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)

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)

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)

I know, call me crazy but Jew-baiting anti-semetism just doesn't crack me up like it apparently does some people...Big Daddy 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Derex wrote: "the BigDaddy slimepit" Wow! I guessz you weren't being sincere about trying to work together, huh? Thanks for the heads up. Big Daddy 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)