User talk:Kevin Baas

I will answer questions on the same page as asked, so that the dialog remains in one piece.
This means that I'll observe your talk page after posting there.
If you post here, please do the same.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Archives are made when this page gets way too long,
but not past the oldest active/recently active discussion.

Arbitration

Due to the deadlock on the article and the seeming lack of possibilities to move beyond it, and due to the grotesquely long-standing nature of the dispute, I have requested arbitration regarding the election controversy article. Phil Sandifer 06:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Of all the policies an admin would know, I would expect them to at least know the dispute resolution process. Kevin Baas^talk 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has had RfCs in the past, and the mediation cabal was pointed at it. Phil Sandifer 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recusal

I have expressed support for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Expressing support for Wikipedia policy is not a basis for recusal. Fred Bauder 12:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where you have expressed support for NPOV, though I see where you have expressed an opinion about editors, and that is what I am refering to. Kevin Baas^talk 12:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Mediation has not been tried. Kevin Baas^talk 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll on terms

Just dropped by your talk page to find out if you have any polls regarding your statement "popular opinion does not support this association." Were you reffering to the current survey in which you voted for? If not are you working with a poll that could possibly be shared on the talk page regarding the usage of the term "war on terror" in relation to Iraq War. Hope to hear from you soon, Thank You --Zer0faults 23:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate in the future if you would provide a link to the referenced discussion. Kevin Baas^talk 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen polls and the like - i'll find a few examples later. basically ppl outside the u.s. don't consider it so, and wikipedia isn't supposed to be ameri-centric, and any way you cut it this is not a categorization that has any sort of consensus in the public. There are two signifcant and notable points of view on the matter, and so long as there is, it would be a POV violation for the article to chose one and reject the other. Kevin Baas^talk 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

I just want a second opinion on things going on with that article right now. Do you think I'm being too rash in insisting that the article intro state that the casus belli of the Iraq War was WMD? -- Mr. Tibbs 21:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's perfectly reasonable. Assuming wars have reasons for them and aren't just random senseless destruction, it's kind of a central issue what that reason is, eh? It provides the context. I mean, geez, president bush and his fellows thought it important enought to repeat over and over and over and over again, i'd imagine from that that they'd consider it important enough to put in the intro of a factual, neutral, encyclopedia. I can't imagine any sane and rationale person seriously saying "oh, the reason's not important." what you got is a bunch of apologists following the administration's lead in trying to obfuscate history because it makes them look bad. unfortunately for them, this is an encyclopedia. Kevin Baas^talk 21:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the second opinion. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't off-base. Zero requested mediation against me so I'll be busy with that for a while.[1] -- Mr. Tibbs 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Recess Appointment

Hi, I'm going to change this statement back in the Dirty Dyke article, please see the talk page of that article if you object kthxbye

Please see WP:NPA. This one is especially egrarioius. Kevin Baas^talk 15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

References on 2004 election article

Hey Kevin,

I see you've got the reference conversion bug too.  :) Thanks for helping out with that. I really appreciate it... so please don't take this the wrong way. But, when you create references could you use the {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} templates? They're really easy to use.. and have places for the authors and titles of the work ready for you to plug values in. Because, when you use unstructured references like you have I'm going to have to convert them to those templates anyway, and the way I have things set up on my machine right now having unstructured references like that actually makes it harder to convert than if they were just bare links. -- noosphere 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you want, we could coordinate our reference conversion efforts so we can avoid edit conflicts. I can slap the inuse tag back on the article, and then you could take whatever sections you prefer and I can take the rest. What do you think? -- noosphere 18:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How about you go top down, and i go bottom up? Kevin Baas^talk 20:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea... Except now I see that even if we each take a section, we'll still have edit conflicts if we're editing at the same time. I though the Wikimedia software was smart enough to avoid edit conflicts if two people were editing different sections at the same time, but I was wrong. So we simply can't edit the article at the same time and avoid edit conflicts. -- noosphere 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright! I think we're pretty much done. Thanks, Kevin! -- noosphere 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

With 138 references, we've out-done the George W. Bush article. Kevin Baas^talk 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an exceptionally well-sourced article. And the more the the Phils of the world fact tag it, the better sourced it will get. -- noosphere 02:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder + Suggestion

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ken Blackwell Article

I wanted to voice my support for Blackwell for Ohio governor. How is that vandalizing? I respectfully request that you reconsider your comment on my discussion page. 65.27.137.3 17:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kevin Baas^talk 17:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any area on Wikipedia that can be used for political commentary? 65.27.137.3 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's an encyclopedia. Kevin Baas^talk 17:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the vandal warning removal. 65.27.137.3 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

nomination for adminship

I've nominated myself for adminship. Anyone feel free to vote and comment here. Kevin Baas^talk 21:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on your RfA. Please do not take anything I may have said as uncivil or a personal attack. We have disagreed in the past, but seriously, you're a good contributor. But the reason I was swinging by was to encourage you not to be dissuaded by any outcome of the RfA. Adminship is no big deal, and conversely, not getting the tools is no big deal either. Just keep your chin up. See you around, my friend. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, bud. :-) Kevin Baas^talk 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to write positive things in an effort to drum up a few more support "votes", but apparantly it didn't work too well. Like I said, keep your chin up. Take whatever criticism was raised and put it to good use. And keep up the good work. I'll see you around. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: at what?

Personal attack? Please provide sufficient evidence as I find no apparent evidence at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please understand what I have meant of moral support and I have never meant any attack.--Jusjih 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I didnt mean to impy that it qualified as that. perhaps is hould be more precise: it is destrucitve criticism. theres nothing you can do with it but be condenscended. I understand that. i want to understand that without you being more specific, what you wrote is worthless to me. Kevin Baas^talk 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Adminship

It is my regretful task to inform you that I have closed your request for adminship early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay (Talk * Connect) 00:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kevin, when I saw that you'd applied for adminship I procrastinated adding my vote of support, thinking there'd be no rush and the process would be going on for a few days, at least. I didn't expect it to close early. I goofed sorry. You do have my support for adminship, though. So next time you apply feel free to post directly on my talk page and you'll have my vote.

Also, I'm definitely no expert on the RfA process, but if you're serious about adminship and since so many people were against you because they viewed you as pushing a POV (in reality I think we both know that many of them were the real POV pushers) you may want to avoid editing controversial articles for a while, and make your reputation on contributing to something else you care about which just doesn't generate to much controversy. Also, getting an article or two up to featured article standard (again, preferably something non-controversial) would help. As would making more allies on Wikipedia, perhaps by collaborating on some projects. In the process, people will see that you're fair and reasonable, and have less reason to resent you for opposing their pet POV. Best of luck. -- noosphere 02:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not very civil?

Comments like this "You don't have to participate if you don't want to" are not appreciated, are you going to be rude to everyone who voted against your adminship? If you want to debate the Iraq War then respond to my points, if you believe in your position at least you will be able to. --Zer0faults 18:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No one needs to argue endlessly with you on Iraq War. Once the vote is over the consensus will be enforced. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck I invite you to ask for a RfC after the vote since it doesnt even meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:Straw Polls in its creation. Also in case you keep forgetting, Straw Polls are not binding, they are a guideline not policy. If you feel you do not need to respond to me, then you failed here, and on the talk page. Also, well this is a message for Kevin Baas, so unless he is you? you aren't being addressed here. Good bye Mr Tibbs. I would make a sad face, but I dont think there are wikiemotes. --Zer0faults 19:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)