User talk:Derex/1

page created Derex 3 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

Cromwell

Please explain your revert.

Lapsed Pacifist 6 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

bush RfC

you might want to take a look at this, I re-factored the poll to include v1.5.

Talk:George_W._Bush#Scope_of_details

If you meant to vote for v1.5 but voted none of the above because there wasn't a link, then you might want to voice your opinion here...however if you don't agree with any of the versions than just ignore this :) --kizzle 19:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC) --kizzle 19:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

poll

You may want to scroll down the Bush talk page to a more recent poll underway and see now that version one is now version 1.5, and versions 3 and 4 are the same and cast a simple vote (no comments on the vote line, but welcomed just below the vote setcion). Have a good day.--MONGO 20:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the comment about the Clinton page. Last week I had suggested to a friend, who wanted to learn more about Clinton, that she refer to the Wikipedia article. After reviewing the article myself, I felt terrible about that recommendation, and decided to help. Hopefully it will never degenerate to former quality. luketh 07:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Willey

You're right, this guy's a total douchebag. I saw your deleted requests on his page that he stop personally atacking you, you're a lot more civil than I am to people like that. --kizzle 05:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Belated welcome

Hi, Derex, thanks for your note, good to see you again! I meant to respond earlier but I keep succumbing to the temptation to try to explain things to the anon on George W. Bush. Your comment about letting someone frustrate you is all too true. Frankly, though, I don't know if I'll have time to look at the Clinton articles. Besides all this political stuff, I've been involved in trying to prevent a couple of homeopaths from biasing the Homeopathy article, although I've neglected that the last few days. When I need a break from Bush, I'd be more inclined to go to something nonpolitical like that.

You might want to note, on User:Derex or User:Wolfman or both, that they're the same person, even if the former is a little less hairy.  :) There's nothing inherently wrong with renaming yourself, but you don't want people to think you're trying to conceal your relationship with your past. As Wolfman, you had a fine record, so you might as well make the link to help establish your credentials. JamesMLane 16:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ryan

No, that's not me. I've got better skin and slightly better posture. Good to meet you as well, and thanks for the hello! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 04:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Added my pic to my Talk page. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So, when do we see Derex, née Wolfman? :) -- RyanFreisling @ 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that question is like the piece of cake in Eco's 'Name of the Rose'... once I answer, it's too late! -- RyanFreisling @ 03:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. After meditating on that for two months, I reckon I'll just have to serve up both. Wonders where the hell is his camera. Derex 07:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan likey. Nice to meet you! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 04:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

coulter

your comment here would be appreciated :) --kizzle 03:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Coulter

It doesn't quite work that way. There is no "default". Either a page is stable or it is not. When there is consensus and someone calls a vote, for instance, you tend to see most people stacking up on one side and one or two opposing it. This hasn't happened here (although I opposed calling the vote for the very reason that I perceive no consensus). In the absence of consensus there is no "default". We'll go on arguing about it until someone rewrites it to the satisfaction of all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well my starting position is that these braindumps are best put on Wikiquote and linked. I always remove them on sight because they're not encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Laramie

Ah, I'll bet you teach? Laramie is over 7 thousand feet above sea level so it takes a few days to get used to the altitude...your girl was from Bozeman...I like that town...only it's gotten pricey compared to the rest of the state. Madison river...now that's nice country eh....if you caught one trout fly fishing, you've done about as good as I have...mostly I just reel fish from shore or boat...I know everything there is to know about fishing, except how to catch them! Well, Montana is my roots, but I actually spent more than a decade in VIrginia so that is my second home...these days, I live in the most boring place in the country...Nebraska...if I drive 8 hours west I can almost get to Cheyenne...and that's as close as I am to the mountains I love and that sucks!--MONGO 06:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Quick questions

Derex, thanks for the compliment for the apparently "compelling defense" I gave Cecropia once...can you point me to it? I can't recall what I said back then, and I'd love to look it over. I do remember writing a very long explanation of the evils of voting and the importance of seeking and building consensus, but I think that was a discussion over whether or not people had to explain their oppose votes. Anyway, if you do recall which candidate it referred to, or where exactly I said it, I'd love to see the link. And thanks again for letting me know that I, on at least one occasion, actually made an impact. :-) Too often I feel as though I am talking to no one. And finally, I am curious about your former username, being one of the older gang around here (or so it would seem), so if you're willing to tell me, drop it here or on my talk page. Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 19:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

hey!!

specify an e-mail, you bastard. --kizzle 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

What's up. When you get a chance, can you take a look at the Bill Clinton article? It's been taken over by rexians. --kizzle 20:49, July 25, 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 09:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)1

Thanks for the note

I appreciate your thoughts.

I have read the 3RR rule very, very carefully. I know exactly what Ryan did. She was clearly stomping over others' edits by undoing them. She did it cleverly, she made her accusations, she left other minor pieces (like a comma) while wiping away their work.

The Rove page needs a lot of trimming. Do we have to justify ever trim we make to Ryan's satisfaction every time we do it? Clearly not. She is not the boss; she doesn't get to make that call. Read her "reasons" in her explanation lines... "POV", "vandalism", -- I have cited them in my original complaint.

She is hiding behind these remarks to cover up what she's doing.

I really appreciate your participation, but I respectfully do not buy your explanations. We can talk about it again sometime -- I will continue to do reading.  :-) paul klenk 05:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Got your recent message; I read it carefully. It was extremely thoughtful and meaningful. Thanks for that. Agree with everything you said except what I am "at heart" -- I am increasingly ambivalent to polarized political ideologies. The only thing I care about is the truth. Stop by anytime. paul klenk 08:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

glad. btw, 'liberal at heart' was just a joke. Derex 15:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

dont feed trolls

Derex, please don't unnecessarily engage with some smart but stupid editors. While it might be fun, this may trigger some wild response which would waste other people's time to clean the resulting mess. In particular I would suggest to revret your recent addtion to LevKamensky talk page. mikka (t) 18:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHA, I love it! --kizzle 18:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

BD

Saw your reply to me on kizzle's page; thought I would answer here.

I haven't seen anything I would call "hostile" lately -- maybe you and I use those terms differently. Would you mind pointing to something in the past few days you would call hostile?

Also, as well-meaning as the RfC is, I gave some reasons on Calicocat's page why it is seriously flawed. It hurt its own case.

Note the anonymous person glutting tons more negative quotes onto "evidence of disputed behavior", as late as today, that purport to illustrate his behavior. It is so overblown, it is undermining the credibility of everyone bringing the RfC. The person adding those quotes showed up around the 10th or so. With no prior history, they've spent their time going after BD. paul klenk ^talk 22:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree that at least half of the quotes listed after the RfC were filed aren't really a big deal, but there's still the other half that are. And regardless of what anyone thinks about BD's behavior, the fact that he refuses to comment on his own RfC is a perfect illustration of his bullheadedness in dealing with other editors. All he has to do is write "I will not make personal attacks anymore", and as long as he followed up, we'd all be happy. But he's too stubborn to even do that. Regardless of any perceived improvement on his behavior, this sticks out like a sore thumb. --kizzle 22:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

well, last i checked was tuesday or so. i noticed some additions to the rfc today, but didn't read them. so, maybe he has started shaping up. i'll stipulate to it, since I don't want to spend time on BD right now. as kizzle said, let BD simply respond with an "i'll respect these policies", and i'm all for pulling the rfc. it's not like an rfc is a punishment, it's just a place to comment to determine community consensus. i don't see any reason to remove it without consensus, which we by definition don't have if one of the major parties won't even comment. at this point, i don't actually think he will respond. obnoxious, but not that big a deal. but then why should we pull the rfc, which is not that big a deal either? i say just leave it up, but also stop wasting time worrying about BD. if he causes serious trouble again, then take him to arbcom. he has no excuses as a newbie now.

that said, i hope he does stick around with a more congenial attitude. everyone here acts as if all editors have to be neutral in their beliefs. i personally think that a 'congenial adversarial' system produces better and more neutral articles in the end. a conservative is quite likely to spot hidden biases in a liberal's edits and vice versa. partisans are also more likely to spend real time digging up facts. as long as there are active contributors on both sides, and as long as they respect and value each other's contributions, then i think articles end up better in the long run. there are probably more liberals here than conservatives (i'm neither). so, i'd like to see BD stick around and become a force for both neutrality and quality in this sense. but, i will not hesitate to advocate his bannination if he behaves like an asshole in the future. Derex 01:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, ignoring for the moment that last reference to me above, thanks for your gentle suggestions on my Talk Page. I have to tell you though, getting advice on how to be persuasive from someone trying to defeat you in a debate is a little like asking the auto showroom salesman to negotiate with his manager on your behalf! Be that as it may, thanks. I take these comments in the adversarial congenial (or is that 'congenial adversarial'?) spirit in which they were offered. :) Big Daddy 17:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend

I'm curious -- is there any reason the anonymous Jonah sock can't just be blocked? He is manipulating others' user pages, taking credit for Jonah's edits, then immediately denying it. What else is needed for a block? paul klenk ^talk 06:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure, I rather suspect that's enough. It's ok to edit as an anon obviously. But, lieing about it is not. And I'd say it's pretty transparent. I put together a bit of evidence on the ip's user page sockpuppet tag. I think there's a page for requesting action on things like this, probably there's a link on the sockpuppet tag itself. This guy's a real piece of work. Took the time to write a real nice note trying to mediate on the Biff issues, and he just deleted it. Derex 06:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I do think he needs to be blocked. He is not making things easier to help sort things out with Jonah, either. My messages to Jonah and the anon have been blanked. I did leave a message on the WP:AN/I page, but the admin who responded suggested we do nothing at that point. He was unaware of what was happening in the last half hour or so. paul klenk ^talk 06:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow -- now Jonah is logged in, blanking my message to him, but leaving my name on his enemies list. Doesn't bode well for either of them. paul klenk ^talk 06:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, the issue isn't so much the tag which I just put there to help keep track. It's that he's running around lying about being Jonah. Either that, or he really ought to be blocked as a vandal for screwing up Jonah's talk page. I'd say just leave it for now, unless he starts causing real trouble. In that case, it should be pretty easy to get action. I'm not sure this is a garden variety asshole; there are real paranoids out there & wikipedia attracts its share. So, I think I'll just stick to watching for bad page edits rather than engaging with him -- my efforts were getting ignored anyway. Derex 06:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You may have hit the nail on the head. We'll just keep our eyes open. paul klenk ^talk 06:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

THANK YOU for the sockpuppet tag on Bob's Steve espinola page!! I was wondering if you also tagged all of Bob's known sockpuppets?

• Dearth vader
• Sojambi Pinela — spoof of the legit Pinola :o
• Mmmmmmbo
• Peter Pie
• Steve espinola
• Bag of donuts

The weird thing, they all protest being sockpuppets, they all vandalize either my page, pages marked for cleanup (Espinola single-handedly reverted my cleanup tag migrations on a few hundred articles), willmcw's and sonjambi's talk pages, and esp. Biff Rose article. Several of them have explicitly claimed they are being advocated by one admin (I forget name) which Espinola really is/was at some point. The more I think about it, it's almost like this guy actually has split personalities that manifest themselves on wiki :O At least, it's a proven fact that intentionally splitting one's personality in so many pieces in such a degree as above actually *greatly* increases the risk of developing uncontrollable Multiple personality disorder. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 11:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose

I'm glad you found that article. He's really not _so_ obscure. He was a pretty big countercultural star in the late 60's (appearing 12 times on the Tonight Show in about a year is not that common, and never was), & had significant FM album airplay through the early 1970's. The primary reason he is less remembered than others in his fame bracket is that his work has not been reissued, which is a matter of his original label going under; other "cult" music of the time that was on, say, Warner Bros. gets reissued and rediscovered, because the label still exists.

He was a big influence on David Bowie, who took much of his early sound from Biff's first album. He's the kind of songwriter where the people who resonate with his stuff _really_ resonate with it, positively or negatively...hence some of the passion over this article. The best of his art is pretty unique and special. Much of his output will be reissued in the next few months, so you may be hearing more about it. -Sojambi Pinola 05:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Two Biff Rose albums "Roast Beef" and "Thee Messiah Album" will not be re-released. The rights to those two albums are owned by downpatrecords and they have no intention on releasing them on CD as long as Biff is alive (according to their PR department).

Haven't seen me:

The reason you haven't seen me before is because I don't do or care about politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman

I was mildly surprised to see your signatures show up on the Agiantman RfC and the revenge RfC that Agiantman then filed against me, after they have been inactive as long as they have, especially since Agiantman has not edited for more than a month. Did you decide to review RfCs for background reading, or did you start following the Ted Kennedy edit wars?

The fact that Agiantman has not edited since August is one reason why I think that he and 24.147 may be sockpuppets of each other. Did you also read the RfC on 24.147? Robert McClenon 18:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

Since you endorsed the original RfC [1], I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed.[2] Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. Mr. Tibbs 04:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

When fair hits POV-warrior

Yes, I'm trying to be fair, but in doing so it's become incredibly clear to me that when fair hits POV warrior, POV warrior wins. All of the effort goes into fixing the outrageous things that the outrageous POV warrior writes, while the undercover warrior gets away with murder in the interim. For an example, see what BD777 did to the Tom DeLay article - specifically, the worthless inclusion of irrelevent info on Travis County in the intro. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Big Daddy 05:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip, you got served. ;) --kizzle 02:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested

Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 03:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right, Derex. Consider me disengaged. I've also considered removing my name from the RfAR entirely to prevent any clouding of the issue. I don't think I'm bringing any particularly new evidence to the Rfar, and I would hate to have my "rising to troll bait" distract from the issues at hand. Do you think I should remove my comments? Eleemosynary 06:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Derex is right about you needing to disengage. However, removing your statement removes a valuable comment. Best to let it be. BigDaddy is going to pull the "Oh I was just defending myself from the evil liberal conspiracy's attacks against me!" bit regardless of whether your statement is up or not. You need that comment up there to establish your original opinion, and you need to be prepared to defend yourself while at the same time accepting responsibility for all of your actions later on when the actual Arbitration begins. For instance, I am the original filer of this RfAr and take full responsibility for any "backfire"[3] that results from these proceedings. You might want to take a look at Precedent[4] so you can see how Arbitrations regarding this issue usually go. Mr. Tibbs 07:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, just let it be. Derex 07:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Eleemosynary 09:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Just thought you should know since you've at least attempted to be fair and reasonable in our past interactions...

Apparently, he...just...can't...let it be. Feel free to delete the following that was left on my Talk page. (I certainly did) but after all the warnings, pleadings and cajolings from you guys begging him to to just 'play nice' for now (I assume since you laughably think you can fool the arbs) He still couldn't help himself. Here's his latest: (As I said, I'm only providing this for informational purposes, feel free to delete.)

Is Little Baby lonely? Why else would you be trolling my talk page?

I received an angry message from you on my Talk Page. This could be considered stalking. You might want to desist.

... Were you lying about reporting me, or was your claim found to be totally without merit? Or did you report me to a sockpuppet?

Take a deep breath. Calm down. All you need to do to feel better is turn tail and run, delete my comments, and ask one of your sockpuppets for support. Have a great week! Eleemosynary

I'm sorry for having to clutter your page with this nonsense. But you should know that from the very first post I received from Kizzle calling me a troll to this one, the pattern is irrefutable. You don't like me removing liberal bias from articles so you personally attack. And then when I defend myself you accuse me of being guilty of the very thing you just did. (When I say 'you' I'm not necessarily referring to you Derex, but just to whomever the shoe fits.)

Not only that, and I'm holding this in reserve, but I did a little research and found that this is the exact same pattern...almost word for word that your fellow like-minded liberal editors have used to marginalize, discriminate against and ultimately (with varying degrees of success) attempt to ban tons of other conservatives who wanted to clean up Wikipedia from systemic POV problems in the past. The similarity is almost eerie.

I guess this is what's meant when the scriptures say 'There is nothing new under the sun' huh?

Bottom Line: Try as you might to fool the arbs and present a civil and united face for PR purposes, you guys just...can't...help yourselves. This latest post from elemsynary irrefutably establishes that. You not only have been found guilty of being unable to build community with me. You can't even keep your own community within in check.

My advice: Give it up cause it's not working. Recognize there's a serious endemic problem with POV here and work with me to clean it up. It can be done if you learn to admit there's a problem, quit covering up for it, and work together to solve it. Ultimately, this will be the final result. It's what Jimmy Wales wants and I'm here to help.

Why waste any more of your time in a doomed, fruitless and dishonest personal attack? In light of this most recent outburst just hours ago (and countless before it) I hope you still don't think the arbs will believe your only problem with me is 'incvility.' The whole process will only backfire. And not just on formerly-anonymous-now-Mr.Tibbs (wait until you see what I uncovered about his activities)....but all involved. Your pal, Big Daddy 11:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd advise you to look at the post I was responding to when I called you a troll and tell me you weren't trying to provoke a negative response (as in the definition of trolling)... oh wait, that's right, you can't respond because of repeated vandalism to other people's comments despite several admin warnings. --kizzle 03:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Frist

User:Whitfield Larrabee added an NPOV tag to the Bill Frist article because the current version doesn't include the entire animal paragraph. If I do anything to correct it, he'll throw a complete conniption fit. --FRCP11 03:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Detail

Is good. :) Thx, RyanFreisling @ 03:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Saddam/AQ page

Hi - there's a vote going on at Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that you may be interested in. I know you haven't been following the discussion but you did take a look at it and you are familiar with Silverback's antics. He and I have been at an edit war for several days now and proposing a vote on his changes seemed to be the only way to move things along.--csloat 06:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

FRIST

I thought your compromise was an improvement. Thank you. I suggested compromise language regarding his mental state and I will see how that goes. --Whitfield Larrabee 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

Thanks for the note. I'm new here, didn't realize such strange things happen here. But I wil lsay, Rose is pretty racist. His songs, his personality. He used to hang around my bar, and I had to tell him he couldn't call people the 'N' word while I was working. He thought it was cute, but it pissed people off, and his self recorded discs, you gotta hear them to believe them. I was awestruck that someone on here likened him to Joyce... That was so obviously written by either Biff himself, or someone real close to him- he compares himself to a lot of people. Anyhow, I may stay away from that topic. I like things less bombastic. If I were you, I'd get to know Rose's work and you'll see what those people are so mad about. Since I'm not you, I'll shut up, before I wear out my welcome.

I lived in NOLA for undergrad. Bartended. I don't ever want to work in a bar again, but it was worth it, for every Biff, there were ten or twenty characters I'll never forget. A real tropical existence. Anyway, thanks for stopping by and giving me the lowdown. It does seem funny that there is so much written about Rose, and so little on the page I edited for Paul Williams. And Williams sold millions of records. That must be the uniqueness of this wikipedia experience.Mary Hope 01:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a dumb question

Since I am pretty formally illiterate when it comes to economics, I am about to ask a glaringly stupid question. When you talk about major structural changes in an economy, from an agricultural to an industrialised one (I'm thinking Puerto Rico in the postwar period) can you just use call it "macroeconomic" changes (ie, in the next sentance, after discussing what actually went on)? Thanks - Guettarda 05:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

not stupid at all. macroeconomic basically refers to economy-wide phenomena. that is distinct from microeconomis, which refers to households, firms, or individual coomodities. so, yes technically it would be an appropriate use. however, the term "macroeconomics" is most often associated with short-run phenomena such as recessions, inflation, interests rates and so forth. so the term "macroeconomic" in the context you cite is just a little off-key to my ear, though technically correct. actually, the most common professional phrasing would simply be, as you suggest, "structural change", or perhaps "macroeconomic structural change", or simply "industrialization". if you want to point me at a particular paragraph, i'd be glad to have a look and suggest specific phrasing. Derex 05:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Structural" - yes, much better. I've lived through lots of IMF-required structural adjustment - I should be able to come up with that word. :) Actually it's a non-Wikipedia question (I suppose I should have made that more clear). It's more than industrialisation, since the shift also involved migration of "surplus" labour to the US, introduction of US welfare benefits, etc., which priced agriculture out of the labour market, which led to agricultural abandonment and an increase in forest cover from 7% to 35%. Yeah, I need to add all that to a PR article. The question applies to a ms I am working on, and it's been floating around in my mind for a while, what word to use there. Thanks very much. Guettarda 12:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Really cool to hear you are interested. I will look up references - the change in forest cover is well documented, the economic change is well documented. There's conjecture by ecologists linking some of this, I'll look around for references - and continue this conversation by email. Guettarda 13:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Engaging BD, et al.

I hear you. I think he must trigger something in the reptilian part of our brains. Perhaps the instinct to defend oneself against predatory harm. But I do think this will come to a quick, just end. At least I hope so. Eleemosynary 05:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Conservatives

Just in case there was any confusion, yes, I know that conservatives get a fair shake, in general. I do think at times there are some individual editors who are not interested in giving them that fair shake, or are not willing to be as longsuffering and tolerant with them as we sometimes are with belligerent newcomers (but I'm not sure I can blame anyone for that as, in general, I think we are too lenient with belligerent newcomers). But they are, in general, the exception. I see only two real problems: weblogs and forums out there talk about Wikipedia without knowing anything about it, get people riled up, and send them here so they start out with the mentality that they are in a warzone (a problem shared by more than just conservative sites); and sometimes the message that "If you'll just behave and follow policy we'll be more than happy to have you participate and help vet our articles to make sure they are NPOV" is not received, either because it is not sent, not sent properly, or the editor in question doesn't want to listen. Jdavidb (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks. i think we agree on just about every point you make. the shame is that it's really true that most everyone would be happy to have them. Derex 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Move for a temporary injunction against BigDaddy777

A move for a temporary injunction has been filed to prevent BD from altering or removing comments on his talk page. Please support. --Woohookitty 07:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I move we reject this brain-dead proposal. (I'm only trying to help WoohooKitty)Big Daddy 08:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

why would we do this? i don't see how it serves any purpose. Derex @ 16:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

To Derex

I read your offer on the arbcom. I'm not sure if it's still extended as it looks like it was offered, expired then re-offered again. Kind of like that sale down at Bill Crispin Chevrolet. But I first of all want to thank you for extending the offer as it was clearly an example of you reaching out in good faith. I also want to tell you the unvarnished truth since there seems to be some confusion. I HONESTLY did NOT see this offer when you initially posted it on my TalkPage. At first I couldn't figure out why, but if you look at the history as I did, you'll find that you posted it right while I was in the middle of an editing war with some weenie who insisted on posting our private email correspondance on my Talk page. Your offer literally came right in the middle of it. So, you were a victim of bad timing. I was trying to get out of the office but before I could I had to keep deleting this weeny's post. Finally he stopped and I booked.

Now that you know the story, let me address your offer.

First of all, you don't have to withdraw any consideration from the ongoing arb investigation. That process, in my view, has already collapsed under the weight of it's own corruption. I guess, when you have that many people foaming at the mouth, gnashing their teeth and dripping with abject hatred for someone, they're bound to overplay their hand. I predicted this would happen. Do you remember?

Still, I marvelled as it unfolded before my very eyes. There's no way they can recover from that trip into the never-never land of multiple sockpuppetry from Michigan to California via Texas using different ip's, dialects, conversational tones and voices all supposedly masterminded by one person (me) to get a couple edits reverted.

Deflect and distract as they may, the incident is irreversibly DEVASTATING because it proved the point I had been making all along.

These people were not motivated to get me to obey the rules. They were motivated to simply get me.

And the sheer irrationality of this sockpuppet incident screams that so loud, you'd have to have bales of cotton in your ears not to get the message.

There's no other explanation for how virtually the whole lot of them could buy lock, stock & barrel into that preposterous urban legend that eelmosynnary spun.

And not only buy into it, but get so carried away in this wild goose chase witch hunt that they actually punished, not just me, but multiple people for an incident that NEVER, EVER HAPPENED.

Did you know one guy was so frustated by this gang's utter rejection of every intelligent cry he made that he was not me, that he was forced to publish his drivers license on line???

And even then, it was characterized as merely distracting 'chatter.' When it gets that irrational, you know you're in the realm of sick stuff, man.

The collateral damage to their credibility will be severe and lasting. I'm just glad you didn't taint yourself with that charade. It will take them years to get past it.

So, to any fair and reasonably minded person, this ONE incident screams their TRUE motives SO loudly the rest of the feeble case just blows up.

Now, if the arbs who are looking at this matter are as unfair as those bringing the charges, and there's reason to suspect one may be since he's already neck-deep in this sockpuppetry sham, then it's a different story. We'll just have to wait and see how quickly before they dismiss the case without prejudice.

Anyway, I'm saying all this to tell you it's unnecessary to offer me anything for me to be willing to try and work together civilly on a controversial topic. After all, that's why I'm at Wikipedia in the first place. To remove bias from the articles of controversial conservative figures. Seems like a clear, narrow, easily defined objective.

Wonder why I've had so much difficulty so far in accomplishing it? lol!

My main interest currently is not Bill Frist but Ann Coulter, Tom Delay and Karl Rove. Do any of these articles interest you? I am always open to others but Dr. Frist bores me to tears. Let me know as I'd be delighted to let the past be the past and move foward with a new spirit of cooperation which I sense, even though you have a primal desire to fight me, you want as well.

I should tell you though that 'The Clinton Model' or a facsimile thereof can never be off the table as that's what I consider to be a template for macro solutions in many of these controversial figures articles. I think we have to have something that's worked in the past, that's acceptable for treating liberal figures that we can apply to conservatives. If you have a better idea than the 'Clinton Model' then I'm all ears. It's just best I could come up with so far.

I also hasten to add that I disagree with your characterization of my prior editing history. At least for all but the first two weeks of my time here. Lately, as many will tell you, I've been exemplary in approaching the disagreements with both sensitivity and respect. You can expect no less from me going forward.

So, regardless if your offer is back on the table or gone again, I genuinely thank you for it. It was a nice gesture and who knows, maybe we'll get some GREAT things accomplished for Wikipedia! I know I plan to. Take care, Big Daddy 09:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

instrumental variable

Hello. I may be the one guilty of the error in instrumental variable; maybe I should be more careful. Michael Hardy 00:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Thanks for the heads-up. There's so much drivel being dumped on the Rove talk page that I might not have noticed this for a while. My first inclination was to overlook the whole thing, but I decided I couldn't stand reading the next dozen Big Daddy posts about my alleged anti-Semitis, so I gave it a cursory response. Not that I think that will end it. Big Daddy tends to repeat his pet themes regardless of what anyone says. JamesMLane 19:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Qwertys

Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#RU_Severe. He won't be here much longer. :) --Woohookitty 23:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0 just blocked him indefinitely. --Woohookitty 00:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf blocked BD for a week. I think he/she deserves a big kiss. :-D And I reverted back to the earlier comment from you. Sorry. I thought he had added the comment. --Woohookitty 00:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

omg

Hallelujah. --kizzle 00:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry

I'm only blocking obvious sockpuppets. Like I said, he's not subtle. I mean he's banned indefinitely and 10 minutes later, 2 users start doing "x was here" on the same pages he edited on...and then just now, an anon complains about "libs" on those same pages using an IP starting with the same ones he posted with before. And I don't mean the ones we thought he used. These are ones that ended with (Big Daddy on the road), so it was him. He's not subtle. --Woohookitty 10:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Massage

I'm sorry. I might have said that wrong. I have been quite out of it for a bit. What I meant was that from the start, there were comments made that didn't lend themselves to civility. I don't mean that "ganging up" on someone is always bad. I meant that the way some editors made snide remarks on talk pages BD would likely never see, and are literally celebrating his dismissal, don't make Wikipedia a friendly place. I am not saying that people didn't try to help Big Daddy (he did basically shoot himself in the foot on this one), I just mean that his attitude was met with attitude from the other side, fairly immediately, and that fostered more hostility from him. I do think he deserves to be blocked, but think we went about this the wrong way from the start. I appreciate your response. Cheers my friend. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and timely response. I too had become fed up with the whole thing and wanted to quit, but decided it was better just to let this one go. Other editors with apparently much more time than I had were on the case, so I just let it be. While I doubt he's the worst we've ever seen, he was pretty bad. The funniest thing is, I don't think he's right. There does seem to be a large contingent of liberal editors here at WP, but not to the extent that they "run the show". I hear people complain about the conservative bias here. Today's politics just pretty much suck. Everything just got way out of hand, and I hope people are not scarred for life :-) See you around. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Derex

My appologies for the fact that I made a bad remark on the Ann Coulter talk page. I just don't like ann coulter very much. If you got the impression that I'm a liberal woman your not right at all. I happen to be one of the few Dutch who's still a little bit conservative. So in your country I would probably vote for the Democrats. But of course politics is not what Wikipedia is about. Regards, and again my appologies Geograaf 21:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC) My English is bad at the moment

Whitfield Larrabee

Hi, Derex. As best I can tell, Whitfield is apparently holding a grudge over the silly Bill Frist dispute. Since you and I have politely disagreed on that article, I'm confident that you can tell me if I'm doing something wrong and tell me how to fix it.

The tort reform article was fairly one-sided and incomplete, and I've made extensive edits expanding it and, I thought, balancing it and making it better, being sure to cite to sources from both sides. I've bent over backwards to try to make it NPOV, to the point where one user accused me of being anti-tort-reform because I was so solicitous of including the opposing viewpoint in the introductory paragraphs. But Whitfield has engaged in a vendetta against me on the page, including revert wars, a sock puppet, and repetitive personal (and inaccurate) attacks on me on both the talk page and in the article itself. He even attacked me for partially archiving a 68K talk page. Can you tell me if, somehow, I'm the one who's being unreasonable? This is just a hobby for me, so if he's in the right, and it's okay to smear opposing editors, then I'll know Wikipedia isn't the place for me. Best, FRCP11 00:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC about Stolen Honor

You've participated in editing Stolen Honor. I've started a Request for Comment at Talk:Stolen Honor#RfC re scope of this article because we appeared to have reached a point of diminishing returns on the talk page. JamesMLane 11:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Derex, you are out of line for making that revert at John Kerry without personally dialogging on the talk page there. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

there are only so many ways to say the exact same thing. i made my position clear in the edit summary. you've been beating this dead horse since last august; let it go. you seem to have some sort of obsession with it. the irony of someone with 3 arbcom judgements against him lecturing me for being "out of line" is really quite delicious. Derex @ 22:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hello Derex, I think you put [your 3RR notice about Rex]. I think you put it in the "Sample" area, while it is really supposed to go below the "Report new users here" line. best, Johntex\^talk 21:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• • it's a bit confusing. someone moved it, but i'm still not sure it's in the right place. i would have thought it belonged below the 'report new violations here' marker. oh, well. Derex @ 21:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thanks, it does look confusing. The edit link seems to work now, so that's the main thing. Johntex\^talk 22:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, why are you jumping on me at John Kerry? Can't you see that I am trying my best to dialog and edit carefully there? I've agreed along with several others on a new consensus. That Mr. Tibbs just came in to bust my cajones while I was trying to deal with JamesMLane's modifications to the new consensus. While you may diasgree with my edit ideas, I do think it's fair to say that I have put more time and effort trying in at talk, to explain and support my edits and concerns than various others - such as Mr. Tibbs who did nothing but revert. I reverted Tibbs three times, but it does appear that my edit after Kizzle would have been better to have been marked by me as "rv". If you look at my edits, I always mark my reverts with an "rv". Instead of busting my cajones, why don't you see if you can get with Katefan there and try to help get a better consensus on this particluar section? I've already voted "yes" to a Johntex and to a a Katefan version. All three of use have, but JamesMLane appears to be holding out and bringing Kizzle with him. I've looked up your history and see that some other Rex was a d*ck to you. I assure you that I am not that same party and I wish you no ill. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait, you're a different Rex than the one who was banned? --kizzle 01:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I thought you had noticed. But, I used to go by the name Wolfman before I took the better part of a year off. So, we've met before. And, I know quite well that you are a tireless pusher of POV. Yes, you are being more polite. No, that doesn't make it any better for you to come in here pushing the same agenda. "Assume good faith" does not mean "be an idiot". Most of us do have a POV, but we don't all try to manipulate an article to express it. At the least, most will willingly agree to an edit that enhances neutrality. I've almost never seen such an edit out of you. I didn't edit articles involving you for a couple weeks, so that I could see if you had changed & give you a fair shake. POV-pushing is what you used to do; that's what you are still doing; I have better things to do than pretend that you are not. You point out to me a fact that is in dispute in the John Kerry article, and I'll try to work with you. You point out a slime or spin related to SBVT, and I'll say take it to the well-linked controversy page where it can be properly explored in appropriate depth. I have explained this in some detail on the Kerry talk page. I'm not likely to change my opinion on it based on any reasons given thus far. P.S. I still do wonder why you get your jollies trying to smear veterans. Do you hate America or something. Why don't you roll on over to the Bob Dole page and whine about how he got a Purple Heart for a grenade he threw poorly which scratched him (it's in his own book, no it's not the wound that crippled him). Go make a fuss about that, and I'll believe that you aren't here to push a political agenda. Derex @ 02:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on Template:Suicide

I have a possible solution to the dispute on Template talk:Suicide#Compromise proposal. When you have time, take a look at it and note your possible assent or not in the appropriate section. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello from Rex071404

Good to hear from you "the artist formerly known as Wolfman". You know, we once had an agreement called "Wolfpeace". Did that ever go void? If not, why didn't you drop a friendly line and invoke that, if you were having trouble with me? Now, the creepy part is, that beard on you in your photo, looks just like mine -and you look just like my brother-in-law! Anyway, regarding the POV pushing, I don't agree and here's why. The focus of my inter-editor battles has been very narrow. There's only a few at which I lock horns, at others I don't. Take a look at my addition to Felony disenfranchisement, also, look at these articles I've started:

• Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts
• Coppertone Girl
• Jay Alan Sekulow
• Swing Low, Sweet Chariot
• Gil Clancy
• White cracker
• Useful idiot
• Lucy Ramirez

Where is the POV? I don't see it. As to the specific issue with Kerry, I've made my position known: It's too hagiographic.

For instance:

• Why are we told that he once owned a house in Lowell and also once in Worcester, but not that he currently has multiple homes in several states - large, expensive ones?

• Why are we told that "Through her, John Kerry is related to four Presidents, including George W. Bush (ninth cousin, twice removed) , and to many of the royal houses of Europe."? How is this sentence designed to do anything but create admiration? How relevant is this information?

• Why should we care that his favorite cookies (was at one time) supposedly chocolate chip? Who cares?

• So we are told about his recently announced Jewish heritage - all well and good, but what about his previous efforts to fake being Irish? Why is that omitted?

Also, have you read this (from Talk:John Kerry):

Now that I've read over the article history, I see that James added another rebutting source, and that's what touched this all off. While there's nothing wrong with what James did per se (I mean, it was properly sourced and perfectly relevant), it did serve to inflame Rex, for good or ill. Rex, Kizzle and I had, I thought, an agreement on a brief, factually-concise and reasonably fair thumbnail of the controversy. Then James added another reference. Obviously, more discussion must then be had about whether or not the change is okay. Which is where everything went wrong. Let's all stop reverting, and talk about whether or not it's okay to have the second rebutting link in that paragraph. Personally, I don't see the need for it. What more definitive answer is there to the Navy itself saying the award was proper? The other reference is just piling on unnecessarily, given that we have an entire fork article to discuss things of this nature. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Next point: If I were actually trying to push to past center to the right - as opposed to what I am doing, which is try to push from the left to the center, I would be trying to use this to prove to others that Kerry inserted shrapnel into his own arm to get a medal:

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm."

As I read that, it says to me that Kerry somehow got a scrape on his arm and then found a metal sliver on the deck or elsewhere, which he then showed off as being shrapnel which "got him". When questioned recently on this topic (so as to get this quote), the man speaking was a retired Lt. Gen., not exactly the type to have zero crediblity, and he said ""and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm"".

Now as you know, though I am not trying to edit in an allegation of faked injury, I do think that sourcing to Dr. Letson and Gen. Hibbard for "minor" should be ok, but I am blocked from that mostly on the argument that they have selective and/or exaggerated memories, because after all the argument goes, who would remember such detail so many years later?

On the other hand, let's jump from there over to Killian documents, where the same core group also edits. At this page and entirely different standard is applied. At Killian, not only is the present day recollection of a 30+ year old memory allowed, it's used as a rebuttal in the opening section of the article!

but Marion Carr Knox, Killian's 86-year-old former secretary, stated that the disputed documents accurately reflected Killian's opinion of Bush's quality of service in the Texas Air National Guard.

As it stands now, I do think that the inferred truth about wound (inferred from the Sick Call Treatment Record) is valid enough to establish the word "wound" as valid - however, I do also believe that a medically specific usage applies there, not a generic one; "wound" is not, in this usage, a dicdef which should not be linked. Kerry did not "wound" someone's feelings, he did not suffer a "wound" his psyche or ego. No, the narrative tells us that he was injured in a military context - a wound. Well what kind of a narrative makes the reader assemble evidence themselves to get the story? If the facts we use and rely upon to craft the narrative are accurate, then it's up to us to assemble them and actually tell the story. It would be a different story if the Treatment Record gave no "treatment" details - but it does. At the very least, based on what we've read about wound treatment via other links, it would accurate to say that "Kerry received treatment consistent with that of a minor wound of Bacitracin and bandaging", yes? And if so, how would saying this be POV? Also, I do feel that the same editor's rule -that of drawing a valid inference-, which gives us "wound', also gives us the logical premise of "minor wound", even based solely on the "bacitracin and bandage" detail in the Treatment Record. So then, I arrive at "minor" thusly:

• Dr. Letson said: "superficially" and "small" (should be allowed under Marion Carr Knox rule).
• Lt.. Gen. Hibbard, Ret. said "He had a little scratch on his forearm" (should be allowed under Marion Carr Knox rule).
• Treatment Record infers "minor" (should be allowed under inference rule which allows "wound").

Currently, the sentence in dispute says: "During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm". Well gues what, it is a fact that no official transcript of any official document from any government source has ever been made public by anyone which actually states that the "shrapnel" was indeed imbedded in Kerry's arm at this time at this place, which is what "during this encounter" means and is sayng. And to top it off, several SBVT members who were present have made clear that no shrapnel causing ordinance was fired at them "during this encounter". Some of them have said that Kerry misfired a weapon at some rocks hurting himself, but speciffically not "during this encounter" and acquired the shrapnel that way. The point here is that while here does exist government ratification regarding that Kerry had shrapnel treatment -this ratification being the actually awarded 1st PH- there is no available medal citation for this award for us to source from. Where is the offical source which says that it was "during this encounter" that Kerry got the shrapnel? The government accepts that he got it somehow, but does not tell us when, how or where. See CBS [5]

"The campaign could not locate a similar report for Kerry's original Purple Heart. As evidence that Kerry was wounded, campaign spokesman Michael Meehan showed The Associated Press a "Sick Call Treatment Record" from Kerry's personal files that included a brief written note dated Dec. 3, 1968, and stamped from the naval support facility at Cam Ranh Bay."

Well guess what, the where, when, how and from whom, are all in dispute by anti-Kerry SBVT, but our article presumes that the Kerry accounting of "during this encounter" is accurate - even though we cannot cite a source to prove that presumption! As it stands, even with that, I was still willing to accept: "During this encounter, Kerry received shrapnel his left arm". This to me, is sufficiently softer of an assertion, that I was willing to accept it. However, perhaps I have been looking at the wrong word, perhaps "wound" has blinded me to lack of an authoritative, undisputed source for "during this encounter". Suffice it to say, in the end, I was even willing to accept "wound" in this context [6] in and this context [7], but James simply has to go in an muck around without seeing if Johntex, Kateffan0 or Rex041704 agreed first. Please go back up and read Kate's thoughtful explanation to James. I think it's very well reasoned. Why does James not respond to it with a logical rebuttal based on the merits off the edit? Kizzle replied - but not James. Why? I suggest that JML is relying upon the lawyers method of staying silent when you are at risk of being proved wrong.

Frankly, I feel that in order to be truly accurate and truthful, based on all the known facts, the section should read like this

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in command of a Swift Boat operating in the area of peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay, together with a Swift Boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat came upon a group of Vietnamese men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. When these men failed to obey a verbal order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire with machine guns, destroying the sampans, then retreated. It was from this encounter, that Kerry said he received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. The exact details about this injury, including severity, source and timing, are unclear and in dispute. However, it is clear that soon afterwards, during Sick Call treatment, Kerry was treated for a shrapnel wound with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day after treatment, Kerry returned to duty on Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury. For more details, see John Kerry military service controversy.

Derex, I know you keep saying POV! POV! But I fail to see how the version I would write if allowed to, (see above) is so much worse that what JML keeps putting in now and also is threatening to revert back to (JML want to go back the "one month ago" version, verbatim! Never allow another change!

Anyway, nice to hear from you. I hope all is well.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex there have probably been literally hundreds of pages devoted to "dialogue" with you. As you point out, I did try to negotiate personally with you last year. I gave it a shot. Now you are back pushing exactly the same edits. Give it a rest man. If you truly can't see the bias in your editing attempts, then maybe you should get your vision checked. Let me be clear, I don't dislike you personally (unlike the recent BigDaddy777 troll). However, I find you absolutely single-minded in your devotion to smearing Kerry; not neutralizing, but actually perpetuating spin and smear. The problem as I see it is that you have never truly figured out what NPOV means. You use it as a weapon, not a goal. That's my perception based on long, and recent, experience. Now, how to explain your single-minded devotion to this ... I think you actually believe you're in the right. I find that mind-boggling, but I find lots of things mind-boggling — like Cheney still getting almost a 1/5 positive rating, or Bush still getting just over a 1/3. People just fundamentally see the world in different ways. No amount of dialogue is going to make you see the phrase NPOV like 95% of the other people here see it, at least as regards political articles. If you want to change my mind, go look at articles about Republicans and find where they are too "hagiographic" and neutralize them, or look at articles about Democrats and find where they are too demonizing and neutralize them. I've done that plenty (obviously with parties reversed). Show me you can put the shoe on the other foot, and you'll have some credibility with me. Until then, I'm not an idiot ... and I know you're here to push a political (and personal) agenda. I'll set that aside when you actually correct or insert substantive facts. But when you go for the spin, or the gratuitous adjective ... No.Derex @ 15:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, to John Kerry I recently added the non-disputed section about his religion and I modeled it (same section name even) of that from George W. Bush. Almost immediately, it was moved from where I placed it (up front, same as Bush) to the end of the article by Gamaliel. I see nothing but bias in that. Kerry says that religion is important to him -that he practices Catholicism- there is no reason to downplay this at Kerry, but up-play Bush's faith. Tell me that's not bias...? And what about allowing the Marion Knox standard in at Killian, but not in at Kerry?

Derex, simple hypothetical: If 80% supported Bush right now, would he be "right" or as you feel still "wrong"? Ratifaction of truth by votes means nothing. Only support is arrived at by votes. Whereas, truth is apprehended by measuring undisputed facts against an accepted premise.

My simple point is that I reject the premise that John Kerry is currently "neutral".

Rather, I think it swings about 10% left and to get it to neutral, it needs to go about 25% right (50% is middle, swing left 10% makes 60% left, 40% right. To get back to 50%, you need to to swing right and thereby increase right 40% to 50% which is a 25% increase, while at the same time, reducing left 60% to 50%, which is 17%). Please note that I did NOT say "Left" and "Right" which are partisan positions. Rather I said "left", "right" which are editorial tones (typically but not exclusively) used by "Left" and "Right" editors. It's the gap between the 17% down and 25% up which makes you think I am pusing my POV. I am not, what I am trying to do is correct the article's current POV from biased to neutral.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that popularity made right; I am acutely aware of the last election. I said it boggled my mind that anyone could look at the facts and still support those two, even the 1/3 that still do. But, at least some people learn, if only slowly. That was by way of comparing my incomprehension at your position; I don't get it, I don't agree with it, but I also understand that, stunningly enough, you actually believe it. There is a fundamental gap between our cognitive processes which cannot be bridged no matter how many hundreds of pages of "dialogue" we pursue. There comes a point where further "dialogue", as you define it, is a pure waste of time. ... I note that you have not accepted my challenge to demonstrate your committment to neutrality on other political articles which currently tilt towards your personal views. You want credibility with me, then go earn it. You've squandered the right to assume it. Derex @ 18:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It's only a waste of time if a) you think I won't be tripping over you at various pages (or vice versa) and b) you are convinced we cannot make progress. Regarding a) I think this will happen and b) I think this could happen - make progress that is. Our problem is we have not established a base line premise of logic which we aree on and from which we could build agreement. I am practiced in some thinking exercizes which can lead to that and which I would be willing to share, if you have interest.

As for your challenge, I know of no such page where a Repub. is getting hagiographic treatment. Point me to one and I assure you, I can prove my bona fides there. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My "base line premise" is NPOV, state the facts and nothing more. What's yours? Apparently not that. I suggest you look a little harder (i.e. at all), or go find a Democrat who's getting pummeled with POV -- I'd suggest either of the Clintons or Carter. Derex @ 23:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My baseline premise in dealing with you, G, JML, K and Sz is that you guys are unable to accept that people of my ilk do think what we think. Hence you attribute bad intent to any source which supports our outlook and understanding (such as the SBVT guys). When I hear Kerry's story, I smell a rat. When I read SBVT material, I understand why. Perhaps your mind boggles because you won't stretch it.

I'll test you on this - ask me any politicially related question about any current USA hot potato issue and ask me to explain both sides (Dem and Repub) to you and see if I am able to explain them both, neutrally and to your satisfaction.

If I am able to do it, then guess what, the boggling rests with you -and is not caused by how I think, but by how you fail to understand.

I have accepted your challenge, will you accept mine?

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for starters, go look at the SBVT article and point out to me which statements are lies. Then, perhaps you can tell me why Bush stated numerous times that he wanted to know who leaked on Plame but apparently didn't bother to ask Rove or Libby, then how he would fire anyone involved in a leak ... then upgraded it to indicted when involved became clear ... then didn't even fire Libby, but let him resign. Also, how you republicans (you want names?) are whining about how this whole investigation is the "criminalization of politics" and an attempt by the democrats to attack bush when the investigation was started at the request of CIA director & recipient of Bush's Presidential medal of honor George Tenet, referred by the Bush justice department to a republican judge who appointed a republican prosecutor. Oh, and I'll take WMD for a 1000 too, but do I suspect Fitzgerald is going to get there eventually himself. Derex @ 23:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

?? Which actual article do you want me to vet for accuracy and NPOV? Please supply link. Also, do you want to take my challenge? I am taking yours. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane for admin

I have created this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesMLane, but and not sure if I've posted it right.

Please look. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Sorry about the mistaken revert; went straight to the 'diff' link of the vandal, instead of going to the current version. Whoops. Ombudsman 00:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You were accidentally deleted without my knowledge, I was trying to deal with those other edits and grabbed yours by mistake. Sorry. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 00:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

your input requested

See Talk:John_Kerry#Kate_.2F_Rex_dailog.2C_re:_edits

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Just now, you made this edit. If this, verbatim, as-is, is what you plan to support, I will back you 100% as it satisfies enough of my objections as to move me to drop any remaining ones. Thank you. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 15:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the section as it now stands (i.e. when you wrote this). If someone else objects, of course I'll listen to their arguments. But, it reads perfectly fine to me. I'm a bit surprised that it made you happy. Derex @ 15:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It satisfies my basic requirments: a) no "he said/she said" with thumb on scale for Kerry. b) sober, basic narrative c) acknowledgement of and pointer to "issues" resulting from this. Also, perhaps you should post this exact version for a vote so I can support you and then we'll see if James will accept it or if he still is aiming for another re-write or still seeking the unsupported "bandage". Also, I see that at least some have now taken note that my read of the Sick Call Treatment Record as not supporting the word "bandage" is valid. Personally, if "minor" were allowed, I would not object to "bandage" as both could reasonably be inferred from the record. Certainly however, there is not more proof for "bandage" than "minor" and I would not want the the "b" without the "m". Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 15:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

James is back at it with "bandage" just as I predicted

See this edit [8] which James made only 13 minutes after leaving this comment [9]. Just now, I reverting just that section to your most recent edit [10]. I'm telling you that if anyone thinks I am a POV warrior, but thinks James is not, just look at these edits and see how he skewed with bias the nice even tone we had landed one. Looks like James is trying to get me to say "game on", but I am not going to fall for his bait. The edit you did and I agreed to is fine, James is just mucking things up. If he insists on Snopes for "bandage", then I am putting in "minor". He must know this, why does he persist? I suggest that he'd prefer to have fights rather than resolution. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 19:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I want agreement on the citation for "bandage". If it's Snopes, then "not serious" which is also from same Snopes, must stay in. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 01:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

(copied from Rex talk)

it just occured to me that it's already in the sick call report, don't know how i missed it. "dressing" is medical lingo for a bandage[11] ... often gauze. so he applied bacitracin either under or on a bandage ... that's "bacitracin dressing". Derex @ 02:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not fully true, all wound coverings are dressings but not all dressings are bandages. Bacitracin alone is indeed a "dressing". I explained this already in detail, with full proof on talk. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

(copied fron Talk:John Kerry)

That record does not say "bacitracin and a dressing", which might imply a bandaging. No, what is says is "appl (sic) bacitracin dressing". >>> Note the absence of any statement such as "wrap arm with bandage". <<< Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

i just provided you a dictionary definition of "medical dressing". show me something to the contrary. Derex @ 02:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Dressing the wound, here.

"The wound should then be covered with a clean dressing and bandaged to hold the dressing in place."

Note that "dressing" and "bandaged" are separate steps.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

you misinterpret, as i demonstrate on your talk. let's keep this conversation there, in one place. Derex @ 02:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

See this Govt link from Australia. "A first aid kit should be well stocked with dressings and bandages, disinfectants, fasteners, safety pins and other equipment such as resuscitation masks, scissors and splinter forceps." Dressings and bandages are clearly not the same thing. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

again, you are misinterpreting. again, i have answered on your talk. let's keep it there. Derex @ 02:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

My final post on this page. Next all my page:

See this link for "Bacitracin ointment dressing" used in context which proves that Bacitracin alone is medically referred to as a "dressing". Please note that the wound was left "open" (not bandaged) even though a dressing was applied. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 02:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

your link proves exactly the opposite of what you claim Derex @ 03:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, are you contending that in Medical Terminology, the words Dressing and Bandaging are interchangable? If that's your contention, you are wrong. And further, such a contention would buttress my "wound" "injury" contention, which you are opposed to. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 04:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 case →Raul654 18:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:John Kerry

Please read this. Thank you.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

BD777

No problem. It's actually my fault. We banned him for 2 weeks on October 27th and then just kind of...lost track of him. :) I banned him for a month. I'll try to keep a better eye on it. Sorry about that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. That was a real laugh by me. :) Yeah isn't it comforting? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

Please see Talk:John Kerry for a way to end debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex is correct about ArbCom, re: reverting

Please read this. Please take note of "It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did. →Raul654 07:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654".

As I told you Derex, I am not being a d*ck and I am trying to do my best to stay within both the letter and spirit of the rules. You do see that I did not just jump right in with edits in when John Kerry opened up for a while again today, yes? Frankly, I fail to see why you won't support the removal of "bandage". I've already agreed to drop "minor" if bandage is removed. Why is that not a good compromise? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 08:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I already told you, drop minor, drop dressing, drop bacitracin, drop bandage, drop everything but shrapnel was removed. Then, I'm good with it. Derex @ 17:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, I think this would do; what about you?

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans destroying them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. Kerry was treated at sick call and the next day, returned to Swift boat patrol duty. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.

Benefits of this version are a) no links to battle over b) no mention of 2004 and c) driest possible tone, no POV left or right.

Would you support this, as-is, verbatim? Let me know. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would support this below verbatim, unless someone gives a compelling argument against it:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans, destroying them, and then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. Medical staff at base removed the shrapnel, and Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty the next day. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.

If you post it on Talk:john Kerry and ask for the others' opinions, I feel that agreement can be reached. If this version [12] of yours is accepted by the group as-is, I will also accept it. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 23:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you agree to the version I posted above, verbatim? Derex @ 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:John Kerry

Do you really feel it's appropriate for some one in your position to egg on brand new users like that?--Etyheryery 03:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How is disapproving of rudeness "egging on" somebody? Derex @ 03:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a well know method of "egging on" a rude person, duh--Etyheryery 04:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This might amuse you

Based on the Apostles Creed. (The things I write when I am bored!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL, that's pretty damn good. You really ought to post that somewhere Bush-dislikers will see it. The Democratic Underground lounge, maybe? Derex @ 15:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Christian bigotry, courtesy of Jtdirl. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 04:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's some bigotry for you: Only 49 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist presidential candidate—compared to 59 percent who would vote for a gay one. You're about as oppressed as the Republicans who are always whining about bias, despite holding the Senate, House, Presidency, and 7/9 SCOTUS appointments. Btw, don't assume from this that you know my beliefs. Derex @ 15:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but if you find that statistic interesting, you might enjoy reading Susan Jacoby's book Freethinkers. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The usual paranoia, courtesy of Rex. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404

This has been going on quite long enough. I've opened an arbcom case, and as you are party to this conflict, could you go make a statement there? I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Mr. Tibbs, JamesMLane, Kizzle, Jtdirl, and Woohookitty as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I started to do one of the statements but frankly, kizzle and jtdirl have been involved in this far longer than me. James M Lane too. If you guys need help, let me know, ok? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I thought that your arguments on RfAr in the Rex case were very good. Good point about only 2 of the people being the same from arby to arby. Very good point because it shows that this isn't just 1-2 editors "going after" Rex. Good job. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder thread

The thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration regarding the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Fred_Bauder has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. FuelWagon 02:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

i already said my piece ... it's an absurd case & a smear. i've nothing more to add. Derex [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 03:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

although i only posted one remark on that thread, i do find your request to move discussions to personal talk pages strange. that thread was all on-topic. why then should discussion be moved elsewhere? whether you find it "productive" or not, clearly the people posting think they have something useful to say, or they wouldn't be saying it. my comment was not directed at any individual, but rather at the arbitration case itself, so what "individual" talk page do you think i should have posted to? Derex [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 18:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404's arby case has been accepted

Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Evidence. The general arby page for him is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

detecting sockpuppets

Greetings!

I saw a comment you made, about detecting sockpuppets, in a discussion of BD777's behaviour.

There is another user who believes that Rama and I are the same person. They also call me names, and make other unpleasant accusations.

They have gone through half a dozen userids in the last ten months. I outed them about five months ago. They can't decide whether they are willing to own up to using multiple IDs. I figured out their IDs by noticing similar patterns in their editing style, topics of choice, and spelling and grammar mistakes.

Of course if I had got it wrong it would have been embarrassing. But they were fairly obvious. Not long after I outed them a new editor started posting to one of their favourite articles. There were similarities in editing style. I attributed the improvement in their reasoning to them making a greater effort to be taken seriously. I let my past with the accuser make me less open to giving the benefit of the doubt to this new person. And I really regret that. It turned out that they were completely correct on one of the points I had challenged them on, and of course, they weren't my accuser.

So, do you know another way, beyond subjectively looking for patterns, to detect if multiple userids post from the same IP? I'll offer it to my accuser. Thanks. -- Geo Swan 15:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I've never heard of geobytes.com. They have posted from several IPs from different domains, so that will be of some use. Thanks again. -- Geo Swan 21:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

=Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4 case. Raul654 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 05:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Sojambi Pinola

I received this not on my talk page, after I tried to talk with Sojambi Pinola about Biff Rose. It's vaguely threatening/stalkerish. It scared me off the site for a while. Maybe i'm a wimp, but i used to tend bar, and this is the kind of thing I don't take lightly.

Sojambi's post as follows

Hi Mary, thanks for the note. I know exactly who you are. Greetings. -Sojambi Pinola 04:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks for any ideas Mary Hope 19:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

nope, sorry. Derex 18:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

semi-protection

Finally, some attention is being paid. Check here. --kizzle 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your comments and I'm sorry you still feel that way. I had hoped we had been able to patch some things up and am still willing to do that. My previous offer is still on the table.Gator (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you toned it down...good idea...it was the most hostile oppose comment I ever saw on an Rfa and completely uncalled for.--MONGO 21:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:MONGO#response Derex 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued opposition Derex, I won't hold it against you.Gator (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi Derex!

I have answered your question that you posted on my RfB. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

Just to let you know, I responded on my talk page to on your comments. Never believe for one second that your contributions are not fully respected by me.[13]--MONGO 03:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mon beau RfA

Sadly, I am too poor to afford shiny colored boxes and pictures. Nevertheless... Thanks for supporting my RfA. The final tally was a smashing 22/4/1. Deltabeignet 23:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Killian documents

I got some help cleaning up the references, but I would appreciate your comments about the introduction on Talk:Killian documents as I must acknowledge my edits are perceived by some to have a right-of-center slant. Sincerely, Kaisershatner 14:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 16:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Winter Solstice

Illumination of Earth by Sun on the day of the northern hemisphere winter solstice

Hope you and those you love are at peace during this ancient time of hope and celebration. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

3rr violation on my talk page

could you please do something about this man sojombi pinola. I'm having trouble with him, and he has broking the wiki 3RR so maybe oyu could have a chat with him. thank youMary Hope