User talk:RyanFreisling

Talk archives

1

Weird Vandal Count

• 199.0.195.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.8.212.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.148.200.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 168.12.253.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Freind0fEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 216.239.38.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

(prior talk content has been archived)

dead links

In straightening out similar messes, I've developed a few strategies which you may find useful.

For some dead links, you might try the internet archive waybackmachine. Template:Waybackref is designed for use with it.

For missing news stories, e.g. the yahoo news ones, often those were copied at least partially by blogs. These can be found by googling the title, e.g. [1]. Given the full text from a blog this way, you can often find current links to the same article from news sites by googling phrases, e.g. [2]. The two-step google process is useful because news sites quite often change the headlines on wire service reports.

Most links to the NY Times expire after a few weeks, so that you will use the fee-based archive system. This can usually be by-passed with this blog-link generator.

You might also want to object to the phrase "supported Kevin Baas" in that finding. It seems to contradict Individual Responsibility. The phrase serves no purpose but to associate the actions of one editor with those of another.

I also like how Fred made a finding as to Kevin's "beliefs", but then he had to put words in Kevin's mouth which caricatured his actual comments. They might just ask Kevin what he believes instead of making a finding as to his internal state of mind. Immediately afterwards, he says you support him, not-so-subtly hinting that you share Kevin's "beliefs".

Fred writes these findings like a really skilled POV-pusher would write an article. Unfortunately, he has first-mover advantage because he's motivated. And the other arbitrators tend never to revise his proposals. Notice how he avoided the Workshop once he started getting some feedback there. I do have some respect for Fred as an arbitrator, but he tends to come in to these things with a very obvious personal opinion. When he gets past his prejudices, he tends to do a good job.

I realize I'm commenting a lot for an univolved party, but I am quite interested in some of the principles involved in this case. I haven't yet read the articles, but I really dislike how this dispute is being handled. Derex 18:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

RfM w/Phil

I have requested mediation w/Phil: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation. I imagine you would like to be involved. Kevin Baas^talk 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

How can I help?

Noticed your comment, so clue me in as to what manner I can be of service. You can always email me if you need at mongomontana@yahoo. and the (com) at the end, if you prefer.--MONGO 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

arb case trolls

won't starve. relax. Kevin Baas^talk 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

electionarbcomcase

Wow, you guys are really taking it up the yazoo over there. Too bad you didn't have a good logician around earlier on. The logic is full of holes. Say, want me to go shoot something up fer ya?

I think its pretty apparent that what we have here is a case of pov warrior admins. And Republican Logic, which is always fallacious logic except for when it isn't which isn't often. The crux of the case, and the point i tried to make and which i would have thought you folks would have picked up on:

The loophole "notable group" renders the sources cited function to be citing those sources which compose the group. The essential push here is to make you unable to use any source that's not republican. You can show that the sources they want you to site are republican, and then you can show that in fact, since it is a factual article about a factual movement what is relevant is that groups factual arguments, not the illogical attempt to ban non republican sources by naming them as not notable.

Alas, too few people paid attention when i made that argument vs merecat, and now you didn't have it handy to make to defend the situation you have now. What we do have tho is the good start of an overall campaign against admin abuse. I have a lengthy report sitting on Jimbos desk, I hope you will take a look at it and think about it.

Wikipedia has become abusive, and it is now infiltrated at even the arbitrator levels with pov warriors who are gaming the system to do whatever they decide to do, neutrality be damned. It's time to make a big noise about this, both to save Wikipedia if that is possible, and to "win" in any way that has meaning. If not, maybe its time some of us wised up and started an encyclopedia not based on innocent utopian rules and thus pov warrior mob and pack psychology. Let me know what's on your mind and if you would like me to shred a page or five worth of bad logic for ya. Prometheuspan 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you reaching out to help - but I think it should play out as it is (without any more attacks on anyone's views, whether Democrats or Republicans)... and let the words and actions of all involved speak for themselves. If this day does not end well, there's always tomorrow. Thanks, though. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Promethuspan's take on the election arbcom case looks like a mirror of what's happening over on the biopsychiatry pseudoscience arbcom case. Perhaps it was just a matter of looking in all the forbidden places, but it always seemed that whenever mention of biopsychiatry cropped up outside the Wiki, it generally had to do with the utter lack of scientific evidence backing up the culturally ingrained practice of prescribing profit generating neurotoxins (e.g., the notorious marketing of drugs using chemical imbalance theory taglines). The argument being put forth by defenders of medical orthodoxy is basically the same as above, based on claims that the Wiki can't afford to tolerate 'undue weight' from sources outside the mainstream of medicine in covering critical perspectives, meaning that the only 'acceptable' content is that which is proffered by the increasinly tainted 'scholarly' medical journals, which of course are largely just marketing vehicles, part and parcel of the medical industry's hegemony. Not surprisingly, due to enormous marketing excesses, big pharma is the main up and coming rival to the defense industry in terms of the onslaught of lobbying, influence peddling and bribery that dominates the Republican party... Ombudsman 05:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

whoa, girl

Saw your note on ANI. You know that Kiz and me are just joking around? He did pop up on the phrasing query, but that's because he spent so much time debating Rex. Admins might not get the joke if you leave it on ANI. Derex 05:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I know things have been real tense for you. Kizzle's first edit, which I remember, was actually calling Rex on some bullshit. So, I thought it was funny he had picked up some of the same lingo as his nemesis. A peculiar style, as he aptly mimicked in his reply. Didn't mean to give you a fright, what with all the bullshit you're going through. Derex 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

-k Derex 05:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:) Derex 05:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

ryan, i love you. i'm sorry if i made you mad, i was just trying to be funny :) apparently i'm a little too good at mimicing rex. --kizzle 05:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, we really need to both harass User:JamesMLane some...he has been very quiet lately, and I am sure he misses me...well, maybe just a little.--MONGO 07:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I will, once it gets closer to midterm elections, you hear that James? I'm comin for you! --kizzle 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I added an archive file cabinet for you...your talk page is like 167kb...there already is a blank file so just cut and paste what you think should go in there and keep the most recent conversations....or add more archive pages and break it up as you wish...if you don't want it, just revert me.--MONGO 08:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on after the election arb

Ryan, I'm very sorry you're feeling down, and hope this isn't unwanted advice, but I've been thinking about what you can do in response to the election arbitration. (I guess I'm assuming your down because of the RFA -- if it's something else, just accept my best wishes). As usual, take my opinions for what they're worth, which is an unknown value.

1. Wait and see (no. 1): We have yet to hear from the majority of the ArbCom, and Fred's solution is fairly radical, so I wouldn't want to take bets on how many of the current findings and rulings will make it to the end. You're doing a good job arguing for your side.
2. Wait and see (no. 2): It's possible that even within "article probation," some kind of worthwhile and fair article can be produced. Ultimately, you wanted to get Phil and TBeatty involved, and maybe if you guys start from scratch, you can make an article that satisfies everybody. (I know, that's a little Polly-anna-ish, but it's possible.)
3. Save your material: If, in the absolute worst case, the ArbCom ends up deciding that some of the data in the current pages doesn't belong on Wikipedia, do what you can on Wikipedia, and start a new page somewhere else. I realize that's second-best, and I certainly don't mean to subvert Wikipedia, but if the ArbCom decides that WP isn't the place to collect all the data points of election irregularities, then logically some place else must be. You can start a set of pages somewhere else that can serve as a resource for interested persons, as well as serving as a resource to help the Wiki editors find verifiable info to discuss in their edits.

• • (Free from Wikipedia, you could actually make the collection much better in some ways. If I were doing your project from scratch, and free from WP rules, I would start my own Wiki, then create one page for each incident, then categorize them by "obstacle to voting", "obstacle to registration", "vote fraud", etc. Each page could have a standard template for evidence for and against, legal proceedings, etc. You could have similar pages for each news report, official report, etc., then cross link, and finally do some protected summary pages where the admins write up summaries of Ohio 2004, Washington 2004, electronic voting, etc. The major downside is that unless you were careful, you might not have the input of sceptical editors.)

1. If the worst does happen and the pages do get put on probation, I'll be glad to help you work on them to make sure that something fair and as complete as possible goes up, subject to whatever limits the ArbCom sets.

Thanks, and I hope you feel better,TheronJ 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)