User talk:Kscottbailey/Archive Mar 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Record of Dispute with KarlBunker 2 Keith Olbermann 3 Talk:Joseph McCarthy 4 Ronald Reagan 5 Warning on K. Scott Bailey Page 6 Skopp 7 Sexuality Pages 8 3RR 9 3RR block 10 Request to Unblock 11 Talk:James Buchanan‎ 12 Civility 13 Vandalism 14 I have created my first article, Scott O'Dell Award for Historical Fiction 15 INAPPROPRIATE "WARNING" DELETED 16 User:Rklawton 17 WP:BN 18 Talk:James Buchanan 19 McCarthy, McCarthyism 20 Harry S. Truman 21 Buchanan

[edit] Record of Dispute with KarlBunker

As KarlBunker has felt it prudent to completely delete all reference to our dispute from his talk page--where much of it occurred--and has not even included it in his archive, I felt it was necessary to retrieve it and post it here, for the record.

[edit] Keith Olbermann

• If you wish to change it to "News Presenter" go ahead, however his show is news orientated and deserves to be credited as such. Take it to the talk page if you have a problem with it. - Mike Beckham 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

He's not a "news presenter." He's a commentator, pure and simple. A "news anchor" is someone like Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, et al. I have no ax to grind with Olbermann, but words mean something. As funny and intelligent as he is, he's just not a "news-anything." He's a commentator and a sportscaster. Why do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with it but your edit is likely to cause a argument so I suggest taking it to the talk page like you did and discuss it first. Click the "+" icon next to edit this page on the talk page to start a new discussion and you can name it. Thanks - Mike Beckham 10:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Joseph McCarthy

I have to say you have nerve. I was unfailingly polite to you in our exchange. You used your last post in that discussion to basically call me lazy. And then you send me a "warning"? While I appreciate your last note, my only concern during the McCarthy discussion was improving the NPOV of the article. I never once "attacked" you, and I think you know it. I also believe that bias creeping into an article IS a point for discussion on the discussion page. Where else would it be discussed? I wasn't saying, "McCarthy was great and you're a biased jackass for thinking otherwise." That's not how I feel at all, and I never let "attacks" be a part of my portion of the discussion at all. I was polite, to-the-point, and stayed focused on how to make the ARTICLE better. Oftentimes, our biases color our judgment without our realizing it. I think this is an important consideration when discussing an article. In contrast to how I treated you in our discussion--with civility and respect--during your last post on the topic, you made it a POINT to "get personal." As such, I request that you withdraw your "warning" to me, posted above.K. Scott Bailey 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you will accept the point your speculations about my bias are not a valid issue for discussion in an article talk page, I'll withdraw my warning. If you have a problem accepting this or understanding why persisting in such speculations is a form of personal attack and generally unconstructive, please select a few people from Wikipedia:List of administrators and ask their opinion. KarlBunker 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want me to admit. Your biases are whatever they are. I never "attacked" you in any way. Any perceived "attack" exists only in your own mind. It's ironic that we are probably of the same mind regarding McCarthy. All I was doing on the talk page was attempting to get to the bottom of why you kept reverting my innocuous change. If in my doing so, I offended you somehow, I apologize. But I've reviewed our discussion, and the only time our discusssion was other than civil was during portions of the discussion where YOU were responding to ME. I simply can not find any portion where I was rude to you in any way. However, I don't want to be "cross-wise" with anyone, so I do hope you will remove your unmerited "warning", as you've said you're willing to do. (As an aside, are you a moderator of some kind? If not, how are you able to give "warnings"? Just curious.)K. Scott Bailey 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize again. It was immature of me to respond to you as I did and to get caught up in arguing with you. The only sensible way to respond to someone who ignores everything you say is to ignore everything he says. I'll start doing that now. KarlBunker 11:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to be joking. I have never dealt with someone like you before. I have treated you respectfully, and you have treated me like a child. You "apologize" in a manner that could only be described as completely insulting and condescending. I have no idea how the tone of my previous discussion on McCarthy could have been construed as an "attack" on you, so you decide you'll just ignore me? What are we, in third grade?K. Scott Bailey 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep strong, K. Scott Bailey! I'm not an official mediator, so I'll just give you my moral support. I saw your request for help on the Mediation Cabal page!-HuBmaN!!!! 06:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I keep an eye on Joseph McCarthy, mostly to prevent vandalism and the like. While it strikes me that you're contributing in good faith, I also have to observe that I completely understand how "the tone of [your] previous discussion on McCarthy could have been construed as an 'attack' on" Karl Bunker. It's always fair, of course, to debate the neutrality of an article's mode of expression. Sometimes this will bring an editor's possible biases implictly into question, but they should never be made the focus of discussion. In my view your post of 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC) went well over the line. You found occasion to accuse KB of bias not just once or even twice, but five times in that single message:

• "The above post is evidence of your bias"
• "I am also offended that you're letting your own bias color your description of these authors"
• "The fact that you continue to pejoratively refer to them as 'right-wing' is further evidence of your bias"
• "With bias so evident, you continue to revert with no actual supporting reason"
• "This will never make FA or GA with people with such evident bias editing it"

That strikes me as clear overkill, and well into the territory of personal attack, however nondeliberate. One Wikipedian's view. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 09:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So in reviewing the exchange, you felt that the tone I had taken warranted KarlBunker issuing me a "warning" after he had actually attacked ME in a MUCH more overt way? The post you reference was written after he continually reverted a rather innocuous change, several times. It was written after explaining several times that "right wing" had a pejorative feel to it that "conservative" did not, and still seeing him revert the change. The ironic thing in this whole exchange, is that I'm not a fan of Coulter in any way shape or form. I find her repugnant. My point to KarlBunker was that we simply must fight to keep those feelings out of the article. I attempted to do so, in good faith, while he implied that I was lazy, and took an overtly insulting tone in SEVERAL of his posts. Finally--after admitting that my change was warranted--he issued a final post where he again implied that I was lazy, took a very insulting tone, and then had the gall to issue ME a "warning" for "personal attacks"! Is that not a clear abuse of whatever power Wikipedia has vested in him to issue such "warnings"? I think it is, especially given his long history of locking horns with anyone who dares offer an edit that he disagrees with on one of his favorite articles. If this post has a bit of a defensive tone to it, I apologize. I've just grown weary about defending myself against a clearly unwarranted "warning." If a person with such authority can issue such a "warning" based upon the fact that they lost a debate and they're pissed about it, I'm not sure Wikipedia is a place I want to be a part of. If it's not removed, I'm done with Wikipedia.K. Scott Bailey 11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it would seem to me that any "personal attack" would have to be "deliberate." Even the nature of the verb "attack" would imply intent. My only intent in our discussion was to make the McCarthy article better. Nothing more, nothing less. Discussing bias within the article with a person who seemed to be displaying such bias is not a personal attack, but a discussion.K. Scott Bailey 11:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

KSB, you've missed the point (or I failed to make it effectively). I've taken you at your word about your intentions; what I'm trying to get you to see is the disconnect between your stated intentions and your evident actions. I've looked over the record and it's clear: (1) You were the first person to bring personal observations rather than simply content into the edit exchange with your edit summary of 08:15, February 20, 2007: "Only ideological bent forces the phrase 'right wing' into this sentence." (2) You were the first to take the Talk page colloquy in a negatively personal direction, and you did so in a big way, with five accusations of bias in your post of 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC). I chose the wording of my summation carefully: "That strikes me as clear overkill, and well into the territory of personal attack, however nondeliberate." Your claim that no personal attack was intended was made after the fact--I accepted your post facto claim, thus my phrase "however nondeliberate." However, you should see that anyone reading your message for what it was would naturally experience it as a personal verbal assault--thus my phrase "well into the territory of personal attack."

In sum, there was just no need to bring in Karl's possible bias at that point: You could simply have provided a couple citations of well-respected liberals or nonideological historians referring to Coulter, Grigg, and Evans as "conservative" rather than "right-wing." You could have argued for a recasting of the paragraph in question to more clearly distinguish the "right-wing" Coulter et al. from the "conservative" Buckley. You could have just gone ahead and done that recasting and seen how it went over. Et cetera. That was the only sort of "discussion" required at that point. But you didn't do any of those things; you made the exchange personal. You've claimed above to have been "unfailingly polite to [Karl] in [y]our exchange." But you were not. You have admitted no fault. But you were at fault. I have not defended the nature of Karl's subsequent responses to you, but the fact is you "set him off," as we say. And you should see that the nature of your post might well have "set off" any editor.

Again, I'm writing to you because I believe you're acting in good faith and can be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia...but only if you make the nature of your communications more consistent with your stated intentions. Or this exact sort of problem will keep arising. As for Karl's very unofficial warning, I suggest you delete it so you don't have to look at it. Move on to the good work you came here to do. Best, D.—DCGeist 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A dispassionate observer from the mediation cabal came to a far different conclusion. [Redacted majority of this post. Whether your prior relationship with KarlBunker colored your judgement is irrelevant. I apologize for bringing it into the discussion. I thought that Bunker's warning was some kind of official Wikipedia thing. I will delete it forthwith, and place KarlBunker on my unofficial "avoid" list for his completely inappropriate dealings with me and the cabalist throughout this discussion.]K. Scott Bailey 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I can readily understand why the cabalist and I came to different conclusions. We were essentially looking at the conflict through different prisms. He was called in to provide a perspective on policy--if he judged that Karl's warning was unwarranted in those terms, I respect that judgment. (You'll note that my suggestion above hardly demonstrates that my conclusion was "far different.") I dropped in to provide a perspective on psychology. Tone is a very dicey thing in electronic communications, especially between parties who have never and probably never will meet face to face. I know it took me more trouble than was probably necessary to learn that lesson. Though the cabalist supported your position on the warning, that doesn't mean you shouldn't contemplate whether you did yourself proud calling someone you don't know "biased" five times in a single message when there was still apparent room to attempt more civil, content-oriented debate.

One of the best suggestions I've read is simply to pause before you hit that "Save page" button and ask yourself, "Is what I'm about to post actually going to make things better on Wikipedia?" I'd never claim I'm 100% successful at abiding by that, but the notion's saved me often enough from unnecessary conflicts. Look...you're already ahead of my learning curve--you redacted your own critique. I've respected your better second thought and not gone into the history to read it. To be clear, I'd never advocate being a pushover; I'm just suggesting that that sort of deference to one's own better angels is often even more valuable when dealing with an editor where the two of you just rub each other the wrong way from the get go. I'm sure there's a quote about self-control from "The Way of the Samurai" I could call up here, but I'll exercise it on myself now and conclude. I hope something I've said here (and I do appreciate your bearing with my unsolicited observations) proves helpful either now or down the road. Best, Dan—DCGeist 06:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think where you and I differ--and the difference is not insignificant--is in how we view "bias." I do not view bias as bad, nor do I deny that I myself am biased in many ways. I made that clear as I dealt with KB. I made it clear that when I said I felt his continual reversions showed bias, I meant no insult, as we ALL have our biases.

I think we also may differ in what we consider polite. I attempted to let KB know that I was not saying he was wrong to have biases, nor was I claiming that I had none. I was simply pointing out that the only explanation that I could come up with for continually reverting such a minor wording change was a subconscious bias. This has direct bearing on the tone of the article, and was in no way meant as an insult to KB. On several occasions, he then crossed over into OVERT personal attacks, implying that I was lazy, incompetent, or both. And then came the infamous warning.

Be that ALL as it may, Bunker is who he is, and I am who I am. He doesn't like me, and has made that perfectly clear. He treated the cabalist with an attitude bordering on contempt, when called upon to defend his actions within the discussion. That in itself told me all I need to know. Again, Dan, thank you for your contributions to this discussion. Though I disagree with your opinion that it was I who started this row, I will move forward, lessons well learned.K. Scott Bailey 06:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

I'm also curious -- but I'm curious as to why you removed it. The president and first lady where very close. The article mentions that, but doesn't offer any examples of it. I just thought an example was in order, and I remembered their pet names and put it in the article. Why do you object? And if you don't have any strong reasons for objecting, I request that you restore their pet names. Thank you. Griot 05:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. If it was deleted, it was by someone else. The only changes I've made to the Reagan article were minor, save the removal of a weasel word. I didn't delete your addition. I was simply wanting to hear from you regarding your reasons for inclusion. It seemed unwieldy to me, not inappropriate, which is why I did NOT remove it.K. Scott Bailey 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You should check again. Your addition is still there.K. Scott Bailey 05:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from my page because I wanted to. I sometimes remove things to keep it from getting cluttered. Griot 21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was an interesting and valuable discussion. I'm sorry you disagreed.K. Scott Bailey 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning on K. Scott Bailey Page

Hello. K. Scott Bailey filed a Mediation Cabal case asking for resolution between you two. I've reviewed both your arguments and don't think a warning on his page is justified. Is it possible to remove this warning and work on the wording of the McCarthy article? --Mechcozmo 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You say you "don't think a warning on his page is justified." Can you give me any logical argument or evidence to support this "thought"? I could give you an extensive, point-by-point analysis of my exchanges with KSB, explaining why I think my warning was justified; is there some reason why I should take the time to do that? Regarding your last question, I could also show you point-by-point how KSB ignored every logical argument, every request for evidence, every response of any kind that I made to him regarding article content. Not "almost every", not "most", not "a lot of", but every. And this is in addition to his ignoring every request, demand and warning I made to him regarding accusing me of biased editing. So, based on that information, you tell me: is it possible to work with such a person on the wording of an article?

In any case, this appears to be a non-issue. KSB hasn't made any edits to the Joseph McCarthy article or any other article I care about, so, luckily for me, there's no reason for me to attempt further interaction with him. KarlBunker 11:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This arrogance is the exact reason why I filed the complaint. The "warning" issued was for "attacking" you, which I never did. I was completely civil and polite. You were arrogant and condescending, and then issued ME a "warning." If you refuse to remove the "warning", after a non-biased person has told you they have reviewed all of the thread you were "warning" me about and find it unjustified, we will certainly go to a more definitive level. I'm sure there has to be SOMEONE at Wikipedia who makes sure that people empowered to give "warnings" do not abuse the priviledge.K. Scott Bailey 12:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing your dealings with other people, I find I'm not the only one you've treated with disrespect. You seem to have conflicts with MANY Wikipedians. Perhaps the fault is not always outside yourself.K. Scott Bailey 12:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see a point-by-point analysis of the exchange from your perspective. I've only seen it from K. Scott Bailey's side of it, and I would like to hear yours. --Mechcozmo 15:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask "would you like to see a point-by-point analysis?" I asked "is there some reason why I should take the time to do that?" So far, you have only expended the time and effort to tell me what "you think" on this issue, with no argument to support your opinion. Since this is a non-issue as far as I can see, I don't see why I should expend any great time or effort on resolving it. If you have some specific argument to present, I'll respond to that. If you just wanted to tell me your opinion, please rest assured your opinion has been noted. KarlBunker 15:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Every line you type further illumines the reason I went to the Mediation Cabal. Are you ever NOT arrogant and condescending?K. Scott Bailey 16:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I especially enjoy how you felt it necessary to delete my comments on this page, with the comment "rv repetition." Check the history, Mechcozmo, for what I had to say, since KarlBunker is deleting my comments.K. Scott Bailey 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is some SERIOUS irony in your refusal to provide a "point-by-point" analysis of the disagreement from your perspective. This is the very thing you are accusing ME of doing. Irony drips.K. Scott Bailey 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you please stop referring to one another-- it will only spiral out of control.
KarlBunker, a request was filed with the Mediation Cabal desk to look into this situation. I am a neutral third party who volunteered to mediate the ongoing argument between you two. I read through the McCarthy talk page, etc, and tried to come to some sort of understanding as to what transpired between you two and how to fix any problems that might have arisen. (And one did, otherwise my services wouldn't have been needed.) I've only been able to understand things from K. Scott Bailey's side, and I want to make sure that I recommend the right course of action. My specific argument is that you tell me your side of the events that to you issuing a warning to K. Scott Brown because as of the current information I posses I do not believe that it was deserved. --Mechcozmo 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mechcozmo, I'm asking you to give me something to respond to: Is it your contention that accusing another editor of biased editing, and doing this persistently in the face of multiple requests and warnings to stop, is not a form of personal attack? Is it your contention that in this case the warning was excessive? Is it your contention that that is not a fair representation of the events? Are you contending something else? Whatever your contention is, is it based solely on your opinion, or is there some WP policy that applies and shows that I was in error with this warning? There is no "my side of the story" that isn't in the record, and the "point-by-point analyses" I referred to above would consist mainly of a lot of copying and pasting from that record. KSB engaged in comments which I believed to be counterproductive and contrary to WP policy, and I warned him about that policy. KarlBunker 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mechcozmo-Perhaps we should just take this to a more official level. He's now contending I violated WP policy by--according to the pseudo-warning he issued, anyway--engaging in "personal attacks." You've reviewed the record. I never "attacked" him "personally." In fact, quite the contrary, HE attacked ME, and then abused his right as whatever-the-heck-he-is to issue a "warning" after he finally admitted I was right about our wording dispute. Seems nothing more than sour grapes at work. Now he's refusing to comply with your polite request to have him provide support for his issuance of said warning. Perhaps we have exhausted our options in keeping this out of official channels. I would encourage you to look through his talk page. He has been warned repeatedly for various issues regarding how he comports himself in the Wikipedian community. In fact, he's even been banned from posting in the past. It would seem he will refuse to resolve this in a civil manner, outside the official channels necessary to FORCE him to remove the pseudo-warning. (BTW, what was he asking me to "stop"? Being polite and civil? Because I was never anything other than that to him during the discussion, which I'm sure you noticed in your review.) K. Scott Bailey 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mechcozmo -- While I await your return, I'll expand on my comments, and give you the (tedious) point-by-point response you asked for:

Another editor recently pointed out that in one of his first comments on Talk:Joseph McCarthy, KSB accused me of biased editing 5 times in a single comment.[1]. I didn't notice at the time that he did this 5 times over, nor did I post the warning on his talk page in response to this single comment. I did note that he was accusing me of bias, but took into account the fact that he was new to WP, so I just told him not to do this and addressed the other points he raised.[2]

His response was to persist in characterizing me and my edits as biased [3], [4]. Soon thereafter, in a discussion about another issue with the same article, he made the same accusation again.[5] Since he showed no sign of recognizing or accepting that these accusations were inappropriate, I posted the NPA warning to his talk page. I also tried to explain the WP policy of "comment on content, not on contributors" to him.[6]. His response was angry and abusive,[7] but I'm not complaining about that here, nor did I complain about at the time. Everyone's entitled to get annoyed at times. What I find disturbing is that in his response he still specifically denied that accusing editors of biased editing is something to be avoided. I asked him one more time to accept this single point as a WP policy, and asked him to seek a third opinion among WP administrators.[8] His response was to ignore my points and suggestions.[9].

The phrase "comment on content, not on contributors" is not mine, it comes from the Wikipedia No-Personal-Attacks template. It is official WP policy, as well as being good sense. As can be seen in his harassing and abusive comments above (and probably soon to be added to below), KSB continues to reject the validity of this notion. In my opinion, this confirms that my warning to him was appropriate. If KSB is going to function as an effective WP editor, he needs to have it impressed upon him that WP is its own culture with its own rules, and that his personal opinion that accusing an editor of bias is not an "attack" is irrelevant. In this, as in all other points that have come up in my interactions with him, he needs to accept that his personal opinions are not the final arbiter of reality. KarlBunker 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Will you work with me and not force me to go to the Mediation Committee? (I will read your comments more in-depth in a moment). Please, work with me here, as I'm trying to work to get both of you satisfied. --Mechcozmo 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Yes, both of you have made valid points. KarlBunker: you are not without bias. Your comment, "The authors in question are extremists, i.e. right wing, not conservative." is an example of this. There can be extremists on both sides of an argument, and you are making it clear here where your bias lies. However I am glad you finally decided to tell me your side of the story. It makes things much clearer for me to see why you issued the warning and took issue with K. Scott Bailey.

I think that you are at least partially right KarlBunker; K. Scott Brown went a bit far with the accusations of bias towards you and should have either come to the Mediation Cabal sooner or dropped the issue entirely sooner. You are right that that Wikipedia is its own culture with its own rules, but you seem to have had some issues obeying them yourself as other comments on this talk page have shown. I understand where you both come from now-- KarlBunker, you believe your warning was justified because you were being attacked personally and K. Scott Bailey thought that he was working towards NPOV. Is there a chance that I can still mediate this situation or should I open a request for the Mediation Committee to sort things out? --Mechcozmo 05:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reference to being "forced" to go to the "Mediation Committee" sounds like a threat. In the future, be more careful with your words.

I believe you're under a misimpression that something needs "sorting out" here. As I mentioned long ago, there is no outstanding editing conflict between KSB and myself. You have rendered your opinion, and while I think it's poorly reasoned and at times factually inaccurate, it at least makes a clumsy attempt at balance. You haven't said that my warning was inappropriate, and KSB has deleted it from his page anyway. We're done here. KarlBunker 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to accept that pointing out apparent bias in continual reverts of an innocous change can be classified as a personal attack. I do however contend that implying that someone is lazy because I wouldn't accede to your demands that I "prove" that "right wing" was non-neutral is a personal attack. Throughout the initial discussion--until the unmerited "warning" was placed--I had maintained a tone of civility. Discussions of bias are part and parcel of any discussion of neutral POV. And bias in itself has to originate somewhere. That there was the appearance of bias in the reverts done by KarlBunker seemed self-evident to me, given his use of the word "extremist" in describing the people he also insisted on describing as "right wing" instead of the more neutral "conservative." I had maintained civility in my tone towards Bunker right up until he had the nerve to give me a "warning." Even then, I simply told him he had "panache"--hardly the same as implying laziness, and very much not in keeping with the angry, accusatory tone Bunker took with me during our previous discussion. Given the above, I refuse to take responsibility for a dispute I feel had its genesis in KarlBunker's own defensiveness regarding the McCarthy article. While I am unable--as yet--to footnote properly (as Bunker did in his reply in this discussion), a careful review of the McCarthy discussion page will reveal who turned the TONE hostile. And if you check my history, you will find that I very rarely get reverted, and have had only one other "dustup" in my time here at WP. I make an attempt to stay neutral in my edits and additions, and to not allow my own biases to cloud my judgement. Believe me when I say that I will not be targeting KarlBunker's favorite articles for revision. However, I will not shy away from removing non-neutral POV language where I see it, be it in his articles or others. That was my only intent on my switch from "right wing" to "conservative" on McCarthy (which precipitated all of this commotion), and I will continue to make such revisions where I find them necessary, even when I run the risk of engendering the wrath of KarlBunker.K. Scott Bailey 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skopp

In the past Skoppensboer has been dealt with effectively through discussion on the talk pages. I know it can be difficult, and I've disagreed with him in the past, but when so many editors disagree with him (as they do) he has little influence. In particular, his comments on the talk page tend to be self-defeating. I don't worry about responding to rants of his (or any other editor). Just make the point you want to make and move on. Thanks for getting in touch with me and welcome to Wikipedia. Let me know if I can help with anything. Rkevins 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult. I'll pay special attention to the page. Best, Rkevins 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work on the Matt Drudge article. Rkevins 16:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality Pages

I would like to applaude you for adding the deletion notice on the page Sexuality of James Buchanan and I would like to let you know I too put one on Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. Both of these pages are disgusting displays of lies toward great people, especially Lincoln who, in my opinion, is the greatest American ever to live. I support the deletion of the pages which hold nothing but pure lies and dribble. -User:The Mystery Man

These are only disgusting if you find homosexuality disgusting. And they are presented with the requisite acknowledgment that we can never know for certain. While wikipedia is no place for unfounded rumors, it is also not a place for priggishness. There is citable, academicly supported evidence suggesting both men engaged in homoerotic behavior. There's likely a reason the press called him "Aunt Fancy," and why an older man of wealth shared his home with another never married man for the rest of his days. In Buchanan's case the evidence is strong enough that C-SPAN's special on Buchanan included it. And in it Brian Lamm, C-SPAN founder, discussed the subject in a forum of presidential historians. Bona fide heterosexual historians, Michael Beschloss for one, have found evidence that Buchanan was homosexual. Most often pronouncements of of a subject being "disgusting" says far more about the person making that declaration than the subject. Reverting, blanking, or attempting to undo edits usualy ends in an opposite effect of what was desired. Why not edit rather than blank out an entire section? Cite your sources and join the conversation. CApitol3 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the section offered no reliable sources. I don't care if he was attracted to men, women, or both. Unless you can prove it with reliable sources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.K. Scott Bailey 18:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The section in the Buchanan article is cited. An editor has reverted your blanking out that section. This conversation is best in the discussion section of the article in question. CApitol3 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's "cited" to "sources" that are completely unscholarly, and that are--in themselves--simply speculation. The very title of the section includes the phrase "Rumors and Speculation"! Wikipedia is simply not the place for rumors and speculation.K. Scott Bailey 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott, we see this differently. I still feel the discussion page is the place for this. CApitol3 19:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So point me to the sources cited that you consider "reliable." Otherwise, the deletion stands, and will be reinstated every time I log in. One of my biggest areas of concern is cleaning up the presidential articles. Rumors and speculation have no place in encyclopedic articles, no matter how you "see" it.K. Scott Bailey 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Threatening to revert everytime you log on is not playing nice, and violetes the three revision rule. "Clean up" or sanitize? An administrator has already once reverted your blanking of that section. Buchanan's sexuality is a dimension of who he is. The possibility of his homosexuality is not unfounded, not stated iwth certainty, and is cited. I'm not the author but I don't care to see sanitation of our presidents. This is not an example of someone trying to besmirch him. More it is about presenting what several contemporary presidential historians have written about and publicly discussed. Nice day here in Boston. how about where you are? Best, Jim CApitol3 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting unsourced rumors is not a violation of 3RR. If "several contemporary presidential historians have written about and publicly discussed" this "issue", then cite them. Otherwise, it will be removed summarily as uncited rumor.K. Scott Bailey 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please then do seek a discussion on the discussion page. CApitol3 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion on the James Buchanan talk page. I'm not simply going to cut and paste the discussion onto the discussion page for the agenda-driven stand-alone article.K. Scott Bailey 21:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kscottbailey, I am noit atacking you, I thnk you might misunderstnad use of spasmodic. I am not reverting to fifth grade namecalling here (I'm imagining you are expereienceing this as being called a "spaz" or something, not at all intneded). No, I referring to the meaning of spasmodic as in the adverb of spasmodic (somehting done in bursts). Which you do seem to be doing. But good luck to you and God bless you, at least for your persistence! BEst, Jim CApitol3 21:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing "spasmodic" about my deletion of unsourced material at all. It's simply trying to create an article uncluttered by rumor.K. Scott Bailey 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -Will Beback · † · 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The exception in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions only applies to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. James Buchanan is not a living person. Also, there appear to be sources. Please discuss the matter on article talk pages, or seek page protection rather than continuing to revert. -Will Beback · † · 07:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually researched this, you would see that I actually HAVE started a discussion about it. The people involved in re-inserting it refuse to join it. And surely you're not saying that material not reliably sourced can be inserted in an article, simply because the person is dead. As I'm sure you're not saying that (assuming good faith), 3RR does not apply to the removal of unsourced rumors from an encyclopedic article. As such, I'll thank you for removing your inappropriate warning.K. Scott Bailey 07:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at James Buchanan, where you removed one section eight times in 13 hours, and as a result you have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the 3RR policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you haven't bothered to research the issue either. 3RR is not applicable here, as I attempted to open a discussion, the person who kept re-inserting it (were they also blocked?) refused to participate in the discussion, and the material I removed was not in compliance with WP:RS , and in fact most was not sourced at all. If you had actually bothered to research a bit, you would have found that MY edit history is such that I am ONLY interested in keeping presidential pages clean. I am considering simply leaving Wikipedia because of your rash decision. The fact that you have blocked me has damaged the WP presidential pages. You should be ashamed of your quick trigger finger.K. Scott Bailey 18:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The only exceptions to the 3RR rule are if you're reverting simple vandalism, a BLP violation, or the edits of a blocked user. In content disputes, you must not revert, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours. You reverted eight times in 13 hours, so you're lucky you were only blocked for 24 hours. Please read the policy to make sure you avoid violating it again. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read the policy. It seems to allow for deletion of unsourced material, when it is continually reinserted without discussion. How would YOU recommend dealing with the reinsertion when the person reinserting it refuses to join the discussion I started? Or did you not bother to research the issue well enough to find out that I started a discussion that was summarily ignored by the person who did the reinserting? The burden of proof lies on the person arguing for INCLUSION not on the person arguing for exclusion. The person provided no defense for inclusion--and, in fact, completely ignored the thread I opened for discussion on the talk page--so the deletions were justified on the grounds of WP:RS, regardless of 3RR. As I said, you are doing great harm to the WP presidential pages with your block. That doesn't seem to matter, though, as you are refusing to even entertain the idea that you were greatly mistaken in your quick trigger block, even threatening to extend it. If this is the normal course of action amongst admin at Wikipedia, perhaps I will consider simply leaving the community.K. Scott Bailey 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In researching User:Will Beback, I have discovered that it was User:SlimVirgin who nominated him for adminship back in 2005. I also discovered that there were concerns as to Beback's membership in Wikipedia cliques during that process. It appears that SV and WB are a part of the same clique, and that I have run afoul of said clique. As anyone reviewing my contribs would note, I do not make a practice of controversial edits. After some initial runins on Matt Drudge and Joseph McCarthy, I have limited myself to simply cleaning up and protecting older (pre-JFK) presidential articles. I have had one controversial interaction during this time, and that was on the James Buchanan page. Beback has inserted himself there, and has issued an inappropriate and baseless warning on "civility" below. As a new user, I was completely unaware of the Wikipedia cliques. Discovering their existence helps explain a lot as far as how my experience thus far has with the community has gone. It's definitely been "eductional", one might say.K. Scott Bailey 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Unblock

Thank you for ignoring the facts of the case. I opened a discussion, which the other person simply ignored. I guess Wikipedia is okay with people inserting rumors sourced only to gossip rag-style books, then? The equivalent would be someone inserting the junk Kitty Kelly wrote about the Bush family, and claiming it was "sourced." This is really ludicrous.K. Scott Bailey 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the facts. I suggest you read WP:AGF. I can count more than three reverts. I don't care whether the edits you reverted were legitimate or not, but those edits surely were not obvious or simple vandalism, and hence your reverts fall under WP:3RR. Read our policies (note the plural) before accusing others of ignorance. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of ignorance, just of ignoring the facts of this case. I both opened up a discussion AND provided legitimate reasoning behind removal. The person who kept reverting my edits did neither thing. Yet we're treated the same way. That's simply ludicrous. BTW, I know all about WP:AGF. It seems you're not following it in assuming the worst about my revisions to James Buchanan. The block expires in like 8 hours. For me, it's not about that, it's about the principle. I'm a good editor, who never vandalizes, and only makes edits to the betterment of the article in question. The other editor was simply reinserting unsourced materials with no discussion.K. Scott Bailey 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my use of "ignorance" may have stretched the definition. I wasn't looking at the content of your reverts; I was simply seeing the fact that you reverted without appropriate discussion. That is all. I know you opened a discussion with the blocking admin, but it does not dismiss the fact that (1) you are edit warring on the page, in itself disruptive, (2) you did not discuss the reasons of your reverts on the relevant talk pages with other editors, leading to an edit war, (3) you are engaging in a content dispute, which necessitates appropriate discussion, not reverting. If you had followed the steps of dispute resolution, no one would have blocked you. Arguing with me won't do you any good, nor will it do Wikipedia good, nor will it do anyone good. You need to take up your concerns on Talk:James Buchanan instead of blindly reverting because you think you are correct. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to TELL you! In fact I actually DID start a discussion on Talk:James Buchanan regarding the changes, once the other person kept reverting them. That person refused to join the discussion, and kept reinserting the material that clearly violated WP:RS. That's why I feel that having the same "punishment" for both of us is illogical. I TRIED to follow the rules, starting the discussion as required by WP:3RR, but the person ignored the discussion, even when I referenced it in my edit summary.K. Scott Bailey 04:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you are saying now. I apologize for my mistake. Then may I ask why you reverted anyway after starting a discussion? I'm not setting up a catch-22, but I'm just curious about your actions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I kept removing it was because I felt--since inclusion clearly violated WP:RS--that removing it was not in violation of WP:3RR. It seemed that not removing it would have been the greater evil.K. Scott Bailey 05:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

<-- KSB, there is almost no excuse for 3RR. "Unsourced rumor" is not an excuse, except for living people. You'd already reverted several times before I warned you and the other editor. Then you replied that you didn't care, that you were right, and that you'd keep reverting. That's not how Wikipedia works. It's important to take things more slowly and seek consensus. Yes, it may take days, even weeks. We can wait that long. This is a long term project. The fate of the world doesn't depend on Wikipedia's article about James Buchanan. -Will Beback · † · 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the other admin was actually beginning to understand the situation a bit better after actually reviewing the details. Perhaps you would understand it better if you did the same as well. Simply saying "there is almost no excuse for 3RR" is not the same for making a good faith attempt to understand the underlying reasons for why I removed the material that clearly violated WP:RS. What other option is there (other than removing the material) when the person who keeps reinserting it refuses to join the discussion I started? Do I simply allow the material that was in clear violation of WP:RS to stay in pending your arbitrary "days, even weeks" standard?K. Scott Bailey 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should not engage in an edit war over WP:RS. It is not one of the exceptions to 3RR. You may still revert a couple of times a day if you fel you must, though even that isn't endorsed and may cause a block too. I've already mentioned the preferred courses of action which are engaging in discussion and seeking page protection. Posting a note on the talk page does not entitle you to violate the 3RR. Another option is to file an article RfC in order to get more editors involved. -Will Beback · † · 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the above assessment by Will Beback. A potential violation of WP:RS is not an exception to WP:3RR. As per the 3RR policy:

Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not breach the rule. Other exceptions to the rule include:

• Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking (this only applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism. "Obvious vandalism" doesn't just mean obvious to you or obvious to editors of the page who are familiar with the subject matter; it means obvious to anyone looking at the last edit. For other vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents);
• Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libellous material;
• Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons);
• Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space.

So despite how much you plea regarding how the excerpt was unsourced, any three or more reverts of the same edit(s) within a 24-hour period on a single article that does not fit these criteria will merit a block of variable length, depending on the offense. My silence is not assent for your actions, but rather that I need to go to sleep and go to school, etc. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an honest question, and not petulance. Does it not matter at all that it was MY initial edit being reverted? I was simply restoring the change I had made, in good faith, to bring the article in compliance with WP:RS. I was not reverting other people's edits. They were reverting mine. One way or the other, I now understand that WP:RS--no matter how blatant the violation--is not an acceptable exception to WP:3RR. Though I would argue that is not as it should be, it is what it is, and I can accept that, no matter my personal views on the matter.

As a side note, thank you for stepping in at James Buchanan to prevent further wholescale reversions of my much less significant removal of poorly sourced material. Now perhaps a full and free discussion can be had at Talk:James Buchanan, where consensus can be reached regarding the material that has not been properly sourced. There are actually a couple of people that believe if there are rumors about anyone that those rumors belong in their Wikipedia article! Oh well, that's what discussion--and reason--is for, I guess. Thanks again for stepping in.K. Scott Bailey 03:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:James Buchanan‎

Yes, I saw your notes on Talk:James Buchanan. That's why I left messages admonishing editors to stick to discussing the article, not each other. If you want to pursue discuss other editors please do it in another forum, such as on their talk pages or in a user RfC. -Will Beback · † · 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem more interested in having the other editors prosecuted than in resolving the dispute. If you want pursue the matter I've already told you how to do it. You may also see WP:DR. You're welcome to ask other admins, though they can't do much more than I've done, which is to tell users to avoid commenting about each other in article talk pages. Lastly, please read WP:AGF before proceeding. -Will Beback · † · 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please quote to me the sentence from WP:AGF that you think most closely applies to this issue and why. -Will Beback · † · 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now where does the other user assume you're editing maliciously? Keep in mind, " Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith." -Will Beback · † · 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have unearthed most of the instances in question. Here they are:

…it seems that so far editorial bullying has trumped rational explanation - as I've seen the former, and am still waiting for the latter.

…your intent here is to censor any information about Buchanan's life that you find personally offensive.

Frankly, to me, your continuing illogical and cyclical arguments with the motive of banning certain information from an article doesn't give me any reason to assume good faith…

All of the above are from User:G2bambino. It seems clear that he was violating WP:AGF, as he even basically admitted as much in the last quote. I hope this helps in you understand why I didn't feel it was quite sufficient to issue a blanket "admonishment" to "all users" in the thread. The only instance where I came even close to the line, I showed you how it clearly did NOT violate WP:AGF. Again, if you don't feel like addressing the issue, I have no problem taking this to a different admin. I just want User:G2bambino to understand that making accusations regarding my editorial motives is not acceptable.K. Scott Bailey 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you all need to be nicer. If you want to keep pursuing this please don't do so on the article talk page. -Will Beback · † · 03:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Wikipedia has only a few core policies and Wikipedia:Civility is one of them. For good reason. We are here to build an encyclopedia not to debate. It's is a collegial activity not an adversarial one. And so we try keep our focus on the edits not the editors. I realize that some topics may seem controversial but Wikipedia doesn't have to decide any controversies; we merely summarize them. Let's all be civil and avoid referring to each other as we go about summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. -Will Beback · † · 08:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be deleting this inappropriate "warning" post-haste, as there is no evidence that I have violated WP:CIVIL, and a bounty of evidence that User:G2bambino has violated WP:AGF numerous times, and that Beback is simply issuing a retaliatory warning to me for asking him to take some action as an admin.K. Scott Bailey 18:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I saw you labelled an edit by user:The Mystery Man as "vandalism".[10] Please be aware that we have a very narrow definition of "vandalism": Wikipedia:Vandalism

• Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

Calling an edit "vandalism" when it is obviously made in good faith is a case of failing to assume good faith. Please be more respectful of your fellow editors. -Will Beback · † · 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: And thanks for all the real vandalism you're cleaning up. It's appreciated. -Will Beback · † · 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the edit you're referring to was when he randomly deleted entire blocks of trivia. Does random deletion not qualify under WP:V? If not, I apologize for the oversight. I thought that it was a clear violation of that policy.K. Scott Bailey 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any sign that it was random. That editor appears to be in the process of cleaning out trivia sections. While you or I may disagree with that effort, there's no reason to think he intends to harm the project by doing so. Unfortunately he hasn't been using edit summaries so it makes it harder on other editors to discern his purpose. But getting back to vandalism, it's pretty much just graffitti, blanking, and the like. -Will Beback · † · 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's just randomly (perhaps that's the incorrect word, but I can't seem to find a better one) removing trivia items from various presidential articles, with no explanation. I thought at some point it crossed into systematic vandalism (per the sections on deletion in WP:V), but I could certainly be wrong about that. Additionally, I have no personal problem with the user, although I didn't appreciate his second of my proposed deletion of the Buchanan sub-article, as it smacked of homophobia. I made certain to distance myself from it as quickly as possible. He and I certainly have different motivations for our edits, that much is certain. Perhaps his systematic "cleansing" of the trivia sections was not malicious, as I supposed after seeing it repeated numerous times. If it was not, then you're certainly correct that my label of "vandalism" was not the correct term.K. Scott Bailey 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just use the word "vandalism" with care. Vandalism carries the connotation that the user is editing in bad faith, an implicit accusation that will only serve to inflame a dispute, no matter how mundane. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have created my first article, Scott O'Dell Award for Historical Fiction

I welcome feedback and assistance on making it better.K. Scott Bailey 08:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] INAPPROPRIATE "WARNING" DELETED

Hello Scott. For the record, there is nothing stopping you removing the warning from this page yourself if you believe it unwarranted. Personally, I don't have a problem with your comment on the page, but at the same time, since the AfD is closed, it doesn't really serve much purpose. It really isn't worth arguing over, and your accusations of "tag-teaming" to avoid 3RR are quite unfair (it could also be looked upon as consensus). If I could offer some advice, it would be to let this one go and simply wait and make your feelings know at Chacor's next AfD. Rockpocket 07:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'd encourage you to look at the history, including the times, on the continual reversions of my edits, including the final one, in which--in my opinion, at least--an admin abused the tools to enforce his/her blanking of that thread. I've been accused of "soapboxing", and all sorts of other things for simply expressing my opinion on that talk page, which was well within the bounds of propriety. Should I let it go? Probably. But isn't that simply giving tacit approval to their groundless accusations they made about my intentions when I formed that thread--which were made in violation of WP:AGF, by the way? I'll have to think about it, but I don't want it to seem like I've agreed to accept the ludicrous labels they're trying to place on me based on that thread.K. Scott Bailey 07:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the history. I wouldn't have reverted and protected it myself (one or the other, perhaps, but not both), but I really don't see that much is to be gained by protesting the process. You could open an RfC if you feel strongly about it. You know, the whole business about Chacor's de- (and attempts at re-) sysopping have tended to raise temperatures around here and I think this is probably a reflection of that. As I said, this RfA is over now. You are entitled to your opinion, and you will be able to express it if there is another RfA nomination. If there isn't one, then it isn't really relevant anyway. I understand it can be frustrating when you feel you have been censored, but it really is worth picking your battles carefully on WP, and I don't think this is one worth fighting.

By the way, good work on your Scott O'Dell Award article, I made a few MoS changes and gave it a minor copyedit. Rockpocket 07:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm the last person you want to hear from about this, but I wanted to stop in to say that the other editors showing up had nothing to do with 3RR. I never reverted your edits - I responded to them. Which presents a kind of catch 22, since in this edit summary you ask people to discuss it but, if people did discuss it, they'd be accused of trying to bully you. (By the way - any post that starts with the word "Dude" probably shouldn't be construed as an order.) But anyway, neither I nor any of those other guys were even close to violating 3RR. They just happened to agree that it wasn't the place for that. I'm sure they, like me, still had the page on their watchlist from having voted in the RfA, and decided to step in. There's wasn't any call to arms on my behalf. Kafziel ^Talk 12:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I never mind DISCUSSION, I just don't like to be given ORDERS like, "let it go" without support. If you'd have disagree with me and said something like, "I think you're wrong about Chacor", that's a completely different thing. ANd as you didn't simply blank my thread to close off discussion, it wasn't YOU I thought was using tag-teaming to avoid 3RR. It was the ones who were blanking the thread, and then went to the Bureaucrats Noticenboard to request that a different person lock the thread right after they did the last blanking to avoid the appearance of impropriety--never mind the spirit of the thing was completely improper. You and I have no problems, other than I think your phrasing telling me to "let it go" was a bit bullyish.K. Scott Bailey 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are given orders because you did not heed to advice when it was first given. Despite your plea on my talk page, NO, I will NOT reinstate the thread. To hound someone on a closed unsuccessful RfA is not only incivil, but downright ridiculous. It's like me taunting you after you have been banned. Your thread is unnecessary, and, if the definition of the word may be stretched, trolling. The others were right in removing your thread, and to repost the thread would be disruptive, discourteous, and disturbing. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I somehow manage to tangle with someone in your clique? If so, please accept my DEEPEST apologies. I simply can't think of any other reason you could come to the conclusions you did about the thread I posted in the RfA discussion page. One way or the other though, you're simply wrong. Please point directly to ANYTHING in my message that would be considered "trolling", and also to where posting my reasoning to a closed RfA's DISCUSSION page is against ANY Wiki policy. In the absence of your doing so, I'll ask that you withdraw your accusations in bad faith that I was trolling or that I was in any way "hounding" someone. My thread was direct, honest, and most definitely NOT a personal atttack in any way.K. Scott Bailey 00:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of conspiracy to lord over you now? Heavens, I would apologize to you for conspiring to silence you, if only it was true. You seem to be arguing based on worded policy instead of the actual spirit of the policies which you love to cite. I stand by my words after looking at the thread myself, which I found extremely rude and discourteous. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, do not. I don't troll, and the thread I posted was legit. As for being "rude and discourteous", please stop making things up. Nothing I wrote there was rude or discourteous. I simply stated my opinion that I would never in the future be able to support a Chacor RfA, and why I felt that was so. Nothing more, nothing less, and I was NOT rude or discourteous about it, so stop making those spurious claims. It's beneath you--or atleast your role as an admin.K. Scott Bailey 02:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First you accuse me of accusations, now you're accusing me of making things up. Stick to one argument, please, instead of using whatever blunt rhetorical knife you find most convenient. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Condescending, much? And I'm not "accusing" you of anything. I'm stating simple fact. You're out of control, making claims about my thread that aren't true. That constitutes "making things up", plain and simple. And the fact that you compare my relatively benign thread on the Chacor RfA Discussion Page to desecrating a grave clearly shows you can not be objective about the issue. Also, as I've already admitted that you and your crew won, I have no idea why you are continuing.K. Scott Bailey 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to persuade me to retract my comments. There are many ways of doing so. Accusing me of lunacy is not one of them. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I do believe that I may have spoken too bluntly, harshly, and uncivilly, and I apologize for that. However, the idea I, and many others, have been trying to put across has been the same: The thread in which you started, and continually reposted after requests to stop, was inappropriate. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I still have no clue what was inappropriate or out-of-line in posting my thoughts to the discussion page of a closed RfA. The discussion page is not closed when an RfA closes, per usual WP practice. Why is that the case, if not to allow people who did not have a chance to flesh out the reasons for their support or opposition. That is the ONLY reason I posted what I did. I have had no personal dealings with Chacor, nor do I have any personal grudge against him. I was simply expressing my views on potential future RfAs regarding that user. That is neither inappropriate nor against Wiki policy at all. I would greatly appreciate your pointing out SPECIFIC portions of my deleted thread that violated any policy, or in any way made it appropriate to blank the thread.K. Scott Bailey 03:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While your views are respected, distasteful though I may think of them (admittedly), there are some comments that you can have left out. Particularly this:

I won't be fooled by Chacor (or any of his alter egos) again.

When Kafziel tried to say nicely that it is time to let the issue pass, you responded with an abrasive comment:

But please refrain from ordering me around.

No one was ordering you around, but merely giving friendly advice. You instead responded to Kafziel's good faith efforts to have you calm down in an even more uncivil manner:

You told me to let it go. I asked you not to order me around. You continue to try to bully me into silence. That's ironic, in that if you hadn't posted your dictum to "let it go" the thread would be over.

You have told others to assume good faith, but have not done so yourself. I'm not saying this because I hate you. I'm not saying this because I want to laugh at your hypocrisy. I pointed this out because you could have responded better to differing opinions instead of appearing confrontational. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Being told to "let it go" seemed to me to be an attempt to "order me aroudnd" and I said so. However, with that said, Kafziel and I are fine. In the grand scheme of things, he and I were simply debating my position. That's far different than simply blanking the thread. As for the comments about Chacor fooling me, the RfA was specifically dealing with him. How oould I avoid dealing with him and his blatant lies and deceptions. Again, that's not a personal attack, that's a simple statement of fact. However, I've agreed to stop discussing this. As such, I'm going to do so. You win. It's over.K. Scott Bailey 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not win, and I have no wish to assume so. However, I agree it is best to drop this pointless and circular topic, for the best of everyone involved. I shall not further comment on this topic. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rklawton

While I promised not to clutter people's talk pages with thanks for their participation in my RfA, you clearly deserve an exception. I truly appreciated your enthusiastic support. I would be pleased some day to buy you a beverage of your choice. Cheers - Rklawton 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BN

I've replied to your request on my talk page in order to keep the thread in tact. Rklawton 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:James Buchanan

Replied to your question on my talk page. Rklawton 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthy, McCarthyism

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was returning here to leave an additional comment, and noticed the whole section above where you actually went to mediation over KarlBunker's actions. I just recently considered the same thing. I was going to come back and note that many of those who have edited there get pretty shrill and angry, making it pretty easy for them to be dismissed as crackpots, right wingnuts, POV pushers, etc. Your edits were not like that. In my case, most of the stuff I'm trying to get in there isn't even that politically charged, but I'm still hitting a wall. I was thinking about a user conduct WP:RFC; it needs two editors to certify. Kaisershatner 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In particular I think KB has violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:NOT, WP:NPA, and potentially WP:VAND. If you agree at all, I will file the RFC. If you think I'm wrong, I would appreciate you letting me know.Kaisershatner 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry S. Truman

Just wanted to let you know.. it looks like you reverted some vandalism today on Harry S. Truman, and then somehow reverted it back. I can only assume it was some odd editing glitch, hitting a button one too many times, or something similar to that. Anyways, I, er, re-reverted it (or is it re-re-reverted at this point?) --Reverend Loki 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buchanan

I want to commend you for your change in tone, your efforts to compromise, and your work toward collaboration on the article. I don't think I've seen such an honest effort in awhile on here. If all works out well and it keeps going that way, you've got a barnstar coming your way. --David Shankbone 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Barnstars --David Shankbone 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: the Buchanan vote - I was asked to withdraw a vote because I had voted for two different votes...which I really thought in essence was me saying the same thing, under different requests for comment....Nothing personal, but the whole discussion has become so lengthy and convoluted that I intend to stay out of any further discussion or vote. Thanks. NickBurns 02:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My main issue with the way the page is going is that instead of seeing that you guys agree on most issues, you all are focusing on trifling differences. The fact is, it's considered very bad on Wikipedia to have a page protected from editing - it goes against the entire purpose of the site, which is to foster the sharing of communal information. That most editors on the Talk page aren't focused on removing the protection and putting on information over which there is agreement, leaving the trifles to the Talk page to be hashed out, casts a juvenile shadow over everyone involved. So, I don't want to be involved any more. Yes, you made admirable efforts to compromise, as I mentioned above. But now the same arguments are being repeated. I've made several attempt to get editors to agree to move the page to unprotection and put up agreed-upon information, and really, that doesn't seem to be what the page wants. What it seems like, now, is grand-standing and each side getting their way. This wouldn't be so egregious, if the page wasn't protected with the 90% agreed-upon information put on. But, my suggestions to this have pretty much fallen flat, and editors continue to debate trifles. Good luck. --David Shankbone 02:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note, K. Scott - and yes, I think you've done a good job at compromising and efforting to reach consensus. For somebody new, you've picked up on better ways to discuss faster than I did ;) --David Shankbone 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest comment. I'm not exactly "anguished". I've just learned from my Wiki-history that when you get at the points that David refers to above - conflict over fine points - it is very frustrating for all involved. These issues often become a contest of wills, and lose the plot as to what the original conflict was about. I prefer to stick to the uncontroversial. At least on Wikipedia! Best regards. NickBurns 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)