User talk:Cecropia/Archive 6

FYI as of a few minutes ago, the pro-Kerry crowd "un-Protected" Kerry
And they are adding glowing bio details in a fury - certainly this was pre-planned. Rex071404 03:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Cecropia.

Could you check and correct if necessary whether you confirm or endorse Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guanaco2. Thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing

Guanaco is trying to get it deleted on the grounds that I am the only person who has tried to resolve problems with him. Could you discuss on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guanaco2 where you discussed his unprotecting policy and endorse it above the line? Thanks. RickK 22:22, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

VfD Childlove movement
I have made your vote a vote to "keep" the Childlove movement page; please edit if you object to me doing this. Votes_for_deletion/Childlove_movement. Samboy 05:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry problem
Re your comment to Raul: I agree with your general point that an article benefits from having multiple editors with different POV's. The application to the specific facts here, however, is that the minimal gains from Rex's participation have been more than offset by his negative impacts. A small example: the article for a long time lumped together two different Kerry quests for a Congressional seat, in 1970 and 1972, implying that he contemplated challenges to incumbents Philbin and Morse in the same year. I had the nagging feeling that was wrong, but it was a while before I could research and rewrite the point, because of all the time that was being consumed by Rex's multiple reverts and his accusations of vandalism and bias against me and everyone else in sight. After being blocked for 24 hours, he came back in classic form. One of his multiple reverts before the latest protection would have restored the above confusion. He simply paid no attention to what I said on the Talk page.

His latest adventure is found at Talk:John Kerry. Here's his complaint: "Just like the prior 3 times, Neutrality has snuck in his version just before the page is locked. I accuse him of sweet talking various persons to be able to be ready with the last revert. I accuse Neutrality of corrupting the process." The specific evidence that Rex presents: "Several of us worked for hours to agree on a section and he just reverted it again! Here again, is the work prodcut that Neutrality keeps deleting agaisnt consensus...." He then quotes a graf that Neutrality did not delete and which is, in fact, in the version that's been protected. I'd welcome any specific suggestions you have as to how we should deal with a user like this so as to get the benefits of his anti-Kerry perspective.

Finally, as to the alleged bias, I note that the article has been cited as "fair and well-documented" by no less an authority than BushCountry.org.

This experience has been enormously frustrating for me. I'd welcome any advice you can offer from the perspective of someone who agrees with Rex on some of the substantive points but who, unlike Rex, understands how Wikipedia works. JamesMLane 07:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, I left a comment on Raul's page regarding your concerns about preventing Rex from editing JK. Not sure what the etiquette is on where to put comments, so left it there & am pinging you now.Wolfman 08:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On my Talk page, you commented, "BYW, I read some of the Bush people's praise of the Kerry article. The things they liked were heavily weighted with things many of the editors wanted to keep out." I don't think that's a fair charge. For example, the BushCountry page says, "Kerry received 3 purple hearts and his ticket home for flesh wounds that hardly kept him out of service. He spent a total of 4 months in Viet Nam." The rest of us wanted to put in the facts. For example, of his three Purple Hearts, two were for wounds that didn't cause him to miss any duty, and the third was for a wound that sidelined him for two days. Fine, that's NPOV. Rex wanted to add stuff like "flesh wounds" and "minor" and "not severe", and he incessantly reverted to restore such characterizations. The rest of us said that Kerry's second tour of duty was for four months. From 2:39 to 3:46, Rex made four edits just to keep inserting his opinion that Kerry "briefly" commanded a Swift boat. It's junk like that that we've been trying to keep out. The Bush supporters who read the Wikipedia article will presumably conclude that four months on a Swift boat in the Mekong Delta was a "brief" period, but we shouldn't use that term. JamesMLane 08:56, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Information Theory for Politics
I just about fell on the floor laughing when I saw that preposterous bit of pomposity. Wow. The mind boggles. older &ne; wiser 01:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex's 08.09.04 edits to John Kerry
Please review the history of that page ASAP. I made a number of edits there today and also defended those which were challenged on the talk page. I am asking you to review my edits for NPOV and help me defend them to the group, if you feel they pass muster. Rex071404 02:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see "Urgent request for group comment - Re: "Elliot Quotations" 08.10.04" on John Kerry (Talk) ASAP
Any input from you would be appreciated. Rex071404 14:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sysopping
Hi, I assume you sysopped Shallot accidentally since you also sysopped Joy so I've reverted this since he shouldn't have two sysop accounts. Hope that's ok. Angela. 17:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

User:Shallot/User:Joy
It says in the Bureaucrat log that you switched the usernames and deleted the sysop for User:Shallot. Just interested if you added it to User:Joy &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  18:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The obligatory thank-you note
This elated eschalot is much obliged for your finishing touch. :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Votes Administration
Lucky69 is up for being an administrator. My view is that he will try and delete articles he disagrees with, you may want to cast your vote here and tell other people to vote: Requests for Adminship. --ShaunMacPherson 19:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Childlove movement
OK, I'll leave it alone. I hope this hurries up though. My POV is that the people who participate in this movement are damaging many children. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar
I just noticed you had no barnstar. And since it's bad for those you deserve recognition not to get it, I have award you what you truly deserve. Display it with pride as a symbol of your great contributions to Wikipedia. Sincerely, Neutrality 23:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like it! Maybe if you offer someone Wikimoney they'll dust and polish it for you. :P Neutrality 04:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your vote needed at George_W._Bush
Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to thank you for having added the song info to Death Cab for Cutie, I've been unclear on exactly what song they were named after for some time.

New Bush vote now under way - please vote
Here

Rex071404 15:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfA Withdrawal
Thanks for your kind comments. The nomination was causing unnecessary furor that was disruptive and distracts from our mission here. If I ever do become a sysop, I want to become it in an atmosphere where the community generally supports me. Once again, I really appreciate your support and fairness towards me and others. Neutrality 21:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Infinate justice
I really, really think you should take a closer look at that user's contributions before deciding I blocked him contrary to policy, and for his "unpopular opinions" no less (thanks for the accusation!). To save you the precious time, I'll give you an example. I am re-blocking him; you may lodge a complaint against my actions if you wish. -- Hadal 17:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's an image of the French flag framed with the slogan "John Kerry for president. OF FRANCE!!!" and with an image of the Eiffel Tower in the blue field, Kerry wearing a beret in the white field, and a frog in the red field. Need I say more? -- Hadal 17:27, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in here, but IMO Hadal was quite justified in blocking the user. There was no serious content in any of the contributions. older &ne; wiser 17:30, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I still believe a 24-hour block is called for in policy. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:32, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More thanks
...for calmly fixing my spelling and logic. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 06:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)