Choose Your Own Adventure of CYOA History, If you choose to ignore the published sources, turn to Page 23 Options

[Milton Roe]

Yes, because (as we've seen) the mainstream media online is so much more investigative and hard-hitting than your average blogger. The mainstream online media would never just regurgitate the PR pablum handed it by various organizations who want to appear newsworthy.

Apparently, 60 Minutes now considers Julian Assange to be a journalist.

Well, Steve Croft says that in passing, but he then immediately says that Assange is primarily a publisher. I don't really know what Croft means in using the word "journalist" for Assange. Assange has edited some of what he's published-- that does make him a journalist? Or just an editor? What defines a "journalist" anyway? It's very MUCH the essential difference in WP:NOR, and Assange clearly is on the non-original-research part of that divide. If he wasn't, he'd be more vulnerable to accusatations of espionage.

[thekohser]

Mods, could you split Milton's important, but no less derailing content to another thread about the Baghdad incident? It really has very, very, very little to do with "Choose Your Own Adventures", and such drastic and obvious derailments should be rebuked.

I mean, how hard is it to "Reply", then copy the code and text that comes up in the window, then go open another thread in the Politics forum, saying that something said in another thread inspired you to discuss another topic?

Come on, Milton. Good stuff, but try to organize it, please?

[Silver seren]

I never actually saw the Collateral Murder video before. Geez, that's horrifying.

[Milton Roe]

Mods, could you split Milton's important, but no less derailing content to another thread about the Baghdad incident? It really has very, very, very little to do with "Choose Your Own Adventures", and such drastic and obvious derailments should be rebuked.

I mean, how hard is it to "Reply", then copy the code and text that comes up in the window, then go open another thread in the Politics forum, saying that something said in another thread inspired you to discuss another topic?

Come on, Milton. Good stuff, but try to organize it, please?

The thread was actually derailed by YOUR comments about the RS value of the Examiner (and this is relevent to the top post, how?), followed by Eric's comment on Assange. I just helped it go further once the train was off the track already.

Anyway, in interest of nonduplication and so on, I have deleted all the Baghdad stuff in THIS thread. My decision to repost it to start another thread was made somewhat after the fact anyway, and that's why I didn't do it at the time in THIS thread.

[EricBarbour]

Damn, that talkpage is starting to look like stream-of-consciousness babbling -- by arrogant nerds.

1)To my knowledge of the situation, a DMCA Counter-Request is not applicable. 2)The person raising the issue is being assisted in understanding better ways to resolve the dispute and work with Wikipedia editors. The people involved know that usual dispute resolution processes such as RFC might be used with some content decisions. 3)We are looking for high quality scholarly sources to use as the main references for the article instead of the previous sources which were mostly short blurbs or PR related material. 4)I apologize for the delay but I do not think that rewriting the article piecemeal is going work in this particular situation. 5)Please no speculation about legal issues by Packard or Montgomery. This is entirely unfounded speculation and something that is not appropriate because we do not want to spread false information.

Patience please as we work to find sources that will make the article accurately reflect the cultural phenomena that the book series is. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about the legal stuff etc. but can someone please fix the broken ref code? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't care about the "legal stuff". Ha ha. Twit.

[thekohser]

The thread was actually derailed by YOUR comments about the RS value of the Examiner (and this is relevent to the top post, how?)...

Milton, don't be a nitwit when you're wrong. My comment about Examiner was specifically to offer TO WRITE AN ARTICLE THERE ABOUT THE CYOA INCIDENT ON WIKIPEDIA. It is entirely relevant to the top post, thus influencing the course of the Wikipedia article about Choose Your Own Adventure.

You've been watching too much Bill O'Reilly.

[Silver seren]

Okay, i'm getting rather pissed off now. I am not going to give this up.

[thekohser]

Okay, i'm getting rather pissed off now. I am not going to give this up.

Keep at it, tiger. I'm rooting for you on this one. Let truth and justice prevail!

[Silver seren]

It just really pisses me off because it is so transparent that they are trying to ignore those of us voicing objections so that we'll end up forgetting about it.

What I don't understand is that, from some things that FloNight has stated, there appears to have been a DMCA request sent to Wikipedia?

If so, I am utterly perplexed on how it could have been worded because, as far as I know, the article did not contain any secret information and it wasn't really biased at all based on its content.

Can you really have a legitimate DMCA request based on just the existence of information about you?

And the article is currently way more biased than it was before, with that reference and EL.

[Kelly Martin]

What I don't understand is that, from some things that FloNight has stated, there appears to have been a DMCA request sent to Wikipedia?

There probably was. This sort of thing is exactly the sort of nonsense about which people try to use the DMCA abusively, and this guy seems like about the right sort to do it. In my opinion the WMF should simply deny and publish the DMCA complaint (that being the proper response to people who try to abuse process), but the WMF is too cowardly to do this. Instead, they pretend to the DMCA complainant that they're complying, and at the same time agitate the community (that is, you) to be uncooperative, so that the complainant will end up unsatisfied but the WMF appears blameless (and thus is unlikely to be sued). Basically a form of institutional passive-aggressiveness, one of Jimbo's many traits that shines through quite clearly into the monster he created.

As to why they don't simply state that a DMCA request was made, well, you know how information is power, right? Those in the know (e.g. FloNight and the other High Friends of Jimmy) aren't going to just tell anyone, because if they did the value of that information would go down just like that. No, they only tell people who have a "need to know" (which is to say, people who can be trusted not to devalue information by spreading it about nilly-willy); by so doing they score favor points with whomever they do tell, and perpetuate their own little power-boners. Wikipedia's internal politics are mired in secret-keeping, strategic promise-breaking, and backstabbings, all driven by this pathetic information economy.

[Tarc]

Okay, i'm getting rather pissed off now. I am not going to give this up.

Keep at it, tiger.

I see what you did there.

[Silver seren]

Yes, nice pun, Kohser. Though i'm not a tiger, but whatever.

Hopefully we'll be making some progress at reconstructing this article.

At least FloNight explained what's going on. Finally. Though, again, it's kinda in a roundabout, confusing way, but whatever.