User talk:JimmyCrackedCorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, JimmyCrackedCorn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Yes, you guessed it, the above is boilerplate. (But this bit isn't, honest.) You seem to know what you're doing, but if you do need help, ask me! -- Hoary 07:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome aboard. I'm sure I'll need help soon enough. Thanks again! --JimmyCrackedCorn 07:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already asked (here) for help with the Ray Nagin edit war. NB when I wrote that large-scale deletion wasn't vandalism, I did not mean to approve it. But the fact is that "vandalism" as written up on that page would cover such things as changing all examples of "New Orleans" to "Baton Rouge" or all examples of "mayor" to "pimp", or adding that he was screwing his sister, or deleting the whole lot and posting a porn photo in its place. I too have been mightily irritated by large-scale deletion of critical material from other articles; you were right to alert others to what was going on. -- Hoary 07:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of trying to figure out how to get some kind of mediation on this. It looks like you've volunteered. I guess that needs some kind of approval from a committee or something, right? Apparently there are others, if you read the discussion page - Corwin8? et al, who have run into the same kind of problems there. I had believed blanking was vandalism, but on re-read it looks like blanking refers to an entire article rather than just a section. Thanks again. --JimmyCrackedCorn 07:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


Just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia has a three-revert rule. You have now reverted Ray Nagin twice in 24 hours. Another revert will put you right at the limit. Keep this in mind while editing the article.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Work towards a concensus[edit]

Mr. CrackedCorn: Try to work towards a concensus on the Ray Nagin article. I'm not sure what your goals are exactly. Is there not enough discussion there for you as far as how the article covers the school bus issue? My complete understanding is that the busses were to be used as a part of the city evacuation plan and they were'nt aside from a few examples...however, the buses are owned by an independent contractor and the bus drivers are not city employees, so Nagin was kind of out of options...besides, where was he supposed to take the evacuees to? All this work you are putting everyone through over an issue that will be forgotten one way or the other in a few more weeks seems like a waste of time. Let's go back to the discussion page in Ray Nagin and start over,,,hash out the pros and cons of the bus issue and work fromm there.--MONGO 05:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If you have read the discussion page you may have already observed I've tried to work toward concensus often by moving text there for comment. Your understanding the buses are owned by an independent contractor is incorrect. You are probably the person who referenced a Chicago Tribune article and believed the buses were owned by Laidlaw. If you read that article again, here's the link:,1,5375942.story?coll=chi-business-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true , I think you'll agree with me that Laidlaw was offering loaner buses to New Orleans from elsewhere in the Gulf Coast region after the New Orleans school district buses were flooded. But Laidlaw said they couldn't offer any drivers.

Nagin was not out of options as any licensed driver will do in an emergency. All the buses have automatic transmissions. Even a young man comandeered a bus and drove it to Houston. The RTA (regional transit authority) buses are always under the Mayor's control and city's ownership. As for where was Nagin going to take them, that point belongs in the article as does the point that the Governor was supposed to establish evacuation shelters in non-risk parishes but she did not. If you read the text I moved to the Ray Nagin discussion page, you'll find all of your questions were answered there. What you won't find is any specifics about what is inaccurate or POV about the section despite my asking several times and three people continuing to label it as such.

So what do I want? I want a fork in the Nagin article to a buses/Nagin article elsewhere. The subject is too long to place in the Nagin bio but a few lines and a fork is approriate. I've written an article but the Gorgonzilla clack has demanded it be deleted as inaccurate and POV but will provide no specifics on what is POV or inaccurate about it. I'd be glad to remove or correct any POV or inaccurate text. They don't seem to want that. They seem to want to bury facts that are unplesant to their POVs.

BTW - I've seen and respected your objective treatment of topics elsewhere even though I believe we may be on opposite sides of the fence politically. --JimmyCrackedCorn 05:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am objective but I'm probably more conservative than anything else. I don't see that negative or positive things in the Nagin article can be construed as pro or con as far as George Bush is concerned. I view the entire situation as a natural disaster and everyone is looking for someone to blame. My attitude is thus: Nagin could have therefore used the buses, but since the levees burst more than 12 hours after the storm had passed, what chances would the city have had of actually getting the folks out of the city when the biggest threat early on was storm damage...I don't think he would have succeeed in getting more than 10% of the people out of the city that needed to have assistance since many of those people would have simply ridden out the storm and avoided evacuation. It was after the levees burst that they became trapped. I see that there were 10's of thousands of people trapped at the Superdome and Convention center and food and water could have been slingloaded in there while evacuation was being arranged...I've worked forest fires in the middle of nowhere during heavily committed seasons when resources were pressed to the limit, yet we got all the food and water we ever needed...and we were getting paid well for our services...they manged to slingload it in there to thousands and thousands of us by helicopter.
Anyhoo, if the daughter article on the bus controversy gets deleted and I voted to delete because I think it belongs in the main article, what are your proposals then?--MONGO 06:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Unlike you (and Gorgonzilla for that matter) then, I have no dog in this fight other than the facts and the truth. Gorgonzilla/Aquillon keeps using maneuvers and even an edit war to suppress a truth that is unplesant for him. I don't understand why you would support him in that endeavour and I also find it strange that a conservative would say "and bear in mind that I support most of Nagin's commentary." Nagin's commentary concerned his demand for Federal handouts and a loss of state federalism. My last PolySci class was some time ago but those don't sound like conservative values. If the daughter article is deleted I'll have try to place Nagin's responsibilities in the Nagin bio article - a bad place IMO since that will make the article too long. I predict Gorgonzilla's POV will cause him to want to suppress that truth yet again. IOW, I predict a resumption of the article's edit war.

  • You consider FEMA a federal handout?? are you sure you're not just a sockpuppet? maybe a strawman to make someone else look a little more centrist by comparison?-- 10:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As for your convoluted reasoning on Nagin's lack of time to evacuate, he made that bed for himself. The city knew the levees were built for a Cat 3 storm. They also knew Katrina was a Cat 5 storm more than 48 hours out. A dilligent mayor would have ordered a mandatory evacuation before the storm and also pressed the buses into service then, as required under the state evacuation plan, rather than waiting for the storm to pass. The window was 48 hours not the 12 between the storm and levee bust.

You also seem to believe it was FEMA's responsibility to feed evacuees and those in the shelter from Day 1. Not so. The state and local authorities were responsible for that. The state government was also responsible for their refusal to allow the Red Cross in to provide relief. The Red Cross didn't need to slingload a single item. They were there waiting to go in from Day 1, but Blanco refused to allow them in. Since the Superdome was used as a shelter during Hurricane Georges in 1998 with attendant food and bathroom problems it should have been fixed long before. Nagin may not have known this by experience (he started in 2002) but Gov Blanco was the Lt Governor in 1998 and clearly should have known to fix the problems. There should have been permanent chemical tiolets built in for evacuations supplanted by Port-o-lets hired before the storm. There should have been a structured sick-bay. There should have been anti-biotics and anti-diarrheals stored on-site. There should have been enough MRE's for 3 days for each person (180,000 meals) on site. But most of all there should have been an evacuation center established in a non-risk Parish as the Governor was required to do under the plan. All Nagin's mistakes pale in comparison to this. --JimmyCrackedCorn 01:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I am avoiding the truth...and what difference do my politics have to do with anything? Nagin is a mayor of a mid sized city...I expect almost nothing from city government and if that is what the people of New Orleans got, then that should be no surprise. City governments are inherently mismanaged, corrupt and shortsighted. I'm not going to be able to answer that long retort right now in full but suffice it to say that the best thing to do is to draw up an Rfc (Request for Comment) on the issues you question, that will draw lots of others into this argument some of whom may fully agree with you and the end result will be a better article overall. Bear in mind, that I am not a Nagin defender, but nor do I defend the Prez or the's a natural disaster and none of the agencies can or will do the right thing all the fact, I expect them to ensure that most everything they do is FUBAR. Engaging in an edit war is not going to solve anything and will probably get you blocked, perhaps permanently, so I strongly recommend the Rfc route. Let me know how I can help you with that.--MONGO 02:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You brought up the topic of politics, not me. I haven't mentioned Bush in the debate that I can remember. But you're flat out wrong on the competence of most local governments. Florida has repeatedly done a remarkable job on several Hurricanes while the Federal Government has repeatedly done poorly. See Hurricane Floyd and Jesse Jackson's comments to Clinton's FEMA director Witt. It took Witt 3 full weeks (not 5 days as with Katrina) to get going on Floyd relief. I'll be happy to let you go the RfC route. As for me I'll keep telling the truth in the article and I'm nearly certain many who find the truth inconvenient will try to suppress it. If I am banned, and if Wikipedia is unbiased, it will take down some who wish to suppress truth. That's OK with me. If I'm banned and others aren't I don't want to be in what will have proven itself to be a cesspool anyhow. It takes 2 sides to make an edit war. -- 03:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm telling you how to go about things and you're saying edit war. If you want to insure that your information gets into the article, then the best way to do that is an Rfc...many other editors who have no idea that this article is ungoing issues will then comment, a concensus can develop and hopefully the end result will be a less POV version of the article. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, but there is no doubt that you are intelligent and have a voice that deserves to be heard as we all do. I can't guarantee that you'll get the results you want, but perhaps you'll get some of it and that's better than engaging in an edit war or running away from the battle. Furthermore, you did bring up politics when you state that my agreement with Nagin was liberal because I stated that I agreed with Nagin's commentary which you call a "demand for Federal handouts and a loss of state federalism". How so? I saw a mayor who was asking for the Feds and the state to get food and water and rescue there...200 of his own police officers walked off the job, his SAR teams were scattered as well, and yet this boils down to you thinking I'm liberal because I don't agree with you that Nagin should have had a thousand chemical toilets ready and 200000 MRE's to distribute? And the school buses...I saw them too...plain as day, and I stated in the talk page in the Nagin article that that issue should be addressed...several others agreed.--MONGO 05:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You should notice after the charge was made I requested comment on what was POV or inaccurate about the Nagin buses article in the Ray Nagin bio talk page and on the Nagin buses article's talk page. I received no specifics whatsoever. Instead I continued to receive Gorgonzilla's and his various sockpuppets' non-stop onslaught of personal attacks and general whining. Since requests for comment have produced so little for me here, why should I have any faith things will change? BTW - I commented on Nagin's politics well after you said you were "conservative" but I didn't say Nagin was a "liberal" nor did I use that word about you. I strongly implied Nagin wasn't a conservative, however. My fear is that, like me, he is a moderate. I hope his incompetence is unlike my ability, but I need to worry about that too, I suppose. No one really knows how they will perform until they are tested.

It's my undersanding a conservative will say that any federal handouts to the states represent a loss of state soverignty and state's rights because such "handouts" always come with strings attached. In the case of Louisiana, once FEMA aid arrived, the state needed to accept federal troops led under General Honore controlling lawlessness. The Insurrection Act forbids that w/o a state request. The Governess tried to save face by first refusing that request and then by refusing to turn over LA's National Guard to Honore, but all LA's Guard did was stay out of the way as Florida, Georgia an Mississippi troops did the heavy lifting. Actually the state, not Nagin, needed to equip the evacuation center. Nagin's responsibility was in running the evacuation center and in performing the evacuation. All were responsibilities where the people were failed miserably. BTW - the cost of 200,000 MRE's is about $900,000. They occupy a space of only a 20'x20' room. That's clearly affordable for a state like Louisiana and even a city like New Orleans. --JimmyCrackedCorn 05:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In finality, I just see the guy (Nagin) as a mediocre mayor in a mid size city and he dealt with the most expensive natural disaster to hit the U.S. with a lackluster performance, but I support his rhetoric and don't view it as a liberal gimme, gimme, gimme thing...he just seemed to be a bit overwhelmed and upset and acted as most anyone would probably have acted in the same scenario...It appears that he wasn't a supportor of Blanco anyway so maybe she was an obstructionist to the SAR efforts (I think she definitely was). If you return to the article (and I would let things simmer down some) in a week and then go to the discussion pages and just state the facts, maybe more of the evidence can be inserted. The other option is a Rfc on the issues, that will be posted and others maybe will chime in and support the issues, or it all may be distorted. I find the George W Bush article a hit piece personally, but since he has an approval rating of about 40%, that is essentially mirrored in the text there...40% pro and the rest mostly weakly referenced POV...but not entirely. Wikipedia is in evolving...those articles that have an inherent political basis are going to be displeasing to one group or another, especially in ongoing political events.--MONGO 08:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


You should mind your own editing before making accusations of personal attacks about others. These kinds of comments are not welcomed and if you continue to make personal attacks you will be blocked from editing. --fvw* 04:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a real example, as I provided, or just a frivolous and baseless accusation?? Gorgonzolla hadn't provided any specifics. Saying so isn't a personal attack. -- 05:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

He just provided one. In case you didn't get the idea, he's referring to this comment, among others. So click here to see what he's talking about.--chris.lawson 11:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Now I realize you have an edit history going back almost a whole week[edit]

but are you quite sure you're not just somebody's strawman?-- 10:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)