User talk:Kizzle

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lst27 19:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I'm preparing a history of the TfT dispute, which I hope to have ready by the end of today (that's about seven hours from now in my time zone). (moved from user page -kizzle) JamesMLane 20:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

fyi
User talk:Fred Bauder refers to you as a sockpuppet

Interesting, but he'll be back; he's just trying to be dramatic. Wolfman 05:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * told you so. heh. Derex 10:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: mediation request
Hi Kizzle -- since this seems to have begun as an article content dispute, before I go any further, I want to ask you if you have listed the page on requests for comment and mentioned in Dispute resolution to bring in more people to help resolve the dispute amicably? I realize the the sockpuppet issue is also there, but bringing in more editors might well defuse that issue as well. Please let me know.

Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 19:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peace offer
Kizzle; Please note that this message refers to you as Kizzle, not "Kizzle". Please take a look at my talk page under the section "Wolfpeace". User Wolfman and I have been able to bury the hatchet on much of our issues by talking. I think you and I could also do that, if you are interested. FYI: Because you are new here, you are not aware that I am basically the only pro-Bush editor on several of the articles where pro-Kerry types such as JamesMLane would otherwise have free reign. Don't be so quick to think I won't listen to you. It's primarily your frequent siding up with JML which has impeded my dialog with you, not the merits of your concerns. As evidence that I do indeed have good listening skills, here are your TfT complaints:


 * "" tweak - dispensed with (see above)
 * Q: Will I attempt to re-insert past attempted links in exact method I tried before? A: As explained, my aim is to bring "parity" with SBVT - as I view parity. I will attempt to do that in whatever way I am able to successfully. Axiomatically, this means that any editing approach I take which is blocked too much by others, is foreclosed to me. I thought you understood that.
 * Q: What are my specific "gripes" which I would say show "POV" nature of TfT? A: I see that page as having too much pent-up editorial interest to rationally think that it will remain substantially the same (as it is now) for even a short time after it's unprotected. For this reason, I am holding my assessment in abeyence until I see what others do when it's open for editing again. I also thought you understood this already too.

Anyway, feel free to leave constructive comments on my talk page. 16:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as TfT goes, I have no inititives to offer at this point. I am strictly in a "wait and see" mode there. If you are able to take at face value that this does not mean I am laying in wait to "ambush" the page as soon as it opens, there really is no reason to not join me in requesting that it be unprotected. Also, did I answer your questions (see above) to your satisfaction? If not, please explain. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 17:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi folks, BCorr here. I just want to say that I'll archive the mediation request as it seems like -- if you are both able to assume good faith -- that you two will be able to work out your differences without outside intervention. If this proves not to be the case after a few days, please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to de-archive the case. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 17:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Email
You can use the "E-mail this user" thing on the left-hand side. I entered a real address when I registered. AlistairMcMillan 22:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex stop watching my user contrib list
This article has been deleted. Note that its creation constituted vandalism. Please do not do anything like this again. Snowspinner 01:46, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

controversy
Kizzle, why are you going to such lengths to stoke controversy? Have you seen the new page Stolen Honor Documentary which I started? Please examine that and see if you can honestly say that I did not compose a fair and NPOV article. And if I did, doesn't that shatter your presumptions about me? I am still hoping we can resolve our disagreements. 02:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Email again
What Alistair said, a couple topics up. This should get you there: but if it doesn't, go to User:JamesMLane and select "E-mail this user". As for Rex's listening in, I think it's amusing that he's constantly accusing other people of following him around, when he does so much of it himself. (In fact, I'm sure he's reading this. Hiya, Rex!  Have a nice weekend!) JamesMLane 02:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I shall. Thank you. You also. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 02:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quasi
The "quasiness" or lack thereof regarding a given documentary is not equally at issue between F911 and SH. F911 is actually acknowledged by MM himslef as not being solely a documentary. There is no such debate extant regarding SH. Therefore, while quasi may apply to F911, it does not apply to SH. You logic is relatiatory and not sound in this instance. BTW, what is wrong with the word anyway? "quasi- prefix; used to show that something is almost, but not completely, the thing described"  07:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I took off the quasi-reference on SH. Quasi "lessens" the importance of the message contained within, I would be ok with "documentary/editorial"... there is no "quasi" documentary genre, and if any question I would refer to IMDB.com as it is a pretty standard reference for all references to movies. --kizzle 07:20, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

There is no denying that MM's style is very flamboyant and atypical for a documentary. The same cannot be said about the SH documentary. 07:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Flamboyant and atypical does not generate an offshoot from an existing genre, it merely reshapes the traditional associations with it. And didn't you see, i took off quasi from SH?  --kizzle 17:17, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * for my own reference...


 * User:Kizzle/John Kerry Military Service
 * User:Kizzle/John Kerry Military Service Controversy

Rex's departure?
Thanks for your note. I'll make a betting line at 3:1 that he doesn't stay away for more than a day or two. JamesMLane 05:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * answered on my talk page. Wolfman 06:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential election debate, 2004
Posed a question to you at Talk:U.S. presidential election debates, 2004.Bds yahoo 21:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Kizzle, yes, you got under my skin, first by writing (in edit summary) that my edit adding some information about the content of the debate might not belong on the page "at all," moving it to another section (later renamed "Analysis"), and then complaining that there wasn't enough in this section, that it wasn't comprehensive or balanced. No kidding!  It's no single user's job to provide a comprehensive or balanced article.  This is a collective project. The rule around here is, you make the additions you want to see. Bds yahoo 20:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rex's comment
Final 2004 EV total: (ha ha) 17:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Bush 286
 * Kerry 252

Military service of John Kerry
Since Kerry lost, might as well just leave the full military stuff in, as the article won't be growing much. I suggest we make the Military service of John Kerry page a disambig with links to the relevant section of the kerry article and to the 'controversy' article. the current content is essentially no different than the main kerry page content. my main thought is that will reduce maintenance costs (vandalism patrol, etc.) thoughts? Wolfman 17:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * done. merged (essentially copied) into main kerry article.  turned into a disambig page. Wolfman 20:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's that you say? "Kerry lost"... (new battle cry of the DIMS "voter fraud, it was all voter fraud")

As for "permaban", is that anything like permafrost? Please advise. 216.153.214.94 07:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exit polls
All the current exit polls are weighted according to vote count, meaning that they are absolutely worthless for determining fraud. The only uselfull polls I can find are the ones already mentioned and these. A complete seems impossible. Kevin Baas | talk 21:38, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Election controversy official response section
Hey Kizzle, someone actually added info to that section but it was commented out, unfortunately those changes and your revert to commented out state were overwritten because of vandal reverting. Do you really think that should be commented out? I think it's fine left in there. Zen Master 19:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD listing
Thanks for your compliments. What you read was only part of what I wanted to say about Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities! I've gotten the rest off my chest with a Comment in addition to my vote. JamesMLane 21:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Irregularities article title
Sorry I wasn't clear. I favor: (1) moving the math crunching to a new article, titled something like "2004 U.S. election statistical analysis"; (2) creating a new article, "2004 U.S. election voting controversies", for description of registration impediments, absent ballot problems, etc.; and (3) turn the current title into a redirect to one of those, I don't care which. JamesMLane 21:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The title using "statistical analysis" was one mentioned as a possibility by Zen Master. I think he's still pondering what title he thinks would be best.  I see your point about original research -- maybe "data tabulations" or some such?  The title shouldn't use "irregularities" in a way that implies that there definitely were irregularities; other than keeping out such POV terms, I don't expect to play much role in choosing the title for The article where we present exit poll data and use the discrepancies to cast doubt on the legitimacy of electronic voting machine totals.  JamesMLane 22:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recount source
Well, I found a different source than you did. This way I can feel like I'm making some contribution. :)

Actually, I preferred it because it didn't emphasize Cobb over Badnarik (who, unlike Cobb, was on the ballot in Ohio) and because, as an AP report, it wouldn't be considered to be as partisan as something that came basically from the Green Party or its allies. JamesMLane 17:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request IRC chat
I am requesting IRC chat on #wikipedia. Kevin Baas | talk 23:14, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Election controversy articles
Thanks for voicing your support for a summary article. I think we have the beginnings of one in 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, but of course I'm biased in favor of my creation. :) Is that article along the lines of what you envision? JamesMLane 06:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your praise of the article. I understand about those annoying RL distractions that so unduly interfere with one's editing!  Your specific comment was, "I don't know if you've already done it but the subsections should mirror the sub-pages and soon-to-be subpages of the main page."  I agree that the structure should be mirrored.  I wouldn't take either current structure as carved in stone, though.  We can adjust either or both of them.  In addition, some particular topics might be compact enough that they could be covered fully in the summary article, with no daughter article necessary. JamesMLane 07:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * From the point of view of the typical reader, I don't know whether including other controversies in the same article would be useful. People who wanted to know what was being argued about during the campaign (like the debate controversies or the role of the 527 groups) wouldn't necessarily want to read about post-election arguments, lawsuits, etc.  People who wanted to know more about vote-rigging wouldn't care about the bulge in Bush's jacket.  For that reason, my inclination is to confine the article to the voting controversies.  You're certainly right, however, that other controversies would "fit" in the sense that the article wouldn't be unduly long with them.  JamesMLane 03:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

can you handle this?
can you handle this?  The day that evidence of preparation for recount fraud is superfluous, is the day that we are royally f****d. Kevin Baas | talk 00:02, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Rex?
Since you think I'm "Rex" and reading "something" from "Rex" makes you laugh out loud, here is a holiday gift of laughter for you: "Something".

Regards,

216.153.214.94 07:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it's like the day before christmas
 I also heard that Conyers stated very confidently that senators will be contesting the election on Air America radio today. i can't rediscover all of my sources. Kevin Baastalk 08:39, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

I haven't recieved whatever you sent
[mailto:kevin@rockstardesign.com] I have a spam filter, might be overzealous, it primarily depends on the domain that you are sending from. I know I have yahoo blocked. Kevin Baastalk 00:50, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

play
I would love to bring this stuff to people's attention. (provided it doesn't just truamatize them). How is this going to be put in front of people's eyes; how many people are going to see it? what's the plan for distribution; etc.? I'd spend my time on helping out if I knew that it would make a respectable difference. Kevin Baastalk 21:13, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll contribute when I have time not better spent making $ to feed my broke-a$$.

I gave it a little thought, and thought of the key idea "narrative", not in the story-book meaning of the word, but psychologically. Narrative as a means of legitimization. All good religions have a narrative. I looked through a book my friend was reading on nationalism, and it's main thesis was that nationalism relies on a shared narrative, which enforces the idea of a common origin. (think of this: if this was a republican thing, republicans would have no problem jumping on the band-wagon)

a civil rights documentary i saw came to mind: "eyes on the prize" i think it was called. Perhaps a historical aspect can be developed in it. That would also overcome any disbelief - "blacks being disenfranchised? bull$hit!" they might say, but with a little bit of history, the screenplay will figuratively ask them "where you born yesterday?" and remind them that history moves slowly.

Another image that comes to mind is - and this may sound absurd - there was a special on (football star) Brett Favre on T.V. a while ago, it was pretty much a documentary/biography. It went through his trials and tribulations and was a real "hero" story; an epic, the way it was put together. (and things people could relate to - humanizing the hero) When his father died, they got all religous and the preacher said he played a great game, like he was playing for his father - everyone got all emotional and stuff, supporting this hero through his grief, and seeing him play all the harder for it. Great example of a "narrative", in my opinion, as much as I hate sports and esp. football. Kevin Baastalk 19:55, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I was reading this book on writting for law, titled something like "how to write for law, and win", and one of the things from it that i burned into my brain is to focus on people. Make it personal, use names when possible, the people are the characters; develop their character, make it about people. everyone can understand people interacting, the tone of voice; they can always sense fear, aggression, compassion, etc. - it's universal, and drama is simply a composition of such emotions.

We've got blackwell, conyers, boxer, and jackson to name a few. I'm looking over the script. that just struck me. Kevin Baastalk 00:49, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

I'm discussing this on the discussion page for the screenplay.

I added "a guide to voting in ohio, america", first draft, to the screenplay page. that's the method of organization and presentation that made it best come out of my head. (with a little satirical embelishment) Kevin Baastalk 04:19, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

I'm not at my usual computer right now. But fwiw, my standard alias is happyjack27, and if that's taken i just append a 0. once in a while i'm on aol-im, to see if my friend from years ago, who's now in NY, is online. perhaps i should install icq. (i like that it's opensource, but it's bloated!) Kevin Baastalk 01:17, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Just a small suggestion for you. Remember that trials have cross-examinations, and this element would be helpful here. Also, if you're looking for an investigative play that might give you presentation or stylistic ideas, go see Copenhagen (play), or rent a video of its performance. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 09:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

neighbor?
Well then we're both screwed :)--kizzle 01:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * you live in my hood, kizzle? Wolfman 01:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * right on. el cerrito here. have some friends out your way, in concord. Wolfman 09:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * was at ucb. now ucsb, but still keep my home base here when not teaching. Wolfman 17:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Shelley connex
Great find! A doubleplusgood correlation - I'll do a little digging, see who floats it and see what happens. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Check this out too - a recent thread re: Alexander:

Rex redivivus
Like you, I noticed Rex's return. In fact, a couple weeks ago he violated the terms of his ArbCom ban by making this edit within the four-month period during which he was prohibited from editing articles on U.S. politics.

I suppose I could go leave him a note welcoming him back, but there's no need. If he's back, he's probably patrolling your talk page and stalking my contribution list. Either way, he'll see this, so I can give him my message here: Hi, Rex! I hope the end of the campaign season has made you less combative. JamesMLane 00:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But it has been 4 months now, yes? 216.153.214.94 04:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image source
Thank you for uploading Image:Bushbulge.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Bungopolis 09:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: PBS broadcast
 * It may be public domain, but if I remember correctly FOX News was shooting the debate and may have restrictions on redistribution. Even if that's the case, though, it might be permissable under fair use. I'm no expert on copyright either, it's a minefield and quite confusing. In general we don't like to upload images unless they can be confirmed to be either public domain or distributable under a Free (GFDL-compatible) license like many of the Creative Commons licenses. See Images and Image copyright tags for more information. --Bungopolis 00:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a vote you might be interested in
Talk:Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda Kevin Baastalk 22:42, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory Kevin Baastalk: new 21:49, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Your suggestion at the Bush article
You wrote:
 * Ah James, always so helpful, why don't you run for admin? --kizzle 23:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Because I already waste way too much time on this project as it is! I appreciate your thought, but for now I'll stick with the hoi polloi. JamesMLane 02:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Not That Kizzle!
That's pretty hilarious that you're not the same Kizzle as the one on Hackermedia.net. :) This caused quite a funny phone call this afternoon, and is DOUBLY hilarious because your opinions on things are somewhat opposite of the Hackermedia Kizzle. Thanks for the laugh. --Jscott 01:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

vote at GWB article
I invite your vote at the George Bush article []--MONGO 05:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

current focus
i'm currently focusing on news articles for wikinews, esp. in regard to the Downing Street memo and surrounding events. Kevin Baastalk: new 20:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Admin warning #1
I have to warn you that making a major edit and marking it as minor is a policy violation.

(cur) (last) 20:56, Jun 14, 2005 Kizzle m

Your change to Koran desecration buried a very significant point. Please use the Edit summary box, or the talk page to explain edits which change the flow, scope or focus of the article this much. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you an admin? --kizzle 21:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought everyone knew this. Yes, I am. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

About NPOV policy
''I have repeated this several times. This article can contain the information which you seek to include, just not in the intro paragraph as it is not essential nor descriptive of the title subject, which refers to the Newsweek allegations. This does not mean it cannot include your info, but that it doesn't belong in the intro. --kizzle 21:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)''

''You have several people telling you to stop pushing the prisoner end of Qur'an desecration into the intro paragraph... this has been explained several times in the above text. This article is not about prisoner abuse of their own Qur'ans, as this is not what sparked controversy. It is the U.S. abusing the Qur'ans which represents to some that the U.S. is abusing the Islam faith itself. The claims by the Pentagon of prisoners abusing their own Qur'ans is entirely tertiary to the subject being discussed in the article (this text might sound familliar, I've said it before).''


 * Thanks for mentioning the POV about the U.S. abusing the Qur'ans which represents to some that the U.S. is abusing the Islam faith itself. That point really ought to be mentioned in the article. But if it is, then it would be equally important to mention the Pentagon claim that prisoners abused the Koran. It relates to the POV held by some that Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are abusing the Islamic faith.


 * Don't worry: this wasn't a "warning". I'm just explaining NPOV to you! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the POV that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are abusing the Islamic faith is:
 * Not essential to the Newsweek allegations of guards abusing the Qur-an, of which the subject of the article is.
 * Not the cause of international controversy
 * Not the reason why Islamic protestors are angry.


 * That is why this POV, while needing to be expressed, should not be a major point of the article. The external ramifications of these muslims abusing their own Qur'an is little to none, as at best one can claim that they're not being good muslims.  However, the external ramifications of the guards abusing the Qur'ans are huge, as we can see from the international response.  In other words, a man abusing his own Qur'an is not news.  Another white catholic man in a position of power (perception of the guards by the muslim world) abusing this muslim's man Qur'an is significant news.  So include it somewhere as an "Official Response" section or some sort as to indicate that the Pentagon is saying "Well, the detainees did it too!" but don't put it in the central intro, as it is inappropriate in an article whose main purpose is to describe the guards abusing the Qur'an.

Good points all. I've split the article into US abuse and Detainee abuse (see Allegations of Qur'an desecration (disambiguation)). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * You are not listening to me. The info should not be split off, but it "should not be a major point of the article" (see above) either. --kizzle 01:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that I misunderstood. And perhaps I did not explain my idea well. My purpose for creating a side article was to mention the "minor point" that the Pentagon said it was detainees rather than US personnel who had done the Koran desecration.

But if we're agreeing now that only one article is required (and that it's okay to mention Pentagon, Michelle Malkin, Max Boot and others who say that the MAIN abuse of the Koran was by the prisonels) - then the side article is not necessary. But only if toytoy, csloot & you agree that other POVs than the US desecrated the Koran are just as much allowed in a "general article on Koran desecration at gitmo". Otherwise, we'd be back to:
 * 1) an article claiming the US desecrated the Koran
 * 2) claims that the prisoners did worse than the US => excluded from either (a) its own article or (b) the article which is only about US desecration claims

It all hinges on whether NPOV policy permits / requires us to avoid endorsing or dismissing either side in a controversy - or not. If you can show me where it says that the Wikipedia is allowed to take sides in a controversy, i.e., say that one side is right and the other is just making stuff up to defend itself, then I'll shut up and go away. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't understand the significance of the event then. It's not a competition between how many people abused the Qur'an or the specific incidents involved.  It doesn't matter if it was 20 prisoners or 2, it matters if the guards, the people in position, the idealogical representation of the American government abused the Qur'an.  They should not be mentioned with the same significance, as it is completely inaccurate to equate the two.  Tell me this, what is the world's reaction to the prisoner's abusing the Qur'an versus the world's reaction to the guards abusing the Qur'an?  The article, in turn, should reflect this difference of significance in its organizational layout of info. --kizzle 03:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you dialoguing with me about this. I don't mean to split the discussion. My convention is to open up a side discussion only to seek deeper understanding of what someone is saying, so I can participate more effectively on the article discussion page.

It sounds like you're saying that the key element of the Qur'an desecration controversy is public opinion, i.e., the reaction to the various news reports of alleged Koran abuse. And I think the whole gitmo team (here at W) agrees that nearly all of that reaction has been: (Okay, not sure how many people espouse that last one.)
 * the general belief, especially in anti-US quarters, that the intial Newsweek report (US flushing) was true
 * that such treatment of Islam's most revered holy book is a true outrage
 * that the use of scripture desecration to facilitate prisoner confessions is wholly unwarranted
 * and even that the only solution is to close the prison and release the detainees, becausethey're all innocent anyway

In such a case, I'd say the topic being discussed is "public reaction to reports of US Koran desecration at Gitmo".

However, since this is a neutral Encyclopedia - as opposed to an "objective" one, or a liberal one - all pertinent POV must be described. I've started to list these at POV/Koran abuse.

And also, as an encyclopedia, we need to think about the big picture. Is it Koran desecration in general which is being objected to? I think there's already an article defining how Muslims feel about improper treatment of (what they regard as) the holiest of holy books. I got lots of Muslim friends. They all revere it, even my agnostic Iraqi-American friend.

But a title like "Koran desecration at Gitmo" seems to denote the topic as any reported incidents of anyone desecrated a Koran at Camp X-Ray rather than reports that US personnel desecrated the Koran. The topic's scope and the article title should match.

So am I welcome to re-join the gitmo team, or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad we're discussing before we make changes, I'm happy to talk about it :). As in all concepts, there is a hierarchy of information which is significant to the concept itself, from entirely essential information necessary to grasp the concept, to tertiary information stemming from circumstances arising from it.  If all we are to consider is what information falls under  "Koran desecration at Gitmo", then you are correct.  However, we must consider this hierarchy of significance in fleshing the article out.


 * So, like I keep agreeing with you, the information about detainees does logically fit under "Koran desecration at Gitmo", as it is detainees "desecrating" the "Koran" "at Gitmo". However, I don't think anyone can argue that the significance of the detainees desecrating their own book is nearly as much as the guards are.  If one is to argue for prominence in displaying your info in the intro to the article, one must argue that the information not only fits under simple logical inclusion ("desecrating" the "Koran" "at Gitmo"), but that it is highly significant.  All the information in the article fits under the scope we are talking about, but yet we can't fit it all in the introductory paragraph.  But how do we weigh significance?


 * Significance of information is similar to public opinion, but it is a better correlation to public impact. Both the information about the Pentagon releasing reports that the Qur'an abuse took place by detainees, and the guards desecrating the Qur'an, are true.  However, one of these (which I'll let you guess) has affected the world in a much greater fashion than the other.  It is this ability to affect so many lives on this Earth that renders one of these statements more signifiant than the other.


 * I don't disagree with you about all relevant POV must be discussed, this is not what is up for debate. What we are debating is the appropriate location within the article that matches the significance of the POV.  Also, "that such treatment of Islam's most revered holy book is a true outrage" is true but not necessary.  The outrage is specifically directed towards the Americans desecrating the Qur'an, not the prisoners, unless you can find several sources which argue the same thing (and not the Pentagon reports, unless you can clearly see outrage in an official government report disapproving of their prisoners' quality of faith).


 * And yes, you are welcome to re-join the team, as long as you seek concensus before making substantial changes in the future :) --kizzle 16:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think I finally might "get it" well enough to leave this side discussion and take it back to the QD talk page. Meet me there? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to help, sure thing :) --kizzle 18:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

AAR
You're just lucky I have to sign off for a while. But I shall return. JamesMLane 02:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DU
I looked in the profiles under "K" and there's no listing for kobeisguilty (see ). I'm not familiar enough with the site to know how I can look at any particular user's posts, even a user listed as currently active. DU generates a lot of valuable information, although there is a problem with preaching to the choir. It's also not clear to me what the ideological boundaries are. A few months ago, I also raised some questions about the statistical analysis of the exit polls, and I got a civil and thoughtful answer rather than a banning. It may depend on which moderator is on duty on any particular day. JamesMLane 20:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikifun, Round 9, Question 19
I am pleasantly surprised you figured out Question 19. I will award you a bonus point if you can fully elaborate your answer. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The answer to your puzzle...
I'm sorry, but after I saw the puzzle on JML's talk page, I couldn't resist giving it my own shot... (caveat: I'd seen the puzzle once, long ago, so long that I couldn't remember any of the details or the solution, but it may have given me a slight edge in working out the solution.)

To start, we have to assume the prisoners are all perfect logicians: if there is a sound deduction to be made from the evidence, they will make it. Because there are only two white hats, any prisoner who sees two white hats on the other two prisoners will immediately know his own hat is red. From the fact that the first prisoner doesn't know his own hat's color, we know that between the second and third prisoner, there must be at least one red hat.

The second prisoner is able to follow the first prisoner's train of thought, so he knows that between his own hat and the third prisoner's, at least one must be red. If the third prisoner had a white hat on, then the second prisoner would know that his own must be the red one. Because this does not happen, the third prisoner knows that his own hat must be red. -- Antaeus Feldspar 29 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)


 * Correct... JML e-mailed me the same answer, you guys all heard of it before so you only get half-credit ;) And welcome back, haven't seen you editing pages in a while. --kizzle June 29, 2005 00:53 (UTC)


 * There's another necessary assumption: that the third prisoner, who is blind, is not also deaf. Otherwise he doesn't know about the responses of the first two.  I pointed this out and Antaeus Feldspar didn't, so I should get more credit than he does! JamesMLane 29 June 2005 01:31 (UTC)


 * -.5 points to JML for trivial nit-picking observation ;)--kizzle June 29, 2005 02:07 (UTC)


 * Watch your language there, fella. I make my living from trivial nitpicking observations. JamesMLane 1 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)

Sullivan comment
The edit you directed me to removed a statement attributed to Sullivan and followed by brackets, as if for a citation, but the brackets were empty. Without checking the original, I'm not really clear on its status. Does Sullivan report having observed torture? Is he conveying statements made to him by prisoners and/or guards who asserted having observed it? Is he drawing an inference from other facts? Is he summarizing something that the Pentagon has admitted? Each of these categories would be subject to a different analysis. Based on the Molly Ivins column, it seems that Sullivan is pulling together information from reputable, named sources (the Red Cross), possibly augmenting it with information from more dubious sources, and then presenting a summary -- which might be a perfectly valid synopsis of what the sources said, or might be going beyond them. In the latter case, it would bear some similarity to the van Wormer/Frank controversy, because Sullivan's credentials for drawing the inferences would be relevant. Sorry to be so wishy-washy, but it looks to me like that article is another sink that I could pour time into, and I'm going to have to resist the temptation to get further into the dispute. JamesMLane 1 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)
 * No doubt he's probably pulling from various sources, some authoratative, some dubious, I'm just trying to get a notion of where your threshold lies in including outside opinion of un-involved parties. Yeah, I highly suggest staying away from this article, there's an admin who's going gung-ho reverting despite being outvoted 5-1 two separate times.--kizzle July 1, 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Ann Coulter
Your latest revert suggests that I discuss before I remove. I did. I have also raise the matter on the talk page since then.

I also removed the FAQ. We don't have FAQs on Wikipedia, we reach consensus through discussion, not through somebody writing a FAQ (a device for reducing discussion) and sticking it on a page expressly intended for discussion. Don't put it back.

If you want to make an exception to the rule that we don't just string together a bunch of selected quotes on Wikipedia, then justify it, don't expect people coming tothe article anew to care about a "FAQ". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Plans...
Change the world. How 'bout you?

Do whatever I can to end this insanity. In the meantime, I've helped improve wikinews. I made a proposal for an automated workspace, and it just recently got implemented. Yea!

BTW, I got a letter back from 'ol Sensenbrenner (my so-called "representative"). First half was about how the president is doing such a great job in Iraq, and the second half was about how he likes holding presidents accountable through impeachment, like what he helped do to clinton for a perfectly legal act of consensual sex that didn't kill anybody or cost the american people hundreds of billions of dollars or aid the spread of terrorism throughout the world. Odd, because i don't see what the first part has to do with the second, and i didn't write about either of these things. i just asked him to do his job as the chairmen of the judiciary committee and look into these documents. In any case, regards the second part of what he wrote, i see the words but not the actions, and i certainly don't hear the words on the house floor, coming from him. So it's all very disconnected.

I'm hoping that the valerie plame thing will dissillusion some people. I think the slow ones are finally starting to catch on. anycase, i've got much less time w/my new job as an it consultant for the city. :-) Kevin Baastalk: new July 6, 2005 23:45 (UTC)


 * Well, he worked hard at suppressing all Minority Staff meetings that Conyers sought to hold. His tactics on the floor are appalling, and his response is almost as smug as it is predictable. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

Doing pretty fine, Kevin... still truckin on the screenplay, check this out :) Hope you like your new job. --kizzle July 7, 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Her
Btw - that's "don't take *her* word for it" (I'm female). Just thought I'd let ya know! -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't have guessed from your username, I'll keep it in mind. :) --kizzle July 7, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

check email
check your email...--MONGO July 7, 2005 06:43 (UTC)

Poll
Thanks for the alert. By the way, how's Granny doing? JamesMLane 22:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha, that was seriously funny, I haven't visited my grandmother in about 3 years, so that was perfect timing. --kizzle 00:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Funny? I'd say it's almost... eerie.... JamesMLane 04:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * yep 1.5 works for me. btw, i was just visiting at sb for a year, so won't be teaching in the fall.  back from a long wikibreak, and just felt like having a new name.  like it? Derex 20:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * uhh...Wolfman? Aww well, I probably wouldn't have taken any economics classes, but it would have been fun.. and yeah, like the new name :) --kizzle 22:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * yep, hoooowl. i might be down a few times next year.  maybe we can grab a beer. Derex 06:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * hell yeah, e-mail me when you're in town. --kizzle 16:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

just noticed looking through the coulter archive that your very first post was to rex, about keeping the quotations. man, that takes me back. i kind of miss old rex, in a very twisted & masochistic way. maybe it's stockholm syndrome. Derex 05:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for posting that... explains a well-known song by Muse called "stockholm syndrome" that I had wondered what it was referring to. Ya, I think you missed it before when Rex came back for a bit... funny enough he was actually quite civilized this time around, but people weren't ready to dialog with him.  Haha, yeah takes me back to the day... although I think little rexs are popping up on the gwb and coulter pages as we speak... I'm about to quit and take a wiki-vacation (which I'll be taking anyways when SB starts in the fall).  By the way, randomly, I have a paper I've been working on about electronic voting machines... do you know any profs at SB who would be down to let me take an independent study class from them and help draft a research paper (keeping in mind that I'm undergrad)?  I'm already at about 40-50 pages double-spaced, but I need some feedback and devil's advocate...ery... and since I'm done with my degree and general ed reqs, I thought I might put these random units to good use.  It'll also help cause my re-admission papers are still going through and most classes are filled by now :) --kizzle 05:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * sorry, i don't know anybody useful. i taught over at bren (no undergrads there) & didn't stray too much beyond.  i imagine somebody over at public policy or political science would help you. be mindful that the profs probably don't get any teaching credit for it, just satisfaction.  so, it's important to demonstrate that you've got enthusiasm & a good start & are really interested in your problem & and have a well-considered research plan.  at least that's what gets me to do it.  of course, if your research appears to be suitable for an academic journal, that might engage the self-interest of a prof as well.  knock on a few well-chosen doors with the right attitude & i'm sure you'll get a taker.  (if someone says no, ask them who might say yes).  good luck. Derex 06:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * done. and i'm an asshole, not a bastard. Derex 15:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The Coulter
Not sure how i feel about this one - she's an awful, monstrous person - and while I'd rather other people have the benefit of reading her vitriolic sludge (as I must), I hesitate to give her even one more word in print, as she's a complete and utter Nazi stooge. I will thus abstain. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Hey kiz, let's wander on over here, so we (I) don't totally fill up that talk page with a side discussion. Really though, what arguments are you speaking of in regards to O'neil and Clarke? I'm quite the political junkie, so it's a bit surprising that I don't know which you are referring to, but it's very possible that I've just forgotten them. Oh, and if you can answer here it'll be easier, or if you like we can continue on the talk page. As an aside, do you understand what I was getting at on the irregularities page? I have a hard time figuring out how its possible to put fraud in an election as only effecting this or that race. Anywho, regards. -bro 172.165.157.184 10:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * K, well first of all, I don't know whether it can be classified as a full-blown argument that either of them said in their book, it was more of a recollection of events. But both Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, who are both Republicans, said that plans were being made about Iraq way before 9/11 ever happened.  Yes, I realize that Fox news painted them as ax grinders, but you have to realize that the possibility of such a label being applied is not sufficient to refute their arguments/observations only based upon that assumption.  Assuming for a moment that their only intentions were to tell the truth, the response from the white house painting them as ax-grinders would be exactly the same as what we saw.  In addition, if I recall correctly, Clarke left his government post on his own volition (though O'Neill left/quit more on forced circumstances), thus I don't think he would be too bitter at his previous bosses for simply firing him.  That is why I bring this up in light of the Downing Street Memo, as it corroborates what is coming from this memo... that Bush was planning to go into Iraq way before 9/11.  I even have another personal source, although its completely unsourcable...my good friend's dad is a high up military person, not a general but almost, and my friend said that when Bush came into office, he said "just wait, in 2 years, we're going into Iraq."  He told me that before 9/11.


 * As for the irregularities page, I understand some of your confusion. In a normal argument or paper talking about stuff that went wrong last election, I would bring up the WA gubernatorial election as well (although it merely consists of allegations, no proof).  However, in Wikipedia, we have to limit the information given in any article to the scope of the title.  Simply put, the scope on that page is 2004 U.S. Presidential election controversies and irregularities.  Irregularities are discussed in the impact that they had on the presidential race.  Yes, this is on the same ballot as the gubernatorial race in WA, but it still can be thought of as two different elections.  And in WA's case, there weren't any substantial controversies of the presidential vote.--kizzle 14:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright, I can't argue much of the clarke/o'niell stuff, other than to say fox has little to nothing to do with my opinions on things. Can't even remember the last time I watched cable news.  I think part of the confusion on the irregularities page is the title, such as, when most people refer to the elections in 2002, they refer to it as midterm election of 2002, when they refer to the elections of 2000/2004, they refer to it as the presidential election of 2000/2004.  So I think part of the confusion is coming from that.  About the fraud, the sad thing is, there is and will be fraud in every election, ever.  But most will only become widely known when it's a close race and a candidate thinks it will benefit him/her.  I understand that the fraud was magnified by the challenged of the Gov. race, but it was equally probable that it was the same in the pres. race, just that it wasn't close enough to bother with.  If it were a closer race, and bush needed WA to win, you can bet it would have been thrust forward.  So, to boil down, I think perhaps the title is misleading, as it conveys, at least to me and those I know, the entire election of 2004. -bro 172.163.215.214 21:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Definetely there will be fraud in every election. I just think its possible for us to limit it to "Mary Poppins" registrations and selling a small number of votes for crack, rather than allowing widespread manipulation via unauditable, insecure voting machines made by highly partisan companies with employees who have prior convictions of fraud using sophisticated "backdoor" programming. --kizzle 22:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish, but I really haven't decided which is worse. I lean towards to fake voters, multiple voters really, just because it's the harder one to control/eliminate.  In the end, it all sucks, but it will never go away, oh well. -bro 172.163.215.214 00:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

nice name
especially phonetically

yours, Kzzl

My appreciation
Thanks for your help in reverting the vandal hitting my user page. An oddity: The IP that was spuriously adding my name to various articles had been used, only two hours earlier, to create a stub about Jimmy "Jax" Pinchak. I thought it might be a hoax, but it turns out to be a real child actor. He's appearing in a TV series that was mentioned in the stub but with a red link, so I did a little research and wrote Over There (series). Thus the siege of vandalism resulted in a small expansion of our coverage. Strange are the ways of the wiki.

Meanwhile, I've been on a mini-vacation from the whole George W. Bush situation. Thanks for copying and sending me the book excerpt; I hope soon to do something about it. Your user page also reminds me that the RfC is still hanging fire. I don't know whether I can contribute anything to your election 2004 project, but I'll give it another look. JamesMLane 22:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, hold off on my project... I was just in a bad case of writer's block which I'm over now. I know you're a well-trained writer from taking the bar... after I'm completely done with everything if you wouldn't mind, I'll send you the complete word document with sources and foot-notes if you could just proof for me, as I've never written a paper longer than 12 pages, and that was trying to prove John Searle's "Chinese Room" analogy was retarded (and I sent it to him at his UC Berkeley email as well, alas, no response).  After that, I'm gathering about 100 emails of all the major academics/important people (conyers, stephen freeman, bev harris, cobb, doug jones) and asking for one-page letters of recommendation for me to take with when I pitch to my friend who is in the process of selling a movie to warner bros or paramount right now.  So it's gotta be tip-top shape as they're all going to fact-check me. --kizzle 22:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The weird have so little to do that is productive
Thought I would bring this to your attention since this also mentions you...not sure what you ever did to Brodo but he seems to like you too...but since he is also known as "bro" that certainly explains his apparent problem with you. Anywho, he made this post and adorned his user page with my beautiful picture...[]--MONGO 07:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. As they say on Wikipedia, vandalism is the sincerest form of flattery. --kizzle 07:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good question about barnstars...I was getting ready to develop an article about the 1988 Yellowstone Fires...I spent 37 days there then fighting those fires and am putting the info together and I get to see this sorry waste of life wasting my time...oh well. I say let it go..."don't feed the trolls". Also, I inserted the info (essentially) that James wanted as his reluctant version of the Rfc...but deleted the sentence discussing the psychology stuff...If he decides he wants it in, then that's fine too. After trying multiple times in the Bush article to update the passages and dealing with the vandalism I got fed up with that mess and I am resuming my efforts to just do one or two vandalism reverts a day there...What's the status on the partial block for such situations (blocking vandalized pages from edits aside from registered users)?--MONGO 08:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * The status is that its on hold, despite many people on here requesting it. Its basically one guy on the actual bugzilla site is holding to his dogma that preventing anon ip edits, no matter what, is wrong.  I highly suggest clicking on the link on James's talk page, getting an account, and putting your feedback in, as its stalling right now due to simply 2 people on bugzilla... not enough people know about it, so if you know anybody else who wants such an option, direct them to the bug link. --kizzle 08:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try and get to it tomorrow...the night is old.--MONGO 08:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * but since he is also known as "bro" that certainly explains his apparent problem with you. Wait, since when do I have a problem with kiz?  We've spoken over quite a few pages, and while certainly disagreeing, its been quite a pleasant experience.  Oh, wait, more nonsense.  Sorry to clutter up your page kiz, but this is ohso entertaining. -bro 172.137.190.250 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

My Kung-Fu is very strong
Just thought you'd like to know - your [comment] on Karl Rove is now immortalized on my userpage. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 20:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sweeeeet :). I'm flattered. --kizzle 20:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Block
You can just ask to be blocked, you don't have to vandalise pages to get it. Would you like me to block you for 24 hours? -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe we go with 48 hours under repeated vandalisms to George W. Bush. Redwolf24 21:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But its much more fun..... yeah sure, why not. I need to get this stuff done instead of lounging.  But I didn't repeatedly vandalize the page, so just 24h please. :) --kizzle 21:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Go get your work done. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 21:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What the F%&@ was that about, Kizzle? Don't wig out on us!--MONGO 00:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Had shit to do today, and i'm a full-blown wikiholic. this is what i'm reduced to ;)  plus I now have my highly offending vandalized version of GWB as my start page.  by the way, i can't even believe that picture is allowed on Wikipedia, as I didn't upload it. --kizzle 00:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought you were blocked? Your ninja powers include editing while blocked? JamesMLane 02:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's kinda fun being blocked, now I know how rex felt. --kizzle 04:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, not to encourage more, but it's funnier than the one with Jar Jar Binks' picture there instead of Bush...don't worry...only three more years...I must be getting old to think that 3 years is a short period of time, especially when it means 3 more years of George Jr.--MONGO 03:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT VANDALIZE George Bush page. Anyone, even kids can could have seen it. I know that was just a one time trick out of the bag, and I must say quite a bag...but that was TOTALLY uncalled-for.Voice of All(MTG) 03:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Voice of All(MTG). This could have caused problems for Wikipedia.  Whoever is actually depicted in that photo might be very upset at being identified as George W. Bush. JamesMLane 03:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * HA! Unless it really is part of him as seen with an electron microscope.--MONGO 04:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know it was uncalled for, but I got my work done. I couldn't believe that image was on Wikipedia.  Dude, there's some pretty disturbing stuff uploaded to Wikipedia. --kizzle 04:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhh, somehow my block got extended. If someone could be as so kind to let Francs2000 know that I'd like to be unblocked now.  Thanks. --kizzle 21:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I like how you ask to be unblocked from editing by editing your user talk page to add a comment. How do you do this? Your power have grown since last time.............................................oh wait, what last time?:)Voice of All(MTG) 21:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hehe, no, all I'm allowed to edit is my user talk page, thus i can't even message anyone else. So I'll just sit here and talk and talk by myself :). --kizzle 21:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, Kiz. Not, sorry I missed that one. BD enjoyed it though. I've really got to get this seminar together, but here I am. I'm almost tempted ... Derex 15:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kizbiscuit
Hey there - I emphasized my post on the irreg/controversy article, hopefully that answers your question re: relevance(s) to the election, etc. Hope you're well, and recovering from your bout with temporary insanity! -- RyanFreisling @ 13:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hehe, ya I'm back to normal. Every once in a while you just gotta let out some steam! --kizzle 16:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Semi protection?
Check it out....--MONGO 17:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

WikiFun Round 9: Lightning Round Time
I have decided to attempt to advance and end the round quickly. Parts of the question will be revealed with more hints and/or be more elaborated on as every two days. I have currently provided more hints on the answer pages for the current remaining questions. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

sourcin
Hope I answered your query somewhat on my talk page. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

ignore
fyi - i'm now ignoring 'bro', if you are confused as to my silence. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Avi Rubin gets $7.5m to study Election reform (good news)
. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 21:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice. I hope none of it goes to Stanford's Hoover institute. --kizzle 21:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Something you might be very interested in
2004_Bush_campaign_chairman_pleads_guilty_to_election_fraud%2C_conspiracy

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/10/national/w231835D50.DTL

Kevin Baastalk: new 00:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Great idea! I just sent "countdown@msnbc.org" this email:

Keith, I thought you might be interested in some pretty shocking news related to election fraud:

Despite a zero-tolerance policy on tampering with voters, the Republican Party has quietly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide private defense lawyers for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.

James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.

A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.

At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional director, before moving to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.

A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.

...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/10/national/w231835D50.DTL

also see:

The Indictment - http://wid.ap.org/documents/tobinindictment.pdf

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's recent letter on voter suppression - http://wid.ap.org/documents/rncletter.pdf

Republican National Commitee - http://www.rnc.org

(The shocking part, ofcourse, is that there was some justice, not that the GOP engaged in election fraud. (which is obvious to anyone paying attention))

Hope you can use this! -Kevin Baas Kevin Baastalk: new 01:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * getting a head start on losing the 2006 election?--I-2-d2 21:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow Kevin, you really must have gotten under his skin. --kizzle 17:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't take the credit for that. In all fairness, I have to attribute the credit to reality.  It tends to get under people's skin a lot. Kevin Baastalk: new 17:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

psst
-- RyanFreisling @ 01:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh. Sorry - I meant to point out the anon user's link attack on that article (latest history). He/she has deleted the Palast links 3x, claiming the style guidelines demand it. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for opening up the clean slate on Talk:Ted Kennedy. I had been trying to do that since yesterday without completely removing everything, but you've done well to clear it all together. Thanks a million for stepping up and taking control where other admins haven't. - Sleepnomore 20:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but no problem :) --kizzle 20:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your help would be appreciated
I thought things were going so much better last night with the clean slate on Talk:Ted Kennedy. User:Silverback refuses to let the issue go, however. I don't have a problem with his complaints, but they don't belong on user talk pages. Would you please help to restore the "clean slate" you did before as I felt there was much better progress that way. - Sleepnomore 14:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture - comments requested
I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI my image lost by one vote - wish you'd participated. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edit's are considered vandalism
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. , please cease your vandalism, or you will be blocked--I-2-d2 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you talking about? --kizzle 00:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yo
Thought you'd want to see this 'interesting' series of articles by Klonimus -, , etc. See his user page. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

We could use your input
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories&action=history Kevin Baastalk: new 23:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

RFC
I will begin drafing it at User:Hipocrite/BD7RFC in the next few hours. I would appreciate your input. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! A lot of work going down for someone who's constant message to me was 'Focus on the edits...not the editors."

Or, perhaps your advice was just for others, huh? lol! Big Daddy 04:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's a shame you've become the focus by consistantly defending your right to polemics. --kizzle 18:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh.
edit conflict as I was trying to move it. :)


 * You need to certify the basis for the RFC or it will be deleted. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh?--kizzle 23:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Our friend
Kizzle, first of all, thanks for your kind words about my discourse on the Coulter talk page. (I mistakenly told you 'thank you' on your user page; I am taking the liberty of deleting it there.) I was probably too wordy, but I meant all of them.

Second, I have left BigDaddy777 some words on his talk page, but have noticed he has not been contributing for about a day. Has he been blocked, or is he absent by his own choice?

(We'll get through this, I promise.)  Regards,    paul klenk 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for taking the time to try and help out, he has edited a couple times since the RfC (specifically one choice comment vowing to recruit editors to come to his aid, look in the RfC under "Evidence since RfC was filed"), but overall it has slowed down. Good luck with your efforts, I would much rather this end with BigDaddy learning to be civil, because I do agree with him that content is tilted to the left (though not intentionally) on Wikipedia, and I think the articles here would benefit from his scrutiny. --kizzle 05:04, September 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * We have been in touch, yes. It will be a challenge, but I will give it a try.   paul klenk 00:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

" Big Daddy, ...I'd respond to your comment but I'm afraid that would constitute feeding the troll. --kizzle 16:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)"

"Its generally the old white balding fat men who have problems getting girls." --kizzle

don't be such a bitter bee. --kizzle 21:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

"If you think Ann Coulter is beautiful, you need to find more beautiful people to hang out with." --kizzle

And Kizzle goes to great lengths to accuse ME of making 'personal attacks'??

Hmmmm...Hello Kettle! LOL!!!

Big Daddy 03:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For the first comment, if you actually participated in the RfC, you'd see my offer to retract and apologize for such an allegation if you withdraw your personal attacks. "Its generally the old white balding fat men who have problems getting girls..." and "If you think Ann Coulter is beautiful, you need to find more beautiful people to hang out with"... I wasn't referring to you, just responding to your "theory" about why us liberals are closet Coulter admirers.  Bitter bee was actually made in good faith, I was trying to be playful with a certain editor to get them to lighten up.  Sigh.... this is about your 6th attempt to try to justify your hostile behavior.... just don't do it.  Period. --kizzle 18:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this evidence makes it clear to all reasonable and objective people that, if one wanted to issue an RfC for the reasons you've ostensibly stated (instead of the real  reason which is as a vindictive retaliatory attempt at silencing someone whom you feel endangers the liberal hegemony on Wik) then you and Ryan would be the first in line... Big Daddy (coming home soon)


 * Kizzle, to be clear, if the reply to the RFC is anything along the lines of above (IE: My accusers are just trying to silence me! I have done nothing wrong!), then I will proceed immediately to RFAr. There is adequate consensus on the RFC page that the editor in question needs to make changes to his talk page behavior. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Illinoisian#Warning.3F (Wow! And I thought Hippocrite only stalked me!) Ps Kizzle, it seems I greatly underestimated your troubled  history on Wikipedia as well. For those unaware, just read this very talk page and follow the links. It's a tawdry history filled with repeated accusations and warnings from administrators and users alike. I think most reasonable people would agree that, in light of these revelations that both Hippocrite and Kizzle have a  very questionable history on Wikipedia, that any attempts to discipline others must be met with, at the very least, a modicum of suspicion... Big Daddy 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please note that the user in question was banned from wikipedia indefinetly for trolling and vandalism. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do have a history of dealing with troublesome users who do not respect civility or the community itself; you certainly aren't the first, and you won't be the last. That's just the way it goes. See you at Arbitration. --kizzle 22:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In a perverse sort of way, I have to give you credit. You both have this little game figured out. Too bad I discovered it, huh? It's important to note that the user Illinoisian who Hippocrite stalked, harrassed and slandered (as well as others we'll discuss at a later date) was also a conservative. So Kizzle, who has been warned by administrators and editors throughout his tenure here for a variety of violations, plays the good guy 'just trying to help.' While Hippocrite, exhibiting almost the same identical pattern in case after case, falsely accuses conservatives of a variety of petty rules violations. It's eerily uncanny how Hippocrite smeared others before me in virtually the same nitpicking fashion. Sorry guys, the gigs up. I've got WAY too much info on how you've '''subverted wikipedia to make it your own little POV paradise. ' I have to say though that hippocrite calling the FOUNDER of Wikipedia, just another editor '' takes the cake! I knew from the very beginning of this farce that, if I just waited long enough, you guys would overplay your hand. But I had no idea just how absurdly it would all come down. Big Daddy 07:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for more fuel for the Arbitration case. --kizzle 08:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Request
I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

hey kiz, weren't you supposed to be gone after you settled coulter? something about school? what, you need a 12-step program for your addiction? anyways, i'm back, sort of, in and out likely. had a totally shitty couple months, watching a death schiavo-style except conscious. i am really, really, really, really pissed at the jerry falwells of the world right now, and at the politicians they own. anyways, glad to see you're still addicted here; it's cheaper than some habits i've had ;) Derex 05:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * ya, more or less I was gone after coulter and Bush RfC working on my outline until rex's protoge came on board, then I felt I needed to stick around a little longer. I'll still be around but I won't be editing much in article space in about a week, i got re-admitted and my reliving college days officially starts on thursday. anytime you go back to visit hit me up :) ... sorry you had to watch that shit, hope it wasn't like a brother or anything really close, but glad you're back bro.  By the way, I emailed every single professor in the poly sci department with my paper and a whole rigorous set of milestones I'd have to pass pleading with them to let me take independent study for peer review, a couple wrote back saying they'd be interested but they were on leave, but I don't think any of them are going to do it.  You'd figure some prof would be a liberal activist on the side, especially in SB with its history, but I guess not.  And I'm taking econ 1 with sonstelie if you know who that is... need some business sense to round out the philosophy...so you can help me on my homework :) --kizzle 18:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * sorry man. i wrote a long rant about how corrupt the whole system is.  but, my browser crashed before i saved.  short version: there's no reward to being an 'educator'. sometimes it's actually penalized.  friend at ucsb actually got chewed out for perfect evals because it meant she was prioritizing that over research. and the 'research' end is corrupt too.  it's shocking how much completely useless & incompetent stuff gets published and how much useful & innovative stuff gets rejected.  anyways, it was a long rant and writing it uplifted my soul in a bitter & cynical way.


 * was my ex-wife's mother, very sad & brutal. literally died in her arms.  can starve her to death for 3 weeks with doctor's supervision, but can't help her die peacefully. that's murder everywhere but oregon. and bush is trying to stop it there by yanking medical licenses. hope he dies that way himself or maybe for lack of stem-cell research.  hell, why not both at once?


 * will almost surely be down sometime this fall; will look you up. Derex 20:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BD777 RFC page
kizzle, I noticed that some of my recent comments to the "Motion to Suspend" section, along with a large chunk of other text, got deleted during one of your recent revisions. I was running into edit conclicts myself... Is that what happened? May I restore what was cut? paul klenk 02:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey paul, I moved everything from Gator's comment below to the talk in the hopes that my offer to BigDaddy wouldn't get ignored by more talk. --kizzle 02:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that -- thanks. I am certain your request for his comment will not go unheard, or unheeded.    paul klenk 03:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Kizzle writes: "I'm afraid I can't stop those who want you to be punished..."


 * Call me crazy, but that sounds like a threat. Why would anyone want to punish me for merely bringing balance to Wikipedia? You apparently know who they are. Can you tell me their names? Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this very serious matter! Big Daddy (on the road again.)


 * People want you to be punished because of your conduct in the matter and the fact that you still have refused to comment on your own RfC. I don't know anything more than you do, but as it stands, you basically have me and paul on your side believing that you can change with everyone else giving up on you as a lost cause. I won't say anything further on the matter, but it would be significantly in your best interests if you respect Wikipedia procedures by commenting on the RfC before Tuesday is over.--kizzle 00:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You refuse to mention names so I can't really believe you, unless you're indicting EVERYBODY - katefan, ryan, drex, etc etc. If that's true, it's a VERY SERIOUS charge. What you're in essence saying is that a group of vindictive people are trying to censor me without cause because of my political beliefs. That's what I have maintained from the beginning. It has to be that since the only thing you could otherwise accuse me of at the time of this charge is namecalling which is how YOU introduced yourself to me. Name calling....Sounds like something's fishy is going on. But I will reserve judgment for after I've spoken with some higher-ups in Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind me reporting your actions. Thanks! Big Daddy (on the road)


 * You are not understanding what I'm saying. Your conduct and accordance with Wikipedia official policies has been less than stellar since you started editing here.  This is the reason why the RfC was filed against you. Almost everyone has given up on your ability to change from your hostile ways, paul and I (until wednesday) have not.  As for reporting my actions, I seriously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about nor any faint idea as to what you could report, but feel free to do whatever you wish. --kizzle 02:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Will do...Big Daddy (on the road thru tomorrow...)


 * By the way, if you don't edit the RfC by end of today, don't even think about using the excuse that you were on the road, given the amount of edits you've made on your anon account since you've been "on the road". --kizzle 22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yer Reel
Has playback problems on Mac. Is there a torrent or binary for the full download? Thanks - can't wait to see it! -- RyanFreisling @ 13:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? You mean my paper? --kizzle 17:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm, yeah - the video thing you told me to look at doesn't work on Windows Media Player for Mac. Just fyi, do with it what you will. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Preparing for reconciliation
I want the BD RfC resolved, or at least put in the past. I'm asking him to answer the RfC. I respect your reasons and intentions for bringing the RfC and the usefulness of RfCs to WP culture. This user did have it coming. However, this particular RfC is very dependent on characterizations of comments, rather than hardcore facts (which do exist) for its weight. Characterizations are often very POV in and of themselves, and accurate ones usually include points valid to each side. Many false accusations of "vandalism" were thrown around at one point; this certainly could not have given the user any confidence in the credibility of the "team" involved. Also, this isn't, in the grand scheme of things, the biggest deal in the world. To help those involved to prepare for this reconciliation (I am sending this identical message to the three original signatories), I am asking them to:


 * Go over your own edit history with respect to the user, in detail, with the same scrupulousness with which you have examined his. View it as an adversary might.  This requires time and work.
 * 1) Identify anything, directed at the user or referring to him, that has been a violation of WP policy, or could be construed as such, including the possible inadvertant deletion of a user's text on a talk page by someone that, technically, was a violation of vandalism policy, and later reverted by an admin. Because RfCs involve behavior before and after they are brought, do not limit your review to pre-RfC history.
 * 2) Identify all comments you have made that could be misconstrued as an "attack" -- based, of course, on the same standards which the other user is being held to. Recognize how unforgiving edit histories are.
 * 3) Then, apologize to the user in advance for any and all of these things which you have done, even if his sins are greater than your own. This is known in Wikiquette as admitting one's mistakes.
 * Give the user some credit -- to his face -- for identifying the bias in the Rove article (the NPOV tag I added has never been seriously questioned, has it?), and for the reasonableness, if not the certainty, of a newbie making conclusions, however silly, of a liberal "cabal" or clique at WP (indicated by comments such as "Sticking together on Rove").
 * Let the user know you're not perfect, and will happily accept an apology from him as well.
 * If the user chooses not to give the answer he is being asked to give, be prepared to move on.

You can never pile too much love onto an adversary. It's called "heaping coals on their head." I'm asking this user to swallow his pride and admit his errors. Let's all be prepared to do the same. This may require us helping him to find ways to save face. We all screw up from time to time. We all require grace. If I've made any errors, let me know as well.

If it only took one sin to be damned to hell, we'd all be damned to hell. Once we were there, would there by any point in arguing about who's sins were worse? Hardly.

paul klenk 10:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Requests for comment are exactly that. This RFC has attracted plenty of comment.  Enough, surely, to let BD know his style is not acceptable in Wikipedia.  The only reason to leave the RFC up now is because one key comment is missing: BD's response.  If he'd simply leave a statement that he will respect the cited policies (even without admitting fault), then I'd agree the RFC should come down.


 * Asking another user to catalog his own behavior, while always a useful abstract exercise, has absolutely no relevance to this RFC. BD's behavior is his own.  He continues to thumb his nose at the community by refusal to even acknowledge the RFC.  He continues to be hostile, last I checked.  As such, I see no reason at all to remove the RFC before it naturally expires.  What less could you ask of any user than a simple statement that he will abide by policy?  Derex 17:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for a link
I'm trying to analyze User:BigDaddy777's behavior in context, based on the RfC. This is very hard, because the RfC quotes him out of context; I can't fairly analyze a quote that way. Working through the threads to do post mortems is extremely time consuming.

Would you please send me one or two links to a discussion of some length, representing BDs worst behavior? It should include more than just one or two isolated remarks.

Please leave it at my talk page under User talk:Paul Klenk, trying not duplicate a thread submitted someone else. I will continue to sort through the RfC, but one or two links would be a great help. Thanks.

paul klenk talk 07:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Paul, I'm not so sure about some of the links posted after the RfC was filed, personally, I don't have too much of a problem with most of them, but as for the links before the RfC was filed in the evidence section, they're all pretty bad and I don't think were taken out of context. Click on the links yourself to see the discussions where they were originating from.  I personally don't understand why you continue to defend someone who is too bullheaded to even comment on their own RfC.  I don't want to spend any more of my time with a problem user's behavior, especially one who refuses to acknowledge they even have a problem.  I've already bent over backwards giving this user the benefit of the doubt time and time again, where he then threatens to report me while I am trying to help him.  If you truly want to defend him, you spend the time analyzing whether or not the evidence section is taken out of context, cause I sure as hell am not going to.  Regardless of what you might find, he did commit the personal attacks, he was uncivil and even implicitly admits that he was when he responded to my comment saying he was getting better, yet he continues to show a lack of respect for his co-editors by refusing to even acknowledge the case we have brought to try and get him to change his behavior.  Enough second, third, and fourth chances.  If he is refusing to acknowledge his behavior, than we need to move this to a platform where he is unable to ignore the  ramifications. --kizzle 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC
I chose to withdraw because I am not sure I liked where it was heading. There wasn't one specific thing that made me do it, I just didn't really want to be associated with it anymore. I know I could have just deleted my name entirely, as opposed to a strikethrough, but I didn't really feel right doing that either (people should still see my views on the talk page). The RfC has gone far enough and does not need my support any longer. However, if arbitration is brought, I will gladly have a look at it. I don't agree with the way Big Daddy handles himself, but don't really have the energy to keep up with it all. Cheers my friend. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  21:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, just curious :) --kizzle 01:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ignore BD
Hi, Kizzle. Thank you for your thankless work on the RfC and the RfA on BigDaddy777. :) I was going to copy and paste (and mark as such) your exhortation on the RfC Talk page to ignore BD's Talk page diatribes and revert BD's low quality edits, but I thought that it would be better to ask if you would want to do it yourself? Let me know if you have reason to not want to do this, or if you don't want me to do it, either. Personally, I think it is a very good idea. --NightMonkey 08:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy doesn't make low quality edits. But he's happy to revert them when made by liberal POV warriors. Big Daddy 11:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, good idea. For me, it's a little easier in theory than in practice, because most of Little Baby's edits and comments are so low-quality and laughable that they invite criticism. But you're right. I'll endeavor to ignore his nonsense, and just revert his POV edits until Arbitration is concluded. Thanks again for all your hard work. Eleemosynary 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both eleemosynary and NightMonkey for your kind words. Ya, definitely easier in theory than in practice. --kizzle 23:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Stalking BD
Your desperate incessant nonsensical ramblings on my Talk page are now putting you in danger of becoming classified as a stalker. It would be a shame if you followed along the destructive path of user Eleemosynary. Just a heads up. Big Daddy. Ps Because of your abuse of the privilege of posting on my talk page, all future posts are on my delete immediately list. Big Daddy 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you giving me the rope to hang you with? Sigh... I won't post any more on your page if it offends you. --kizzle 18:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * if there's any "hanging" going on here, it's a suicide, not an execution. Derex 19:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Aww... Little Baby wants attention again. LOL.  What a pathetic, pathetic troll. Eleemosynary 23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777
Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added a quick comment to your "nail in the coffin". Hopefully I didn't overstep my bounds. I just wanted to make it clear when he posted it since it's not dated on his page. --Woohookitty 04:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's chill. --kizzle 06:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Saddam and AQ page
Hi - there's a vote going on at Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that you may be interested in.--csloat 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

brawler
damn, man. i had know idea you were such a troublemaker. you & james? you & ryan? and now, you & big daddy. when do i get my turn? i think i can take you typing with my toes, punk ;) Derex 00:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hehe, well definetely ryan when I tried to re-organize the 2004 irregularities article, she didn't take too kindly to strangers of my type. Me and james just polite banter on the RfC for Bush, that was the one (and probably only) time I took him to school in arguing, but then he used his super-james smarts, ignored my argument, and he eventually got his way ;) --kizzle 00:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah, james just pulls a rope-a-dope ... attrition through dogged politeness, then the intellectual jab in the 8th round. ryan kind of scares me though with her bad-ass ninja self.  did she take you?  might have to pick a fight with her someday, just to test my mettle. Derex 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the article as it stands today is definetely more along her lines, so basically I got trounced. --kizzle 01:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

- i'm so far ahead of you, i've already got it placed into evidence. i was in the middle of that sequence ... hope my tantrum over at arbcom & on BD's page actually set it off. you did beat me by an edit conflict in telling james how he managed to ruin us. tell me the truth though, you really do have a secret decoder ring, don't you? Derex @ 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "And thanks for telling everyone I didn't have a secret decoder ring, I told you to keep it a secret." See, I thought Derex was right and you really do have one, and I was engaging in our typical liberal disinformation campaign by lying about it.  If I accidentally told the truth, please accept my apologies.  Just do me a favor and don't report me to headquarters in Pyongyang. JamesMLane 07:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)  P.S.  I would suggest that you put it on your list of what you want for Christmas, but apparently I'm not allowed to make such references to religious holidays.


 * perhaps Festivus, then? Derex @ 08:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * James, I'm filing the RfA against you in the morning for mentioning a religious holiday. And Derex, you're a dirty anti-Seinfeldite. --kizzle 08:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A note
Kizzle & Friends--

I just want to say that I do stand for NPOV here at WP. However, the way in which you deal with Big Daddy is pretty awful. I know, "Have you seen how he acts?" All I am saying is that throughout this ordeal, you have ganged up on him somewhat, and you have been uncivil. I did agree with you that Big Daddy's behavior is atrocious, but your response, while in much lowercase writing, was not without hostility and incivility. I am not sure where I now stand. I think Big Daddy needs to be punished somewhat, but the lengths to which you have gone to drive this editor from WP may have been too much. You should have massaged him into submission, not bitch-slapped him. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I don't really want to rewrite this on various people's talk pages, so I hope they (James, Eleemo, etc.) will see it here. I just feel a lot of anger coming from you folks. Rather then be brash and hostile, I thought I'd let you all know my feelings on this matter in a calm way. I hope everything works out with you guys and Big Daddy. Please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, or email me if you want things confidential, if you think I am being out-of-line, or if you want to comment. I hope we can just put all of this behind us. Cheers my friends. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  18:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You are definetely not out of line, and I welcome your opinion. I do have a level of resentment towards BD but this comes from absorbing many of his personal attacks.  In the beginning, I tried to get him to simply recognize that we're all here for the same goal: to make Wikipedia better, and not to push a political agenda.  Please see my posts to him (the 4 bullet points among others) begging him to be nice to the rest of us.  After the RfC was filed, I complimented him for getting better and offered to suspend the RfC if he would just recognize that he needed to be more civil, but he was too stubborn to do so.  I feel I tried everything I could before I took this to RfA and before things got nasty, but you are definetely welcome to your opinion.  There's only so much I can take before I get defensive, and I think many editors here bent over backwards trying to get BD to focus on the article rather than the editors themselves.  Regardless, I apologize if I acted in a way that you felt was inappropriate. --kizzle 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No apology necessary, but appreciated nonetheless. BD got under a lot of people's skins, mine included, I just think some of the comments about him, not even to him, were a little less civil than they could be. And it's not just you, so I hope you do not feel like I am singling you out. There is just so much hostility creeping into Wikipedia, and didn't know where else to get it off my chest. I thank you for your kind response. See you around. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  21:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I also have no problem with your stating your opinion, but, having considered it, I think you're wrong. How should we have "massaged" him?  Most newcomers find the web of rules and procedures a bit intimidating and are grateful to receive explanations so that they can fit into the community.  Big Daddy wasn't like that.  He started out with a chip on his shoulder, apparently believing that anything standing in his way was a liberal plot.  For all the time that several of us spent in trying to help him become a legitimate contributor, I couldn't see that it made any difference in his conduct.  Furthermore, I've seen this type before.  The zealot (of the left, of the right, or of some particular cause like fathers' rights) comes to Wikipedia motivated by the opportunity to push his (or her, but usually his) POV.  Some people are patient and they try to help him fit in, but they accomplish nothing.  The zealot leaves after a comparatively short time, either because he's banned or because he realizes to his disgust that he can't make Wikipedia into the soapbox that he wants.  Meanwhile, he's wasted a huge amount of legitimate editors' time.  Big Daddy isn't the first of these types who's afflicted my Wikipedia editing.  I confess that I have less patience with them as time goes on. JamesMLane 04:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting into your talk page Kizzle, but I agree with James. It's not necessarily peculiar to conservative POV warriors either; I've dealt with left-zealots also, and neither is fun to experience.  People genuinely willing to learn how to fit into the community can be directed in the proper way, and really truly can be "massaged."  But people who are adversarial even after having had things patiently explained, IMO, are just not worth it.  It's an enormous drain of time and resources that could be devoted to actually building the project. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 06:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * James and Katefan (sorry kizzle, it seems we've hijacked your talk page, I hope you'll forgive us)-- I agree with you to an extent. I think there are some people that will never "get it", and just can't seem to work within the wiki-style community. However, we all must try and remain cool under fire. I have fallen victim to people who made me angry in the past and lapsed momentarily into personal attacks, but we should never make this a common occurence. The fact that you (James) have less and less patience with people like these should tell you something. We cannot let this type of person to ruin our reputation as worthy editors. I am not saying it has yet, but rather, some people may be put off after reading some of the things written. And Katefan, from the start there were people being snide to Big Daddy. I agree that he was outrageously annoying at times, but that does not give us the right to sink into incivility. Hostility breeds hostility, and I simply feel we could have done a better job being civil. He is gone, and I am ready to move on. Thank you for your time. See you all around. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  13:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I also don't favor incivility. It's a question of how much time to spend trying to help someone before you give up.  When I gave up on Big Daddy, I didn't start insulting him, I just stopped trying to give him advice that he quite obviously didn't want. JamesMLane 17:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

A typical passage from a heart-warming BD email: If you haven't caught on, I'm not only articulate and telegenic ... I've had success in every endeavor I've engaged in. I'm going out on a limb here with narcissist. Btw, he at least does admit he's not a medical doctor, despite a lengthy diagnosis of my personal and mental disabilities. He might also have a bit of OCD, given his persistent crush on James. I almost feel bad for him. Btw, don't respond to an email, that would give him you address. I just blocked him as spam. Derex @ 20:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Derex, I came to the same conclusion (narcissist), mostly because of the and now the whole world is watching comments. *shrug* &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 00:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh please post that whole email, that'll cheer me up :) --kizzle 20:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * slaps head ... stupid me, i already deleted it. forgot about the entertainment value.  i'm sure you'll be getting your very own soon though.  think of it as an early festivus present, with the "airing of grievances" and all :) Derex @ 20:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No I already got my present early this year, apparently BD felt the need to contact each one of us individually with his diabolical vow to stop the scourge of the earth that is known as Wikipedia. --kizzle 22:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel so unloved :( - Guettarda 22:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem
I know that you're just funnin'...hope you're doing good and classes aren't getting you down....I'm kind of like a bad cold...I just never seem to go away:)--MONGO 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush
It is not surprising that someone else has proposed some sort of semi-protection feature with regards to the George W. Bush article. You mentioned that there was a good consensus of folks in support of this idea on the Village pump not too long ago, do you have a link to an archived copy of this discussion? I would like to get a feel for how others felt about instituting this sort of a feature and see what exactly was proposed originally. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Pump archives only last for 14 days before they're permanently deleted, best I can show you is the actual bugzilla link here. --kizzle 17:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, why are pump archives permanently deleted? Anyhow, are you interested in cooperatively bringing this to the attention of the developers one more time?  This morning, on October 20th, the George W. Bush article was blatantly vandalised by an anonymous editor to read "George Bush is a son of a bitch"  and remained in that state for almost two hours before another editor, Rhobite, noticed and could revert the damage.  With your support, I would like us to propose that we institute a "semi-protection" feature.  Semi-protection would limit editing akin to how we limit page moves; edits to a semi-protected article could be made, but only by registered users who have had an account for a short period of time (i.e. 48 hours).  In my opinion, this would be a good thing all around.  We already have the protect feature, but that blocks all regular editors from editing, regardless of how long they have been contributing to Wikipedia.  A semi-protection feature such as this would virtually eliminate all instances of "drive-by vandalism", which is exactly what articles such as the George W. Bush article need to be protected against.  What are your thoughts?  Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm down to try again. Your best bet is to start up a discussion again on bugzilla or comment at the link I gave you, and leave messages for other people to comment there as well. --kizzle 18:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the news 10.18.05
Find it at www.theregister.co.uk, here. Rex071404 216.153.214.94  04:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I read that article before. Its pretty hard to build a complete encyclopedia of knowledge and have it perfected within the relatively short time that Wikipedia has been around.  At some point, the content system will probably have to change to bring the quality articles into some kind of concrete status, but Wikipedia is what it is: a work in progress right now. --kizzle 06:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Cabal rules violation warning
By this edit you solicited a listing on the Liberal Cabal page. I consider this improper. It's sort of like the Wikipedia rule that you shouldn't write an article about yourself, because, if you're notable, someone else will get to it. Here, if your edit qualifies for Cabal status, you should assume that it will be duly listed. To engage in this kind of campaigning undermines the integrity of the process. Will you agree not to leave such edit summaries in the future? Please advise. JamesMLane 03:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First rule of Liberal Cabal: Don't talk about Liberal Cabal. Got it. --kizzle 18:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a cabal? How come no one invited me?  Not technically a liberal, but I do love a good party. Derex @ 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As of now, you're not on the membership list, so you're not cleared for top-secret Cabal information. Sorry. JamesMLane 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * damn liberal elites, with your "membership lists" and your "secret decoder rings". so, i'm not good enough for you then.  what do i have to do &mdash; pin up a communist flag in my garage?  i've got a beer stein i stole in communist east berlin &mdash; does that count?  maybe i'll just start the rex & derex cabal instead. Derex @ 00:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Beer???? What kind of elites do you think we are?  We don't drink beer.  We sip latte.  Do you at least eat Brie? JamesMLane 03:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not the list. That's the list. Read 'em and sleep! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 04:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the Zionist cabal, slightly different from the Liberal cabal, though we still play a softball tournament against them every year. --kizzle 06:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I remember... we kicked your butt last time, when our lawyer got all you registered Libertarians ejected for misattribution of the 'Liberal' label. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

After snooping at Kizzle's page here just now, (yes, I admit it, I snooped) I read a few of the links in this section and came upon this link [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=225536&highlight=wikipedia]. I am extremely mortified to find out that by using the term "cabal" (Kizzle knows which page I titled using that word), I have used a word that smells of pollution from a group which I find repugnant. I am returning to the "cabal" deletion dialog page and am posting a request that that page be deleted. I am also posting it on Gamliel's page, knowing that he is an admin. Rex071404 216.153.214.94  06:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Allright, Rex, per your request I will delete it. Jdavidb talk &bull; contribs]] 14:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

REX loves you...
I see that...nice to be loved, eh? Hope you don't end up with "DRY DRUNK" syndrome...HA!--MONGO 05:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know
Whatever happens, hang in there. You'll always have my support. --Woohookitty 03:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC about Stolen Honor
You've participated in editing Stolen Honor. I've started a Request for Comment at Talk:Stolen Honor because we appeared to have reached a point of diminishing returns on the talk page. JamesMLane 11:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

bad faith revert ?
Your tag-team revert just now at Stolen Honor has the appearance of bad faith. By your own admission you stated that only 80% bothered you, but you reverted 100%. That and the way you conveniently RV'd after Gamaliel max'd out for today is not mertious, in my view. Rex071404 216.153.214.94  21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to wade through and only correct the very small portion I agreed with. Gamaliel had nothing to do with it, I have my own opinions on the matter. --kizzle 22:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

To BigDaddy
How is phase II going? Seeing as Wikipedia just got 243,930 USD, you have a lot of work ahead of you. By the way, when you go to Wikipedia and instead of an edit button there's a view source button, I want you to think of me everytime. That's my gift to you. --kizzle 08:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

dkos
They kneel before my kung-fu. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyone kneels before your kung-fu. You are one bad-ass ninja! --kizzle 01:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Research
All quotes below are verbatim from: No original research


 * 1) "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia."
 * 2) "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations". (my emphasis)
 * 3) "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed."

Kizzle, please don't fight the obvious here, the image in question is indisputably original research - read the Summary for it:


 * Object: Support for election campaign of John Kerry, here at a residence in Arizona
 * Source: self
 * Photographer: Nils Fretwurst
 * Date: 2004

That image is an NOR violation and must be deleted.

Rex071404 216.153.214.94  01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Rex, didn't see the photograph clause in the beginning. --kizzle 02:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On second thought, Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research makes me doubt your claim. --kizzle 03:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk page dialogs do not supercede the actual policy itself. Rex071404 216.153.214.94  04:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Style and how-to
I found User:Kizzle/Spoon Feeding in "Category:Wikipedia style and how-to", but this is being deleted per this discussion. I'm not sure of its current status, so I didn't re-categorize it. Is it proposed? If it's appropriate for Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, it should probably be moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Feel free to edit or tag or categorize it as you see fit. -- Beland 08:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's for my own reference, the guideline got deleted to possibly merge into NPOV but I never did the work to do it. --kizzle 16:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

tnx
your kind comment will be remembered.

Rex071404 216.153.214.94  01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * no problem. --kizzle 01:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Libby
Read this Rex071404 216.153.214.94  02:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wilson
Read this Rex071404 216.153.214.94  02:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Keetowah and Civility
Keetoowah's comments on Talk:Ted Kennedy are uncivil to you. You can't do anything about that except ignoring them. Your comments to Keetoowah are uncivil. You can avoid them. Please be civil, even if that means ignoring things. Thank you. Robert McClenon 18:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's hard sometimes, and you're definetely a better man than I. --kizzle 18:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex
I have reached the conclusion that Rex's behaviour on John Kerry is sufficiently serious to warrant a Requests for Comment intervention. I'm busy with other things but given your longer experience with him if you wish to start an RfC I'd be happy to be your second nominator. His behaviour so goes beyond elementary standards of objectively, civility and co-operation as to beggar belief. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I just got through with a lengthy RfC and RfA against another user, and as it stands, I think Rex is stubborn and wrong, but I still don't think he has violated civility or any other modes of conduct, besides possibly referring to me as a "rogue editor" and such, but I just chalk that up to his penchant for the dramatic. --kizzle 22:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My usage of rogue is based on #3, here "3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls". I think you know kizzle that I do not make a habit of using pejoratives against you and I did not intend this as one. If you took it that way, I apologize. Rex071404 216.153.214.94  23:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nah, I didn't take offense, I just wish you would focus on my comments rather than assuming I'm abdicating my wiki duties or applying labels to what you think my style of dialog is. No offense taken, though. --kizzle 23:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

See Another way of looking at "wound" at Talk:John Kerry - thanks

Rex071404 216.153.214.94  12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane for admin
I have created this Requests for adminship/JamesMLane, but and not sure if I've posted it right.

Please look. Rex071404 216.153.214.94  08:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

your input requested
See Talk:John_Kerry

Rex071404 216.153.214.94  08:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 case &rarr;Raul654 18:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:John Kerry
Please read this. Thank you.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kz, please delete that last comment of yours ASAP. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 07:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm chill bro. --kizzle 08:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Jokes
Actually it's my fault not yours. I'm just burnt out from all of these disputes. I mean. We had Big Daddy. And I've had Ben Gatti since June. Ben is on the Price Anderson article. He wants to make it into an anti-nuclear article and he games the system constantly. And now Rex, who apparently has no life outside of the John Kerry article. It's just maddening. Usually, I have a good sense of humor on here, but I'm not having fun right now. So it's my fault for being snippy. I'm sorry man. Keep jokin'. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Read Talk:Price-Anderson Act once. You will feel deja vu. :) Ben is abrasive...he changes his tactics every day...he games the system...he doesn't care a bit about Wikipedia...he's condescending as hell. he's a joy. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex is toast
Look above. I got hit by Anonrtg and variants around 6 pm central time tonight. Vandalism_in_progress/RU_Severe has the record of it. Rex's posts ended and these ones began at roughly the same time. And now this person is creating imposters of me. It HAS to be Rex. Has to be. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well. We had someone on IRC do a checkuser and guess what...all of the anons are AOL users. *sigh* I'm close to leaving the project. This just isn't fun anymore and tonight was the topper. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but seriously, aol anons are assholes, just try to ignore them--205.188.117.74 03:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. On a side note, 205, it's interesting that according to your contrib list and Rex's list of articles he's started, both you and Rex have an interest in Jay Alan Sekulow, a pretty obscure article with few editors working on it.  Seems like you guys have a lot in common. --kizzle 04:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404
This has been going on quite long enough. I've opened an arbcom case, and as you are party to this conflict, could you go make a statement there? I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Mr. Tibbs, JamesMLane, Derex, Jtdirl, and Woohookitty as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I started to do one of the statements but frankly, kizzle and jtdirl have been involved in this far longer than me. James M Lane too. If you guys need help, let me know, ok? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Me and James already called not-it on drafting any dispute resolution procedures. --kizzle 07:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Requests_for_arbitration is my contribution. So do I gather that you don't want to do a section? I don't understand your post. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already spent huge amounts of time on Rex's previous RfAr's. I suppose I'll add something, but I'm really sick of explaining to the ArbCom over and over that this guy just doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  Maybe having some new complainants join in will be helpful in countering Rex's perennial cry that a handful of people are out to get him. JamesMLane 09:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex
I think you are misunderstanding me a bit. This case is about Rex NOT specifically about JK. What I went through tonight was vandalism caused by him. He also games the system...does reverts when he isn't supposed to, etc, etc. Even if Kerry is resolved, we still have a case against him. How do you know he won't pick something else to pick on next? The Arby is about him and his behavior, not JK. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about last night. I was up for 30 hours over this mess. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * no problem :) --kizzle 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

IRC
I got on, but evidently just a bit too late. The first thing I saw under the welcome message was:
 * kizzle has left freenode
 * <--|	rex23 has left #wikipedia

So, did you guys get everything worked out? JamesMLane 11:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Transcript is on Rex's page, as I see you posted. I think it just comes down to a fundamental disagreement over the subjectivity of "minor" vs. "bandaged", as he believes both are equally objective and thus both should be allowed to be cited.  I guess we also found out his passionate dislike for you. Before the transcripts he posted, he also explicitly denied using any sockpuppets this time around. --kizzle 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404's arby case has been accepted
Place evidence at Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Evidence. The general arby page for him is at Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I know your stance on this, but if you want to place evidence, go ahead. You are listed as one of the accusers, but a note is made that you won't be presenting evidence. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits
I noticed that 100% of your edits are marked as minor. In "My preferences", on the "editing" tab, you should uncheck the box next to "Mark all edits minor by default". It's difficult to determine which edits are actually minor if they're all marked that way. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 20:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's because about 99% of my edits are minor. Very rarely do I change substantial portions to text, almost all my edits are talk page comments and small minor changes to different pages.  I will try to keep that in mind if I do make any substantial changes to pages. Thanks for the advice. --kizzle 20:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I see your point, but Minor edit has a different take: "A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit." Minor edits are basically "...spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text..". Not marking all edits as minor is really out of consideration for other users, who may not bothering looking at a minor edit, but would look at a major edit. Carbonite | Talk 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carbonite, I actually learned something new. I just had previously thought that major edits were additions of paragraphs, rewrites of sections, anything substantial in a large amount of words.  I will uncheck the make minor all the time. --kizzle 20:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO RfA
When we first met, you probably thought I'd turn out to be another REX or like that BigDaddy character. You knew early on I wasn't some mad fascist, that I was truly a moderate, and I appreciate that. I really appreciate your support vote, Kizzle, and so you should also know that all you have to do is ask and I'll do all I can to help you.--MONGO 04:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem man, I got your back :) --kizzle 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Semi protection
I am in favor of the semi protection feature, but have been through George Bush, that damn encyclopedic merit thing and my own close RfA, that if I draw it up, I'll be labelled, and to be honest, I am just doing my thing now with the RC patrol and article creation/enhancement as I'm just not up to a lot of controversy. I will support it though! Advertise it in the village pump, but I really do think that it needs to be run through Wales and the developers....the Bush article is a disaster. I never even see James there hardly...he must be very disheartened. But I do not think he really supports the semiprotection, neither does Sidaway or some other respected editors. I gotta log out for awhile so I'll get back to you on this.--MONGO 21:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think people are just moving towards the kludge option, but as a complete solution that's bullshit. Wikipedia needs to eventually handle extreme cases of vandalism better than such an ad-hoc solution. --kizzle 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I would word the discussion, er, proposal so that it doesn't have a slap in the face with it. It needs to empahsize that the level of vandalism is discrediting Wikipedia's ability to be the best web based encyclopedia there is. We can take some random days from 1 year ago, six months ago and then over the past month and compare the number of minutes that the page remains in a vandalized state...I bet it goes up. I also bet that the total number of edits it gets in a day is far higher. When I came on board this past January, I almost never had to worry about overwriting a vandalized version when I did an edit...if anything, my POV edits were the biggest "vandalism" threat to the article.
 * We can word the proposal to emphasize the reality that almost nothing of merit has been added to the article in, well, it seems a couple of months now...why, because most of us are tired of looking at the vandalism and it is so distracting that we can't even go through the thing and make it a better article. It isn't a matter whether we have enough people watching it...it has turned into a battleground of the worst kind. I'd rather see some far leftys and far righties slug it out in a real edit war...at least somewhere in the middle the facts might get sorted out. But what we have now is just a mess...I mean, the article has a lot of great information and is relatively NPOV, but it needs trimming...there isn't time to deal with the trimming when all our efforts are put towards dealing with the vandals. Oh well, just typing here...I have become somewhat apathetic as of late with the vandalism to the page...I just go and edit the land management articles for peace!--MONGO 02:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ya, I agree with most of what you said. Unfortunately I have finals week now and I won't have time, so if anyone reading this wants to start up a proposal, I'd support it. --kizzle 03:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
Would you mind weighing in at Semi-protection policy? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts/concerns/comments, and feel free to edit the proposal as much as you want. Thanks, Mys  e  ku  rity  05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Plus ça change...
Poignant and validating tidbit. Thank you very, very much for that - it was perfectly timed. I'm proud of you and keep up the great work. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "If we really want peace, then we have to work for justice. We've got to help our brothers and sisters. It's not enough for us to come to pray and sing the great hymns. My brothers and sisters, we've got to get in the way." (Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) 


 * You know it doesn't make much sense
 * There ought to be a law against
 * Anyone who takes offense
 * At a day in your celebration
 * Cause we all know in our minds
 * That there ought to be a time
 * That we can set aside
 * To show just how much we love you
 * And I'm sure you will agree
 * It couldn't fit more perfectly
 * Than to have a world party on the day you came to be
 * Happy birthday to you
 * Happy birthday to you
 * Happy birthday
 * I just never understood
 * How a man who died for good
 * Could not have a day that would
 * Be set aside for his recognition
 * Because it should never be
 * Just because some cannot see
 * The dream as clear as he
 * That they should make it become an illusion
 * And we all know everything
 * That he stood for time will bring
 * For in peace our hearts will sing
 * Thanks to Martin Luther King
 * Happy birthday to you
 * Happy birthday to you
 * Happy birthday
 * Happy birthday to you
 * Happy birthday to you
 * Happy birthday


 * Why has there never been a holiday
 * Where peace is celebrated
 * all throughout the world


 * The time is overdue
 * For people like me and you
 * You know the way to truth
 * Is love and unity to all God's children
 * It should be a great event
 * And the whole day should be spent
 * In full remembrance of those who lived and died for the oneness of all people
 * So let us all begin
 * We know that love can win
 * Let it out don't hold it in
 * Sing it loud as you can"

Stevie Wonder - "Happy Birthday"

Just letting you know
Here is our protection policy. Read it if you haven't. Go through protected pages to see what the protection tags look like. I assume that semi-protection tags would look similar. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

semiprotection creep
Hi,

There are things we disagree on, but I see nothing that says our understanding of page creep differs. Maybe I've missed something.

If I'm right, then all that we disagree on is:
 * Splash and Woohookitty think that we don't need limits to prevent creep, or that limits can be added later, once we know that they're needed,
 * you think there will be protection creep if we don't have time limits, and
 * I think there will be protection creep even if we do have limits.

Have I missed anything?

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4 case. Raul654 20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikifun
Hi, I've noticed you've taken part in Wikifun before.

Just to let you know, Round 11 begins today at 0900 GMT. Dmn 04:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw
Just wanted to say that it's been nice having the discussion on semi-protection with you. It's nice to debate with someone who sticks to the issues and doesn't do personal attacks. I wish we could clone you. :) I'm into another arby case with yet another person who doesn't do that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

don't make me
come down there and beat you. 'cause i'm in the mood for a good bar fight. ;-)


 * What are you going to do, lecture me on price elasticity? ;) --kizzle 21:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Semi Protect
Good...it's about time...I hate to see the exclusion of some anon editors, but truthfully, some articles are vandalized way too much. 'bout time so I voted my support.--MONGO 06:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Die Bold
But alas, it gets better n' better. Leon County, Florida has refused to allow Diebold machines. If you believe BBV (they have a dicey record on accuracy), The 'Hursti Hack' has been proven - it's a memory card hack in which invisible votes on the card (it passes a 'zero votes' count) affect the final total. Woo wee! 

My RFA
Thnak you for your comments. I WILL take them to heart and learn even more than I already have about that entire affair.Gator (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for listening to me. --kizzle 18:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Mongo like candy
Just so you don't miss it, I responded on my talk page. Cool to see what you look like man...didn't know you have musical talent...I don't have any!--MONGO 03:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad side
What are you implying? I have no bad side - I'm extraordinarily photogenic as well as being argumentative. Smell that? It's a joke :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. No, it's not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking of photogenic, put up a new one of yours that isn't black and white and grainy. btw I put mine up just recently. --kizzle 21:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I want money first. Kidding, after all, User:RyanFreisling/Political_Quiz2, I'm a Marxist and above petty issues like that. I'll post a color one in a while :). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, now I really feel like a heartless bastard after taking that test. Most economists think of me as a left-wing nut, and that's at Berkeley.  I always just thought I was a moderate, and they were the right-wingers.  I came out at 92% on the non-Marxist scale.  That puts the rest of my kind to the right of Pinochet.  Maybe economics really is a form of brain-damage.  At least I do like children, and other living things.  But, I'm afraid I will be in leauge with Rex & BD in the future, now that I know myself better. Derex 17:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL
Wait! You want to talk to BD? Brave soul! :) I blocked him for 3 months this time btw. Blocked his IP I mean. Username is blocked indefinitely. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wonder if he was even the one who created that site. If he wasn't, that might possibly be the funniest thing I've heard all week. 2 months claiming he's going to bring down Wikipedia and all he can do is link to some other guy's site. --kizzle 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Some advice
I'd recommend spending some time in #wikipedia-en-vandalism. On the S-P page today, you mentioned the case of a page that gets hit 10 times a day but that only one person has watchlisted. That doesn't really happen. :) If you go to W-E-V, you will see that one of the functions of the bot is to watchlist pages. So essentially everyone in that room is watching the pages that are vandalized...and we add new pages to the list constantly. So it's possible for a page to fall through the cracks but with that room and the Vandal Fighter and the RC patrol, it's pretty hard. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How long should an article be semi-protected?
I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 14:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:SEMI GWB comment
I liked it, so I put it back :). If you really want it gone, though, feel totally free to take it off. Blackcap (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it may be time to archive your page ;). Blackcap (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Spongebob Squarepants
I unprotected it. Those folks don't get it. :) When it's vandalised, it's by one IP at a time. They need to just post requests for blockage to ANI. Semi protection or protection just aren't the answers and we keep telling them that. Thanks for the heads up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I also unprotected William Luther Pierce. Just not sustained enough. However, Chuck Norris has been hit very hard over a several week period. I think it's a good candidate for a couple of days anyway. To me the key here is sustained. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look at the list now, I think it's better. Most of those are on the vandal fighter hit list, i.e. Bush, penis, poop, Hitler, etc. Be patient. It'll work out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 05:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are NOT a thoroughly horrid person


And I will avoid touching you at all times to avoid minor skin infections. Seriously though, happy f'in solstice, now that you're no longer drunk and missed it. May whatever God you worship take pity on your wretchedness and bring a rain of healing anvils upon your head. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Presents
Yes, you get a present too - you've been good this year, so I got you a cute little Gordon the Gopher. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)



Yaaaaay! God bless us! God bless us all! This is the bestest Christmas ever!--kizzle 18:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And don't forget to pray for all the starving heathens out there. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

New Source
If you can put your toys and grog away, get ready for another round of deeply quality-oriented editing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you see why
I am close to leaving the project. 36 subject headings in 5 days and most are people yelling at me. I've archived my talk page 3 weeks running. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And 159 headings since December 2nd. I'm not kidding. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Cabal update
Thanks for the holiday wishes, and Happy New Year to you, but are we still fighting the War on Christmas? I thought our orders were to back-burner that so we could concentrate on weakening America by criticizing Bush.

As for posting a photo, I have no plans to do so anytime soon. In case I'm declared an enemy combatant, I don't want to make it any easier for them to find me. JamesMLane 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL!
User:Woohookitty_sleeps_with_prostitutes. I don't! Honest! LOL. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We also had User:JoanneB aka The Wikipedia Prostitute and User:Ohmygod!theykilled JoanneB. So apparently, I killed JoanneB. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Need help on WP:SEMI
I put a request up for help on the talk page at WP:SEMI. We have admins using this "% of good edits" criteria. We need to tighten up the policy so that stops. Age of Enlightenment was protected for that reason. If we used that criteria, we'd have hundreds of protected articles. Most edits on many many articles are vandalism. SP isn't meant for that. Your input would be appreciated. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikifun round 12
This is to invite you to participate in the next game of Wikifun.

Round 12 will begin at 11:00 UTC on Friday January 20. 2006.

-- Ravn 17:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Kizzle/secret et al.
This is to remind you that all contributions to Wikipedia are required to be under a free license, and that includes user pages. User space is not exempt from the database dumps, and commercial mirrors and third parties can and will duplicate the content for their own use.

The claim placed at the top of this page is rendered null and void by the license of the page. When the copyright holder of material submits it to Wikipedia, they licence it under the GFDL. If you do not agree with this, then you are required to remove the material and/or have it deleted as a copyright infringement.

Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * hey kiz, nice work blowing the liberal cabal cover. you could have at least done a Rot13 to make it a challenge. BD's gonna be all over this one; you've doomed us all ... doooomed i say. james ought to strip your decoder ring for this one. Derex 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm famously not a sysop on En. at present. Ask on WP:CP or similar. Rob Church (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm... Derex, he's working hard a constructive project here, a historical documentary of sorts. There is no issue with that.  That's generally considered a "good" thing.  The issue is the little tag, which I'm sure he'll just remove.  So in the future, try to not confuse things like that and be more civil and professional on wikipedia.  Thanks. Kevin Baastalk 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm... Kevin, I can't tell if you're being ironic, or if you've got a stick up your ass. But, if the latter, it was a joke.  Maybe not funny, but that comes with the territory of being an uber-geek.  I do know what Kizzle is doing. Derex 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ya, Kevin I think its been a long day, Derex was just joking around :) He actually helped me in getting independent study with a professor on my project, which I'm doing now. --kizzle 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And who says James is the leader of this cabal? Remember, I won elections last year in a round-robin tournament of ping-pong, therefore I wield all the power in the cabal!! I'll try to forget this transgression when I write my report to the ghost of Mao-Tse Tung. --kizzle 02:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're all making much too much noise. I'm in the secret cabal's West Coast 'Propaganda and Crunchy Biscuits' Studio, trying to decode the secret subliminal audio that they play behind Lou Dobbs and unlock the mysteries of commodity fetishism. Ssh! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm yeah, but you're in the Zionist cabal. Bow to your master in the liberal cabal. --kizzle 07:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Splitters!" (see Monty Python's Life of Brian) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

penis
i'm about ready to post a pic of pierced one. for the love of god, somebody block me! i've got work to do and serious deadlines, which is why i've been on here all day. i should at least be drinking if i'm going to piss away a whole day. derf's -- de la vina & mission -- many a fine day wasted there. or sleeping on the beach off bren. but i am in fact sitting in a basement office in berkeley procrastinating my ass off, and getting snarky with kevin. and you, you bastard, i see you've gone straight -- almost no posts in three weeks. you'll be back though, i know you're jonesing for a hit. Derex 01:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All the time you don't see me on here means I'm getting shit done on my project :), also taking some really good poli sci classes, I should have been a poli sci major. As for posting a penis pic, it might not be a good idea as it will give some future dumbass piece of shit troll the perception that they have a license to viciously attack their co-editors. --kizzle 01:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kizzle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kizzle.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, my ex-girlfriend took that picture. --kizzle 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt
An RfC has been opened here against. If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Help please on the Mark Levin page
An anonymous user/BD777 wannabe is reverting at will. Will Beback and I are trying to deal with him, but any comments/help you might provide would be much appreciated on the Mark Levin page. The Talk page alone resembles a primal scream. Thanks. Eleemosynary 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

yep
I've been in Canberra the last 3 weeks. But, thank god, am returning Friday. Will be in SB maybe a week after that. Will give you a call. Probably moving here, ANU made me a sweet offer. - D.


 * SB looks like early May now; hope you're still around then. My friend ended up coming to visit me instead.  Definitely Australia bound now, signed a contract today.  Derex 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
That means alot, thanks.Gator (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yo yourself :)
Heya! Yeah, I've distanced myself from most "admin" stuff. I'm a mentor on NLP. other than that, just lots of cleanup work. Going back to a "janitor" type role. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I like fries


I'm a pretty cheap date. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * K, next time I'm in your hood :). --kizzle 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Cabal
Sorry, kizzle, you can't possibly be a First Lieutenant in the Liberal Cabal. We don't use such reactionary ranks. According to my Cabal records, you're a Deputy Commissar and a full voting member of the Politburo. You've also been awarded the Hero of the Working Class medal for your gallantry in the fights against Rex and BigDaddy.

Well, that is to say, you would hold those distinctions in the Liberal Cabal if there actually were a Liberal Cabal. Which there isn't. Nope, no such thing. Never has been. JamesMLane t c 08:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 2nd rule of Liberal Cabal: There is no Liberal Cabal. Got it. I'm sure I'll see you on talk page once it gets closer to election time when shit goes down :) --kizzle 08:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

URGENT! Your vote needed
Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to reopen RfAr #4
In light of recent sockpuppeting by a/k/a/  to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

About Merecat
Hey not to get involved or anything I don't think that bagering Merecat about being a sockpuppet will get you an answer to your question. I would just leave him alone and let the ArbCom handle it. If he is Rex071404 then they will handle it if he is not then oh well.....but it just doesn't help the issue if you keep on about it. Aeon 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It mostly comes from frustration Aeon, if it is Rex, take a look at Rex's talk page where the second to last post he made was to post an IRC conversation i had with him that was rather pleasant, there was no reason to come back as another person since he's only banned from editing John Kerry. If Merecat isn't Rex it only takes .5 seconds to respond.  If he is than he should have the courtesy to let everyone know rather than ignore his co-editors request. But thank you for your noble intentions anyways :) --kizzle 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I understand... but I still don't think your ever going to get an answer...Aeon 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That will be all the answer that is needed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sock
According to my research, you are quite likely a sockpuppet of Rex/Merecat. After your master (Rex) claimed today that he had an admin account, I did search on various peculiarities of Rex's phrasing. The most common hits were Rex, Merecat, and Kizzle &mdash; you're busted. Very clever, a 5th column inside the very heart of the liberal cabal.

In perusing those old talk pages, I have also concluded that you, in your Rex guise, are actually a decently capable debater. Your problem is that you never, ever gave an inch, no matter what the evidence against you. Otherwise, you would have been a pretty decent editor. I assume you'll be resigning this account too, now that your cover is blown.

P.S. Did you actually join up? I'd be impressed, but I'm a bit skeptical. Derex 03:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bravo, Derex, Bravo. Kizzle was actually the name of my other ferret.  I used Kizzle to promote the subconscious liberal agenda deeply encapsulated through layers and layers of conservativism forced upon me by my lack of social contact due to homeschooling and growing up the Texas.  This will indeed be my last edit, as since the game is up and my claims have been proven to be "patently false", I will wash myself of this place forever. --kizzle 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes me sad that you're in the life situation that would drive you to conduct this kind of troll campaign. I hope you find happiness and peace in your life. And I hope you don't continue to impede the editing of these articles - nor continue to be involved in the lives of the people you deceived. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Not funny, guys. Not funny at all. I'm really not laughing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah that seemed mighty fishy. :) Besides. Kizzle really is a conservative. ;-) --Woohookitty(meow) 05:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that's blasphemy!--kizzle 05:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just hope no one finds out that I have a ferret named "Jimbo". JamesMLane t c 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Kizzle, you are a piece of work. I'm very gratified you're apparently not an amoral and pathological sockmeister. Amoral, perhaps, pathological certainly - but not a sockmeister. Big relief. :) Be well kizz. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably to Rex's great amusement, I've now spent about 5 hours trying to check his admin claim. While not exhaustive, I'd say my efforts have been reasonably thorough. Besides Kizzle I didn't find any obvious candidates. There's a couple very weak possiblities, that I'll keep an eye on. But, my best guess is that he made it up to be annoying. I don't think Rex is the sort to try to cause real harm anyway; he has a human side, distinctly missing from the likes of BD777. My guess is that Rex will shortly be joining us under a new name, hopefully that will work out better for all involved. As a sidenote, an astounding proportion (perhaps 75%) of admins appointed since 2004 have edited in the past week.

If any admins read this, you might want to block his admitted socks on his goodbye note. Derex 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is hilarious. Good thing I actually read Ryan's user page from time to time, or I would have missed out on this altogether.  That said, I'm curious (but too lazy to check) - aren't you guys (as in Derex, Ryan, Kizzle and James) admins?  If not, there's something terribly wrong in the world.  Guettarda 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, we're the renegade faction of Wikipedia. Down with the man.  Besides, all admin functions would do is make me feel bad I'm not reverting some vandalism somewhere and/or checking the administrator's noticeboard to block some dumbass who feels that Hitler's article is too anti-Nazi. But thanks for the vote of confidence :) --kizzle 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You have too finely developed a sense of responsibility. For example, it doesn't bother my conscience in the least to ignore Derex's request to block Rex's socks (ok, just a little bit).  I just want power, not responsibility.  There are always lots of newbie admins who are thrilled with the chance to block someone or use rollback.  I must admit that it's fun to have the block button there - when you look at your watchlist and have [block] next to everyone's name...and let the cursor hover over the name of a person who's annoying you :)  Guettarda 22:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that it's not more bureaucrats and administrators, nor more of this distressing unilateralism, that Wikipedia needs. What Wikipedia needs are strong, factual, bold editors. I'm happy to continue to act as an editor - but very, very troubled by the lack of objectivity and neutrality I'm seeing in the process of this RfAr (my first). I feel like Wikipedia, a great social experiment, is suffering the fate of most human organizations - to be ultimately coopted by pettiness and the power-hungry, and rejected by those it was created to serve (the READER). I guess I'm the complete opposite - I don't want power, I want responsibility... in myself as well as in others. And you can't administrate that. Disagree with me and it's RfC city, buster. You're goin' down. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the perfect arrangement - you can have the responsibility, I'll take the power, and together we can take over the world and rule as a triumvirate (hmmm...is that an Obelix and Asterix reference? I can't recall).  But seriously - while RFAr is a flawed process, and usually is unsatisfactory, it tends to be less unfair than the alternatives (like RFC, which is easy to rig, or RfM, which never gets anywhere).  On the other hand, like in any organisation, power ends up in the hands of groups, and the group members tend to support one-another.  I don't think the case should have been accepted, but the resulting non-decision is probably pretty reasonable.  Phil has misbehaved, but not enough to warrant serious punishment.  I'm not sure how article probation really works, but it doesn't sound too ominous.  At the same time, the arbcomm has pretty much said to Phil that he doesn't have a leg to stand on.  He can't threaten arbitration any more.  His bluff has been called.  So, while it was a supreme waste of people's time, it may not really be so bad that it was accepted (assuming that no new remedies come up).  Guettarda 22:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No one knows how it works, 'cause Fred invented it solely for this case. IMHO, pretty sketchy stuff from an Arbitrator asked to recuse on the basis of expressed bias - to say nothing of the troubling irony of ArbComm potentially ignoring and therefore permitting such an irregular process taken in an RfAr dealing with electoral irregularities. Responsibility would dictate a stronger, not weaker, adherence to process. We'll see if the little gems of subtext that Fred came up with in his 'findings' ( 'Phil has adequately proven his case', 'Ryan and Noosphere have defended the article from valid edits', and 'Kevin Baas seeks to push POV whatever the policy' are shown to be false. I'm frankly doubtful, since the mountain of clear evidence brought to date has done nothing to encourage any other course of action on Fred's part. Worst of all, after single-handedly populating the case with findings, the only 'abstention' Fred has seen fit to make is on the 'remedy/finding' regarding mediation - even though he specifically stated elsewhere that he thought it would be a good idea. He couldn't 'support' that remedy for some reason, but had no problem declaring Kevin's POV and assigning an air of 'collusion' to Noosphere and I.  All of this seems highly suspect and a conflict of interest and unfairly biased towards Phil, an administrator for whom Fred already publically expressed specific support on this issue despite his failure to provide evidence of prior attempts at mediation, etc. This whole exercise, the most distateful of my 1.5 year Wikipedia career, is a classic example of the problem of group organization... groups and individuals granted power are almost always loath to surrender ANY of that power (like, for example, a request for recusal), as they see it as a loss of 'status' for the group or the individual. It is, in fact, the opposite. Recusing one's self and seeing one's POV vindicated is a far greater endorsement than bulldozing your POV through a process at the expense of good faith and good editors. Blech. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make me cry
Or I'll whoop you. Thanks for that Valkyrie. Love you too, Kizz. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

B, O2, G E R
I assume you saw the (ahem) not-so-hidden 'BOOGER' in Rex's goodbye missive, eh?

Did you pick it out?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Da Vinci Code 2: Rex's Revenge. What was his obsession with boogers and you?  sheesh. --kizzle 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Was there a nasally-related incident involving me and the 'formerly known as Rex' previously? And I hope you got the pun. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh - that was Wolfstar... calling me a snot, etc. etc. Interesting parallel... one for Derex' linguistic analyzer program. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very punny, when he vandalized your user page with an image of some guy picking his nose, not to mention Wolfstar who could have been his sockpuppet that said "wipe the snot off your shirt, it's disgusting"...who knows who was Rex's sock and who wasn't. --kizzle 01:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh that's right. I should go back and grab the history for that. I thought that guy was kinda interesting and I never knew how to blow a 'three stage snotrocket' before - so I saw it as a learning experience. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your rationale, Kizzle. Although a warning or 24 hour ban would have been preferable, the situation escalated because, in my opinion, Sandover was for the most part refusing to acknowledge the points I was making. I was also frustrated by the fact that my very small additions/omissions were being completely reverted while I allowed his entire section to remain essentially intact. On top of that, the POV tag that I inserted (for both the anti-gay blurb and Sandover's edits) was being removed again and again without dialog. This was especially annoying because the tag was also intended for content that Sandover had nothing to do with. Even though I initially added the POV tag and explained it, I was in part banned for a 3RR, again, even though no one bothered to explain why it shouldn't be there. At that point, I was pretty comfortable calling the whole incident "fascistic" simply because the editors/Admins were moving along without me while silencing me by force. Haizum 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Re-post the first and second email you sent? --kizzle 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Advise
Pardon my recycling of some comments.

Haizum 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My Rex alarm just went off. --kizzle 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. And mine had already gone off in the section above this.  Paranoia or perception? Derex 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perception. I'd say the same about User:Zer0faults despite that the RFCU could neither confirm nor deny his sockpuppetry. I figured as much reading through Rex's "goodbye note" when Rex said he was "borderline dyslexic" and also said "Owing to the fact that my unit has been activated and I am Being pOsted tO a new location for an extended tour of duty". The military does not take in dyslexic people any more than they take in blind people. That and the fact that all reserve units were activated long ago. Also some interesting things going on here: and some interesting incident reports:  -- Mr. Tibbs 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * zerofaults has a different feel about him to me. Hazium happened to use a couple redflag phrases on this page, but they don't turn up elsewhere for him. At any rate, he almost never edits articles &mdash; literally 95% talk page edits &mdash; so he can't do much harm. Derex 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Wombdpsw and User:Neutral arbiter had a slightly different feel to them too. They purposely avoided some of the identifying behaviors I noted in Rex's last RfAr when I pointed out Merecat. Rex is learning and adapting. Remember how clumsy his attempts to game the system were in his First ArbComm case? From those first 3 he picked up the idea that as long as he keeps "discussing" he's safe from RFAR. And when that theory blew up in his face thats when he said he's quitting and started spewing sockpuppets. Which makes it even more ironic when he says in his "goodbye note" that all this was some sort of planned experiment, when looking over the history, theres a clear progression and escalation. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe someday he'll learn to cover his tracks so well that he'll seem like just any other editor. We can only hope. Derex 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

For you
Here... I thought you'd appreciate this - it's one of my more kooky but yet more beautiful shots. An organic market in NYC. I was gonna give you a nice flower, or something like that (I love taking floral shots)... but then I saw this and knew you'd appreciate it. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you should up your other floral shots as well! --kizzle 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will - I've got a few lovely ones you may enjoy! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative
JML could definitely have found a nicer way to say it (what crawled up his ass and died, anyway?), but he was correct. It's "pejorative", not "perjorative". Just fyi. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Me and James go way back, we're just playful in our edit summaries. I know it was mispelled, I don't think he's a POV pusher, I doubt he thinks I'm a troll, we just mess around with each other... it's all in good fun :) --kizzle 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Kasreyn, my first draft was even more perjorative toward this troll kizzle. I toned it down for fear that third parties such as yourself would misinterpret it.  Don't mind us, we're just a coupla big overgrown kids.  Whenever the adults get around to cleaning up Wikipedia, we'll both be out on our butts. JamesMLane t c 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, James, it's spelled "pejorative", not "perjorative"... learn how to spell. And no, I did not modify your comment in any way. --kizzle 04:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Following up on "Democrat Party" discussion
Re "Eat it, bitch": back atcha! JamesMLane t c 03:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You will rue the day, spelling champ. --kizzle 04:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
I've been laboring in obscurity for some time... it's gratifying when someone takes notice. You just made my day. :) Kasreyn 23:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:216.22.26.46
User:216.22.26.46 is editing from this proxy: http://www.myspaceproxy.eu


 * Thanks Marge. --kizzle 06:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ingraham
Please advise.Haizum 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

K, just don't say please advise in the future, its just a weird thing I have. And I had already posted before you wrote that, so I'm not sure I understand why you did that. --kizzle 06:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Truthiness for Featured
Thanks for the nom, Kizzle. I added my two cents to the entmoot. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 10:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes and Votes
Seeing as it is not addressing quotes, you may want to change your vote to against again. I do not want you voting under false pretenses - this topic is not, and will not be about how to show the name of the campaign, but merely the inclusion of the Iraq War in this campaign. Rangeley 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am modifying the initial scope of the project to include how to address the name of the campaign. --kizzle 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, when that is done it opens a pandoras box of what to call the war that has been opened in previous discussions. I ask you as strongly as possible, limit this discussion to its inclusion, not the name. With Nomen Nescio continually editing "why it is part" and placing misrepresentations, Hippocrite trying to get it deleted, and Mr. Tibbs trying to get me banned, there are enough things that can potentially go wrong already. I want to get this over with once and for all, other things can come later. Rangeley 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm truly sorry that other people are trying to harass you, but seeing as the form of the word is vital to my agree/disagree vote, and that we should address this now rather than just have a re-vote, and especially considering the War on Terrorism page itself uses quotations around the term "War on Terrorism" (which you have not replied or acknowledged yet), I will continue to re-add this to the page. --kizzle 21:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the deletion of comments was unintentional, its been doing that a lot for me lately, cutting off the entire bottom portion of pages, as noted here: User_talk:Tomf688. I acknowledge that the article uses quotes, and it has been an issue all its own which is seperate from this, and will remain seperate. Again, if you do not want to vote for something that simply states it recognizes the Iraq war as a part of the specific campaign, so be it, and change your vote. That is the question, and that will continue to be the question. Rangeley 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it would seem that if the issue is "irrelevant" as you put it, then you would have no say if I added quotations to the page. --kizzle 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:WOT
Actually, read up in the Neutral/Abstain section, you'll see I've already commented. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

War on drugs-->War on Terrorism-->War on Montana
That is how it goes you see...first there was a war on drugs...well, drugs won...next is the current war on terror and it seems to be a losing battle so far...next it will be the war on Montana...yes, that's right, Montana. Reason for a war on Montana? Who the fuck knows, man....but it's no dumber than the war on drugs or the current war on terror, so why not, right? Only thing is they'll have to deal with MONGO and his shotguns and all my other weapons of mass destruction...I'll throw cow patties at them! I checked over wikipedia:WOT...seems like its a blog more than anything else...why doesn't anyone start citing evidence from speeches and what not to build their case one way of the other?--MONGO 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We actually have done that, and it looks as though discussion has concluded as far as that issue is concerned. Rangeley 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Quotes and Votes" revisited
Would you still agree to present the information in the form of Part of the "War on Terrorism," to make it clear in the articles that it is the specific conflict rather than a generalized term? I still am a bit wary of having this be the policy whenever mentioning it, and I feel like we still should leave that for another discussion, as there is a whole other group out there that has been dealing with it. However, for the purposes of the infobox, where we cannot explain the whole issue, I suppose it would be a compromise I would go along with. Seeing that two of the key players in this, Nomen Nescio and Zer0faults, were both blocked for violating the 3RR rule for 6 hours, I think that we should try and reach a consensus before too long. I dont want to see anyone who has participated blocked from putting their input in, and the longer we cant agree the more likely this gets. Rangeley 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would accept Part of the "War on Terrorism". --kizzle 00:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, after talking to GTBracchus, I have done as suggested and made a new section in the Iraq talk page, here. It outlines the consensus we reached in the discussion on both issues, feel free to edit or add your own comments as I might have forgotten something. Rangeley 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ann Coulter
I saw your most recent remark to DaEnforcer. I think you might be interested in this. In particular, compare the contribs history of the various IP's with our own 84 and DaEnforcer. I'm serious - you compare it, I'm too lazy to. :P Kasreyn 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll check it out. Thanks. Haizum 07:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know if you'd like input anywhere else. I'm done for the night but feel free to drop a message in the meantime. Haizum 07:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, just that. Thanks for the input, wanted to get different perspectives on the matter. --kizzle 07:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One last thing: Haizum 08:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page spamming
You have been blocked for 24 hours for talk-page spamming regarding a straw poll on Ann Coulter. Internal spamming with the intent to influence the outcome of process is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Once this block expires you are free to continue contributing, but do not continue to send out spam. Thank you. -- Cyde↔Weys 14:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully contest your blocking... I did not seek to "influence the outcome of process", I simply went up the Ann Coulter talk page and invited any username I had seen participating in discussion (if you'll notice, almost every name on the current Ann Coulter talk page has been contacted regardless of their political background, making sure to include people of a different mindset (conservative) such as Lawyer2b, Mongo, and Haizum; in fact, look at my message towards Haizum:
 * Hi, you haven't necessarily participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past but I wanted to get the opinion of a conservative, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haizum, of course, is the same individual who I have frequently disagreed with many many times. Any admin reading this please reconsider, thanks :) --kizzle 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me amend myself. Talk-page spamming is unacceptable, especially in controversial issues. -- Cyde↔Weys 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So by "talk-page spamming" you mean just contacting other people about a poll, even if it can be shown that the selection of people was not picked to improperly balance the results? Does that mean that User:Rangeley should have been blocked for asking people to join discussion at Wikipedia:WOT, as he most certainly was not? --kizzle 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to say that as a result, we do have a healthy amount of both discussion and differing opinions on the matter at the straw poll now, thus I don't see the damage I caused that warranted a block, let alone a 24hr block. --kizzle 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While spamming is generally a bad thing, this wasn't campaigning. I don't think that a block is appropriate here, especially without a warning.  Even if it is, a 24-hour block is excessive.  Guettarda 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What policy does "talk page spamming" violate? WP:Spam seems to contemplate informing interested parties, and so does WP:Straw. Assuming that Kizzle informed everyone with a possible interest and used neutral language, I can't see what he did wrong. TheronJ 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. --kizzle 05:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

bullshit
i get blocked for 24 hours for "talk-page spam" soliciting both conservatives and republicans while 3RR violations get a 3hr block on a straw poll where I'm trying to find common ground between liberals and conservatives to describe her work at the CIR, where my primary opponent has many suspected sockpuppets and yet no action on either 3RR or Checkuser boards?

thanks cyde for making me realize wikipedia sucks. peace out guys. --kizzle 19:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from Cyde's talk page)

I don't think the block was appropriate - not without a warning, not for 24 hours. I'd like to ask you to reconsider. Guettarda 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ?? Guettarda 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By the time I noticed Kizzle had already spammed the notice to over a dozen talk pages. It was way too late for a warning. Much like if someone has vandalized over a dozen times, you don't need to warn them again before blocking. I would only ever even consider unblocking someone who has apologized and recognized that what they did was wrong. If you look at Kizzle's verbal explosions all over his talk page ... you can clearly see this is not the case:


 * get blocked for 24 hours for "talk-page spam" soliciting both conservatives and republicans while 3RR violations get a 3hr block on a straw poll where I'm trying to find common ground between liberals and conservatives to describe her work at the CIR, where my primary opponent has many suspected sockpuppets and yet no action on either 3RR or Checkuser boards?


 * thanks cyde for making me realize wikipedia sucks. peace out guys.

That doesn't look like someone who should be unblocked to me. --Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Spamming is very different from vandalism. It isn't all that rare, and as long as it isn't campaigning I can't see how it's blockable at all. I don't agree with this rationale for a block. As for his reply, it isn't all that surprising - if I got blocked for something that I didn't think was bloackable, and no one raised a finger to help, I'd be pissed off as well. It's a bit much to ask for contrition when he didn't commit a crime. Guettarda 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not being hard-headed, I just don't understand what I did wrong, thus an apology would simply be hollow. As I provided evidence before, Rangeley asked contributors to come to the WOT page in droves, and the only thing he was accused of was recruiting only conservative editors.  The rule against talk-page spam as I understand it is to prevent "stacking the deck" which I explicitly tried not to do.  Zer0faults and Haizum are two editors which I almost always disagree with, yet I invited them.  I also think your characterization of my talk page as "verbal explosions all over" is quite overblown to say the least. That last ouburst by me I stand by, as it contained no ad hominem attacks and was pointing out that the anon involved got a 3 hour block after a warning for violating 3RR, while I get a sudden 24hr block.  Your logic "if someone has vandalized over a dozen times, you don't need to warn them again before blocking" is false, as each individual act of vandalism is obviously wrong.  The vandal knows what he's doing is wrong whereas I had no idea that the mere action of contacting a dozen editors of different political stripes to participate in a straw poll is against Wikipedia policy. You should have warned first. --kizzle 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Kizzle - Wikipedia doesn't suck, but an inequitable application of the rules certainly does - especially when one believes themself to be an unwitting recipient. As we've seen before, sometimes egregious acts by trolls or vandals are tolerated while good-intentioned editors are nailed on overly draconian interpretations of the rules. Whether this is an instance of vote stacking, talk page spamming or overzealous blocking, in any event you have to just Let it go. Go out, have a bike ride, etc., and the Coulter article and the hijinx there will still be there for you to re-engage when you have recharged. Don't let it get you down, and don't give any detractors you may have any advantage. Be strong, be calm and be back soon! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked you on your own recognizance. I know you don't like getting spam email, so please don't contribute to the same type of problem on Wikipedia. "Because others do it" isn't a valid excuse. And I wasn't being unfair: I hadn't even heard of Rangeley until just now. Don't assume that I fully investigated this issue and then decided to block just you in my evilness. I simply saw that you were vote stacking and blocked you. It doesn't matter if you were trying to even out someone else's actions ... it's still wrong. Don't stoop to the POV-pushers' level, in other words. Thanks for understanding. -- Cyde↔Weys 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let us be absolutely clear: If, in the future, I start a straw poll on an American political page and invite 6 conservative and 6 liberal editors from a list of editors who had recently contributed to the page in question with messages on their pages, I will be blocked again? If so, can you cite the exact passage from Wikipedia policy so I can use it in the future? --kizzle 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't do recruiting. The way straw polls work is that you just put it up and anyone who's interested in the issue will hopefully find it on their own.  Yeah, it's kind of iffy, but it's better than turning everyone's talk page into a raging mass of solicitations.  Straw polls aren't such a good idea anyway ... remember, Wikipedia isn't a democracy.  It's best to start a discussion.  The other way to list a straw poll to get widespread attention without spamming is to use noticeboards or Template:Cent – they exist so you don't have to resort to spamming.  Best regards,  Cyde↔Weys  20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally don't like straw polls as well, but they are useful when an impasse has been reached in discussion, which IMHO had been reached long after I had already started discussion. I only wish you had provided me with a specific Wikipedia passage so I would be crystal clear on what constitutes a blockable offense in the future.  If I may respectfully request that next time something like this happens, you warn the user first rather than getting trigger-happy.  Thanks in advance. And by the way, I'm still blocked. --kizzle 20:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Kizz - he has a point that spamming is a bad thing. There are places to announce current surveys, things like that.  Ruleslawyering isn't much better.  Don't ask for a warning next time - make sure there isn't a next time.  Next time, post the survey, and if people who have been active on the topic don't show up, then you can mention it to them in person.  It's fair to ask for a warning, just make sure that "next time" it isn't about spamming.  Guettarda 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking for a free pass to spam talk pages, I meant that whether it's me or someone else, Cyde needs to be a little less punchy with the block button. I meant no harm and was definetely not "vote stacking" with the intent to skew the results, a little WP:AGF should have been thrown my way by telling me to knock the spamming off before blocking. --kizzle 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True. But Cyde meant well as well.  It doesn't help to escalate things.  Guettarda 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the block - it's the autoblocker. Let me see if I can find the autoblock...  Guettarda 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Should be ok now. Guettarda 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) --kizzle 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You never know
Silly, but thought you would appreciate this...--MONGO 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for the pick-me-up :) --kizzle 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Qaeda and WTC bombing
Bill Clinton This is a very important connection you've drawn here. That article you offered is very helpful, but does not establish an evidenced connection. As well-articulated by the al Qaeda entry, this incident is often attributed to al-Qaedaism rather than al-Qaeda, as it has never been established (or formally contested) that Yousef was a member of aQ at the time of the bombing.

While I suspect we won't agree upon that, there is a second point that makes the revert problematic. "Al-Qaeda began to emerge as a major terrorist threat" with the attack: this is unsubstantiated as well, as no one was talking about al Qaeda in relation to the attack in its immediate wake. http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm (no mention of OBL or Qaeda) http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individuals/ramzi_yousef.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm

1) Qaeda connection is at least enormously tenuous. 2) Qaeda did not emerge as a major terrorist threat until it was implicated in the '98 attacks. 3) The statement you removed is incontrovertably true, and transmits the same significance to the bio as the provocative statement that remains.

I'm really sorry for taking up your time with this. I won't touch the entry, don't worry, just wanted to try to work this out, for my own benefit. In my own personal understanding of the events that transpired, the '93 bombing still seems well-evidenced as the act of an organization with the same goals as Al Qaeda without being Al Qaeda.

What do you think?DBaba 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As John O'Neill kept saying, there was no reason to think they're always going to go after us in Saudi Arabia or Africa or Yemen. They tried to go after us, O'Neill would say, in 1993, in the first World Trade Center attack. O'Neill was convinced, in retrospect -- and it took the FBI others a long time to realize it, many years actually -- but O'Neill was convinced by the year 2000, certainly probably earlier than that, that the 1993 attack was in fact a bin Laden-led attack. We hadn't heard the phrase Al Qaeda at the time.


 *  We now know, going back through historical documents, that there was an Al Qaeda [back then]. It had just been formed, just been given that name. It was small. But O'Neill would say the attack of 1993 was Al Qaeda. The attempted attack at the millennium in the United States was Al Qaeda. -


 * While we weren't aware of Al Qaeda at the time, it was the same organization according to O'Neill. This seems like a pretty rock-solid citation, no? Do you have any citations to notable opinions on the matter that argue that Al Qaeda was not involved in 1993? --kizzle 04:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, glad I could engage you on this!

First off, you've not addressed the problem with your re-inserted sentence asserting that "Al Qaeda began to emerge" with the incident. OBL announced his jihad in 1998, marking the emergence of Al Qaeda as a significant threat--if not that moment, then the actual bombings attributed to them later that year. This seperate point is that al Qaeda did not emerge in relation to the WTC bombing (aside from al Qaeda not actually perpetrating them).

Now, the document. "According to Oneil it was the same organization" is not even an isolated expression of agreement between two people. Besides which, this context lends itself to semantic difficulty: whether or not Yousef was Al Qaeda at the time, it was the same "people" who carried out the attacks, i.e. Muslim extremists, "organized" in precisely the same way by precisely the same people, for all intents and purposes. The same people who killed Meir Kahane in concurrence with the expressed will of Omar Abdel-Rahman, for instance, a crime that I've never seen re-attributed to aQ.

The point is, pictures of Yousef having lunch with OBL, if they were to exist, would not make Yousef an al Qaeda operative. The terrorists behind the 93 attack were pretty well mopped up by the FBI's own standards, with the exception of the financiers, one of which may have been OBL--and if it was, Yousef is still not al Qaeda. This is why al Qaeda gets mention sometimes: because it's all the same post-Soviet Sunni radicalism, because the Blind Sheik even rubbed shoulders with OBL, and because OBL's money is traceable to everything.

That said, really everywhere you look you have a complete omisson of Al Qaeda in regards to the 93 bombing, or at most a "suspected of carrying out or directing sympathetic groups to carry out".

Historical records with complete omissions of al Qaeda: 1996 FAS 1998 CNN Last World Trade Center bombing conspirator sentenced 2002 Tenet testimony (actually notes 'common thread'--wish he had more to that) 2004 BBC update to original story 2004 FBI Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of bombing

And this is where the problem lies, really. You've challenged me to disprove something, and all I can really do is highlight a dearth of proof, and the fact that that damned sentence goes further than the FBI, the CIA, or the administration has ever gone.

At any rate, that research has convinced me, and I wasn't convinced myself at the outset. Best I could find for the perspective to the contrary is FBI noting OBL's name coming up in the investigation, ostensibly regarding funding, and even then it wasn't OBL exclusively. It was in 98 that they prioritized him, prior to the bombings, at his jihad announcement.

"But bin Laden denied to me that he was behind the bombing and claimed he didn't know Ramzi Yousef. 'Unfortunately,' he said with a wave of his hand, 'I did not know him before the incident.'"DBaba 10:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We didn't know at the time that it was Al Qaeda, hence the historical omissions, but I have a quote from Richard Clarke saying that John P. O'Neil, "a top American anti-terrorism expert who worked as a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation until late 2001... In 1995, O'Neill began to intensely study the roots of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing after he assisted in the capture of Ramzi Yousef, who was the leader of that plot" believed that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 1993 WTC attack... thus according to Wikipedia standards, I've satisfied WP:RS. You make convincing arguments, but I must take the word of someone in the know first. --kizzle 13:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Right on, thanks for hearing me out. But in closing, let me just say I vehemently disagree with you on the inclusion of the sentence we began with: because the sentence I inserted in its place is certainly true, and what stands now is both hearsay and speculation, and completely lacking in evidence of being anything but hearsay and speculation.

It is my understanding that rather than this being a reliable source relative to its competition, it stands as "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community", as per that link. I think the Council on Foreign Relations hits our grey area pretty aptly: See single para at bottom. This is the prevalent viewpoint, as far as I can determine from my silly little investigation: that these guys are adjacent players to that aQ world, without having neatly been a part of it at the time of the attacks.

Thanks for your patience in hearing me out!DBaba 03:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tlizzle
User:Tlizzle was blocked by User:Essjay...it is an indefinite block, which surprised me since there was only one edit...anyway, I will leave a note for Essjay and ask him to do the unblock since I never overturn any other admins.--MONGO 04:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Yeah...I think they believe that I am mad or something...all I am doing is trying to protect myself and all wikipedians from this time wasting trollery...I very much appreciate your barnstar...thanks man! Let me know how I can be of help to you.--MONGO 03:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, honestly, I have never edited at any other wiki. Someone sure did a good job trying to mimic me though. I think Jimbo Wales would be fairly supportive of my attempts to reduce substantially the spread of their cruft in wikipedia though. I was particularily pissed at someone accusing me ousing Ed Poor as a log in name to fix the articles there. I do know of two other editors that have contacted me via email that state that they have vandalized many articles there though...names will not be reveiled.--MONGO 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jus so you know...User:Tlizzle is not currently blocked..the banners at his page can be removed...keep him sober!--MONGO 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do (or at least keep him away from the computer when he isn't) --kizzle 04:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sheesh
Sorry, I wasn't sure what was going on and probably RVd to fast. Rjm656s 04:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all good, I probably should be spending more time being productive anyways :) --kizzle 04:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Credit
Don't worry, I'm not armed! :-) I removed the part on my user page about you providing the link to the BigDaddy777 business because it sounded sarcastic to me, after some thought, so I'm here to give you credit because I stole the link off of your user page.  It feels like the right thing to do anyway.  Regards, Karwynn  15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dramatica_what.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Dramatica_what.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and since I'm here, I noticed that your talk page is very long. If you want, you can archive it to keep everything easier to manage. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kizzle, you may be interested to know that the trolling Main page image was uploaded to this image this morning, they don't miss a trick. NoSeptember  19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My sorta Wikibreak
So, what's the deal, along with being a Deputy Commissar you've now been appointed as the Truant Officer for the Liberal Cabal?

Anyway, a combination of humdrum RL factors has caused me to cut back my Wikitime. I anticipate that the situation will be temporary. Meanwhile, just to reassure you that I'm still alive, I did find time for a smackdown of Ann Coulter. JamesMLane t c 21:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently while you were away, she became a civil rights advocate. Just don't be gone too long or by the power invested in me by the spirit of Mao Tse Tung I'll have to issue you a citation, spelling champ. --kizzle 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I trust you'll accept my latest excuse for my Wikitruancy. On Tuesday I took the train up to Norwalk and did some leafletting.  I haven't thrown away the train schedule, either; if there's a challenge to Lamont in November, my message to Joe is, "Bring it on!" JamesMLane t c 06:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fuck man, if I had the money for a plane I would have flown out to NY and got a ride with you... I think I'm definetely going to try to be a part of the Nov election. And I doubt Joementum's backing down, he's got a chance to win given high repub turnout (I wonder if the RNC will even ask the 3rd place guy to step down)... what a crock of shit, calling himself a true democrat in the debate. McCain/Lieberman '08, ugh. --kizzle 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * truancy has considerably reduced my blood pressure ;) i'll swing back by once i get these couple papers finished, which seems to be approximately never. i saw kangaroos by the beach, and a platypus. vegemite is not good, but the beer is. there are beautiful parrots everywhere. /waves to ryan & james, if they're around. -D

CT for Lieberman link
While it is a somewhat amusing website, I don't think http://www.connecticutforlieberman.com that you linked on the CT senate race discussion page is the official CFL webpage. It seems more of a parody site. --Bobblehead 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! Wow, that was a good mockup as I thought it was their actual site!  Thanks for the catch :) --kizzle 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure Lieberman has a campaign site at the moment. If you go to http://www.joe2006.com you get a 'does not exist' message. Oops. But someone definitely has too much time on their hands with the CFL site..--Bobblehead 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"I like butts
Yeah. You would! lol I do hate when people want to argue on my talk page. Especially when I'm not even involved! lol --Woohookitty(meow) 07:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha, I actually enjoy other people arguing on my page, it's usually quite entertaining and I feel like Don King promoting a boxing match :) --kizzle 07:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry
It looks like someone slipped in some Swift Boat crap when we weren't looking. You might want to have a look at the Vietnam section of the Kerry article. Gamaliel 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Flower for a friend
-- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, co-VP
Could you do me a favor and head over here? I'm sort of worried. I made a comment which I felt was a simple piece of logic and Ryan has interpreted it as a personal attack. I keep rereading it but I can't see where I went wrong. You seem to know Ryan, can you tell me what it was I said and how I can reassure him I wasn't attacking him?

It's a real shame, too, because from his (her? I just noticed your barnstar) userpage, he (she?) seems like the sort of person I would normally get along with wonderfully. Unfortunately, our total disagreement on the PublicgirlUK thing (see Jimbo's talk page for the original argument) seems to have put paid to any possibility of ever getting to know RF. Right now, I'd be happy if I can stay un-blocked. ^_^; Cheers, Kasreyn 05:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, the issue seems to have been resolved. Kasreyn 05:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey spamming revisited
Hey Kizzle,

I thought you might be interested in another data point on the emerging policy regarding survey spamming. Apparently, your dozen or so notices were too many, but five or so carefully worded notices are ok. (See here). I'd still do survey notices with caution, if at all, however. TheronJ 13:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotation style
I intensely dislike the cquote style, and I've taken you task for your use of it. See Template talk:Cquote. Using this silly template is, in my mind, more shameful than something like being a sex-crime victim, so out of mercy I didn't mention you by name. Nevertheless, your thoughts would be welcome. JamesMLane t c 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With any luck, Casey has so victimized our hapless hero by now. Derex 07:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * She used me and ran, which is ok by me ;) --kizzle 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, if I may briefly return this thread to its actual (albeit G-rated) subject... I appreciate your support on the substance of the Chris Wallace (journalist) article. But me still no likey cquote. JamesMLane t c 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * to each his own, i guess. --kizzle 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Publicgirluk
In Jimbo Wales' talk page you said: All this over some chick who uploaded naked photos of herself? Is there an archive somewhere? ;) --kizzle 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is; the URL is http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=The_Sausage_Factory_and_the_Sausage_Fest

(I wonder if this will get me banned)

misc
... for your article collection on voting machinesstory link, bugmenot login Derex 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

over and fucking over again. i'm working on something with all the stuff i've done on voting machines, hopefully i'll get to show it to you soon. --kizzle 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Would love to read it. Given your expertise, you may have some insights into the merits of this. Derex 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

John stewart.jpg removed from your user page
An image or media file, Image:John stewart.jpg, has been removed from your userpage or user talk page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Thank you for your cooperation.

--  tariq abjotu  00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry about ricky, kiz. i know you two were 'close'. australia seems pretty darn happy about it all though. Derex 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's alright, I'm a fickle ferret. --kizzle 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Heads up
Today's featured article/November 21, 2006 Raul654 03:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Colbert
I haven't seen the article since May and I just wanted to let you know how impressed I am with its current form. I'm assuming you are mostly responsible for this, but please share my praise and appreciation with any others that contributed. -- Samuel Wantman 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Along with Reaverdrop, Brian.FSM, and Lee Bailey besides myself...Thanks a lot for your kind words! :) --kizzle 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that.
Thanks for your kind remarks. But looking at the situation, I don't see this one turning out well. Fortunately, Oden has WP copyright policy on his side. And despite all this nonsense about consensus, the WP copyright policy is NOT a consensus policy. It is a legal policy - it is part of WP's founding principles and will not change, ever. Even if every WP editor and admin voted against it, Jimbo would veto. So Kyaa hasn't a leg to stand on. Kasreyn 07:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, the image dispute is pretty much resolved. I'm more talking about the whitewashing going on in the page, read the latter half of the talk page. --kizzle 07:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated
Some things work out for the best, and the community has spoken. I imagine I am better able to deal with harassing editors as an admin only and not be bound by an even higher code of standards expected of an arbitrator. If there is anything you need, never hesitate to ask.--MONGO 04:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, quit protecting the conservatives!
You republican activist you! :P Kyaa the Catlord 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey man, don't out the fact that I'm a closet freeper! While my identity is blown, long live Rush! Down with B'Iraq Hussein Osama! --kizzle 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There any reason you're watching and posting on my talk page?
I don't need you finding ways to take cheap shots about me on my talk. Your PA has been reverted. ThuranX 06:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I think it's extremely dickish when someone tells someone else to go digging through an archive section that they're not familliar with to find an already stale discussion, and then lambaste that person because they're unwilling to go on such a rabbit hunt. Find it yourself next time. --kizzle 07:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from the vast right wing conspiracy
(Cross posting to Kizzle, Derex, and MONGO) I joke, actually they kicked me out because I wasn't on board with all of the spending increases and because I couldn't spell "Schiavo" correctly. Any chance you could look at McCarthyism, Joseph McCarthy, and my discussion with User:KarlBunker? I'm thinking about inviting mediation, but before that I thought I would grab one or two of you principled liberals and have you take a look, in case I am totally and completely wrong or am blinded by the pure white light of ideology (my preciousssssss). An RFC has to date brought exactly two comments/one new contributor. I will be asking Derex also, and maybe MONGO just for kicks/to even the odds. If you have two seconds to hear my pain, here's the question: should the fact that there were actual Soviet agents exposed within the US get mentioned in the intro to McCarthyism? Currently, the article IMO goes on and on about all of the hype and blacklisting and ad hominem BS related to the distinguished Senator himself (and I am not rising to his defense, from what I have read it was extremely nasty stuff and apparently truly unsubstantiated), but gives short shrift to the underlying reality of subversive communist activity. User:KarlBunker wants the McCarthyism article to be used as the descriptor for the period of anti-Communism from the 1940s on, but keeps reverting my addition of info in the last intro para pertaining to VENONA. To me it seems that if the article covers thirty years of American history, it should provide this important part of the basic context- that the shrill, hyped, insulting, defamatory anti-Communism of McCarthy and HUAC was in part a reaction to an actual Soviet menace- maybe even that McCarthy's BS obscured the real problem more than it did anything else. If you could get to this sometime before November 2008 when Hillary is due to impose the new national speech codes (Morality is Relative! Diversity is Strength!  Multilateralism is Unity!), that would be super kewl. ;) Kaisershatner 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave this article now you stiff-necked dunce!
I want to create a new barnstar/award called Lou Sander's Prestigous Stick-necked Dunce Award and put it on the userpage of anyone who has survived a throwback insult, cliche, or biblical quote from Lou. I think it would become very popular. --Ubiq 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Joe2006down.jpg
Hello, Kizzle. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Joe2006down.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kizzle/CTSen. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lamontlieberman.jpg
Hello, Kizzle. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Lamontlieberman.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kizzle/CTSen. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pastpop pic gordon.jpg
Hello Kizzle, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Pastpop pic gordon.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Kizzle/Archive1. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Call for help on a Featured Article nomination
Kizzle, long ago, you served my father in the clone wars... er, that is, you made valuable contributions to truthiness to try to get it to Featured Article status, as I recall. As it turned out, it didn't fly at the time. But after all this time, it has just recently been nominated again. Your efforts there have been missed, also for a long time. Now would be a great time for you to take a look at it again and help out, and/or | comment on the nomination. Thanks. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 07:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bushbulge.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bushbulge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bushbulge.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Bushbulge.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --John Bot III (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

2004 election irregularities - AfD
Yet another attempt at censorship / revisionism: Articles_for_deletion/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities.

This time by our old friend snowspinner (phil sandifer).

Thought you might like to know. Kevin Baastalk 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Election season
Welcome back!

As for Sarah Palin, I was editing that article a month ago. While you were still in goof-off mode, I was making sure people knew that her husband works for a foreign oil company. JamesMLane t c 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
I fear, Obama supporters (via IPs) are the culprits behind Babygate. I hope it's not Obama campaign staffers trying to add them to the article. Jeepers, it seems the Palin selection has hit a raw nerve with the Democrats. I thought Begala & Carville were gonna have heart-attacks on CNN. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well they can't change the fact that we follow WP:RS, so if it can't be sourced it's not going to stay in. --kizzle (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The real Babygate is that, if we take her version of the story as true, she got on a plane for a lengthy flight (Texas to Anchorage, probably changing planes in Seattle) after her waters burst. Once the distraction of the supposed fake pregnancy goes away, I hope we'll be able to document a notable POV that her behavior was irresponsible.  Unfortunately, I think Babygate I will have to run its course before proper attention is paid to Babygate II. JamesMLane t c 20:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you hit me with some good articles on wtf is going on with that? I'm still catching up before I can start regulating on peeps on Palin. Also did you ever get my email about my new job? --kizzle (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the Anchorage Daily News story about the baby's birth and Down's Syndrome diagnosis: . Based on the timeline in the article, she got to her hometown hospital about 19.5 hours after she discovered she was leaking amniotic fluid.  Her doctor did not give her the OK to fly back because she didn't ask the doctor -- she just did it.  In this thread on Democratic Underground, several people (including some who've given birth) say that, whether the woman is leaking or gushing, the appearance of amniotic fluid means she should get to the hospital ASAP.  They say this is especially true in the case of a Down's Syndrome baby.  (I think I've read that the Palins knew before the birth that Trig had DS, although IIRC that point has also been the subject of an edit war at Sarah Palin.)  There've been several other DU threads on the general point.


 * Yes, I did get your email and watched your video. I totally meant to write back and congratulate you, but one thing after another drove it out of my mind, and I'm basically deficient in normal human decency anyway, so nothing got done.  Belated congratulations!  Are you still at that gig?  Do they have any problem with your editing Wikipedia? JamesMLane t c 00:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I don't tell them, and I haven't been on WP in a long time until election season. Yep, still at it :) --kizzle (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You should note that the baby issue has two components: An accusation of poor decision making and irresponsible conduct based on the events off the birth as stated by Gov. Palin (which probably doesn't belong unless and until it has an effect on the campaign), and the wild-eyed rumor about the baby's parentage. BOTH pre-date the Governers selection as VP candidate, however, and originated with Alaskans. A quick google will bring you dozens of very old posts re: same. Please be very cautious NOT to lay this at the door of any party involved in the presidential campaign. Rhgray (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)  rhgray
 * I'm moving on, as the article (and its talkpage) is currently under siege. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Please look closer at the policy on non-article space BLP violations:

"'Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.'"

There is no benefit to discussing the rumors unless and until they can be reliably sourced. Stop reinserting your inviting discussion of it. user:j   (aka justen)   20:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, I'm not making a claim that needs to be sourced, and thus fall under BLP. I'm inserting a signpost that will act as a preventative warning for future insertions. --kizzle (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You need not do so. WP:BLP is mentioned at the very top of the talk page.  Further mentioning it is unnecessary and unhelpful.    user:j    (aka justen)   20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * K, well per my explanation on Kelly's page I disagree with your interpretation of BLP. --kizzle (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded there. Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Amidst all the Sarah Palin noise, I forgot to say welcome back. Could you have picked a more contentious article to return to, though? :)   user:j    (aka justen)   01:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's how I roll baby ;) --kizzle (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

hey so-
how bout


 * if you disagree with another editor or thier newly created stub make sure you say "worthless, nonsense per nom" on the deletion page. Headlikeawhole (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPOONFEED
Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I saw your essay User:Kizzle/Spoon Feeding and I thought it would be nice to upgrade it to a user essay, and give the community access to it in Category:User essays. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New rules
While you were away goofing off, the Liberal Cabal adopted new rules. We have become increasingly concerned that the VRWC is spying on us. Accordingly, all intra-Cabal messages must be encrypted. Please do not leave any more plain-text messages on my talk page. Violators will be compelled to wear the demerit badge for Communicating Before Thinking, which bears a likeness of Ann Coulter. JamesMLane t c 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Message received. Hail Mao-Tse Tung. --kizzle (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of George W. Bush insider trading allegations
I have nominated George W. Bush insider trading allegations, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/George W. Bush insider trading allegations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. *** Crotalus *** 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson
Hello. I'm not sure what 'new users' you are referring to in your message. I'm no 'new user,' but I don't usually get involved in partisan bickering. But having once been part of the national media, I resent watching users toy with the facts rather than checking (and double- and triple-checking) their sources. Unfortunately, this piece is beginning to resemble Mark Twain's camel – 'a horse designed by a committee' – which is the kiss-of-death for many wikipedia entries. Tailored to fit the majority, they eventually fit no one. Some users (Eric comes to mind) want to water down events to suit their agenda – all in the interests of avoiding 'bloat.'

The fact is that the Congressman had an outburst. Someone needs to take a stand, else the usual wikipedia watering down happens. In this case, I suppose it's me. I'll happily track this page – in addition to the hundreds of other pages on my watch list – but somewhere one has to draw the line. As I indicated in my post on the talk page, more people need to learn how to read primary sources, and not simply rush to post the first thing they find. If this entry simply becomes a question of which 'side' can type more, then it's a sad day for wikipedia. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia edits by concensus. We might disagree with other users but the "horse designed by committee" is the only model possible unless we start disregarding users entirely.  We have stated the Congressman had an outburst.  The characterization of which is the trickiest part.  I wasn't saying that new users don't have a right to edit the page, I was merely stating that with the clusterf*ck the page has become, people should be suggesting edits on the talk page before making unilateral edits so as to encourage attempts at consensus and not railroad over legitimate efforts to bring editors together. --kizzle (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know how wikipedia edits. What I'm saying is some users obscure their agendas. In this case, I fear, there are those arguing for expunging this from the Congressman's wikipedia bio because it's not 'pleasant.' The insistence should be retaining the information, not on agreeing over what constitutes 'an outburst.' Any fool can see he had an outburst. No one (at least in the United States Congress) has done such a thing in recent memory. (And by 'recent memory,' I mean the past couple hundred of years.) You may believe that seeking concensus will result in an agreement that the text will read in a way that's acceptable to both sides. Perhaps. My fear is that it allows those with an agenda – removing an unfortunate lapse of judgment on the Congressman's part – to rewrite his online biography. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're worried about users with a POV trying to insert their own feelings into the text, then welcome to Wikipedia - you must be new :) That happens all the time. We all have our own personal biases, but there's no way around trying to gain consensus between the editors participating, you just have to hope your arguments are logical and cogent enough for your point to get through. --kizzle (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a point of view; that goes without saying. What concerns me are those with specific agendas, sometimes professional, who hide behind a user name and attempt to influence wikipedia coverage. And no, I'm not new. I've made over 14,000 contributions. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Joe Wilson
What is the advantage of writing "You lie", a quote out of context, rather than saying "calling him a liar", which explains the nature of the interruption? Is there a single reliable source that disputes that Joe Wilson called the president a liar? If not, why isn't the lead written in prose? Wilson interrupted the speech and called Obama a liar. Why is this being removed? Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why characterize when you can quote exactly what he said? --kizzle (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing is always the ideal in lead sections, especially when describing an incident where the outcome is clear. We know Wilson called Obama a liar, and the reliable sources support that statement; You won't find one that disputes it. "You lie" does not impart the same information as "calling him a liar", nor does it read as well in prose.  Here are the two versions:
 * Wilson received international attention in September 2009 after interrupting a speech by U.S. President Barack Obama with "You lie!".
 * Wilson received international attention in September 2009 after interrupting a speech by U.S. President Barack Obama and calling him a liar.


 * Why do you prefer the former over the latter? The latter makes the interruption and accusation clear.  The former doesn't.  Our goal is to strive for clarity at all times. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Where in WP:LEAD does it say "paraphrasing is always the ideal in lead sections"? I find your analysis of the two versions clearly false. You say "The latter makes the interruption and accusation clear.  The former doesn't."  The former explicitly says "after interrupting a speech" just like the latter, so how does it not state that Obama was interrupted?  Secondly, if we are to strive for clarity, why paraphrase rather than quote?  It's two words and removes the middleman characterization. --kizzle (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I bring up WP:LEAD? I would be happy to talk about LEAD if you so desire, but I should warn you in advance, I may fill your entire talk page up with my comments.  You say you find my analysis false, yet you ignore what I've said.  Where is the accusation explained in your version?  It isn't.  Your version says that Wilson interrupted the speech with a comment.  My version says he interrupted the speech with an accusation.  I'm not committed to "calling him a liar", as that can be further refined in several ways; For example, one could say that Wilson "accused Obama of lying", etc.  But simpy blurting out "You lie!" doesn't tell the reader anything important, and as I've argued above, cheats the reader out of important information.  Wilson isn't actually known for his comments, which is why the quote isn't important.  If he said something notable or unique, or even strange or informative, then yes, we would keep the quote.  But that's not the case here.  Wilson is known for calling the President a liar.  This idea that the statement "You lie!" is somehow notable, appears to be a Republican talking point, not a fact.  Most people know Wilson for simply making an accusation, not for those two words, and the reliable sources make this very clear.  The existence of You Lie! shows that there is an effort by some to glamorize those two words, and your edit appears to further their cause.    Wilson called the president a liar, or Wilson accused the president of lying - either one is acceptable.  But simply saying he interrupted the speech with "You Lie" misses the mark and robs the reader of the broader context.  We need to write articles for people who know nothing about the topic.  If someone was to read the current version that says Wilson interrupted Obama's speech with "You lie", what exactly would that mean to them?  Ask yourself that.  To me, it is extremely poor writing, and fails to mention what actually happened.  Those two words are not notable.  What is notable is Wilson's accusation and the fact that he called the president a liar.  The lead needs to state that fact in unambiguous terms.  Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
is your friend. Please embrace your friend. Your other friends are having to scroll a very long time to get to recent posts. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

redirect
I saw an article in a news website whose title was " 'You Lie' legistator rebuked by...." The phrase seems to have a life greater than the man's name. So I used a search engine and came to the Wikipedia article. Therefore, there is some merit in having a redirect rather than a complete delete. However, this is not a burning issue for me so I didn't comment on the AFD. I just saw your name there and decided that you would be a nice person to leave a comment about my thoughts. Hello! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly it's not a burning issue for me either, a redirect is fine by me instead of a straight out delete. And thanks for the kind words! --kizzle (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrubbing
Take a look at the history of Mark Lloyd (protected from editing, scrubbed of all attempts to mention controversies) and Glenn Beck (no mention of Van Jones and ACORN). Consensus is that it's just keeping out BLP violations. Maybe it's just me, but do you think people are trying to keep some information out of articles?? Bachcell (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Carter.
. The horses mouth is the source.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm watching this and I still don't see where Carter says he was misquoted. --kizzle (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * watch it and see where he mentions Wilson ever by name.( he doesn´t).--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The clip you showed wasn't the whole interview, and to my recollection didn't contain the interview question setup which might mention Wilson. I'm not saying you're wrong but we have a reliable source saying Carter was referring to Wilson.  Even Wilson's family responded as if Carter said it.  If you're going to include whether Carter was misquoted you'll have to find a WP:RS to support it. --kizzle (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to find a complete transcript. Will post when I do.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This [] shows the comment that is sigued into completely, and again, Wilson is not mentioned. The atmosphere is, Wilson not. I also dont want it added t the article, but rather the contentious material removed from a BLP--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson, continued
I wanted to let you know I have just posted a lengthy explanation of why I now think that Carter was probably misquoted, and so the "racism" charge is a BLP issue. Hope you can take a look at it. Thanks. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Missed your return
I just realised that you were - or had been - back. I thought you had turned your back on us forever, like Derex. Sorry I missed, you. Guettarda (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You've been reverted
This is just a heads-up to let you know that this edit of yours was peremptorily reverted, after less than an hour, by an admin who gave no reason for this action. I don't know what his or her problem with your edit was. You even spelled all the words correctly, so it was above your usual standard. JamesMLane t c 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR for Steven Colbert at the...
nominated Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Plotfeat (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

FAR for Truthiness
I have nominated Truthiness for a featured article review here. You had nominated it for Featured article candidacy just few 16 years ago. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)