Misplaced Pages

That's a mighty tall soapbox you've got there L2B!. Yeah, the ACLU taking up the cases of Rush Limbaugh, Fred Phelps and numerous other nutty Xtian causes is soooo liberal.September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show. more Think for yourself my friend, don't buy into that Reichwing disinfo they're spoonfeeding you. Ya think you know more than life-long conservatives Bob Barr and Dick Armey who have teamed up with the ACLU? Wake up, conselor! NBGPWS 05:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Er... conselor, you need to read up! :-) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes criminal prohibition of drugs. Not only is prohibition a proven failure as a drug control strategy, but it subjects otherwise law-abiding citizens to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for what they do in private. ACLU drug policy NBGPWS 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU is against laws that subject citizens to arrest for what they do in private, like own drugs - but for laws that subject citizens to arrest for what they do in private, like own guns.--Neverborn 08:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS, I must admit I'm surprised to find the ACLU defending Christians. I'm not one but I sympathize with them and do believe in (most) traditional Judeo-Christian values. You've made me least want to read a little more about the ACLU and find out if it's just window dressing or if they spend as much time on those kinds of cases as they do on the ones I vehemently disagree with. Thanks, though, for teaching me something I did not know before. Lawyer2b 12:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New section break; ACLU and such

Because the previous section is way too long and off topic by now anyway. I'm tempted to file all the pointless bickering under here. Rogue 9 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Ruthfulbarbarity 14:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There's simply no need for the ACLU to spend their precious time and resources on 2nd amendment issues when the NRA (one of the most powerful lobbies in the country) and several other orgs are specifically targeted at these issues. I don't think you would WANT them working on them as you and them are on opposite sides of the issue: "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." ACLU and guns Considering that Bob Barr - who is such a Gun Nut that once he shot off a gun in his congressional offices - joined and supports the ACLU - perhaps even you could put aside your differences of opinion with them on this issue, and join this org - the most important NGO fighting for our Constitutionally granted personal freedoms and civil liberties. This is not the place to discuss the important work of the ACLU though. Perhaps you would like to join me in editing that article? It's time to move on. Hmmmm - Maybe we could edit Moveon too! ;-) NBGPWS 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU's position on the right to keep and bear is unmitigated bullshit, and nothing but. They have their uses, but gun rights are not one of them, and free exercise is one only rarely. Now can we get back to the article, please?

Anyway, Kfir claimed he was misquoted and we all know it. Everyone involved saw the post, and we all know that the Kfir on the boards is, in fact, Kfir Alfia. All the obfuscation in the world will not change those basic facts. Rogue 9 13:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Neocons will probably remove this template from his homepage on Misplaced Pages-as he has done on several other occasions-I'll spare myself the trouble and just post it here.

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Please do not use them as a discussion forum.

Ruthfulbarbarity 15:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey R9 - regarding Keifer's alleged denial - please read the WP on OR (Original Research) or get L2B to explain it to you. Also, you're being revisionist when you claim that everyone knows Keifer claimed he had been misquoted. Even some PW's postulated that his quotes were 'taken out of context' not that he had been 'misquoted'. NBGPWS 20:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey R9 (Part II) Let's knock off the profanity, OK? I hope I won't be reading any more expletives like "bullshit" from you again! I was deeply shocked and personally offended to have to read that here! You don't need to be offensive and profane to get your point across. This isn't protest warrior - Wiki has SOME standards! NBGPWS 22:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Where in those standards is violating WP numerous times (including a few blocks for you) and to give an example, putting Nazi Party slogans in article where they don't belong? --Neverborn 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That was before I learned that the Wiki section of the Intrawebs is SERIOUS BUSINESS! NBGPWS 06:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored. I don't care how offended you are; it's not my problem that you have a thin skin. When trying to create a serious reference work, intellectual dishonesty is far more offensive and harmful than profanity, and you're exhibiting it in spades right now. You know for a fact that he denied saying those things, and are simply using an unrelated event (the removal of the board) as an excuse to remove that perfectly legitimate and important piece of information. Rogue 9 09:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not using any 'excuse'. If something can't be verified by WP approved sources, it's not legitimate and has no place on Wiki. You need to read up on WP. NBGPWS 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't.

The only person who needs to "read up" on the relevant Misplaced Pages guidelines is you, Neocons, because you have violated numerous ones throughout your time here and continue to do so on an almost daily basis. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just an outside view on this- Misplaced Pages is not censored, it's true. However, it is important to realize that that is irrelevant since the censorship in question refers to articlespace. The Misplaced Pages Civility guidelines are in place for discussion (e.g. on talk pages), and the use of inflammatory language on either side of a discussion is not appropriate, is divisive, and is not useful for a healthy discussion environment. I know how strongly everyone feels when it comes to political matters, but everyone should please remember to keep a cool head on talk pages. --Kuzaar 14:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are in place. Fortunately, I did not violate them, as the language was not directed at him. For example, I could have easily and justifiably called him a fucking moron, but refrained from using that most accurate description because of the silly, anachronistic view that policy takes on using the English language to it's fullest extent when it comes to other editors. I reiterate, the true harm and true incivility here is the intellectual dishonesty and outright trolling of NBGPWS, not a few descriptive adjectives that do no objective harm to anyone. Rogue 9 00:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't work yourself up into a such a lather Ruth! I've moved on to editing the entry of an org that actually exists, and matters! I'm still watching this one though, so don't get any ideas, like changing 13 PW's to 50 again! AFD coming soon! NBGPWS 06:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the top of this page:

This article was nominated for deletion on 23:07, 14 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Already been tried, and failed to produce results. Keep that AFD to yourself. Rogue 9 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming I'm not ALLOWED to AFD the article again? I think I can - and I probably will. PW has had no documented activity since the last AFD, and no mentions in the press that I can find. IMHO, it doesn't pass 'notability' test (if it ever did) NBGPWS 19:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And it will promptly be removed if you choose to do so.

Stop attempting to mutiliate this article, Neocons.

You've already been blocked-on five separate occasions-and been warned too many times to recount.

Your repeated attempts to introduce your own biases, deliberate factual errors and/or misleading information is not appreciated by any of the editors here.

This includes people who are Protest Warriors and those who are not, as well as people who theoretically support the goals of Protest Warrior and those who do not, so cease and desist from your attempt to paint yourself as the victim of some clandestine cabal.

However difficult this might be you should at the very least attempt to modify your behavior so that it comes into compliance with Misplaced Pages rules regarding civility and proper conduct. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior has engaged in several large operations-including co-sponsoring a rally outside of the NYT's headquarters where over 200 individuals were in attendance-and extensive media coverage since the last insipid afd nomination.

In fact, Protest Warrior was mentioned by National Review-an intellectual magazine of which I'm sure you're completely ignorant-a few months ago.

Either you are deliberately lying-in order to enhance your own tendentious, baseless, inaccurate accusations-or you are grossly ignorant of these matters, which leads me to believe that you have no business participating in this discussion in the first place. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep dreaming Ruth.

PW was supposed to take part in a rally Sept 23 or 24.

CNS

News reports and Free Republic make no mention that any Protest Warriors actually showed up. They mention all the other groups that said they would take part, but not Protest Warrior. Is this because, yet again, Protest Warrior failed to attend one of their own 'operations' due to lack of support?

Free Republic

Wash Times

Where ARE the after-action reports and pictures from the Protest Warriors - of this event that they were supposed to take part in?

When WAS the last PW 'operation' as documented on the Protest Warrior website or in the MSM?

NBGPWS 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Protest Warrior as an organization ceased existing simply because the public forums were shut down (which is as ridiculous a line of argument as I've ever heard, but whatever).

What makes this suddenly require deletion of the article? If you think it does, you have your work cut out. I suggest that you start by putting up George Washington's article for deletion; after all, he hasn't existed in over 200 years. You might then move on to the Peloponnesian War. In fact, there seem to be thousands of articles about people and events that no longer exist; I suggest you get busy.

Even if you were right, and you are not, you would have absolutely zero grounds to have this article deleted. Grow up and get over yourself. Rogue 9 23:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV opinion by a disinterested neutral party - Vpoko - was that PW was 'not notable' to begin with. It's even less so now. Civility, R9. Cheers. NBGPWS 05:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I have been civil long enough. My continued restraint is out of respect for Misplaced Pages policy and the other editors, not out of any goodwill towards you. You might yet earn my respect, but if you continue your current course, then that is extremely unlikely. Now, answer me: If you feel that people and things that no longer exist are not worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, why aren't you starting deletion referendums on articles about things that are actually long gone, instead of things that you merely wish were? I gave you two very excellent starting places, even. I suggest you either get cracking or drop the notion that this article needs to endure yet another pointless deletion vote. Rogue 9 12:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are being this obtuse unintentionally, or by design?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1701474/posts

In the wake of the September 11th five-year anniversary, it is important that service men and women and their families are given the support, appreciation and gratitude they deserve.

The rally is organized by FreeRepublic.com, Military Families Voice of Victory and Protest Warrior.

Either apprise yourself of the facts before pontificating upon things of which you know absolutely nothing-by all evidence-or cease to comment upon this subject.

Almost everything you've added to this discussion-since you joined this website-has been of a negative nature, and the fact that you continue to post misleading statements-either out of malicious intent, or simply due to pure, unadulterated ignorance-only demonstrates your bad faith.

Either learn about the subject under discussion, or remain silent.

How difficult is that concept to grasp, Neocons? Ruthfulbarbarity 04:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Grasp this Ruth: (read it again Ruth, as you're not comprehending)

PW was supposed to take part in the rally you referenced on Sept 23.

CNS

News reports and Free Republic make no mention that any Protest Warriors actually showed up. They mention ALL the other groups that said they would take part, but not Protest Warrior. Is this because, yet again, Protest Warrior failed to attend another 'operation' due to lack of support?

Free Republic

Wash Times

Where ARE the after-action reports and pictures from the Protest Warriors - of this event that they were supposed to take part in?

WHY ARE THERE NO REPORTS OF PW'S ACTUALLY BEING THERE? ONLY SAYING THAT THEY WOULD BE THERE, AND FROM ALL REPORTS, NOT SHOWING UP?

Do I need to repost - yet again - your candid admission that a PW counterprotest FOR THE ENTIRE NYC/NJ REGION would likely consist of ONLY YOU? I can, if you'd like! NBGPWS 05:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS: Please do not use article talk pages as a soapbox for any point of view. Using inflammatory language as you have in the above post detracts from the healthy contributing environment at the Misplaced Pages project. In the future, please either couch what you have to say in civil terms or do not put them forward. --Kuzaar 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PSHAW! In light of being told "Are being this obtuse unintentionally, or by design?" and "Either apprise yourself of the facts before pontificating upon things of which you know absolutely nothing-by all evidence-or cease to comment upon this subject." my vociferous response pointing out the obvious (that there are no reports of any Protest Warriors actually showing up at the 9/23 protests) a fact that I had to repeat three times, and still was never addressed, was not unwarranted, IMHO. NBGPWS 16:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. You have been inflammatory while carefully stepping to not violate WP:NPA. Misplaced Pages's civility guidelines apply to you just as any other editor. Both sides in the disputes on this talk page have trolled in the course of its development. As such I have warned the major transgressors that WP:CIVIL is not optional. Take that as you will; I will be watching this debate for any further attempts at baiting, trolling, or soapboxing. Keep the discussion on here civil and do not resort to expressing concerns in uncivil language and there will not be any problems. --Kuzaar 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK Kuzaar - I've decided to move on from this article anyway, as I believe the current edit is pretty much as accurate as it can be with the paucity of recent WP:RS mentions of Protest Warrior in the news. I do take slight exception to the article referring to a claim by Kfier that no longer exists - that I feel shouldn't be included. That's not such a big deal though. I will keep an eye on this entry however. Thanks for your help here. NBGPWS 02:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My replies-which, considering the provocation, have been rather mild-were only in response to NBG's insistence upon posting misleading, inaccurate and/or tangential information designed to sidetrack this debate.

This after being warned-on repeated occasions-of his infractions.

He's also removed several warning templates posted to his talk page, which is a flagrant violation of Misplaced Pages rules.

I have no problem observing the constraints of Misplaced Pages's civility guidelines-and you'll notice that with the sole exception of NeoCons no other editors have had problems collaborating with one another on this article-but NBG is trying everyone's patience. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New link for the article?

I thought I was through here, but somone just emailed me with a new link.

Protest Warrior

Should this informative and entertaining content be added to the article? What do you PW's think? NBGPWS 07:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're trolling again. Sputnik is a pitiful loser, and an overly arrogant one too, if he thinks the forums being down has anything at all to do with him. Rogue 9 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Neocons,

1. Stop trolling. You were doing so well avoiding this page-for weeks-so I suggest that you continue to do so.

2. Stop removing warning templates from your user page. If you want to delete critical comments, that's fine, but what you are doing now constitutes vandalism. With your track record I think you want to keep your nose clean henceforth. Ruthfulbarbarity 20:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice to R9 and RB: Template:Civil2 NBGPWS 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Finally there is a vocal group that defends the right of the southern states to secede at the start of the American Civil War and also supports at least in speech the dissolution of the United States of America to preserve true liberty." Did you write that, Ruthfulbarbarity??? If so, you took the Wiki suggestion to "be bold in your editing" to a new level! You still need to cite your sources though! NBGPWS 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would pay attention, you would see that the part in question was written by Hurrian22, not RB. diff Rogue 9 22:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification R9 - Most helpful! Maybe Ruthbar will rewrite it in the trademarked circumlocutory periphrastic style he's so well known for. NBGPWS 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't care if it was simply removed; while there are some members (whose numbers I could count on my fingers) who think that secession is a valid right, it's not an issue for the organization. Rogue 9 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

PSHAW! PW's spent an inordinate amount of time discussing Lincoln and his alleged constitutional abuses. It's like you were fighting the whole Civil War over again! Sometimes I wondered if I was in the 'Daughters of the Confederacy' forum, not PW! Y'all don't have that problem anymore! ;-) NBGPWS 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so do you want it in the article or not? Make up your mind. As of now, it appears that you're disagreeing just to be contrary. Rogue 9 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

STOP DELETING YOUR WARNING TEMPLATES!!!

I'm writing in capitalized letters in order to emphasize just how irritating your willful disregard of almost every Misplaced Pages rule-including those dealing with user pages, civility and notability-is.

The next time you violate these rules it will inevitably result in procedural action from Wiki administrators, rest assured. 01:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ruthfulbarbarity (talk • contribs) .

Quit harassing me by leaving unmerited warning templates on my talk page, Ruthbar. Not a single one was appropriate or deserved. I will delete any and all I don't agree with. If you don't like it, take it to the authorities. Why are you so obsessed with me, anyway? Please find a new hobby. NBGPWS 05:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 04:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my final warning.

Do not remove warning templates from your user page again!

If you feel that they are unmerited, then take the issue up with a Misplaced Pages administrator.

You are not allowed to dictate what rules you will or will not abide by, just as you are not allowed to determine when your behavior does and does not violate concrete, clearly delineated Misplaced Pages guidelines.

And please sign your statements with four tildas in the future, Neocons. Ruthfulbarbarity 04:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Quit harassing me with unwarranted warnings on my talk page. I'll remove any I see fit to! NBGPWS 05:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is only for discussion of the article. Personal disagreements should be settled elsewhere. -Will Beback 04:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this user is intentionally and willfully attempting to distort this article and insert his own tendentious opinions into it. Ruthfulbarbarity 14:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion is patently untrue. NBGPWS 20:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That Sputnik Media guy is a hoot! I don't know many communists (assuming that's what he is) so they're a rare and treasured bird in my book but to see one with such a thick Tex-country accent is just a riot! Thanks for sharing. What is this guy's URL, anyway? I couldn't tell from the video. Lawyer2b 21:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. - This other clip from him is hilarious! Yo, da whiteboy in dis vid does one mean gangsta accent. (Almost as well as I do, yo!)

Re added notability warning

An editor has expressed a concern that Protest Warrior does not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Misplaced Pages: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines.

From notability:

• In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources.
• In order to have a neutral article with minimal errors, a topic must be notable enough that there will be non-partisan editors interested in editing it.
• Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. As such, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc.

Based on two out of the three criteria listed above, PW does not merit inclusion. Sorry folks. NBGPWS 08:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does as it has participated in a number of newsworthy events that have been covered by media outlets. Further, that participation is historical in nature so the current or future status of PW is not relevant to it's notability. --Tbeatty 09:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears that you have bolded the items you don't think are being met, there ARE non-partisan editors willing to edit it. non-partisan doesn't not mean people who want to delete it or not delete, it means they can edit with a NPOV viewpoint. And for the third, it is not a criteria. It is a fact. Since PW meets inclusion requirements, it is obviously not indiscriminate. --Tbeatty 09:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not a non-partisan source to make that deterimination. I know for a fact that CAIR had never heard of Protest Warrior, for instance. If they were a 'notable' org they certainly would have. I'll make an RFC or something to get other peoples thoughts. Thanks for spurring me into action Ruthbar! NBGPWS 09:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not understanding the term 'Non-Partisan' as used by Wiki. It means, in this case, that an organization be of sufficient importance so that people who are not actively involved with the organization - either in support of - or in opposition to - would be interested in editing the article. PW fails the test. I'm so sorry, but that's the honest truth. NBGPWS 09:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not inolved in the organization in any way nor have I ever supported it. I believe that meets the criteria. --Tbeatty 21:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may point out, by your own criteria, you yourself are not a non-partisan source to make that determination either. Apply your standards uniformly or (preferably) stop trying to dictate how Misplaced Pages shall be run. Rogue 9 12:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That is entirely true R9, and the reason I suggested proposing an RFC. With the exception of mediators who have been called here to settle disputes, every editor who has worked on this article since I arrived has been either a strong supporter or detractor of PW. The fact that PW is not sufficiently notable to attract uninvolved Wiki editors without strong Pro or Anti PW views is indisputable. NBGPWS 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Neocons, stop the shenanigans.

You've already been blocked from editing this article five times and have received warnings too numerous to recount in any detail.

The more you engage in these antics the more likely it is that you will be prevented from editing this article in the future.

Misplaced Pages is not an anything goes message board or your private bailiwick, where you can choose to selectively abide by the rules or disregard them altogether. Ruthfulbarbarity 16:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Response not merited. NBGPWS 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS, your sincere and heartfelt apologies for exposing the article's apparent inability to satsify the notability guidelines are both noted and appreciated. What are we to do?! Perhaps, per the policy, you can help us establish its notability by finding more reliable sources to cite! Also, maybe you can help us find a flaw in your seemingly incontrovertible logic. I know that's doubtful but hopefully your sympathy can be parlayed into a self-examination. How about this logical conundrum as a start?

• Situation A: Per User:Rogue 9, you are a partisan and not in a position to be able to render an unbiased opinion on the matter.
• Situation B: You are, indeed, a non-partisan whose editing presence satisfies the requirement for neutrality.

Either way, the matter appears moot. Please do not let your brain overheat and emit smoke from your ears like the robot in I, Mudd who was told Mudd always spoke the truth only to have Mudd state, "I am lying." Lawyer2b 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My brain is quite cool - but thank you for your concern, L2B. I admit I am partisan, just like all the PW supporters working on the article. None of us are impartial judges of PW's notability, or non-notability. My thought was to do an RFC, so Wikipedians who have never HEARD of Protest Warrior, and have no vested interest in it, could weigh in with their objective opinions as to whether or not Protest Warrior is sufficiently notable for inclusion. NBGPWS 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, an RFC on any topic is welcomed at any time. Except, wasn't this matter brought before and decided one way or another, here?Lawyer2b 20:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That was quite a while ago though. You might be thinking of this fair and honest assessment from one of the few non-partisan, disinterested, uninvolved Wiki mods who have worked on this obscure and nugatory article:

"The issue with PW is that it's so non-notable to begin with. No major publication is going to report on it, and come to think of, nobody is going to read this article." Vpoko 19:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Does that jog your memory, counselor?NBGPWS 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't remember that statement but Vpoko (and anybody else holding that opinion) is simply factually mistaken. As the article itself shows, the organization has been reported by the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, CBS, et al. If the organization is not notable it is certainly not evidenced by a lack of coverage in mainstream national media; in fact, the coverage it has received supports its notability. Lawyer2b 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since he had studied PW's notability and was aware of those previous mentions, he must have meant: "The issue with PW is that it's so non-notable to begin with. No major publication is going to report on it" ANYMORE - not since its leaders abandoned the organization, and it no longer counter-protests on a regular basis, or in meaningful numbers." I'm sure that's what he meant. NBGPWS 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!" I think your already weak argument, unfortunately, looks even worse when the most supportive quote you have requires words tacked onto the end to make serve your purpose; but no matter. It sounds like you're saying that if an organization was reported in the national media for a period of time ceases to be reported, it should be candidate for reevaluating its notability? While your previous actions belie the assumption of good faith, I've always enjoyed humoring you and personally don't have a problem with an RFC to do that. Pray tell, how much time has passed since the organization has been reported and what type of an absence should indicate a reevaluation is in good order? Lawyer2b 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You know darn well that the article wouldn't have survived the AFD without dozens of meatpuppets recruited on Free Republic. Do I need to post the link? (thanks for the link to that AFD discussion, L2B, I had lost it) I think this comment sums things up rather well.

"Delete - Protest Warrior consists of very few people whatsoever. It claims to be global but offers no proof. Furthermore, it has videos on display with CLEARLY illustrate that it can mount counter-protests no larger than two dozen people. It is not global and it might have a few hundred people in it AT BEST. The forums are also incredibly small, with only a half dozen users on at any given time. It is NOT comparable to Free Republic or Democratic Underground forums. It's not worthy of anything, half the people ranting "keep" apparently are members and want attention. For God's sake, they managed to round up less than 30 people for a counter-protest at the Sept 24 March on Washington. How is it even an organization? My local PTA could put them to shame in comparable numbers. The attention mongers don't really deserve an article.--Grebrook 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)"

And even that post inflates PW's numbers by a factor of two! NBGPWS 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior's notability is not a matter for serious consideration at this late date, and the personal opinion of editors with respect to the organization has no bearing on its notability.

Leaving aside the fact that the notability of Protest Warrior has already been considered-and your criticisms dismissed by a substantial number of people involved in creating and monitoring this article-the extensive media coverage, on MSNBC and Fox News, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Savage Nation, as well as in the pages of the New York Times, Austin-American Statesman, Washington Post, National Review among many other notable magazines, newspapers and journals, should put this issue to rest.

I'm sorry Neo, but that dog just won't hunt, so I suggest that you bark up another tree. Ruthfulbarbarity 03:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Woof! NBGPWS 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm placing this template on the talk page-cognizant of the fact that it does not relate directly to the PW article-because NBG will-based upon precedent-in all likelihood remove it from his user page, where it belongs. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not insert warnings intended for user talk pages on article talk pages. Additionally, please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. --Kuzaar 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

He hasn't removed the warning I affixed to his user page, so I removed the one above. Ruthfulbarbarity 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. --Kuzaar 16:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. Ruthfulbarbarity 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take Kuzaar's sage advice, especially that regarding personal attacks, to heart, Ruthbar. I would hate to see you get banned! NBGPWS 07:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The activity of PW has little to do with noteability. There are many groups still relevent to encyclopediac reference eith far less than the number of members PW has. Piuro 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please merge Kifer's article into PW

After reading many well known Conservative deletionist's views on the 'non notability' of Andy Stephenson, it's obvious that Kifer's article will not survive the onslaught of this group, many who are active here. Andy's life and work was about 100X as notable as Kifer's, so Kifer's article doesn't stand a chance!

Please merge Kifer's info into the PW article before it gets nominated for an AFD! There was a merge template there for months, but R9 removed it. I just put it back.

R9, was that an indication that you are about to AFD the article?

Thanks NBGPWS 22:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)