Talk:Ava Lowery

message: The article that is used as a cite to back up the death threats claim makes a provably false assertion. The claim is made that she was threatened after releasing WWJD, and she provides the reporter with "email proof". However, the quote from that proof was actually taken from a web posting over a year ago, well before WWJD was even conceived. The claim is likely false, and the article that is cited to back the claim is verifiably false. Wikipedia should not be used to lend credibility to deceit. Crockspot 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment about "RE-added dispute tag, see talk page. This is not a game" : the original dispute tag may have been in the article that was deleted on 18 July, so nobody has removed it from this version of the article. Yomangani 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a dispute tag today, then found it gone a short time later, but the edit history doesn't show any of that, so I really don't know what happened. Sorry. Maybe I was only looking at a preview. Crockspot 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: it appears that one of the threats actually relates to a previous production by Lowery, as noted in the link above. However, there is ample evidence of renewed threats in the aftermath of the release of WWJD: for instance, the comment about masturbating to Cindy Sheehan is demonstrably from a 2006 posting on Conservative Underground. So it's possible that one of the threats cited in the Progressive article might be cited misleadingly, but that does not suggest that the death threats claim is "provably false". Richardjames444 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said that the claim is "likely false", and the article (Progressive) cited to back the claim is "provably false". That article should not be used to cite the claim, since even you have just admitted that it is not true. Another source should be found to replace cite 1, or the claim is considered unverified, and should be removed. The Progressive article is tainted. Crockspot 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should add that the post from CU that you link above does nothing to support a claim of death threats. In fact, there isn't a threat of any kind there, it is merely a vulgar question. Crockspot 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I reworked the text to account for your objections and removed the tag. Thanks for helping to improve the article. Richardjames444 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how is a reply to a thread on a conservative blog considered "hate mail"? I will rework that a little more for you. Crockspot 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  As I indicated above, probably my own mistake. I thought that I added the tag earlier in the day. Crockspot 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy dispute

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good point. Jinxmchue 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Her issue to deal with, not Wikipedia's, IANAL but I believe that she uses them in such a way as to create a derivative work and this constitutes a fair use.--BenBurch 05:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *In general it is not necessary to link to a video if you can cite the network, date and time the video was aired.  Of course, this is wide open to abuse as there is no way to tell if the clip you cite in any way supports the fact you are using it to support, but that is one of the problems with scholarship in a broadcast age, and we cannot begin to address it here.  In an ideal world, a TV network would archive ALL of its news and public affairs programs much as I archive all of the radio programs that air on my networks, or the way namy newspapers archive all of their issues.  Perhaps that will happen some day.  But for now, just cite the videos as you would any offline source, and trust that a sufficiently motivated fact checker will find the actual video or an accurate transcript of the program. --BenBurch 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: The two "references" are simply repeats of external links from the article. These should be converted to the actual references format that is now being used (i.e. the one that I keep forgetting how to do). Jinxmchue 06:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I forget how to do that too! I cleaned up some of your unintentional POV. Unless you can find a RS that describes her videos as 'anti-republican' that is POV. Where is a RS saying she is homeschooled? As for previous discussion above, CU is not RS nor V, and can't be used as a source for any claims or counter claims. I will make a concession and let a bit of exclusionable content remain, saying that there is some dispute regarding the threats, even though all the counter claims come from CU and FR. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap on a cracker, man!  CHECK YOUR OWN LINKS!  At least THREE of them say she's homeschooled. Jinxmchue 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK! OK! I must have missed that! Which links say 'anti-republican'? - F.A.A.F.A. 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones say "anti-Bush?" Hmm... None! Didn't see you objecting to that phrase, though. Wonder why... Well, no matter. The wording is changed, so the issue is now moot. Jinxmchue 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and external links need clean-up 

message: I think a case could be made for it here. Jinxmchue 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, several editors DID think they owned the article, until I found it 2 days ago. Links to forums. Imagine that! - F.A.A.F.A. 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:DICK may be applicable as well. Imagine that! - Crockspot 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPA there, buddy! - F.A.A.F.A. 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So now citing WP guidelines is what you consider a personal attack? Crockspot 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think picking on little girls sets him off. --BenBurch 18:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry Ben, I didn't realize that I had attacked you. :O Crockspot 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that was uncalled for and absolutely was a personal attack.  Shame on you. --BenBurch 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was a joke, Ben. See smiley attached. How is "picking on little girls" not an attack as well? Again, I suggest you go through the history of this article from before I appear in it. I have worked with people who disagree with me to make this article more accurate. It was mostly fabrication before I came along, and I never "picked on" any little girls during that time. So please, find the sense of humor that you used to have. Crockspot 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, no, actually, no one thought they owned the article until you found it and started [mis]using WP:V and WP:RS to selectively remove information you didn't like and ignore WP:V and WP:RS to retain and add information you do like. Jinxmchue 19:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I found this article 2 days ago, it was GARBAGE Last pre FAAFA version BIASED and POV, so please stop these specious claims that *I* have any other goal than to improve what was a piece of crap before I arrived. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what parts did you find to be "BIASED and POV?" It doesn't seem much different than what you were changing it to other than added information and attempts to insert even worse POV (if any existed in the first place). Okay, yeah, the article really sucked because (A) the subject is only nominally noteworthy and there is very little information about her available and (B) no one who gives a darn about her, her activities and her website gave a darn about improving the article. As for your goals, they are as obvious as the first day you started contributing to Wiki. You make broad and boastful proclamations about "fairness," "accuracy" and your devotion to Wiki guidelines, but you always end up contradicting it all. Jinxmchue 04:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written an article about someone who was notable because of media attention, Kimberly Osorio, if anyone wants to take a look at a well sourced covered article. I am sure if I was interested in this topic it would be easy to flesh out. The real job is to find a transcript of her CNN interview or other interviews and use those as a basis to flesh out her views, maybe inset a notable quote, etc. --NuclearZer0 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review [[WP:OWN]] 

message: Previous consensus had accepted the following as acceptable: 
===Alleged threats against Ava Lowery===
Lowery's claims of having received death threats remain controversial. Emails given to reporters following the publication of WWJD, while vulgar, are not specifically threatening. Documented death threats were made against Lowery in response to an earlier animation and were apparently conflated into an article discussing the right-wing response to WWJD
The current section which Hwnmbn changed it to fails to be verified by the source provided. It seems to be original research. I believe the section above states the situation more accurately, and is better sourced, including a primary source of Ava's production. As an alternative way to resolve this, I propose that the "threats" section be completely removed from the article. But for that section, I have no other problems with the article, save a possible copyvio external link. Crockspot 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)the 'conflated' bit is and was OR , as is that WHOLE paragraph above, except for the second sentence. 2)I am well versed over using forum links for ANY reason, after going through this with admins on the FR article, and PW article. The forum links in the article were NOT allowable. 3)Furthermore... Before I found this article 2 days ago, it was GARBAGE Last pre FAAFA version BIASED and POV, so please stop your specious claims that *I* have any other goal than to improve what was a piece of crap before I arrived. 4)I am not adverse to deleting ALL of the threats / insults alleagtions - the entire section- except for a brief mention in the opening paragraph, and suggest that we delete it now, and work on a version here in talk, that we, with the help of an Admin if nesessary, can agree on. I will do that now. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Some folks will never change their stripes, despite any claims they make. Dman727 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah...  I see nothing there.  What is your issue?--BenBurch 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's all the hub-bub about? Hey Crocks, weren't you one of the editors who complained when I posted a thread to NN-U? Now you're doing the same with some meamingless thread on Ava's forum?! Whatz up wit dat??? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said on your talk page (which you scrubbed), it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out who Impeach07 is. Edit histories are a bear that way. I find it ironic that someone would do exactly what they whined about others doing. But I didn't really expect you to fess up. I'm too good a judge of character to expect that. Crockspot 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  And amazingly, not long after I posted the thread here, the author of the post edited out their entire contribution. Of course, no one HERE had anything to do with it. You may smirk and be smug about it, but you aren't fooling anyone. I really tried to be cooperative with you, but you continue to try to play me for a fool. "Fool me twice, I won't get fooled again." - Crockspot 15:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should post your suspicions on the Conspiracy Theory noticeboard. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to stoke the flames. --NuclearZer0 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: At FA's behest I added this page to my watchlist in hopes of helping informally mediate here. In the above section I noticed some back-and-forth about primary sources, reliability, and the use of forum posts. Can any of the involved editors lay the question out in clear terms for me? As an aside, if you could all talk in clear terms anyway that would be keen- in heated debate confusion on topics to both involved editors and outsiders can be cleared up with concise language. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over threats section 

message: Lowery's claims of having received death threats remain controversial. Emails given to reporters following the publication of WWJD, while vulgar, are not specifically threatening. Documented death threats were made against Lowery in response to an earlier animation and were apparently conflated into an article discussing the right-wing response to WWJD
</blockquote>
The current section which Hwnmbn changed it to fails to be verified by the source provided. It seems to be original research. I believe the section above states the situation more accurately, and is better sourced, including a primary source of Ava's production. As an alternative way to resolve this, I propose that the "threats" section be completely removed from the article. But for that section, I have no other problems with the article, save a possible copyvio external link. Crockspot 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)the 'conflated' bit is and was OR , as is that WHOLE paragraph above, except for the second sentence. 2)I am well versed over using forum links for ANY reason, after going through this with admins on the FR article, and PW article. The forum links in the article were NOT allowable. 3)Furthermore... Before I found this article 2 days ago, it was GARBAGE Last pre FAAFA version BIASED and POV, so please stop your specious claims that *I* have any other goal than to improve what was a piece of crap before I arrived. 4)I am not adverse to deleting ALL of the threats / insults alleagtions - the entire section- except for a brief mention in the opening paragraph, and suggest that we delete it now, and work on a version here in talk, that we, with the help of an Admin if nesessary, can agree on. I will do that now. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Some folks will never change their stripes, despite any claims they make. Dman727 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah...  I see nothing there.  What is your issue?--BenBurch 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's all the hub-bub about? Hey Crocks, weren't you one of the editors who complained when I posted a thread to NN-U? Now you're doing the same with some meamingless thread on Ava's forum?! Whatz up wit dat??? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said on your talk page (which you scrubbed), it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out who Impeach07 is. Edit histories are a bear that way. I find it ironic that someone would do exactly what they whined about others doing. But I didn't really expect you to fess up. I'm too good a judge of character to expect that. Crockspot 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  And amazingly, not long after I posted the thread here, the author of the post edited out their entire contribution. Of course, no one HERE had anything to do with it. You may smirk and be smug about it, but you aren't fooling anyone. I really tried to be cooperative with you, but you continue to try to play me for a fool. "Fool me twice, I won't get fooled again." - Crockspot 15:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should post your suspicions on the Conspiracy Theory noticeboard. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to stoke the flames. --NuclearZer0 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: At FA's behest I added this page to my watchlist in hopes of helping informally mediate here. In the above section I noticed some back-and-forth about primary sources, reliability, and the use of forum posts. Can any of the involved editors lay the question out in clear terms for me? As an aside, if you could all talk in clear terms anyway that would be keen- in heated debate confusion on topics to both involved editors and outsiders can be cleared up with concise language. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged threats against Ava Lowery

message: Don't all pics go on the right side of the articles? Jinxmchue 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Even though you insulted me, the subject, and my documeneted efforts to improve what was a substandard POV article above, I'll shrug off your baseless bitter attacks for the betterment of Wiki. When you get interviewed on CNN, MSNBC and Fox, and written about in the NYTimes, all in the space of a year, you can talk about notability) I don't know about picture placement. Would that be in the 'elements of style' section? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a more-or-less standard bio header that has the picture in it.  No time now, but I'll place one soon.  Live with it for a couple days, OK?--BenBurch 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So I need to be notable myself in order to talk about notability? Ha! That's a laugh! Jinxmchue 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No danger of that, huh? ;-) I think being notable is vastly overrated.--BenBurch 18:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you didn't get my tongue-in-cheek comment, Jinx. CNN+MSNBC+FNC+NYT+Multiple Other MSM Mentions+47,100Ghits = Notability, and to argue otherwise is pretty darn hard to understand. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LSM mentions: lots of people get mentioned on the LSM every year, yet they don't warrant Wiki articles because they simply are not notable. They get a mention or two on the LSM and then they're gone, much like Ava. Ghits: worthless indicator of notability as a simple glance at the results shows little depth in the information on Ava (lots of repeated information on several like-minded websites). You need to carefully review WP:N, particularly the part about notability not being subjective and something judged by editors like yourself. Ava's pretty much a one-trick pony whose notability is going to plummet like a rock once George W. Bush is no longer our President (if it doesn't do so before then). Jinxmchue 00:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the _ is 'LSM' ??? - F.A.A.F.A. 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's our wise friend's acronym for "LIBERAL stream media".  Stone put to sky 10:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of the pic 

message: Somebody might want to check the birth date in the infobox. According to that, she is 26 years old. Crockspot 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my fault, sorry --NuclearZer0 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox?

message: I just cannot work with FAAFA anymore. I will allow Kuzaar to try to come up with an article that meets policy guideline, and when it's done, I'll check it out and contribute then if necessary. My concerns have all been expressed ad nauseum on this page, from the first section on. I can find better use of my time elsewhere for now. Crockspot 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel that way, CP. I am 100% confident that my understanding of WP in regards to excluding a forum link to 'defend' the OR that Ava or the reporter of said article 'conflated' the threats is correct.  Here's a link to the discussion on Kuzaar's page, for those editors interested. - F.A.A.F.A. 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not write the "conflated" part, RichardJames444 did, after seeing my evidence that the Progressive article was factually flawed. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, he and I worked together. He wrote that part, and I left it at that. That editor was initially defending this article against my edits, until he realized that my concerns were valid. Go back in the edit history a page or two, and you will see what I am talking about. Also bear in mind that this all occurred last summer, when I was still a fairly green editor. I agree that it smacks of original research, but I was trying to be accomodating. If FAAFA would simply stop trying to find ways to attack me with things that I did not even write (or wrote in my user space long ago and left unfinished/unsourced) for just a few minutes, and go back and read this talk page, and look at the edit history, there would be a lot less frustration all around. I am really getting sick of the depth of bullshit being thrown at me. Almost all of my wiki time lately has been tied up with dealing with this guy. Nobody reads this article anyway, so you guys do what you want, and leave me out of it. If I see a problem, I'll pipe in. OK? I have other fish to fry. - Crockspot 21:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you feel attacked CP, but less than 24 hours ago you were arguing that a link to a forum post should be allowed under WP. As an act of good faith, I deleted the whole 'threat' paragraph, and suggested we work on it here. Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing the situation, but I get the feeling that all you've done since then is argue why you should be allowed violate WP and link to a forum post, while I have not even insisted that this 'threat' section be reinserted. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was arguing against an irrelevant point you were pushing, which is that blog posts are NEVER allowable EVER. It really had nothing to do with the specifics of this article, but with the policy in general, which is not an unusual left curve to find oneself veering down when arguing with you. I simply reverted the section to a previous consensus version, which while containing some OR, at least had SOME kind of source to back it up. The text I was reverting from was OR, and had nothing backing it up. (Mentions of ongoing police investigations which were not found at all in the source cited. See diff.) As I have stated repeatedly, I prefer the section not be there at all, considering the sourcing we have available. Why did you not have a problem with the part I removed in the above diff? Is is because you recruited that person to come here and help fight the neocon cabal while you were attacking and mocking WP policy, and personally attacking WP editors from off-wiki? I refuse to work with you any further, because you are constantly on the attack. You never stop. The last message you left on your talk page is a good case. You list a series of my "transgressions", yet nowhere in that list is there any actual violation of WP policy by me. But you do manage to admit to wikistalking an admin, and make disparaging remarks about him as well. I have never dealt with such a constantly combattive editor as you. No, you haven't improved at all. You've gotten worse. You've wasted way too much of my time, so while I may or may not respond further, it will not be because you "won" or scored some sort of point I can't refute, but because I refuse to be baited by you further. Now stop attacking me and engaging in pointless arguments, and get to work on improving this article. That would be a way to show improvement on your part. As I have already said, I am done editing this article for now. - Crockspot 12:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPA, CIVIL, AGF - F.A.A.F.A. 15:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a little like the wolf crying wolf. People might take your citation of WP policy a little more seriously if you didn't violate those same policies multiple times a day. If you want people to treat you better, try leading by positive example. Crockspot 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BEANS - F.A.A.F.A. 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done here for now 

message: It is bad form to have lots of quotes in an encyclopedia article.  I have rewritten the quotes into sentences.  --Tbeatty 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves" - F.A.A.F.A. 04:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, however multiple quotes are bad style, its a writing 101 principle. Especially in such a short article. --NuclearZer0 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: Can somebody explain to me why the same editors show up to "improve" all of the articles about Liberals?  Some people seem to have no other goal than to "improve" liberal topics.  Go edit articles about arterial stents or steam engines or blimps or something if you don't want people to wonder if this isn't some organized attempt to bias these articles.--BenBurch 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same things but slightly different when Stone put to Sky appeared here. Our watchlists are our enemies, since noone seems to trust the other of being able to edit via NPOV, people appear to watch eachother basically. Silly? Yes, Necessary, oddly enough, proably. --NuclearZer0 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How did you get here?  As far as I can tell, of the current editors, crockspot and jinx are the longest contributors and it appears all of you followed crockspot here in November.  How did you and FAAFA get here?  Tbeatty 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got here when I went to look up Ava and saw this expanding mess.  I wondered if there was an article.  Ava is a sweet little girl, very kind, very decent.  She deserves more respect than she is getting in this process.  I hope this gets resolved so I can go back to what I was doing which was scanning for newsgroup names and inserting URI's and expanding the article about the RG&N.--BenBurch 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I will be the first to admit that since the RfC I have been following FAAFA's contribution list to see if he has been living up to the claims, while I am still seeing a poke here and there, its nothing like it was before, and I am partially greatful for that. Actually most of my own Wiki surfing is through following other peoples contribution lists until I find a project for myself to work on, like a new article. So who is next with their confession? --NuclearZer0 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crockspot and jinx, for some reason, their names rang a bell, I think know them from somewhere. This article was under my radar. I didn't know it existed until it was brought to my attention. Having read the cyber "contributions" of said longtime editors it appeared to me there was indeed an anti-lowery bias. Had I known these folks were doing this previously, I would have been here the next day. I'm new to this wiki editing process, but I know all about their intellectual predilections. I'm here to help them be fair and balanced. Hwmnbn 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm the evil neocon freeper that FAAFA told you about (and slandered, as Ben is doing below) when he was bringing this article to your attention on peacetakescourage.com But really, I'm not so bad. If you get on my good side, I can probably even keep you out of the FEMA camps. - Crockspot 21:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Both are long-time contributors to Conservative Underground where I believe both have called Ava Lowery "Ava The Liar".  Indeed, it seems that anybody who has been a chew toy for that site gets special attention towards "improving" of their articles here on Wikipedia. I know that both editors do try to be NPOV here, but they cannot escape the selection bias of which articles they choose to "improve" or their history of having strong opinions on those subjects.  I do not edit the George Bush article simply BECAUSE I know my own bias would lead me to a NNPOV selection bias no matter how seemingly NPOV my contribution would be. --BenBurch 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ben, you know better than to make an accusation like that without being able to back it up. Unless you can provide a link to anywhere that I have ever referred to Ava as "Ava the liar", you have just violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have already stated that I will not edit the content of this article until you guys have worked something out. I have never had direct contact with Ava, and I don't even think that I ever posted to Ava's thread on CU. My opinion about her notability was based upon the content of the article at the time I expressed the opinion. The article did not assert her notability per WP:BIO. Now that many more sources have been added, the article does assert her notibility, and I no longer am making that case. I actually think this article is now vastly improved, and hope that you can all work together to come up with a truly neutral article. Now, I am pretty much out of it so PLEASE stop invoking my name in a negative way, or I will start making administrative complaints. You savvy? Crockspot 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Working from memory.  If you are not one of the ones who were chewing on this young lady in the "Ava The Liar" threads, then my sincere apologies.--BenBurch 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the apology. Not everyone on CU walks in lockstep, and can be painted with a broad brush. I participated very little (if even at all) in the Ava or Andy threads. I do seem to remember some people even taking some shit from other CUers for being mean. While I may not have participated, I was well aware of what was going on, and what the real deal was. When I first found this article last summer, it was basically an OR hit piece aimed at conservatives in general (much like Andy's article was when I found it around the same time). I tried to insert balance, worked with another editor from the "other side", and struck a compromise that we both could accept. I was a green editor, and I was also compromising, so it wasn't a perfect article. But it wasn't an Ava hit piece either. I consider myself a pretty reasonable guy, but I won't stand by and allow people to use Wikipedia as their personal club to wield against their enemies. If an article was brought to my attention that was biased in the opposite direction, I would take (and have taken) the same action. You may not believe it, but I do try to be neutral on WP. As I admit on my user page, I realize that my biases may make me more likely to proactively seek out bias against conservatives, that is only human nature, and alot of editors and admins do it. Look at your own watch list. I'm sure you watch liberal articles for vandalism. BUT, I will try to get rid of unsourced bias and libel wherever I find it. Crockspot 21:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I *do* accept that you try to be neutral.  It is unconscious selection bias that I wonder about.  I have been consciously not editing articles about right wingers that I cannot stand because I know that no matter how neutral the content I would add would be, it would be content that could not be divorced from my selection of an article about a subject I find distasteful.  This is why you will probably never see me editing Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.  I am simply not sure that I could be honest enough with myself to avoid all bias.--BenBurch 17:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't that OK procedure?  It's been done to me just that way A LOT.--BenBurch 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your sarcasm, but you should attempt to be bigger, not continue a harmful pattern, WP:POINT and all. --NuclearZer0 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't sarcasm.  I assumed that what was done to me was OK.--BenBurch 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am glad to help you then, if you revert someone, and they revert back, that is a sign that they stand by their edits and you should make your point on the talk page, not revert them again and tell them to do it. --NuclearZer0 19:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What I am saying is that when Ben reverted TBeatty, and then TBeatty reverted back, he should have taken that as a sign to use the talk page, not revert another time and tell TBeatty to use the talk page, its hypocritical. By reverting TBeatty again, he was starting a revert war, regardless of his request for talk page usage, since he decided not to use it himself. Don't worry questions are always welcomed. --NuclearZer0 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other people seem to think that is OK to do when I edit things, however. This cannot be "Some animals are more equal than others." --BenBurch 20:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt you are a child, so for the better of the encyclopedia how about you follow the rules and don't worry about others. --NuclearZer0 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am just saying that my perceptions of correct procedure were learned by observation here.  If you say that this is wrong, I'll accept that you are correct and change that.--BenBurch 21:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben is one of the editors who has worked hard on this article over the last week, helping it reach the consensus version that existed through collaborative work from editors of different viewpoints. One or two other editors suddenly 'arrive' and start making wholesales changes based on only their idea of what's better for the article without regard for the collaborative consensus version that existed. That's not gonna fly! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not gonna fly? anyway ... Its good that people came together to make a nice concensus version, but concensus often changes and new viewpoints and ideas should be incorporated as well. Considering the age of the article, we all have just "arrived" technically. --NuclearZer0 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Usual Suspects?

message: I only found this article while doing RC patrol. I've been watching this for the last several days and would like to add my own opinion.  
*"she and her work have received significant media attention"
*"She was the object of considerable conservative criticism"
*"She is also a person of considerable interest in the blog world"
These are subjective interpretations. For example, an op-ed in the NYT and a CNN interview don't count as significant media attention in my mind. Furthermore, I can't find these words used in the references (maybe I'm just dense). Perhaps we could just remove the adjectives?
As for the quotes that were reworked by Tbeatty, I don't understand why this was reverted. What do these quotes provide that cannot be provided by just summarizing them as Tbeatty did?
Finally, someone above asked about conservative criticism that has been published in a credible source. LexisNexis and Newsbank don't return anything. 
-shotwell 20:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about 'significant' etc.. I changed 'significant' to 'national' as CNN+ are national outlets. I deleted the other adjectives as suggested. I re-added the quotes. The NYT quotes descibes the VIDEO and is needed for an understanding of the content, that made her presentation' possibly the best'. The Cindy quote is notable, and appropriate as well. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I won't argue about the quotes because I'm not really that concerned -- it is more a matter of my personal taste. shotwell 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubted it too, but I figured I'd answer the question. shotwell 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like the adjectives I complained about were removed. Hopefully that will stick. shotwell 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Anybody??? - F.A.A.F.A. 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem with the addition of these things. shotwell 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: Comments to Crockspot - I'm researching the history of the article as you suggested. Above you wrote  ; "When I first found this article last summer, it was basically an OR hit piece aimed at conservatives in general..." ...... er..... this was the article when you first found it. Aug 1 version just before Crockspot's 1st edit. Am I missing something here?  An interesting tidbit: Jinx, a CUer as well, nominated the article for deletion the day it was created. Ouch! In the interest of fairness (that's my name after all!) I will compliment Crockspots for working hard to reach consensus with Richard444 who noted "That said, I would like to thank Crockspot for our succesful negotiations on how to incorporate the alleged death threat issue. He was willing to compromise in a way that makes me think that his input here is genuine." Good show! I'm a happy man - I got a fridge full of turkey and ham!- F.A.A.F.A. 09:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit it already. the more you stoke the flames the less anyone is going to care when you claim you got burned. --NuclearZer0 13:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I reject your advice in this instance. I'm not going to let false claims and historical revisionism go unchallenged. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just keep burning away any good faith you recieved in the RfC and see where you are left. What does it matter what the article looked like? The article now is whats in question. I urge Crockspot not to respond to this so we can discuss the now and not the past. --NuclearZer0 21:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed my 'tone'. I'm never going to change my desire for the truth. If you feel it's OK to revise history and make specious claims - and that such claims should go unchallenged because challenging them could cause conflict and hard feelings - I don't know what to say other than I disagree. I'll drop it now. I am also concentrating on the here and now too. I made a suggestion to include some criticism, and spent at least a couple hours looking for sources of RS V criticism. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see you are going to cease being confrontational. --NuclearZer0 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am??? I agreed to cease pursuing this specfic issue. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you wonder why you are treated as such. When you learn to edit instead of edit for confrontation, you will have a much easier time here with less time spent on MONGO's page. But at least you are dropping this issue as I asked. --NuclearZer0 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me?...... er......... linky ... cough, snort, grumble :-) - F.A.A.F.A. 23:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: haha yeah, I thought it was funny, I am not really sure what you are saying however, after someone asks me what guideline I am arguing on and I answer NPOV, then they ask again, then again, and again under someone else thread ... anyway it was light hearted hence the smiley face. If you werent attempting to be confrontational now you would have seen that. I was only trying to help you avoid a RfA, however perhaps you are seeking one by your actions and so I will not stand in your way anymore. --NuclearZer0 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK there is no WP:CONFRONTATIONAL policy I may be breaking, or may have broken in the past. There are however WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA, etc, and I am working dilligently not to break these. BTW, although I rarely edit there, I read the discussion concerning the '9/11 Attacks', and 'Allegations of US state terror' articles every day. Any recent 'confrontation' from me is rather meek compared to what goes on there, including by Admins, and is well within the bounds of WP. Thanks for your concern though - F.A.A.F.A. 23:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His point was less that you are breaking policy, but more that you are doing well on following the letter of policy, but not so well on the spirit. It's an attitude that can't be helping your wikistress.--Rosicrucian 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, thank you for clearing that up. I think its an issue when people worry more about following policy to the T, instead of just being a healthy editor with good contributions. The policies aren't meant to be the bounds of the utmost you can do before getting into trouble, but something for everyone to consider to allow for a healthy atmosphere for everyone to participate and contribute. --NuclearZer0 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why, essentially, the whole of the law and all the commandments hang upon WP:AGF. If followed, it prevents you from assuming malice and keeps your wikistress on the low side.--Rosicrucian 00:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions - Comments 

message: How about :
"Carol Lin of CNN  suggested that much of Ava's notoriety might be due to her young age. In regards to her appearance at the Kos Convention she asked. "These bloggers played your clip on the jumbotron. Do you think they would have done that if you were 25... or 35?". This point has been made by others as well. Lin also described the juxtaposition of the Christian hymm and injured Iraqi children in 'WWJD' as 'almost flip'."
Open for re-writes - F.A.A.F.A. 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Carol Lin mean 'flippant'? shotwell 22:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's a shortened version of 'flippant'. I've read/heard it used by others too.  "Flip: adjective glib; flippant" We could add flippant in parenthesis after the quote. - "...and injured Iraqi children in 'WWJD' as 'almost flip'."(flippant) - F.A.A.F.A. 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is necessary. Thanks for the clarification. Aside from this, did Ava answer the question about her age? Also, who else has made this point, shouldn't we attribute this or at least source it? shotwell 23:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forget who else. I'll have to research it, and am going to transcribe the relevant parts of the CNN interview so we have it 100% verbatim. I have to go out for much of the afternoon / evening. I'll try and get to it before bed. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed criticism 

message: Tbeatty - Why are the quotations un-encyclopedic?  Would you elaborate?  --BenBurch 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source was the actual video on YouTube (or similar) which was removed by editors claiming copyright issues. - FaAfA (yap) 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a problem with the quality of that cite. It was CNN, we have the show name and the date, it can theoretically be verified. As long as the quotes are accurate, I think that's a sufficient cite. If a transcript or the video become available from CNN, a link can be added later. - Crockspot 02:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny Tbeatty - you had no probem adding BLP violating quotes that were actually from the back of a bad movie box cover (The Clinton Chronicles) when it suited your agenda!  - but you do have a valid point about the amount of quoted material. I'll summarise the quotes from the NYTimes article and Carolyn Lin, Cindy Sheehan's quotes, being from a notable person in the same arena as Ava can stay. - FaAfA (yap) 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not surprising that you A) mischaracterize this as being similar and B) don't udnerstand the difference between using a source as a fact about itself vs. quoting verbatim a third party source used as puffery.  I didn't object to paraphrasing the Clinton Chronicles box.  I objected to your wholesale removal of reliably sourced information under the guise of BLP.  In this case, I paraphrased the praise by the subjects who were quoted.  I am not sure why you find that objectionable.  Look at the [diffs] and comment on what's objecionable to paraphrase?  --Tbeatty 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations. 

message: I am going to take out the sentence about death threats. In today's cyber age when anyone anywhere can post anything on the Internet, getting "death threats" that way does not seem so notable. I have even gotten some. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death threats

message: I think the External links should be cleared up and fixed. I think the current links to be moved up one. NachoPiano (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The most recent news coverage she's gotten is a brief blurb about sharing lunch with an Alabama state representative:
Google News search
Everything else is from a full two years ago.  Ava fell off the map long before President Bush left office.  67.135.49.42 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems WP:ONEEVENT would apply.  Making flash animations is something that other higher-profile people do without having their own WP articles. This is her only claim to fame. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I concur.  Many Many people do a few notable things, and remain an encyclopedic subject even when they do nothing else.  --BenBurch (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of notability