User:Ardonik/photo-op-temp

- Amgine/talk 05:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC) So how are people supposed to edit the article cnstructively if it is protected? Couldn't you just protect it from publication or something? - Nyarlathotep 05:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nyarlathotep, the truth of the matter is Mr. Misc. doesn't want this info made available because of his political ideology. You'll have to make a new article or incorporate this info into another article probably.  I would think that the latter is the better idea and will be easy because you can just copy the source.  WIKINEWS readers should know that a Senator from LA thinks Bush is engaging in propaganda at the expense of human life.  Mr. Misc. shows that he really doesn't care about human life.. it's just all about "his side" winning and supporting his leader no matter how wrong, how inept or how evil that leader may be.


 * He is a sick, sad man. More power to you, Nyarlathotep.  If anyone else out there cares about human life, please try to get this info out..  without the spread of truth like this, America will very well remain unsafe for further disasters and terror attacks.  If you love this country and human life, help get the truth out any way you can.  Don't let sad, ignorant, evil idiots like Mr. Misc. stop you.  Godspeed.  Oh, and when are you MORONS going to learn you can't block my IP? There are FAR too many of us against you. Hahaha... - Truth 220.83.111.225 06:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As a disinterested third party, I will be frank with you: by leaving inflammatory comments and starting meaningless articles, you are making yourself look like an idiot and you are drowning out any legitimate concerns that you might have actually had. Please read w:WP:POINT and think about why that policy exists.  You're not proving anything to anyone.  --Ardonik.talk(*) 07:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you were truly a "disinterested third party" you would unlock this article and let it be edited. If you were truly a "disinterested third party" you would have reprimanded Mr. Misc. for his heavy-handed and insulting approach towards this article from the get go! Mr. Misc. pulled the article without first talking about it on the talk page and referred to the article right off the bat as "very, very idiotic".  He made lame "arguments" such as, "...if we published stories on every senator's claims of anything...".  What?!
 * Mr. Misc. says this garbage even though it was NOT a claim from just ANY Senator; it's a claim from the damn Senator of Louisiana! What an idiot!  Since he obviously can't debate his way out of a wet paper bag, he instead chooses to simply pull the article without a prior discussion and throws insults to boot... and now, on top of everything else, he makes sure that it's locked.  It's well known Mr. Misc is a hardcore right-wing conservative and is upset with the people he perceives as liberals posting here. (He said all this on his bio page that he has since deleted like a coward chickenhawk)  OK, I'll be frank with YOU, Ardonik... you are are the one who looks like an idiot taking this moron's side in this.  You have made NO mention of Mr. Misc.'s role in this... that does NOT make you sound like a "disinterested third party" at all... it make you sound like a LIAR. - Truth 68.45.8.169 07:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)  (Be sure to block this IP too since you don't agree with me)


 * Dude, I'm not an admin. Your article just wasn't all that newsworthy.  Get over yourself already.  The rest of us have news to cover.  --Ardonik.talk(*) 20:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ardonik, I don't care what you are. You are the one who who locked this article after Mr. Misc. abruptly pulled it (it's in the history, so please don't lie about this).  We have the Senator of LA saying the President of the United States is trying to "manufacture consent" at the peril of the LA people who are literally dying out there as we speak... and you say that's not "newsworthy" in your opinion?  You are obviously biased and not "a disinterested third party" as you have lied.  Once again, you completely ignore Mr. Misc.'s behavior and focus on your "opinion" of the article. Hardly a unbiased approach to say the least.  There is a consensus both for and against this article being published, but because of your opinion against this article you have chosen to lock it.  You can lie all you want, but the cat is now out of the bag that you locked this article based on bias. Maybe it's time you got "over" yourself, Ardonik... and let the WIKINEWS readership decide what to think?


 * I am not an admin. I cannot protect or delete pages.  I just joined this project a few days ago.  You're making yourself look stupid.  --Ardonik.talk(*) 21:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ardonik, OK, nevermind... it was "Amgine" who locked it... you were just the jerk who kept pulling the article down, etc. by changing tags. BTW, you look simply brilliant in all this taking the side of a guy who refers to the Senator of LA as "just another Senator" in a disaster that actually takes place in LA.  Brilliant.  By the way, what a coincidence you joined the project just as Mrmiscellanious started his little battle here.  Wow, what a total coincidence, right?  Boggles the mind for those of us who "look stupid" here. Hahaha... 212.0.138.90


 * All you had to do was check the history to see that I never edited your article. What's more, you appear to be accusing me of being a sock puppet of User:Mrmiscellanious,  despite the fact that I'm the same Ardonik who has made more than 3000 edits to the English Wikipedia.
 * I've seen few people who were willing to embarass themselves as thoroughly as you just have, even anonymously. --Ardonik.talk(*)22:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ardonik, I just checked the history and it's conveniently incomplete now. I saw where you had made changes before, but now the history appears to have been revised. I may be wrong about this (hey, unlike you guys I CAN admit when I may be wrong about something.. amazing, huh?)  Nonetheless, you should be throughly embarrassed with yourself, jackass.  You just completely ignored all my points against you (besides editing) because you do NOT have a case.  Look, I hate to treat you like an idiot... but you leave me no choice, READ the WIKI rules.  READ THEM.  Mr. Misc. did NOT follow them and DID not pull the article as a LAST RESORT and on top of everything else, he was NOT polite about it in the spirit of WIKINEWS.  Ardonik, I don't care where the hell you come from and why you are trying to gang up on me with an idiot like Mr. Misc.... but you two are putting your heads together and making a complete ass out of yourselves.  Defending Mr. Misc.'s hollow points, bad attitude (from the get-go) and rule-breaking only makes you look like his sock puppet.  Sorry if the truth hurts.

Cowicide, do you bother everyone on the internet or just us? Grow up - get a life and stop blaming everyone for your problems in it. --Mrmiscellanious 12:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Mrmiscellanious, I'm not Cowicide but I just noticed your great "professional" comeback here. Great consistency... very much like you started here with the same insulting, moronic tone carried on throughout!  Wow, with all these tactful skills piling up I bet you'll be a sexually repressed conservative editor/writer like Jeff Gannon in no time!   You know... you'll be more like Gannon instead of the complete failure you are now.  Keep up the great work!  One day you'll be an even greater anti-gay, closeted-gay, hypocritical, conservative, anti-sex (unless with little boys, natch), partisan, intolerant, worthless, anti-American hack.  If anyone can do it, you can.  I'd wish you good luck with this, but I don't think you'll need it.  : )   219.93.174.108 17:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the only answer is to copy the source and start a new article and publish it. or ask that Mr. Misc and anyone else censoring this legit article be banned/removed from sysop priv's. Mr. Misc has made it clear in other channels (through his fake "disinterested third party" that he'll never unlock this article or allow it to be published. Mr. Misc can't cope with the fact that a LA Senator is claiming Bush created a Katrina disaster photo op. His little hero is falling apart at the seams. His little hero is a failure and Mr. Misc's pea-brain can't cope with it. In the meantime, the only thing Mr. Misc. still has control of in this world is suppressing this article... trying to hold on to the strands while everything around him unravels and comes apart before his eyes... Mr. Misc. knows his little hero is in big trouble and he's doing "his part" to suppress the unflinching truth... that people are VERY upset with his little hero. Mr. Misc is having a nervous breakdown. 212.0.138.90 18:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Photos?
If anyone has access to photos of that Presidential photo op or more info on it... it would be greatly appreciated. I hope this isn't too bare bones, but since this is from a PR release I'm not sure what else there is to say except link the release and let readers judge for themselves what to think. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 02:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is one photo showing him fooling around for the cameras after the hurricane. But I can't tell you if this is the photo op. Anyway I expect it is owned by AP so we need to know if we can use it. - Nyarlathotep 02:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC) http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050830/capt.capm10108301730.bush_capm101.jpg?x=380&y=319&sig=S9PIuC6ZS7lKJDr57sKhDQ--


 * From what I hear from the grapevine, I think the photo op in question has two young women (or girls) in it and was on video as well? Not sure though. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 02:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I feel that this is a couple young girls playing around with the news. -Edbrown05 03:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Edbrown, it would help if you openly discussed your problem with this article instead of passive-aggressively insulting me and Nyarlathotep. Nyarlathotep, I'm not sure if that text and photo of Bush playing guitar fits this article really? - Cowicide 68.3.52.158 03:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: note that Edbrown (who suddenly appears just before Mr. Misc. gets here) goes on to blatantly attempt to mark this page for "speedy removal" later. 195.205.195.131 19:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

So what?
This is not newsworthy. If we published stories on every senator's claims of anything, it would result in very, very idiotic articles. And I use that term lightly. Clean up this article to include more information, remove the high bias, then think about publishing. There is no way it will be published under it's current form. --Mrmiscellanious 03:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It could be moved to the other article I created for amalgamating interesting quotes, but she is playing a major role in this, as its her state. So a strong press release from her is most definitely news all on its own.  I've got some bits I can add to cut her down a notch though.  - Nyarlathotep 03:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just as I predicted in earlier talk threads, a biased conservative admin (Mrmiscellanious in particular) has now pulled my article. You are very predictable, Mrmiscellanious, Hahaha.  You say, "...If we published stories on every senator's claims...".  First of all, this is not just ANY senator, this is a LA senator!  I make it very clear that this is only a claim on the LA Senator's part.  How the living hell is that "high bias"????  Mrmiscellanious, you are the one with "high bias" around here.  Your frantic outburst inferring this is a "very, very idiotic" article... is very unprofessional and VERY telling of your bias.  The only thing I don't like is the Bush text and photo that was added at the end.. but I did not add that.  I'll delete that part and resubmit this NON-BIASED article that, once again, makes it very clear that this is only a claim on the LA Senator's part. - Cowicide 68.3.52.158 03:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Will you two please cool it with the edit war so that I can fix this thing! - Nyarlathotep 03:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I made changes; then republished it. But, within seconds (that means Mrmiscellanious didn't even bother to read it) he pulled the article again. Mrmiscellanious, I'm going to deal with YOU outside of WIKINEWS. See you later.  - Cowicide 68.3.52.158 03:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Cowicide, explain how Reverting tags with explanations on the talk page is changing the article. All you did was ignore my input, as a Wikinews contributor, and plausible cases as to why this article isn't NPOV, and why there is no reason for it to be a news article.  You do not just assume that my edits do not count and you can remove tags without even discussing it fairly.  --Mrmiscellanious 03:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

MrMisc, your Notnews tag needs to go, this is definitely news; keep the npov tag, for now. Cowicide, it is reasonable to delay publishing the article until it gets fleshed out a bit more. This article is going to make it just fine in the long run, but we have tons of good NO articles right now, so delaying this one for clean up is a good idea. - Nyarlathotep 03:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If any story deserves to out political staging it would be this one which has haunted up the spectre of race and class divisions that the nation has collectively ignored for decades. Publish it as it is --Rakista 04:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

after edit war I
Cowicide, We should descide whether to keep the Bush photo sentence or not. I favor keeping it and NPOVing it, as I think a paragraph of links to pictures and videos is a good thing for this article. - Nyarlathotep 03:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

MrMisc, Why did you insert the word mocked? Did you even look at the source? He is not mocking her, he is pissed off at her. - Nyarlathotep 03:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nyarlathotep, I was just ICQ'd from Cowicide. He said his IP address has been banned from editing this talk page/article.  So I guess any more progress in this article is up to you and others.  He sends his regards to the nazi conservative "MrMisc." guy.  Later,Assassin


 * Assassin, I think Cow was playing a little joke on you just to get you to come and post. Cowicide can be any IP address at any time; I'm sure the Cow is still here and can/does post at will.  It's impossible to ban the Cow from here... it's Cow vs. mental midgets and there's no hope for them. See you in the funny pages, Nate 212.0.138.90

Unprotection request
Alright, I tried to include Sen Landreiu's statment on the "Tempers flaire over New Orleans tragedy" page, but I could quite make it work out properly, so I did not save my changes. The truth is this story is an accusation, by a senator, that the president used aid resources to gain a photo op. She ain't just some web pundit! Even if she is wrong, the accusation itself is news, no two ways about it. I included bits about her own press pandering prior to protection, more can be done in this direction. If Bush bothers to respond, that responce can be quoted too. - Nyarlathotep 12:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

News sources

Less relevant


 * The problem I'm having is that it only shows one side of the story. It only has information on the LA Senator's claims, it has nothing from other people other than generic "let's blame Bush" terminology.  It's a trainwreck.  There's no substance.  Simply submitting recent quotes doesn't constitute an article.  --Mrmiscellanious 12:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So what is to be done about articles that discuss the Administration's actions in Iraq? Are we now to include the information from the insurgents as well to show both sides? Is that the direction we should be heading? An encyclopedic entry is one thing. It should show all relevant information. But a news article is different. If you want, we can include Senator Lott's statement than now is not the time to complain about the response time of the government, would that be a sufficient counter balance to the LA Senator's concerns?70.120.92.246 13:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that would make an excellent balance. Thank you for helping to improve Wikinews.  --Mrmiscellanious 14:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to see Sen. Lott's comments included, and they make an excelent ending to the article, but I think I can claim Cooper's comments already do a better job of "balancing". I'd like to give the idea that there was a 24+ hour time lapse between Cooper's commetns and the press release. I would still like to include a picture of Bush's photo op, but no one will object to that. I'd also like to be able to link to the WMV of Cooper going balistic, a link which someone removed for some reason. Anyone know why? - Nyarlathotep 18:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Nyarlathotep. Check the history and see if they made a note. I don't know who removed it, it wasn't me. If they didn't talk about it here first or leave some kind of valid justification for removing it, then I would just put it back again? Maybe there are copyright issues with it? 219.93.174.108 18:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the only reason why I deleted it. If CNN was hosting the video, you could link to it - but we really aren't supposed to link to copyrighted material.  --Mrmiscellanious 18:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious, in the future please start following WIKINEWS rules and discuss things before you make changes to other's work or at the very least note why you've edited someone else's work so they can check the history to see why it was edited. 212.0.138.90


 * I think you miss-spoke, but I get your point. We link to nonsharable copyrighted material all the time, no proble.  We can not host it ourselves, but we can link to it.  However, we must be careful in linking to things which are not permanent, as we'd like the story to retain its current form.  Moreover, we should avoid linking to sites which are themsevels infringing on the copyright, as a repost of a news broadcast may be doing.  Okay, easy enough to fix, I can either link to a short version or to a transcript, or ideally to CNN. - Nyarlathotep 21:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The reasons were discussed on this page for all the edits made here. However, some resorted to name-calling instead of offering viable solutions.  The matter is still available to be discussed upon, that is unless someone wants to "take it outside of Wikinews"...--Mrmiscellanious 19:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious, you just actually had the nerve to say, "...however, some resorted to name-calling instead of offering viable solutions..." ?!?! You are being incredibly hypocritcal. It was YOU who first launced insults and didn't offer a "viable" solution. How the hell do you look in the mirror? Did your mother raise you to be a hypocritcal liar or what? It just seems so ingrained in you. Damn, dude. And now here you go threatening someone because they tried to ask you to be more polite & dicuss edits here. You are losing it.

Unprotection request
The Senator should be heard. All week she has been praising Bush's efforts, and the efforts of the Federal government, and has worn her best diplomatic face in their defense. She was excoriated for this by Anderson Cooper on CNN a few days ago. The Bush Administration's manipulations of the press have been well documented by both the American and international press and her press release documenting this particularly callous and heartless propaganda opportunity by President Bush is newsworthy. She is not some fringe lunatic, she is a United States Senator who has seen first hand what is going on at the epicenter of this disaster since day one. The censorship of this article by wikimedia is appalling, and the editor should be banned from participation in Wikinews.


 * I think the only answer is to copy the source and start a new article and publish it. or ask that Mr. Misc and anyone else censoring this legit article be banned/removed from sysop priv's. Mr. Misc has made it clear in other channels (through his fake "disinterested third party" that he'll never unlock this article or allow it to be published.  Mr. Misc can't cope with the fact that a LA Senator is claiming Bush created a Katrina disaster photo op.  His little hero is falling apart at the seams.  His little hero is a failure and Mr. Misc's pea-brain can't cope with it.  In the meantime, the only thing Mr. Misc. still has control of in this world is suppressing this article... trying to hold on to the strands while everything around him unravels and comes apart before his eyes... Mr. Misc. knows his little hero is in big trouble and he's doing "his part" to suppress the unflinching truth... that people are VERY upset with his little hero.  Mr. Misc is having a nervous breakdown. 219.93.174.108 18:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cowicide:


 * I DID NOT lock this article. Amgine is a real contributor, unlike what I can say about you - I will come out and say it: you are a troll.  You do not deserve to be on this site if you cannot even comprehend that others may have differing views than you.  And to a much larger extent, I am sickened by your ways of thinking if you keep calling me a "Nazi" on my pages, or very racist derogative terms that you try to slip through my signed comments.  Do you know me?  No.  Do you know what my beliefs are?  Briefly.  You have a very sick stereotype that I am a Nazi soldier inclined to kill anyone who is not white or right-wing.  That is very, very sickening.  Do yourself a favor, get a psychiatrist.  Your vandalism, spam, idiocy and disrespect of others is not what we need here.  Do I hate freedom of speech?  Hell no, I'm using it right now to call you a troll.  And that is a little too nice to be called for a person with your immaturity.  --Mrmiscellanious 18:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * :Mrmiscellanious, get a grip. It hasn't gone unnoticed that you started all ths by pulling the article without even discussing it on the talk page first (like a troll).  On top of that, you were very insulting about it (like a troll).  All anyone has to do is read your first post above and look through the history to see that you are the biased troll around here. - Nate 212.0.138.90

The Senator's statement is available on her web site.

http://landrieu.senate.gov/releases/05/2005903E12.html

Blocking it here is blatant case of private censorship by an overly zealous partisan editor.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 09/03/2005

Landrieu Implores President to "Relieve Unmitigated Suffering;" End FEMA's "Abject Failures"

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., issued the following statement this afternoon regarding her call yesterday for President Bush to appoint a cabinet-level official to oversee Hurricane Katrina relief and recovery efforts within 24 hours.

Sen. Landrieu said:

"Yesterday, I was hoping President Bush would come away from his tour of the regional devastation triggered by Hurricane Katrina with a new understanding for the magnitude of the suffering and for the abject failures of the current Federal Emergency Management Agency. 24 hours later, the President has yet to answer my call for a cabinet-level official to lead our efforts. Meanwhile, FEMA, now a shell of what it once was, continues to be overwhelmed by the task at hand.

"I understand that the U.S. Forest Service had water-tanker aircraft available to help douse the fires raging on our riverfront, but FEMA has yet to accept the aid. When Amtrak offered trains to evacuate significant numbers of victims -- far more efficiently than buses -- FEMA again dragged its feet. Offers of medicine, communications equipment and other desperately needed items continue to flow in, only to be ignored by the agency.

"But perhaps the greatest disappointment stands at the breached 17th Street levee. Touring this critical site yesterday with the President, I saw what I believed to be a real and significant effort to get a handle on a major cause of this catastrophe. Flying over this critical spot again this morning, less than 24 hours later, it became apparent that yesterday we witnessed a hastily prepared stage set for a Presidential photo opportunity; and the desperately needed resources we saw were this morning reduced to a single, lonely piece of equipment. The good and decent people of southeast Louisiana and the Gulf Coast -- black and white, rich and poor, young and old -- deserve far better from their national government.

"Mr. President, I'm imploring you once again to get a cabinet-level official stood up as soon as possible to get this entire operation moving forward regionwide with all the resources -- military and otherwise -- necessary to relieve the unmitigated suffering and economic damage that is unfolding."

Today's aerial tour of the 17th Street levee will be featured tomorrow on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Later, Sen. Landrieu will also appear on CBS's 60 Minutes.

Page protection
A few points to note, the page was not protected by MrMiscellanious, Amgine. It was protected because Cowicide broke the rules repeatedly. A page like this would normally be unprotected in a few hours, but users have decided to engage in childish personal attacks. --Cspurrier 19:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Also please note that the page WAS first pulled by MrMiscellanious (a known right-wing zealot) without discussing it first on the talk page. MrMiscellanious was the VERY first person here to initiate personal attacks (basically calling the submitter an idiot) and "break the rules" by imposing his will WITHOUT a discussion. All one has to do is read his title and insulting tone in his first post (after already pulling the article) to see that this is all about MrMiscellanious' bias and not about a NPOV.  In the end, this article was "protected" because MrMiscellanious has an agenda to support President Bush and can't control his insulting, troll-like, biased behavior.  It has not gone unnoticed that MrMiscellanious has not been reprimanded for his behavior whatsoever by Cspurruier.  212.0.138.90
 * Just a question, why does it matter what my beliefs are? AFAIK, I didn't see a "no conservatives" sign when I joined this project.  --Mrmiscellanious 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The page was not "pulled" by anyone, it was just changed back to developing story status, very few stories should be marked as published right away, this story only has one source and few minor pov problems, most of these issues would have been resolved if Cowicide had refrained from reverting. MrMiscellanious has not been reprimanded for his behaviour, because he has done exactly what he is supposed to do. Also as anyone looking at this page can tell he did not call submitter a idiot. He merely said reporting every senator's claims would result in idiotic articles, and I agree just because someone is a senator does not make everything they say or do news, in this case it may be news, since he is the senator of LA but the story was not ready, so puting it back into the developing story area was the right thing to do. --Cspurrier 19:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious, it's your behavior. Once you exhibit an insulting tone from the get go and slash an article without discussion... people are going to look into your ulterior motives. Sorry, but that's how it is... that's life. If you followed proper procedure here and discussed this article politely before pulling it, no one would really care what your beliefs are or suspect they influence your decisions here. You've made your bed, now you're going to have to sleep in it. 212.0.138.90


 * I dealed with the article like the policies tell me to. You're trying to write your own policies.  I will not abide to them.  --Mrmiscellanious 20:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Dammit, Mrmiscellanious... I was really hoping I wouldn't have to sit and point out the rules to you.. you're a big boy, right? Can't you find them on your own? Guess not... HERE, READ the WIKI rules. Those are NOT MY policies. Now just follow the damn rules and take your biased agenda OUT of this for once! 212.0.138.90


 * Cspurrier, the page was "pulled" out initially by Mr. Misc., the history clearly shows this. You say MrMiscellanious has not been reprimanded for his behavior because he has done "exactly" what he is supposed to do?  You mean insulting people and pulling an article without discussion first is "exactly" what he's supposed to do? Cspurrier, you REALLY need to read the WIKI rules and get with it in spirit and practice. You also say Mr. Misc. "merely" stated that reporting on every senator's claims would result in idiotic articles... and you agree or something? (you are not very clear here) But then you admit it's really not just "any" Senator, is it? It's the damn Senator of LA, isn't it?  Yep.  Not a valid point against the article... at all.  Yep.  Look, ignoring MrMisc.'s bad behavior and rule-breaking is only making you look incredibly biased and unprofessional.  Would it kill you to just admit MrMisc. could have handled this better in the first place?  Or... is that against your bias? 212.0.138.90


 * I've seen the fire-and-brimstone liberal contributors here at Wikinews beat on a story like this 'Developing' one until it was dead. You don't take the text from Landrieu's release and 'bold text' it like done in this article, unless it was presented that way by Landrieu herself.


 * Then the interested parties to publishing this start personal attacks upon editor(s) here who attempt reign in behavior that would ultimately condemn this site to liberal (or conversely if that were the case, conservative) polemics adds fuel to what is a fire that won't ignite. It is counter-productive.


 * Productive would be getting this story published. But there is more that will happen on this story. From posted above --> "Today's aerial tour of the 17th Street levee will be featured tomorrow on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Later, Sen. Landrieu will also appear on CBS's 60 Minutes."


 * So what's the big hurry to publish now, when chances are that what happens later would not be reported with the content of this developing story?


 * A story with similar timeliness circumstance is in 'Developing' now --> PayPal freezes $20k in hurricane relief donations. Hard to know what's really going on with that until more unfolds on the story. -Edbrown05 20:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Edbrown, I completely agree with you that the text shouldn't be bold and that should be changed. But, you seem to overlook that it was Mrmiscellanious who started the personal attacks in the first place instead of just simply stating what his specific grievances were in a polite and professional manner.  He pulled the article, then basically said it was idiotic.  Correction: "very, very" idiotic.  Not exactly a tactful, professional approach to editing, wouldn't you agree? His main initial argument was that this was babble from just "any" Senator.  Once again, this is laughable because the Senator is from LA and is someone very near the center of this horrific event.  Also, it was made very clear in the article from the get-go that this was only a "claim" from the Senator.. it was not published as fact.


 * In the end, Mrmiscellanious' insulting, unprofessional, heavy-handed initial approach is what took this from a polite discussion about the development of this article to an insipid, personal debate. I don't see Mrmiscellanious zealously editing and adding insults like this in any articles that sway towards a more positive spin on the President.  Why is that?  Why the rush to publish this now?  It's a very urgent and timely situation in NOLA... have you not noticed?  If the Senators allegations are true, that could mean that this President is trying to "manufacture consent" at the peril of the NOLA people who are literally dying out there as we speak.  Why can't we allow the WIKINEWS readership decide how they feel about the Senator's observations without having to put a conservative spin on it? 212.0.138.90 20:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Why can't we allow the WIKINEWS readership decide how they feel about the Senator's observations without having to put a conservative spin on it?" I've always said, why can't we let readers be their own news filters. -Edbrown05 22:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh.. Edbrown, I see that you ignored my points about Mr. Misc.' disrespectful initial handling of this article that broke the WIKI rules and the spirit of WIKINEWS collaboration... Nonetheless, would you please elaborate on your "why can't we let readers be their own news filters" statement?  I'd love to hear how you think those "filters" should be implemented.  Are you the news filter?


 * People in the free world kinda' like choice to be their "news filter". People in the free world can read articles (or choose not to) and decide for themselves what to take from the articles they do read.  I guess in your world everyone should just be rampantly deleting, pulling and editing each other without discussion?  Would that make things tidier for you?  Control freaks and a healthy, informative news wiki really don't mix well in my opinion.  I agree with the creators of WIKINEWS that there should be a discussion about content first in a CIVIL manner on the Talk page before editing others works as a LAST RESORT.  Once again, all you have to do is READ the WIKI rules. Mr. Misc. failed in this regard... miserably... and it would appear that you agree with him.  That's sad.  212.0.138.90 23:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

'''UPDATE: note that Edbrown (who suddenly appeared earlier with an insult just before Mr. Misc. got here) goes on to blatantly attempt to mark this page for "speedy removal". Apparently "Edbrown" DOES think he's the "news filter". I'm quite sure "Edbrown" has nothing to do with Mr. Misc, it's just a "coincidence" that they both showed up here initially at the same time. Yep.''' 195.205.195.131 19:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

consensus
How is it that we reached a consensus on how to start this article moving foward again about halfway up the page, and people are still flaming one another?
 * You know what they say about arguing on the the internet, its like competing in the special olympics, you may win, but your still retarded.

The wonderful thing about wikis is that they often resolve this problem by terminating the unending sequence of useless forum comments with a few small useful changes of wording. Dump the flame war, unprotect the article, and
 * just don't publish if you've published before.

In other news, we should probably consider articles based on these two: http://abcnews.go.com/US/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1094262&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301653.html?sub=AR - Nyarlathotep 22:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

-Stop censoring the truth---this is America. Overseas news outlets have this story, we look like Nazi Germany right now with this censorting and it isn't winning us any of our allies back.
 * How heartless are you? Comparing us to Nazi Germany?  Spend 15 minutes with a person who survived the Holocaust, I guarantee you'll never make that sick connection ever again.  --Mrmiscellanious 16:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Mrmiscellanious, I think it's rather obvious the person above was comparing censorship practices... not general USA policy to the Holocaust. You can jump off your hysterical, little pedestal now.  By they way, thanks for all your threats against me.  Oh, and when I said that I would deal with you outside of WIKInews, that means I'm trying to meet you in person.  It's not a threat and if you do not want to meet me in person, that's fine.  But, I really do think we should discuss this face to face, don't you?  By the way, that person up there has NOTHING to do with me, keep dreaming that all these people are all my "sock puppets" or whatever if that makes you feel better, but it's not true - Cowicide 68.3.52.158 19:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Now that they've been shown the rules and how they were specifically broken by Mr. Misc. they mark the page for "speedy deletion". What complete cowards. They've been proven wrong and now they want to erase their idiotic tracks. '''Here are the WIKI rules that Mr. Misc. broke and has not been reprimanded for ONCE. His insulting words and heavy-handed approach right from his VERY FIRST POST is what led to this.''' They won't be MEN and own up to that. They are failures to the spirit and fairness of WIKINEWS. Absolute failures. Now, Mr. Misc. gets what he wanted in the first place, censorship.
 * Reprimand me, then - Anon. List me for desysop'ing - but you better have a good reason WHY and exactly WHAT I did to break the policies (specific examples).  --Mrmiscellanious 23:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious, would you please just drop it and let the development continue here? I'm sure others are actively looking into desysop'ing you. But, why does this have to be all about YOU anyway? You seem to be almost obsessed with stopping this article from being published. I read your first post here and it's despicable, rude and your actions of editing without discussing it first actually does go against the rules. Why don't you just step aside from this and let others take care of this article? You obviously moved in from the outside with hostility from the very beginning. Re-read your very first post you titled "So What?" and see if you don't sense some hostility in your tone right off the bat? Don't you think you could of handled this better from the beginning instead of sparking trouble? I certainly think so.
 * Just a simple question, Anon - who are you, really? Because this proxy you are using is very, very lame.  All your "edits" are on this page - which makes me think either a) you're a sockpuppet for someone else, or b) you are someone else disguising your identity for unknown reasons.  Show yourself, coward.  --Mrmiscellanious 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Edbrown05 marked the page as speedy because he was frustrated with your silliness. I pointed out to him that it was inappropriate and removed the tag; Mrmiscellanious had nothing to do with it.  Clicking on just a handful of links would have shown you this.  --Ardonik.talk(*) 00:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ardonik, I didn't accuse Mr. Misc. of setting the page for "speedy deletion". Thank you for stopping Edbrown's attempted censorship (or "filtering" as he likes to call it). In a nutshell, here is my problem with Mr. Misc that you choose to ignore:

Mrmiscellanious has broken these WIKI rules by immediately pulling/editing other's work in an article without first dicussing it on the Talk page. He was supposed to do this as a last resort according the guidelines in the link above. Also, he was not polite in the spirit of WIKINEWS and basically referred to the article as "very, very idiotic".. etc. That is also frowned upon in the WIKINEWS guidelines and it makes me wonder why he even has any administration priviledges.

Now all hell has broken loose, insults were thrown back and forth and the page is locked from editing. Could you please unlock the page and let everyone continue developing the article? I will not try to publish the page myself, but there are others that would like to develop and publish the article as this story grows. I should note that there was some editing beyond my control and mistakes made (like bolding the text) that could influence the NPOV and should be changed. We would have been glad to have made those changes if it wasn't for Mrmiscellanious insulting behavior and heavy-handed, rule-breaking approach to this article in the first place.

But, in the end... I really don't care about what's happened. I'd just like to see this article get developed and eventually published because it's an important piece that I feel (as do others) will enrich WIKINEWS.

Mrmiscellanious initial post in question is under the title "So what?". This was the very first contact he made with us after already editing/pulling the article out.

If you you refuse to do anything about this, Ardonik.. then I really have nothing more to say to you and will let others take care of this who truly have a disinterested NPOV. In time, I'm sure they will be in contact with you. That's not a threat or anything, so please don't fly off the handle like Mr. Misc. repeatedly does. I just want another POV from someone who'll better concern themselves with the WIKI rules instead of selectively ignoring them for whatever reasons you may have.

And to you, Mrmiscellanious... is that your real name? I didn't think so. Wow, you managed to be a hypocrite once again.


 * My real name is Jake. Now stop hiding coward, and tell us why you are so passionate about this article.  I know you think I have a political agenda to push on this website, but I DON'T.  You are the one linking to the "WIKI rules" that do not apply here (those are WIKIPEDIA's rules).  If you haven't noticed, we are WIKINEWS, and have our own rules.  Read them.  Learn them.  You should've been banned 12 times for personal attacks already, but I don't like to get involved with my administrator privileges when I am fighting with trolls.  --Mrmiscellanious 14:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Mrmiscellanious, your name is "Jake"? Is that like "Madonna" and "Cher" with a first and last name combined?  Wow, must be a bastard trying to do your taxes, huh?  I'm so glad that you have decided to be so brave and quit being "anonymous" as you have accused me of being you damn hypocritical idiot.  Look, hypocrite... I already told my first name a while ago well before you have, you jackass coward... it's Nate, remember?... wow, now we are both on a first name basis, wonderful.


 * Mrmiscellanious Wikinews is run by the Wikimedia Foundation and the WIKIPEDIA rules are sourced throughout WIKINEWS because the basic tenants and rules in this regard are the SAME. Nice try... so now instead of just admitting you were initially rude and heavy-handed you just try to weasel out like a spineless, inept, unethical twerp.  You know you broke the rules and you know that you were rude as shit from the very beginning... but, then again.. that's how trolls do their thing. You are a pitiful troll.  195.205.195.131 19:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you have made it a point to take every little molehill and inflate its importance to that of Olympus Mons, there's little hope of reaching any form of consensus with you. You seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is part of a conspiracy against you.  You type first and only bother thinking afterwards.  We see people like that all the time on the English Wikipedia; no one takes them seriously but themselves.
 * As it stands, your intransigence has all but quashed any hope this article had of being published. Rather than find more sources, more reasons to make the article newsworthy, you chose to vent your spleen against users in good standing and make ridiculous assumptions about them.  Your best bet is to register a new user name, find some fresh news and then try again.
 * I think you've failed here. --Ardonik.talk(*) 01:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ardonik, congrats... you, once again, completely ignored valid points... and it is you that has failed WIKINEWS. I hate to break it to you, but there are others here that want this article published. Once again, you selectively enforce WIKI rules and absolutely refuse to look at Mr. Misc.'s abuse in a fair and rational manner. Look, it's people like Mr. Misc. that are ruining WIKINEWS. You really don't care whatsoever that his rotten attitude was pushed on us without any provocation, do you? His horrible attitude will drive more and more decent people away from here (libs & mods seem to be his focus) than you'll ever know and that HURTS ALL OF WIKINEWS. It would seem your ego and desire to not admit your errors is far more important to YOU than WIKINEWS. Mr. Misc.'s initial nasty behavior here is strangely missing in articles that are more flattering towards the Bush administration. You don't have a problem with that, do you?

The only mistake we've made is standing up for ourselves against a bully where many others would have just thrown up their arms in disgust and moved on. The good thing is we distracted this bully from screwing with someone else and maybe some good articles slipped through. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for defending Mr. Misc.'s behavior. ...oh... And we both know the truth... you can LIE all you want, but you and Mr. Misc. never had ANY intentions of allowing this article to be published. If that was the case, you would have at least called him out on his rotten attitude in his first post. At least have the decency to admit that. 62.197.126.10 02:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is censorship and the American people have had enough of blacking out the real news
The censorship of the Mainstream media and in some cases the alternate Internet media has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives since the Bush Regime's coup in 2000.

DO NOT CENSOR THE NEWS!!!
 * I will "censor" news if it is not professional, or if it doesn't meet up to the standards that we have here at Wikinews. This article was a trainwreck.  Highly biased with the bolding of certain sentences to make a political point, and consisted of "This senator made a comment... [comment]".  No background info, no substance.  You simply cannot have that in an article.  --Mrmiscellanious 14:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

'''"You simply cannot have that in an article".. yeah, in a conservative magazine. What this moron is not mentioning is that the statement WAS NEVER presented as FACT.. ONLY CLAIMS.''' The truth of the matter is Mr. Misc. does not like anything that doesn't put Bush in a positive light. He streamrolled into here (unwanted), pulled the article without discussion and threw insults in his very first post. A biased asshole move all the way.

Don't watch this video of the LA Senator in a helicopter ride
Be sure to hide this video from the public. Make damn sure as few people as possible see and hear this: click and wait, it will take you to the correct section

While you are at it, do all you can to make sure that VERY few people get access to this as well. Could be very damaging: click and wait, it will take you to the correct section

Remember, put yourself and your conservative beliefs ahead of reality... or your evil, little pea-brain will implode. Free speech is dangerous.

btw mrmisc i heard you talking pretty tough up there. you had better pray to god that you never meet cowicide in person.
 * Well, I'm taking that as a threat. And if I do ever meet this 'Cowicide' in real life, please note to him that I will form a lawsuit against him for slander, defamation and harassment.  --Mrmiscellanious 14:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you Mr. Misc. but Cowicide is not just one person, it's a group. But, if you are accusing the group of those things, you'd better watch out for a major lawsuit you can't win and will turn against you. If you go back and read your own comments, you could certainly expect harrassment charges yourself as well as "slander, defamation, etc.) if those charges were even valid in this format in the first place. Mr. Misc., I'm sorry the person writing that comment scared you shitless but I have nothing to do with it. You guys may not believe this, but this forum is open to the public and there are way more people here than you can imagine. Some on regular IPs and some on proxies. You are throughly outnumbered and can't seem to cope with the fact that you are wrong. Look, coward... go for it. Try to sue the universe, but you'll still be a sad, coward in the end without a case and a decent President. AND, just because you "take" something as a "threat"... does not legally constitute it as such. That so-called "threat" is very non-specific and could just as easily mean that "Cowicide" would verbally lecture you. Don't you know the law, moron? Your troll attack on this article is harassment enough around here, idiot. Yep, I called you "idiot" be sure to rack that up in your little pansy list below. I guess I should collect all your derogatory words, huh, and jump up and down like a sissy and lamely "charge" you with slander? Whoops, called you "sissy"... you had better add that one. Pansy.

protection from editing????
What is this anyway??? This is reminicent of the old USSR for crying out loud! We need to hear the truth about the attempted cover up of the Bush administration's mismanagement of the LA disaster!! This is criminal behavior and impeachment is not out of the relm of possibilities. Dereliction of duty by this president who choose to go to AZ and CA instead of flying to the stricken area immediately is what we are talking about. Staging a photo op once he did show up 4 days later??? It is chaos in the gulf cities of Biloxi and NO. Speak truth to power. End the editing. P Cole Moshimer Kennebunkport, Maine USA


 * FEMA guy is a clear incompetent. He will take a major fall.  Pres. coulda helped but didn't, not sure how much it'll hurt him really.
 * Stop it with your sockpuppets. You are spamming up this site faster than that AP vandal.  --Mrmiscellanious 14:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Mr. Misc. you are a complete idiot. That person has nothing to do with Cowicide.  These are individual, REAL people upset about this and you are calling them "sock puppets" with no evidence whatsoever.  GET A GRIP and FACE THE REALITY that people are none too pleased with this censorship you've heralded here.

Rebuplicans
Republicans can not handle the truth. The LA Senator saw the Staged Photo OP in person. She spoke the truth. But according to Republicans if you report the truth you are a Liberal. Please keep reporting the truth. The truth is not liberal or conservative. It is what it is.


 * Well, if that's your intentions, then I say keep it locked. We have a Neutral Point of View policy here, and seeing as you are trying to blame my edits on the fact that I am a conservative (which, in fact, have nothing to do with them) - this makes me think you are extremely biased, and do not care to push your opinions aside to work with others professionally.  Your finger pointing, extreme personal attacks against more than one contributor, are not what Wikinews needs.  You are a disgrace to this community.  --Mrmiscellanious 14:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious, these are individuals. That's not me posting that. I guess that terrifies you to know that there are quite a few people here who disagree with you in different ways. You are starting to look like a scared child swatting around yourself aimlessly. Pull yourself together and your self respect and quit trying to pretend everybody here is one person. - Cowicide 68.3.52.158 20:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

A note
This article was pulled from publication because it did not contain any form of substance, no background info. It simply stated "Hey, here's a senator! Let's see what they're saying today!" That is not all that an article needs to become publicized here. You need facts, not OPINIONS. You may include quotes, but HIGHLIGHTING of points to ADDRESS users to a certain portion of it isn't allowed. Now, a few of you have thought that taking an article and putting it back to Develop stage is pulling it from Wikinews. That is wrong - that means it needs to be cleaned up. And I told you why above. Certain individuals have started to revolt and call me a "Nazi", "communist", "hater of free speech", etc. Fine, call me whatever you want - just know that your depictions of me are coming from your own minds, so by calling me "Nazi", you must mean I was actually a member of Hitler's socialist party in Germany back in the '30s-40s (I was not alive during those decades). And by calling me 'communist' must mean I was a form of some political party with an ideology in Marxism (which I never have been). And by calling me "hater of free speech" means I have limited free speech in any way (I never have). I gave this article another run because I thought it could use some work. And I am standing by my comments that every quote from a senator would be foolish to publish. I said that because that's all I saw in this article when first reading it. And, instead of trying to improve it on the talk page, all people want to do is bicker. Well, that in itself is a reason why it should be deleted - if you care more about slandering me on the talk page than submitting useful information into the article to make it less NPOV, and to clean it up, then this article has lost interest by its authors. So what is to be done? Because as far as I'm concerned, no one feels like improving this article anymore - just throwing crap at all of the users patiently trying to explain our policies to the 'newcomers' (and I know some of you aren't, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). If you want to bash Wikinews, that's one thing. But if not, form a /Temp and get to work on this article. If nothing in a few days, then it should be tagged with a. --Mrmiscellanious 14:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * MrM, just to say I support your efforts (since your talk page is protected now) - appalling as Bush's behaviour has been IMO, that will come out and Wikinews needs to hang onto its credibility more than Bush needs a bashing here. This is a very important quote, but it is true that unless more substance can be added, via the talk page, it does not need to be a story on its own. At the very least, there needs to be evidence that the administration has been asked to explain this apparent fit-up. People are capable of making up their own minds when presented with as much evidence as we can get and our published stories must try and do that. Just one thing, it's speech, not speach :) ClareWhite 15:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * ClareWhite, the problem is this article is locked. It was published quickly because it's a timely and developing story. Or.. it WAS timely anyway... I've seen plenty of timely, small articles published here and in the mainstream media (con, lib, and mod media) that are developed along as more info comes into play. This article was nubbed WITHOUT previous discussion and with a very rude demeanor on Mrmiscellanious' part. That is NOT in the spirit of wiki.  This article is not Bush bashing... it was very clear that this was only a claim on the Senator's part, it wasn't posing as fact in any stretch of the imagination.  You can go back in history to see what I initally posted.  My intentions with the bold text was to draw attention to the specific quote in question, but since that can look like a NPOV problem, I agree that should be changed.  I also agree the story should be developed, but Mrmiscellanious did a great job of very rudely diverting that effort and now the story is locked. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 22:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This article should be allowed to be seen, since she actually said it. The truth is what matters, and she should have a clue since SHE WAS THERE!


 * Claire, just look at my talk page history to realize why it is protected. These people have been harassing Wikinews contributors for no reason at all, and have been manipulating signed notes with derogatory content.  I did not protect this article.  There is no substance in it, however - and I changed it from publish to develop, because I felt it could be more of an article.  The magnitude of this quote is insignificant without information to support it.  The bolding of certain areas brings out a bias in the story.  It deserved a publish -> develop.  No one wanted to develop it anymore - they are here just to harrass now.  --Mrmiscellanious 15:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Mrmiscellanious, Claire is on your side, you goofball. LOL Sigh.. anyway.. Mrmiscellanious, it was YOU who began the harassment around here.  I'll ignore everything else you just said to Claire because it's just the same lies and babble you've spewed before. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 22:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

MrM, the only false accusations, that I've read so far on this page are yours, although I've only scanned the page briefly. No one knows your REAL name or anything about you, so it's impossible for you to charge anyone with slander, defamation, or libel. Are you unaware of the definitions of these words?


 * Examples, for the user with 2 edits:


 * Threat: Cowicide saying he will deal with me 'outside WIKINEWS', along with the other note that if he ever met me in real life, etc.
 * Slander: Calling me a 'Nazi' and a person who wants to 'destroy free speech', along with stated notes saying I have a profound hatred of the African-American population and culture. All are false, all are derogatory.
 * Defamation: Continuous slander as defined above.
 * Harassment: Continuous electronic threats, defamation and slander as seen above.
 * All of these have evidence linking to them below.
 * So, anon with two edits - there you go.
 * Furthermore, since you asked for accusations:
 * Three revert rule - as seen on the UT article by Cowicide.
 * No personal attacks - as seen on the UT article, and on this article (as well as my userpage).


 * Evidence of this:


 * As seen in the History of this article as a comment.


 * As seen in the History of this article as a comment.


 * The use of the term 'chickenhawk' refers to vandalism on my userpage and talk pages, as shown in the following:


 * As seen in vandalism of my userpage.


 * As seen in the History of my userpage as a comment for the above vandalism message.


 * As seen in vandalism of my userpage.


 * As seen in the History of my userpage as a comment for the above vandalism message.


 * As seen in vandalism of an archived talk page.


 * As seen in the History of my archived talk page as a comment for the above vandalism message.


 * As seen in vandalism of my user talk page.


 * As seen in vandalism of my user talk page.


 * The vulgar language used by this person is reflected in the following edits:


 * As seen on the vandalism of a page on my user space.

These comments have no explanation for them. I have posted them all here for people to see what these "contributors" have been offering Wikinews. Vandalism, manipulation of signed items, and racist remarks. --Mrmiscellanious 17:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

'''For the record, Mrmiscellanious is a liar and attributing comments to me THAT I DID NOT MAKE. And some of the rules he mentions are ones this hypocrite has broken himself, but it's fruitless to debate him on this because his only real intentions seem to be ruining this article and censoring it to fit his conservative beliefs. All you have to do is look in the HISTORY section and you'll see that I didn't make the vast majority of comments this liar just attributed to me.''' -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 20:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Who was it then, Cowicide? Because all of these edits came at a very convenient time for you to have made them (ie. as soon as you said that you would deal with me "outside Wikinews", all the above edits were made).  Not to mention, even you must find it a bit curious that all of those edits appeal to the same and exact writing style that you use (including the use of the word 'chickenhawk', as you showed below), no?  --Mrmiscellanious 00:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I sincerely doubt I'm the first & only person who has ever called you a "chicken-hawk", Mrmiscellanious. As far as timing goes, I posted this article elsewhere right after my IP was banned and other people from all over the place swooped in on your ass. Some of them may very well collaborate with me on other projects and definitely have a similar "writing style", but even I don't know who's who because I don't recognize most of those IP addresses. Others are just random people that hate you. I really think some of them went too far. But, I certainly stand by my own comments against you and I already explained elsewhere on this talk page what I meant "by dealing with you outside of Wikinews". I would have explained it further right then, but my IP was mysteriously banned. Now that the ban has been lifted, here I am. I can't help what others here say or want to do to you, Mrmiscellanious, but you and I apparently need to agree to disagree because this isn't going anywhere and is a waste of our time. I think we can both agree on that. Once again, the history will easily show that I did NOT make the majority of those comments you cite above. Goodnight. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 01:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Bush and FEMA blocked help to NOLA
Numerous sources support this. Bush controls the mass media so the story can't get out. People need to have access to the truth. Bush supporters are so afraid of the truth they have to lock it out. People died, when FEMA sat on its hands. All the subsequent energy of the Administration has gone into covering this up and spinning it to look benign on TV. If information sources are polluted, then we are in danger of being victims of our government. If we don't have the proper accurate information about our leaders, we are in a position to be sheared like sheep. People who want to block info of Bush's arranged photo-ops in NO, where food was laid out and then taken away when Bush left on his giant gas guzzling jet plane - not before telling people, "if you don't need gas, don't buy any," those people are criminals against human society. Those people who want to obscure the truth are just hoping they can side with and protect the reputation of the powers that be. What are Bush's protectors afraid of? Accountability? Why were pilots who wanted to drop food packets early in the week blocked by FEMA? Why was all aid blocked by FEMA? And they didn't deliver their own, except for the TV cameras? Then sent in military? Why do people want to cover this up now? Why is the Media given a free pass on this? Why does the Media continue to prop up Bush? Cover up will not work in this case. The stinking corpses under the carpet, the telltale hearts under the floorboards, will cry for justice forever - that is why Bush people are so afraid of the truth. Their guilt makes them afraid for what they have done. The true Americans are the ones who speak out against despotism, lies, hypocrisy, thieves, and arbitrary power by the rulers. Who are the thieves here? Where's the money, George? Why are you asking, with your little smug smile, that the little folks should send, "cash?" What are you doing with that cash, George? Why did so few get rescued in time? Why are so many individual reporters, who are usually your lapdogs, breaking down in anger and disgust? Why does your side always give lip service to responsibility, yet have none? Why do you always pass the buck, George? It's time the American public became aware of the depth of collusion between corporate Media, money, power and George Bush. We been treated too long like mushrooms, that's right, keep them in the dark and feed them manure. They get away with it because bullys who protect George Bush viciously intimidate people who want to get the truth out. This must stop if we want to keep true to our American traditions. These "conservatives" are not conservative.

Proposal
I hereby propose that we abandon this talk page and leave cowicide to rant and rave in it, anonymously and alone, until he grows bored and decides to actually make a meaningful contribution. All interested parties may indicate their support for or opposition to this proposal below. Those who have voted in support should resist the urge to leave any further comments on this talk page make any further replies to cowicide and his sock puppets here. --Ardonik.talk(*) 17:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

support, because the story in question has never even been hidden! ClareWhite
 * Support because feeding trolls makes them bolder. --Ardonik.talk(*) 17:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

'''Ardonik, I hate to break it to you, but these people aren't "sock puppets" they are REAL people. Ardonik, as I said before this shows ONCE AGAIN that you NEVER had any intentions of letting this article get published.'''

WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DROWN OUT HERE
Ardonik, congrats... you, once again, completely ignored valid points... and it is you that has failed WIKINEWS. I hate to break it to you, but there are others here that want this article published. Once again, you selectively enforce WIKI rules and absolutely refuse to look at Mr. Misc.'s abuse in a fair and rational manner. Look, it's people like Mr. Misc. that are ruining WIKINEWS. You really don't care whatsoever that his rotten attitude was pushed on us without any provocation, do you? His horrible attitude will drive more and more decent people away from here (libs & mods seem to be his focus) than you'll ever know and that HURTS ALL OF WIKINEWS. It would seem your ego and desire to not admit your errors is far more important to YOU than WIKINEWS. Mr. Misc.'s initial nasty behavior here is strangely missing in articles that are more flattering towards the Bush administration. You don't have a problem with that, do you?

The only mistake we've made is standing up for ourselves against a bully where many others would have just thrown up their arms in disgust and moved on. The good thing is we distracted this bully from screwing with someone else and maybe some good articles slipped through. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for defending Mr. Misc.'s behavior. ...oh... And we both know the truth... you can LIE all you want, but you and Mr. Misc. never had ANY intentions of allowing this article to be published. If that was the case, you would have at least called him out on his rotten attitude in his first post. At least have the decency to admit that.

Mrmiscellanious has broken these WIKI rules by immediately pulling/editing other's work in an article without first dicussing it on the Talk page. He was supposed to do this as a last resort according the guidelines in the link above. Also, he was not polite in the spirit of WIKINEWS and basically referred to the article as "very, very idiotic".. etc. That is also frowned upon in the WIKINEWS guidelines and it makes me wonder why he even has any administration priviledges.

Now all hell has broken loose, insults were thrown back and forth and the page is locked from editing. We would have been glad to have made those changes if it wasn't for Mrmiscellanious insulting behavior and heavy-handed, rule-breaking approach to this article in the first place.

But, in the end... I really don't care about what's happened. I'd just like to see this article get developed and eventually published because it's an important piece that I feel (as do others) will enrich WIKINEWS.

Mrmiscellanious initial post in question is under the title "So what?". This was the very first contact he made with us after already editing/pulling the article out.

President Bush Has Failed Mr. Misc.
Could it be that all this anger coming from Mr. Misc is stemming from a massive letdown by his president? The man Mr. Misc. thought could do no wrong has massively failed our country. Maybe that explains Mr. Misc.'s hostile tone from the get-go on this board? It's obvious that his intelligence and coping skills were already at a minimum before Bush failed him. I guess this finally sent him over the edge... so he felt the need to rush over to this article, pull it without discussion and insult the contributers. We should all just feel sorry for him, I suppose. Bush's massive failure is more than his pea-brain can handle. (Mr. Misc, be sure to rack up more of those bad words in a list below).

It's amazing... Mr. Misc. is angry as hell over a message board while the rest of us are angry as hell that people are dying in LA because of a lame, slow federal response. What a sociopath. He actually spent the time "defending himself" and running around like a headless chickenhawk getting his buddies to try and suppress this article. While we are simply trying to get THE TRUTH OUT so a lame, deadly slow response to other national emergencies does NOT HAPPPEN AGAIN. Meanwhile, Mr. Misc. is upset for guess who? HIMSELF. What a complete loser.

-

of course he staged a photo op. why is everyone is always so surprised, that this guy's whole life is staged.

Deleting the entire page.

 * The "liberal" deleting this entire talk page (which has a growing consensus against conservative censors) and is leaving those one sentence posts is OBVIOUSLY a conservative mole. C'mon, you can do a better job of being a fake liberal than this, can't you?


 * When you earlier used the word "chickenhead".... it's supposed to be "chickenhawk" not "chickenhead", you moron. "Chickenhawk" is a term real liberals & moderates often use as a play on the word "warhawk".  A "chickenhawk" is a conservative who constantly proclaims a lust for war but has never served in battle and never will. If you are going to be a fake liberal at least get the terminology right. This is what conservatives will stoop to once they can't win an argument.  You aren't fooling anybody, idiot.


 * Thank you, Ardonik for reverting the page back and banning the imposter. - Cowicide 68.3.52.158 21:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

What's funny...
Good move. Now Wiki will have less credibility and people will still find the information elsewhere, anyway. Way to shoot yourself in the head.

I have written another aticle on it, and will post it shortly, this page should be listed for deletion. Cowidice, please do not edit the new one as you will only manage to piss people off. If you make any suggestions on the talk page, I shall attempt to review them and impliment them in a timely manor, or I can give you my email address. - Nyarlathotep 22:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nyarlathotep, I won't edit your article and I ask that others here obey your wishes and work with you as you ask as well. But, at the same time, I don't think this current article should be deleted. Higher-ups have been contacted and may have this article unlocked after the holiday weekend. Deleting it now before higher level people have decided on this situation will only embolden people like Mr. Misc to go and try to hijack other articles he doesn't feel have enough conservative spin. What's your email? -Cowicide 68.3.52.158


 * I am happy to merge articles if desired, but what I would recommend, is archiving this talk page, and linking it from the new articles talk page. My spam resistant email address is [got it -cow] Oh, you might find this article intersting:

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/44859


 * Whatever you want to do is fine with me. I'd just like to see this article here a little past monday of next week after the holiday weekend is over, because it might get unlocked by some higher-ups. Got your email and edited out to stop spambots from grabbing it from here. If that story you just linked to turns out to be true... I wouldn't be surprised.  The heros know where they are really needed. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 23:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am staying out of this article, and the one that Nyarlathotep has created. I advise Cowicide and anyone else here to do the same.  --Mrmiscellanious 00:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Hey, look! We can agree on stuff! I'm actually sorry that others went too far attacking you Mr. Misc, but I still stand by my own comments against you.  Later. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 00:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * agreed, sorry cow - Nate 219.93.174.100 02:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

i'm out let me know if you need me, A... 213.140.3.80


 * See you later cow - i'll tell the udders - But i still say Mr. Misc. should FOAD //  James Brown


 * AGREED. Mrmiscellanious has had enough torture for one pawn. OUT 62.197.126.10 02:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gotcha' Cowicide - see you Friday. What's up, Nate! MS2 YourIPhere 212.0.138.91 04:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiNews
This does much to undermine the credibility of WikiNews. How many of your sysop-level users are actually political censors?

Rather disturbing, and it should be. For shame. However, the European media is widely reporting this - so it's not like they can actually squash it. Just makes Wiki look amateurish and undermines the entire enterprise. Which I thought, perhaps naively, was about the truth.

Disappointed. Please remove the censor from sysadmins.

Colin Longhurst


 * Thanks for the support, Colin. I initially tried to publish this thing here. I was careful to show that she was a Democrat making "claims" instead of stating "facts".  I'm glad you also see through the charade Mr. Misc has put forward that this isn't about his bias at all.  He tries to hide it, but fortunately he's not bright enough to hide his bias effectively.  All any of us has to do is look at his initial, unprovoked hostile behavior here (editing/pulling the article without ANY discussion, then launching unprovoked insults right afterwards).  Also, if you look at other articles that put Bush in a good light, his demeanor is nice and friendly... and you don't see the same behavior (like editing others without discussion, etc.).


 * If the dumb bastard was nice about it from the beginning instead of being abrupt and insulting, he would have been far more effective in his attempts here to "conservatize" this article. Now he's only drawn far more attention to this quote than it ever would have before because he picked a fight with the wrong people and his agenda has failed miserably. Instead of remaining on the homepage in the "developing articles" section all this time, this article would have sunk way down the homepage by now probably.  I'm not sure, but I think this might finally start seeping into his brain and he'll realize he's really done f'd up his agenda.  I really don't care if he figures this out now because at this point the truth will wiggle free despite his biased efforts.


 * I should also note that Mr. Misc is trying to hide his agenda by deleting out his own biography page, but you can probably look into his history and still see it perhaps. I'm very upfront with my beliefs and directly link to my homepage in my sig.  Anyway, thanks again. Now watch em' call you a fake "sock puppet" because you are another person here that agrees with me.  -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 00:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

LA senator Claims Bush staged photo op
Please unlock this article and any photos that accompany it.

Thanks for the support! Cowicide 68.3.52.158 06:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to second the previous sentiment. Were facts made up here? It appears not. How is it then that comments from the Senator of a state hit with a devastating tragedy about our Commander-in-Chief staging photo-ops after several people from both sides of the fence have criticized his actions, or lack thereof, in the handling of this crisis would not be considered news?

And thank you for your support! BTW, I hate to break it to you conservatives, but these are REAL people who happen to disagree with you here. NOT fake "sock puppets" as you fantasize. I have nothing to do with these people except (obviously) a mutual consensus to get this article unlocked, etc. Please quit insulting everyone here who disagrees with you by calling them "sock puppets", it really just makes you guys look like complete assholes. Cowicide 68.3.52.158 06:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Common sense
So the President of the United States is taking time to order around pieces of construction equipment? Let's hear from the people running the equipment and in charge of where it was parked. Any construction company logos in pictures? (SEWilco 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC))
 * You should probably take it to Talk:Senator Landrieu accuses President Bush of staging photo-ops amidst New Orleans tragedy. Cowicide's polemics have damaged this article and its talk page beyond repair.  --Ardonik.talk(*) 05:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah, try that place. Mr. Misc's abuses (and Ardonik, etc. looking the other way) has locked this article and muddled the talk page. If you look above in the "So What?" section & history, you'll see where everything was going fine until Mr. Misc stormed in and pulled the site without previous discussion with anyone, then made his first post laced with unprovoked insults and bad attitude. Not smart. Not professional. Not WIKI spirit.  Then again, this article may end up being unlocked this week by people higher up at WIKINEWS, who knows?  There is undeniably a consensus for it. -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 06:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhm, there are no "higher ups" at Wikinews. The article will be unlocked when registered contributors reach a consensus on the talk pages and agree the article should be unlocked. - Amgine/talk 06:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhm, actually there are "higher ups" than you and I'm sure they'll appreciate your arrogance in that regard... hahahaa gawd... And, BTW... the consensus here shows that this article should be unlocked.  You are another brick in the wall.  I'm tired of dealing with your "selective" punishment crap.  We'll see what happens this week. Goodnight.  -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 06:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we have very different views of what Wikinews is, and I view it as not hierarchical. We have been selectively not enforcing the "no personal attacks" policy also. We should probably stop that. - Amgine/talk 07:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly seconded. We ignored when we should have blocked, and this is the result.  --Ardonik.talk(*) 07:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, our views probably aren't very different then... you might be surprised to know I mostly agree with you on both counts (especially the second part, haha). It's only because of the second part (the "selective enforcement" you mention, bias, etc.) that some form of hierarchical structure is needed at all (but I think it should sway non-hierarchical as much as possible otherwise). In a utopia, everyone would be equal and fair, but that's not very realistic... as a last resort hierarchy can and will come into play.  For instance, you seem to only want to count the consensus of those who register... that's a hierarchical approach right there.  But, anyway...  hell, in a utopia we also wouldn't have the President's mother saying horrific things like this right now!!!!.. but such is life...    -Cowicide 68.3.52.158 07:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)