User talk:Kizzle

Welcome!

Hi Kizzle! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Lst27 19:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm preparing a history of the TfT dispute, which I hope to have ready by the end of today (that's about seven hours from now in my time zone). (moved from user page -kizzle) JamesMLane 20:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

fyi

User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Rex071404 asks you to read his comments refers to you as a sockpuppet

Interesting, but he'll be back; he's just trying to be dramatic. Wolfman 05:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: mediation request

Hi Kizzle -- since this seems to have begun as an article content dispute, before I go any further, I want to ask you if you have listed the page on requests for comment and mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to bring in more people to help resolve the dispute amicably? I realize the the sockpuppet issue is also there, but bringing in more editors might well defuse that issue as well. Please let me know.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peace offer

Kizzle; Please note that this message refers to you as Kizzle, not "Kizzle". Please take a look at my talk page under the section "Wolfpeace". User Wolfman and I have been able to bury the hatchet on much of our issues by talking. I think you and I could also do that, if you are interested. FYI: Because you are new here, you are not aware that I am basically the only pro-Bush editor on several of the articles where pro-Kerry types such as JamesMLane would otherwise have free reign. Don't be so quick to think I won't listen to you. It's primarily your frequent siding up with JML which has impeded my dialog with you, not the merits of your concerns. As evidence that I do indeed have good listening skills, here are your TfT complaints:

• "" tweak - dispensed with (see above)
• Q: Will I attempt to re-insert past attempted links in exact method I tried before? A: As explained, my aim is to bring "parity" with SBVT - as I view parity. I will attempt to do that in whatever way I am able to successfully. Axiomatically, this means that any editing approach I take which is blocked too much by others, is foreclosed to me. I thought you understood that.
• Q: What are my specific "gripes" which I would say show "POV" nature of TfT? A: I see that page as having too much pent-up editorial interest to rationally think that it will remain substantially the same (as it is now) for even a short time after it's unprotected. For this reason, I am holding my assessment in abeyence until I see what others do when it's open for editing again. I also thought you understood this already too.

Anyway, feel free to leave constructive comments on my talk page. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as TfT goes, I have no inititives to offer at this point. I am strictly in a "wait and see" mode there. If you are able to take at face value that this does not mean I am laying in wait to "ambush" the page as soon as it opens, there really is no reason to not join me in requesting that it be unprotected. Also, did I answer your questions (see above) to your satisfaction? If not, please explain. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi folks, BCorr here. I just want to say that I'll archive the mediation request as it seems like -- if you are both able to assume good faith -- that you two will be able to work out your differences without outside intervention. If this proves not to be the case after a few days, please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to de-archive the case. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Email

You can use the "E-mail this user" thing on the left-hand side. I entered a real address when I registered. AlistairMcMillan 22:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex stop watching my user contrib list

This article has been deleted. Note that its creation constituted vandalism. Please do not do anything like this again. Snowspinner 01:46, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

controversy

Kizzle, why are you going to such lengths to stoke controversy? Have you seen the new page Stolen Honor Documentary which I started? Please examine that and see if you can honestly say that I did not compose a fair and NPOV article. And if I did, doesn't that shatter your presumptions about me? I am still hoping we can resolve our disagreements. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Email again

What Alistair said, a couple topics up. This should get you there: [1] but if it doesn't, go to User:JamesMLane and select "E-mail this user". As for Rex's listening in, I think it's amusing that he's constantly accusing other people of following him around, when he does so much of it himself. (In fact, I'm sure he's reading this. Hiya, Rex! Have a nice weekend!) JamesMLane 02:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I shall. Thank you. You also. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quasi

The "quasiness" or lack thereof regarding a given documentary is not equally at issue between F911 and SH. F911 is actually acknowledged by MM himslef as not being soley a documentary. There is no such debate extant regarding SH. Therefore, while quasi may apply to F911, it does not apply to SH. You logic is relatiatory and not sound in this instance. BTW, what is wrong with the word anyway? "quasi- prefix; used to show that something is almost, but not completely, the thing described" [2] [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I took off the quasi-reference on SH. Quasi "lessens" the importance of the message contained within, I would be ok with "documentary/editorial"... there is no "quasi" documentary genre, and if any question I would refer to IMDB.com as it is a pretty standard reference for all references to movies. --kizzle 07:20, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

There is no denying that MM's style is very flamboyant and atypical for a documentary. The same cannot be said about the SH documentary. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Flamboyant and atypical does not generate an offshoot from an existing genre, it merely reshapes the traditional associations with it. And didn't you see, i took off quasi from SH? --kizzle 17:17, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

for my own reference...

User:Kizzle/John Kerry Military Service

User:Kizzle/John Kerry Military Service Controversy

Rex's departure?

Thanks for your note. I'll make a betting line at 3:1 that he doesn't stay away for more than a day or two. JamesMLane 05:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

answered on my talk page. Wolfman 06:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential election debate, 2004

Posed a question to you at Talk:U.S. presidential election debates, 2004.Bds yahoo 21:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, yes, you got under my skin, first by writing (in edit summary) that my edit adding some information about the content of the debate might not belong on the page "at all," moving it to another section (later renamed "Analysis"), and then complaining that there wasn't enough in this section, that it wasn't comprehensive or balanced. No kidding! It's no single user's job to provide a comprehensive or balanced article. This is a collective project. The rule around here is, you make the additions you want to see. Bds yahoo 20:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rex's comment

---

Final 2004 EV total:

• Bush 286
• Kerry 252

(ha ha) [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Military service of John Kerry

Since Kerry lost, might as well just leave the full military stuff in, as the article won't be growing much. I suggest we make the Military service of John Kerry page a disambig with links to the relevant section of the kerry article and to the 'controversy' article. the current content is essentially no different than the main kerry page content. my main thought is that will reduce maintenance costs (vandalism patrol, etc.) thoughts? Wolfman 17:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

done. merged (essentially copied) into main kerry article. turned into a disambig page. Wolfman 20:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's that you say? "Kerry lost"... (new battle cry of the DIMS "voter fraud, it was all voter fraud")

As for "permaban", is that anything like permafrost? Please advise. 216.153.214.94 07:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exit polls

All the current exit polls are weighted according to vote count, meaning that they are absolutely worthless for determining fraud. The only uselfull polls I can find are the ones already mentioned and these. A complete seems impossible. Kevin Baas | talk 21:38, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Election controversy official response section

Hey Kizzle, someone actually added info to that section but it was commented out, unfortunately those changes and your revert to commented out state were overwritten because of vandal reverting. Do you really think that should be commented out? I think it's fine left in there. Zen Master 19:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD listing

Thanks for your compliments. What you read was only part of what I wanted to say about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities! I've gotten the rest off my chest with a Comment in addition to my vote. JamesMLane 21:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Irregularities article title

Sorry I wasn't clear. I favor: (1) moving the math crunching to a new article, titled something like "2004 U.S. election statistical analysis"; (2) creating a new article, "2004 U.S. election voting controversies", for description of registration impediments, absent ballot problems, etc.; and (3) turn the current title into a redirect to one of those, I don't care which. JamesMLane 21:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The title using "statistical analysis" was one mentioned as a possibility by Zen Master. I think he's still pondering what title he thinks would be best. I see your point about original research -- maybe "data tabulations" or some such? The title shouldn't use "irregularities" in a way that implies that there definitely were irregularities; other than keeping out such POV terms, I don't expect to play much role in choosing the title for The article where we present exit poll data and use the discrepancies to cast doubt on the legitimacy of electronic voting machine totals. JamesMLane 22:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recount source

Well, I found a different source than you did. This way I can feel like I'm making some contribution.  :)

Actually, I preferred it because it didn't emphasize Cobb over Badnarik (who, unlike Cobb, was on the ballot in Ohio) and because, as an AP report, it wouldn't be considered to be as partisan as something that came basically from the Green Party or its allies. JamesMLane 17:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request IRC chat

I am requesting IRC chat on #wikipedia. Kevin Baas | talk 23:14, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Election controversy articles

Thanks for voicing your support for a summary article. I think we have the beginnings of one in 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, but of course I'm biased in favor of my creation.  :) Is that article along the lines of what you envision? JamesMLane 06:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your praise of the article. I understand about those annoying RL distractions that so unduly interfere with one's editing! Your specific comment was, "I don't know if you've already done it but the subsections should mirror the sub-pages and soon-to-be subpages of the main page." I agree that the structure should be mirrored. I wouldn't take either current structure as carved in stone, though. We can adjust either or both of them. In addition, some particular topics might be compact enough that they could be covered fully in the summary article, with no daughter article necessary. JamesMLane 07:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the point of view of the typical reader, I don't know whether including other controversies in the same article would be useful. People who wanted to know what was being argued about during the campaign (like the debate controversies or the role of the 527 groups) wouldn't necessarily want to read about post-election arguments, lawsuits, etc. People who wanted to know more about vote-rigging wouldn't care about the bulge in Bush's jacket. For that reason, my inclination is to confine the article to the voting controversies. You're certainly right, however, that other controversies would "fit" in the sense that the article wouldn't be unduly long with them. JamesMLane 03:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

can you handle this?

can you handle this? [3] The day that evidence of preparation for recount fraud is superfluous, is the day that we are royally f****d. Kevin Baas | talk 00:02, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Rex?

Since you think I'm "Rex" and reading "something" from "Rex" makes you laugh out loud, here is a holiday gift of laughter for you: "Something".

Regards,

216.153.214.94 07:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it's like the day before christmas

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] I also heard that Conyers stated very confidently that senators will be contesting the election on Air America radio today. i can't rediscover all of my sources. Kevin Baas^talk 08:39, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

I haven't recieved whatever you sent

[9] I have a spam filter, might be overzealous, it primarily depends on the domain that you are sending from. I know I have yahoo blocked. Kevin Baas^talk 00:50, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

play

I would love to bring this stuff to people's attention. (provided it doesn't just truamatize them). How is this going to be put in front of people's eyes; how many people are going to see it? what's the plan for distribution; etc.? I'd spend my time on helping out if I knew that it would make a respectable difference. Kevin Baas^talk 21:13, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll contribute when I have time not better spent making $ to feed my broke-a$$.

I gave it a little thought, and thought of the key idea "narrative", not in the story-book meaning of the word, but psychologically. Narrative as a means of legitimization. All good religions have a narrative. I looked through a book my friend was reading on nationalism, and it's main thesis was that nationalism relies on a shared narrative, which enforces the idea of a common origin. (think of this: if this was a republican thing, republicans would have no problem jumping on the band-wagon)

a civil rights documentary i saw came to mind: "eyes on the prize" i think it was called. Perhaps a historical aspect can be developed in it. That would also overcome any disbelief - "blacks being disenfranchised? bull$hit!" they might say, but with a little bit of history, the screenplay will figuratively ask them "where you born yesterday?" and remind them that history moves slowly.

Another image that comes to mind is - and this may sound absurd - there was a special on (football star) Brett Favre on T.V. a while ago, it was pretty much a documentary/biography. It went through his trials and tribulations and was a real "hero" story; an epic, the way it was put together. (and things people could relate to - humanizing the hero) When his father died, they got all religous and the preacher said he played a great game, like he was playing for his father - everyone got all emotional and stuff, supporting this hero through his grief, and seeing him play all the harder for it. Great example of a "narrative", in my opinion, as much as I hate sports and esp. football. Kevin Baas^talk 19:55, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I was reading this book on writting for law, titled something like "how to write for law, and win", and one of the things from it that i burned into my brain is to focus on people. Make it personal, use names when possible, the people are the characters; develop their character, make it about people. everyone can understand people interacting, the tone of voice; they can always sense fear, aggression, compassion, etc. - it's universal, and drama is simply a composition of such emotions.

We've got blackwell, conyers, boxer, and jackson to name a few. I'm looking over the script. that just struck me. Kevin Baas^talk 00:49, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

I'm discussing this on the discussion page for the screenplay.

I added "a guide to voting in ohio, america", first draft, to the screenplay page. that's the method of organization and presentation that made it best come out of my head. (with a little satirical embelishment) Kevin Baas^talk 04:19, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

I'm not at my usual computer right now. But fwiw, my standard alias is happyjack27, and if that's taken i just append a 0. once in a while i'm on aol-im, to see if my friend from years ago, who's now in NY, is online. perhaps i should install icq. (i like that it's opensource, but it's bloated!) Kevin Baas^talk 01:17, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Just a small suggestion for you. Remember that trials have cross-examinations, and this element would be helpful here. Also, if you're looking for an investigative play that might give you presentation or stylistic ideas, go see Copenhagen (play), or rent a video of its performance. — Cortonin | Talk 09:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

neighbor?

Well then we're both screwed :)--kizzle 01:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

you live in my hood, kizzle? Wolfman 01:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

right on. el cerrito here. have some friends out your way, in concord. Wolfman 09:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

was at ucb. now ucsb, but still keep my home base here when not teaching. Wolfman 17:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Shelley connex

Great find! A doubleplusgood correlation - I'll do a little digging, see who floats it and see what happens. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check this out too - a recent thread re: Alexander: [10]

Rex redivivus

Like you, I noticed Rex's return. In fact, a couple weeks ago he violated the terms of his ArbCom ban by making this edit within the four-month period during which he was prohibited from editing articles on U.S. politics.

I suppose I could go leave him a note welcoming him back, but there's no need. If he's back, he's probably patrolling your talk page and stalking my contribution list. Either way, he'll see this, so I can give him my message here: Hi, Rex! I hope the end of the campaign season has made you less combative. JamesMLane 00:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But it has been 4 months now, yes? 216.153.214.94 04:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Bushbulge.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Bungopolis 09:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: PBS broadcast

It may be public domain, but if I remember correctly FOX News was shooting the debate and may have restrictions on redistribution. Even if that's the case, though, it might be permissable under fair use. I'm no expert on copyright either, it's a minefield and quite confusing. In general we don't like to upload images unless they can be confirmed to be either public domain or distributable under a Free (GFDL-compatible) license like many of the Creative Commons licenses. See Wikipedia:Images and Image copyright tags for more information. --Bungopolis 00:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a vote you might be interested in

Talk:Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda#Requested_move:_Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda_.26rarr.3B_Alleged_links_between_pre-invasion_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda Kevin Baas^talk 22:42, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory#Voting_.28rename_vs_keep_as_is.29 Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:49, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Your suggestion at the Bush article

You wrote:

Ah James, always so helpful, why don't you run for admin? --kizzle 23:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Because I already waste way too much time on this project as it is! I appreciate your thought, but for now I'll stick with the hoi polloi. JamesMLane 02:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

EffWhyEye Disavowed

[11] :) -- RyanFreisling @ 01:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Not That Kizzle!

That's pretty hilarious that you're not the same Kizzle as the one on Hackermedia.net. :) This caused quite a funny phone call this afternoon, and is DOUBLY hilarious because your opinions on things are somewhat opposite of the Hackermedia Kizzle. Thanks for the laugh. --Jscott 01:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

vote at GWB article

I invite your vote at the George Bush article [[12]]--MONGO 05:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

current focus

i'm currently focusing on news articles for wikinews, esp. in regard to the Downing Street memo and surrounding events. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Admin warning #1

I have to warn you that making a major edit and marking it as minor is a policy violation.

(cur) (last)  20:56, Jun 14, 2005 Kizzle m

Your change to Koran desecration buried a very significant point. Please use the Edit summary box, or the talk page to explain edits which change the flow, scope or focus of the article this much. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Are you an admin? --kizzle 21:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought everyone knew this. Yes, I am. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

About NPOV policy

I have repeated this several times. This article can contain the information which you seek to include, just not in the intro paragraph as it is not essential nor descriptive of the title subject, which refers to the Newsweek allegations. This does not mean it cannot include your info, but that it doesn't belong in the intro. --kizzle 21:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You have several people telling you to stop pushing the prisoner end of Qur'an desecration into the intro paragraph... this has been explained several times in the above text. This article is not about prisoner abuse of their own Qur'ans, as this is not what sparked controversy. It is the U.S. abusing the Qur'ans which represents to some that the U.S. is abusing the Islam faith itself. The claims by the Pentagon of prisoners abusing their own Qur'ans is entirely tertiary to the subject being discussed in the article (this text might sound familliar, I've said it before).

Thanks for mentioning the POV about the U.S. abusing the Qur'ans which represents to some that the U.S. is abusing the Islam faith itself. That point really ought to be mentioned in the article. But if it is, then it would be equally important to mention the Pentagon claim that prisoners abused the Koran. It relates to the POV held by some that Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are abusing the Islamic faith.

Don't worry: this wasn't a "warning". I'm just explaining NPOV to you! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the POV that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are abusing the Islamic faith is:

• Not essential to the Newsweek allegations of guards abusing the Qur-an, of which the subject of the article is.
• Not the cause of international controversy
• Not the reason why Islamic protestors are angry.

That is why this POV, while needing to be expressed, should not be a major point of the article. The external ramifications of these muslims abusing their own Qur'an is little to none, as at best one can claim that they're not being good muslims. However, the external ramifications of the guards abusing the Qur'ans are huge, as we can see from the international response. In other words, a man abusing his own Qur'an is not news. Another white catholic man in a position of power (perception of the guards by the muslim world) abusing this muslim's man Qur'an is significant news. So include it somewhere as an "Official Response" section or some sort as to indicate that the Pentagon is saying "Well, the detainees did it too!" but don't put it in the central intro, as it is inappropriate in an article whose main purpose is to describe the guards abusing the Qur'an.

Good points all. I've split the article into US abuse and Detainee abuse (see [[Allegations of Qur'an desecration (disambiguation)). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

You are not listening to me. The info should not be split off, but it "should not be a major point of the article" (see above) either. --kizzle 01:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that I misunderstood. And perhaps I did not explain my idea well. My purpose for creating a side article was to mention the "minor point" that the Pentagon said it was detainees rather than US personnel who had done the Koran desecration.

But if we're agreeing now that only one article is required (and that it's okay to mention Pentagon, Michelle Malkin, Max Boot and others who say that the MAIN abuse of the Koran was by the prisonels) - then the side article is not necessary. But only if toytoy, csloot & you agree that other POVs than the US desecrated the Koran are just as much allowed in a "general article on Koran desecration at gitmo". Otherwise, we'd be back to:

1. an article claiming the US desecrated the Koran
2. claims that the prisoners did worse than the US => excluded from either (a) its own article or (b) the article which is only about US desecration claims

It all hinges on whether NPOV policy permits / requires us to avoid endorsing or dismissing either side in a controversy - or not. If you can show me where it says that the Wikipedia is allowed to take sides in a controversy, i.e., say that one side is right and the other is just making stuff up to defend itself, then I'll shut up and go away. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand the significance of the event then. It's not a competition between how many people abused the Qur'an or the specific incidents involved. It doesn't matter if it was 20 prisoners or 2, it matters if the guards, the people in position, the idealogical representation of the American government abused the Qur'an. They should not be mentioned with the same significance, as it is completely inaccurate to equate the two. Tell me this, what is the world's reaction to the prisoner's abusing the Qur'an versus the world's reaction to the guards abusing the Qur'an? The article, in turn, should reflect this difference of significance in its organizational layout of info. --kizzle 03:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you dialoguing with me about this. I don't mean to split the discussion. My convention is to open up a side discussion only to seek deeper understanding of what someone is saying, so I can participate more effectively on the article discussion page.

It sounds like you're saying that the key element of the Qur'an desecration controversy is public opinion, i.e., the reaction to the various news reports of alleged Koran abuse. And I think the whole gitmo team (here at W) agrees that nearly all of that reaction has been:

• the general belief, especially in anti-US quarters, that the intial Newsweek report (US flushing) was true
• that such treatment of Islam's most revered holy book is a true outrage
• that the use of scripture desecration to facilitate prisoner confessions is wholly unwarranted
• and even that the only solution is to close the prison and release the detainees, becausethey're all innocent anyway

(Okay, not sure how many people espouse that last one.)

In such a case, I'd say the topic being discussed is "public reaction to reports of US Koran desecration at Gitmo".

However, since this is a neutral Encyclopedia - as opposed to an "objective" one, or a liberal one - all pertinent POV must be described. I've started to list these at Wikipedia:POV/Koran abuse.

And also, as an encyclopedia, we need to think about the big picture. Is it Koran desecration in general which is being objected to? I think there's already an article defining how Muslims feel about improper treatment of (what they regard as) the holiest of holy books. I got lots of Muslim friends. They all revere it, even my agnostic Iraqi-American friend.

But a title like "Koran desecration at Gitmo" seems to denote the topic as any reported incidents of anyone desecrated a Koran at Camp X-Ray rather than reports that US personnel desecrated the Koran. The topic's scope and the article title should match.

So am I welcome to re-join the gitmo team, or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Glad we're discussing before we make changes, I'm happy to talk about it :). As in all concepts, there is a hierarchy of information which is significant to the concept itself, from entirely essential information necessary to grasp the concept, to tertiary information stemming from circumstances arising from it. If all we are to consider is what information falls under "Koran desecration at Gitmo", then you are correct. However, we must consider this hierarchy of significance in fleshing the article out.

So, like I keep agreeing with you, the information about detainees does logically fit under "Koran desecration at Gitmo", as it is detainees "desecrating" the "Koran" "at Gitmo". However, I don't think anyone can argue that the significance of the detainees desecrating their own book is nearly as much as the guards are. If one is to argue for prominence in displaying your info in the intro to the article, one must argue that the information not only fits under simple logical inclusion ("desecrating" the "Koran" "at Gitmo"), but that it is highly significant. All the information in the article fits under the scope we are talking about, but yet we can't fit it all in the introductory paragraph. But how do we weigh significance?

Significance of information is similar to public opinion, but it is a better correlation to public impact. Both the information about the Pentagon releasing reports that the Qur'an abuse took place by detainees, and the guards desecrating the Qur'an, are true. However, one of these (which I'll let you guess) has affected the world in a much greater fashion than the other. It is this ability to affect so many lives on this Earth that renders one of these statements more signifiant than the other.

I don't disagree with you about all relevant POV must be discussed, this is not what is up for debate. What we are debating is the appropriate location within the article that matches the significance of the POV. Also, "that such treatment of Islam's most revered holy book is a true outrage" is true but not necessary. The outrage is specifically directed towards the Americans desecrating the Qur'an, not the prisoners, unless you can find several sources which argue the same thing (and not the Pentagon reports, unless you can clearly see outrage in an official government report disapproving of their prisoners' quality of faith).

And yes, you are welcome to re-join the team, as long as you seek concensus before making substantial changes in the future :) --kizzle 16:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think I finally might "get it" well enough to leave this side discussion and take it back to the QD talk page. Meet me there? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help, sure thing :) --kizzle 18:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

AAR

You're just lucky I have to sign off for a while. But I shall return. JamesMLane 02:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DU

I looked in the profiles under "K" and there's no listing for kobeisguilty (see [13]). I'm not familiar enough with the site to know how I can look at any particular user's posts, even a user listed as currently active. DU generates a lot of valuable information, although there is a problem with preaching to the choir. It's also not clear to me what the ideological boundaries are. A few months ago, I also raised some questions about the statistical analysis of the exit polls, and I got a civil and thoughtful answer rather than a banning. It may depend on which moderator is on duty on any particular day. JamesMLane 20:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikifun, Round 9, Question 19

I am pleasantly surprised you figured out Question 19. I will award you a bonus point if you can fully elaborate your answer. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The answer to your puzzle...

I'm sorry, but after I saw the puzzle on JML's talk page, I couldn't resist giving it my own shot... (caveat: I'd seen the puzzle once, long ago, so long that I couldn't remember any of the details or the solution, but it may have given me a slight edge in working out the solution.)

To start, we have to assume the prisoners are all perfect logicians: if there is a sound deduction to be made from the evidence, they will make it. Because there are only two white hats, any prisoner who sees two white hats on the other two prisoners will immediately know his own hat is red. From the fact that the first prisoner doesn't know his own hat's color, we know that between the second and third prisoner, there must be at least one red hat.

The second prisoner is able to follow the first prisoner's train of thought, so he knows that between his own hat and the third prisoner's, at least one must be red. If the third prisoner had a white hat on, then the second prisoner would know that his own must be the red one. Because this does not happen, the third prisoner knows that his own hat must be red. -- Antaeus Feldspar 29 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)

Correct... JML e-mailed me the same answer, you guys all heard of it before so you only get half-credit ;) And welcome back, haven't seen you editing pages in a while. --kizzle June 29, 2005 00:53 (UTC)

There's another necessary assumption: that the third prisoner, who is blind, is not also deaf. Otherwise he doesn't know about the responses of the first two. I pointed this out and Antaeus Feldspar didn't, so I should get more credit than he does! JamesMLane 29 June 2005 01:31 (UTC)

-.5 points to JML for trivial nit-picking observation ;)--kizzle June 29, 2005 02:07 (UTC)

Watch your language there, fella. I make my living from trivial nitpicking observations. JamesMLane 1 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)

Sullivan comment

The edit you directed me to ([14]) removed a statement attributed to Sullivan and followed by brackets, as if for a citation, but the brackets were empty. Without checking the original, I'm not really clear on its status. Does Sullivan report having observed torture? Is he conveying statements made to him by prisoners and/or guards who asserted having observed it? Is he drawing an inference from other facts? Is he summarizing something that the Pentagon has admitted? Each of these categories would be subject to a different analysis. Based on the Molly Ivins column, it seems that Sullivan is pulling together information from reputable, named sources (the Red Cross), possibly augmenting it with information from more dubious sources, and then presenting a summary -- which might be a perfectly valid synopsis of what the sources said, or might be going beyond them. In the latter case, it would bear some similarity to the van Wormer/Frank controversy, because Sullivan's credentials for drawing the inferences would be relevant. Sorry to be so wishy-washy, but it looks to me like that article is another sink that I could pour time into, and I'm going to have to resist the temptation to get further into the dispute. JamesMLane 1 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)

No doubt he's probably pulling from various sources, some authoratative, some dubious, I'm just trying to get a notion of where your threshold lies in including outside opinion of un-involved parties. Yeah, I highly suggest staying away from this article, there's an admin who's going gung-ho reverting despite being outvoted 5-1 two separate times.--kizzle July 1, 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Your latest revert suggests that I discuss before I remove. I did. I have also raise the matter on the talk page since then.

I also removed the FAQ. We don't have FAQs on Wikipedia, we reach consensus through discussion, not through somebody writing a FAQ (a device for reducing discussion) and sticking it on a page expressly intended for discussion. Don't put it back.

If you want to make an exception to the rule that we don't just string together a bunch of selected quotes on Wikipedia, then justify it, don't expect people coming tothe article anew to care about a "FAQ". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Plans...

Change the world. How 'bout you?

Do whatever I can to end this insanity. In the meantime, I've helped improve wikinews. I made a proposal for an automated workspace, and it just recently got implemented. Yea!

BTW, I got a letter back from 'ol Sensenbrenner (my so-called "representative"). First half was about how the president is doing such a great job in Iraq, and the second half was about how he likes holding presidents accountable through impeachment, like what he helped do to clinton for a perfectly legal act of consensual sex that didn't kill anybody or cost the american people hundreds of billions of dollars or aid the spread of terrorism throughout the world. Odd, because i don't see what the first part has to do with the second, and i didn't write about either of these things. i just asked him to do his job as the chairmen of the judiciary committee and look into these documents. In any case, regards the second part of what he wrote, i see the words but not the actions, and i certainly don't hear the words on the house floor, coming from him. So it's all very disconnected.

I'm hoping that the valerie plame thing will dissillusion some people. I think the slow ones are finally starting to catch on. anycase, i've got much less time w/my new job as an it consultant for the city. :-) Kevin Baas^{talk: new} July 6, 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Well, he worked hard at suppressing all Minority Staff meetings that Conyers sought to hold. His tactics on the floor are appalling, and his response is almost as smug as it is predictable. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

Doing pretty fine, Kevin... still truckin on the screenplay, check this out :) Hope you like your new job. --kizzle July 7, 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Her

Btw - that's "don't take *her* word for it" (I'm female). Just thought I'd let ya know! -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

Wouldn't have guessed from your username, I'll keep it in mind. :) --kizzle July 7, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

check email

check your email...--MONGO July 7, 2005 06:43 (UTC)

Poll

Thanks for the alert. By the way, how's Granny doing? JamesMLane 22:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Haha, that was seriously funny, I haven't visited my grandmother in about 3 years, so that was perfect timing. --kizzle 00:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Funny? I'd say it's almost... eerie.... JamesMLane 04:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

yep 1.5 works for me. btw, i was just visiting at sb for a year, so won't be teaching in the fall. back from a long wikibreak, and just felt like having a new name. like it? Derex 20:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

uhh...Wolfman? Aww well, I probably wouldn't have taken any economics classes, but it would have been fun.. and yeah, like the new name :) --kizzle 22:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

yep, hoooowl. i might be down a few times next year. maybe we can grab a beer. Derex 06:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

hell yeah, e-mail me when you're in town. --kizzle 16:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

just noticed looking through the coulter archive that your very first post was to rex, about keeping the quotations. man, that takes me back. i kind of miss old rex, in a very twisted & masochistic way. maybe it's stockholm syndrome. Derex 05:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for posting that... explains a well-known song by Muse called "stockholm syndrome" that I had wondered what it was referring to. Ya, I think you missed it before when Rex came back for a bit... funny enough he was actually quite civilized this time around, but people weren't ready to dialog with him. Haha, yeah takes me back to the day... although I think little rexs are popping up on the gwb and coulter pages as we speak... I'm about to quit and take a wiki-vacation (which I'll be taking anyways when SB starts in the fall). By the way, randomly, I have a paper I've been working on about electronic voting machines... do you know any profs at SB who would be down to let me take an independent study class from them and help draft a research paper (keeping in mind that I'm undergrad)? I'm already at about 40-50 pages double-spaced, but I need some feedback and devil's advocate...ery... and since I'm done with my degree and general ed reqs, I thought I might put these random units to good use. It'll also help cause my re-admission papers are still going through and most classes are filled by now :) --kizzle 05:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, i don't know anybody useful. i taught over at bren (no undergrads there) & didn't stray too much beyond. i imagine somebody over at public policy or political science would help you. be mindful that the profs probably don't get any teaching credit for it, just satisfaction. so, it's important to demonstrate that you've got enthusiasm & a good start & are really interested in your problem & and have a well-considered research plan. at least that's what gets me to do it. of course, if your research appears to be suitable for an academic journal, that might engage the self-interest of a prof as well. knock on a few well-chosen doors with the right attitude & i'm sure you'll get a taker. (if someone says no, ask them who might say yes). good luck. Derex 06:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

done. and i'm an asshole, not a bastard. Derex 15:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The Coulter

Not sure how i feel about this one - she's an awful, monstrous person - and while I'd rather other people have the benefit of reading her vitriolic sludge (as I must), I hesitate to give her even one more word in print, as she's a complete and utter Nazi stooge. I will thus abstain. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hey kiz, let's wander on over here, so we (I) don't totally fill up that talk page with a side discussion. Really though, what arguments are you speaking of in regards to O'neil and Clarke? I'm quite the political junkie, so it's a bit surprising that I don't know which you are referring to, but it's very possible that I've just forgotten them. Oh, and if you can answer here it'll be easier, or if you like we can continue on the talk page. As an aside, do you understand what I was getting at on the irregularities page? I have a hard time figuring out how its possible to put fraud in an election as only effecting this or that race. Anywho, regards. -bro 172.165.157.184 10:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

K, well first of all, I don't know whether it can be classified as a full-blown argument that either of them said in their book, it was more of a recollection of events. But both Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, who are both Republicans, said that plans were being made about Iraq way before 9/11 ever happened. Yes, I realize that Fox news painted them as ax grinders, but you have to realize that the possibility of such a label being applied is not sufficient to refute their arguments/observations only based upon that assumption. Assuming for a moment that their only intentions were to tell the truth, the response from the white house painting them as ax-grinders would be exactly the same as what we saw. In addition, if I recall correctly, Clarke left his government post on his own volition (though O'Neill left/quit more on forced circumstances), thus I don't think he would be too bitter at his previous bosses for simply firing him. That is why I bring this up in light of the Downing Street Memo, as it corroborates what is coming from this memo... that Bush was planning to go into Iraq way before 9/11. I even have another personal source, although its completely unsourcable...my good friend's dad is a high up military person, not a general but almost, and my friend said that when Bush came into office, he said "just wait, in 2 years, we're going into Iraq." He told me that before 9/11.

As for the irregularities page, I understand some of your confusion. In a normal argument or paper talking about stuff that went wrong last election, I would bring up the WA gubernatorial election as well (although it merely consists of allegations, no proof). However, in Wikipedia, we have to limit the information given in any article to the scope of the title. Simply put, the scope on that page is 2004 U.S. Presidential election controversies and irregularities. Irregularities are discussed in the impact that they had on the presidential race. Yes, this is on the same ballot as the gubernatorial race in WA, but it still can be thought of as two different elections. And in WA's case, there weren't any substantial controversies of the presidential vote.--kizzle 14:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I can't argue much of the clarke/o'niell stuff, other than to say fox has little to nothing to do with my opinions on things. Can't even remember the last time I watched cable news. I think part of the confusion on the irregularities page is the title, such as, when most people refer to the elections in 2002, they refer to it as midterm election of 2002, when they refer to the elections of 2000/2004, they refer to it as the presidential election of 2000/2004. So I think part of the confusion is coming from that. About the fraud, the sad thing is, there is and will be fraud in every election, ever. But most will only become widely known when it's a close race and a candidate thinks it will benefit him/her. I understand that the fraud was magnified by the challenged of the Gov. race, but it was equally probable that it was the same in the pres. race, just that it wasn't close enough to bother with. If it were a closer race, and bush needed WA to win, you can bet it would have been thrust forward. So, to boil down, I think perhaps the title is misleading, as it conveys, at least to me and those I know, the entire election of 2004. -bro 172.163.215.214 21:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Definetely there will be fraud in every election. I just think its possible for us to limit it to "Mary Poppins" registrations and selling a small number of votes for crack, rather than allowing widespread manipulation via unauditable, insecure voting machines made by highly partisan companies with employees who have prior convictions of fraud using sophisticated "backdoor" programming. --kizzle 22:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I wish, but I really haven't decided which is worse. I lean towards to fake voters, multiple voters really, just because it's the harder one to control/eliminate. In the end, it all sucks, but it will never go away, oh well. -bro 172.163.215.214 00:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

nice name

especially phonetically

yours, Kzzl

My appreciation

Thanks for your help in reverting the vandal hitting my user page. An oddity: The IP that was spuriously adding my name to various articles had been used, only two hours earlier, to create a stub about Jimmy "Jax" Pinchak. I thought it might be a hoax, but it turns out to be a real child actor. He's appearing in a TV series that was mentioned in the stub but with a red link, so I did a little research and wrote Over There (series). Thus the siege of vandalism resulted in a small expansion of our coverage. Strange are the ways of the wiki.

Meanwhile, I've been on a mini-vacation from the whole George W. Bush situation. Thanks for copying and sending me the book excerpt; I hope soon to do something about it. Your user page also reminds me that the RfC is still hanging fire. I don't know whether I can contribute anything to your election 2004 project, but I'll give it another look. JamesMLane 22:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, hold off on my project... I was just in a bad case of writer's block which I'm over now. I know you're a well-trained writer from taking the bar... after I'm completely done with everything if you wouldn't mind, I'll send you the complete word document with sources and foot-notes if you could just proof for me, as I've never written a paper longer than 12 pages, and that was trying to prove John Searle's "Chinese Room" analogy was retarded (and I sent it to him at his UC Berkeley email as well, alas, no response). After that, I'm gathering about 100 emails of all the major academics/important people (conyers, stephen freeman, bev harris, cobb, doug jones) and asking for one-page letters of recommendation for me to take with when I pitch to my friend who is in the process of selling a movie to warner bros or paramount right now. So it's gotta be tip-top shape as they're all going to fact-check me. --kizzle 22:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The weird have so little to do that is productive

Thought I would bring this to your attention since this also mentions you...not sure what you ever did to Brodo but he seems to like you too...but since he is also known as "bro" that certainly explains his apparent problem with you. Anywho, he made this post and adorned his user page with my beautiful picture...[[15]]--MONGO 07:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. As they say on Wikipedia, vandalism is the sincerest form of flattery. --kizzle 07:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Good question about barnstars...I was getting ready to develop an article about the 1988 Yellowstone Fires...I spent 37 days there then fighting those fires and am putting the info together and I get to see this sorry waste of life wasting my time...oh well. I say let it go..."don't feed the trolls". Also, I inserted the info (essentially) that James wanted as his reluctant version of the Rfc...but deleted the sentence discussing the psychology stuff...If he decides he wants it in, then that's fine too. After trying multiple times in the Bush article to update the passages and dealing with the vandalism I got fed up with that mess and I am resuming my efforts to just do one or two vandalism reverts a day there...What's the status on the partial block for such situations (blocking vandalized pages from edits aside from registered users)?--MONGO 08:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The status is that its on hold, despite many people on here requesting it. Its basically one guy on the actual bugzilla site is holding to his dogma that preventing anon ip edits, no matter what, is wrong. I highly suggest clicking on the link on James's talk page, getting an account, and putting your feedback in, as its stalling right now due to simply 2 people on bugzilla... not enough people know about it, so if you know anybody else who wants such an option, direct them to the bug link. --kizzle 08:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and get to it tomorrow...the night is old.--MONGO 08:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

but since he is also known as "bro" that certainly explains his apparent problem with you. Wait, since when do I have a problem with kiz? We've spoken over quite a few pages, and while certainly disagreeing, its been quite a pleasant experience. Oh, wait, more nonsense. Sorry to clutter up your page kiz, but this is ohso entertaining. -bro 172.137.190.250 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

My Kung-Fu is very strong

Just thought you'd like to know - your [comment] on Karl Rove is now immortalized on my userpage. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 20:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sweeeeet :). I'm flattered. --kizzle 20:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Block

You can just ask to be blocked, you don't have to vandalise pages to get it. Would you like me to block you for 24 hours? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 20:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe we go with 48 hours under repeated vandalisms to George W. Bush. Redwolf24 21:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

But its much more fun..... yeah sure, why not. I need to get this stuff done instead of lounging. But I didn't repeatedly vandalize the page, so just 24h please. :) --kizzle 21:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Go get your work done. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 21:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What the F%&@ was that about, Kizzle? Don't wig out on us!--MONGO 00:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Had shit to do today, and i'm a full-blown wikiholic. this is what i'm reduced to ;) plus I now have my highly offending vandalized version of GWB as my start page. by the way, i can't even believe that picture is allowed on Wikipedia, as I didn't upload it. --kizzle 00:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were blocked? Your ninja powers include editing while blocked? JamesMLane 02:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It's kinda fun being blocked, now I know how rex felt. --kizzle 04:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, not to encourage more, but it's funnier than the one with Jar Jar Binks' picture there instead of Bush...don't worry...only three more years...I must be getting old to think that 3 years is a short period of time, especially when it means 3 more years of George Jr.--MONGO 03:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT VANDALIZE George Bush page. Anyone, even kids can could have seen it. I know that was just a one time trick out of the bag, and I must say quite a bag...but that was TOTALLY uncalled-for.Voice of All(MTG) 03:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Voice of All(MTG). This could have caused problems for Wikipedia. Whoever is actually depicted in that photo might be very upset at being identified as George W. Bush. JamesMLane 03:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

HA! Unless it really is part of him as seen with an electron microscope.--MONGO 04:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it was uncalled for, but I got my work done. I couldn't believe that image was on Wikipedia. Dude, there's some pretty disturbing stuff uploaded to Wikipedia. --kizzle 04:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, somehow my block got extended. If someone could be as so kind to let Francs2000 know that I'd like to be unblocked now. Thanks. --kizzle 21:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I like how you ask to be unblocked from editing by editing your user talk page to add a comment. How do you do this? Your power have grown since last time.............................................oh wait, what last time?:)Voice of All(MTG) 21:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, no, all I'm allowed to edit is my user talk page, thus i can't even message anyone else. So I'll just sit here and talk and talk by myself :). --kizzle 21:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kizbiscuit

Hey there - I emphasized my post on the irreg/controversy article, hopefully that answers your question re: relevance(s) to the election, etc. Hope you're well, and recovering from your bout with temporary insanity! -- RyanFreisling @ 13:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, ya I'm back to normal. Every once in a while you just gotta let out some steam! --kizzle 16:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Semi protection?

Check it out....[16]--MONGO 17:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

WikiFun Round 9: Lightning Round Time

I have decided to attempt to advance and end the round quickly. Parts of the question will be revealed with more hints and/or be more elaborated on as every two days. I have currently provided more hints on the answer pages for the current remaining questions. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

sourcin

Hope I answered your query somewhat on my talk page. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

ignore

fyi - i'm now ignoring 'bro', if you are confused as to my silence. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Avi Rubin gets $7.5m to study Election reform (good news)

[17]. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 21:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice. I hope none of it goes to Stanford's Hoover institute. --kizzle 21:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Something you might be very interested in

n:2004_Bush_campaign_chairman_pleads_guilty_to_election_fraud,_conspiracy

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/10/national/w231835D50.DTL

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! I just sent "countdown@msnbc.org" this email:

Keith,
I thought you might be interested in some pretty
shocking news related to election fraud:

Despite a zero-tolerance policy on tampering with
voters, the Republican Party has quietly paid hundreds
of thousands of dollars to provide private defense
lawyers for a former Bush campaign official charged
with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New
Hampshire.

James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman
for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal
court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring
with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in
Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union
get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.

A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up
phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New
Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic
voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors
allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that
day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.

At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional
director, before moving to President Bush's 2004
re-election campaign.

A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP
consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated
with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of
specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a
telephone firm to help in the scheme.

...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/10/national/w231835D50.DTL

also see:

The Indictment -
http://wid.ap.org/documents/tobinindictment.pdf 

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's recent letter on voter
suppression -
http://wid.ap.org/documents/rncletter.pdf

Republican National Commitee -
http://www.rnc.org

(The shocking part, ofcourse, is that there was some
justice, not that the GOP engaged in election fraud.
(which is obvious to anyone paying attention))

Hope you can use this!
-Kevin Baas

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

getting a head start on losing the 2006 election?--I-2-d2 21:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

psst

[18] -- RyanFreisling @ 01:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry - I meant to point out the anon user's link attack on that article (latest history). He/she has deleted the Palast links 3x, claiming the style guidelines demand it. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for opening up the clean slate on Talk:Ted Kennedy. I had been trying to do that since yesterday without completely removing everything, but you've done well to clear it all together. Thanks a million for stepping up and taking control where other admins haven't. - Sleepnomore 20:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but no problem :) --kizzle 20:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your help would be appreciated

I thought things were going so much better last night with the clean slate on Talk:Ted Kennedy. User:Silverback refuses to let the issue go, however. I don't have a problem with his complaints, but they don't belong on user talk pages. Would you please help to restore the "clean slate" you did before as I felt there was much better progress that way. - Sleepnomore 14:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture - comments requested

My photo of the bust of Antinous, currently under comment for featured picture

[19] I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI my image lost by one vote - wish you'd participated. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edit's are considered vandalism

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you., please cease your vandalism, or you will be blocked--I-2-d2 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --kizzle 00:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yo

Thought you'd want to see this 'interesting' series of articles by Klonimus - [20], [21], [22] etc. See his user page. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

We could use your input

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories&action=history Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I will begin drafing it at User:Hipocrite/BD7RFC in the next few hours. I would appreciate your input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! A lot of work going down for someone who's constant message to me was 'Focus on the edits...not the editors."

Or, perhaps your advice was just for others, huh? lol! Big Daddy 04:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's a shame you've become the focus by consistantly defending your right to polemics. --kizzle 18:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh.

edit conflict as I was trying to move it. :)

You need to certify the basis for the RFC or it will be deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh?--kizzle 23:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Our friend

Kizzle, first of all, thanks for your kind words about my discourse on the Coulter talk page. (I mistakenly told you 'thank you' on your user page; I am taking the liberty of deleting it there.) I was probably too wordy, but I meant all of them.

Second, I have left BigDaddy777 some words on his talk page, but have noticed he has not been contributing for about a day. Has he been blocked, or is he absent by his own choice?

(We'll get through this, I promise.) Regards, paul klenk 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to try and help out, he has edited a couple times since the RfC (specifically one choice comment vowing to recruit editors to come to his aid, look in the RfC under "Evidence since RfC was filed"), but overall it has slowed down. Good luck with your efforts, I would much rather this end with BigDaddy learning to be civil, because I do agree with him that content is tilted to the left (though not intentionally) on Wikipedia, and I think the articles here would benefit from his scrutiny. --kizzle 05:04, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

We have been in touch, yes. It will be a challenge, but I will give it a try. paul klenk 00:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

" Big Daddy, ...I'd respond to your comment but I'm afraid that would constitute feeding the troll. --kizzle 16:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)"

"Its generally the old white balding fat men who have problems getting girls." --kizzle

don't be such a bitter bee. --kizzle 21:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

"If you think Ann Coulter is beautiful, you need to find more beautiful people to hang out with." --kizzle

And Kizzle goes to great lengths to accuse ME of making 'personal attacks'??

Hmmmm...Hello Kettle! LOL!!!

Big Daddy 03:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

For the first comment, if you actually participated in the RfC, you'd see my offer to retract and apologize for such an allegation if you withdraw your personal attacks. "Its generally the old white balding fat men who have problems getting girls..." and "If you think Ann Coulter is beautiful, you need to find more beautiful people to hang out with"... I wasn't referring to you, just responding to your "theory" about why us liberals are closet Coulter admirers. Bitter bee was actually made in good faith, I was trying to be playful with a certain editor to get them to lighten up. Sigh.... this is about your 6th attempt to try to justify your hostile behavior.... just don't do it. Period. --kizzle 18:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this evidence makes it clear to all reasonable and objective people that, if one wanted to issue an RfC for the reasons you've ostensibly stated (instead of the real reason which is as a vindictive retaliatory attempt at silencing someone whom you feel endangers the liberal hegemony on Wik) then you and Ryan would be the first in line... Big Daddy (coming home soon)

Kizzle, to be clear, if the reply to the RFC is anything along the lines of above (IE: My accusers are just trying to silence me! I have done nothing wrong!), then I will proceed immediately to RFAr. There is adequate consensus on the RFC page that the editor in question needs to make changes to his talk page behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Illinoisian#Warning.3F (Wow! And I thought Hippocrite only stalked me!) Ps Kizzle, it seems I greatly underestimated your troubled history on Wikipedia as well. For those unaware, just read this very talk page and follow the links. It's a tawdry history filled with repeated accusations and warnings from administrators and users alike. I think most reasonable people would agree that, in light of these revelations that both Hippocrite and Kizzle have a very questionable history on Wikipedia, that any attempts to discipline others must be met with, at the very least, a modicum of suspicion... Big Daddy 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the user in question was banned from wikipedia indefinetly for trolling and vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I do have a history of dealing with troublesome users who do not respect civility or the community itself; you certainly aren't the first, and you won't be the last. That's just the way it goes. See you at Arbitration. --kizzle 22:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You both have this game figured out. Too bad I discovered it. I note that this user (and there are surely more which will be uncovered) was also a conservative. So Kizzle who has been warned by administrators and editors throughout his tenure here for a variety of violations plays the good guy 'just trying to help.' While Hippocrite, exhibiting almost the same identical pattern in case after case, falsely accuses conservatives of a variety of rules violations. It's eerily uncanny how Hippocrite smeared others before me in virtually the same fashion. Sorry guys, the gigs up. I've got WAY too much info on how you've subverted wikipedia to make it your little POV paradise. And half of what I got, I'm holding onto until time and place suggests it's appropo. I have to say though that hippocrite calling the FOUNDER of Wikipedia, just another editor takes the cake. I knew from the very beginning of this farce that, if I just waited long enough, you guys would overplay your hand. But I had no idea just how absurdly you would. Big Daddy 07:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Request

I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

---

hey kiz, weren't you supposed to be gone after you settled coulter? something about school? what, you need a 12-step program for your addiction? anyways, i'm back, sort of, in and out likely. had a totally shitty couple months, watching a death schiavo-style except conscious. i am really, really, really, really pissed at the jerry falwells of the world right now, and at the politicians they own. anyways, glad to see you're still addicted here; it's cheaper than some habits i've had ;) Derex 05:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

ya, more or less I was gone after coulter and Bush RfC working on my outline until rex's protoge came on board, then I felt I needed to stick around a little longer. I'll still be around but I won't be editing much in article space in about a week, i got re-admitted and my reliving college days officially starts on thursday. anytime you go back to visit hit me up :) ... sorry you had to watch that shit, hope it wasn't like a brother or anything really close, but glad you're back bro. By the way, I emailed every single professor in the poly sci department with my paper and a whole rigorous set of milestones I'd have to pass pleading with them to let me take independent study for peer review, a couple wrote back saying they'd be interested but they were on leave, but I don't think any of them are going to do it. You'd figure some prof would be a liberal activist on the side, especially in SB with its history, but I guess not. And I'm taking econ 1 with sonstelie if you know who that is... need some business sense to round out the philosophy...so you can help me on my homework :) --kizzle 18:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

sorry man. i wrote a long rant about how corrupt the whole system is. but, my browser crashed before i saved. short version: there's no reward to being an 'educator'. sometimes it's actually penalized. friend at ucsb actually got chewed out for perfect evals because it meant she was prioritizing that over research. and the 'research' end is corrupt too. it's shocking how much completely useless & incompetent stuff gets published and how much useful & innovative stuff gets rejected. anyways, it was a long rant and writing it uplifted my soul in a bitter & cynical way.

was my ex-wife's mother, very sad & brutal. literally died in her arms. can starve her to death for 3 weeks with doctor's supervision, but can't help her die peacefully. that's murder everywhere but oregon. and bush is trying to stop it there by yanking medical licenses. hope he dies that way himself or maybe for lack of stem-cell research. hell, why not both at once?

will almost surely be down sometime this fall; will look you up. Derex 20:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BD777 RFC page

kizzle, I noticed that some of my recent comments to the "Motion to Suspend" section, along with a large chunk of other text, got deleted during one of your recent revisions. I was running into edit conclicts myself... Is that what happened? May I restore what was cut? paul klenk 02:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey paul, I moved everything from Gator's comment below to the talk in the hopes that my offer to BigDaddy wouldn't get ignored by more talk. --kizzle 02:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that -- thanks. I am certain your request for his comment will not go unheard, or unheeded. paul klenk 03:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle writes: "I'm afraid I can't stop those who want you to be punished..."

Call me crazy, but that sounds like a threat. Why would anyone want to punish me for merely bringing balance to Wikipedia? You apparently know who they are. Can you tell me their names? Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this very serious matter! Big Daddy (on the road again.)

People want you to be punished because of your conduct in the matter and the fact that you still have refused to comment on your own RfC. I don't know anything more than you do, but as it stands, you basically have me and paul on your side believing that you can change with everyone else giving up on you as a lost cause. I won't say anything further on the matter, but it would be significantly in your best interests if you respect Wikipedia procedures by commenting on the RfC before Tuesday is over.--kizzle 00:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You refuse to mention names so I can't really believe you, unless you're indicting EVERYBODY - katefan, ryan, drex, etc etc. If that's true, it's a VERY SERIOUS charge. What you're in essence saying is that a group of vindictive people are trying to censor me without cause because of my political beliefs. That's what I have maintained from the beginning. It has to be that since the only thing you could otherwise accuse me of at the time of this charge is namecalling which is how YOU introduced yourself to me. Name calling....Sounds like something's fishy is going on. But I will reserve judgment for after I've spoken with some higher-ups in Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind me reporting your actions. Thanks! Big Daddy (on the road)

You are not understanding what I'm saying. Your conduct and accordance with Wikipedia official policies has been less than stellar since you started editing here. This is the reason why the RfC was filed against you. Almost everyone has given up on your ability to change from your hostile ways, paul and I (until wednesday) have not. As for reporting my actions, I seriously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about nor any faint idea as to what you could report, but feel free to do whatever you wish. --kizzle 02:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Will do...Big Daddy (on the road thru tomorrow...)

By the way, if you don't edit the RfC by end of today, don't even think about using the excuse that you were on the road, given the amount of edits you've made on your anon account since you've been "on the road". --kizzle 22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yer Reel

Has playback problems on Mac. Is there a torrent or binary for the full download? Thanks - can't wait to see it! -- RyanFreisling @ 13:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You mean my paper? --kizzle 17:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm, yeah - the video thing you told me to look at doesn't work on Windows Media Player for Mac. Just fyi, do with it what you will. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Preparing for reconciliation

I want the BD RfC resolved, or at least put in the past. I'm asking him to answer the RfC. I respect your reasons and intentions for bringing the RfC and the usefulness of RfCs to WP culture. This user did have it coming. However, this particular RfC is very dependent on characterizations of comments, rather than hardcore facts (which do exist) for its weight. Characterizations are often very POV in and of themselves, and accurate ones usually include points valid to each side. Many false accusations of "vandalism" were thrown around at one point; this certainly could not have given the user any confidence in the credibility of the "team" involved. Also, this isn't, in the grand scheme of things, the biggest deal in the world. To help those involved to prepare for this reconciliation (I am sending this identical message to the three original signatories), I am asking them to:

• Go over your own edit history with respect to the user, in detail, with the same scrupulousness with which you have examined his. View it as an adversary might. This requires time and work.

1. Identify anything, directed at the user or referring to him, that has been a violation of WP policy, or could be construed as such, including the possible inadvertant deletion of a user's text on a talk page by someone that, technically, was a violation of vandalism policy, and later reverted by an admin. Because RfCs involve behavior before and after they are brought, do not limit your review to pre-RfC history.
2. Identify all comments you have made that could be misconstrued as an "attack" -- based, of course, on the same standards which the other user is being held to. Recognize how unforgiving edit histories are.
3. Then, apologize to the user in advance for any and all of these things which you have done, even if his sins are greater than your own. This is known in Wikiquette as admitting one's mistakes.

• Give the user some credit -- to his face -- for identifying the bias in the Rove article (the NPOV tag I added has never been seriously questioned, has it?), and for the reasonableness, if not the certainty, of a newbie making conclusions, however silly, of a liberal "cabal" or clique at WP (indicated by comments such as "Sticking together on Rove").
• Let the user know you're not perfect, and will happily accept an apology from him as well.
• If the user chooses not to give the answer he is being asked to give, be prepared to move on.

You can never pile too much love onto an adversary. It's called "heaping coals on their head." I'm asking this user to swallow his pride and admit his errors. Let's all be prepared to do the same. This may require us helping him to find ways to save face. We all screw up from time to time. We all require grace. If I've made any errors, let me know as well.

If it only took one sin to be damned to hell, we'd all be damned to hell. Once we were there, would there by any point in arguing about who's sins were worse? Hardly.

paul klenk 10:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for a link

I'm trying to analyze User:BigDaddy777's behavior in context, based on the RfC. This is very hard, because the RfC quotes him out of context; I can't fairly analyze a quote that way. Working through the threads to do post mortems is extremely time consuming.

Would you please send me one or two links to a discussion of some length, representing BDs worst behavior? It should include more than just one or two isolated remarks.

Please leave it at my talk page under User talk:Paul Klenk#BG777 Worst-Of Threads, trying not duplicate a thread submitted someone else. I will continue to sort through the RfC, but one or two links would be a great help. Thanks.

paul klenk ^talk 07:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I'm not so sure about some of the links posted after the RfC was filed, personally, I don't have too much of a problem with most of them, but as for the links before the RfC was filed in the evidence section, they're all pretty bad and I don't think were taken out of context. Click on the links yourself to see the discussions where they were originating from. I personally don't understand why you continue to defend someone who is too bullheaded to even comment on their own RfC. I don't want to spend any more of my time with a problem user's behavior, especially one who refuses to acknowledge they even have a problem. I've already bent over backwards giving this user the benefit of the doubt time and time again, where he then threatens to report me while I am trying to help him. If you truly want to defend him, you spend the time analyzing whether or not the evidence section is taken out of context, cause I sure as hell am not going to. Regardless of what you might find, he did commit the personal attacks, he was uncivil and even implicitly admits that he was when he responded to my comment saying he was getting better, yet he continues to show a lack of respect for his co-editors by refusing to even acknowledge the case we have brought to try and get him to change his behavior. Enough second, third, and fourth chances. If he is refusing to acknowledge his behavior, than we need to move this to a platform where he is unable to ignore the ramifications. --kizzle 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)