, and then is informed that his edits were 100% wrong, and is provided PROOF [5] and then REFUSES to correct the incorrect and improper edits he made to MY text - that constitutes vandalism. (maybe)
Cheers!
Note to user Ruthfulbarbarity (né Wrathbone). If you care to make corrections to my edits and revert them to my original correct 'né' spelling you may due so, and remove my notation of your improper edits.
NBGPWS 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL !I would have appreciated it if you had reversed the improper and incorrect edits you made to my spelling after you were asked to also, Ruthfulbarbarity né Wrathbone ! Ain't life a bitch?! As you don't edit other people's spelling on Protest Warrior or even here, your actions and motives are puzzling to say the least - That is unless you are deliberately trying to provoke me, in which case they're perfectly coherent.
NBGPWS 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The content (and credibility) of your flimsy excuses has gone from simply weak to thoroughly preposterous. You were dead-wrong when you corrected né to née, but your actions after the fact, and lack of action, speak much louder than your errors with language. The fact that you have obsessively-compulsively focused on and edited MY words on this informal discussion page - content with no encyclopedic value - rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this error has been OBVIOUS for DAYS, says it ALL. "Very few major news organizations have ran stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."
NBGPWS 07:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
One MORE time for you...
'The fact that you have obsessively-compulsively focused on and edited MY words on this informal discussion page - content with no encyclopedic value - rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this GRAMMATICAL(added for RB) error has been OBVIOUS for DAYS, says it ALL. "Very few major news organizations ' have ran ' (sic) stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."'
"Most people make the same errors repeatedly, because they don't seem like errors to those making them. If your family says, "our dogs have ran away on several occasions," that's what you will say unless you (a) learn it's wrong and (b) break the habit. I can tell you it's wrong, but only you can break the habit. The best way I know to extinguish habitual writing errors is to write them down. Make a "to do" list of habitual errors. An entry might look like this: run--ran--have run (NOT have ran)."
One MORE time for you...
Present Tense = Run / Past Tense = Ran / Past Participle = (Have) Run / Incorrect Usage = (Have) Ran
Are you following me, Skippy? If not - see here Grammar Errors
Rudimentary grammar - but as you said... "not that you would actually know that" - or notice - as you are too busy obsessively-compulsively editing MY spelling HERE!
Understand NOW? Jeezus!
NBGPWS 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL !
Maybe you can get L2B to explain it to you. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of you constantly correcting my spelling and grammar, but ingoring the grammatical error of the article using the incorrect and improper version of the Past Participle of the Verb 'run' - specifically ' HAVE RAN ' instead of the correct ' HAVE RUN ' .
NBGPWS 21:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to question the commitment some here have to actually improving this article - rather than just arguing or deleting content they disagree with. Believe it or not - my query about Alan changing his last name yesterday was asked in good faith. It was also potentially important. Men changing their last names is not that common, and not always done with innocent motivation. On the other hand maybe he did so due to threats from some crazy anarchist? Who knows? I thought I'd ask. Face the facts. This article is crap. I'd be mortified if it was an article on MY organization - even if that was a 3rd grade glee club. When I suggested to another editor (Ruthfulbarbarity né Wrathbone) that he re-write the criticism section and expand it yesterday - he blew me off. That section and reactions, in particular, are embarrassingly poor, and NO ONE here seems to care enough to edit them. I would like to float the idea that someone who knows how add a temporary article page, (see archives for when this was adopted) and maybe those of us who are actually interested in this article can get to work on it there? What do you guys think of that?
NBGPWS 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
So he legally changed it ?
NBGPWS 03:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I already MADE a suggestion - the one you I made to you - the one you rejected:
"Why don't you take a stab at re-writing the criticism section. 'You know a lot of big words'.
Maybe you could upload a new pic of Alan and Kfir too. Mine got axed by the orphan-bot!"
NBGPWS 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a photo of Alan and Kfir for close to 2 years until it was deleted not long ago. Evidently the PWers and supporters who maintained this entry thought it important, at one time. The photo and, even more importantly, the layout integrity of the article weren't important to the CURRENT crop of PWers 'maintaining' this entry though. After the previous deletion, you PWers didn't even bother to edit out the 'missing image info' or empty picture box, which disfigured the article for weeks, so I took it upon myself to upload a new pic. I don't think a pic of Alan and Kfir is of 'paramount' importance - I don't think it's important at all - I thought YOU PWers might like to see it replaced. I agree with Vpoko - almost "nobody is going to read this article" anyway, so it really doesn't matter to me. I was merely trying to be helpful.
NBGPWS 07:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 19:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that those involved in this dispute are not willing to let this mediation process kick off. I don't think it's appropriate for me to try and mediate informally here because of this, and so if there are no real objections I will be closing this mediation soon. Thank you. — Xyra e l / 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Ruthfulbarbarity continues to obsessively-compulsively focus on and edit MY words on the mediation and discussion pages - content with no encyclopedic value -- rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this GRAMMATICAL (added for RB) error been OBVIOUS for DAYS, and brought to his attention. "Very few major news organizations ' have ran ' (sic) stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."' I consider this an intentional provocation and an attempt to bait me. [6] [7]
NBGPWS 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL! But you only correct MY spelling and grammar - and ignore the obvious error in the article noted above - and when you made an ERROR editing my spelling - as in you did when you mistakingly corrected 'né' to née - you refused to correct it back to the PROPER and CORRECT spelling when you were proved wrong. Your actions aren't fooling anyone.
NBGPWS 21:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Eef it maks u fell any butter, User:NBGPWS, Ruthful has scene fit to proufrede and koreckt my edicts as well. ;-) Lawyer2b 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Im knot distorting yer wordz and makieng them unreeddable. Im corecting youre spilling, gramer an puncaution. Like yuo told me after I PROOFED yer use of 'née' was wrong and the edit you made to my words inkorrect and impropir "There's nothing preventing you from reverting my edits, if you feel that I have erred." You wood half korrected the ARTICEL - specifcly ' HAVE RAN ' to ' HAVE RUN ' if you hat aktualy kared abuot korrect and propper spilling and gramar.
NBGPWS 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for yer interpetation. There was no raeson for ruthbar né wrathbone to knot have corected the eror he made to MY tects when proofed wrong, and ascked to eithor, or for him to KNOT half corrected 'ran to run' if he ACTUALY WAS concerned with correckt spilling and gramar. The edits hees made on this TALK page, witch haz no encyclopeadeicic valuu, are the axtions of somone tring to controil and fcuk with othrz, not somone who kares about corect spilling and gramar. I doan want to edit 'ran to run' cuz somebodee wil probbably accuze me of sumthing badd!
NBGPWS 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I sujest yuo looque in teh mirrer, ruthabraility nè wrathboone.
NBGPWS 02:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow. This place is a regular hotbed of maturity. Crockspot 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS 05:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Kwestion 4 ruthbarbitty né wrathbone:
You tawked abuot sum peoples legaly changeing there names all teh time when I asxsed you abuot Alan Lipton nè Davidson, butt(sehkts) you dint never anser my kwestion!!! Did Alan legaly change hiss name frum Davidson to Lipton ?
Tanks!
NBGPWS 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Doant forgette, ruthabraility nè wrathboone, yuo yurselve sed :
" I do not need your "permission" to make edits that I deem proper and necessary. If you have a problem with them, then simply revert my changes."
LOL !
NBGPWS 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
To User:Ruthfulbarbarity:
Discussion on talk pages is not Encyclopedic Content submitted for 'peer review'. Please stop. To take liberties with the monumentally memorable line of speech from 'The Planet of the Apes', spoken by the great actor and tireless defender of the 2nd amendment Charlton Heston - and offered only in good humour - again I suggest: "Keep your stinkin' paws off my text, you damned dirty ape !" I hope you are enjoying your Worker's Day, Ruthfulbarbarity! :-)
Basic rules for all talk pages
Sign your comments (see above)
Log in. (Read why here.)
Use coherent formatting.
Copy formatting from others.
Indent with colons (:), not with tabs.
Break up very large paragraphs.
Be civil at all times.
Don't make personal attacks
Don't SHOUT
Do not edit other user's comments.
NBGPWS 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.
NBGPWS 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Warning to Ruthfulbarbarity !
Regarding your improper, unapproved, illegitimate, unsanctioned, Illegal and Illicit disallowed edits of my talk and discussion comments:
You told ME to 'look it up' and it would prove you right. Once again, after 'looking it up', I am right, and YOU have proven WRONG. Show me EXACTLY where you claim WP says you're allowed to edit my talk and discussion comments.
Basic rules for all talk pages
Do not edit other user's comments.
Until you document, with WP that overides the WP which I posted - proving that you are allowed to edit my comments on talk pages - you are hereby ordered not to edit my talk or discussion comments !
NBGPWS 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity wrote regarding his improper, unapproved, illegitimate, unsanctioned, Illegal and Illicit editing of my talk comments:
"If you don't want your writings mercielessly edited, then do not subject them to peer review. That is not a recommendation I just conceived of, but one which is part of Wikipedia guidelienes. You can check it out for yourself, if you're so inclined."
CITE YOUR PROOF !
NBGPWS 06:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL !
Your non-answer to my charges of skullduggery, and inability to back your specious claims amount to a concession that you were wrong, and that you hereby agree to stop editing my comments. GOOD ! It's about time ! I hope you learned your lesson, Ruthfulbarbarity nè Wrathbone ! 'Shape Up and Fly Right' is what I've always said ! NBGPWS 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I added the Crawford incident back in, with CBS sourcing. Did that 'operation' have one of those trademark clever and patriotic-sounding PW names? If so, I can't seem to find it! Will one of you guys ask Kfir? He doesn't reply to my queries for info, nor requests to show up here and affirm that he's still actively involved with PW!
Thanks!
NBGPWS 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I added this link. Good article from 'The American Reporter' Seems to be available through Google Cache only.
NBGPWS 01:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an official WP warning template ((notyours))
You were wrong....
I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,
Again.
NBGPWS 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
WARNING to Neverborn. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. NBGPWS 04:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
In light of the fact that approx half of the current revision of the article was written or contributed by me - your charges that my goal could be to 'ruin the article' are so far removed from reality that they can only be construed as a baseless personal attack. I suggest you seek advice on effective insults from Ruthbar. Your faux warning above impressed me as only silly and childish - lacking any 'bite'. I actually chuckled out-loud at its insipidness ! Cheers. NBGPWS 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
The group maintains a website as an organizing and information hub. It also acts as a source for the many slogans and signs presented by Protest Warriors at protests, as well as offering various tutorials on sign creation.
Could one of you PW's provide the links to the 'various tutorials on sign creation' ? I couln't find 'em.
Thanks
NBGPWS 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Good addition, Neverborn - but you're conflating two events into one.
The first two links document the MAF/RM/PW protests on Saturday Sept 24 (crowd 100-200), the third link Free Republic's protest on Sunday - the one which drew approx 400. This one: "We are preparing for as many as 20,000 people, just to be on the safe side," said Kristinn Taylor, a leader of FreeRepublic.com, one of the sponsors." It's also improper to call it 'Protest Warrior's Crowd' when PW was only one of three orgs sponsoring the demonstration. Also, did PW secure a permit, or were you protesting on the permit of MAF or RM? Will you post a new corrected version for discussion here, or would you like me to? NBGPWS 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The third link doesn't mention PW. It can't even be used, let alone crowd figures from it. If you find a MSM link that says PW's were at the FR rally on Sunday, that could work. NBGPWS 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll post the info again.
The first two links (15, 16) document the MAF/RM/PW/FR counter-protests on Saturday Sept 24 (crowd 100-200), the third link (17) documents Free Republic's rally on Sunday the 25th - the one which drew approx 400 vs the 20,000 hoped for. (much to the delight of us lefties) These are separate actions on different days. I think this is a photo of Sunday's event Lonely Freeper Rally NBGPWS 23:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's my edit:
During the Sept. 24, 2005 Anti-War Protests in Washington D.C., Protest Warrior, along with Move America Forward, RightMarch and Free Republic counterprotested those opposed to the war, and also displayed their support for the war and troops. [13] [14]
NBGPWS 06:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The boards just went down about five minutes ago, replaced with a message saying that they will be down until "further notice." Just thought I'd toss that out there; I've no idea how long that'll last. Rogue 9 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"Friday, September 15, 2006
Protest Warrior Forums Nuked
Well, it finally happened. The owners of Protest Warrior have nuked the forums. Rumor has it they (the forums) were a "waste of band width" and had become " an embarrassment to the organization."
The PW site is still up, but for all intents and purposes, the organization is dead. There were something like 14000 registered members on PW. 14000 people looking for an outlet for their anger, their energy, their ideas, and their American pride. It will take some doing, but I'm sure one of my intrepid friends will start up another site, another movement. And I, for one, will be signing up and jumping in with both feet. Bring on the fight!!"
A claim of 14,000 'members' LOL ! Anyone who claims the number of total registrations on any intraweb forum equals active members is deranged. I probably accounted for 100 registrations! LOL ! Ruthbar, I encouraged you to take over before PW collapsed ! Now its too late. We'll have to make some MAJOR changes to the article now. I'll go easy on you PW's for a while, as I know your lives are shattered. NBGPWS 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
And now that NBG has been blocked, maybe we can get something done. Rogue 9 14:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You obviously need to read it too.
"By the way, the correct spelling is "germane," you hyperactive, dim chimpanzee."'Ruthfulbarbarity 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Why haven't PW's 'leaders' come here, as requested, to attest that they're still 'in business'?
NBGPWS 06:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity, why is there no explanation from Kfir and Alan on the PW site (or anywhere else) as to why they pulled the plug on the forums - the essential place where PW's 'activities' are planned? You seem to be in touch with them via email. Don't you know? NBGPWS 08:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The emails I sent don't exist? LOL! I suggest you be more careful of accusing me of being a liar on these pages. I will find the relevent WP for your education. see No explanation for Kfir's refusal to help the PW quoted above I see. It seems he wanted to rejoin this mythical 'headquarters' you talk about. They didn't even bother to respond. NBGPWS 23:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I would also appreciate it if you quit trying to provoke me, Ruthfulbarbarity. One need only look at your recent and frequent unwanted commentary to my talk page (removed in accordance with WP) to see the proof of your actions. NBGPWS 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you inflate the number of times I've been blocked from the actual number of 4 to 6 says all anyone needs to know about your relationship with the truth. Enough chitter chatter. Back to work. NBGPWS 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It was 4 times NBGPWS 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason to start a new section to discuss this, just do it. NBGPWS 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)