User talk:Snowspinner~enwiki/Archive 4

Lir
You might find li'rs behaviour on this page helpful for your arbcom request. Voting for a banned user, and several personal attacks, against me and other users. theresa knott 23:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

55 instances? Well, it definitely drives the point home, and that's the most important thing. Mike H 23:58, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Multitasking is good, and Freudian slips are the loveliest of all. I thought perhaps I was having a heretofore unspoken suspicion confirmed! -- Nunh-huh 04:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Kant Flame War Ends
I'm coming here because your attacks on me on the Kant page, and your behavior, have esclated to the point of a flame war. I see you have awards and kudos from others, so I have to assume that this is the "straw that breaks the camels back" situation, where too many problems have piled up on top of each other- the philosophy section is such a mess, and the task so daunting to correlate dozens of articles, many of which the authors have deep personal attachment to specific phrases, that taking it on is a sign of real dedication.

However, regardless of your standing, there is simply no reason for this to escalate further - I note that you ripped out a paragraph that I had editted - far larger work than my change, and then dared me to do something about. This is clearly not "staying cool while the editing gets hot", in fact, quite the reverse. Each round through you have bullied and blustered, and that is clearly not the standard to which admins should aspire to.

I think it best, first, that you ratchet down the attack, and then that the entire exchange be removed from the talk page. It contributes nothing to the problem at hand, and is hardly the exempliary method of resolving disputes. Stirling Newberry 21:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems like we have reached about the same point. Let's cool this down and get back to working on the section and the content of the article. After all, people who've actually read Kant shouldn't be fighting - it is against the catagorical imperative. :) Stirling Newberry 21:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I probably came across as a bit of a dalek. My apologies. Stirling Newberry 21:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clearly this matter needs further discussion before it is resolved.

I'm making one more plea to:

1. Archive the discussion and declare the flame war over and dead. 2. Halt the "Boy, I don't like the way you are looking at me." attacks - on all sides. Telling someone else "I don't like the way you are handling this" comes across as a personal attack, because, well, it is a personal attack. 3. Everyone apologize - and mean it.

This is simply not reflecting well on anyone, and it is a huge waste of bandwidth for all concerned. Stirling Newberry 22:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am very disappointed in your response. Stirling Newberry 23:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion is clearly impossible. I am disappointed with the lack of integrity that you and the other user have displayed, but find no purpose in continuing. Stirling Newberry 00:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

support
You may be surprised but I can even give you my supporton RfA. But I would like you to say here that you give up of support from the User:GeneralPatton who called me a "Cunt", said he will "shit on my knigs picture" etc. That is IMO the way, to make us all beleive that you are not restrictive as before. I think that it is the question of your good reputation on wiki not to be a friend with such users. Of course you can say that I am nationalist, but only a minor one (loving own country, not being neutral all the time like some users from Croatia and Slovenia here including me) - but not as described by the man who uses ZDS which is fascist abbrevation of Ustasha movement. If you decide to do it, you will convince me that you are mature enough to become an admin. Also you will be an example for future dealing with such users.

[[User:Avala|Avala| &#9733; ]] 19:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala never fails to amuse. Requests_for_comment/Avala. GeneralPatton 03:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Malakos
Malakos is a Greek term. What do you know about this term? Anything? Have you read classical texts and brought it out? WHEELER 13:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please leave Lir's nomination up at Requests for adminship. The nomination will attract further attention to him, and make it more likely that the community will find new, constructive ways of dealing with (or IMO hopefully sanctioning) him. 172 04:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keeping the resounding opposition to his nomination at Requests for adminship will only accelerate this process, though. 172 05:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala's limited fluency in English makes him unsuitable as an administrator of the English Wikipedia


 * Just to say that I think that such comments are hurting for the whole non english community working on this wikipedia. I hope that as a sysop you will be more diplomatic.

Congratulations

 * Congratulations, Snowspinner. If I forget to toss you a vote for the arbitration committee, feel free to drop a reminder link on my talk page. Cribcage 19:28, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Snowspinner! You'll be an excellent sysop!--Neutrality 20:41, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the resounding endorsement you received from the community in your sysop election, and also on the integrity you showed in your decision to step out of the arbitration election. You are quite observant to note that your prodigious skills in producing substantive evidence dossiers are well nigh unmatched. You continue to surprise and impress me, please keep up the good work, Sam [Spade] 20:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Snowspinner, congratulations on the election. As the overwhelming support of the community has shown, you are one of the people that most deserve the admin status.GeneralPatton 07:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean like the time you said every edit I ever made was stupid? Personal attacks are not allowed here. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Re: Your warning to me: I wish to add (2) sentences (along with links) John Kerry
Would the addition by me of (2) sentences (along with links) by me at this juncture, be construed by you as a violation of your warning to me?

Please advise.

Rex071404 19:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re:
Have a look User_talk:Sam_Spade.

Sam [Spade] 18:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blocking
I will expect to see Guanaco unblocking 216.229.223.247 any time now, since you blocked him without making any comments on his Talk page. If he doesn't, I'll add it to my RfC on him, as only following his own enforced policy when he feels like it. RickK 18:47, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom questions
Please see my talk page Misterrick for the response to your last post there. Misterrick, 21:02, 2 August 2004 (UTC)

Protection requests
If you check the history of the articles I request for protection you will see that VV ignores discussion and reverts in all of them, except Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where his mate TDC, who is known for abuses - Requests_for_comment/TDC - personally attacks others rather than discusses. He recently asked explicitly for an edit war and renamed me "little monkey" although he was already blocked once for personal attacks. . Veriverily already caused the last protection of Anti-American sentiment and ignored discussion since. Get-back-world-respect 23:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page conflicts
Hey, thanks for trying to help. I don't know what the way out of this impasse is. The problem started since two users (GBWR and Neutrality) think it's okay to completely revert an edit because of a quibble; cf. Talk:FOX News, where Neutrality stated he did not even notice an entire paragraph which he was repeatedly removing by revert. (There is also Kevin baas, who just has it in for W.) In GWB, there are two issues at odds: (a) the coverage of international popularity, which has been discussed extensively on the talk page, on the user talk pages of me and Gzornenplatz, and on an RfC page, where I made my arguments repeatedly and even thought I'd hashed out a good compromise with Gz; (b) the coverage of the Florida business, where I think the para GBWR is pushing is so blatantly one-sided that I honestly don't see the need for discussion (did you see the three sentences on "disenfranchisement"?), and there should be no objection to linking to the article that gives the details which could not clearly not fit in this article.

What's happening here may be akin to a ForestFire, where users who had a gripe elsewhere are just coming to fight and make me spend time haggling for obvious changes. I know I am probably sounding somewhat curt, but the fact is my frustration with users who behave like this has really been peaking. And, as I said, I don't know the way out of the impasse. V V 00:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * VV, you are correct in that there was extensive discussion at the Bush article. You are incorrect in mixing me together with other users. I only revert you because of your partisan edits ignoring talk and edit summaries. Best example Anti-American sentiment, where you ignored discussion since the last protection and start the same edit war right away. Get-back-world-respect 00:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Although I understand your frustration, I ask that you please try to work towards consensus. I've already talked briefly with VV, and he appears to be just as frustrated with you as you are with him. I advice proposing compromise measures, or, if the situation is truly that bad, using aspects of the dispute resolution process such as RfC and mediation. However, page protection is, I think, not going to do anything to fix the problem in the long term, and thus I am loathe to do it unless it is necessary. Note, however, that, due to the excess of reversions on the atomic bombings page, I did protect that. I note however, that you appear to have been reverting in excess of three times as well, and warn you agains this in the future. Snowspinner 00:11, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * While I work for consensus with edit summaries and discussion at talk, VV does not, check Anti-American sentiment. He is just frustrated because others do not allow him to spread his partisan messages in encyclopedia articles. But great job protecting all pages I requested in versions backed neither by discussion nor edit summaries - except for "an edit war? BRING IT ON, my little monkey" Please leave me a note in case you reply as I do not watch user talk pages. Get-back-world-respect 00:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It was actually me who protected the atomic bombings page, and I will continue to protect pages on their current versions, as the protection policy specifies that one does not protect on a preferred version. Snowspinner 00:18, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you think it makes sense to protect pages in versions that are backed by users who defend their actions with "you dont (sic!) know jack shit"? As it is also wiki policy not to personally attack, could you please block TDC again? Get-back-world-respect 00:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * TDC is not VeryVerily, and so the monkey comment, while a personal attack (Which TDC has now been warned for) is not particularly relevent to this matter. Again, I strongly advise mediation, as the alternative seems to be near-permanant protection of the page, which is not an acceptable option. Snowspinner 00:23, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right that they are not identical. However, they both ignore the three revert rule permanently and do not back their actions with argumentation. VV even started the same revert war again at Anti-American sentiment right after it was unprotected. He had refused to discuss in the meantime, in spite of several calls of several others to do so. I therefore request comments on user conduct. Get-back-world-respect 00:37, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, GBWR never ignores the three revert rule, and had nothing to do with the resumption of the same revert war after unprotection, which I of course "started" (inasmuch as it was protected on his version). GBWR by contrast discusses these issues extensively, such as his thorough edit summary "revert tendentious changes", when he first erased all my edits at PNAC.  And what are my "partisan messages", anyway?  Is it when I wrote that "hundreds of thousands [!] of voters were disenfranchised"?  Oh no wait, that was GBWR's edit, which was not partisan at all.  Hm, it must have been when I added "However" to a sentence at Anti-American sentiment, clearly an attempt to brainwash the masses. V V  00:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)  (P.s., sorry, Snowspinner, I probably owe you more of an explanation than sarcasm, but I couldn't resist.)


 * ==From WP:RFPP==

''In case you and Snowspinner want to continue this discussion. &#8212;No-One Jones 17:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) ''

Going left again - please request mediation via the mediation committee linked to above. Talk pages are not at all the same as the mediation committee. This has not gone through mediation in any meaningful sense - mediation is the next sensible step. Users will not simply be banned on your say so. Please submit a request to the mediation committee - they really are good at this kind of situation. Snowspinner 03:38, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Project for the New American Century unexplained non-neutral reverts ignoring discussion. Get-back-world-respect 23:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I think that protection is premature for this page.
 * Agreed. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  00:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The same partisan edits were made without discussion right after the protection was removed, reverts occured about a dozen times since yesterday. What more does it need for a protection? I refuse to go on waisting time with reverting vandals. Get-back-world-respect 01:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you are in an edit war with the same people on four different articles, and have been such that the page needs constant protection, it's time to try new solutions. As I have said many times now, please go to mediation. Snowspinner 01:45, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * How do you want to mediate with users who rush to an edit war right after unprotection without ever discussing? Users who ignore the rule not to personally attack  even on the page that is meant for mediation because of their conduct?   Users who write "Who the fuck cares about consensus?"  Get-back-world-respect 02:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Were I interested in mediation with a user, I'd personally go to Requests for mediation, but that's just me. Snowspinner 03:05, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there were already mediation attempts with the two users, it does not help. Plus, when I asked the "mediator" who banned TDC once he replied with an offense. Such users harm wikipedia, and I see no alternative to banning them. Get-back-world-respect 03:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I just looked through the mediation committee archives, and couldn't find either of the mediation requests that you mentioned. Could you tell me who the mediator was? Snowspinner 03:15, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * There was no mediation at that site. There were however attempts at Anti-American sentiment, George W. Bush, Oil for food and numerous other article talk pages. TDC even got banned for a day when he told someone to "suck his own dick". He "apologized" for trying to insult me on his page by telling me "Listen chooch (...) Seriously now, shut up", "shut the fuck up", and called me a "dildo". Their strategy is just to sit everything out and to restart with their partisan edits when protections are removed. Requests for comment/TDC Requests for comment/VeryVerily2 Get-back-world-respect 03:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "Users will not simply be banned on your say so." TDC's only contributions to wikipedia are the twisting of articles into right-wing US propaganda and attempts to insult other users as shown above and at Requests for comment/TDC. He was already banned once, and I already asked a mediator once who replied with an insult. "Really good at this kind of situation". Get-back-world-respect 10:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Which mediator did you ask? Snowspinner 12:54, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo: Get-back-world-respect 14:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

TDC has been warned against personal attacks. The blocking policy discourages blocking established users who's contributions are a mixture of good and bad, which TDC's are, so that's all I am willing or able to do at this point.

As for page protection, I reiterate - the page protection policy explicitly forbids chooisng a favorite version. I am obliged to, if I protect a page due to an edit war, to protect on whatever version is live when I get to it.

Finally, I would greatly appreciate if you would go to mediation with VV instead of having this fight on my talk page. Snowspinner 01:19, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

TDC has been warned numerous times, even blocked for a day, he just ignores it. And have fun searching some "good" contributions by him. Since when do you become an "established user" by attacking others? He just waited until the request on comment on him was archived, then he restarted.

VV does not attack users but articles, reverts without discussion, even restarts right after articles are unprotected. He permamently ignores discussion, and several attempts of conflict resolution with him by several users have failed. I am sorry, but I think wikipedia is severly harmed by users like these. Get-back-world-respect 01:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the edit in question in which you accused a mediator of cursing at you. Perhaps you had the wrong edit. For one thing, that edit was not about a request for mediation. For another, that edit was not a personal attack. Svertigo disagreed with your behavior. I do too, which is why I'm trying to get you to go to mediation and work these conflicts out, instead of the alternatives, which will be substantially less pleasant, in that they will have thd possibility of disciplinary action against you as well as the people you are edit warring with. Finally, even if you do feel that Svertigo cannot be an effective or fair mediator, you are welcome to get a mediator other than him. The mediation commitee is quite large, and there are lots of good choices there. I ask you one final time to go to the mediation committee and request mediation with VeryVerily. It is the way in which chronic article disputes are supposed to be settled on Wikipedia. Snowspinner 13:30, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you think it is ok to call someone else an "obtuse pain in the butt" I cannot help you. I asked mediators Stevertigo, Sannse and others on how to deal with a guy like TDC, none made any helpful suggestions, so I do not believe in mediation as it is done here. Furthermore, as VV writes, he is unwilling to cooperate, and the only outcome of the mediation between him and 172 seems to be that 172 now defends TDC in order to make it seem as if VV was the only guy he was in trouble with. Get-back-world-respect 18:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Todo speedy deletion candidates
I've listed all of them (I think) on Redirects for deletion. Thanks for pointing out that page for me. &mdash; siro &chi;  o  02:23, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

How I'd have voted
In answer to your question on my talk page.


 * I'd have completely agreed with the AC on Irismeister 2, Mr-Natural-Health, Wik2, Cantus, and (though I'd have to go over the evidence again first), I probably would've pushed for increased sanctions against the first two.


 * I'd have agreed with the AC on Paul Vogel, but pushed for a longer ban


 * No one proposed any remedies on Mav vs 168 before the case was closed, and I don't have time to go over the evidence, or any familiarity with the case or the user involved


 * I'd have abstained on JRR Trollkien.


 * I'd have pushed for a one-year ban on Levzur, due to his behaviour during the case (quitting using his account and becoming, essentially, an anon vandal)

Hope that answers it, Ambi 06:48, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Was it appropriate for Fred Bauder to add User:172 to the Sam Spade arbitration heading? He is hardly impartial when it comes to dealing with me. 172 14:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Mother
Well, you're probably quite right to have removed my speedy deletion tag. I added it in an ill-considered moment of exasperation. After reading the article, I despaired of it ever being re-written to satisfy NPOV. It seems better just to delete it, but I should have just voted to delete it. Thank you for correcting my error and I hope you will join me in voting to delete this nonsense! Jumbo

Kerry problems
Thanks for taking the time to comment on the issues raised by the John Kerry article. In general, I agree with the principles you invoke -- assume good faith, strive for dialog, etc. The major qualification is that there is sometimes a tension between that approach and getting useful work done. Several Wikipedians, including you, have expended considerable time because of one problem user. The practical reality is that the article is currently better than it would be if you hadn't blocked him. If he'd been blocked earlier, the article would now be better still.

As for the question whether things have improved, I'm less impressed than you are by the argument that he's discussing his viewpoint more. There's never been a shortage of discussion from him. He's the main reason the Talk page was being archived on an almost daily basis. Unfortunately, his "discussion" usually ignores the substance of what anyone else has said. Furthermore, his attitude is revealed by one of his (post-block) edit summaries: "Once again, after an unwarranted, non-discussed revert by Wolfman agaisnt me, this is 3rd attempt at consensus this eveing on this point, being reposted." In other words, his version must be the one in effect until the discussion is concluded, which it never will be because we'll never persuade him to change his mind on anything major.

Where do we go from here? For the moment, I'm going to hold off pursuing arbitration. I'll see what comes of his announcement that he would "take a several day, voluntary hiatus." I'd be just as happy not to spend the time to prepare an arbitration request. (I've never done one yet, so it would take me some time.) In hindsight, though, I wish I'd invested the time as soon as he rejected mediation. The many bits of time I've wasted here and there add up to more than the one big block of time would've been. JamesMLane 15:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JML sums up my feelings on the matter exactly.--Neutrality 16:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Basically I agree. I'm fairly new here. But in my limited time, I've been impressed at how NPOV can evolve between parties with clearly opposing personal views, when both sides work in good faith. For this reason, I do think it is valuable to have someone with an active anti-Kerry bent working on the Kerry page. This is because subtle pro-Kerry POV is much more obvious to an opponent. But in my short experience, Rex not only identifies pro-Kerry POV but (in my opinion) actively attempts to insert subtle anti-Kerry POV with the vast majority of edits. This experience combined with a snarky attitude leads to a break-down of trust. At one point can you stop assuming you are dealing with a reasonable & good-faith person?Wolfman 17:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom questions
Hi, sir. Thanks for the questions. As for previous arbcom cases, here are my opinions:
 * 1) Irismeister (2) - I agree with the committee's decision fully; I would do nothing differently.
 * 2) Mr-Natural-Health - I would reduce the sentence to 2 months, because I feel that some of MNH's actions were played up, especially . Theresa, in my mind, truly inserted a personal attack.  MNH was right to remove it, but it looks like it was taken to be a censoring.  However, I do realize the aggressive edit summaries, battling over who edits articles, and trouble with NPOV needed to be dealt with.
 * 3) Wik (2) - I agree with the committee's decision fully; I would do nothing differently with Wik. It seems that Cantus and Nico were also engaging in inappropriate behavior, but I think their bans should have been longer than a day.
 * 4) Paul Vogel - I agree with the committee's decision fully; I would do nothing differently.
 * 5) Mav v. 168 - I would have liked a ruling. The arbitrators forgot that there was a vicious edit war.  Action needed to be taken.  I would've given a ruling such as, "any more reverts that ignore dispute resolution would earn a ban of some appropriate period of time".
 * 6) JRR Trollkein - This is a policy matter; I wouldn't even accept it.
 * 7) Cantus - I agree with the committee's decision fully; I would do nothing differently.
 * 8) ChrisO and Levzur - This case is not done; I have no decision to reflect upon.

Golden Boy article
I saw that poorly written article.When I see an article like that,I put a "cleanup" tag on it,because it's a shame when articles are obliterated/deleted entirely.I don't know who did a terrible job writing the article,but arigatou gozaimasu anyway for removing the speedy deletion tag.Ranma9617 07:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

deleted comments
Sam Spade is removing your comments from the arbitration page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=4984220&oldid=4984205 Why he is doing this I don't know. 172 13:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe if you read my edit summary you would know? What confuses me is why you deleted them from the talk ... Sam [Spade] 19:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GBWR
I'm fairly reluctant to engage in mediation. For one, the flare-up of disputes seems to be winding down, although I suppose that may be because of the protection. For another, it will involve a long process of paging through old edits and revisiting past decisions, which I did before with such users as 172 and such complicated multi-player edit wars as State terrorism, only to find it doesn't matter anyway - e.g., no matter how clearly I explained myself, it usually came down to the users' personal politics, and the whole thing just blew over eventually anyway. I'm also skeptical of the process itself, whether a mediator will "get us talking" in a way we are not now. I'd rather just make it clear that he won't get away with reverting me, that unlike more passive users such as Ed Poor I will fight back, and he'll be forced to acknowledge other points of view. Nor, he may have learned, is pasting comments all over talk pages craftily linking me to pedophilia going to intimidate me (nor the other smears). Now, I won't resist mediation if it starts gaining momentum, but I'm not about to initiate it myself. V V 20:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom questions
Here are my opinions: 172 22:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Irismeister (2) – Agree with the decision.
 * 2) Mr-Natural-Health - I would have suspended his posting privileges indefinitely.
 * 3) Wik (2) - I strongly opposed the committee's decision; I would not have imposed any sanctions on Wik. Cantus and Nico met every sense of all definitions of an internet troll; I would have suspended their posting privileges indefinitely.
 * 4) Paul Vogel - I am insufficiently familiar with the details of this case to comment.
 * 5) Mav v. 168 – 168... was a good contributor who made a little mistake, to which everyone hysterically overreacted. I would've just revoked the privileges of all the parties (Mav, 168, and Lir) to edit DNA for 6 months. At the root of the problem, the DNA article tuned into an unmanageable personality feud. Since this was a heavily traffic article, other users could have certainly stepped in and settled things more amiably with these parties out of the picture.
 * 6) JRR Trollkein – I am insufficiently familiar with the details of this case to comment.
 * 7) Cantus - I would favor suspending the posting privileges of Cantus indefinitely.
 * 8) ChrisO and Levzur - I would favor removing the standard restrictions on interactions with Levzur on selected articles. For example, I would allow automatic reversion of Levzur's edits to articles on which he has engaged in revert wars with ChirsO.


 * Please see my talk for answers to most of these questions, and thanks for asking. +sj +  19:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala
Requests for arbitration/Avala is open. Place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Avala/Evidence. --mav 09:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see "Urgent request for group comment - Re: "Elliot Quotations" 08.10.04" on John Kerry (Talk) ASAP
Any input from you would be appreciated. Rex071404 14:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"
Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me several days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Genitalia Fuss
Hi. I was about to plead for another 8 hours to twist the arm of the admin who put Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity back into play, feeling that that would be the least rancorous way to end this, but i got an edit conflict with you when i saved. In a way i'm glad! [smile] --Jerzy(t) 21:23, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Query concerning the Rex071404 arbitration
Rex is arguing, inter alia, that he is a changed man since you blocked him. In response to an inquiry from a member of the Arbitration Committee, I cited an example of Rex's subsequent behavior. Rex has now responded on my Talk page with this statement: "the 'example' you point to above, is exactly one week old and was prior to my 24 hour ban by Snowspinner which lasted until 08.07.04 Rex071404 00:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)".

On August 1, you reported on Talk:John Kerry that you had "just had to block someone for 24 hours." I have no problem with your trying to keep the situation as cool as possible by not naming names -- but I certainly assumed that the person you blocked was Rex. It therefore appears to me that his response, as quoted above, is false. This seemingly trivial point becomes important because, unable to defend his atrocious conduct, he's leaning heavily on the idea that he's learned his lesson. I'm arguing that, even post-block, his conduct has been unacceptable. Therefore, although I'm sorry to bother you over something so minor, I'd appreciate it if you'd confirm for me the period of the block. Thanks. JamesMLane 02:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where can I find a log that shows when, for how long and by whom, I was blocked?
Please advise. Rex071404 04:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration
Thanks so much for your supportive comments on RfAr. It should really help smooth this over. I do want to add that I was less bothered by Danny's posting, as I already knew of his tendencies, than his subsequent bureaucratship application, where I raised this issue and was completely ignored - twenty-five people supporting without even a qualification such as "I support him despite outburusts" - which for me ushered in a new era of distrust of the "community". Still, I try to be somewhat positive, and I duly provided a statement on RfAr, even though in the past such painstaking rebuttals have accomplished little. V V 22:27, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Books by title
Hey there, I remember you making some well reasoned comments on why we shouldn't have categories like Category:Books starting with A. However, they have been proliferating. I'd like to nominate all of them for deletion&mdash;what do you think? There are a couple other deletion discussions going on right now at Categories for deletion that I think you might be interested in too. One user has decided to categorize all articles about occupations according to the Standard Occupational Classification System, which includes such bastard-hybrid categories as Category:Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations. Another has decided to categorize all subjects by their Dewey Decimal System number, though it appears that the alternative of a list article may have already been accepted in this case. I'd love to see you contribute your thoughts there. Thanks! Postdlf 07:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)