|
User talk:VeryVerily/archiveI think it's fairly clear that, in the weeks leading up to hostilities, the administration's stance was shifting and inconsistent, and that that should be made clear in the article. At no point did Saddam cooperate with the first demands made by the U.S., so there was no reason whatever to alter those demands when preparing to take military action. As far as allegedly devious and considered sinister, I probably would have left that if that's what it had said, but it wasn't. - Hephaestos 22:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC) On PNAC,
Right. That means the plans were allegedly published, not that they were allegedly devious. That it was considered proof, not that it was considered "sinister." Completely different meaning. "Sinister" and "devious" are POV judgments we shouldn't be making here in any case. On the other article, I took a look at your new change, and I think we're pretty close, although it needs a tweak; let me know what you think. - Hephaestos 00:35, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC) Hi, IMHO protecting 2002 Gujarat violence would just draw attention to it and achieve what the other person wants. There are about 5 of us who have it in our watchlist, so its much easier for us to revert it than for them to repeatedly vandalize it (its very likely that all the 3 new users are the same person). So I say lets not make a fuss about it :) They'll realize after a while that they're obviously wasting their time and either go away or start making useful contributions to other articles. -- Arvindn 04:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC) I'm duns0014, from the ancap turmoil. so who are you anyway? are you libertarian or what?
Re: Bush family conspiracy theory It is not an opinion to state that matters surrounding the Florida election were the subject of fierce public debate. It is not an opinion to state that claims of wrongdoing over the US election are the most serious allegations. You have been replacing a factually incorrect version of the article on Kashmir. I would refer this as an NPOV however the trouble is there is no "point of view" issue in question here. These are historic facts that are easily verified and acknowledged by everyone. Firstly, the correct term for the entire region is Jammu and Kashmir, which comprises the southern Jammu region, the Kashmir valley(which is where the trouble is concentrated) and the Ladakh plateau region. "Kashmir" is used for brevity as it is the region where the trouble is mainly concentrated. However Kashmir in reality only refers to Kashmir Valley. Secondly, Aksai Chin is NOT the same as the chunk in North Kashmir that was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1959. Aksai Chin is Indian territory in Eastern Kashmir that was occupied by China in 1962. Again, before you start off, there is absolutely no question of "POV" and "NPOV" here, as these are well known and verifiable historical facts. -conradx Hi VV -- I know you haven't been a major contributor to 2002 Gujarat violence, but I just wanted to let you know that Angela asked me to mediate, and I am in the process of reviewing (I would not characterize it as "investigating") the article, the edit history of the article and its talk page, the various comments linked to this page, and the email traffic here, here, here, here, and here (and a few other threads) on the mailing list related to it. Even though the page is unprotected, I would ask all parties involved to hold off editing this article voluntarily until I can offer a few suggestions, which I will do within a few hours. Thanks for your forbearance, BCorr € Брайен 14:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC) NOTE: See bottom of page for mediation proposal Hello VV -- just wanted to say I understand your position (that you wrote on Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence), and of course I'm just following up on what I've been asked to do by the well-respected Angela. Perhaps you should write her a note on her talk page...but FWIW I think that it may be beyond the point that a temporary protection will work, and I don't think it's feasible to have the page permanently protected. Thanks, BCorr € Брайен 22:50, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC) Hi again -- only one person has made any edits whatsoever to 2002 Gujarat violence/revision, and it was tiny. You are "officially" invited to take a stab at it. Thanks, BCorr € Брайен 02:34, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) Thanks for you note on my talk page. What can I say -- I agree, but I figure it's worth following up on this since it was put out there...and it's probably good practice anyway :-) BCorr € Брайен 15:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) Hi, I just thought I will intervene because of the back and forth reversions.I want to clarify what I think is a wrong notion you have. Aryans did come to the sub-continent from outside, this is not disputed by serious academicians.However, though the Aryan invasion theory is widely known, it does not mean that it is widely accepted. It is known well because it is quite old. The present dispute is not over whether the Aryans came from outside at all( which is a pseudo- scientific speculation), but whether the influx was through an invasion or gradual(which is a legitimate academic subject). KRS 14:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
On the "Multi-regional origin" page, you added: "Nevertheless, proponents of multiregionalism such as Wolpoff believe the molecular data can be reconciled with the multiregional origin hypothesis, and may even support it." Could you please give one or two citations to support the last five words? (I'm not sure whether you're saying that there is molecular data to support multiregionalism, or that some have argued that the molecular data that is usually taken to support the single-region hypothesis actually supports multiregionalism. Also, I'm not sure whether you're saying that Wolpoff has used molecular data to support the multiregional hypothesis. Thanks. Peak 04:26, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) Multi-regional hypothesisMulti-regional hypothesisThanks for your response. My responses to your response are inserted with a leading Peak. You asked for citations on those believing molecular data supports multiegionalism. A well-known recent such paper is this one ...
... and you can look at other papers by Wolpoff, Hawks, etc. Anyway, I'm bothered by the fact that every link you've added to this page is anti-multiregionalism.
Don't you think that's not very appropriate for an entry about it? There should be at least one pro-link, and probably the majority should be pro-.
I also believe your reading of the style guide is not correct; in general external links should be collected together rather than scattered uselessly, but if it's simply to provide a footnote reference for a portion within the text, that is not necessary.
I also don't agree with the undoing of my other changes:
...splitting the examples of recent research back across two paragraphs, and removing mention of Wells' anti-multiregionalist stance. I actually don't see the point in the Wells' quote anyway; it's not very encyclopedic, just his opinion. -- VV 03:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Peace. Peak 05:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC) Hi there, just a note to let you know that Tannin has just set up a vote for the Sep 11 attacks talk page about whther the word "terrorist" should be included in the title or not. Arno 09:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) USA PAT RIOT ActWill you stop reverting my changes to the USA PAT RIOT Act and labelling them "Vandalism"? Jor 02:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Patriot act revert-war(cc to Darkelf and VeryVerily) Ok, you guys' editwar on USA PATRIOT Act has gone quite far enough. You need to get together and work out a compromise that you can both live with. Either that, or you should both desist from editing the article and let calmer heads work it out for you. I've protected the page (in accordance with the generally-accepted "three reverts" rule on Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version). I'll unprotect it when you show me your compromise (or, lets face it, someone else will unprotect it in a couple of days, hoping you've both calmed down). Don't come to me arguing a case or trying to get me to decide who is right or who is wrong - I really don't care one iota. Oh, and whichever version it's stuck on right now isn't the "winner" (i'm sure y'all are busily reverting one another while I type this). And please quit calling one another vandals. Oh, and I'm going to bed now, sad. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) Edit warsPlease stop edit wars over link names. It is silly esp since direct links are better than redirects. --mav 00:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
172I've been having a little back and forth with User:172 in History of the United States (1980-present), and noticed that you are having the same problem. Do you have any words of advice on how I may settle this in a friendly and civil manner with 172? --Hcheney 23:08, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) See my comments on User talk:RickK and Talk:Mass murder. You owe me an apology. BTW, the protection was lifted. 172 08:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) Good job discussing content issues on Talk:State terrorism. If you have time, please take a look at Talk:Manuel Noriega. It seems that you finally have a serious user with whom to discuss content issues on that page. Also, you can altert me whenever you find someone attempting to use Micahel Moore as a source in an article, which would turn Wiki into a laughingstock. I'd set them straight and direct them to legitimate sources on international relations. BTW, if you keep up the good work, I'll nominate you for admin. 172 03:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) Thanks for the response. From experience I know that working on controversial subjects can be maddening around here! Let me know if you need a page protected or unprotected, or help stabilizing the libertarian anarchism page (sounds like a magnet for troublemakers.) Page protections seem to repel the trolls, who disappear mysteriously when forced to explain themselves on the talk pages. Also, with the problem users gone, perhaps it's time to lift the protections of Manuel Noriega, Mass murder, History of Panama, Saddam Hussein, State terrorism, etc. BTW, sorry for not making it clear earlier that you weren't the guilty party in last week's series of edit wars. Your only mistake was falling into their trap by playing their game of auto-revert, thus letting them pull you into their ideological proxy battles. 172 23:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) 22:04, 3 Mar 2004 . . VeryVerily (fixing double redirect; also, i don't like this change, the new article is poorly written, while this one was clear)
The last three edit wars between you and User:Venceremos were disappointing - esecially in light of the constructive and civil discussions that ended the edit wars over Mass murder and State terrorism. I figured that the users involved had already made enough progress so as to avoid these kinds of spectacles. It's a waste of your time to automatically revert his edits repeatedly. Just leave the page alone and request a page protection from a sysop. Please take my word for it - this is how you'll be the most efficient and effective. 172 18:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) Yes, of course Venceremos is Lance/Hector/Richard. But isn't this getting old already? Just deal with him directly. So what if he's a Communist? What's the big deal? You could make the effort to communicate with him. He's going to keep playing games with you until you start treating him seriously. Figure out a way to meet him halfway whenever he has a valid point to raise. When you quit treating him like the devil admins won't have to protect pages. 172 10:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) Calm down. I'm only trying to help. "Venceremos" isn't misbehaving because he's the devil - that's all that I'm saying. I've had a few words with him and it is my strong impression is that he's waiting for people like you, RickK, Robert Merkel, Ed Poor, etc. to tone town the blistering attacks a notch and give him a chance. He's just having a hard time finding a niche in the site for a leftwing user. After all, he's always under relentless scrutiny and attack. It's unfair to subject him to what is effectively auto-revert in practice. While he does need watching, 100% of his facts aren't wrong in 100% of his edits. If I were you, I'd ask him what would it take to get him to become more cooperative. Chances are that he thinks you're unreasonable, while you think he's unreasonable. But I think that you're both wrong. 172 23:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) I am considering placing a Wikipedia:Requests for comment in regards to this user, not so much in regards to their edits, which I don't think are so very bad, but in regards to what I see as violations of wikiquette on the article talk pages. I have noticed he is not civil in regards to yourself. Have you discussed this with him on his talk page, or otherwise considered implementing the Wikipedia:Conflict resolution process in regards to this user? Sam Spade 05:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not really saying that you're in any way at fault for what's been going on with the "red faction." I'm just saying that Lance/Hector/Richard/Venceremos probably feels quite inundated, given the intense criticism and scrutiny coming from a select circle of contributors, and that his behavior probably stems more from a group dynamic than him being the devil that you're making out to be. Sooner or later, you ought to admit that the anti-Communist POV of the community as a whole has been at the root of his behavior. You'd also be better off if you stopped lodging complaints about him over and over again, to different user to different user, and from page to page. Instead, find a better strategy. Keep in mind that you have the power to determine his behavior; by defining the conflict in terms of "Lance/Hector/Richard/Venceremos versus the community," you're putting him in an awkward bind. For him to get whatever the hell he wants out of his foes, he's been forced to campaign against his circle of critics - so to speak. But if you react to every individual dispute as a separate incident, and drop all this chatter about how he needs to be banned, the conflict will deescalate. Believe me, after working with you on US history (1980-present), I understand firsthand where Venceremos must be coming from. I wasn't too happy when, e.g., you decided to lodge a series of complaints about me on a series of different pages. This only made me less willing to try to interact with you on a positive basis at the time. 172 11:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) VV: do you feel that the latest version of 'torture and murder in Iraq' before protection by 172 is acceptable? pir 13:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) VV: the repugnance of torture and murder does not depend on who comitted them - do you agree to this view? Wikipedia should provide information about such facts in a NPOV manner no matter who committed them, and then let readers draw their own moral conclusions. If we are selective in having articles about only atrocities by one side (which ever it is) then we (Wikipedia) become propagandists for this side. Do you agree to these? I am not interested in pushing a particular point of view, such as that there's a moral equivalence between the state repression of Saddam's regime and the measures the current occupiers of Iraq use to stay in control. I'm (genuinely!) interested in providing the facts, and put readers in a position to make up their mind. The reason I added information about torture and murder committed by occupation is that the article seemed to fulfil a propaganda purpose (probably created in the run-up to the Iraq war) which I wanted to balance with a more NPOV picture.pir 10:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) Instead of continuing to violate the revert policy, please join me in discussion on Talk:Americanism. Thanks. SV(talk) 06:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) Recent change to Race article[P0M:] You changed some text in the Race article and gave as the edit summary the words 'anti-race "inference" and sarcasm, replaced with example'. The original passage was not something that I wrote, so I do not have a personal stake in it. However I didn't see anything in the original that I would regard as "anti-race inference," nor did I see any sarcasm. Would you mind explaining, please? P0M 01:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) On RaceDear VV: On the one hand, I would like to thank you for attempting to find a compromise with your suggested wording using the phrase "In many areas of biology". I am all in favor of creative attempts to achieve NPOV; I am also all in favor of authors providing evidence to make their case when there is any kind of doubt. Perhaps it is true that in some areas of biology, there is an equation of 'race' and 'subspecies', but that is still a long way from 'many'. On the other hand, I would like to point out that your editorial remark suggesting that I had intended to inject a sarcastic note was erroneous. (You wrote: rm anti-race "inference" and sarcasm). Of course I realize that you wrote this within the narrow confines of an edit summary box, but please note that labels such as "anti-race" and "pro-race" are not very helpful in this context as "race" has (and has had) so many different meanings. That is one of the things that makes this article so contentious - too many people have approached it with the idea "The community of people I know all agree that X and therefore it's obvious that X." Peak 06:19, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) Response to your response about RaceYou wrote:
Certainly there have been (and continue to be) many "alternative classifications", but a reasonably careful reading of the existing (flawed) article on Race should make it clear that there are many definitions of race, even within different communities. I attempted to identify most of the significant ones at User:Peak/Preamble#Meanings. Peak 07:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) "Edit war"Nothing is wrong with having the dates wikified. If you'd like to undertake that task yourself, you're more than welcome. I'm removing all additions by User:Michael3 in accordance with standard policy on this issue (see User:Michael). Anyone may "vouch" for the additions by reinstating them in their own name... note that this is not the same as simply reverting back to Michael3's version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) BanningThere doesn't seem to be any system for nominating people for banning. The only people who get arbitrarily banned are obvious vandals - people who erase articles etc. But Hanpuk isn't one of them, he is a persistent trouble-maker and wrecker. You need to talk to an experienced administrator, of which I am not one. Adam 04:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) QuickpollTo let you know, I've started a quickpoll vis-a-vis your violation of the three revert guideline on Red Scare. I am not specifically asking for a ban of any kind. Obviously, I strongly disapprove of your reversion tactics, which are not appropriate regardless of how strongly you feel about some article. It doesn't seem as though you've changed them at all despite the problems they have created. -- 172 07:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Red ScareI don't understand why you keep adding that paragraph back into Red Scare. It's not historical and doesn't really involved the article. What do you think of my compromise version of the page? Please respond either on the Red Scare talkpage and explain why it should be there, or on my talk page. --Alex S 21:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) vote[2] Take a look, and vote if you will. Sam Spade 22:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) Just for the recordThe change made to "race and intelligence" which you corrected today and indicated that I had "POVed" was apparently made by user 195.xx.xx... (I don't write that way, either.) P0M 09:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) [P0M:] I think I see what happened. I was working on topic sentences and made a copy of all of them, which I then reworked so that there would be smooth flow from topic sentence to topic sentence. (I posted the proposed changes, by the way.) 195xxx had made the sentence "Lately people have tried to associate race and intelligence. This is not new." Between the time that I copied those sentences and finished by topic sentence rewrites you (or somebody else) must have discovered what 195xxx had done and repaired it without having him revert the change. I rather mechanically went through and fixed the topic sentences according to the draft I had posted and, in the process, replaced your edit. Sorry. P0M 15:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) Please take a moment to express your thoughts on this page, if you have the time. Sam Spade 19:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What part of Tuskegee syphilis study did you find factually inaccurate? You didn't list anything in particular on the discussion page.
PoisonedThe information on the Poisoned article is complete garbage. I am Jayson Cowan and I am mentioned in the wikipedia and I would like my reference removed along with all the errored garbage in that article all together. I would appreciate it if you did not edit it back to the previous revision.
Augusto PinochetI have create a poll at talk:Augusto Pinochet on how to describe the CIA's role in the coup against Allende. Please vote and/or comment. --Uncle Ed 14:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) QuickpollQuickpoll requested on you and 172 over your revert war on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. — Jor (Talk) 02:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm just standing for the rules in Quickpolls... and the Remedies clearly state that the first violation should be a warning. Since nobody bothered checking the rules the first time, and since it was voted NOT to punish 172, we should err on the side of caution, and give 172 a warning. I very firmly believe that the Quickpoll against you should be removed and a warning issued also. However, due process does not seem to be in style this season. --Hcheney 06:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Statement on my involvementMy Revert to Ed Poor's copy of Talk:Augusto Pinochet and protection (as well as the protection of Origins of the Civil War) of that copy was simply to stop an on going edit war, not to make any statement on who is right or who is wrong. Continue to make your case on the Quickpoll page and I wish you the best of luck. I think both you and 172 should be banned for 24 hours due to your revert wars on multiple pages for whatever reason, I see that as a violation of the 3 revert rule. I'd certainly hope that both you and 172 would choose to stay contributing to Wikipedia after whatever result comes from the current quickpolls. This is my statement on the whole issue to both of you. I am trying to remain as neutral as possible and follow the rules of wikipedia in my duty as an Admin. I take no more action on this issue other then to continue to revert and protect any further edit wars I come across. Thank you, I hope you can both settle your differences and wish you both the best. --Flockmeal 04:33, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC) (I've also left a copy of this statement on 172's talk page) VVHey! When did you get debanned? I thought you had another 6 hours? I mean it's great you're not banned anymore. --Cantus 01:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) HanpukIf I may ask, since Hanpuk is disputing the allegation - what evidence do we have that Hanpuk is one of the Richardchilton sock puppets? --Michael Snow 16:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) Quickpoll noticeYou and 172 are the subjects of a new quickpoll for your reverts on Saddam Hussein. --Michael Snow 22:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) MediationI see that you two are back at loggerheads again at a different location. I don't believe these constant disputes all over Wikipedia are productive, so I am asking you to consider mediation, as I previously suggested in the quickpoll. Will you accept? --Michael Snow 16:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
LovebirdsHmm. Those lovebirds sure look familiar. Why'd you stick them up there, in any event? :) - Fennec 19:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) Let's make things easier for the both of us and everyone else. I can deal with Rei on Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq, and I'll stay out of arguments between you and Rei on Israel. Same with Red Scare. I have been able to reason with Fred Bauder and TDC from time to time, but not with you. If you quit reverting me over and over again on Red Scare, I'll leave you and your so-called "NPOVing" in articles that I've had nothing to do with alone as well. Since I don't hold you in any higher regard than you hold me, there's no way we can cross paths and avoid a pointless revert war. So, we should just cross paths less often. 172 06:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) State terrorism and Torture and murder in Iraq were indeed VV country, and it was a mistake for me to step in there. But at the time I'd not yet figured out that it wasn't worth my effort to me to make changes in your domain. So, for this one time, I'd be grateful if you granted me a chance to work out an agreement with Rei regarding the content of the former Torture and murder in Iraq article over the next couple of days (on that note, I won't expect you to "pull out" of Origins of the American Civil War, which is deep within 172 country, automatically since you are already there). Regarding everything else, I won't edit pages subject to disputes between you and other users, if you do the same to avoid crossing paths with me. There's really no way for us to stake and recognize claims to articles, but I'm sure that we can use our common sense in order to know when we're crossing paths unnecessarily. 172 11:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) VeryHey very, I noted the edit war between you and 172, involving the Augusto Pinochet, what is main problem on it? I note the CIA coup part is hotly debated, trust me i've actually got into a fist-fight with a communist friend of mine over the CIA coup, (even though i'm a die-hard Socialist-Marxist). --Comrade Nick 05:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
GraphI saw the graph on your userpage. How is that generated? I'd be interested in looking at mine, if it's not too much work to do. Meelar 01:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I said a bit more in response to another user on talk:anarchism. I wonder how accurate any article on politics can ever be, when politics would seem to me as the science of lying ;) are you an anarchist yourself, as your are alludied to being in the talk? if so, perhaps you could tell me if there is enough agreement amongst anarchists to allow much of any opinions from anarchists in the body of the article, and whether perhaps it might do best to generally refer to the opinions of outsiders looking in. While this would open up an entirely other form of bias, it might well allow us at minimum a bit of consistancy of definition, and perhaps some objectivity as well, perchance? (part of this appears on the article talk) Sam Spade 04:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
172172 didn't remove the protection. RickK 14:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC) Did User:TDC ask you to restore his version of History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953)? If not, then see Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953), where TDC and I have agreed that his version should be considered point by point on a temp page to which he controls access. Earlier, we came to the same agreement on Hugo Chavez. Evidently, he was satisfied with the outcome, given his acceptance of my offer once again on a different article. 172 00:54, 7 May 2004 (UTC) FOX News and FrankenThanks for your note. I sympathize -- and at this point, I'm not sure what else to say to him. I guess we should proceed with an RfC and solicit input from the community. I would think we'll see overwhelming support for removing the quotation. If I'm wrong...well, then at least we'll have tried! Cribcage 05:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC) Soviet Union HistoryDid you see the seperate thread that 172 started? I am sure I could use a hand there. You might also be interested in going to the talk page, I have disected and refuted most of the diputed claims as either factualy inacurat, or grossly POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TDC/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927-1953) Ciao TDC 13:56, May 7, 2004 (UTC) Normally I would agree with the assertion that 172 can be difficult to deal with, but when this same process was used in the Hugo Chavez article, it worked out quite nicely. TDC 15:19, May 7, 2004 (UTC) Discussion with Cecropia at Rei's adminship nominationThanks for moving this as I suggested. Though it was a tiny bit too much. May I ask why you want to leave it to TDC to decide whether his crybaby image can stay although the policy clearly says No personal attacks? Get-back-world-respect 00:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC) Personal attacksNew reply to you at my talk page. Get-back-world-respect 01:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
ImmigrationHi VeryVerily. I see that you removed all my changes to the Immigration page, describing them as "speculation". A bit harsh, I think. The article as it stands contains this sentence: "Western European nations, Japan, and other countries have long been deeply concerned about their national culture being subsumed by a tide of immigrants. " Surely it's facile to say that "a nation" is concerned about something. It has to be more accurate to say that certain groups within a nation are concerned about something. That's what I tried to do. And only ignorant people use offensive language like "a tide of immigrants". There is other material on the article that is similarly facile, but can we start by agreeing about this? Feel free to email me at rsalkie@yahoo.co.uk Best wishes. Raphael Cheese-eating surrender monkeysI don't think you have really "fixed" the page. From the comparison, you have lost links to anti-French sentiment in the United States, suggested that the opposition is only in "international forums", lost the axis of evil & War on Terrorism context of France's opposition to America ... as I say, not in my opinion "fixing", more "fiddling". Still. We all do it. FWIW, I'd vote to put some of that context back in. --Tagishsimon
Re: "Consensus had been reached before 172 started trolling; the poll was started afterwards and brought in random buddies of 172. The poll voters he cites consist mostly of users who had no role in and and were voting ideologically." Usually you can get away with your cynical lies because I leave them ignored. But this time, I'll check to see what the other people whom you are implicitly slandering think about this. [3] 172 09:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi VV, you made an edit in India with commment "rm prejudicial and q'able para", but the diff of the edit doesn't show you removing anything. So was there something you wanted to remove but missed out ? Jay 09:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC) (btw editing your talk page says "WARNING: This page is 50 kilobytes long;") A recent change to the Race articleDid you notice that the barely identified user who put in the NPOV warning also added a link to a web page advocating some points of view on race? (by Richard McCulloch) I'd be in favor of removing that link, but I'm not sure what the standards are for such attempts to promote a point of view by attaching it to a neutral article. P0M 22:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC) New race POV contentI think maybe we should let it rest a week or so. The person that added the link appears to have registered just to make that one change. Maybe he'll watch what happens for a while. It is strange, however, that a brand new contributor would understand about adding a NPOV warning. Do you smell limburger cheese? P0M not trying to censor anyoneI am sorry, I didn't mean to archive your comment on the Pinochet talk page just minutes after you had posted it. The Talk page had gotten so big that I had to move the previous discussion over in sections, and doing so I didn't notice that you added something. That being said, the page has gotten unmanageable in size, and it really must be archived. I will try again later this afternoon. -- Viajero 13:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC) More on PinochetI don't question that you believe, in good faith, that the intro shouldn't mention the U.S. role in bringing Pinochet to power. I also don't question that you believe, in good faith, that if it is to be mentioned, it should be merely a reference to what "many believe," with all supporting facts left to be developed in the body of the article. I just don't share those beliefs. I think the subject is important enough to be mentioned in the intro. The "many believe" formulation seems to me to give an impression of a mere difference of opinion, like arguing about whether Pinochet's policies aided Chile's economy, and short-change the factual foundation. My fundamental approach to the treatment of this issue in the intro is that the intro should summarize key facts, enough to hit the highlights but not in such detail as to be inappropriate for an intro. My hope was that my edit of the sandbox intro would be edited by others who shared this view. For example, perhaps we should drop the Nixon quote; perhaps we should add post-coup U.S. support for Pinochet. Your edit wasn't done in bad faith, but it proceeded from a fundamentally different view of the intro. That's why I suggested a third sandbox. I wouldn't want to squelch your right to advocate for a shorter intro. Still, those of us trying to refine a summary of the facts can't accomplish anything if we have to keep reverting edits by you that delete all our versions, regardless of whether the Nixon quote is in or out, etc. If there are indeed other people who agree with me and are willing to do some work on the intro (and, I must admit, so far no one has jumped in on my side), then we would come up with our version, one not impeded by you or anyone else constantly deleting everything we write, after which there could be a comparison of that version with other versions of the intro -- your "many believe" version, an intro completely silent on the point (which I gather you'd really prefer), 172's "U.S.-backed" formulation, and anything else that surfaces. I was suggesting bad faith on your part only to the extent that, believing as you do that none of the supporting facts should be included in the introductory summary, you can't really participate in good faith in the process of selecting which facts make the best introductory summary. By the way, I had the same thought you did about including the arrest in the intro. I have a limited tolerance for Wikibickering, though, and I decided I could handle only one Pinochet dispute at a time. These days, I think the two questions that would be most likely to impel a reader to consult an article on Pinochet are: (1) What was the U.S. role in his accession to power? and (2) What's this business about a former Chilean dictator getting arrested in London and threatened with extradition to Spain? That's part of the reason I think it appropriate for the intro to mention both those points. JamesMLane 21:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC) I agree with your statement that the point of the sandbox is to experiment. In this instance, however, my impression, as a latecomer to the dispute, was that the option of confining the intro to the "many believe" statement had already been discussed and rejected by many. I didn't see much point to "experimenting" by using the sandbox to reiterate that view. In other words, the dispute focused on the introduction, not on the broader question of what the entire article should say about the U.S. role. That's why I was hoping that my edit would be the start of an attempt to reach a consensus as to what would be in the introduction. For that purpose, simply moving all the facts down to the article body was unhelpful because it was unlikely to produce a consensus. As to this question of intro-versus-later-in-the-article: In general, I think we have the same view of the intro as a summary, that hits the highlights without attempting to tell the whole story. We just disagree about which points are highlights. As someone commented, the NPOV approach is hard to apply when contending points of view disagree not just about particular questions of fact, but about the relative importance of each of those questions. I suppose some ardent anti-Catholic out there would consider Pinochet's Catholicism (I'm assuming he's Catholic, considering his education) to be the single most important item, obviously meriting inclusion in the intro, because it confirms the hypothesis that "subjects of a foreign prince" are more likely to become dictators themselves. If you and I disagree with him on that hypothesis, he says, "Fine, NPOV means that we don't assert that in the article, but we should report that Pinochet was Catholic." I'd have no problem adding Pinochet's religious affiliation to the article but I wouldn't want it put in the intro. There's really no reliably NPOV way to adjudicate the importance of Pinochet's religion or his relationship with the CIA. Of course, the CIA's denial of any "direct role" is a fact, which the article should report, just as the article on O. J. Simpson reports his self-exculpatory statements. And, yes, I consider the parallel quite apt in terms of credibility. :) JamesMLane 10:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC) I'm not very happy with your change from ...In addition, some constitutional reforms were made to under a reformed constitution. I wanted to make clear that the multicandidate presidential elections were already decided in the constitution for the case that the cadidate lost. With having the election in the same sentence that the reform, it can give the idea that the reform was necessary for the elections to take place, what is not the case. I didn't change it in the page because I expect a new revert war soon anyway, but keep it in mind. Also, isn't it going to cause some process the adition to a protected page? Viajero's unprotection was against the rules, but I don't think two wrongs make one right. --AstroNomer 15:20, May 21, 2004 (UTC) Viet CongCare to remove your request for page protection, since we appear to have stabilized on split pages? --Michael Snow 18:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I requested the re-protection of Pinochet. Unfortunately it got protected in the wrong version. I'd ask a developer to purge the edit war. It is really shameful. --AstroNomer 22:02, May 21, 2004 (UTC) Revert warsDon't revert pages more than three times in a day. Snowspinner 23:28, 21 May 2004 (UTC) Proposed change to the Pinochet pageGeneral Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (born November 25, 1915), military leader of Chile from 1973 to 1990. He was one of the leaders of a U.S.-backed1 military coup that deposed the socialist government of Salvador Allende in 1973. He stepped down from the presidency after losing a plebiscite in 1989, held under the reformed constitution, which restored civilian rule in 1990. He was succeeded by Patricio Aylwin. He retained his post as commander of the army until 1998. Pinochet has a lifelong seat in the Chilean Senate, which brought him immunity from prosecution. Pinochet remains a controversial figure. Some regard him as a great modernizer who staved off communism and rescued a faltering economy (the "Miracle of Chile"), while others regard him as a brutal military dictator responsible for severe human rights violations and social decay. The coup and the United States's subsequent support for Pinochet's government have also engendered controversy, especially given that previous CIA policy was for Allende to be deposed. + - + - Pinochet was arrested in 1998 during a visit to London and charged with international human rights crimes. After a failed attempt to extradite him to Spain, he was returned to Chile in 2002 where the charges were dropped due to medical reasons. 1 The United States government had previously sought to overthrow Allende and actively supported Pinochet after he came to power. The extent of their involvement in the September 11, 1973 coup is not fully known, as many documents are still classified. This combines the best of both you and 172's edits..tell me if you like my proposed change on my talk page. Comrade Nick @)--^---0:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC) --- Hey thanks...god only knows 172 didn't even bother to respond, and i gave him a little more leeway. Maybe I could re-word the footnote (this might also NPOV it slightly): 1 It is thought the United States government had previously sought to overthrow Allende. However the extent of their involvement in the September 11, 1973 coup is not fully known, as many documents are still classified. Comrade Nick @)--^---10:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC) Maybe, I don't like the idea of a footnote myself. Just so long as there is mention that the U.S. had a possible hand in the coup. That way we could NPOV the article. Also, please join the IRC channel because that's where I learned of the 50 reverts (User:snowspinner told me) Thanks Very! Comrade Nick @)--^---11:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC) I reverted your change on NYC Mohawk since (a) usage wasn't sarcasm, (b) you left the grammar broken, the latter being more important. If you feel strongly about removing it, I won't revert a second time, but leave the 'the' - it's necessary to have the sentence read right. —Morven 11:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
FYI, I was biding my time until I had a chance to make a thorough revision of it. It didn't seem like a high priority because it is such an obscure page with few links. Glad to have you aboard. Not that it matters, it's a rotten article with little substance. Apparently, the guys who wrote the POV stuff are serious, although this Mike Church is such a goof that it's hard to tell. - Nat Krause 07:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC) Sorry about the curtness of the comment. I felt it was important that the RfC page be started by someone who wasn't involved in the spat, since just about everyone who was involved in the issue had taken sides. Of course, you can't start RfC pages without an "effort to resolve the dispute," so I had to make a token effort. Sorry that it came off as short. Snowspinner 02:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC) I phrased my comments to 172 in terms of "ignorant users", not because I think you are, but because *he* thinks you're ignorant. One of 172's faults is that he's quick to categorize people on the basis of very little evidence, which wouldn't necessarily be a problem (I have a lot of private opinions about other WP editors, some of them not very nice at all!), but he lacks self-control and all too often cuts loose with the invective. On the plus side, unlike certain users with three-letter ids beginning with W :-), 172 is capable of discussing issues, so there is at least the opportunity of working out mutually acceptable content; I suggest asking more probing questions, looking for underlying rationales for a position. Stan 05:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC) please find other waysEdit wars are not acceptable. Please find other ways to resolve disagreements. Thanks, Kingturtle 07:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Template:Sep11Why did you move this from the Template: namespace to the MediaWiki: namespace? Sidebar type things go in the Template: namespace now. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
WW2 PeopleHello, thanks for contributing to Categories, but "WW2 people" is obsolete. Please, in the future, direct to "World War II people". Thanks, --Oldak Quill 00:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC) New quickpollPlease see Wikipedia:Quickpolls. You have been listed there. →Raul654 21:50, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC) Pinochet
Why is it still so difficult for you to face the reality of US complicity in Chile? -- Viajero 21:51, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Can we have a discussion through e-mail now? Can I reach you through the e-mail address with which you've posted your note on the mailing list? You have me cornered and you won. Now, is there anything that I can do to get you to stop stalking me? If you want to contact me first, send your demands to AbeSokolov@hotmail.com 172 03:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) Japanese American InternmentI see you've been working on this for a while and your edits have been pretty good. But I think you should give a source for the "formal" definition of concentration camp. From what I know, the only people who would have given the term a formal definition is the British Military. And even if there is some British military standard along the lines of "a detention facility for civilians", the actuality of the Boer camps was "a place where people died of starvation and disease." (I'm not lashing out at you. This is just a topic that's been bugging me for a long while). I've I put this page on "watch" so you can reply below. Mackerm 19:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Contrib by Hour chartHow'd you get/make that? Is there an easy way? Looks real cool :) Ilyanep 18:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) Don't blank articles that are currently being discussed on VfD. RickK 06:48, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC) Your dispute with 172When I returned from my wikivacation, I was rather disappointed to discover that you and 172 had gotten into yet another quickpoll. However, I haven't observed any significant problems since then, and 172 reports that you two have privately found a mutually agreeable resolution. Before I do anything else about this, I wanted to confirm this with you. Are you agreed that the present situation is satisfactory, and can we reasonably hope that this dispute will not rear its ugly head again? Please let me know. --Michael Snow 20:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm okay with long replies (as you might guess from the exchange with UninvitedCompany above your posts on my talk page). When you respond to all of my points, it at least shows that you read what I say carefully. By the way, about your feeling marginalized, you might want to read UninvitedCompany's observations about MeatBall:ForgiveAndForget in that conversation. We all prove our ability to work well together by actions, not words, but sometimes words can provide a starting point for better actions. People can also be reminded of their words, particularly when the words have been put in writing. Though as indicated above, I do not expect any particular words or formula of commitment from you, and 172 does well to say he does not expect it either. Making demands is rarely a productive approach to disputes. Your tit-for-tat approach may be understandable in light of your experiences, but it makes it very difficult to de-escalate once a dispute starts. Still, as you show by pulling back from the anarchism dispute, at least you realize that it's not necessary to respond to every last "tat". Naturally, as with starting a dispute, de-escalation requires some willingness to participate from both sides. There have been past lulls in your dispute with 172, but from what I can tell the dispute has mostly escalated steadily, and this is definitely the most prolonged period of de-escalation. For that I commend you both. I'll decline to discuss the merits of Danny's rewrite, or the signatories to it, because I agree with 172 that we're all better off not rehashing everything that has happened. I will say that though the definition of personal attacks may not be clear, I think the best approach lies in the advice Jimbo has given in some past disputes - though the other side may be blatantly violating policy, keep your own slate absolutely clean. Don't stoop to their level, don't even go near the line, and be patient enough to let their actions convict them in the eyes of the community. --Michael Snow 23:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In our correspondence by e-mail, I recall that you expressed your hope that we'd be able to find common ground on some issue. Well, I think that I've found one. User:Sparky wants to add some tabloid garbage accusing Ronald Reagan of rape and desertion. I kept on removing this section; unfortunately, I just now had to agree to refrain from editing that article. But I bet you can successfully protect encyclopedic standards on the article against Sparky's assault. I'd appreciate it if you took a look. Thanks, 172 17:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) NeoconservatismThanks for following up. Usually I just revert that kind of crap, but that article has lately been such a magnet for it that I thought it important to mention it, rather than just hide the evidence. -- Jmabel 06:11, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look at the Reagan article. I'll let you know when/if Sparky reinserts the section accusing Reagan of rape. 172 18:06, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why are you reverting Guanaco's attempt to remove double redirects?Why are you reverting Guanaco's attempt to remove double redirects? Your change on Reddi's user page didn't change the fact is says "USA" only now it double redirects. What's up? - Tεxτurε 20:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
>>>Hi, Got a note saying you'd replied here to a discussion elsewhere on the 'satanism' article. Can't find the reply. Wassup? On the vandalism in progress page you wrote This is not vandalism, whatever else it is. VV 10:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC). As I am still fairly new to this place and certainly the first time involved in anything like an "edit war" (something I am rather unhappy about) I would appreciate your advice how to proceed. Refdoc 10:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) Thanks I have done RfC three days ago, without getting any comments. I have asked for mediation but got only abuse back from him. I am a bit at my wits end Refdoc 11:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) Could you at least protect the two pages (in whatever form) and ad a dispute notic ein which will not get deleted immediately ? Refdoc 11:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) Thanks ! Refdoc 11:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) Same message for GBWR and VV: Would it be possible for both of you to make a concise list of your disagreements on the anti-American page, so that we can try and resolve that conflict? The page has been protected for over a week without any attempt to resolve the dispute.pir 09:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Reply to your comment on My Talk Please stop changing articles aganist voted consensus.Please stop making radical changes to the "Popularity" section of George W. Bush; the community has already determined its content at the talk page. Minor spelling, grammar, and syntax fixes are all right, but do not change the content again without discussing on talk. Neutrality 01:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) I second this. Your changes are not "minor improvements" since you changed essential parts ("tends to be lower" vs "is much lower" etc.) which were voted on, and your version received 2 votes, Neutrality's 11. Please try to convince people on the talk page before making substantial changes to that part of the article. Gzornenplatz 02:07, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
Hi. I bet you'll get a kick out of this if you haven't seen it already. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Shown on Prime Time TV in Cuba 172 10:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) I support V in the above discussionV's word choice is clearly less POV than the version which won the "vote". Rex071404 01:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) Contrib By Hour ChartCould you please update the contrib by hour chart you made for me when you have the time? I believe the chart is at Media:IlyanepContribByHour.png or some similar name. Thanks in advance — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the article link. This actually makes Fidel's co-opting of Michael Moore's propaganda film pretty innocuous by comparison. 172 12:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) A light warningConsider this a light warning, since you're an established user and I know you know these things. But if you're asked to discuss a change on the talk page, you should probably discuss it. There's been a request for protection of George W. Bush, which I'm not going to grant, because I think protecting that page would be a bad idea, and because the request was absurdly premature anyway. But it's clear that there's some heavy conflict on the page, and I think some talk page discussion would not be out of line, unproductive as it may turn out to be. :) I'm already playing traffic cop on John Kerry, and it makes me want to cry, so anything you can do to keep me from playing traffic cop other places would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much. Snowspinner 23:48, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
DiscussionAre you aware of the wiki principle that if there does not seem to be consensus about editing there are talk pages where you can discuss and explain, and there is a possibility to make edit summaries or read those of others? In case you want to reply here please let me know at my page as I do not watch user talk pages. Get-back-world-respect 23:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) GBWRPlease have your argument with GBWR somewhere other than my talk page. In front of a mediator, for instance. Snowspinner 01:20, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
Mediation requestI've tried to convince GBWR to do this as well, and it has proven difficult. So I thought I'd try to convince you to make the request and maybe GBWR will accept it. Will you please make a mediation request with him? Thanks... Snowspinner 13:49, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Re: John KerryI am struggling to gain some breathing space on that page. It seems to me that user Neutrality is overly focused on reverting or otherwise aggressively deleting my edits there. User 172 sugegsted this topic may be of interest to you. Would you please review the recent edit history and talk history for John Kerry and offer whatever suggestions that you can? Rex071404 02:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please helpI have been adding comments to the GWB Talk page, where appropriate, to back you up from the whelming tide of Neutrality, et al. Please, if you feel led to, help me out here: [9] A kind word or two would be appreciated Rex071404 05:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I second Ropers' complaintRe: Neutrality Rfc [10] As it is a fact that Neutrality is moving to higher levels of authority on this Wiki, his name clearly has the potential to add a mistaken level of official imprimature to his edits and/or other actions. I agree that he must change his name. Additionally, I also agree with Ropers' logic and can personally attest to having had editorial difficulties with Neutrality. Rex071404 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC PNACPlease discuss this at talk. And objectively compare with the pages I cited. neoconservative vs. conservative. def. of hegemony def. of interventionist If we cooperate in good faith and approach the problem rationally and objectively, we can come to agreement on what most accurately and plainly describes reality, irrespective of sentiments. Kevin Baas | talk 01:45, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) Let me assure you that I understand and take into account the falliblity of my own mind as much as that of others. Respecting this, I develop and implement strategies to avoid seeping my own bias into material, and likewise to avoid any seeping bias from social manifestations. This is why I prefer academic terminology - because it is more stable; because it is less affected by the sentimental circumstances of the times - it is balanced out by every event throughout history which resides under it's scope, and has a body of knowledge associated with such events,and interpertations, from past and present, of those events. This is how we "learn from history" - because this allows us to stand back from the present emotionally-situated (and thus distorted) context, and see it in a fuller surrounding and causual chain, provided that we can rely upon the general persistence of human psychology and consequent behavior throughout history. Again, in order to overcome the inevitable bias of out present condition, we must stand back from our emotions, and have faith in the legitimacy of recorded history and knowledge. This is why I insist on using academic terminology. I feel that the separating of current events from the continuity of history is a dangerous rejection of the prudence that the passing down of knowledge provides. In sun, academic terminolgy is, because of such accumulated dialogue, more reliable and objective than our imagination. This is again, why I insist that we accept the prudence of generations with good faith, regardless of local sentiment. Kevin Baas | talk 04:43, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) Your vote needed at George_W._BushPlease go here, ASAP and vote. Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Is there any chance you might stop reverting on George W. Bush, or do I have to file a request for arbitration? Gzornenplatz 10:37, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) New Bush vote now under way - please voteHere [11] Rex071404 15:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Watch the rv's at George_W._BushThere is an anti-Bush, pro-Kerry crowd lurking who will complain to ArbCom and get you blocked from editing there. They did it to me on John Kerry. What happens is, they tag-team revert you, then they file an RfA and get you blocked. Rex071404 17:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Vote 2004 linksSee interesting Vote 2004 links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rex071404 Rex071404 05:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Information specific to Neutrality 08.17.2004On this page here Neutrality admits that he was involved in an "edit war" about Fox News. At this page section here Neutrality is told by Fred Bauder that moving (evidence) "statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate". At this page section here on August 13th, 2004 (only four days ago!) he was warned and admonished by Guanaco for "You have reverted John Kerry nine times in 24 hours". Also, at this link here you can find this sentence; "C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it." by Neutrality (from July 15th, 2004). Let the record about these episodes, speak for itself. Rex071404 06:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) Request for arbitration
This user has been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment for some time but has not changed his behaviour of reverting parts of George W. Bush against talk page consensus (where polls have gone 20-3 and 5-0 against him), causing the page to be protected regularly. I suggest putting him on a strict three-revert limit, if not excluding him from editing the Bush page entirely. Gzornenplatz 14:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC) I also request that user VeryVerily be examined by the arbitration committee. I am particularly concerned with the user's conduct on the George W. Bush page. Kevin Baas | talk 19:51, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC) I am concerned with the user's:
Kevin Baas | talk 01:42, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I don't think VV's conduct can be reasonably looked at without looking at the larger issue of his treatment by the community at large, and, specifically, by people who are supposed to be in the position of settling disputes. I refer here to [12], which I think probably had the effect of making both requests for comment and mediation ineffective options for VeryVerily. I'm not asking for sanction against Danny (Or against Mirv or Hephestos, both of whom later signed this summary), but I think that this action and the consequences it probably had for dispute resolution with VV need to be taken into account. Snowspinner 16:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) Evidence
The forgoing is from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I am sorry that I just noticed that you were not notified of this on your talk page. You may make a short response on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and may also request relief regarding those how have made complaints against you, and others such as User:Neutrality who are involved in the matter. Fred Bauder 19:05, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) Please Stop!Read this (and see GWB talk) before you revert any more: Uh Consensus means we are supposed to try to understand and agreeIt seems that each "vote" or discussion falls into camps divided along the pro-Bush and anti-Bush lines. Is this honest dialog? Is there a real attempt to reach consensus? I feel that Kevin Baas in particular is convinced that Bush (and associates) pro-actively schemed in 2000 to wrongly block African-American voters so as to steal the election. I feel this because KB seems to have an extreme desire to push the "disenfranchised" angle. I also feel that this view of his adds a POV which makes gaining consensus impossible. Question for group: Why are we not allowing both premises to be in the sentences? Why must ONLY the "there was 'disenfranchisment' therefore Bush cheated" angle be emphasized? To me, reaching consensus means respecting each others views and attempting to combine them. I have explained my views to Kevin about this, his response was: "Alright rex, it doesn't look like this conversation is going anywhere. I have said nothing that can be construed to be the least bit controversial, and I stand by it unperturbed. I have done my best to communicate with you. There is nothing more that can be said. The facts are as they are. So be it. Kevin Baas | talk 06:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)" [16]. That does not sound to me like he is actually trying to appreciate and incoporate into the article all view points. The purpose of a poll (not a "vote" - like someone changed the title to) is to find out where we stand, not shout-down dissent. We are supposed to homogonize our views into an acceptable text, not "vote" on who to weed out. I have posted detailed thoughts as to why I feel the term "disenfranchised" ought not to be included (or at the least, not made to be too greatly emphasized). This logic carries over to my concerns about "Validity". Also, I have asked other questions and raised other points above. Collaborative editing requires much dialog. I am talking here, what about the rest of you? Also please take note of this Edit Smmary [17] by Kevin Bass "Business and political career - put para on consensus, pending resolution of changes via vote on talk page.)". It's clear from this that Kevin's aim is to silence dissenters via a "voting" process rather than try to reach a meeting of the minds. That is not collaboration and any so-called "consensus" reached that way is fraudulent. Rex071404 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000). It is I feel more accurate than the Kevin Bass version, but still incoporates his preferred verbiage, including "The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed". I would be satisified to accept this. And frankly, this is a big concession from me because it would be more truthful to say: The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. At the request of the Gore campaign, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000). Rex071404 17:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
UnprotectionFOX News has been unprotected based on your request. --Michael Snow 16:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Rex arbitrationThanks for having taken the time to comment on User:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement. Having cooled off some, I've now gotten around to rewriting it. I think the new version takes account of your comment by noting that both sides in the edit war had raised allegations of bad faith. I hope you'll find it unobjectionable -- you've been given less prominence in this rewrite, a "demotion" that you'll probably like! I haven't yet shipped this off to the ArbCom, so please let me know if you have any problems with it. JamesMLane 14:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) Hello, VV.Why are you reverting my changes to Anti-American sentiment? Neutrality 03:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Bush?What's up with all the mass reverts? I'm haven't really been keeping up with much on that page, so there may be underlying issues I don't get. But at least a lot of the edits by kevin baas seemed productive and reasonably explained to me. I rv'd once, but should have asked for info first -- which I'm doing now. At the very least, I don't understand why you want to deny that Bush got into Harvard shadily, when that article doesn't allege it. It's kind of like saying that no one has publicly accused Bush of beating his dog. Well see, now I'm wondering if he does.Wolfman 22:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) Well, it does seem a bit daft to have an article, say "edit it" and then have some person such as yourself simply undo what Ive done. If this rather bullyish tendency is the way of things here, I dont think this will be a place I or anyone else should be spending much time on at all. JDH Well, its not a good opening as it is -- it rather looks like a potted plant, teetering on the lower step of a tenenment foyer. I dont see all to many people taking to the streets to defend "democide" from being called "genocide." It seems a rather strange proposition that someone would protest the definition of genocide on any comparable scale that people might protest the act itself. JDH Edits to Bush
Alright, one at a time, For each reason, do you dispute (a) the accuracy of the reason, and if so, on what grounds, or, if not, (b) that the reason is sufficient cause for the change, and if so, on what grounds.
Kevin Baas | talk 16:16, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
Your reversion of George W. BushDear VV -- I've noticed that after I unprotected the article, the first edit was your reversion of Kevin Baas's edits to your last version -- i.e., it appears as though you're restarting the revert war immediately. I think it would be very helpful if you could work on some compromise between the two version. E.g., where you removed the detail on the Florida controversy and the Supreme Court and replaced it with a phrase about Gore's concession. I think that this could be a good place for you to work on a compromise between the two versions. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please respond to the section above on bush.Please respond to the section above on bush. Kevin Baas | talk 22:02, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC) Questions about your request for comment
Thanks for your reply. I've looked at his user page and agree that his reply to Grunt wasn't very helpful. But I do believe admins should be given the same deal as everyone else. I routinely tell vandals "do that again and I'll block you" I think admins should be told "do that again and I'll start a rfc". Anway I wont comment on the rfc until tomorrow to give him a chance to explain himself. As for you. Clearly you are very upset. I would be too if someone had blocked me. But think on this - you've allready won because you were unblocked almost straight away. The block was a minor inconvenience - nothing more. I understand you were in an edit war before you were blocked? Perhaps a cooling off period isn't such a bad idea. It should have been enforced through protection rather than banning, but the point it - revert wars are usually bad. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Well, I guess it's not so awful to be "dragged in" when things seem to work out pretty quickly afterwards. Just for your information, as perhaps you have already figured out, what happened with the unblocking is that Ævar unblocked the IP autoblock that resulted from your attempts to edit. Apparently he thought what he was doing would also unblock you. I noted this on the RfC listing for reference. Interestingly enough, it looks like his (failed) unblock was actually before you started casting around for some admin to unblock you (unless there are other contributions than that one IP). As to why nobody else stepped up, well of course you know your own reputation, and then some of the people you asked have gotten into enough controversy over blocking/unblocking that maybe they didn't want to take this one on. But after a quick look it turned out to be pretty clearcut, as you said. Also, since apparently you think this issue is now resolved, I wanted to ask you - do you want that RfC page kept, or deleted? Personally, I would say this is a great situation for a complete forgive and forget and delete the page, because I believe Ævar just made a mistake and clearly won't repeat it. But I'll defer to your wishes if you prefer otherwise. Incidentally, I don't use IRC either, or I probably would have seen any discussion there. Still, because the chain of events on the wiki alone seemed to be missing some pieces (like why is Ævar suddenly blocking someone he's barely ever interacted with over a revert war on an article he has no attachment to) I figured it had to be involved somehow and thought Ævar might have talked to you there. That's likely where Node made the request to have you blocked. Now that I look at it, playing mediator/referee/whatever on Talk:Henry Kissinger doesn't sound nearly as "unappealing" as some disputes I've seen. Shockingly, there was even some passably civil discussion happening on the talk page around the time of the revert war - just not during it, but already an encouraging sign. And it seems pretty easy for me to imagine what I think could be a good resolution. --Michael Snow 05:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hello.Hello VV. I am very astonished by your conduct. I do not know what to say. I really don't know how to make you respect other people. I really don't know how to make you understand the virtue of the policies here. I am at a loss here. Though I try and I try, I can't seem to figure out how to interact with a person of your conduct. Kevin Baas | talk 00:47, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
You are the one reverting consensus. I have told you a ridiculous number of times that I will always protect the consensus. I have given you my reasons. If you have somehow formed the idea in your head that your endless revert war against the community will be at all effective, then I think you should seriously reconsider the logic of this proposition. If you think your behavior is acceptable, or that conduct counter to the policies of this forum will be tolerated, you should likewise reconsider. Kevin Baas | talk 01:00, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC) You might also notice that I am not the only person who is restoring consensus, nor am I the only person constituting this consensus. Kevin Baas | talk 01:02, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
VV, regarding "versions of consensus". Yes, we clearly have a different understanding of what consensus means. You think that consensus means your opinion, regardless of what anybody else thinks. I think that consensus means each person's opinion is given equal weight. It is clear that these two definitions are incompatible. But perhaps Game theory might provide some insight. Kevin Baas | talk 17:27, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
anti-American sentimentHi there, Though of a diametrically opposed view to yourself, I have no particular exasperation at the lack of progress working out US-orientated articles (it's not the be-all and end-all of the Universe, and Wikipedia will not be swaying the US presidential election!!!). However, that said, I did feel compelled to make some suggestions, and add some discussion to Talk:Anti-American sentiment. I would be most interested to hear your responses, considering your stance. Regards, zoney ███ talk 15:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) P.S. It's always worth standing up for your views (Wikipedia actually needs this from Wikipedians or NPOV could never be established), but don't let it get you down when everything seems to be against you. You can always come back tomorrow, after a break and a good sleep, and try again! Arb, noticeFWIW, I noticed it, and I initially felt inclined to notify you, but I felt that it was the requestor's responsibility, so I recused myself. Everyone seems to have waited it out. Kevin Baas | talk 20:16, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC) Please vote on GWB ASAPhere Rex071404 00:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) MediationGzornenplatz has requested mediation with you over reversions of George W. Bush. It would be appreciated if you could reply as to whether or not you accept, over at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Ambi 05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) RfC on Axis of evil / Asses of evil filedSee 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. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 05:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An apology.I'm sorry Gzornenplatz is using requests for mediation as a forum to personally attack you. His behavior is unacceptable, and I certainly did not intend for this to happen. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3 revert ruleHey there, you're being very naughty breaking the revert rule at Henry Kissinger. Go stand in a corner. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:40, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC) Well, I'm not thrilled to get dragged into this, but the 3-revert limit isn't one of the listed justifications for blocking people, and I support the idea that we should rely on explicit policy to justify blocks. Is the message above all the warning he gave you, or was there more on IRC or something? Seems sort of cryptic as the prelude to blocking. You know our guidelines, of course, but if you were a new user I would like to see something more explicit ("vandalize Wikipedia again and you'll be blocked!"). Of course, if we were enforcing the 3-revert limit with blocks I would have been happy to block you myself. Instead, we use page protection, and I protected the page once I could figure out what the fuss was about (no complaints about The Wrong Version, please). Anyway, welcome back (in a manner of speaking, since judging by the page history you hardly left, though I suppose the block may have slowed you down just a little). --Michael Snow 23:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Crank editorGzornenplatz has been stalking me ever since the most recent deletion attempt on the Empire of Atlantium article, which appears to have caused him/her to initiate some sort of crusade - he/she appears to believe that everything I post relating to micronations is somehow "self promotional" unless it conforms to his POV (ie, "micronations are irrelevant rubbish"), and unless every second word is in inverted commas. I believe he/she has used highly questionable means on several occasions while waging his/her campaign (the sort that warrant banning) - I have taken this up with one of the developers and am awaiting a response. Several days age he/she began interpolating false data into the Micronation article opening paragraph which resulted in protection being necessitated. These interpolations were done without reference to sources quoted by me on the talk page that show the interpolations to be false. In the past day or so he/she has been attempting to delete a valid external link from Republic of Minerva, Sedang and Hutt River Province. I have restored them, and posted reasons why to talk pages - to which he he/she has responded with another rant concerning my "self promotion". --Gene_poole 22:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) It is certainly interesting to know that others have been stalked by Gzornenplatz. I've heard the same story from one other editor in the past few days too, so this is obviously a pattern of behaviour. Would you be prepared to jointly take him to arbitration with me on that basis? I've been compiling a huge volume of data against him recently, and I'm particularly keen to expose his use of techniques that will get him/her an instant ban. These actions, if they are verified, go well beyond anything that call for simple mediation. I'm happy to discuss this in more detail offline: [19] --Gene_poole 01:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) Edit attributionHi VV. Edits from 24.7.126.117 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 02:04, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC) Contrib By HourHi -- if you have the time, can you please update my contib by hour chart? Thanks a lot. (BTW, I've been doing a lot of edits around midnight, aroung 5 or 6 AM UTC, so it's should rise there). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
MediationDespite all this, are you still willing to press ahead with mediation? If so, do you have any preferences for a mediator? Kevin Baas has suggested Cimon Avaro, Dante Alighieri, llywch, or moink. Ambi 07:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Statutes of limitationStrictly speaking, there isn't any for RfC, and I would rather not pile up procedures to the point that rules override common sense, as they sometimes threaten to do. In theory at least, the RfC stage should still be more about finding ways to fix the problem, instead of being a weapon to be used against "people who don't cooperate with what I want to do". Regardless, I think archiving it last time was correct, and since Kevin Baas has only dragged it back out and not added anything new, it's even more stale now. At this point, it looks like you two are still debating with each other, but the RfC listing is old news and if he wants to push the issue publicly again, he should start over from the beginning. So good luck with mediation or whatever course the matter takes. I would say that calling it to the attention of someone else is better than archiving it yourself, so thanks for mentioning it. Making judgment calls when you have a personal involvement always smells bad to people, even if the judgment is correct. If I recall, that was one of the things that helped exacerbate the problems between you and 172 once upon a time. The reputation I described earlier is extrapolated, I suppose you could say. It's not meant in the sense that people are constantly discussing you behind your back (not an easy thing here anyway). Rather, I'm restating basic information that people would probably recognize assuming they have some familiarity with you. How widely that "reputation" is distributed is a different question, but since there are many people who regularly read about and study up on active Wikipedia controversies, without necessarily getting personally involved, it has undoubtedly reached people you've not interacted with directly. Requests for adminship is a good place to get a sense of how reputations manifest themselves here, both in type and strength; different candidates show up differently not just in whether they're controversial, but their activity patterns produce different levels of intensity. Anyway, by commenting on your reputation I mean no offense and I'm not trying to be judgmental, rather I'm trying to describe my observations for you. --Michael Snow 05:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am willing to mediate the dispute over George W. Bush -- Please Reply at RfMI am willing to mediate the dispute over George W. Bush listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#VeryVerily_and_Gzornenplatz.2C_Kevin_Baas if I am an acceptable choice. Please indicate if I am an acceptable choice. If not, please indicate specifically who would be, and we can begin. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Adminship nominationHi, are you aware that somebody has just put you up as a candidate on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? I don't know how you feel about this, but I think you probably already know that you wouldn't receive consensus support, and the nomination is not really a good idea. If I knew that you were opposed, I would cancel or remove the nomination myself, but for now that would be premature. Anyway, I really wish people would follow instructions and actually ask permission before nominating people. --Michael Snow 22:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ThanksThanksThanks for your support in my adminship nomination. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) KissingerActing in response to a request from User:Stargoat, I've unprotected Henry Kissinger (after mistakenly editing it myself before seeing the protection, though all I did was add links). Just thought I'd notify those who were active on Talk:Henry Kissinger. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:51, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC) Rex's latest
You might as well not bother. Soon after I left you the above message, Rex indulged himself in this edit, his most vile yet. As a result, the matter is now in RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rex0714042. By the way, I hope this was clear in my intial post, but I didn't raise the matter here because I thought you had anything to do with Rex's misconduct or because I thought you've ever done anything like that. Quite the contrary -- I think that, although your political views seem closer to Rex's than to mine, you have the basic civility that he lacks. I feel sorry for you because sometimes, finding yourself on the same side as Rex, you'll be adversely impacted by the way he makes everyone on that side look unreasonable. It's guilt by association, and completely unfair to responsible conservatives, but as a practical matter, I expect Rex will often have that effect. JamesMLane 21:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) ThanksHey VV, thanks for talking with Rex. I really liked the advice you gave him. If he took it, I would quickly rescind my endorsement. However, I am not satisfied with his so-called "apology", which reads really more like an accusation and a duplicitous deferal of guilt than anything else. But again, I appreciate your genuine effort. It would save all of us a lot of trouble if it could be made effective. Thank you. Kevin Baas | talk 03:34, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC) Oh, and I was refering to his "apology" on the RfA page. Kevin Baas | talk 03:52, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
George Bush POVPlease stop making POV edits to George W. Bush. It is rather obvious that you support him, but Wikipedia has to maintain NPOV. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 20:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You are above WP:3RR by my count.--Eloquence*
GrikoCan you please explain what's the point of moving "Griko" to "Griko language"? Is this part of some regulation? Thanks.
No-booVV: I recently added an article entitled 'No-boo' to the Wikipedia to document the AP's fabrication of the 'boos' during a Bush rally. Your good friend Gamaliel is leading a charge to wipe it out of existance, but I think it is Wikipedic in that it documents a real event, the word 'No-boo' or 'No-boo affair' has become a part of our current language, and that this entry is an important supporting document in the disussion of liberal bias in the media. I would like to solicit your 'keep' vote. Thanks for your consideration: Fish-man 18:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) AdminshipHi VV! Just wanted to let you know that if you stay out of edit wars and other trouble, I'll nominate you for the adminship again in a few months. You have very good potential to be an admin. Keep up the good work, and try not to get into trouble or break wiki rules. Marcus2 18:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) Bush popularityI don't see many substantive differences between the 2 versions getting reverted back & forth, except in the first sentence. In that sentence, I agree with you that Kerry should go, but agree with the other version that 'significantly' is appropriate. By Kevin's comments on my talk page, I wonder if the dispute is becoming more about process than substance. Perhaps if you tried incrementally editing the popularity section (in unobjectionable steps) you might have fewer problems with kevin. Just a thought. Wolfman 16:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting Anarchism. I did not think it was POV either, and was planning on making a big fuss about it. Revert war.. arbitration committee.. all very tiring. --- EDGE When undoing 66.20.28.21's POV edits, you could just do them at all once rather than making a string of nine tiny changes in the span of eight minutes. I know it's fun to try to maximize your "score", but it bloats the history page and is thus not good for everyone else. Thanks. By the way, he's at it again. --dreish~talk 03:07, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
If at all possibleCan you please send me the perl/python script that makes the contrib by hour chart? Or does it require Linux/Gnuplot? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Request for ArbitrationI have requested arbitration re PNAC. CK 13:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) George W. BushBy my count, you reverted Gzornenplatz three times (although that "restore NPOV" could have been a fourth one). I have protected the page, and I ask you to try to come to a consensus/compromise with Gzornenplatz. Of course, it's not very easy to come to a consensus based on five words, but it's better than an edit war... ugen64 00:54, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC) PNACSure I'll help. Send me an email so we can discuss this in a more private manner. Toodles. TDC 06:33, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC) weak. All nations conscript as justification for conscription?Really is that the best you can do. It is self serving of nations to want to preserve a priviledged protected status for civilians while considering them fair game to use as military assets. I too thought the atomic bombings were war crimes until I learned that women and children were conscripted to work in the factories. The military thought of them as military assets, how does this not legitimize them as military targets?--Silverback 08:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"It is the fact that they are fighting and shooting at their enemy that makes them soldiers", hmmm, it must be something more mundane than that, since even soldiers in supply lines or at desks are considered legitimate targets. Perhaps it is the uniform? I wonder if the women and children conscripted in those factories wore uniforms? If so, then perhaps it is the specifics of the insignia? Perhaps you are too accepting of things they way they are instead of demanding that they make sense.--Silverback 09:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) Accept vote?I'm curious whether your "accept" vote for CK's frivolous request is intended to be some kind of "punishment" against me for not wanting to waste any mediator's time with this little squabble which is only four days old and still being actively discussed in Talk. VV 06:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) No, its not. I would refer it to mediation if you were willing to participate. Which is what I recommend. In addition to discussion and negotiation. Fred Bauder 12:10, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
I do have sympathy with that view. Is it your position that when the issue does become "ripe" that you would accept mediation? Fred Bauder 22:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC) responseI did not say his remarks were warranted, nor did I say they were correct; rather, I merely stated that he had good *reason* to make those... statements. Agreement with previous reasons does not necessarily indicate agreement with the statement following those reasons. ugen64 02:58, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
just a few people's theoriesYou state (briefly enough to be quoted) "It's not a matter of whether I "accept things the way they are". It's a matter of whether the article should reflect what the actual arguments being made are or just a few people's theories" Theories should be judged by whether they are consistent with the facts and are defensible, dismissing theories just because they are only being advanced at this time by a "few people", is an invalid argument. Theories must start someplace. I have found that extreme theories can help crystalize my own thinking if I have difficulty defeating them on the merits. I end up having to recognize and then reject or explicitly reaffirm my assumptions. I write for the person who comes to this forum having been complacent in their thinking hoping to challenge them into the realization that they haven't really thought about what they beleive and why, and that unless can openly meet the arguments and challenges of extremism, they may be doomed to fall prey to them. Perhaps seeing someone defending Timothy McVeigh using a net-lives-saved and collateral damage arguments will crystalize their thinking about the special status we unthinkingly grant to government. Yes, there is the danger they will become inspired by Timothy McVeigh, but there is also the possibility that they next time they step into the voting booth they will reject net-lives-saved and collateral damage arguments used to justify the FDA, or alternatively they may see the dangers of having government agencies and courts that don't respect the law. I could just sit and hope that complacency and illusions will protect us, but I have more faith and trust in people than that. Challenge them and the truth will win out, if the debate is truly open.--Silverback 05:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) Keep an eye on thisGeneral Intelligence Directorate I think there might be the mother of all shit fights over this one. TDC 06:53, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC) If you do not immediately stop destroying my articles I will also begin to go through your contributions and delete everything you wrote. Turrican You have seen that I mean what I say. If you do not stop destroying my articles I will continue to revert your edits and neither of us will be able to contribute anything to Wikipedia. Personally I think its worth it since your propaganda damages Wikipedia far more then my contributions are able to balance out. I am willing to stop this senseless edit war as soon as your leave my history articles alone. Otherwise it will just end before an arbitration comitee. Turrican WP:WPOINTMy reference to "unacceptable behavior" refers to the numerous revert wars between yourself and Turrican. This sort of thing needs to be settled on the talk pages. Mackensen 00:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To answer your question on the GNAA VFDOn the GNAA VFD page you asked: "And were those two user pages recovered?" Demonslave's was recovered. Wolfman, however, just created a new one. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 04:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) Revert on RfAHi, I reverted your edit which seemed to leave RfA on a rather old version. I don't know exactly what you were trying to do (maybe link to Neutrality's previous nomination?), but apparently it didn't work. --Michael Snow 23:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Vandal vs. userpageYour userpage was hit. His damage was reverted. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:57, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC) After checking into it, I dont think its all the same person.TDC 04:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC) AdminshipThe nominee is almost certainly not going to get adminship, he knows that, I know that, everyone knows that. It is not usual practice to nominate someone you don't actually know. So I was curious as to why do it. Sometimes people are nominated in order to damage them. (There have been threats from red faction members to nominater others in the past in order to ruin their reputations). I thought that it was possibly the case here. Or perhaps the nominator was simply trying to troll VFA by nominating people who stood no chance. Anyway it's been pointed out to me who the nominator most likely really is. If this turns out to be true, then i have nothing to worry about, he is simply a harmless person who has a rather unhealthy interest in RFA. (I've deliberately put this on your talk page and left out names becasue i don't want to casue offence to anyone or to accuse them of doing something they didn't actually do. RFA has become somewhat of an unplesent place lately with a number of people voting to oppose people on dodgy grounds or using an oppose vote as an excuse to attack people.)I'd have emailed you but you have no email in the field:-( Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Protection issuesAssuming for the moment that the IPs are Turrican (I investigated only page histories, tracking all the contributor histories would have seriously delayed my response to the request), the edits are still not all obviously vandalism. U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was, yes, but in that case I protected the non-vandalism version, which was the current revision anyway. Hugo Chávez might be vandalism (image removal), but without knowing whether there's some basis for disputing the appropriateness of the image, I can't be certain. I dislike the idea that you're never allowed to remove content, even though it might be excessive detail, biased, or both (I would think, given some of your experiences, you understand the problem with that attitude). Again, the version with the image was the current one anyway, so it got protected. The others were either content disputes (Chilean coup of 1973 and East Germany) or stylistic questions involving capitalization (Consensus democracy and Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies) that are not directly addressed by the Manual of Style. Those don't qualify as vandalism from my perspective, and I cannot both protect the pages and arbitrate those differences. The ones for which Turrican had the most recent edit, which I therefore protected, were Chilean coup of 1973 and the two capitalization disputes. After Jmabel prompted further investigation, I determined that I could revert the Chilean coup article back to the previous revision under the protection policy. For the other two, I don't have a justification for choosing sides, and for that matter I fail to see why possibly incorrect capitalization is worth making a fuss about "wrong versions". I'm aware of the request for arbitration, and of Turrican's stated intent towards you. I haven't seen anything directed at TDC, however, and again I didn't think it was necessary to investigate how closely the IPs tracked either of your recent contributions. Since these were anonymous rather than logged-in edits, and other people also got involved and were still reverted, the connection to these particular revert wars wasn't secure enough in my mind to warrant deviating from standard protection practices. Whether protection is the right response at all is as you say another question, but I did exercise some judgment there and only protected the pages in TDC's request if the pattern of reverts was clear and sustained. By the way, I believe that when you refer in your request for arbitration to "a campaign of reverting my edits without prejudice", you actually mean with prejudice. --Michael Snow 23:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Conflicting Wikipedia philosophiesNice amusing page at User:VeryVerily/Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. Since you asked, may I suggest the term "collaborationism" for "anti-authorism"? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 19:42, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC) Thanks for sorting out who's who mate. PMA 08:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam SpadeSee a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 09:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias:
Your reversionsAlthough you have been banned before for breaking the reversion rules, so you obviously know already, I state that there is a Wikipedia:Three revert rule which you have been breaking on pages such as Great Purge and Khmer Rouge. I also take issue with your going through peoples edit histories and reverting everything without a message to their talk page, the article discussion page or even anything in the reversion comment other than "rv". It goes against Wikietiquette. Ruy Lopez 03:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your tools for preventing edit wars......might be useful if it wasn't for people like yourself. GuloGuloGulo 08:13, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I'm shifting this over to the left again to avoid squishing. I believe there is a "serious movement" that claims that many deaths during the Khmer Rouge's rule were caused by U.S. bombing of Cambodia (so-called "secret bombings".) A simple Google search of "'Secret Bombings' Cambodia" proves this. The online Encarta encyclopedia makes a passing mention of it [28]. This article [29] states that "The bombings were reported for the first time on May 9, 1969, in the New York Times." The Yale Cambodian Genocide Project that you yourself pointed out states "Cambodia was also slowly dragged into darkness when the Nixon administration conducted secret bombings of Cambodia during the early 1970s" [30]. There is an extensive UC Berkley Thesis with good information that states "In the late 1960s to the early 1970s, while the United States was still in Vietnam, American B-52s began massive "secret" bombings to eliminate North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia. In The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea, Craig Etcheson writes,
At the very least, I think this proves that the other editors were not doing original research and that this is a "serious movement." GuloGuloGulo 05:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
3 revert rule broken at United StatesYou keep reverting United States to use unnecessarily POV-loaded phrases such as "limits free markets with social welfare", "regulates virtually every industry", "has some of the most liberal laws", "tough laws", etc. Is it really so hard to represent the various PsOV in the article without writing from a blatant POV yourself? I really don't think it is. Please try. I am new to this dispute, but the dispute is not new. It seems that you've got a lot of other people angry about this also, so I probably won't spend as much time on this article as I would otherwise, but I just wanted to try "appealing to reason" with you here before I go revert it again. I'm sure that having edited as much as you have you're aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, and I hope that your fourth, fifth, and sixth reverts today (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) were just an accident, and that you won't revert my next one (#2 for me) again for at least 24 hours. Because that would be grounds for you getting banned. But even then: please don't revert this again. To paraphrase Jon Stewart on Crossfire, Please, stop. You're hurting America. ~leif ☺ HELO 11:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you Leif. VeryVerily is very much mistaken in his view that the policy against numerous reversions in not enforced or that he is not subject to NPOV editing requirements. We have here an editor who could, if he moderated his behavior a bit, be a productive editor. As it stands now, he will soon be banned leaving the field to Shorne and Ruy Lopez. Fred Bauder 13:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
An appeal to reasonPlease raise your dispute with my version of the Karl Marx article on the article's talk page rather than reverting like a vandal. I have accomodated all your initial complaints; you, on the other hand, make no effort to work towards consensus, preferring to simply revert instead. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"attacks"
Well, that's No use trying to reason with VV: for more information see here. You are an asshole.Yes, you. You are an asshole. Bds yahoo 00:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Requests for administrative enforcement
I have moved this to talk; only arbitrators may edit that page. Interpretation and enforcement in this matter may be done by any sysop. Arbitrators generally don't try to enforce arbitration orders personally. Fred Bauder 11:41, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) No thanksVV, if I believe an article needs to be editted, or is unjustly reverted, I'll do so. I do not need any prompting. Please do not believe that I will act as a proxy. Thanks. Stargoat 13:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) ReversionsStop reverting to such a degree. Firstly, the lead section as it stood was not good (see Wikipedia:lead section. Secondly, it is totally inappropriate for you to revert like that. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Argh! Why did you revert again? I'm going to revert back again and ask for the page to be locked. It's either that or I file an RFC or take this to the arbcom. I could understand you changing the lead section, but a reversion after so many edits? c'mon now! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, but I have been watching how you've edited that page! Check the page's talk. I suggest you take a good hard look at your reversions. Want me to file an arbcom dispute? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) Ruy LopezI know you haven't disobeyed the temporary injunction, so I didn't do anything. I also know that you are editing articles to try make them better and to increase their quality! However, I did comment that you were flying close to the wind with your reversions. I would appreciate more talk and less reversion. I would definitely like to come to some sort consensus on the article I'm working on. I agree that it's not balanced. I think that we could put more information about the great freedom that American's have with freedom of speech and a free press (even if some say its "concentrated"), along with the amazing strides towards dealing with racism and injustice. I think all this stuff could be added better and would be most happy to assist with adding it in the article! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) Threatening?Please. I'm not threatening anything. You are still up to your same tricks on that article. You keep reverting and refuse to let me make changes. I think I've been very patient with you so far. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) ShorneI'm afraid Shorne is not going to stop. Shall we open a discussion about user conduct in Wikipedia:Request for comment ? What do you think? Boraczek 13:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily, I hope you can participate productively in this RfC and the associated Mediation. I think it will do us all some good. I have in the past sometimes edited without providing adequate references, perhaps you have too, but Shorne has essentially no other way, and accords no respect to references provided by others. Fred Bauder 13:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
If Shorne is Hancuk who was in between. Shorne's first edit was September 25; Hanpuk's last edit was May 7. Fred Bauder 15:29, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC). User:GayCommunist seems unlikely, see his user contributions: [34].
Requests for comment ShorneA few of us are talking about doing a RfC regarding Shorne. Before we can do that we must pass this threshold: "Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted." If you feel that any issues exist with respect to his edits, please enter into a dialogue on User talk:Shorne and see how much progress we can make through negotiation. Fred Bauder 18:49, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the ongoing dispute with Shorne generally, but with regard to the one article I've seen, Human rights in the United States, is there anything actually wrong with the paragraph:
This is all true, is it not? Evercat 12:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) Dead end roadI have recused myself from the arbitration cases which affect you due to your jumping in to help with the disputes I have been involved with user Shorne. It is nice to have more than 3 reverts, but to be more than a POV warrior you have to be willing to do research and cite sources which support the information you feel needs to be included in an article. I fear you are focusing too much on reverting as some kind of an all purpose weapon, when, in fact, it is frowned on by Wikipedia policy, and ultimately grounds for a ban. I wish you would slow down and reconsider your attitude and focus more on basic research and citing of credible references than on reverting edits on the basis of point of view. Fred Bauder 14:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) Update on mediation request with User:VeryVerilyThe section /*Request mediation with User:VeryVerily*/ at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there. Thanks, BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 22:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) Serving noticeI have filed a request for arbitration against user VeryVerily at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Do conduct yourself accordingly. Shorne 10:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) cc: Ruy Lopez
fair enoughsorry bout the deletions... I was making the sections into pages of their own, keeping the text the same. Just thought it would be easier to navigate if "history of anarchism" wasn't the same page as "anarchy" and "schools of thought" as it says at the top, "This article is 75 kb long, (and it really does seem kinda long to me) actually the more I think about it.Actually the more I think about it, that page really should be condensed. It is incredibly hard to navigate, and while I really don't have any problem with the deinitions held within, I think it really should get organized a bit. okay... I'll stop there, I'll just make "anarchy" (which really isn't the same thing as anarchism, and deserves to be an outside link in my opinion) and "history of anarchism" separate links. if you don't like it you won't hurt my feelings. I have no problem with the content, it is just very difficult to navigate as it has expanded to quite a tall page. Sliding that scrollbar a half inch, in my opinion should not whizz by 5 screensfull of text. Rest assured, I am not deleting, just organizing. Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies : Neutrality
Ah, indeed, I should have said so myself. But since the matter is aired, what do you think of what I wrote? ---- Charles Stewart 07:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
PNAC, blah blah blahI know the survey is pretty pointless, but I don't think you're helping yourself much by adding in the "beating your wife" bit. What's your gripe about the prior version with this? From my perspective, it read like something Rex would have come up with in his day - a paragraph based on something sensible, but then twisted around to imply silly things. That PNAC have tried to take advantage of 9/11 is a common accusation, and should be represented in the article. But that current section is either deliberately implying sinister things, or very badly worded. In any case, I've been talking with Bryan on IRC, and I'm curious as to what your exact concerns are. Ambi 09:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) Continuing the discussion?I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on my last comment in the discussion that started under the header "Your tools for preventing edit wars..." Do you plan on responding? GuloGuloGulo 05:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Edit War with ShorneLast night I just so happen take a look at the United States article and noted it was protected! I seen this edit summary made by Shorne: (cur) (last) 19:44, 12 Oct 2004 Shorne (Not to worry. VeryVerily is just being an asshole, as always. See the talk page.) From my perceptive that is a personal attack, may I suggest doing a Request for Comment?--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 05:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9/11 attacksThan if terrorism mentioned in article than that's ok, perhaps I'll reword it a little to reflect npov--198 00:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) Yes your correct you convinced me. Also I find it most interesting that the article about the plane not hitting the pentagon was on the french wiki ;)--198 01:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) Notice of arbitrationI am requesting arbitration regarding your refusal to follow the three revert rule. --Michael Snow 05:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
