User talk:Mbecker/Archive 3

This was your so called apology: "I supposed I could have done without the twisted part, but IMO, anyone who worships a killer has a twiseted POV." If he comes back as a productive user, or if we ever are privileged to be joined by a legitimate user who espouses very different views, Wiki will have to be welcoming. A multiplicity of diverse perspectives will broaden or focus and challenge the more conventional contributors to refine their work. It's too bad that we've yet to find this person. Lir/Adam/Vera, while occasionally a valid contributor who unearthed overlooked areas of study due to his anarcho-Communist views, was far more of a liability due to his personality and I'm skeptical (but still hopeful) that Paektu will be reformed. Paektu and Lir/Vera are probably not serious individuals; but if we are ever privileged to be joined by collaborative academics that share those views, you will have to refrain from being so dismissive. 172

-- No, no. I was arguing that we should not react more harsly to him because of his political beliefs, not that we should react less harsly. I was just saying, as an aside, that it would be interesting to have someone join us who holds such controversial views. I'm not saying that these are my views, just that I have respect for differing opinion. 172

Not to play devil's advocate, but you can't just dismiss people who are considered extremists by most who share a conventional, contemporary US perspective so glibly. I wrote a list of Stalinist arguments on your page, and I don't find countering them as incredibly easy as one might imagine. I'm sure that if I were forced to debate those points with a sharp Stalinist, I might be hard-pressed to debunk some points.

Also remember, history has, or better yet changing views have, vindicated a lot of crazy extremists. 172

Sorry, no. "Fuck me hard like a good little boy scout" (twice in one article yet) does not fit anyone's definition of a legitimate edit. Go look at the page history again. The edit this afternoon is fine (good valuable information) and I'm glad you talked to this user about procedure, but I have absolutely nothing to apologize for here. - Hephaestos 20:33 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I'm in a zero-tolerance mood today, I'll be more careful in future, G-Man 00:57 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-- I disagree with your move to remove the protection. Nostrum has not retracted his interest to add the POV poorly written rant responsible for the edit war. It is only stable because he hasn't been making edits for about 20 hours, on Catholicism or any page. Judging by the timing of his edits yesterday, this is the time when he'll probably be back on Wiki. If he logs back onto Wiki and tires to reinsert the content, you're going to have to revert his changes and re-protect the page. Tell him that the forum for him right now is the talk page, where the content at question has been getting a great deal of attention. Jtdril even went to the effort of pointing out its most severe flaws one by one. 172

Please see my comments on the Catolicism talk page. 172

Hmmm... I think I'm being rather snappish today (or maybe this week). My tarot card for tommorrow probably ought to be The Emperor. *sigh* Sorry. Martin 20:24, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle the Boyer edits at United States Secret Service. He's reverting a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations. I took them back out. Any suggestions? Kat 22:42, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Tnx. I'm happy to work it through with him.  By the way, your user page is protected, just happened to notice, I don't care, just letting you know, I guess.  Kat 23:01, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

MBecker: Is there still a problem with User:67.121.169.17 (Michael)? Please reply on my user talk page, not my user page, or else I'm likely to miss it. :) -- Marumari 15:03, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Banned 67.121.169.17. Let me know if you have any other problems. -- Marumari 15:14, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mbecker - AFAIK, we don't really ban accounts as it is pretty ineffectual (since anybody can create as many accounts as they like). So, we just try to squish IP addresses when we can.

I saw Boyer's latest squawk at you on Talk:vfd.

I think it is really unfortunate that we don't have the series of several solid articles on surrealism that the topic deserves. There is much surrealist art, literature, and film. The overwhelming majority of it rises over, e.g., playing with molten chocolate in the bathtub, or automatic writing. Boyer's POV that it is not a movement within (or a genre of) art is a cop out and is not widely held. The fact that he and a few influential participants in the movement do not wish to have it defined at all should not prevent us from having good fact-based articles on surrealism topics.


 * That you would so minimise the importance of automatic writing, the initial and perhaps most significant of surrealist creative practices, shows an abysmal ignorance on the subject of surrealism, an ignorance you implicitly admit in the next sentence. Read Breton's Manifesto of Surealism or "The Automatic Message".  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:17, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can't write on surrealism without doing some research. I might hit the books and do just that one of these days when it rains.

In the meantime, I have added Boyer to Annoying_users, mainly because of his constant POV reversions and penchant for distorting the importance of trivial facts. I somehow suspect that this will generate more heat than light, though. So far nobody seems to have noticed, except Boyer. He just added a retaliatory listing for me on the same page, which I expected. Kat 15:40, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Mbecker. Thanks for the note on my talk page about Daniel C. Boyer. Well, you actually put it on my user page, but it's now on my talk page. :) Anyway, your note has been noted. I might wander over to wherever it is that the debate is now, and see where it has got to... -- Oliver P. 20:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

response at Talk:Daniel C. Boyer. Martin

/\/\/\/\...(laughing).. Where did you drag that up? Kat 20:29, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, what exactly (other than the paragraph breaks and the external Ohio Grange link) are your additions I haven't included in the updated last reverse-chronological ordered revision of the Daniel C. Boyers' page? -- till we *) 22:09, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * (response to response on my talk page) Sorry, but you don't seem to actually look at the changes. Other than the formating (it should be consistent, that at least is true), I actually included the wiki-links you added in "my" revision. So I'm a bit pissed of that what I actually do is try to help finding a consensus on the article, which is dismissed as being POV, without looking at the changes I do. -- till we *) 22:22, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Best wishes for the weekend. We have just finished combining the oats and consequently will be baling straw tomorrow. Also, a fellow is supposed to be out to offer a bid on plastering the silo. However, as time permits, I shall look in upon the conversation and see to it that your views are properly represented. Kat 22:32, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Your proposed notice is very similar to the notice that's already proposed on Wikipedia talk:Sites that use Wikipedia for content. That suggestion hasn't changed in the past few days; if it looks stable, then we can take it to  and. -- Toby Bartels 22:34, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

More replies on that talk page. -- Toby Bartels 06:10, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I corrected my comment on Talk:Daniel C. Boyer. Not sure what I was thinking that day. You're the only one who read it closely enough to see the mistake. I don't think many people are continuing to follow the discussion. I took the liberty of removing your comment because it no longer applies. Kat 03:10, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Pump image
The retouched nostalgic version looks very designed! It blends into the page much much better. Great artistic touch! --Menchi 03:07, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you cast a vote in the TEMP5 debate. The Temp5 proposal was voted down by 61.3% to 38.6%. We seem to be going around in circlces on the whole issue of the main page. A new vote is now taking place to clarify what exactly we want, namely
 * 1) Do we actually want to have a new page?
 * 2) If so when (immediately, after a pause, timed to the press release, etc)?
 * 3) What do people want on the front page and what do they want excluded?

As of now, the whole issue seems surrounded by complete confusion. This way, finally and definitively, we will know what we want and when we want it. So do please express your opinions. The vote is on the same page as the previous votes. FearÉIREANN 20:24, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Didn't you see this in the wikitext on the Main Page ? --mav 22:48, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually Michael, disgraced is a mild way of describing Charles Haughey's reputation right now. He was booed by mourners at a funeral he attended, presidents have asked him not to attend meetings of the Council of State, "conman", liar, hypocrite and bastard are just some of the words used about him. He own party won't mention him at party conferences. And when he said he could not turn up at a judicial inquiry into his finances (where he was found to have pocketed millions in donations, including money donated to pay for the liver transplant of his deputy prime minister) because he had terminal cancer and was too ill, no-one in the country believed him, including the judge who ordered him to turn up. So saying Haughey is 'disgraced' is a rather mild description of how he is seen. FearÉIREANN 00:46, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You're right, see Votes for undeletion - Efghij 02:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Removed violation of etiquette by 172. --mav 04:45, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- Don't lie to me, MB. You very well remember the Paektu matter, the Stalinist (in retrospect probably just a prankster and not a serious ideologue) whom you attacked for having a "twisted POV." You won't be able to get away with lying about not remembering this matter because this very page is filled with dialogue concerning the Paektu matter, along with your previous talk achieve. 172 21:35, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- No ill will? You are the ringleader of a group of users sniping at me non-stop who have NEVER worked with me. I cordially work with people capable of editing the articles in my fields of interest as colleagues. Don't you notice something a bit strange about the fact that my most active critics (Nostrum, Angela, Cimon Alvaro, and Tim) aren't familiar with my work or me whatsoever? Oh, but you people have read a lot of accusations! Why don't you stop meddling and give up this lynch mob and let me get to work on something constructive? How would you like it if someone with whom you have never worked sniped at your non-stop and waged personal crusades against you? 172 21:42, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If what you're claiming on my user page is true, then you should have stated your case once or twice on a relevant page. Instead, your page history over the past two days just shows that you've been spending hours, going from page to page, user to user, wherever you can scribble a complaint against me, crusading with unrelenting energy. You've sought to rebut any argument made in defense of me. Tim, in contrast, stated his opinions once or twice, and that was it. Angela several times. Cimon Alvaro also about several times. Judging by your user history, this looks like an unhealthy obsession. In fact, you have arguably been more active in opposing me than I have been active in trying to put this lynch mob to a rest so that we can get back to work. Why don't you just put this matter to rest and let your existing comments speak for themselves? There's no need for you to continue lobbying and crusading. Why don't you get back to work? 172 22:14, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- Why are you asking me this? I don't have the power to unilaterally ban Nostrum. I might have no other choice but to tolerate him. 172 23:10, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- I don't know why you are going so out of the way to defend someone who has contributed nothing but vandalism. Frankly, I want to have nothing to do with him. I noticed that the edits of newer user JoeM were subject to auto-revert; if anything Nostrum's edits have come closer to vandalism. Perhaps Nostrum's personal POV is more popular around here (and don't you think that I agree with the sentiments behind his vandalism of Pat Robertson!?). However, I really don't know what about him attracts such enthusiasm. My actions, while justified, were not worth all this hassle that I'm getting. I'm going to let other users pick up his trash. 172 23:25, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-- Okay, the truth comes out. You know him personally? This is a huge conflict of interest. I knew that it had to be a personal crusade. You effectively destroyed my reputation and credibility to protect a friend who has been mutilating articles. You probably brought down one of the most active Wikipedians, one of the professional academics, and a relatively senior contributor to protect a friend. Do the honorable thing and confess this to others who have taken a side in this matter. I'm not going to lodge a formal complaint just yet. For now, I'm not going to have anything to do with Nostrum and will not revert any of his edits, no matter how inappropriate, until this controversy dies down. I'm also going to get some advice concerning how best to handle this revelation of your conflict of interest. 172 23:39, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)