User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess there's no need for this anymore. Ambivalenthysteria 15:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hey!

Don't go, your one of the good ones! Fuck politics, this is an encyclopedia! Let me know what the problem is, maybe I can help you politik ;) Sam [Spade] 02:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WB

Welcome back! Glad you din't leave us. Give a shout out on my talk, let me know whats up. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 04:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could you please repair the pronounciations at Melbourne - some idiot went and SAMPA'd them. PMA 18:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How am I a troll or a sycophant?

Re: Windows XP article: fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. Though I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why you think I'm trolling, and why you think I'm a sycophant. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, OK :-) I understand! I don't mind if you disagree with my points, that's fair - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Relative motion theory

(William M. Connolley 08:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I see you added cleanup to Relative motion theory. The original page creator removed that header. I've re-inserted it. Some equivalent pages by the same chap (e.g. Wave Structure of Matter Theory) I've listed on Vfd.

[edit] Kylie Minogue

Hello Ambivalenthysteria

thanks for supporting my nomination of the Kylie article, which has been contested, and well that's the end of that. But that's ok. I've put a few thoughts on the Talk:Kylie Minogue page. If you get a chance to have a look, I'd appreciate your opinion. Rossrs 10:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] deletions

Hi. You just listed two pages on VfD although both (imho) were candidates for 'speedy' deletion. Where there is no edit history and an article is clearly inappropriate (such as in this case where basically advertising) then they aren't likely to need much - if any - discussion, and cen be deleted by any admin who agrees with you. Instead of adding {{subst:Vfd}} you just add {{delete}} instead. --VampWillow 10:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Calvin and Hobbes FAC

Greetings. Can you take a moment to revisit your objection to Calvin and Hobbes? A lot of improvements have been made to the article since your latest comments. Thanks! Alanyst 15:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I've nominated you for admin status. Good luck. I hope I'm right and you are female. :) Snowspinner 04:09, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

I guess there's no need for this anymore. Ambivalenthysteria 15:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Don't go, your one of the good ones! Fuck politics, this is an encyclopedia! Let me know what the problem is, maybe I can help you politik ;) Sam [Spade] 02:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WB

Welcome back! Glad you din't leave us. Give a shout out on my talk, let me know whats up. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 04:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could you please repair the pronounciations at Melbourne - some idiot went and SAMPA'd them. PMA 18:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How am I a troll or a sycophant?

Re: Windows XP article: fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. Though I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why you think I'm trolling, and why you think I'm a sycophant. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, OK :-) I understand! I don't mind if you disagree with my points, that's fair - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Relative motion theory

(William M. Connolley 08:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I see you added cleanup to Relative motion theory. The original page creator removed that header. I've re-inserted it. Some equivalent pages by the same chap (e.g. Wave Structure of Matter Theory) I've listed on Vfd.

[edit] Kylie Minogue

Hello Ambivalenthysteria

thanks for supporting my nomination of the Kylie article, which has been contested, and well that's the end of that. But that's ok. I've put a few thoughts on the Talk:Kylie Minogue page. If you get a chance to have a look, I'd appreciate your opinion. Rossrs 10:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] deletions

Hi. You just listed two pages on VfD although both (imho) were candidates for 'speedy' deletion. Where there is no edit history and an article is clearly inappropriate (such as in this case where basically advertising) then they aren't likely to need much - if any - discussion, and cen be deleted by any admin who agrees with you. Instead of adding {{subst:Vfd}} you just add {{delete}} instead. --VampWillow 10:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Calvin and Hobbes FAC

Greetings. Can you take a moment to revisit your objection to Calvin and Hobbes? A lot of improvements have been made to the article since your latest comments. Thanks! Alanyst 15:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I've nominated you for admin status. Good luck. I hope I'm right and you are female. :) Snowspinner 04:09, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chöön - gosh durnit!

Chöön is not a speedy deletion candidate! *Slaps your wrist* Read the policy again, lovely ambi. I'm afraid Chöön isn't speedyable under anything. I've listed it on VfD. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Ralph Griswold

I've removed him from VfD, since he is quite famous and deserves better treatment, but am keeping Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ralph_Griswold around for another day or two, in case you want to discuss this. +sj+ 21:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

Thanks for your support of my administrator nomination on RfA. I sincerely appreciate your support. Best wikiwishes, Neutrality 05:03, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plug

Hi. I was looking at your user page and noticed you were interested in politics and unrecognized countries. I find them interesting also, and thought I'd plus a website I like. Sobaka is a news magazine covering the third world. Thay have an interesting feature on Somaliland in the archives from last year, and there's a recent article on Abkhazia on their main page right now. There's also a paper from a month ago on Ajaria, which was until recently another independent region of Georgia. Isomorphic 14:55, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Quadell

I encourage you to withdraw your support from User:Quadell. He's not fit. Not at all. See Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Flagstaff & Parliament

Your pictures are much needed, but, do you think you could lighten them or something? Particularly as thumbnails, you can't tell that the signs are even for the stations. It's a shame photos are banned inside the stations now... TPK 13:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ne

I hope that you will never revert my edits without explanation again. I placed Titos picture because he is interesting as president for life. You can put Idi Amin or anyone but don`t revert my edits without any reason.

[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 16:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You don`t know that it was Roosvelt, not Lincoln but you know to revert it. Tell me what was the real reason for that? We don`t need to discuss every edit in talk page.

[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 16:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "Cold War people" category ought to be abolished IMHO, but apparently that is not possible. Perhaps you can begin a Campaign to Abolish Redundant Categories (And also a Campaign to Get Avala Banned?) Adam 08:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I said, one more time you call me an idiot, or anyone else, I will report you. This is a reminding but I am watching you. --[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 09:42, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If Adam calls other users with such names as idiot, or threats to ban them for no reason-you don`t react. But if I object to such behavior of his you react? Howcome?

[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 09:52, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ambivalent, to quote what I wrote on Adam’s talk, “Avala, along with his buddies User:Nikola Smolenski and User:Igor, has been inserting his Serb nationalist nonsense all over the place, although Avala is the least cunning of the bunch. Only way of reporting him as far as i know is listing him on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. They deny they have an agenda, and often counter-report if you report them, but their revision histories tell a different story. It’s a tough fight with the extremists.”--GeneralPatton 22:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve reverted because of the links, they keep putting "The Pavelic Papers" and jasenovac.org, both of whom are Serb run projects that are posturing of being “objective”, under "Outside views", while at the same time putting Croatia - Myth and Reality By C. Michael McAdams, a respected American professor, under "Croat view" just because the text doesn’t suite them. Any attempt at reasoning with them has so far been futile, and most of the time they just ignore any common sense.--GeneralPatton 00:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They even admitted adding the links they know are grossly inaccurate. I did not take them out, I just put most of them under Serb view, for fairness and for providing multiple views. if I played like they do, I’d probably would have removed them. Avala is the biggest problem maker of the bunch, although he’s not the most extreme in his views.--GeneralPatton 00:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

what to say? GeneralPatton is E X T R E M E nationalist. He uses fascist abbreviation ZDS. He also calls , just like Adam, other uses-you little CUNT....[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 11:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Current events

Rather than reverting you should discuss at talk. Two others agreed that both news I deleted were inappropriate. Get-back-world-respect 12:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reese Witherspoon edits

There is an anonymous user, currently operating from IP 205.188.116.20, who has repeatedly (at least 8 times, operating from various IP addresses, in the past couple of days) added a link to a nude image of the actress.

I don't want to engage in a protracted edit war with this user, but I notice that you've also taken part in the reverting of this page. Can you offer any suggestions as to next steps that I should take, as I think the consensus is that the image link isn't appropriate.

Thanks!

Kenwarren 01:11, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Electorates

I'm not really sure 150 articles on Australian federal electorates would be of sufficient interest to anyone to warrant the work involved. Nevertheless, if you were start doing it I would probably not be able to resist joining in, such is my addiction to such things. If you want to do it, you are welcome to use (with acknowledgement) the data at my website. There is also some material by Antony Green at the ABC website. Adam 06:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you decide to go ahead with this, some of the edit history from Australian electorates may be useful - basically only a list of electorates, so not much content - but it saves re-typing and wikifying. -- Chuq 11:50, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Leo Strauss

Done. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Hi, Ambivalenthysteria. Would you be able to give the reason for your disputing the factual accuracy of Philosophy? Just for the record… Banno 22:35, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Counterculture

Hi, Ambivalent, me again. When protecting a page against vandalism, isn't it appropriate to protect a non-vandalized version of the page? I realize that this case might be a nuanced one -- Andy's is not as blatant as Adam's, or the anonymous guy from Houston -- but it is part of a pattern of attacks that is presently under arbitration. What would you do in my shoes? --Herschelkrustofsky 23:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ustase

Why have you protected the article at GeneralPatton's version? He kept disguising neutral links as Serbian propaganda without offering any shred of evidence. Please, protect the article at my version; compare and you will see that it is more neutral. Nikola 07:24, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know that, but it was darn obvious that my version is more NPOV; So what will happen now, the page stays like this, it is unprotected, the edit war starts over, you again protect at his version... this could go on in perpetuity. Nikola 07:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ...

???

I am always shocked more and more when I see your comments!!!

I am asking you for the last time!!! Howcome? Adam swears at me, GeneralPatton even worse I repeat it and then I am one who swears.

Would you please be more openminded? Adam is calling other users idiots and it is not a problem for you? But if I tell him on the same page I will report him you threat me?

I just don`t get it? Do you like Adam or hate me? I mean you never object when he swears other users but I can`t even type a word you on my back already.

I am very confused and hope that you are not doing this on purpose to make me mad.

[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:47, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the nomination

Thanks, though to be honest I wasn't really expecting this. Even so, I'll accept the nomination and see where this leads: I'll pledge to do my utmost to uphold the ideals and the liberties of this great Wikipedia, to serve its community with endless determination, and to smite the troll and the petty vandal wherever they may spawn... well, you get the idea :P TPK 13:24, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Puntland etc

I actually edited all of Somalia, Regions of Somalia, Puntland, Somaliland and Southwestern Somalia in an attempt to bring some order in that whole mess. I don't really know much about Somali issues, sorry. --Shallot 12:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Xconq

Thanks for the kind words! Xconq is actually still under active development, with about a half-dozen folks banging away at a bunch of new ideas (all at sources.redhat.com); these days I just kibitz and harass them to release 7.5 already. I'm trying to be modest and not create Xconq myself... :-) Stan 05:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know this is some time later (2 years) but just thought I'd let you know I started an Xconq article. Marasmusine 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] protection, arbcom

Hi. Couple of things. I unprotected counterculture the other day because there didn't seem to be much evidence of an edit war. Perhaps it was more of an edit "police action" rather than a full-fledged war :-). (Sorry, 1970s joke.) Anyway, you'd protected it, so I thought I'd let you know.

Then, regarding slowness over at arbcom:

  • I believe that the arbitrators have succeeded in creating a process that each of them finds unpleasant. Therefore, they don't follow arb matters closely because it isn't much fun.
  • Some members are not particularly active Wikipedians. It is rare for Wikipedians to remain active editors for more than about six months at a time, because the life circumstances that lead one to edit wikipedia for hours a day tend to be transient in nature. Since the arbcom members were drawn from longtime contributors, there are some whose life circumstances and interests are such that they are not active at Wikipedia on a daily basis.
  • The legalistic nature of the process makes it inherently slow. They deliberate, then decide whether to accept, then deliberate, then gather evidence and ask questions, then deliberate, then decide whether there's a problem, then deliberate on remedies before preparing and voting on a decree. Each step takes up to a week because some members don't check in daily.
  • I would characterize a majority of the arbcom members as been basically opposed to bans, and of the group, AFAIK only Fred Bauder and MyRedDice have much online collaboration experience outside of Wikipedia. Those members who are basically opposed to bans don't want to issue them unless there's been a clear, bright-line policy violation. So, they don't ban people who are making asses of themselves as long as they do it in such a way that they don't violate rules.

So, elections would help, because the arbitrators could state their views on how things should work and people could vote accordingly. A stronger mandate would help, some more bright-line community-driven rules on acceptable behavior would help.

As for mediation, well, I don't believe the formal mediation mechanism can claim any successes, and we should probably just take it out of the dispute resolution process because it doesn't work.

Until then, the arbiters are probably right to insist that people try that first, since them 's the rules.

My grammar is terrible today. All these sentence fragments. Oh well.

UninvitedCompany


[edit] UNRWA

the ambulance photo should stay.

Zero(Censor)0000 works with Viajero to remove all material crictical of Muslims and Arabs...regardless of the news agency reporting the item. They also seek to remove all material in any way exculpatory of Israel. One example is Zero's insistence on a photo of the Israeli West Bank barrier that is representative of less than 10% of the barrier in place of the less impressive wire fence that is more than 90% of the barrier.

209.135.35.83, formerly known as OneVoice, went on a rampage reverting articles to previous POV versions. I blocked him for 24 hours and if he does it again I will seek support for blocking him for a longer period. Btw, the sensible protagonists on Israeli West Bank barrier have negotiated on images and have now found two that are suitable. 209.135.35.83 would know this if he bothered reading the Talk page. Cheers. --Zero 14:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This user has been a tremendous nuisance for many months, and I have finally listed him on RFAr: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:209.135.35.83_and_occasionally_69.138.236..23.23.23 Care to add anything? -- Viajero

[edit] DWDAE

Happy to. My first big problem is that I think the definition is weak and overly rigid. Although I see Sam's concerns with an adaptive definition, I think a definition that will need continual ammendment is even worse. My other big problem is that I think the effect of this is to make troll bans quickpolls open only to sysops. Obviously lone ranger blocks aren't going to work, but I don't think this is good either, regardless of the threshold. If we're going to use an essentially democratic process to block users, it needs to be open to non-sysops. My current preference, though I'm very open to debating it, is for tempblocks to be imposable by sysops with the support of two other users with a minimum of 200 edits each. If someone feels that they were blocked in error, they may appeal to the arbcom, and, in the absence of a temporary injunction from the arbcom, will recieve amnesty from blocks regarding trolling. (The arbcom, of course, may also refer to mediation, etc) Yes, this dumps a lot on the arbcom, but let's face it - persistant trolls are going to fight their way to the arbcom no matter what policy we have in place. But, yeah, those are my objections - too rigid a definition, and a solution that too resembles quickpolls. Snowspinner 11:59, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] UNRWA page protection

Hi, someone unprotected United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East only two days after it was protected to stop the same edit war that you helped to mediate recently. I'm afraid it is going to flare again. --Zero 08:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) Now I see the story behind it. The anon was only blocked for 24 hours and will return for sure. --Zero 08:33, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop your biased reverting of John Kerry

The information which you keep posting has such a rosey glow, it sounds like a Kerry infomercial. Thank you. Rex071404 15:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is an example of one item which you keep removing:

[edit] 1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri, at which a member proposed that they escalate their tactics.

The suggestion was made that the VVAW should kill (via assassination) various United States politicians (including US Senators).

According to some, that statement was immediately shouted down by a large majority. Though the suggestion to kill US politicians was voted down, the VVAW members did vote to meet with North Vietnamese leaders.

Over the years, Kerry has repeatedly stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City, stating instead that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. However, reports on this vary and Kerry has (changed his story) about this more than once.

Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times, was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" (NY Times Jan,26th 1972, pg 17)

[edit] hi

I keep getting blocked cuz some notorius, persistent vandal is apparently using my same AOL IP. I know AOL IP's are a bitch for you guys but I keep getting screwed. can you help me out at all?? Kzzl

[edit] Hiya

I'm having a problem with an anonymous user (user: 151.201.224.83) on the Ex-gay page. The same user's been making non-NPOV edits to the page under several ips, and at least one of them has been blocked for vandalism. I made some changes and moved a disputed paragraph to the talk page, but he continues to revert. I don't want to get into a revert war with him; could you take a look and let me know what you think? Thanks. Exploding Boy 14:55, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] What is your problem!?

You need to STOP your wholesale deletions on the John Kerry page. This a controversial topic and you are supposed to discuss this before taking such drastic action! You are causing an edit warr and I am going to report you!

Rex071404 12:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] STOP your wholesale deletions/reversions!

You need to STOP your wholesale deletions on the John Kerry page. This a controversial topic and you are supposed to discuss this before taking such drastic action! You are causing an edit war and I am going to report you!

Rex071404 12:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kerry Edits Update

What follows, for your edification, is the perfectly factual, evenly presented information about the 1971 meeting which YOU keep removing. And to answer the rehetorical(?) question on the John Kerry history pages, posed by Gzornenplatz "what has Kerry to do with it if another member of the VVAW makes some dubious proposal?", the 1971 meeting MATTERS, because RELIABLE REPORTS by CREDIBLE WITESSES place Kerry at the meeting and AT THAT MEETING, where violence was proposed. Further, since VIOLENCE WAS PROPOSED, and since there is a bona-fide dispute about the accuracy of Kerry's denails of attendence, the history and facts surroundign that meeting MUST be presented to the public! If you keep deleting this, you ae in effect a pro-kerry censor.

Pleas READ the links in the section I am posting, so you can make an EDUCATED assement of the facts, rather than simply LEAPING to the conclusion that this is not germane!

Here now, is the information which the pro-Kerry censors keep deleting:

[edit] 1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

Image:Kerryrally.jpg
John Kerry speaks at an anti-Vietnam War rally.

From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri, at which a member proposed that they escalate their tactics.

At this meeting, one of the VVAW activists made the suggestion that the VVAW members should assassinate various United States politicians (including US Senators) who were in favor of continuing the Vietnam War.

According to some, that statement was immediately shouted down by a large majority. Though the suggestion to kill US politicians was voted down, the VVAW members did vote to meet with North Vietnamese leaders.

Over the years, Kerry has repeatedly stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City, stating instead that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. However, as reported in the New York Sun on Mar 12, 2004; Page:1 Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not rememeber attending.

Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times, was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" (NY Times Jan,26th 1972, pg 17)

Rex071404 13:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Kerry

I've had enough of this. What would you think about filing a RfC? Ambivalenthysteria 12:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And now he's threatened User:Gzornenplatz as well. Ambivalenthysteria 12:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've got Rex ranting on my talk page too. What fun. Gamaliel 21:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I say go for it. Bring it up with RfC and/or ArbCom. Neutrality 21:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] For VVAW, I would be satisfied with this (see below)

Rex071404 22:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

Image:Kerryrally.jpg
John Kerry speaks at an anti-Vietnam War rally.

From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. It has been reported that at that meeting, a VVAW member proposed that they should assassinate pro-Vietnam War politicians.

Some sources say that this suggestion was immediately shouted down by a large majority. Also, according to some reports, Kerry left the meeting prior to that suggestion being offered and was therefor not present to personally hear the proposal for violence.

On this subject, over the years, Kerry has at various times stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City. He has said that his memory is that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971.

However, the New York Sun reported in a front page article on March 12, 2004 that "Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not remember attending." [1]

Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" [2]

The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is and for that reason, th readers are left to drawn there own conclusions about this.

[edit] Why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?

I await your answer...

Rex071404 04:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As for "Talk" pages errors, I am still learning, you know that I am new, don't you?
By the way, why is everyone here fixated on "process" rather than corroborated facts?
The simple truth is that the 1971 VVAW Meeting and the Medal Tossing sections I have shown above are factual, accurate and true.
If certain persons don't like the manner in which I present the verfied facts I have offered,
why don't we work together to present them in a softer tone, rather than substituting on
a wholesale basis, an entirely diffrent set of facts as Neutralitykept
doing to me.
There was NO justification for his continued deletion of my links to ABC.com, the NYT article
and others. Those are widely recognized sources reporting germanely on the topic at hand.
To delete them is, in and of itself, obvious bias.

Rex071404 04:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see my updated reply to you on Talk:John Kerry

Rex071404 05:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Rex

I have been trying without much success to stay out of editing and the disputes on Kerry. Rex has been overly "In Your Face" but he is new and being given very little real guidance. He is frustrated at trying to add what he sees as balance and is simply being cold-cocked (pardon my French). I find edits on Bush and Kerry to be extremely POV, and now I see VeryVerily (on Bush) and Rex (on Kerry) being brought up on RfC. This seems to me to begin to move toward censorship of views that don't fit those of editors who feel they own the articles. As a matter of principle I don't believe in RfC against editors though frankly Neutrality is straining my patience. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been here a lot longer than Rex, I seem to have a cooler head, and I'm a bit more mellow about Neutrality's off-handed stubbornness. I'm bothered by Neutrality's attitude. He's been here a while and should know better. When he was up for admin, a number of editors brought up relevant complaints, and he promised to clean up his act. I gave his nomination an extra day to try to reach clear consensus, and was criticized because this was deemed a bad idea considering the critiques; but Neutrality seems to be getting worse, not better, and I don't have a clue why. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] That anon again

Hi, remember the anon about whom you wrote "I think I was too lenient with that anon that time. If he comes back (and continues this behaviour, I'm going to ban him." on my talk page a little while ago? Well, I beat you to it and now he is complaining on the WikiEN-l mailing list (as "Harry Smith"). Viajero also listed him at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. Just thought you'd like to know. --Zero 14:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Please re-read the history on John Kerry talk

The deletion to which you refer was accidental (see that I tried re-fixing it 3 times)

Rex071404 22:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Avala

Hi sir, the stuff that Avala is saying about me over at Rfa is just outrageously inaccurate and really is just the most vicious of slander. --GeneralPatton 22:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hey, you share my birthday! gracefool 02:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rex reply

Ok, but I don't see any link to have started entering data on a page for that. This is how they beat me to it and made me the issue on a user Rfc, rather than the page being the issue as I had requested. Also, my edit links on my personal discussion page do not seem to work right. Try editing the last section and the 2nd to last opnes instead. The only way to get to the bottom of my page is via the master edit tab at the top of the page. The sectional edit html links do not work rightRex071404 06:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)