Last archived July 28, 2004.
- 1 ?
- 2 Mediation Committee membership
- 3 203.220.17.*
- 4 John Kerry dispute
- 5 Railway Stations
- 6 Kerry not an Ax-Murderer
- 7 Your mediation related comment on my talk page
- 8 Saving you the trouble...
- 9 To my opponent
- 10 Hope you're OK
- 11 Arbcom questions
- 12 Transnistria
- 13 Top sekrit sysop kabal
- 14 Powir strugle in the top sekrit sysop kabal
- 15 stress?
- 16 Exile
- 17 Mediation bulletin board
- 18 Voted for you
- 19 Hi, Ambi
- 20 Troll policy
- 21 Thanks for the welcome.
- 22 User:EastNile
- 23 Hi all
- 24 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala
- 25 Moved from user page
- 26 sovereign states
- 27 clown
- 28 Krustofsky correspondence
- 29 Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"
- 30 U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement
- 31 What should I do about Neutrality?
- 32 Thank you
- 33 Rowing
- 34 Rios Montt edit war has resumed.
- 35 Ambi! Don't let virtue go unrewarded and vice flourish!
- 36 gory pictures
- 37 re VfD vote on insanity templates
- 38 Late Thanks
- 39 Thank you
- 40 adminship
But you left your ad hominem attack aginst me right on the top of the new page... Rex071404 07:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Again you misstate the facts. I did not 'call" you a bigot, rather I asked you point blank if you are one and you still have not answered. So perhaps I should ask again. Are you?
Further, you did not ask for any apology and you certainly have the ability to speak up if offended. That 3d party was butting in where he should be nosing out - it was not his place to direct me to "apolgize" to yooooou, especially since you did not tell me you were seeking one. Also, based on the distinction between asking a question and making a statement, I still am not peruaded that any aplogy was due you, regardless. Additionally, comments of your nature should be hashed out on our individual pages, not BLASTED across the top of a heavily read discussion page. The placement and tone of you stament, alongg with it's mis-characterization of what my words wre, combine to make it aan ad hominem attack. You should delete that section entirely, it makes you look infantile and abusive of your role!Rex071404 07:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Greetings, Beck. I noticed your ongoing interest in the ODP article, and I respectfully take exception to your implied accusation that I would be the aggresive party in any revert war over that may come to pass over that article. It should be clear to you by now that I am willing to defer to the opinion of a disinterested third party when it comes to the content of any Wikipedia article.
No apology requested or required. All I ask is that you think for yourself and act according to your own conscience. // NetEsq 09:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mediation Committee membership
Also, please read the following pages carefully if you haven't yet done so: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Mediation, m:What Mediation is not (including the links at the bottom of that page), m:Incivility, and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.
And last, but not least, please register at the Wikimedia bulletin board here and familiarize yourself with the mediation section (sometimes it's a bit dodgy, but refreshing the pages usually does the trick there).
And thanks so much for agreeing to help with the work of the committee and of dispute resolution at Wikipedia.
- P.S. -- re: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements -- I don't think that people will feel it's proper for you to be on the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee. If you would rather run for the Arbitration Committee, I think that it would be best if you asked for an "annulment" of your position on the MC. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This user needs to be temporarily banned. He has repeatedly reverted edits and refused to discuss the reasons for doing so. The IP addresses he has, or may have used, are:
- 126.96.36.199 Talk
- 188.8.131.52 Talk
- 184.108.40.206 Talk
- Why did you put those IPs on my talk page? If it's vandalism, it should go to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Ambivalenthysteria 13:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
John Kerry dispute
In one of our discussions about arbitration as a possible solution, you said, "We could ask for a temporary injunction, which is provided for under the arbitration policy, but to my knowledge, hasn't been acted upon yet." I just took a very quick cruise through Wikipedia:Arbitration policy and I couldn't find authorization for such a step. I'm going to suggest it to the Committee, but if you can provide backup to embolden them in believing that they do indeed have the power, that would be great. JamesMLane 04:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Do you think it's worth it to maintain a List of Brisbane railway stations if I go about creating a nav template for Brisbane on the model of the Melbourne and Sydney versions containing all the railway lines?
Kerry not an Ax-Murderer
Kerry is however, I am persuaded, an obfuscating waffler who dissembles and changes his story over time to suit the current state of his career. I have followed his career close up for many years (I am in Massachusetts) and I am NOT a Republican. Rather, I am an Independant (in the parlance of MA, it's called "unenrolled", ie; no party affiliation - simply am registered to vote). The pro-Kerry people only THINK I am biased against him due to politics. I am not biased and not due to politics. Rather, it's Kerry's hideous waffling and dissembling over the years that concerns me and the few points in his BIO which I have focused on, if presnted factually, allow anyone who cares to look with an open mind the oppotunity to see that as well. It's regretable you don't see that... Rex071404 20:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Rex replies: Thank you for your comment. It sounds ominous. I hope you are not threatening me. I would not appreciate that.Rex071404 22:16, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Saving you the trouble...
- I think we have moved past that and I ask that you look forward, not back. That said, what do you think of my Rex VVAW v.3 sample text? Please advise.Rex071404 23:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To my opponent
Hope you're OK
Sorry to see your wikimeter stress rating at four, Ambi. Remember to look after yourself and maybe take time out if wikipedian disputes are getting too much.
Just to update you on the first public library article which you commented on, the information I provided got added to and then the VfD consensus was that it be merged into the public library article. Oska 01:52, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
A quick - OK, actually, probably a long question regarding your candidacy for the arbcom. How do you think you would have ruled/would rule in the following cases?
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur
Thanks very much. Snowspinner 17:43, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
When I added the sections, I also added two external links:
-  - from the US department of state, a report regarding human rights in Moldova. Read the Transnistria section.
- BBC, (also The Guardian, Moscow Times) report regarding the closing of Romanian-language schools in Transnistria.
Top sekrit sysop kabal
I just wanted to tell you that the "Top sekrit sysop kabal" is hilarious!--Neutrality 18:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Powir strugle in the top sekrit sysop kabal
The heading is in jest, but the request is serious. This is a general question to those endorsing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guanaco2. Is anyone prepared to actually certify the complaint along with RickK? If not, RfC policy would call for the page to be deleted soon. If I delete the listing for RickK (which seems likely at this point), I would like to either delete Guanaco's as well, or have a clear basis under existing policy for deleting one and not the other. --Michael Snow 20:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
so what are you so stressed about? Erich 07:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- go on... warn them nicely... start gathering up the diff's. You'll find it very therapeutic ;-) Erich 07:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I played the original Exile for Macintosh. My brother and I were both playing it obsessively for a while; he finished the game, but I went back to school and never got back to it. The world is one of the best-conceived I've ever encountered, and the dialogue was great. Playing it was like wandering through a good novel.
The game even had a sense of humor. My favorite bit was probably the well where you could throw a coin in, and it would tell you "Nothing happened this time." I'm imagining Jeff having a great laugh at all the people he just knows are throwing coin after coin and wondering when something will happen.
Grrr. Now you've got me wanting to find a copy and start playing. ;-) Isomorphic 02:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mediation bulletin board
Hi Ambi. I'm not sure if I missed it... did you confirm here that "ambi" on the mediation bulletin board is you? I need this confirmed on Wikipedia so that I can give you full access on the bulletin board. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 21:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Voted for you
Hi Rebecca! I paid a visit to the polling booth a few minutes ago. I voted for you, and hope to see you on the arbitration committee. I think you're ideal for it. David Cannon 12:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm currently collecting evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence. Feel free to add anything — there's no shortage of evidence. Neutrality 18:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you saying that the proposal changed after I voted on it? How can we be voting about a moving target? -- Jmabel 19:17, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, so there is this simplified policy. And where is it being voted on? -- Jmabel 00:27, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
- It's not at present, but it'll most likely go up for one if the current vote fails. Ambi 00:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- So what's this about "changing" my vote? Put the new matter up to a vote & I'll vote on it. -- Jmabel 00:39, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
- It's not at present, but it'll most likely go up for one if the current vote fails. Ambi 00:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome.
Thanks for the welcome. It's pleasing to see that there are other wikipedians in my local area. I'm certain that I can help out with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Melbourne, although my contributions are likely to be rather sparse to begin with, not least because I tend to have a busy travel schedule.
I particularly appreciate your tips and links to the new user documentation. Now I don't have any excuse to avoid reading it any longer. ;)
All the very best,
Paul (Pjf 08:55, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC))
Hi! I really don't see anything in this user's behaviour that might lead one to believe he's a sockpuppet. Sometimes people edit anonymously for months and pick a username in order on something they find important, sometimes newcomers browse through each and every page in Wikipedia: namespace before starting to edit. You can never know what happens in front of a computer located in a faraway place... When in doubt, please assume good faith. _R_ 16:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
smells like a sock to me! Erich 09:55, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You must both have information that I don't have. I just hope you're not deterring a newbie for no gain whatsoever... _R_ 14:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ambi, thanks for the welcome :)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala
Moved from user page
Is it bad wikiquette to post this here? I see we have some common interests, particularly, Law, activism, public transportation and unrecognized nations. Have you heard of Sealand? Do you know anything about the Sovereign united States - as opposed to the more well-known 'United States of America'? (example: California Republic as opposed to the State of California?)
aside from the above, my main interestis are stopping the deforestation of the last remaining Coast Redwoods sequoia sempervirens, which are being loggedout at an increasingly rapid pace... and corporate environmental pollution. Hope to get together under better circumstances.Pedant
the term refers to the 'shadow' state, in the case of california republic - pardon my 'no caps' my keyboard is dying- california was a state (nation) before it federated with the other states, which were already 'the united states '...
california had a constitution, enacted by a properly convened and convoked representative assembly.
after joining the union, a constitution was once again enacted,substantially the same except for several 'small' but crucial differences notably the previous constitution was never repealed, disenacted etc.
but the present state , the state of california behaves as if the second constitution holds sway.
state of california is a corporate identity, under corporate law and admiralty law - theirs is the great seal of the state of california
california republic is a political entity, under common Law - theirs is the bear flag which says california republic
the state uses the same flag, but typically displayed as a flag with a gold fringe, symbolising a military entity.
this is poorly known doctrine, but which has been upheld by court decisions.
very short thumbnail sketch of the situation.
Most of the fifty states have a similar thing going.
the united states itself has an even more complex issue, but which similarly plays the original constitution against later amended forms.
I'll show you the article when I get enough together to be coherent, (you might review it before I post it?) you would probably be interested.
yes, sealand is a unique case I agree, but apparently a valid claimant IMO, though a trivial case, and nations are understandably leery of recognising them explicitly, but in the case of the UK, the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence might prevail, by both not explicitly reserving the right to rule sealand, and by not exercising the right... as "there can be no actual sovereignty without both de facto and dejure sovereignty" is one of the 'checkpoints' of sovereign status.
please delete this when you are through reading, I don't particularly want such an unthorough exposition of these facts around with my name on it.
thanks for pointing me at the appropriate place for leaving messages, btw. Pedant 18:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
do you have any objection to reinstating this entry:
- Lucy Ricardo, clown character of (Lucille Ball) television superstar/producer, certainly one of America's most famous clowns, and a fine example of a character clown.
to the 'list of famous clowns'?
as well as
the Ronald Mcdonald character, advertising icon of the Mcdonalds restaurant chain
(with no mention of the 'origin controversy')
If so, may I ask what the objection is?
this was removed at the same timePedant 18:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't think you're helping your cause very much by trying to attack Adam's employer, Herschelkrustofsky. Doing so by quoting the files of the CEC is just playing into Adam's hands - and I don't think it'll win you much sympathy from passers-by. Why not take the moral high ground? Ambi 03:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I think that Adam may be essentially a cat's paw for Danby, who has a much longer and more egregious history of slandering LaRouche than does Adam. I have met representatives of the CEC, and I was struck with admiration for them -- a bunch of unusually spunky, altruistic and jolly souls. And I'm not looking for sympathy, though I am looking for the moral high ground, which I have come to believe can be attained by telling the truth as fearlessly as possible. But I will be happy to discuss this further. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- BTW, Ambi -- why do you say I was "quoting the files of the CEC"? I quoted their website, which I linked to my post. I'm curious about your formulation. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."
However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.
I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.
For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.
I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.
Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.
Since Snowspinner chastized me several days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Thanks for that info about the Dems, that's something I didn't know. Meanwhile, if you can find the time, do you think you could bring anything to U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement? I'm not happy with the entry currently and I thought it'd be good if a few people more knowledgeable than me about such matters could contribute, since it's of contemporary relevance. Lacrimosus 02:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I thought initially that the listing of proposed benefits to Oz was a little thin, because other than some vague reference to "increased access", I wasn't exactly sure how these benefits were quantified. Do you know anything more about that? But at least the article is shaping up well now, pleasingly. Ps. Glad you decided to stay. Noli illegitimi caborandum and all that. Lacrimosus 23:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What should I do about Neutrality?
I acknowledge your comments to me of this evening. Now I have a question for you: How can I reach consensus with Neutrality, when he does not reply to any of the comments or questions I leave on the John Kerry talk page? Also, he declined my request for mediation and he is posting messages on Kerry Talk page with swear words in it.
Also, an explicit endorsement emphasizing the "conservative republican" status of the senator is inherently POV. Rex071404 02:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in the ArbCom elections. Danny 00:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Though I support Jwrosenzweig and Raul654, I think you would have been a good Arbitrator as well. And above all, I want to thank you for picking up the proposal I made at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee and getting the ball rolling for this election. In helping with the transition to more direct community representation on the committee, your contribution was as important as anything you might have accomplished over the next five months. And just think of how much wikistress you get to avoid. --Michael Snow 03:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm getting the results here: http://www.athens2004.com/en/resultsRowing/results?day=3&rsc=RO0000000 I am also trying to do the other sports as well, and I can always use an extra set of hands to work on those too. (just browse around the Athens 2004 site). Thanks! Earl Andrew 08:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rios Montt edit war has resumed.
I hope you will take another look at the Rios Montt page. After weeks spent trying to iron out a compromise over the article after it had been placed on lockdown (how to make it more NPOV, etc.), I have tried to make generally accepted changes on the subjects of the allegations against the School of the Americas, etc. (please see the "discussion" boards for the proof that I have not overstepped my bounds).
The discussions on Montt, an attempt to avoid another edit war, have apparently failed, though. 172, largely absent from the compromise talks, has returned to continue his campaign of inserting his political opinion on controversial issues as if it were absolute fact. As I speak, he is once again attacking and reverting any attempt to make the Montt article more NPOV (less overtly anti-Montt, anti-Reagan, anti-American, etc.).
I now believe that we have not had enough time to iron out what is and is not acceptable in the article. To keep 172 from spreading his propoganda as fact (untempered by the beliefs of others) in a hopefully fact-based Encyclopedia, I ask that you ONCE AGAIN...
LOCK THIS PAGE DOWN.
- What do you mean you don't know who this guy is? You were listed in the "history section" for Rios Montt as the user who placed the page in protected status during the last edit war. I even linked to you from there. Is that incorrect?
Ambi! Don't let virtue go unrewarded and vice flourish!
Hang in there, Ambi. Please don't let the dogmatic and illogical run you off. The truth is that enough of us already want to act against the B-Movie Booger Flinger that I think something can happen. People who have no clue what the fiend has done and yet state, universally, that "stubs are good" haven't a foot to stand on, much less a leg. Don't let their pomposity drive you away. Geogre 16:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Please come back! You are one of the best contributers! Neutrality 16:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- OMG, don't pull a "Lucky 6.9" on me! I was just swinging by to thank you for your unswaying help regarding this looney-toon. Don't let him win this one. Please? PLEASE? - Lucky 6.9 03:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Bless you, girl. A lot of good people are on our side, people who do real work around here. People like you. Hang tough, and drop me a note any time you want. Gotta go...talk to you soon. All the best, Lucky 6.9 04:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Beck, I have gone B-Movie Bandit blooey. I'm not quitting, but taking a few days off. I'm writing you from a new job, and I don't think I'll have as much downtime anyway. Drop me a howdy on my e-mail, OK? Thanks for all your support. Hugs and kisses from the USA to you. - Lucky 6.9 20:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I just read the VFD on the template. I really do question whether some of these people know the full extent of this blatant vandalism, or if they even care. I'd much rather write good articles on these people in my own time then be obligated to fix them up right away. Out of all the things I like, why did I have to pick soap operas? Mike H 18:24, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
Gedday 'Beck. You haven't really spat the dummy have you? If not, I'm doing a bit of a survey. Are you very squeemish? if not could you do me a favour and have a look at the photo I added to caesarian section . My other half says its too gory and will freak out women who may face need to have the operation. I guess I'm desensitised because I see so much surgery, so I'd appreciate your opinion about whether the picture should go or stay. Erich 07:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
re VfD vote on insanity templates
Good morning, Ambi. I noticed that you've voted to keep the insanity templates. Could I ask you to elaborate on your thoughts? I am pretty strongly opposed to the use of those templates. I think they degrade all our attempts to keep conversations civil (and stress down). I'm hoping that if I understood your concerns better that I'll be able to address them. Thanks. Rossami 15:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't already responded, but thank you for your comments on my user-page. I consider the Sarajevo page to be pretty much done. I'm just going to add the pictures now, and maybe add a bit to the education/sports/events sections, but only the pictures are for sure. Hopefully it'll be a feature article soon. Asim Led 19:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Ambi: Thanks for supporting my nomination for adminship. I take your support and that of everyone else seriously, and would strive to exercise my adminship privileges judiciously and conservatively. --Sewing 01:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I will treat the "keys to the mop closet" well. :-)
Thank you very much for your vote in support of my nomination for adminship.
-- PFHLai 03:46, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)