User talk:Rex071404/archive1

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

Re: Rex071404 John Kerry ban[edit]

Given the extreme pro-Kerry condition of the John Kerry page when I began editing it and the furious reaction of the entrenched editors there, I am not surpised that Arbitrators would leap to their defense. I am however, surprised that they do it so easily based on what amounts to one half of the story of a tit-for-tat battle.

With election 2004 underway, the ponderously slow process of the Arb committee means that my "temp" ban is in fact a death sentence.

For your information, I was patiently and thoroughly tallying details (many already submitted into evidence) about Neutrality, etc's equally agressive efforts as mine.

But alas, this Wiki has turned into bascially a pro-Kerry farce - with only the aggresive "anti-Kerry" editors being banned. The pro-Kerry crew it seems, can do no wrong.

Rex071404 17:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear it came to this Rex. If you feel there is POV being inserted into the article, I believe you can still edit the talk page? If not, you are always more than welcome to bring up anything on my talk page, and I will look into it if I agree with your assessments. Remember, there are LOTS of other articles on wikipedia, and many that I'm sure haven't been created yet. So don't give up yet. マイケル 18:18, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
I have responded to these commments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404. Martin 22:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality has been nominated for adminship. VV 21:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In all fairness, I don't think that you can charge that I have helped anyone beat up on you. I've even gone out of my way to help you users likely to be receptive to some of your changes. 172 07:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's nomination for admin has nothing to do with your dispute with him on the Kerry article. After all, he would be precluded from acting as an administrator in any conflicts that involve you, as this would be a clear conflict of interest. You have nothing to worry about if Neutrality becomes an admin. (And hypothetically, for the sake of argument, say he did use admin powers to protect the Kerry article or to block your IP or username. If so, the developers would recognize this as an obvious abuse within minutes and he'd be stripped of his adminship immediately.) 172 07:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I'm not really sure why you want me to vote there given that I've never edited that page, and I've little interest in (or authority to decide on) the subject in general... Kate | Talk 08:15, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Same. If I were more involved with the article, I'd comment, however I'm not. It seems as though it is sorting itself out acceptiblly without my assistance anyway. マイケル 17:55, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for inviting me to vote, but I'm sorry to say that I probably shouldn't. There's been some users who think I'm a sockpuppet because of my vote on Neutrality's RfA, so if I were to vote, it would make the side I'm voting on lose credibility, and the wars there are already bad enough. Thanks again, though. Miss Puffskein 18:37, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post comments to the Talk page of John Kerry?[edit]

Please advise, ASAP. Rex071404 08:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't. Find other areas of interest to edit for now. Fred Bauder 11:04, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

So what? Many good users get into conflicts all the time. Spirited debate and exhaustive deliberation about the content of articles are actually Wikiedia's raison d'etre. This is the process in which NPOV emerges when it comes to contentious subject matter.

I know that you disagree with some of Neutraliy's edits, but you're not going to "beat" him by going from page to page to attack his credibility. You'll beat him by becoming a valued contributor. As someone who has actually made the mistake of following your approach to conflict on Wikipedia a number of times throughout the years, I'm certain that the best thing you can to bolster your effectiveness as a user is to ignore your detractors to the greatest extent possible, ignore their attacks on your credibility, and allow your contributions, research, and writing to speak for themselves. 172 06:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even if Neutrality is the "leader of the pro-Kerry editors," so what? You and VV are the leaders of the pro-Bush editors. (And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.) All of you should stop focusing on each other and focus instead on Bush and Kerry. 172 06:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please quote me accurately. As I said on your talk page, I think that he was the prime mover of the pro-Kerry "rv" editors. There is a big difference. Not all the pro-Kerry people there are "rv" happy - but I'd say that N and his cotiere are. Rex071404 06:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about that. 172 07:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In response to your last set of comments, if users see you as well engaged on the talk pages, as open to the views of other users, and as a productive contributor, they'll disregard the attacks against you; the attacks will then just reflect negatively on people making them. It's not in your interest to dwell on past conflicts. That just creates a cycle of attack and counter-attack, which you won't be able to win. (In all honesty, the game isn't going to be played on terms favorable to you if this goes to arbitration. So, you should take steps to de-escalate the conflict by reaching out to Neutrality and to your other detractors.) 172 07:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again, there's really no need to worry about Neutrality. You can still propose changes on Talk:John Kerry. Even if you cannot edit the article, there are a number of users often receptive to your changes who can go ahead and act as your surrogate and make your proposed changes to the article on your behalf. This will offer you the best of both worlds: You'll still be able to influence the content of the Kerry article and you won't be the one criticized for revert warring, as you won't be the one directly making the controversial changes. 172 07:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry Talk

See this from farther up my talk page than where you were posting:

Am I allowed to post comments to the Talk page of John Kerry? Please advise, ASAP. Rex071404 08:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't. Find other areas of interest to edit for now. Fred Bauder 11:04, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 07:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you want to find other areas of interest? If you still want to make some changes to the Kerry article, go ahead and make your presence known on the talk page. Or you can heed Fred Bauder's advice. It's up to you. 172 07:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality started 7-8 edit (exact?) wars against me on JK[edit]

  • He edited the title of the Rfc I initiated (twice!)
  • He moved my evidence on the Rfa page (right off the evidence page, onto the talk page)
  • He swears at me
  • He repeately refers to me as a troll when I try to dialog with him about edit conflicts
  • How can you ignore someone like that?

Rex071404 06:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please quote me accurately. As I said on your talk page, I think that he was the prime mover of the pro-Kerry "rv" editors. There is a big difference. Not all the pro-Kerry people there are "rv" happy - but I'd say that N and his cotiere are. Rex071404 07:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I reached out to N no less than 6-8 times. He has rebuffed each and every overture. At present, I am focused on making sure a wide audience is aware of that and also of those many of his recent past misdeeds that may interest those voting on him (now or soon). Also, there can be no reconciliation unless and until he promises to stop with the endless series of false and misleading Edit Summaries. He has the nerve to call my Edit Summaries "attacks" while he is posting fraudulent ones himself! When I reduced an oversized photo he posted, he claimed in an Edit summary that I made "deletions". Since you obviously like him, that may all be well and good, but as they say "you made your bed, now lie in it". Neutrality succeded in getting me the boot from John Kerry (which was the primary page that interested me!) so now I have plenty of time to inform interested voters of certain details about him. Rex071404 07:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS: It has already gone to Arbitration. We'll see what comes of it. Rex071404 07:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry Talk

See this from farther up my talk page than where you were posting:

Am I allowed to post comments to the Talk page of John Kerry? Please advise, ASAP. Rex071404 08:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't. Find other areas of interest to edit for now. Fred Bauder 11:04, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 07:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, since you are N's sponsor, I see no benefit in discussing this further with you unless you answer this quesiton:

Yes or No:

If it is true that Kerry has lied considerably about many details of his military service and protest years, and if those lies can be documented, is that important to you from an editor's standpoint?

Rex071404 07:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Precisely WHO is accusing me of using shill (ie "sockpuppet") votes? You have a lot of nerve for saying that! Rex071404 07:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if Kerry has lied considerably about many details of his military service and protest years. I simply haven't been following this closely enough to have a strong opinion either way. My guess is that he has fattened his resume, so to speak, over the years; and I think that he opened himself up to all this scrutiny by focusing more on his four-month stint as a swift boat captain during the convention than his two decades in the Senate.

In all honesty, tough, I am simply not adequately informed to back up either your edits or Neutrality's edits to the Kerry article. Nevertheless, I have seen evidence that Neutrality is a reasonable and productive editor on numerous other articles. In fact, I backed Neutrality for admin before your dispute with him on the Kerry article had even begun. [1] Thus his conflict with you on the Kerry article had absolutely nothing to do with my nomination.

BTW, I'm sorry about my comment regarding sockpuppers. My intention was not to accuse you or Neutrality of using shill votes. Instead, I was noting that alleged sockpuppets were used on both the side of the "support" and "oppose" votes. I'll go ahead and modify my comment so that this is more clear. 172 08:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I left out one thing. In response, yes, I do agree that if lies can be documented, it is pertinent to the article from an editor's standpoint. 172 08:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry in Cambodia[edit]

Hello! I've read several of the links on your user page, but did not find anything further by way of enlightenment about Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" statements. Michael Meehan's response to the accusations indicate that Kerry's statements could be interpreted in a manner other than the way the authors of Unfit for Command have apparently done; Meehan notes that the Mekong Delta can be considered part of Cambodia. I don't see any blatant contradiction or evidence of intent to deceive in Kerry's statements; I do find it a bit curious that his testimony in 1986 and 1979 does not agree with the events depicted in Kerry's biography (in which--at least, according to secondary sources, since I haven't read it--he claims to have been sitting in camp writing letters to home on Christmas 1968) but I don't think that is very strong evidence that Kerry lied about being in Cambodia. Also, on further reflection, the "President Nixon" thing to me seems extraordinarily minor, considering that Nixon took office less than a month later; he had already been elected, so whether Kerry had said "President Nixon" or "President-Elect Nixon" is just a matter of formality. It certainly has no bearing on whether or not he was lying.

So, to sum up, I am puzzled by what aspects of the controversy you consider "undisputed." What did Kerry say that was undeniably false? -- Wapcaplet 19:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know enough about Southeast Asia to judge whether it's appropriate to be calling the Mekong Delta part of Cambodia. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I suppose my first question would be, what evidence is there, aside from an affidavit by Admiral Roy Hoffman (who admits to not knowing Kerry very well), that Kerry was not actually in Cambodia? Many of the reiterated blurbs I've read simply assume that it's a widely-known fact that Kerry couldn't have been in Cambodia. From what I understand of military operations in that area at the time, it wasn't unheard-of for a boat to occasionally stray into Cambodia; part of the SEALORDS campaign was to patrol the Cambodian border, so it doesn't seem that implausible to me that Kerry was there. Historian Douglas Brinkley believes that Hoffman lacks credibility and has changed his story several times; do you know of additional evidence that Kerry could not have been in Cambodia? -- Wapcaplet 00:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, for argument's sake, I'll admit that the Mekong Delta is not in Cambodia, and that Kerry's campaign adviser Michael Meehan doesn't know what he's talking about. How do we know Kerry did not actually enter Cambodia at any time? -- Wapcaplet 16:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Rex, it's clear that things have gone badly on the JK page. While I do agree with the injunction, I'm sorry it came to that pass. You apparently saw a lot of pro-Kerry POV in the JK page that truly wasn't obvious to me. In turn, I clearly saw a lot of anti-Kerry POV in your edits that maybe wasn't obvious to you. Ideally, this process could result in a truly neutral article. But, that really does require the assumption of Good Faith in the meantime. And that's pretty much broken down on all sides. To help restore that assumption, I'm going to make a special effort in the future to explain to you exactly what POV I perceive in any edits you make I disagree with. I invite you to do the same for me. If that bothers you, just tell me and I'll stop.

One other point. You may not think I really want a neutral JK page, suspecting I'm a Kerry supporter. In fact, I would prefer to see Kerry win. But, I actually would like to see a really neutral JK page because it is more credible. And that's good for me, because I think his record stands quite well for itself without any puffing. It's actually fascinating to me that other clearly intelligent people, such as yourself & Cecropia, can look at the same record and come to a completely opposite conclusion about the man.Wolfman 06:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

responded to your response on my page.


'Bigoted and racist' might not have been the right words, but your point was clearly a general comment about old Florida Jews being to blame for what everyone agrees was a confusingly designed ballot, specific to that area, and specific to the Gore ticket on that ballot. But raising the specific issue of how that ballot was designed, and whether it constitutes "disenfranchisement" is irrelevant, and misleading. Disenfrachisement is a broad term that applies to the various reports of discrimination in voting - you seem to be one of these people who says "prove it," certain that noone will ever find the body. But people arent stupid, and the guilty, regardless of "time" will reap what they sow, etc, etc. To ask people to ignore glaring amounts of evidence (anecdotal or not) is to ask them to be stupid. It is not the goal of the society here that people grow more stupid; the WWF and Discovery Channel do that much better than we ever can. So, I just cant tell why someone as articulate as yourself would be asking that there be some blinders put on.

I may be giving you more respect than you deserve, but you do seem to be articulate enough, and defended your use of slurs fairly well; so Im responding to your unnecessarily wordy response. In some context, the use of such slurs might be appropriate, but that is not the case here, and hence its a fair thing to call your comments bigoted. But I'm not completely without intellectual mercy; I will apologise for calling you a bigot, if you apologise for your bigotry, how about that? -SV 17:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Bush Talk (My replies to "Bigoted" above)[edit]

Why are you offended by Yiddish [2]?

You do recognize that Yiddish is spoken widely by many persons as an interesting slang, yes?

Do you even know what "Meshugass" means?

For years, the most popular morning radio show in the Boston area was called "big mattress meshugass" and it was NOT being used as a slur.

And what's wrong with "Plotz"?

As for those who claim they were cheated because they were unable to vote right, "Nebbish, Nyudnick or Schnook" are perfectly fair words (Schnook may not be bona-fide Yiddish)

I did however, remove "AK" (literally means "old fart"), because that might be misconstrued as derisive.

Rex071404 09:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And to clarify, - prior to being enfranchised by constitutional amendment, Black Americans never had the vote, so it's axiomatic that any efforts to claim "disenfranchisement" must refer to only post-Civil War era issues. Rex071404 09:20, 20 Aug 2004 {UTC)

"Disenfranchisement" means to be entirely stripped, by statute, of the right to vote. It does not mean running into a SNAFU. Southern Blacks in the 1920's-60's were often treated in a way that is tantamount to being stripped, but the US Constitution was never revoked in that regard. The Jim Crow era was pernicious indeed, but nothing even remotely approaching Bull Conner and his minions occcured in Florida in 2000. Using the word "disenfranchisement" in referrence to 2000 Florida vote SNAFUs is a gross exaggeration and demeans the struggles of the civil rights workers and protesters of the 50's and 60's. To use that word here is to lose all sense of proportion. Rex071404 09:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS: Why did you remove this word: "racist" in favor of "bigoted"? Rex071404 09:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I took out "AK" because while that word does in fact mean "old fart", some Jews who speak Yiddish might interpret that word as applying only to Jews. Hence, that word had to go. All the other words apply to Jews and Gentiles alike and are therefore immune to complaints of "bigotry". It would be no different than using a French or Italian slang to insult a foolish person. People who design idiotic ballots and people who cannot record their own vote are correctly are, by and large, foolish. Even so, my swift removal of "AK" and copious detailed explaination proves no bigotry was intended. You are off base on this and should simply admit you over-reacted. And final note: the words I used were insults, not slurs. Those words insult on the basis of the individual's foolishness, not on the basis any of anyone being a member of any class, ethnicity or group, etc. they may be from. And you do know that the woman who approved the ballot design Theresa LePore [3] sounds to be French, not Jewish yes? So why is insulting her with Yiddish automatically counted as a "slur" by you? Rex071404 17:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"You are off base on this and should simply admit you over-reacted." Nope. Sorry; no admission of said excessive reaction at this point. "And final note: the words I used were insults, not slurs. Those words insult on the basis of the individual's foolishness, not on the basis any of anyone being a member of any class, ethnicity or group, etc." And what place to "insults, not slurs" have in constructive discussion? -SV

No party to the discussion has had an insult directed at them, except me, when you called me a bigot. I was referring to my view of people not party to our dialog. Think about it. Rex071404 23:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I agree that the operative word is "deprive". However, I do not agree that "take" is the operative word in the definition of "deprive" and certainly not the past tense "deprived" or the infinitive form "to be deprived of". (You'll notice, BTW, that there are actually multiple definitions of the word.) To be deprived of something means "To not have it any more" or "To be dispossessed of it." Certainly, they did not have a vote. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives one vote to every person. Each person (not legally disenfranchised) has a legal right to vote. Some people were dispossessed of that right. The means by which they were is completely and utterly irrelevant. The fact is that they did not have a vote; they did not have a part of a franchise that they had a legal right to: the franchise of the U.S. Governemnt - a government founded on the Lockean principle that "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed". "dis-" [4] is a prefix from latin which "denotes separation, a parting from, as in distribute, disconnect;" Put the two together, and you get a separation or parting from having a vote that you have a legal right to. The definition is that simple.

But there is something here that I cannot comprehend: Why are you arguing on the side of injustice? Do you understand how that comes off? Do you understand that the jurisprudence of that is, at best, questionable. Would you rather err on the side of injustice than on the side of justice? Or do you really believe that it is okay - nay, prudent - for a good citizen to be dispossessed of a political voice? I am beginning to form the impression that you are not only okay with this, but rather pleased by it. Forgive me if I am getting the wrong impression, but I can find no other motive to explain why you would be so adamnantly defending the unethical side of such a non-partisian issue. Or perhaps you are just ill-informed? Check out the talk page on the 2000 election. Or, if you want, you can do your own research on the central voting file and the issues surrounding the florida election, using key words of your choice, on google. Admittedly, I am getting upset. I value the rights of others very highly, and take it somewhat personally when people disrepect, or appear to disrespect those rights. (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.) You shouldn't be all that surprised by this. I am sure that you value your rights, so you are not altogether unfamiliar with valuing rights. Rest assured that I would protect your rights as I would anyone else's. Ya, it's personal to me, but it is not partisan. And I will not disrespect any contributor or the policies, guidelines, or ettiquete of wikipedia, including NPOV, civility, and respect for consensus, for the same reason that I will not tolerate the dispossesion of a person's right.

I'm sorry if my tone is overly harsh. I want to make it perfectly clear where I stand on this issue and why. At the same time, I hope that others will forgive me for being so reticent. Kevin Baas | talk 01:23, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

FL 2000 - Re: "disenfranchisement"[edit]

I am not "arguing on the side of injustice". Rather, what I am trying to do is add a sense of proportion to the terminology being used to describe Bush and FL 2000.

The term "disenfranchise" plain and simply has a more profound meaning that merely missing a vote for one reason or another. Rather, a "disenfranchised" person is barred from all votes, now and in the future.

It is simply too extreme of a charge to lay upon Bush and/or the Florida 2000 fiasco to say that people were "disenfranchised". Think of it this way, if you are shot by a rifle in battle and are not killed, you are wounded. However, if the wound is fatal, you are killed.

In this analogy, "disenfranchisement" is equivalent to death. But what happened to complaining voters in FL was a wound - they are still free to vote again. Also, if they don't like Palm Beach butterfly ballots, they are free to move to whatever location they decide has a ballot they like. On the other had, a truly "disenfranchised" person is not allowed to vote regardless of the ballot type or where they live.

It is sloppy English, plain and simple to use that word ("disenfranchise") to describe the SNAFUs of FL 2000.

Also, such word usage to describe SNAFUs, flies in the face of the Law_of_large_numbers by suggesting that an election with millions of votes being cast, must not have any votes that are miscounted or voided in error.

And, unless you are claiming bad intent by a controlling party the Law_of_large_numbers will see to it that such errors and miscounts are evenly distributed among both major party candidates in a close election.

What this means is that both Gore and Bush voters missed out at roughly the same rate. This also means that Gore and Bush had a roughly equal number of miscounts and non-counts.

At the same time, this still does not constitute "disenfranchisement". Rather, what you must keep in mind is that even a precise process will, on a large scale have some error. And this is what happened in FL 2000.

Whether you believe Bush won or Gore won there is moot so far as the vote count error rate goes. That election was so-close, that for all intents and purposes all of the potentially different types of recounts would have still fallen within the margin of vote count error.

That being the case, the SCOTUS was perfectly just in making FL stop counting and stick with the rules which were in place on the date of the election. Those rules did not allow for Gore to keep counting again and again in hand picked areas. Regardless of what Gore was hoping for, it is true that GWB did win the tally (albeit, very closely) that was added up based on the rules which were in place on the day of the election. And in fact FL 2000 proves the value of rules of that type.

Prior to invoking a large election, the tally method must be agreed upon in advance. If not, for any election which is so close that it the tally falls within the margin of error, the outcome will change if you change the tally method.

This is why Gore voters still feel cheated - they assert that under some tally methods, Gore would have won. The only problem is that the tally methods they point to were not provided for under FL law at the time, but were instead being sought by Gore in court after the fact.

If such an approach is allowed, well then Bush could then come right back and say "use my method" while pointing to one that put him ahead. And back and forth we go.

It is this ex-post-facto re-jiggering of the tally methods that SCOTUS put a stop to, not any actually vote counting. The votes had already been counted.

On the other hand, what Gore was asking for was not provided for under FL law and in any case, SCOTUS agreed that in giving the green-light to Gore's extra-legislative request for a special tally, the FL Supremes violated the principle of equal protection.

You see, once the tally began being re-done under a statutorily unfounded court-ordered system, the only trumping law left is US Constitution.

The simple fact is that when judges re-write law from the bench, the only remaining defense is an appeal to constitutional principles, which is what Bush did. By the way, there were two rulings by SCOTUS in this case, one was 5-4, but the other was 7-2.

Anyway, in regards to all the vote SNAFUs issues themselves: errors on felon voter list, chads in Miami, Butterfly Ballot in Pam Beach, Military votes being DQ'd because military mail lacked a postmark, the news media falsely declaring the polls closed one hour before the FL panhandle (which is on Central Time) was actually done voting, were not under the control of any single person(s) or group(s), so there is certainly no way the say that all those who mis-voted or missed voting were "disenfranchised".

Certain voters and votes were adversely affected, yes. But this does not rise to the level of "disenfranchisement". The usage of that term is wrong and leaves a false impression.

Remember: precise thought requires precise word usage.

It is through the loopholes of imprecise language that race-baiters have long slipped on this issue. There are numbers of people out there who still try to suggest that there was a master plan (tied to Bush somehow of course) to "disenfranchise" black FL voters and thereby give Bush the win. Such racial based demagoguery is disgusting and offensive on the face. And in order to put a stop to it, people who write on the subject must give the facts in a rigorously clear manner.

I am trying to do that and it's why I oppose the use of the term "disenfranchised". It's not true. It misleads. And in the hands of certain race-baiters (such as Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.) it fans the flames of racial discord.

Rex071404 04:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alright rex, it doesn't look like this conversation is going anywhere. I have said nothing that can be construed to be the least bit controversial, and I stand by it unperturbed. I have done my best to communicate with you. There is nothing more that can be said. The facts are as they are. So be it. Kevin Baas | talk 06:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 temporary injunction[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has found that is it best to ban you from editing these pages while your arbitration case is ongoing:

This is based on your churning of the article over petty matters as well as repeated efforts to inject a hypercritical point of view as illustrated by these edits: [5], [6], [7] ; [8], [9], [10] and [11]

-- mav 05:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Journalists with bias[edit]

Just curious. There are lots of journalists with a conservative/republican bias, are you going to add sections pointing this out on their pages? AlistairMcMillan 13:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can you offer any suggestions? Rex071404 15:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Wolfman's list of of media personalities deleted by me for being spuriously intended) Rex071404 06:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you, but thanks anyway. If you want to discuss any of them with me, please add Wiki links to those that have them. If you don't do this, I won't take your overture to dialog seriously. Rex071404 06:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I was just trying to be helpful, since you seemed not to know which journalists might have a conservative bias. I'm not trying to get in a dialogue with you about this. I don't have a personal interest in Wiki articles about conservative journalists. Good luck with it, though. Wolfman 06:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unless and until you have a bona fide interest in dialoging with me, please refrain from making any further comments of non-official nature, on my talk page. Thank you. Rex071404 06:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My 'official' reply — Nothing spurious about my intent. I offered you that list in a good faith spirit of cooperation. You asked, I answered. Although I will admit, it sure was a big list. Wolfman 07:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let me be more clear: I am instructing you; unless and until you want to dialog, other than communications which you are authorized to make to me by virtue of a Role of Authority on this Wiki, do not comment again on my Talk Page. Thank you. Rex071404 07:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dialog with Wolfman about Kerry / Bush[edit]

(retrieved from Wolfman Archive 1)

Kerry bias[edit]

Here are some points:

  1. Including excessive minutiae about Kerry has the effect of implying to readers that he is super-important.
  2. The big fight over the 1st purple heart injury left me convinced that certain editors were trying to play up his track-record and over emphasize it.
  3. Kerry has indeed made mistatements - those who deny this deny the truth
  4. Kerry, as a career politician, has indeed put a "shine" on his service history.

Here is what Kerry's personal/service history actually is:

  • Has, for his entire life, had a lifestyle of priveledge (private schools, travelling, etc)
  • When facing draft, sought one year additional deferrement and after failing to get that, entered in OCS (officer candidate school). This, as you must know, required a college degree. Less than 20% of all males his age back then had one (was then more for priveleged kids like Kerry). Right off the bat, Kerry got into OCS because of his wealth - an opportunity denied others.
  • After OCS, he spent a year on a destroyer not exposed to combat
  • After that, he spent (4) months on two different Swift boats, which he commanded over enlisted crew on the basis of the OCS training a Lt. (junior grade) commission which resulted.
  • Received 1st purple heart for very minor injury, which was more than likely caused by his own mistake - ie; shot off grenade launcer too close to boat. FYI: Max Cleland got NO purple heart for losing legs/arm as it was accdentally self-inficted (you do know this, yes?).
  • Received 2nd purple heart for bona-fide, modest injury
  • Received Silver star for misreported, foolhardy behavior which consisted of beaching boat against training and killing a single wounded teenager
  • Received 3rd purple heart and bronze star for action that was resonably brave and commendable
  • Came home earlry on "3 and you go home" rule which may not have been well known enough for all to use it (just those in the know) and also, if 1st wound was self-inflicted, may have been fraudulent.
  • While still on active duty, began to protest war
  • Did not serve full 4 year hitch - was released early due to his request, based on anti-war views.
  • Associated with bad people in VVAW - commies, criminals, cranks and liars
  • Gave misleading testimony at Senate hearing
  • Slandered other Vets in testimony
  • Particpated in a medal-tossing ceremony
  • Began angling for office even way back then
  • Employed on campaign, his brother and another who did a campaign related break-in
  • Went from Congress to Lt. Gov to Senate and in all that time, never created even (1) "hallmark" piece of legislation which became law. Ie: "Roth" IRA, MCain/Fiengold, etc.
  • Continues to harbor socialist dreams - still gives the socialist power salute at speeches!
  • In short, other than be on two boats for a total of four months, what has this man ever done in his life?

Look at this: Rex071404 - July 10th

and this: Neutrality - 07.24.04

See the copius detail and pro-kerrry slant that Neutrality injected:

Dr. Louis Letson, who treated Kerry by removing the shrapnel and apply bacitracin dressing, remembers the incident because his crew told the medics that Kerry was "the next JFK from Massachusetts" and "would some day be president."

If you don't see the pro-kerrry embellishment, you are not looking.

Rex071404 16:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


  • Including excessive minutiae about Kerry has the effect of implying to readers that he is super-important.
    • Well it is an article about Kerry, and he is pretty important. That said, I don't care if we report the name of his canary.
  • The big fight over the 1st purple heart injury left me convinced that certain editors were trying to play up his track-record and over emphasize it.
    • Interesting, it gave me exactly the opposite impression of you. I think that dispute came to a head over pretty trivial wording differences because previous frictions had eroded trust.
  • Kerry has indeed made mistatements - those who deny this deny the truth
    • Hmm. I'm sure he has; hasn't everybody? I haven't seen any disputes over that, but I'm late to the party (and missed last week).
  • Kerry, as a career politician, has indeed put a "shine" on his service history.
    • Sure. That's what politicians do. But it doesn't take a lot of effort when you've got the BS, SS, and 3 PH's. I reckon that's why the Republicans are so desparate to smear his record. Seems like a strategic mistake to me as it just emphasizes his service.

The following is not really germane to the article, but I'll respond anyway. From various remarks you've made, I gather you are a Bush supporter? When I ran through your summary of Kerry's life (which I don't really agree with), I mentally contrasted each point with Bush's life. For every single negative point you made about Kerry, there is an obvious counterpoint for Bush. My first instinct responses to each point you made are lined up below.

  • Has, for his entire life, had a lifestyle of priveledge (private schools, travelling, etc)
  • When facing draft, jumped to the head of a long list of Guard applicants and entered as an officer. This, as you must know, required a colege degree. Less than 20% of all males his age back then had one (was then more for priveleged kids like Bush). Right off the bat, Bush got into TANG because of his wealth & political connections - an opportunity denied others.
  • After, he spent a year in Texas not exposed to combat
  • After that, he spent months in Alabama, grounded and not exposed to combat.
  • Received no 1st purple heart.
  • Received no 2nd purple heart.
  • Received no Silver star
  • Received no Bronze star
  • Never left home, much less came home early for being wounded (having never seen combat).
  • Never protested the war because he believed in it, but avoided fighting it himself.
  • Did not serve full hitch. Grounded for not taking flight physical, no record of one year of duty.
  • Associated with bad all his life -- criminals, cranks and liars
  • Gave misleading testimony to take our country into War (Iraq WMD & Al-Qaeda connection)
  • Slandered other Vets by proxy (using SBVT & Saxby Chambliss & McCain-is-nuts-from-Hanoi rumours)
  • Never won any medals
  • Began angling for office as soon as he sobered up at age 40.
  • Investigated numerous times for shady business dealings and insider trading; never cleared.
  • Went from drunk to Governor to President without any obvious accompishments besides being born the son of a President.
  • Continues to harbor dreams of a world that scares the hell out of me.
  • In short, what has this man ever done in his life?

As to your final point about Neutrality's description of the Letson thing, I can see how you interpret that as POV. Pull it for all I care. But Letson did make the comment to explain how he remembered a fairly minor wound 35 years later. So, there's another way of looking at the same sentence.Wolfman 17:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About your counter-list re: George Bush, I will point two things
  1. The disagreement we had was about Kerry edits. George bush is not relevant on Kerry page. That is unless you want to use Bush page as model for Kerry. In that case, since Bush page is much harsher than Kerry page, Kerry page must be made more harsh.
  1. A few comments back, on the George Bush Talk page, an editor (you?) said that those wanting to make a change from what already is, must make a case for it. Using this rule of thumb, since you have only shown me that GWB is equally crappy as Kerry, there is no compelling reason to change. Unless you are using inconsistant logic, you ought to be a Bush supporter, because he's already in there. Or, you need to admit that sometimes change is simply for the better and does not need to be justified. If that's true, the people who are opposing my new proposals for GWB page are standing the the way of change for the better. Rex071404 05:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removal of discussion?[edit]

I noticed your selective removal of discussion from your talk page. This give people a very negative impression; it looks bad. It looks like you have something to hide, and/or you don't want people to hear the comments of other people that are relevant to your talk page. When my talk page gets too full, I archive the chronologically oldest material, which is always on the top. Kevin Baas | talk 21:09, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

They are free to read my history. I feel there is too much archiving of minutiae on this Wiki. My plan is to avoid contributing to that. Rex071404

They are, ofcourse, free to read your history, although it is more difficult to read than an archive. I do share your concern that the wiki's database probably has a lot of archiac info in it, and that this may affect the performance of the wiki. That is an issue that, ultimately, must be addressed by the programmers.

Regardless, you run the risk that people will form said impression of your motives, irrespective of your real motives. You may choose to accept that risk, I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of it.

Oh, and btw, I like your consensus building efforts and discussion on the George W. Bush page. And I liked your attempt to moderate with VV on his talk page regarding his reverts. I think that your style of conduct will be more effective than VV's in reaching your goal of neutral content. Kevin Baas | talk

Thank you. Please take note though, it seems that the resident anti-Bush editors prefer to "out-vote" those they disagree with rather than try to incorporate and belnd each view into the text. As for people leaping to conclusions about my personal Talk Page deletions; this does not concern me. I do not expect that I will ever meet anyone on this Wiki who treats me worse than the pro-Kerry editors at John Kerry did, so I am not worrried about adverse reactions. Rex071404 00:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't characterize people as "anti-Bush" or "pro-Bush" or what-have-you, I find that such characterization is prejudice that hinders one's ability to see things as they are, to communicate effectively, etc. I think a lot of people, perhaps in part fueled by this bias of characterization, are somewhat suspicious of other people's contributions, and thus don't attempt to incorporate it into their knowledge and/or the text, as you have mentioned. Someone even said this to me on my talk page: "Thanks for your note. I'm sorry, but given your history I am not presently assuming good faith but rather that you have an agenda and seek to manipulate Wikipedia policies to further it." I agree with you that this makes it difficult to collaboratively develop quality articles, and am likewise concerned.

I think it's a good time to discuss minor improvements to the unstable paragraphs. This is surely to be a somewhat slow process, but it will definitely be quicker than endless and futile edit wars. Which is why I'm happy that you are taking this initiative. I would like to see VV bring his desired election controversy paragraph into discussion on the talk page, along with the standing version, so that we can weave them together to come up with a para that's better than either. I agree with the comment made on the talk page earlier that the topic really should have two paragraphs. This way we could incorporate more info, satisfying the different views more, stabilizing the section.

In any case, I hope that your experience on the Bush page is more pleasurable than that on the Kerry page. Kevin Baas | talk 20:17, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)


I was hoping you would bring this delightful incident to arbcom's attention and save me the trouble. Toodles. Wolfman 02:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]][edit]

Along with his mind, apparently [12]


Why do you waste your time here? This is obviously a Kerry campaign site. Your point of view is not welcome here. Haven't you figured that out yet?

This is not a taunt (I've been wasting my time here as well, for the same reason). I'm just curious. 15:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please get an account and user ID and I will answer you further. Rex071404 15:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to reply on my Talk page. 15:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I saw your message on my talk page. My suggestion is this: forget trying to get edits past the pro-Kerry gatekeepers. Create an alternate version of the article (which is truly NPOV) as a separate page. Then put a link to it at the top of the page for the main article. Pro-Kerry people may try to revert the link or disrupt the alterante version, but this will be obvious anti-social behavior. They won't be able to get away with it. And they can't portray it as innocently exercising their editor rights. Their obstructive intent would be self-evident. If you do the job right, the alternate page will be clearly superior to the pro-Kerry pablum, which is really in very sad shape to anyone who is not drinking Kerry Kool-Aid. Then the case can be made for making the alternate article the primary. I must emphasize that it is critical that the alternate page be truly NPOV, not anti-Kerry or pro-SBVT as such. I don't have any problem with that because I am convinced that a fair treatment of the controversy will on balance support the SwiftVets. For me, in fact, although I am a Bush supporter, this really isn't so much a partisan thing. It's about telling the truth. Whether Kerry's Vietnam record itself, or his current misrepresentation of it, makes him unfit to be commander-in-chief is a matter of opinion. But facts are facts. And the Swift Boat Veterans should not be smeared for telling the truth. 01:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hope the above entry doesn't offend any of the editors on the SBVT article. If so, I apologize. I'm sure you're trying to do your best. I'm sure you think you're being NPOV. I'm sorry I couldn't help you with that. Anyway, the entry above was intended as a private message, so again, please don't take offense. (Rex071404, sorry for polluting your personal Talk page with this.) 02:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No problem, good to hear from you [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 05:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: "Right to Comment"[edit]

Regarding your statement about the RfM page, rv - Restoring my comments which were wrongly removed by user "Neutrality" - I have a right to comment - please do not delete again"Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is not a forum for discussion. You can leave your comments on RfC or on the article's talk page, but I want to be clear that your "right" to comment can be exercised in one of those two places, but not on RfM. Also, USer:Neutrality is a mediator, and it is not wrong for him to remove comments that ought not to be placed on the page.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 15:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your update. In the past, Neutrality actually deleted evidence that I entered in an Arb case, so I am quite nervous about him deleting me. Rex071404 17:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No problem -- thanks for the nice reply on my talk page :-) BCorr|Брайен 19:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


For soliciting comment on the "Partisan Ties" heading. I agree that the wording isn't great, "partisan" has come to have quite a pejorative meaning. Hopefully, we can agree on a more neutral, yet still accurate and descriptive alternative.

Also, anon ip asked why you are still around. I'll note that, though we've had our problems, even I think you have made some useful contributions to contentious articles. Part of what frustrated me about the SBVT NPOV stir is that I competely agreed with quite a few of your desired edits. Some of those were small useful changes towards neutrality, as with the 'partisan ties' issue you raise. That's why I appreciate you soliciting comment this time rather than confrontation; sometimes you may find even I agree with you. Wolfman 00:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I stil think you are too quick to complain about me. Rex071404 01:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe so. I will be less quick in the future if you continue displaying the genuine good faith effort I mention above. I probably will be less hard-nosed too, because I am actually a pretty nice and easy-going guy in real life.
I mentioned before that I find it fascinating people look at the same record (Kerry) and come to such opposite conclusions. That wasn't a taunt, I really do. And if you lived around the block, I'd probably enjoy trying to hash this stuff out with you over a beer. It's a lot harder to find common ground over a computer, because it eliminates so many of our standard social skills. It makes it easy to get frustrated with those who have different views, and I do sometimes get easily frustrated anyway.
One last thing, I really am sorry about dumping that list of journalists on you. I kind of thought your question was disingenous, so I was just going to mention a couple. But then I googled up a site with that list pre-made, and it was just too tempting. It wasn't really intended as a taunt, but I can understand how you would take it that way. Wolfman 01:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: peace offer. Sounds good. I'm actually more concerned about handling future disagreements better. And it's pretty obvious we will have some strong disagreements. But sorting out some of the past ones might be helpful in setting a good tone for future ones. Wolfman 04:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

subpage typo: page doesn't really exist yet since there's no entry. either use move tag at top, next to history. of just go to /wolfpeace. i'm moving during the next week, and so will have less time to spend on wiki. but, i will be happy to try to sort it out with you when i'm on. do you want to open the page with an issue, or should i? peace.

(Wolfman RfC comment copied to Talk:Axis_of_evil [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 06:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

updated proposal on chart at peacepage.

Well, I'm happy to continue private discussions with you. However, that doesn't mean that I'm not going to make neutral edits to your work. There are 3 edits in specific you have mentioned

  1. Schatche 1st hand account. As I indicated in the edit summary, what you included was not a first hand account. I assumed you had just entered the wrong one in error, instead of the lengthy verbatim interview. It is not a first hand account if a columnist picks and chooses what to report, interspersed with commentary. I should have just moved the Novak thing to Editorial, and would have except that I mistakenly thought your intent was to include the Schacthe first hand account.
  2. Gardner. I snipped the quote down to a sentence symmetric in style and scope with the other quotes. I believe that was an entirely neutral edit, and completely fair. Note that others had removed the reference entirely, and I took the special effort to note that on the Talk page and argue for re-inclusion. That seems like pretty good faith to me.
  3. NPOV. I stated the reason in the Talk page. Further, you will not that I withdrew my objection when a specific reason was stated. We can then negotiate on that reason. Overall tone is not a reason; you need to give a specific example of phrasing that generates POV tone.

Private negotiation and peace talks does not mean I surrender my right to make useful edits. It does mean I have an obligation to give a fair reason (which I did) and an obligation to discuss them further with you here if you desire.

Similarly, several of your edits are to text by me. In fact, probably over 50% of the text was written by me. So most edits by you will be edits of my work. Do you think you should not be able to make edits with discussing them with me first? Wolfman 17:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I am happy to continue dialogue with you. However, the Gardner quote issue truly causes me to doubt your willingness to make good faith neutral compromises. Nor have I seen you make any other edits in that spirit. Under the circumstances, I no longer think it wise to withdraw the arbcom complaint. I am still interested in private negotiations, but I just haven't yet seen any evidence of good intent or reasonableness on your part. Sorry, I hope you don't take it personally; it's not intended that way.Wolfman 19:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't taking the possibility of the table. I'm just saying we need to actually make some progress first.
As to the quotes, the crew quotes aren't POV, they're factual. And Gardner is given exactly as much importance under my scheme as everyone else. Yes, they are harsh quotes -- all of them including Gardner's. But this is a harsh dispute; that's how these guys feel. It's not our job to pretend it's not harsh, but to accurately present the situation. I agreed with you that Gardner should be given the same say as others. What I don't agree is that he should be given more emphasis than others. How can you justify that as an evenhanded approach?
I in all sincerity cannot understand the objection. I get that it looks kind of bad for SBVT, but that's just reality. There are lots of things in this article that I wish weren't there. But that's just how it is, both sides have some evidence or points in their favor.
One possibility that occured to me is moving those lines to the Truthfulness section. I had almost done that last week. The reason I didn't is because we would then need to establish in the various 'Allegations' sections how the crew feels about the charges. And that would require longer quotes of this sort in several places. Things like "Odell is full of crap" (Sandusky). I thought it best just to get on record early what the general crew attitude has been, to spare us having to detail it in multiple places (which would probably add more, not less emphasis). Wolfman 19:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I was running through Kerry's page looking at the bills. By the way, I now see what you were doing. The predominant confusion came from the AFL-CIO list, and someone had amended your table to correspond to that. Very confusing.

Anyway, these are certainly bills that Kerry sponsored. Each bill, of course, has to be entered in both the Senate and House separately. And they have separate sponsors, as these are completely independent bodies. For whatever reason, the House version is listed as the reference at that particular repository. But, Kerry was the Senate sponsor -- there has to be one, the House can't pass a law by itself. Wolfman 18:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I linked to 4 new bills signed into law. But thanks for accepting these, I do think it's quite appropriate and fair; and I appreciate your reasonableness. When I get a chance, I intend to create a similar chart of co-sponsored bills.
By the way, Bill Frist, the Republican Majority Leader, has sponsored 88 bills in the 108th Congress and zero have become law. In the 107th Congress, Frist sponsored 52 bills and 1 became law.Wolfman 18:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not thrilled about a table in general. But, several of my specific concerns were based on what I now assume was someone else's revision of your table based on the AFL-CIO page. I do think you should have looked into the bills I added, as I imagine you would have if the name were Bush. But, that's of no consequence, as I think we have reached some agreement on those, and the wording on Kerry's page was a bit unclear.Wolfman 19:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I took these right off the Kerry page, same as you. All I did was click through the links provided on that page. For example, clicking through to the related HR pulls up a link to the final public law. Nothing fishy going on, I swear. But, if you doubt, it will only take you 2 or 3 clicks to get there, same as me.
By the way, I am now in the process of extending the table back a few Congresses. It looks like Kerry's page is just a dump of the Thomas info. Here's the link for the 103rd Congress that I am using [13], the others can be clicked to from there. Wolfman 19:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I just dumped the text of the law there (that I got from following the links on Kerry's page). But, I'll go back to wikisource and add a link to the history. Just give me a little time to get to it. Wolfman 19:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I'm going to have very little time the next few days for this. And don't want to spend what little I have on the busy work of legislative links. But, I promise that I have done the bills thing in good faith. If there are any errors (and I don't think there are), it's just a clerical error. Sometime next week, I'll get to sticking in the history links. In the meantime, you are welcome to check. And if you do, please just go ahead and stick the links in wikisource while you're at it. The last 10 years were just from clicking through Kerry's web page. The remaining years I got directly from Thomas at the link I gave you above. Have a good Labor Day Weekend! Wolfman 23:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why read that?[edit]

I don't quite get why you asked me to read the link to the Neutrality name debade. Is it because of my user name, Vfp15? That's been my hotmail handle for five years, it comes from my initials Vincent Francois Poirier (V F P). So, I think my wiki handle is not inappropriate, especially since it has a number suffix. Vincent 09:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Google hits: Yes, google returns the total number of hits.

Religious tolerance

As for prejudice, aren't you being a little harsh on medieval catholics? They only had a "form of faith" not a real faith? Historians often call this era The Age of Faith in contrast to the renaissance being called the Age of Reason. People in medieval were very very religious and until the 1400s or so, Christianity actually was a very uniform thing across all of Europe (that's what the word Catholic means BTW, uniform or all-encompassing).

Anyway, sorry if I offended, but I'm very interested in medieval European history so, I thought the parody rather clever. Still do, for the reason listed elsewhere Cheers Vincent 09:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC).

The sentence you refer to does not say what you suggest it does, please re-read it: "Those Medieval European leaders who did have a form of faith (and you cannot posibly say thay all uniformly did), if they were Christians, were for the most part Roman Catholics of a much different ilk than others of today."
[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 15:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sjc's vFD Threat[edit]

Threats are very uncool. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 05:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Patriotism being what it is, your flag marks you out for what you are, sir. It was incidentally, not a threat, but a prelude to correctly spelling the page and disposing of it. Incidentally the quote should be directly attributed to Donald Rumsfeld, one of the few articulate American politicians. Sjc 05:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaiel uses a Cuban flag, I was using one last week too. You are leaping to harsh conclusions and that's regretable. Also, whatever happened to dialoging on the talk page, Rfc option, mediation option etc? You sound like you are trying to bully me - that's very uncool.
In all honesty I tell you that I have only heard it in the plural version. In fact Google returns over 400% more hits for the plural version [14] than the singular version [15] Let's talk, ok? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 05:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: "Unencyclopaedic, poorly written, not attributing the author of the quote etc etc". FYI: the artcile was originally copied verbatim from the singular version of the same. You did read the edit histories on both, yes?

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]]

I've actually heard it more often in the singular than the plural. In fact, it wasn't until the brouhaha I inadvertently helped to trigger that I even heard the phrase in the plural. But, it does look like it's widely used in both versions. Dale Arnett 05:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your presumptive assumptions on my religious views[edit]

Answered here. Vincent 07:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mokusatsu. Japanese. Look it up. Vincent 07:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Axis of...[edit]

I'm not a mediator, but I'll be happy to read the discussion again and try to help people come to a consensus. Look for me on Talk:Axis of Evil. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:00, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)