User talk:Rex071404/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  1. User talk:Rex071404/archive1
  2. User talk:Rex071404/archive2
  3. User talk:Rex071404/archive3
  4. User talk:Rex071404/archive4
  5. User talk:Rex071404/archive5
  6. User talk:Rex071404/archive6

Last update: 10.21.05

Picture of the day
Petrified wood

Petrified wood, such as this sample found in Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona, United States, is a fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals, while retaining the original structure of the wood. The petrifaction process occurs underground, when wood becomes buried under sediment. Mineral-rich water flowing through the sediment deposits minerals in the plant's cells and as the lignin and cellulose decay, a stone cast forms in its place.

Photo credit: Daniel Schwen
Archive - More featured pictures...


Please click here to leave me a new message.



Contents

[edit] reply to your query

I have responded on User talk:Fred Bauder. -- Viajero 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too, have responded on User talk:Fred Bauder. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 13:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Was it really necessary to copy all that stuff to the talk page of Ward Churchill? I would have thought that the discussion belonged on Fred's talk page. -- Viajero 13:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it was necesary. I want to make sure readers at Talk:Ward_Churchill are fully apprised. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 13:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comment on Ward Churchill's appearance was based on his resemblance to some of my close relatives (my mother and grandmother) whom I know to be partly Native American. Fred Bauder 15:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

It would have been less prone to misinterpretation, had you said that to begin with. Still, you would never say that someone "has a big nose" or "thick lips" and then suggest that they are this or that, would you? Why then try to divine Churchill's geneology from his appearance? And by doing that, aren't you weighing your edits with your personal opinion? And if so, that's truly POV. The public facts do not reasonably support any assertions or suppositions about Churchill actually being a Native American (not in any true sense). That being the case, I frankly am unmoved that you "feel we should take his word for it" based on your personal opinion of his appearance. I think Fred, as an attorney, you ought to be able to see the error of your logic here. Your personal feelings are not one of the public facts which we can rest our editorial standards on. Indeed, we've already established that such methods are not the rule here - as evidenced by the fierce way my personal feelings are scrubbed by others from articles such as John Kerry. Also, as evidenced by the blocking of my edits to Dedham, Massachusetts, it's not enough that an individual editor personally "know" or "feel" something to be true. Rather, it must be backed up by public fact sources that other editors will accept. I have two problems with using your "feelings" as a source: a) feelings are subject to change and therefore are not reliable as an ongoing fact referrence and b) I am repulsed by the notion we ought to judge people by appearance. That said, thanks for answering about Ward Churchill. But, I am still curious, why did you not answer my email? And why do you stand mute on that topic in this reply to me? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 15:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Ward_Churchill):

I did say that to begin with and only on the talk page. As to your mail, I do not recall a particular message to me. Fred Bauder 16:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Did say what? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 16:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(all comments after this have been added to my archive #5)

[edit] Spamming admins...

...will not be of help to you. I suggest going to the the Requests for Comment page.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well

You might not be BigDaddy, but so far (and looking at the arbcom decision), you have alot of his tendancies. Hopefully in the last 6 months, you've learned to be more civil. I hope so. My only piece of advice is that I'm not sure it's a good idea to have a "Liberal Editors Cabal". The problem is that you are then earmarking yourself as having an agenda and that doesn't always help you here. --Woohookitty 04:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have already copied those details to a less offensively titled scratch page and am working from my new page since yesterday. Frankly, if user Kizzle and user Accountable 1135 weren't snooping on me, the "cabal" named page would not have popped up. The purpose of that list of edits is to refract it over time - as a edits tracking device - should I have to refer to it to discern a pattern which can be pointed to during any official procedings. As it stands now, I feel that Accountable 1135 has pushed too far against me and ought to be sanctioned by Arbcomm. Suffice it to say, I feel that over time, the depth of the pro-liberal bias on various political pages will be clear. Please see my full details on the talk page of John Kerry. I think the facts support my position that critiques (even factual, tactfully written ones) are more tightly screened from entering biographic pages about Liberals, than they are with Conservatives. Look at the page for George W. Bush and see how critical/harsh it is. Then read Kerry's page and see that it's a virtual hagiography. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that's how I see it. Yet, certain others at Kerry's page gang up to block any edits at all from me there. As for the "cabal" page, I am only opposing its deletion so as not to set a precedent which prevents me from keeping an edits log. In no way is my log a "hit list" (as it's been called - whatever that means). Nor are there any personal attacks, bad words or imprecations on it. Because of that, if I assent to it's deletion, I am allowing an editor (who's edit history is suspicious to me) - that being Accountable 1135 - to boss me right off the wiki.Rex071404 216.153.214.94 04:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Oh yes...Rex = Big Daddy. Definitely. No question. Great detective work again by that big, strong, intelligent man - WooHooKitty. (What kind of name is 'WooHooKitty' for a grown male anyway? LOL!

Ps Rex, good luck dealing with these douchebags....err...I mean cellular nanotechnologists. I punk'd them out so hard, they had to ban me. (For a few yuks, check out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence.) I guess they tried the same tack on you a while ago too.

I'm sure it's merely a coincidence that we're both conservatives, huh?

Pss Rex, be sure to DOCUMENT all the things you've discovered on the John Kerry page etc.

It's awesome that you and I INDEPENDENTLY observed (and can corrorborate) virtually the exact same pattern by which these liberals produce Wikipedia articles - Demonize conservatives; lionize liberals. It's repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

I've already talked to people and these headcases have a HUGE PR problem on their hands. The more proof we have, the easier it will be to persuade all but their fellow Chomsky-worshipping, Jew-baiting, anal-retentive, truth-haters not to give one more red cent to Wikipedia. And, until WHOLESALE changes are made from the top down, that's precisely what I've decided needs to happen. Their actions are so bizarre. It's almost like distorting reality to comport to left-wing templates is the foundational tenet of their religion. Too bad they're gonna have to find a church other than Wikipedia to congregate, huh?

And don't think they're not already freaking out. Rumor has it my actions are already sending users Hippocrite, Fred Bauder, WoohooKitty, JamesMLane, Kizzle, FVW, Derex and especially the pimply faced 15 year old RedWolf to become so verklempt they don't know whether to schedule an appointement with their psychiatrist...or their gynecologist.

Big Daddy- PHASE II -Dry up the funding (on the road)

[edit] To the person or person(s) making the above remarks (those attributed to "Big Daddy")

I would prefer that you not leave harsh commentary, invective, imprecations or threatening statements about others or about this wiki on my page (here) and I am specfically requesting that you cease and desist, immediately.
I do not subscribe to the view that others or this wiki ought to be viewed or talked about derisively. My usage of the term "bias" is in the literal, not pejorative sense. I think that any fair reading of my talk page comments over the last few days, makes that clear.
I have enough problems watching my own p's & q's to expend any effort staving off issues that you may initiate by posting hostile commentary here.
I've made no assesment about whether "Big Daddy" is guilty of this or that or what-have-you, but I do know that others have reasonably concluded that he is a menace and for that reason, I explicitly condemn his agressive actions (if any).
I am not a party to the "Big Daddy" conflict. I do not want to be a party to it and I will delete any further references made to it or by (purportedly or genuinely, whichever) him on this page.
Rex071404 216.153.214.94 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry. I am going to block the IP he is using. Also, no I don't agree with you that liberal articles are somehow not hit as hard as conservative articles. I've been in a contentious battle for 4 months now with someone who is convinced of the exact *opposite*, i.e. that Wikipedia is just pro-government, conservative trash. I don't think either critique is correct. --Woohookitty 04:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I fully support your Liberal Editors Cabal Page

Great idea. You are right on target. I only wish I had thought of it myself. The fact that it is being suggested for deletion only supports the growing opinion that modern liberalism has become authoritarian and hypocritical. How ironic the philosophy supposedly in support of no censorship has been hijacked by censors! "Diversity and Freedom of Speech, comrades...but only if we agree with it". All these self-hating liberals to whom being labled liberal is a "personal attack" need some serious therapy. I'm a libertarian with conservative sympathies and wouldn't be anything but proud to be identified as such. You may want to take out the word Cabal so it lessens their ability to claim the page says anything negative at all. Keep up the great work! -- Lawyer2b 23:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the kind word. As of a few days ago, I've already made a more gently named page here and am already ready to agree that the word "cabal" can be removed from the "cabal" page - but only if someone "asks" me instead of trying to "tell" me. So far, no one has asked. Also, please check out John Kerry and some other liberal oriented pages. Good conservative editors are needed there. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OK

I'll stay in touch, but I'm not on the opposite side of anything. My political affiliation has nothing to do with how I do things on here. I mean on the Price-Anderson Act page, I've been battling a guy trying to make the article anti-nuclear. I believe that the article should be NPOV. Personally, I'm as anti-nuclear as you can be, but that's not the point. Writing for the enemy is part of this process. --Woohookitty 08:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

People write things all of the time on here that they do not really believe. It's part of the process. it's called "writing for the enemy" and it's talked about on the NPOV page. When I write on here, I'm writing as a neutral writer. I'm not writing as a Republican or a Democrat. The idea is to make it all neutral. Not neutral for liberals or conservatives, but for both. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. If someone comes on here with a bias and they act on it, then they really shouldn't be here. I guess I'm just saying that I don't like the labels that you and some of the other conservatives on here are using. It's counter productive. It will just antagonize people. There is absolutely no reason to keep a list of wrongdoing by "liberals". You cannot tell whether someone is liberal or not based on one Wikipedia post because, as I said, people often write for the enemy on here. I've written things on here that I can barely stomach, to be honest. But that's part of the point of being here...to build a NPOV encyclopedia. Just because someone puts a change to an article up that sounds liberal doesn't mean that they are liberal. The sooner you learn that, the better off you will be. And if you can't write for the enemy, honestly, I'm not sure you should be here. And that's not an attack. I don't care what you believe in personally. I don't care if every editor on here is a conservative. As long as you are willing to sometimes write from the other side so that the encyclopedia stays neutral, I don't care where you are on the political spectrum. Sorry for this being long, but I thought it was important to explain what I meant by my earlier post.

And I apologize for ever implying that you are BigDaddy777 but again, be patient with us. What happened with him was so bad that he almost caused me and others to leave. And again, if he was a liberal and acted like he did, he'd still be banned. --Woohookitty 11:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful comments. I will say though, that I am convinced there is pro-Liberal bias on a number of political related pages. And, in my view John Kerry is one of those pages. As for that log of edits, I am keeping that so as to amass evidence when and if it's needed against sockpuppets, 3rr violations, tag-team reverts, tag-team bias-stasis enforcement, personal attacks, etc. While we may disagree as to the merits of the idea of logging edits, I assure you that I am keeping my log as accurate as possible. I've found that accurate records are virtually always beneficial to everyone mentioned in them - provided that everyone mentioned in them is operating with clean hands, and if they are not thus behaving, knowing that records are being kept, encourages them to being doing so. Suffice it to say, I never announced my edits log, but since certain others do know of it, at minimum, perhaps they will stop hassling me with inane taunts such as these anon ip edits:[1], [2], [3], [4]. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 20:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

(This deleted message, was responded to here) Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty tricks

"Vandalism" was not my intent. That article has stayed in a posture of one sided screed/POV stasis for more than 6 months. This was my 1st attempt to use the "nonsense" tag - but it's obviously the wrong tag. What would you recommend? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is already tagged with {{npov}}. I presume the matter has been discussed on Talk:Dirty tricks to no effect. (if not, try that.) You could use WP:RFC to call attention to the dispute, in hopes that fresh viewpoints will make a difference. You culd also ask individuals who might be interested to look at it and help improve the article. ypu could try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution including mediation. I hope this answer helps. DES (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/x/User_talk%7ERex071404_archive6_bb80.html"