User talk:Wolfman/1

Kerry pics
Hi, nice use of pics/space on Kerry's campaign page. Mark 23:53, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks. As a newbie, it's nice to be noticed.

SBVT move
No problem. I got side tracked anyway. I found a 120GB hdd for $50! &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  19:50, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration cross-complaint
You wrote: "One last thing, I stumbled over the cross-compaint almost by accident. It might be nice to leave a note on the user's discussion page if a complaint is filed against them." Yes, it certainly might be! I would've done so but I thought you must have changed your user name, so in my response I called the arbitrators' attention to the strong possibility that you didn't even know about the cross-complaint against you. I'm surprised the Committee didn't make sure you were notified. One possibility is that, in the early stages, they just sit back and wait for the evidence to flow in, before they even look very carefully at what's been submitted. Thus, they didn't notice that you hadn't been notified, and they hadn't yet read my response, which would have alerted them. Anyway, I'd guess we could all beat this particular complaint without responding! JamesMLane 09:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Name Police
Few people here anticipate they will be rv'd for failing to meet a standard of "Wolfmanism", but many expect they may be edited or rv'd for failing to meet a standard on "Neutrality".

This of it this way; what if my user name was "Admin" or "Sysop"?

Rex071404 04:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If Admin were Neutrality's name, that would be a problem since it's clearly deceptive. His name is no more deceptive than yours or mine.


 * Think of it this way; do you Rex think Neutrality is neutral just because of his name?Wolfman 05:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, if he is still very agressive in his reverts, when he reverts you again and again as he has done to me, the implicit message is that you have failed his "neutrality" test. And since this Wikie is supposed to be egalitarian, him being able to impose a "test" is wrong. Also, the simple fact that some object to it, ought to be respected. Rex071404 16:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kerry bias
Here are some points:


 * 1) Including excessive minutiae about Kerry has the effect of implying to readers that he is super-important.
 * 2) The big fight over the 1st purple heart injury left me convinced that certain editors were trying to play up his track-record and over emphasize it.
 * 3) Kerry has indeed made mistatements - those who deny this deny the truth
 * 4) Kerry, as a career politician, has indeed put a "shine" on his service history.

Here is what Kerry's personal/service history actually is:


 * Has, for his entire life, had a lifestyle of priveledge (private schools, travelling, etc)
 * When facing draft, sought one year additional deferrement and after failing to get that, entered in OCS (officer candidate school). This, as you must know, required a college degree. Less than 20% of all males his age back then had one (was then more for priveleged kids like Kerry). Right off the bat, Kerry got into OCS because of his wealth - an opportunity denied others.
 * After OCS, he spent a year on a destroyer not exposed to combat
 * After that, he spent (4) months on two different Swift boats, which he commanded over enlisted crew on the basis of the OCS training a Lt. (junior grade) commission which resulted.
 * Received 1st purple heart for very minor injury, which was more than likely caused by his own mistake - ie; shot off grenade launcer too close to boat. FYI: Max Cleland got NO purple heart for losing legs/arm as it was accdentally self-inficted (you do know this, yes?).
 * Received 2nd purple heart for bona-fide, modest injury
 * Received Silver star for misreported, foolhardy behavior which consisted of beaching boat against training and killing a single wounded teenager
 * Received 3rd purple heart and bronze star for action that was resonably brave and commendable
 * Came home earlry on "3 and you go home" rule which may not have been well known enough for all to use it (just those in the know) and also, if 1st wound was self-inflicted, may have been fraudulent.
 * While still on active duty, began to protest war
 * Did not serve full 4 year hitch - was released early due to his request, based on anti-war views.
 * Associated with bad people in VVAW - commies, criminals, cranks and liars
 * Gave misleading testimony at Senate hearing
 * Slandered other Vets in testimony
 * Particpated in a medal-tossing ceremony
 * Began angling for office even way back then
 * Employed on campaign, his brother and another who did a campaign related break-in
 * Went from Congress to Lt. Gov to Senate and in all that time, never created even (1) "hallmark" piece of legislation which became law. Ie: "Roth" IRA, MCain/Fiengold, etc.
 * Continues to harbor socialist dreams - still gives the socialist power salute at speeches!
 * In short, other than be on two boats for a total of four months, what has this man ever done in his life?

Look at this: Rex071404 - July 10th http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry&oldid=4540370

and this: Neutrality - 07.24.04 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry&oldid=4817016

See the copius detail and pro-kerrry slant that Neutrality injected:

Dr. Louis Letson, who treated Kerry by removing the shrapnel and apply bacitracin dressing, remembers the incident because his crew told the medics that Kerry was "the next JFK from Massachusetts" and "would some day be president."

If you don't see the pro-kerrry embellishment, you are not looking.

Rex071404 16:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response

 * Including excessive minutiae about Kerry has the effect of implying to readers that he is super-important.
 * Well it is an article about Kerry, and he is pretty important. That said, I don't care if we report the name of his canary.
 * The big fight over the 1st purple heart injury left me convinced that certain editors were trying to play up his track-record and over emphasize it.
 * Interesting, it gave me exactly the opposite impression of you. I think that dispute came to a head over pretty trivial wording differences because previous frictions had eroded trust.
 * Kerry has indeed made mistatements - those who deny this deny the truth
 * Hmm. I'm sure he has; hasn't everybody? I haven't seen any disputes over that, but I'm late to the party (and missed last week).
 * Kerry, as a career politician, has indeed put a "shine" on his service history.
 * Sure. That's what politicians do.  But it doesn't take a lot of effort when you've got the BS, SS, and 3 PH's.  I reckon that's why the Republicans are so desparate to smear his record. Seems like a strategic mistake to me as it just emphasizes his service.

The following is not really germane to the article, but I'll respond anyway. From various remarks you've made, I gather you are a Bush supporter? When I ran through your summary of Kerry's life (which I don't really agree with), I mentally contrasted each point with Bush's life. For every single negative point you made about Kerry, there is an obvious counterpoint for Bush. My first instinct responses to each point you made are lined up below.

As to your final point about Neutrality's description of the Letson thing, I can see how you interpret that as POV. Pull it for all I care. But Letson did make the comment to explain how he remembered a fairly minor wound 35 years later. So, there's another way of looking at the same sentence.Wolfman 17:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Has, for his entire life, had a lifestyle of priveledge (private schools, travelling, etc)
 * When facing draft, jumped to the head of a long list of Guard applicants and entered as an officer. This, as you must know, required a colege degree. Less than 20% of all males his age back then had one (was then more for priveleged kids like Bush). Right off the bat, Bush got into TANG because of his wealth & political connections - an opportunity denied others.
 * After, he spent a year in Texas not exposed to combat
 * After that, he spent months in Alabama, grounded and not exposed to combat.
 * Received no 1st purple heart.
 * Received no 2nd purple heart.
 * Received no Silver star
 * Received no Bronze star
 * Never left home, much less came home early for being wounded (having never seen combat).
 * Never protested the war because he believed in it, but avoided fighting it himself.
 * Did not serve full hitch. Grounded for not taking flight physical, no record of one year of duty.
 * Associated with bad all his life -- criminals, cranks and liars
 * Gave misleading testimony to take our country into War (Iraq WMD & Al-Qaeda connection)
 * Slandered other Vets by proxy (using SBVT & Saxby Chambliss & McCain-is-nuts-from-Hanoi rumours)
 * Never won any medals
 * Began angling for office as soon as he sobered up at age 40.
 * Investigated numerous times for shady business dealings and insider trading; never cleared.
 * Went from drunk to Governor to President without any obvious accompishments besides being born the son of a President.
 * Continues to harbor dreams of a world that scares the hell out of me.
 * In short, what has this man ever done in his life?


 * About your counter-list re: George Bush, I will point two things


 * 1) The disagreement we had was about Kerry edits. George bush is not relevant on Kerry page. That is unless you want to use Bush page a smodel for Kerry. In that case, since Bush page is much harsher thanKerry page, Kerry page must be made more harsh.


 * 1) A few comments back, on the George Bush Talk page, an editor (you?) said that those wanting to make a change from what already is, must make a case for it. Using this rule of thumb, since you have only shown me that GWB is equally crappy as Kerry, there is no compelling reason to change. Unless you are using inconsistant logic, you ought to be a Bush supporter, because he's already in there. Or, you need to admit that sometimes change is simply for the better and does not need to be justified. If that's true, the people who are opposing my new proposals for GWB page are standing the the way of change for the better. Rex071404 05:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality user name
Hi, I just replied to your message at User_talk:Ropers. Ropers 22:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bush
Understanding what's been going on on the Bush article will not be easy - it's a mess. But I want to clear up two misconceptions right away: (a) referring to Kevin baas's "edits" (as being productive etc.) is not really accurate, as many of them are not "his" but simple reverts to others' versions or cut-and-pasted paragraphs from Talk pages; (b) the sentence about Harvard was not contributed by me, the last sane version just included it and I heard no justification for its removal, although maybe it should go.

Anyway, the conflicts appear to number three: (a) portrayal of Bush's foreign perception in a balanced way vs. a purely negative way with no countervailing info; (b) referring to the 2000 election article for info on it vs. giving a few key pro-Gore arguments and referring to the article for more info; (c) placing the PNAC para logically vs. placing it even before talk about Bush's campaign. V V 23:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I left a note for him.
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Hi. I removed the LA Times editorial link from the above article. The LA Times page requires regitration. See External links - try to avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications. I'm sure there are plenty of editorials which convey the same message and do not require registration. --Tagishsimon


 * Hmm. A huge fraction of the links in this story are to free registration sites like NY Times and Washington Post. That's simply who is doing the reporting on this story. Checking the Wikipedia policy page you listed, I'm not clear if there's a distinction between a reference link embedded in an article and a further reading link at the bottom. The LA Times editorial is uniquely significant in that it is, to my knowledge, the only major newspaper which has flat-out called the Swift Vet charges false. Would it be in accord with Wiki policy to quote the LA Times editorial in the "Controversy" section and provide a reference link? And if not, what are we to do about all the other free-reg reference links; must they be removed? Wolfman 19:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I don't have the energy for a campaign against all link to registration-only sites (and so to that extent, apologies for singling out that link), but I do wish they'd disappear from the wiki, since they're useless to me - I won't register. I'm not sure I agree the LST is the only editorial to take the stance it did ; perhaps the only one in the US, but I doubt even that. I guess if you want to put it back, you're welcome ... you could append a (registration required) warning so that people's time is not wasted; and while you're on the page, add it to other know registration required links. --Tagishsimon

SBVT
Good work on the edits to SBVT. Gives it more structure and coherence. --Nysus 20:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Journalists with bias
Thanks for the list of journalists. Not intrusive at all. Your list is probably a lot more comprehensive than anything i could have come up with anyway. AlistairMcMillan 04:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I wasn't asking you, but thanks anyway. If you want to discuss any of them with me, please add Wiki links to those that have them. If you don't do this, I won't take your oveture to dialog seriously. Rex071404 06:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unless and until you have a bona fide interest in dialoging with me, please refrain from making any further comments of non-official nature, on my talk page. Thank you. Rex071404 06:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me be more clear: I am instructing you; unless and until you want to dialog, other than communications which you are authorized to make to me by virtue of a Role of Authority on this Wiki, do not comment again on my Talk Page. Thank you. Rex071404 07:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex's latest charge
In case you haven't seen this, here's Rex's 37468th charge against us: Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence 10:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions for change to SBVT heading
I made some suggestions for changing the heading that now reads SBVT sparks debate over Kerry war records over in SBVT talk. See what you think.

A few Things.
First of all, why is your userpage blank? Second of all, I just wanted to let you know that your revert of Talk:John Kerry was not of an anon ip, it was of a user (although I do agree with your reversion). &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;  (T&alpha;l&kappa;) 00:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I see about the userpage. The user seems to be a play on User:172's nick.  &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;  (T&alpha;l&kappa;) 00:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SBVT NPOV
I have restored the NPOV notice. Wolfman, DON'T YOU DARE remove that again (until we agree that it can come down)! HOW DARE YOU tell me that I am not allowed to "dispute the neutrality" of this article! In fact, by deleting the NPOV notice, you confirm that you are being POV! Rex071404 01:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3-revert rule
Due to your violation of the 3-revert rule this evening at SBVT and your insulting comments to me, I have added a new charge against you here. Rex071404 02:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Possible complaint against Rex
I've just begun to look at the SBVT page but my preliminary impression is that Rex has learned absolutely nothing. If you need to follow through by going to the ArbCom about SBVT, would it be reasonable to include his conduct at George W. Bush? I haven't been involved with that page; I just know that, once he couldn't take out his spleen on the John Kerry page, he became very active over there. If his Bush edits were objectionable, it might support a request that he be blocked from editing any article relating primarily to the 2004 election, including but not limited to the following (and then give a list of the ones currently in existence). JamesMLane 07:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Peace offer
If you are willing, I will set up a sub page offf my talk page and we can discuss our past disagreements. 04:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have startd the page.  Please excuse the name typo for page title. If you know how to correct that, that's fine with me. 05:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rex071404/woflfpeace I have commented already. 05:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RfC on Axis of evil / Asses of evil filed
See RfC here regarding this:

Axis of evil Should "AssesOfEvil.png" (see image on this page) be included in the article under guise of "parody"?

Your comments are appreciated.

05:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

wp:

SBVT
A while ago I created SBVT as a redirect to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but there's no Talk redirect. Thus, Talk:SBVT is a dead link but Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth works fine. Was that your issue? JamesMLane 19:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peace
If our new dialog is going to bear fruit, I am going to need you to comment about your opposiiton to my edits on SBVT and wait for answer. You can comment on SBVT talk if you want. I am feeling pressued by your multiple reversions of my edits on SBVT. What's up? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 16:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arb com
Withrawal of the Arb com is the 1st aim of my dialog with you. However, in case you misunderstood, I recognize that withdrawl is predicated on us reachng agreement. Rather than quit at this point, let's see if we can dailog about Gardner and make progress on that.

My thinking boils down to the gross POV nature of the preceding quotes which I am trying to follow with the Gardner quote. Placing those so high up in the articles sets a POv tone. If those quotes were lower on the page or better yet, if their views were mentioned but not quoted, I would no longer think than Gardner's quote must be there. I am prepared to yield some on this. Are you? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 19:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kerry Bills
Please read the two links you added, Neither of those links list Kerry as the "sponsor". Rather, both links list someone else. What say ye?

18:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I take you word at that and am satisfied with the table the way it is - I acccept the two new bills you have linked to. Also, do you see what I mean about Kerry? Unlike my other home-state senator (Kennedy - I'm from Massachusetts), Kerry has done very little. The democrats should have run someone else - Kerry has no senate accomplishments to speak of - and that's no exaggeration. This is why we have the Vietnam service fiasco - Kerry has nothing else to point to but promises.

Also, please remember to sign your posts

18:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True, but they are not running for president, Kerry is. For the new table, please use my model. Cut & paste the HTML into your editor and re-use Tables should look the same.

BTW: Do you now agree that I was not trying to pull a fast one with this table?

18:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*** Very Important !!! ***
On each new law page you create, please include the link to the legislative history - this is very important - we need to set a good precendent for the creation of these kinds of law pages - without the history, any bill can be attributed to any office holder - and that's not good. 19:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going on trust right now. I'll verify later. 19:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page: http://wikisource.org/wiki/US_Public_Law_106-165 has no link to its legislative history.

19:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SBVT v. John Kerry
Wolfman, Hope you don't mind continuing the conversation here rather than on the SBVT Talk page.

As I said, I believe that John Kerry's service in Vietnam was generally honorable, and admirable, but comparable to that of most other Vietnam veterans, including the members of SBVT. But I also believe that Kerry has repeatedly lied about his Vietnam experiences to advance his political career, while the SBVT are simply telling the truth.

That's really the issue for me. It's not that I think what Kerry did in Vietnam was particularly dishonorable. I don't. The SBVT do, but that reflects the higher standards of their military culture. (Which Kerry was never really a part of.) I'm more troubled by what he did in the anitwar movement, but even there it's been a long time, and I think he might have been forgiven if he'd shown any sort of contrition. But Kerry himself made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. If he hadn't done that, I don't think we'd be talking about this. But his portrayal of himself in the role of a war hero is a fraud. And the contrast with his actual role as an antiwar hero made a reaction by the veterans inevitable. Kerry and the Democrats made a huge mistake, and they're paying the price. Anonip 22:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML influence
Don't let JML's "I told you so" get you all riled up. You and I did great work on John Kerry's legislation. Let's not descend into acrimony - see all my comments before you start a "link battle", please. 20:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the link mix at about 60% kerry/40% SBVT is just about right, the way it is now. Also, I have suggested as a conciliation, that we deleted the "other" subsection from within the links, provided that the link to the SBVT site itself remains. This, I feel is a fair balance. Also, your implied option of many many links would be a grave error. It would be viewed as vandalism and would also put you at risk in the ongoing Arb case. In fact, you should see the proposed decision page for that - the Arbitrators have found consinderable fault with my accusers too (not just me). Pay particular attention to the risk of injecting partisanship into the article. Anyway, I am satisified with the links section as is, and may even agree to a few selective removals. As it stands, I am the only editor looking at this from SBVT, while the others are looking from Kerry. That being the case, since you and I are talking, just tell me what you want to change about the links (other than completely remove) and chances are I'll probably agree. We could easily resolve this tonight, if you would suggest. 00:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are over-reacting - the issue is probably already moot - I deleted a balanced mix over the last few minutes. Tell me what you think of the current mix. Also, I am right about what the Arbitrators are saying - you should read that page - it would accrue to your benefit. 00:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks on the satire issue. good to know I'm not completely out of my mind with regards to wiki policy. Lyellin 01:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton
Nice job with that second edit. Your wording is clearer and more NPOV than mine. RadicalSubversiv E 23:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex
Wolfman, I hope you will be willing to help put a stop to Rex's disruptive editing techniques. Please visit Talk:Texans_for_Truth and sign on if you agree. --Nysus 02:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandal alert
A vandal keeps deleting the legis. page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_of_legislation_by_John_Kerry 05:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfpeace
I am guessing, now that you are signing Nysus initiated anti-Rex talk pages "lists", that our attempts to clear the air between us, have been deemed a failure by you? Please birng me up to speed on your thoughts in this area. Thanks 16:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton
Regarding Hillary Clinton, I'm not saying I'm necessarily attached to that particular phrasing, but I believe the criticism to be a significant part of that leveled against her. I say this because it frequently comes up in conversations with friends of mine who aren't as supportive of her as I am. It's an urban legend, yes, but a significant one that many people nonetheless attach to her, and one that we'll be unable to conclusively address, except by stating her public actions and statements. I believe the information should be included in some form. Respectfully yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:36, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of copying your comments and mine to Talk:Hillary Clinton, so they'll all be in one place (I assume it's on your watchlist, as mine?). Hope to hear from you there, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:32, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, thanks for your message, I was concurrently changing the Talk page there and I'm still learning the etiquette of resolving edit conflicts. I see your point about whether the detail is too excessive; I hope you see mine about the relevance of the objective facts (both favorable and unfavorable to her). I'd like to think about whether a separate section is the answer, but I do agree that the section totally lacks information on her Senate career. Of course, when I found the article originally, it lacked info on her life previous to Arkansas, her career as a lawyer, etc., and I've been working on it here and there as my interest has dictated. Thanks for the contribs and for giving me something to think about- Kaisershatner 16:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More about Rex
You asked to be notified of anything noteworthy in the Rex arbitration (the first one, that is. I don't think you're party to #2.  Can't tell the Rex dispute resolution proceedings without a scorecard). The committee is now considering the following as one of its proposed findings of fact: "The compaining witnesses in this matter, because of their numerical majority, felt that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs, despite its societal significance." I got pretty cheesed off at this. The short of it is that we're being unjustly criticized, without even being told that there was a complaint against us. The long of it is here, here and here. It's produced a pretty typical exchange between Rex on one side and Gamaliel and me on the other. I mention all this only because the ArbCom is considering a proposed finding that, IMO, reflects badly on you, so I thought you ought to know about it in case you want to get involved. If you have more will power than I do and can resist the temptation to keep wasting time on this stuff, so much the better! JamesMLane 08:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. You raise a good point about Rex's withdrawal of all cross-complaints.  I hadn't focused on it because I never took his cross-complaints seriously anyway.  When I was double-checking my assertion that no specific edit of mine had been challenged, I noticed that you and others couldn't make that claim, because he did identify some edits of yours in support of his cross-complaint.  Therefore, it might be to the point for you to remind the ArbCom of the withdrawal. JamesMLane 15:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have been following the dialog between several of you. Primarily based on a few particular comments I read, I have striken my overture of toning down the charges and counter-charges. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 15:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Further reply to Wolfman here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 16:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Killian memos
Links Start here:  then go here:  

Charlie Johnson, of LGF, is the guy who worked on PageStream and other DTP software. He knows more about page layout than you and I ever will.

-Joseph (Talk) 04:40, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
 * Like I said, go to the link where I said "start here." I pasted the wrong link initially, perhaps you went to that one. -Joseph (Talk) 04:46, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
 * It sounds as if you haven't read as much about the issue as some of the other major contributors have. Perhaps you may wish to hold off until the debate has settled down? As I said before, I don't expect the article to become very NPOV until at least another week or so, or it's a dead issue, whichever comes first. -Joseph (Talk) 05:02, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

John Kerry
Why did you revert my addition of facts without giving any explanation? Next time you do it i'll consider it partisan vandalism. GeneralPatton 07:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * His "explanation" was quote "(Reverted edits by GeneralPatton to last version by Meelar)" do you see any valuable counter argument there? I sure don't, and his calling the facts "silly parentheticals" also didn't help. Please, present me the information that says that what I wrote isn't true. GeneralPatton 07:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I just want to make it clear that this wasn't an attack on Mr.Kerry, to me as a foreigner, US politics don&#8217;t concern me. I just wanted to present a critical assessment of facts. GeneralPatton 07:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I really didn&#8217;t intend any &#8220;innuendo&#8221; to be there. GeneralPatton 07:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SBVT
I didn't notice that the SVBT page was protected (it only has a "disputed neutrality" notice at the top)- I was just following up on a request to get rid of some POV redirects and I idly glanced at the article and noticed that data was missing. (The entire pagee is still somewhat lacking in NPOV, IMO - it carefully gives quotes and names from the Kerry side, but doesn't provide as much detail on the other side.)

The bit about the 5 skippers was from this Washington Post story. I'll add a reference to this page, and on another WPost one that investigated the claims in detail, on the talk page, or perhaps as a link at the bottom. Noel 18:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It turns out both of the good Washington Post articles I saw are already listed at bottom of the page, including the one (above) that's the source for the statement about the other 3 skippers. 18:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * PS: If the article you mentioned (about the widow - I don't have time to paw through the mass of stuff here and find it) isn't listed at the bottom of the page, add it there, and if it's from a reliable source, it would be fine to add to the page that contemporary letters from him indicate there was hostile fire - I think such letters are a very important source. Noel 19:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment attribution
You are correct, I was getting sleepy and made an error. Your last edit was good though - and I have said that on the talk page. 07:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit wars on Killian
Getting into an edit war with Anonip is a total waste of time, and just irritates the heck out of those of us who are trying to whip the article into some sort of useful shape. Please stop. (And rest assured I'm saying the same thing to him.) His insistence on having his exact two sentences there is silly, and I pointed that out to him.

PS: While I was saying that to him, I noticed the note from you on his user page. Two things to bear in mind when evaluating W's service: First, all the century-series fighters were very dangerous planes, and killed *lots* of their pilots (q.v. "Right Stuff"). I don't have stats readily at hand on the F-102, but the Germans flew a large fleet of F-104s and lost them on such a regular basis that it was a like a permanent news item (although admittedly the F-104's were the worst of the group). Second, he didn't take a student deferment, or take off across the border, etc, etc, which he could probably equally easily have arranged - which is what a lot of his critics did; so he ought to get credit for that, at least. Noel 17:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS: Ooops, one other thing I was going to mention and forgot to - it's been reported (will dig up cite if you would like) that he volunteered (twice) for a program that took ANG people to Viet Nam for service, as was turned down. So it's not like he didn't try. Noel 17:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * See my comments at Talk:Killian memos -Joseph (Talk) 04:53, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Re: Rex question
The problem is that I remember calling the page "Florida Central Voter File", but instead I see it's called "Florida Central Voting File". I manually moved the page (which I know I really should have asked an administrator to do) to Florida Central Voter File. Earlier, someone had out-of-the-blue moved it to the obscure title "Floridadata.doc", and they still haven't provided any explanation, so I'm a little suspicious. I want to consult people's memories without influencing them to cross-check mine. But thanks. Kevin Baas | talk 18:27, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

Please clarify why John Kerry Official Enlistment Naval Record into the USN Reserves removed?
The John Kerry web site has the Official US Navy document showing he enlisted in the US Naval Reserves in 1968, not the US Navy, which I documented. 

Why did you revert this? Thanks.


 * Got your message, thanks for replying, I restored the change as you recommended.