User talk:Rex071404/archive3


 * Some past dialogs are saved in archives, here:
 * /Archive 1
 * /Archive 2


 * Specials links:
 * Wolfpeace

My talk page policy
I thought you might be interested in knowing my talk page policy, it's pretty simple: append only. I've had personal insults and so forth on my talk page. I leave them there. They ultimately harm the other person's reputation more than mine. I have found this policy to work out fine. Kevin Baas | talk 03:48, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

I'm not fully aware of the dynamic between you and N., but I believe you that it's tense. I see how "uhh.. ok" feels snide. It's certainly not very communicative. What I think he meant to say is that he feels the actions Pritcha was describing were not against policy or ettiquete, and were not unethical, and the conclusion that he draws is not logically substantiated by them. In other words, he sees Pritcha's comment as a stretch to disrepute him, with little rhetorical potency. He does not appreciate that - he percieves it as hostile. So in response, he meant to say all this, though he did in a somewhat sarcastic tone, showing that he didn't feel he needed to defend himself because he didn't feel that Pritcha's comments would affect a critical mind. Yet he drew attention to his concerns - he was a putting up a little watch flag, just in case. I think his response was meant to be defensive, but I understand how it was irritating.

We restored the comments because we believe that everyone has a right to be heard clearly, and represented fairly. Kevin Baas | talk 04:13, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Considering this, I can understand how you would feel that way. I'm sorry you felt harrased, it was not my intention to harrass you. Also, I assure you that I operated independantly and without bias. I would do the same for you as I did for N. It's just my policy; my version of justice - "everyone has a right to be heard clearly, and represented fairly". It was not directed at your person, but at the specific actions taken. Kevin Baas | talk 04:30, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

And might I add that I find Nysus' recent comment on TfT belittling, and think that he should have been more considerate. Kevin Baas | talk 04:33, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Thanks. So will I. Kevin Baas | talk 04:36, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Truth/Hostage
Link doesn't work. Also, the idea here is the minute you don't get your way, no matter what, and MULTIPLE people all disagree with you, you threaten to do something (normally match someone edit for edit, etc). Then you complain when people remove things you put in w/o discussion, even when you don't discuss. Then, you threaten to put on a NPOV tag unless people agree with you. That's hostage tactics, not appealing to truth. Lyellin 05:21, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

link requires WAPO log in 05:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * just got the spectator one to work. Alright, so documents that just came out may have been forged. That doesn't relate to TfT at all Rex. Besides the first link coming from a radically POV source. Lyellin 05:24, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Read my TfT talk - they are intimately related due to being potatoes being dug from the same spot in the same field 05:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I just read it again (second time), and again I do not see the connection. Nor do I see the connection between fed documents to the DNC and someone coming out to speak for TfT. Just because multiple people are critizing bush does not mean they are all related. Lyellin 05:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * what does "appealing" or asserting have to do wtih anything? Where have I used that phrase? Forgive me, I don't remember doing so, but I've typed a lot of things on these pages, disregarding the actual content i'm working on in another window. Lyellin 05:26, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Ssee above "That's hostage tactics, not appealing to truth." 05:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks- I'm forgetting what I'm saying. I apologize for that. But asserting vs appealing is immaterial. Either word works for me, I stilld on't believe you are doing it. Lyellin 05:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

JML's goal of getting me "hard banned" from this Wiki
Here a link to an edit by JML, where he states his "hard ban" goal to Neutrality. These two seem inordinately focused on making and/or amplifying trouble for me. Here is another, where JML is even more explicit with Kevin Baas. 18:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the notice on FCVF. That was odd. Kevin Baas | talk 17:41, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Archive links
I fixed your talk page archive links so that they're internal instead of external links. I hope you don't mind. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 18:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyright of timeline
Given that you clearly don't know what you are talking about, I'm moving this here so it doesn't clutter the Bush controvery discussion page. Feel free to ask any further questions on my talk page.--Eloquence*


 * Where is the signed release? Did you post an image of that too for proof? Also, I'd like to study the image for a while 1st. Please repost a link to it here to it's native site location. this way the relase issues can be confiremd and we can study it for objections prior to reposting.

Thank you. 06:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The image is clearly marked as Creative-Commons-SA in the version uploaded as well as the one hosted on the author's website, follow the links. As for delaying inclusion, this is not the way wiki works. If you have objections about the timeline, raise them here. We do not postpone the posting of content until every party has had an opportunity to raise objections.--Eloquence*

GWB timeline
I removed that timlines graphic - it is clearly marked "copyrighted". This wiki would need a GPL (?) release - there is no "fair use" for us on that. 06:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Please only remove things when you have a vague understanding of what you are doing.


 * Any licensed work is copyrighted. That includes all content on Wikipedia, which is copyrighted by its respective authors. Yes, that's right - you do not "lose copyright" when you contribute to Wikipedia. You only put it under a free license. In fact, you can take your own content and use it in a manner that contradicts that license - it's just that you cannot take away people's rights to use it in the manner described in the license. See also open content, copyleft etc.


 * The question is not whether a work is copyrighted, it is whether it is under a license that satisfies certain criteria. This includes the GNU Free Documentation License, the Creative Commons Share-Alike License, the Creative Commons Attribution License, the GNU General Public License and many others. See Image use policy and Image copyright tags for details. I emailed Simon and convinced him that, in the interest of sharing, he should put his timeline under a free license, either the GFDL or the CC-SA (because these are the most "compatible" ones). He used the CC-SA, as is clearly noted on the image.--Eloquence*

Wolfpeace
Not at all. I have been most impressed by some of your recent moves: Neutrality RFC & arbcom removal of cross-complaint.

I did agree with Nysus's complaint, so I signed it. The CBS thing has no connection to TfT, their position pre-dated that. That's basically what I signed on about. That doesn't mean I'm not happy to resolve personal disputes with you. I've been away for almost a week, so I haven't been really keeping up with what's happening.

(Just now, I looked again and saw it was also a call for admin intervention. I hadn't noticed that, and have thus amended my stand.) Wolfman 17:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Have you re-instated the complaints?  Also, what have I said you find offensive?  I might add, I was surprised and pleased you had withdrawn unilaterally.  I was, and still am, working towards being comfortable withdrawing myself.  Your recent actions in arbcom had given me a very large boost in that direction. Wolfman 15:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This edit will have to speak for itself on that. 15:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, yes Neutrality is not being very gracious there, is he? That's his point of view, not mine.  In fact, I disagree with his label 'troll'.  Though we have our differences, I would not be speaking to a 'troll'.  I don't know about the others feel. Wolfman 15:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, while my experience as of late with you has been more positive than previously, I do still feel that there is too much "self-bolstering" of criticial opinions occuring in the circle of dialog which is JML, Gamaliel, Neutrality and others, etc. The haughtily cliquish nature of this cotiere of editors is having an adverse impact on me personally and the Wiki in general. Don't be so quick to dismiss out of hand what Fred Bauder has been saying. He makes some good points - you would be well served to take them at face value without balking. This is my plan in regards to whatever they hand down - be it for or against me. That being the case and because of the acute hostility evidenced by certain current comments (and the thin gruel of the RfC and RfA2) against me, I see no bnefit to making a macro peace overtue. Perhaps a joint withdrawl with you still makes sense, but there is no way that JML and Neutrality are going to come away from this with anything but a self-convinced conviction that I am exclusively the one in error - unless the Arbcom persuades them otherwise. Hence, no good would have come from that overture. 15:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright. I do think there probably was a benefit to macro-peace, as it strongly bolsters the case that you have changed from the days before the injunction.  So, there is some strategic sense in it.  But, I understand that's an awfully hard move to make without some sort of reciprocation.  As you can see from my comments to James, I don't much like being in arbcom; I imagine you don't either.  I now plan to revert to my previous behavior of ignoring the proceedings; I was much happier that way. Wolfman 16:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Wolfman, just an FYI to you: Your recent two-edit addition to the current RfC against me was, I feel "piling on". If you were to look more closely at my original edits, the timing of them and my reply to your charges, I think you'd have to agree that you are overdoing it in bringing those allegations. Frankly, it was your bringing of those allegations which was a major tipping point towards my beginning to think that dialoging with you individually may ultimately prove fruitless. Please read my defense on the RfC page. I really to feel that because you did not try "and fail" to address those edits with me, that your injection of them into the RfC was in bad faith. That action by you has seriously undermined our dialog. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 16:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I pointed out both edits to you on the Talk page. You never took the opportunity to explain or apologize even after a week's time.  It is not I who acted poorly in this matter. Wolfman 02:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are simply mistaken. Those talk pages were filling up rapidly and me missing your comments (why not show me links to them?) would have been easy. Also, my dialog overture to you came after this alleged transgression by me. Bearing this in mind, when you accepted my offer of dialog aiming towards "wolfpeace", you were obliged to bring up all outstanding complaints so as to afford me the opportunity to address them. More so, the fact that your reply here shows no conciliation at all, leads me to begin to doubt your sincerity. 06:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The second deletion of my comment was well after negotiations had begun, which surprised me. Given your history of assiduous attention to the talk pages, I simply do not believe you did not see my comments.  At any rate, you knew you had deleted my comments.  Why should I have to point out your misbehavior for you to make it right?


 * Now, you are berating me for something wrong that you did. I don't appreciate that.  I am willing to negotiate with you, but I am not willing to be brow-beaten. Wolfman 06:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Therein is where we differ: I do not agree that I knew what you claim I knew. For you to presume that - without explicit confirmation - is to not afford me the benefit of the doubt. Being doubted makes me suspicious. Even so, if I sound like I am "brow-beating" you, please accept my apologies. That is not my intent. 06:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. My understanding of your position is this: you neither were aware of deleting my comments, nor saw my complaints on the Talk page.  Since you say so, I will believe you.  Thus, I will delete those two issues from the RFC.  I hope you can see why I would have been skeptical until you stated that outright.  Addendum, if you pointed me at your response on that page, I had not noticed it previously.  I took the liberty of removing both my complaint & your response, since the response is moot without the complaint. Wolfman 06:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you - by affording me the opportunity to address these, you have given me due process and I appreciate that. My suspicions have been alleviated. As an additonal note: Of the comments I typically receive on talk pages regarding my edits, yours are some of the more accessible. I appreciate that too. Also, for the record, I am keeping the link to your deletion of charges/defense here in case someone wants to review what has been resolved.


 * Hey, thanks for the kind word over on the Killian page. I really do try to be reasonable, when I think other people are also.


 * I probably won't keep editing over there, as I actually don't much care about the memos. I just was annoyed at the complete lack of even the pretense of balance.  Earlier tonight, a reader wouldn't have even guessed that there might be any current dispute at all.


 * I have no idea what the Kerry page was like before you got there (as I arrived later). But, the Killian page probably made me react like you did to Kerry.Wolfman 06:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As an exercize, go back via the edit history log of John Kerry and look at some of the older versions around early July - you'll see. Pay particular attention to what it looked like after Neutrality was editing - just around the time I arrived. 13:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't say that. Check the edit history again. Wolfman 07:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When I tried to characterize John Kerry's 1st injury as "minor" (which indeed it was), there were HOWLS of protest from some of the same editors here who now defend using the word "rapid" &mdash; just for the record, I am at least consistent in my stance on this issue on both Bush & Kerry. Wolfman 02:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re: Voting contradiction?
A Kerry flip-flop! ;-) The two polls are worded differently. I don't think the wording of the second poll is appropriate - it is too ad hominem and not productive.  The first poll: although my comment may suggest that i am strongly for it, I was reluctant to vote for it, as the wording, in my opinion, is too strong.  I am concerned that your edits are too pov, from what i've seen from the kerry fiasco and other edits, and i'm also concerned that the intense focus on them may ultimately slow progress on this page down, rather than accelerate it (as happened w/SBFT).  I am more in agreement with wolfman on that poll than i am w/anyone else.  I'm not sure it merits "administrative review" - which is not part of policy or procedure, as far as i know.  I think if you were somewhat more conservative w/your edits, and consumed less attention by them, progress on the article would be accelerated, and you'd still get through the edits that you would get thru with the slower, longer, harder process. Regarding links for instance, I'm sure people would accept some of your links, just not all of them. find out what those links are and why, and go from there, instead of (apparently) trying to push all of them thru. I hope this clears up any confusion on my stance. Kevin Baas | talk 20:13, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Few Things
First of all, nice quotes on your user page. Second of all, who's happy joe? (just curious where the icon came from)  &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  02:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Happy Joe" is the inner Joe, all those who could be Joe, would be. 03:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, chill out!
I just saw your latest post on Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the one that goes in part "such a statement is false and an attack". Look, I'm something of a conservative (but basically a libertarian), and you're making even me uncomforable. Just turn the intensity down a notch or two, OK? As an example, here's what you could have written:


 * Your initial comment claimed that I was "slanting the intro". From my perspective, such a statement is not only not correct, but is also an implicit comment on me. Furthermore, I think your edits have as much "slant" as mine do.

See? Pretty much the same content, but a lot lower temperature. Look, you need to look at it from an enlightened self-interest angle, OK? You won't have a lot of success getting things done if you keep jumping down peoples' throats. OK? Noel 01:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What you say is true, except that JamesMLane has been going out of his way to stoke trouble for me and has stated his intention of wanting to get me "hard banned" (permanantly kicked out) from this Wiki. He has been a prime mover of the pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush crowd. Go check his list of contributions and read them - you will see what I mean. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 02:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but by jumping up and down and getting upset you're just giving him more ammo! Chill out, be calm! Noel 03:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS: You're doing really well over on Talk:Killian memos. Please just apply that same type over on Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The best way to handle JML is just treat him as if his comments were written by someone else. Respond to the content, not the person. Noel 03:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you can't control him - and he can't control you. So please stick to what you can control, and take a deep breath - no, make that three deep breaths - before replying to anything he posts. Remember, every time you react to him personally (as opposed to saying "here's source X for fact Y"), you're just giving him more ammo. Noel 14:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response to message
Thank you for contacting me. Technically you both broke the three revert rule (which would justify banning you both) but I think taking a break from the page is a better solution. I and others will review the edits made and see if there was vandalism or just a disagreement. I suggest trying to work it out on the discussion page. Vandalism in progress should be used the next time rather than reverting continously (or contact an admin directly). I have my eye on the IP user though. I'll try to resolve the situation in a timely matter. Arminius 01:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Talk here

Vandalism In Progress page
Hello. We haven't met before, but I think I should inform you of a recent development on the "Vandalism in progress" page which may have affected your contributions.

About an hour ago, I attempted to report an act of vandalism in the "Current Alerts" section. Unfortunately, as I was doing this I accidentally deleted an important section of the "Vandalism in progress" main page -- possibly accounting for some of the confusion which other users have reported in the last hour.

I've fixed the situation now. Please note that the difficulty arose out of a misinterpretation on my part, and was not a deliberate act of vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience that my actions may have caused. (Please also note that it took me almost an hour to identify and solve the problem.)

You may wish to review your recent contributions to the "Vandalism in progress" page, to ensure that everything you intended to write ended up in its proper place. CJCurrie 02:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peace offer
I have no vendetta against you and so am unable to renounce one. I have disagreed with many, many of your actions on Wikipedia. I will continue to do as much as my time permits to bring about improvements in the project; such improvements will sometimes take the form of changing edits by other people (including but not limited to you) that make an article worse. Furthermore, I think you're focusing too much on me as the alleged source of all the trouble. Please consider that you've gotten into edit wars with quite a few users. I was only one of several people bringing or endorsing the first ArbCom proceeding. There's also the second proceeding, the RfC, the RfM, multiple page protections, etc. In addition, people like VeryVerily and Noel, while sharing your political POV to a great extent, have offered constructive criticism of your style. The point of all this is that if I were to get hit by a truck tomorrow, you would still be having significant difficulties here.

For the immediate future, I plan to follow up on this comment by Fred Bauder: "I think with Rex not editing John Kerry but free to edit in other areas looking at the nature and tone of those edits gives us a good chance to evaluate how broad our relief needs to be." I have information that I consider relevant to that decision. I expect that my sharing that information with the ArbCom will seem to you be further evidence of this alleged vendetta, and I apologize in advance if it strikes you that way, but I'm afraid I can't suppress relevant information just to raise your opinion of me. On quite a few of these subjects, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I have nothing against you personally. The problem is that you and I have widely divergent ideas about how Wikipedians should conduct themselves when their opinions differ. I wll continue to react to actions of yours that seem to me to call for a response. All I can really say in response to your peace offer is that I'll try to keep my disagreements civil. JamesMLane 19:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The "vendetta" to which I refer is your recently stated goal of getting me "hard banned" from this Wiki. I'd appreciate it if you would tell me, yes or no, is that still currently a goal of yours? Please advise. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 00:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As I think I said the first time you referred to this alleged "goal", the term "goal" implies that I'm working toward it, which I'm not. If your question is whether it's still my opinion that Wikipedia would be better off if you were banned, the answer is yes, that's still my opinion.  In the last day or so, your record has been augmented by two edit wars resulting in page protection, one unsubstantiated accusation of sock-puppetry, and one baseless implication of abuse of an admin's powers -- and that's just what I happen to know about and remember off the top of my head.  JamesMLane 01:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question
Rex, what did I name the page I created regarding the florida scrub list? Kevin Baas | talk 18:05, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Funny, I thought I named it "Voter File", not "Voting File". Kevin Baas | talk 20:02, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

VV edit war
Let me say this, then: each bit of information will have one bit of representation, each unit of force will have one unit of effect, and each person will have one voice. Consensus is reached when these principles are understood by all of the users.

I will match each unit of force by an equal unit of force, so that there is balance. I don't see how anyone should expect any different. If they behave a certain way, why shouldn't others behave the same way? What if all people behaved a certain way? Tit-for-tat. When I said I am more obstinate than VV, I did not mean that I am more obstinate in preferring a specific version, rather I meant that I am more obstinate in enforcing rules of conduct that are functional and conducive than VV is in trying to get his way all of the time, without cooperative discussion or regard for reasoned objection, which is neither functional or conducive. Kevin Baas | talk 22:19, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)


 * True, when I was discussing how I enforce policy (majority understanding and incorporating the views of the minority), I was describing a tit-for-tat system. It has been shown, mathematically, to be the most effective system.  I hope it will become clear to VV soon, that, on this page at least, if not the other pages that he is engaged in revert wars on, his policy of no mutually receptive discussion, but indefinite reversion to get his way, does not, and will never, work.  His conduct does not lead to majority understanding and incorporating the views of the minority, it leads to absolute dictatorship, and the total frustration of other contributions.  Unlike many of the editors on this page, I am not frustrated, and I will not learn to tolerate this disruptive behavior.  Kevin Baas | talk 22:46, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Your "logic" is certainly not Aristotelian or propositional logic: Your assertion that you are inherently "right" is inconsistent with your assertion that other people are inherently "wrong": nobody can be right if everybody is wrong. That is logic. As to consensus: To me, incorporating the views of the minority means being receptive to eachother. VV is not being receptive to others. I have been receptive to VV where opportunities were presented, and I have certainly been receptive to others, including, as I hope you'll concede, you. (for example, the recent ordeal with RFA) To me, building consensus does not mean that the minority rules the majority (or vice versa), it means being receptive to each other. Incorporating the views of the minority means not acquiring hubris; not reasoning that the minority is wrong simply because they are the minority - this does not logically follow - and protecting oneself from developing such a prejudice. This prevents self-reinforcement of the wills and beliefs of the majority, i.e. mob rule, which I am as opposed to as you. But I do not believe, as you seem to have expressed that you believe, that the majority is inherently "wrong" and that the minority is inherently "right", or even that you, as you suppose, are inherently "right", anymore than I believe that I am inherently "right", which I don't. This is logical: it remains consistent when you apply it from the point of view of another person, or indeed, every person. Kevin Baas | talk 01:31, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

There are two things that I have been trying to make clear, that apparently have not yet been made clear:
 * 1) My contention is not over wording, or content at all, for that matter, but process, i.e. conduct.
 * 2) Judging each user independantly only on the basis of their process and conduct, without regard to "majorities" or "minorities" - as I strongly feel is the proper way to judge them - I think that the evidence would show, to an impartial observer, that I have worked more towards Consensus decision making than VV, by any reasonable measure that is irrespective of the distributions of opinion or the opinions themselves, as such measures should be. Kevin Baas | talk 17:08, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi, Rex. Kizzle has requested mediation with you at Requests for mediation; you're free to accept or reject as you please. Regards, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:28, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC).

Re: Peace Offer
I appreciate the comments, I think its a step in the right direction. I am all for parity on TfT... All I have been asking this entire time is to discuss proposed changes on TfT, which does not require the page to be un-protected. I can't sit down and discuss proposed changes with you when you can't point to a specific place and say "This is blatently POV, this is what it should be!"... I told you before that I do want your input in the page, as i think we both know that the liberal view vastly outnumbers the conservative view on this page, thus any polls would simply take opposing viewpoints and remove them, thus I am against it.

If you can come up with a sandbox version in a "simulation" of some sorts of what changes you propose to do if the page were unprotected, then I accept your peace offer. Be bold in editing it! Re-write the entire thing if you want! Just do something so that the group of editors can discuss proposed changes at specific places, and this can be done before the page is unprotected. --kizzle 17:04, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * More or less, you answered that you cannot answer my question about specifics, and I may have to live with that for now. If the page becomes un-protected, and you do not have any specific iniatives, can we also take down the NPOV tag? --kizzle 18:07, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with NPOV tag coming down, provided that the group recognizes that I may re-insert it promptly, depending on what edits occur or not. 18:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * So far so good, one more thing then I think this is resolved, assuming other editors do not make any edits, do you think the page merits a NPOV tag as it stands? --kizzle 18:34, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

As stated, I am not currently taking a position on the NPOV tag itself - as I do not expect that page to remain static and I want to see what happens. 18:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok. I will ask for the page to be un-protected and for the NPOV tag to come down, but if you have a problem with the text the way it is NOW, then say it now or forever hold your peace.  If you start changing things that were already there (disregarding future edits by other users, of course), then I will take this as a sign of bad faith.  Do you accept? --kizzle 18:58, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Not so. I have made clear that my position on that article is "undecided". I am free to subsequently decide to edit there without accusations of "bad faith". The only thing I am assuring you of is that I have no intent to rush right back in and try the same old edits, reversion of which, led to the edit war. 19:02, 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)


 * No, I have not gone back on my word. I told you I am happy to negotiate privately with you; I am.  In the meantime, I will fully participate in the public aspects of wikipedia.  I have not even been involved in the TfT editing.  But, I can see that it has been shut down for over a week due to some dispute you were involved in.  That I can see, you have not tried to negotiate over the dispute.  Hell, you won't even tell people if there is still a dispute over the issue that got the page locked.  It's not going to get unlocked by the sysops until some sort of agreement on that dispute is reached, and I still don't even know what the dispute was.  As an uninvolved party, I thought maybe I could get the ball rolling by suggesting a sandbox.  But, that was quickly shot down.  When you dialogue in good faith and answer reasonable questions with reasonable responses I will change my vote.  I am happy to honestly negotiate differences with you, but I have not seen evidence of your willingness to do so in this case.  You are playing some coy game on TfT, but you can agree to resolve the pertinent dispute that generated protection without conceding agreement on all other aspects of the page.


 * P.S., as you can tell from the talk page, I found the tone of your comments about me regarding 'Tom Delay' and 'broke in' unhelpful. Wolfman 04:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI: It was me who asked Mirv to un-protect TfT today. And it was my request that he acted on in doing so. Also, you'd need to see all the comments and dialog to know that there is no game. Rather, the other users were asking me to do the impossible: speculate as to what I might edit if the page was unlocked. And, even though I answered many times, they were not satsified with my answer. What bothered me about you is that you did not inquire of me, prior to throwing yourself in league with JML, et al in signing that offensive petition. As for "broke in" the truth is not unavoidable clear - they did do it and the John Kerry to say exactly that. Also, the fact that I was right about this point all along, really bugs me - it proves that the others minds are basically closed to any anti-Kerry facts, true or otherwise. Regardless, I consider it important that we keep our communication channels open. Thanks for repsonding here today. 04:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Election 2004
Rex, you do realise that the content of this site is not going to have a significant effect on the election? Right? If you really have your heart set on keeping Kerry out of the White House your time would be a lot better used, finding some way to help out at a local campaign office or something like that. AlistairMcMillan 21:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My primary goal in election 2004 related edits is to avoid allowing bloggers and mirrors to use the Wiki as an inaccurate or biased referrence. As to what I am actively doing (or not) to oppose Kerry outside the Wiki, I'd rather not discuss. Also, you are right about the election. Kerry has already shot himself in the foot - absent a major debate coup or other unforseen major suprise event, I am predicting 343 Bush and 195 Kerry. Try it yourself - I'd be interested to see what numbers you come up with . [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 21:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If you goal is really to avoid this site being biased, then I admire your goal. However your edits are VERY skewed in favour of Bush and against Kerry.  You are letting your opinions of the candidates colour all of your edits.  AlistairMcMillan 21:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have kerry winning 286 to 252. Funny how election math works. Although I've not seen ANY data saying that Bush or Kerry will win by any margin like what you are predicting. Lyellin 05:50, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Herm- interseting sites. Does seem like every one takes the worst possible results for the democrats though- not that that's not possible, but that it's only one way to look at it. *shrugs* interesting stuff though. Thanks. (Zogby, btw, has kerry up, but I forget by how much). Lyellin 05:50, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

This ingores the extreme pro-Kerry bias that I am faced with daily and have to offset. 21:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you realize you just deleted comments made by Lyellin? Wolfman 05:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If people would not delete that section of evidence, such accidents during reverts would not occur. 05:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was an accident when the only thing changed was what I said, and it was a delete (not an adding in of a reverted section)? Lyellin 05:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

What? 05:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry- I just realized how you were reverting, and why that error occured. I apologize. Lyellin 05:33, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. During rapid fire edits/reverts it happens all the time. Frankly, of those who bark at me, I have the least problem with you. I am very apt to always look for a postive rationale for any comment you make. I do not look at you as a Gamaliel or JamesMLane. 05:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I tend to look at everyone equally- or at least try to, and assume good wiki intentions first and foremost. It helps. Lyellin 05:38, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

RE copyvios. No, I should not leave a copyvio up while it gets edited. This is not an issue of courtesy, it is an issue of law and of liability of the wikipedia. I did exactly the right thing by reverting; you did exactly the wrong thing by including that cut & paste text in the first place. It is no big deal for stolen text to be removed for a half-hour, while you work on making it not stolen.

Now that said, note that I gave you a heads-up on your reversion of Lyellin to help keep you out of more trouble on arbcom edition 2. He had the tremendous courtesy to apologize to you, even though you made the error. Why have you not apologized to him for making it? "Happens all the time" is not a good reason, it shouldn't happen. I don't think you did it on purpose, which is why I warned you. But 'not-on-purpose' does not equal 'ok'. Wolfman 06:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TWENTY reversions in one day
Regarding Stolen Honor -- twenty reversions in one day to the same article, over a content dispute (not vandalism) is entirely unacceptable. For the record, I have no dog in this fight. I checked ViP and found you had listed another user on ViP for his actions concerning this article. What I found was not vandalism, but a content dispute, with one person reverting multiple users twenty times in one day. Please abide by the three revert rule. If you believe you are correct, list the article at Requests for comment and let others revert if they wish. Continued solo reversion far in excess of three times in one day only makes you look bad... very bad. It makes it appear as if you intend to force your version of the article regardless of consensus. You'll notice I've not said one word about content here, about who I think is correct about the content. What I'm conentrating on is the fact that you appear very content to engage in an edit war, without regard for established policy. Please abide by the three revert rule. If you think you need help, bring the eyes of the community to bear on the article, but please do not engage in a solo edit war. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 03:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope the matter is resolved. If it isn't, please remember that you don't have to be a one-person army.  There is an army of editors just a few clicks away.  If you follow Dispute resolution, you can call in a lot of neutral people to help get the article under control in a short time.  Edit wars don't improve an article; they only waste time that could have been put to productive use.  There are many thousands of people working on this project.  Call upon them when you need them.  Of course, you'll want to make sure your own conduct is above reproach.  (Hint: don't revert 20 times in one day.  :-)  Also, content disputes should be listed on Requests for comment, not ViP.)  You can't go wrong if you do it by the book.  Happy editing!  SWAdair | Talk  04:50, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration proceeding: User Rex071404 3
A new arbitration proceeding has been initiated against you. See Requests for arbitration. JamesMLane 06:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My response to JamesMLane as per above, can be read here. 16:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See this also 16:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar
You do realise the guy has been posting since the middle of July right? AlistairMcMillan 21:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you see that JML is speaking for him at the arbitration request. That seems odd to me. 21:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is further evidence that you are acting in bad faith, Rex. You have visited my talk page both before and after JML submitted this arbitration request.  You cannot claim that you didn't know that I authorized JML to submit this arbitration request on my behalf as well as his own.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Dead Horse
Regarding your question on my talk page, the lack of any vote on the "Beating a dead horse" article on VFD is intentional. It's a fairly good explanation of the idiom, but I'm not certain, in general, if idioms should be included in Wikipedia, if they should be seperate articles, or if these are dictdefs for the sake of policy -- looking at the list of idioms talk page, it seems other people have similar questions. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, but I might not make any further comments or a recommendation at all. - RedWordSmith 01:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interested?
Hey Rex, I don't know if you're interested or not but there is another adminship vote that you may like to vote on. Adminship Anyway, take care. Pitchka 21:46, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Please note the following which I read on user Neutrality's talk page after finding the details on the Village Pump page. I've added my comment that I put on N...'s talk page:


 * Note from Curtis Krueger
 * Hi Neutrality:
 * Nice Dodecahedron.
 * Any chance you would mind chatting with a newspaper reporter? If interested, I can be reached :at 1-(800)333 7505 ext. 8232. I need to use real names of people involved etc., but if you wouldn't mind chatting about Wikipedia -- or know anyone else who would be interested in talking to me today or tomorrow -- please call.
 * Thanks!
 * Curtis Krueger
 * St. Petersburg Times
 * krueger@sptimes.com

"but if you wouldn't mind chatting about Wikipedia" You need to go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neutrality

and check out "oppose" and also look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404

and similar pages to get a clearer picture of user Neutrality Mr. Krueger.

"or know anyone else who would be interested in talking to me today or tomorrow"

You might try user Rex071404. I don't know if he's interested but I'll put a note on his Wikipedia talk page.WikiUser 20:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)"WikiUser 20:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)