User talk:VeryVerily/archive

I think it's fairly clear that, in the weeks leading up to hostilities, the administration's stance was shifting and inconsistent, and that that should be made clear in the article. At no point did Saddam cooperate with the first demands made by the U.S., so there was no reason whatever to alter those demands when preparing to take military action.

As far as allegedly devious and considered sinister, I probably would have left that if that's what it had said, but it wasn't. - Hephaestos 22:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On PNAC,

The text was This quote (allegedly publishing their devious plans) is considered the "proof" of a sinister plot....

Right. That means the plans were allegedly published, not that they were allegedly devious. That it was considered proof, not that it was considered "sinister." Completely different meaning. "Sinister" and "devious" are POV judgments we shouldn't be making here in any case.

On the other article, I took a look at your new change, and I think we're pretty close, although it needs a tweak; let me know what you think. - Hephaestos 00:35, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, IMHO protecting 2002 Gujarat violence would just draw attention to it and achieve what the other person wants. There are about 5 of us who have it in our watchlist, so its much easier for us to revert it than for them to repeatedly vandalize it (its very likely that all the 3 new users are the same person). So I say lets not make a fuss about it :) They'll realize after a while that they're obviously wasting their time and either go away or start making useful contributions to other articles. -- Arvindn 04:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm duns0014, from the ancap turmoil. so who are you anyway? are you libertarian or what?

No, not libertarian (though not unsympathetic), just trying to keep up Wikipedia. Unfortunately, defending against bad edits seems to be quite an undertaking, which is distracting me from tasks such as fixing existing misinformation (so much). Anyway, we'll see if this ancap thing quiets down soon or not.... -- VV 01:37, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Re: Bush family conspiracy theory

It is not an opinion to state that matters surrounding the Florida election were the subject of fierce public debate. It is not an opinion to state that claims of wrongdoing over the US election are the most serious allegations.

---

You have been replacing a factually incorrect version of the article on Kashmir. I would refer this as an NPOV however the trouble is there is no "point of view" issue in question here. These are historic facts that are easily verified and acknowledged by everyone.

Firstly, the correct term for the entire region is Jammu and Kashmir, which comprises the southern Jammu region, the Kashmir valley(which is where the trouble is concentrated) and the Ladakh plateau region. "Kashmir" is used for brevity as it is the region where the trouble is mainly concentrated. However Kashmir in reality only refers to Kashmir Valley.

Secondly, Aksai Chin is NOT the same as the chunk in North Kashmir that was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1959. Aksai Chin is Indian territory in Eastern Kashmir that was occupied by China in 1962.

Again, before you start off, there is absolutely no question of "POV" and "NPOV" here, as these are well known and verifiable historical facts.

-conradx

---

Hi VV -- I know you haven't been a major contributor to 2002 Gujarat violence, but I just wanted to let you know that Angela asked me to mediate, and I am in the process of reviewing (I would not characterize it as "investigating") the article, the edit history of the article and its talk page, the various comments linked to this page, and the email traffic here, here, here, here, and here (and a few other threads) on the mailing list related to it. Even though the page is unprotected, I would ask all parties involved to hold off editing this article voluntarily until I can offer a few suggestions, which I will do within a few hours. Thanks for your forbearance, BCorr € Брайен 14:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

NOTE: See bottom of page for mediation proposal

---

Hello VV -- just wanted to say I understand your position (that you wrote on Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence), and of course I'm just following up on what I've been asked to do by the well-respected Angela. Perhaps you should write her a note on her talk page...but FWIW I think that it may be beyond the point that a temporary protection will work, and I don't think it's feasible to have the page permanently protected. Thanks, BCorr € Брайен 22:50, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi again -- only one person has made any edits whatsoever to 2002 Gujarat violence/revision, and it was tiny. You are "officially" invited to take a stab at it. Thanks, BCorr € Брайен 02:34, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for you note on my talk page. What can I say -- I agree, but I figure it's worth following up on this since it was put out there...and it's probably good practice anyway :-) BCorr € Брайен 15:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi,

I just thought I will intervene because of the back and forth reversions.I want to clarify what I think is a wrong notion you have. Aryans did come to the sub-continent from outside, this is not disputed by serious academicians.However, though the Aryan invasion theory is widely known, it does not mean that it is widely accepted. It is known well because it is quite old. The present dispute is not over whether the Aryans came from outside at all( which is a pseudo- scientific speculation), but whether the influx was through an invasion or gradual(which is a legitimate academic subject). KRS 14:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yup. Agree with KRS 100%. Arvindn 16:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand these comments. The "back and forth" thing you mentioned ended three weeks ago, and has not recurred. The user doing so was one who'd been cited on Wikipedia:Problem users at least twice for Hindu nationalist POV, and so reverting the biased changes seemed natural. You are not correct that that that is the present dispute, either. The user in question is promoting the idea that the IVT is continuous with Vedic culture, and there was no Aryan immigration at all. See The Anome's apt summary on Talk:Aryan invasion theory. -- VV 19:24, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, Please check back the page history ;what you reverted happened a few days back and it is precisely the theory about gradual migration that you deleted. In fact, even the theory of the horse being brought by the Aryans is correct(which you deleted) but that much detailing is not necessary for a general history, so thats OK. KRS 05:31, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see now that you're referring to the article India, not Aryan invasion theory, which indeed had not been edited in weeks. AIT is taken to include the possibility of slower migration, and thus the term invasion does not mean it has to be a violent and sudden, rather it means an outside force coming in and taking over, however gradually. I think having those qualifiers is important b/c it sets up the contrast better, and the way it is written makes it sound like AIT is being discarded, when the key idea is that migration occurred. Most of the attacks on these pages have been by those who disbelieve in the migration at all. -- VV 22:08, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I too thought KRS was referring to Aryan invasion theory. I didn't notice the dates, but the comments made sense in the context of Astavakra's edits. This user does seem to disbelieve in a migration, but makes a few valid points. As it stands, the first paragraph seems to imply that most modern historians accept what Max Muller proposed, which is not true. The phrase "Tamil, a very distinct language in its own right, with literature and tradition at least as ancient as Sanskrit" is also not supported by evidence. The Rig Veda is much older than the earliest known Tamil literature. Of course, the present version is far closer to NPOV than the other one (in particular, references to communists ring a bell :-) Arvindn 16:03, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity, I forgot to mention the crucial part! Anyway, the same argument applies to that page too if there is a similar edit there... BTW, I will now direct my attention towards the Aryan invasion theory and see what the dispute is all about:-) KRS 17:28, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding your edits in India, why do you want to remove the reference to the Sindhu-Saraswati tradition? We are not archaeologists here trying to prove whether some theory is correct or not. If many people choose to believe in a particular version of history, however tenuous be the proof, it is upto a neutral analysis to present this also and not turn a blind eye.In any case history itself is always teleological. KRS 16:02, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On the "Multi-regional origin" page, you added:

"Nevertheless, proponents of multiregionalism such as Wolpoff believe the molecular data can be reconciled with the multiregional origin hypothesis, and may even support it."

Could you please give one or two citations to support the last five words? (I'm not sure whether you're saying that there is molecular data to support multiregionalism, or that some have argued that the molecular data that is usually taken to support the single-region hypothesis actually supports multiregionalism. Also, I'm not sure whether you're saying that Wolpoff has used molecular data to support the multiregional hypothesis. Thanks. Peak 04:26, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Multi-regional hypothesis

Thanks for your response. My responses to your response are inserted with a leading Peak.

You asked for citations on those believing molecular data supports multiegionalism. A well-known recent such paper is this one ...

Peak I am familiar with that one and many others, but the particular one you quote is ancient (accepted 1999) relative to the recent evidence. I was genuinely asking for a RECENT paper - one that responds to the supposedly "nail in the coffin" evidence.

... and you can look at other papers by Wolpoff, Hawks, etc. Anyway, I'm bothered by the fact that every link you've added to this page is anti-multiregionalism.

Peak If you think additional citations are needed, then by all means add them. This article has always had pointers to the pages by Coon and Wolpoff, which provide further discussion and pointers.

Peak By the way, are you suggesting that a scientific hypothesis can never be rejected? The multi-regional hypothesis was proposed as a scientific hypothesis, and as such should be viewed from a scientific perspective, especially in an encyclopedia that purports to be about knowledge. Yes, history is important, but that doesn't mean that every proposition is eternally merely a POV. As you know, some scientific hypotheses are confirmed and become generally accepted theories; others fall by the wayside; and still others that fell by the wayside are later vindicated in some way or another.

Don't you think that's not very appropriate for an entry about it? There should be at least one pro-link, and probably the majority should be pro-.

Peak As already mentioned, the "Proponents" section already had wikilinks to Coon and Wolpoff. Someone deemed that sufficient before I was involved with the page. Please think about your remarks in connection with other Wikipedia articles on topics such as racism or the Aether.

I also believe your reading of the style guide is not correct; in general external links should be collected together rather than scattered uselessly, but if it's simply to provide a footnote reference for a portion within the text, that is not necessary.

Peak I gave an exact quotation from the Style Guide. If you wish to do likewise, please do so.

I also don't agree with the undoing of my other changes:

Peak I would of course be happy to try to justify or explain the changes I've made. At the same time, please remember that the changes you make to someone else's work may not always be agreeable if the author has invested quite a lot of time and thought in the work they've done.

...splitting the examples of recent research back across two paragraphs, and removing mention of Wells' anti-multiregionalist stance. I actually don't see the point in the Wells' quote anyway; it's not very encyclopedic, just his opinion. -- VV 03:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak Wells is a scientist and co-author of one of the papers. He gave a succint summary for which we should be grateful. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a set of links to external articles.

Peace. Peak 05:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi there, just a note to let you know that Tannin has just set up a vote for the Sep 11 attacks talk page about whther the word "terrorist" should be included in the title or not. Arno 09:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

USA PAT RIOT Act

Will you stop reverting my changes to the USA PAT RIOT Act and labelling them "Vandalism"? Jor 02:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for labelling you a vandal in return. I will refrain from changing all occurances to USA PATRIOT Act to the equally valid USA PAT RIOT Act, as soon as the page is open for editing again I'll add a link to a page which explains the alternate spacing of this acronym. I do not believe you and I were involved in an "edit war" no matter what Finlay thinks, but please in the future don't just revert with "vandalism": all users have talk pages, as have the articles. Cheers, Jor 02:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Patriot act revert-war

(cc to Darkelf and VeryVerily) Ok, you guys' editwar on USA PATRIOT Act has gone quite far enough. You need to get together and work out a compromise that you can both live with. Either that, or you should both desist from editing the article and let calmer heads work it out for you. I've protected the page (in accordance with the generally-accepted "three reverts" rule on Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version). I'll unprotect it when you show me your compromise (or, lets face it, someone else will unprotect it in a couple of days, hoping you've both calmed down). Don't come to me arguing a case or trying to get me to decide who is right or who is wrong - I really don't care one iota. Oh, and whichever version it's stuck on right now isn't the "winner" (i'm sure y'all are busily reverting one another while I type this). And please quit calling one another vandals. Oh, and I'm going to bed now, sad. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Edit wars

Please stop edit wars over link names. It is silly esp since direct links are better than redirects. --mav 00:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have unprotected Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Please don't get into another edit war over the link names. -- Viajero 16:41, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

172

I've been having a little back and forth with User:172 in History of the United States (1980-present), and noticed that you are having the same problem. Do you have any words of advice on how I may settle this in a friendly and civil manner with 172? --Hcheney 23:08, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

See my comments on User talk:RickK and Talk:Mass murder. You owe me an apology. BTW, the protection was lifted. 172 08:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Good job discussing content issues on Talk:State terrorism. If you have time, please take a look at Talk:Manuel Noriega. It seems that you finally have a serious user with whom to discuss content issues on that page. Also, you can altert me whenever you find someone attempting to use Micahel Moore as a source in an article, which would turn Wiki into a laughingstock. I'd set them straight and direct them to legitimate sources on international relations. BTW, if you keep up the good work, I'll nominate you for admin. 172 03:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the response. From experience I know that working on controversial subjects can be maddening around here! Let me know if you need a page protected or unprotected, or help stabilizing the libertarian anarchism page (sounds like a magnet for troublemakers.) Page protections seem to repel the trolls, who disappear mysteriously when forced to explain themselves on the talk pages. Also, with the problem users gone, perhaps it's time to lift the protections of Manuel Noriega, Mass murder, History of Panama, Saddam Hussein, State terrorism, etc.

BTW, sorry for not making it clear earlier that you weren't the guilty party in last week's series of edit wars. Your only mistake was falling into their trap by playing their game of auto-revert, thus letting them pull you into their ideological proxy battles. 172 23:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

22:04, 3 Mar 2004 . . VeryVerily (fixing double redirect; also, i don't like this change, the new article is poorly written, while this one was clear)

Regarding attoparsec, I wasn't the one who caused a double redirect.

And as to the article being "poorly written", would you pse specify (I thought I'd left "attoparsec" almost unchanged). --Palapala 22:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The last three edit wars between you and User:Venceremos were disappointing - esecially in light of the constructive and civil discussions that ended the edit wars over Mass murder and State terrorism. I figured that the users involved had already made enough progress so as to avoid these kinds of spectacles. It's a waste of your time to automatically revert his edits repeatedly. Just leave the page alone and request a page protection from a sysop. Please take my word for it - this is how you'll be the most efficient and effective. 172 18:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Yes, of course Venceremos is Lance/Hector/Richard. But isn't this getting old already? Just deal with him directly. So what if he's a Communist? What's the big deal? You could make the effort to communicate with him. He's going to keep playing games with you until you start treating him seriously. Figure out a way to meet him halfway whenever he has a valid point to raise. When you quit treating him like the devil admins won't have to protect pages. 172 10:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Calm down. I'm only trying to help. "Venceremos" isn't misbehaving because he's the devil - that's all that I'm saying. I've had a few words with him and it is my strong impression is that he's waiting for people like you, RickK, Robert Merkel, Ed Poor, etc. to tone town the blistering attacks a notch and give him a chance. He's just having a hard time finding a niche in the site for a leftwing user. After all, he's always under relentless scrutiny and attack. It's unfair to subject him to what is effectively auto-revert in practice. While he does need watching, 100% of his facts aren't wrong in 100% of his edits. If I were you, I'd ask him what would it take to get him to become more cooperative. Chances are that he thinks you're unreasonable, while you think he's unreasonable. But I think that you're both wrong. 172 23:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Kevehs

I am considering placing a Wikipedia:Requests for comment in regards to this user, not so much in regards to their edits, which I don't think are so very bad, but in regards to what I see as violations of wikiquette on the article talk pages. I have noticed he is not civil in regards to yourself. Have you discussed this with him on his talk page, or otherwise considered implementing the Wikipedia:Conflict resolution process in regards to this user? Sam Spade 05:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For starters I think I have experienced far less than you, from what I've reviewed in the page history of AC. Anyways, if you'd like a look at my joys of communication with Kev, you can review talk:Anarchism or talk:Libertarian socialism where there has been recent squabbles. I suppose I might be thinner skinned, but I really don't find his tone or communication style acceptable nor utilitarian. On the other hand I doubt I'll take any action if I'm the only one who thinks it necessary. Sam Spade 08:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Actually, I'm not really saying that you're in any way at fault for what's been going on with the "red faction." I'm just saying that Lance/Hector/Richard/Venceremos probably feels quite inundated, given the intense criticism and scrutiny coming from a select circle of contributors, and that his behavior probably stems more from a group dynamic than him being the devil that you're making out to be. Sooner or later, you ought to admit that the anti-Communist POV of the community as a whole has been at the root of his behavior.

You'd also be better off if you stopped lodging complaints about him over and over again, to different user to different user, and from page to page. Instead, find a better strategy. Keep in mind that you have the power to determine his behavior; by defining the conflict in terms of "Lance/Hector/Richard/Venceremos versus the community," you're putting him in an awkward bind. For him to get whatever the hell he wants out of his foes, he's been forced to campaign against his circle of critics - so to speak. But if you react to every individual dispute as a separate incident, and drop all this chatter about how he needs to be banned, the conflict will deescalate. Believe me, after working with you on US history (1980-present), I understand firsthand where Venceremos must be coming from. I wasn't too happy when, e.g., you decided to lodge a series of complaints about me on a series of different pages. This only made me less willing to try to interact with you on a positive basis at the time. 172 11:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

VV: do you feel that the latest version of 'torture and murder in Iraq' before protection by 172 is acceptable? pir 13:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV: the repugnance of torture and murder does not depend on who comitted them - do you agree to this view? Wikipedia should provide information about such facts in a NPOV manner no matter who committed them, and then let readers draw their own moral conclusions. If we are selective in having articles about only atrocities by one side (which ever it is) then we (Wikipedia) become propagandists for this side. Do you agree to these?

I am not interested in pushing a particular point of view, such as that there's a moral equivalence between the state repression of Saddam's regime and the measures the current occupiers of Iraq use to stay in control. I'm (genuinely!) interested in providing the facts, and put readers in a position to make up their mind.

The reason I added information about torture and murder committed by occupation is that the article seemed to fulfil a propaganda purpose (probably created in the run-up to the Iraq war) which I wanted to balance with a more NPOV picture.pir 10:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to violate the revert policy, please join me in discussion on Talk:Americanism. Thanks. SV(talk) 06:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recent change to Race article

[P0M:] You changed some text in the Race article and gave as the edit summary the words 'anti-race "inference" and sarcasm, replaced with example'. The original passage was not something that I wrote, so I do not have a personal stake in it. However I didn't see anything in the original that I would regard as "anti-race inference," nor did I see any sarcasm. Would you mind explaining, please? P0M 01:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On Race

Dear VV:

On the one hand, I would like to thank you for attempting to find a compromise with your suggested wording using the phrase "In many areas of biology". I am all in favor of creative attempts to achieve NPOV; I am also all in favor of authors providing evidence to make their case when there is any kind of doubt. Perhaps it is true that in some areas of biology, there is an equation of 'race' and 'subspecies', but that is still a long way from 'many'.

On the other hand, I would like to point out that your editorial remark suggesting that I had intended to inject a sarcastic note was erroneous. (You wrote: rm anti-race "inference" and sarcasm). Of course I realize that you wrote this within the narrow confines of an edit summary box, but please note that labels such as "anti-race" and "pro-race" are not very helpful in this context as "race" has (and has had) so many different meanings. That is one of the things that makes this article so contentious - too many people have approached it with the idea "The community of people I know all agree that X and therefore it's obvious that X." Peak 06:19, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Response to your response about Race

You wrote:

"alternative definitions" is off the mark; it could be alternative classifications

Certainly there have been (and continue to be) many "alternative classifications", but a reasonably careful reading of the existing (flawed) article on Race should make it clear that there are many definitions of race, even within different communities. I attempted to identify most of the significant ones at User:Peak/Preamble#Meanings. Peak 07:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Edit war"

Nothing is wrong with having the dates wikified. If you'd like to undertake that task yourself, you're more than welcome. I'm removing all additions by User:Michael3 in accordance with standard policy on this issue (see User:Michael). Anyone may "vouch" for the additions by reinstating them in their own name... note that this is not the same as simply reverting back to Michael3's version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Banning

There doesn't seem to be any system for nominating people for banning. The only people who get arbitrarily banned are obvious vandals - people who erase articles etc. But Hanpuk isn't one of them, he is a persistent trouble-maker and wrecker. You need to talk to an experienced administrator, of which I am not one. Adam 04:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll

To let you know, I've started a quickpoll vis-a-vis your violation of the three revert guideline on Red Scare. I am not specifically asking for a ban of any kind. Obviously, I strongly disapprove of your reversion tactics, which are not appropriate regardless of how strongly you feel about some article. It doesn't seem as though you've changed them at all despite the problems they have created. -- 172 07:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Childish retaliation for [1] and groundless. -- VV 15:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Red Scare

I don't understand why you keep adding that paragraph back into Red Scare. It's not historical and doesn't really involved the article. What do you think of my compromise version of the page? Please respond either on the Red Scare talkpage and explain why it should be there, or on my talk page. --Alex S 21:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

vote

[2] Take a look, and vote if you will. Sam Spade 22:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record

The change made to "race and intelligence" which you corrected today and indicated that I had "POVed" was apparently made by user 195.xx.xx... (I don't write that way, either.) P0M 09:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I think I see what happened. I was working on topic sentences and made a copy of all of them, which I then reworked so that there would be smooth flow from topic sentence to topic sentence. (I posted the proposed changes, by the way.) 195xxx had made the sentence "Lately people have tried to associate race and intelligence. This is not new." Between the time that I copied those sentences and finished by topic sentence rewrites you (or somebody else) must have discovered what 195xxx had done and repaired it without having him revert the change. I rather mechanically went through and fixed the topic sentences according to the draft I had posted and, in the process, replaced your edit. Sorry. P0M 15:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172

Please take a moment to express your thoughts on this page, if you have the time. Sam Spade 19:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tuskegee syphilis study

What part of Tuskegee syphilis study did you find factually inaccurate? You didn't list anything in particular on the discussion page.

See the "spiked-online" article at the bottom for an account of the factual errors in this article. -- VV 03:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Copied to talk page. Article is long and rambles, I've saved it for later persual. --ssd 04:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Poisoned

The information on the Poisoned article is complete garbage. I am Jayson Cowan and I am mentioned in the wikipedia and I would like my reference removed along with all the errored garbage in that article all together. I would appreciate it if you did not edit it back to the previous revision.

Augusto Pinochet

I have create a poll at talk:Augusto Pinochet on how to describe the CIA's role in the coup against Allende. Please vote and/or comment. --Uncle Ed 14:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll

Quickpoll requested on you and 172 over your revert war on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. — Jor (Talk) 02:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I am not particularily interested in whatever you two are fighting over, but seeing a constant (rv) on the top of my watchlist was getting annoying. Since I am unwilling to side with either of you I therefore request a ban of both or neither. — Jor (Talk) 03:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm just standing for the rules in Quickpolls... and the Remedies clearly state that the first violation should be a warning. Since nobody bothered checking the rules the first time, and since it was voted NOT to punish 172, we should err on the side of caution, and give 172 a warning. I very firmly believe that the Quickpoll against you should be removed and a warning issued also. However, due process does not seem to be in style this season. --Hcheney 06:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would be a perverse outcome if either you or 172 were banned. However, you can't generally get a fair outcome from a direct democracy administering justice as judge, jury, and executioner. I apologize for your situation, and in the future I would be more than willing to do whatever it takes to mediate with the two of you so it does not come to this state of injustice again. --Hcheney 06:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Statement on my involvement

My Revert to Ed Poor's copy of Talk:Augusto Pinochet and protection (as well as the protection of Origins of the Civil War) of that copy was simply to stop an on going edit war, not to make any statement on who is right or who is wrong. Continue to make your case on the Quickpoll page and I wish you the best of luck. I think both you and 172 should be banned for 24 hours due to your revert wars on multiple pages for whatever reason, I see that as a violation of the 3 revert rule. I'd certainly hope that both you and 172 would choose to stay contributing to Wikipedia after whatever result comes from the current quickpolls. This is my statement on the whole issue to both of you. I am trying to remain as neutral as possible and follow the rules of wikipedia in my duty as an Admin. I take no more action on this issue other then to continue to revert and protect any further edit wars I come across. Thank you, I hope you can both settle your differences and wish you both the best. --Flockmeal 04:33, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

(I've also left a copy of this statement on 172's talk page)

---

VV

Hey! When did you get debanned? I thought you had another 6 hours? I mean it's great you're not banned anymore. --Cantus 01:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hanpuk

If I may ask, since Hanpuk is disputing the allegation - what evidence do we have that Hanpuk is one of the Richardchilton sock puppets? --Michael Snow 16:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll notice

You and 172 are the subjects of a new quickpoll for your reverts on Saddam Hussein. --Michael Snow 22:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

I see that you two are back at loggerheads again at a different location. I don't believe these constant disputes all over Wikipedia are productive, so I am asking you to consider mediation, as I previously suggested in the quickpoll. Will you accept? --Michael Snow 16:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since both of you responded on my talk page, I think it makes the most sense to continue the discussion there. I have posted some additional thoughts and would appreciate your response. --Michael Snow 15:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lovebirds

Hmm. Those lovebirds sure look familiar. Why'd you stick them up there, in any event? :) - Fennec 19:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Let's make things easier for the both of us and everyone else. I can deal with Rei on Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq, and I'll stay out of arguments between you and Rei on Israel. Same with Red Scare. I have been able to reason with Fred Bauder and TDC from time to time, but not with you. If you quit reverting me over and over again on Red Scare, I'll leave you and your so-called "NPOVing" in articles that I've had nothing to do with alone as well. Since I don't hold you in any higher regard than you hold me, there's no way we can cross paths and avoid a pointless revert war. So, we should just cross paths less often. 172 06:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

State terrorism and Torture and murder in Iraq were indeed VV country, and it was a mistake for me to step in there. But at the time I'd not yet figured out that it wasn't worth my effort to me to make changes in your domain. So, for this one time, I'd be grateful if you granted me a chance to work out an agreement with Rei regarding the content of the former Torture and murder in Iraq article over the next couple of days (on that note, I won't expect you to "pull out" of Origins of the American Civil War, which is deep within 172 country, automatically since you are already there). Regarding everything else, I won't edit pages subject to disputes between you and other users, if you do the same to avoid crossing paths with me.

There's really no way for us to stake and recognize claims to articles, but I'm sure that we can use our common sense in order to know when we're crossing paths unnecessarily. 172 11:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very

Hey very, I noted the edit war between you and 172, involving the Augusto Pinochet, what is main problem on it? I note the CIA coup part is hotly debated, trust me i've actually got into a fist-fight with a communist friend of mine over the CIA coup, (even though i'm a die-hard Socialist-Marxist). --Comrade Nick 05:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand that 172 has been involved in several edit wars on several pages and i've seen him break the three revert rule, maybe he should take a rest, or something like that (protecting the Pinochet page is a start).

hey very we are both listed on Wik, 'hate list,' User:Plato (troll), User:VeryVerily (FOX POV pusher), I never even talked to the guy and he's calling me a troll. --Plato 06:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion with the Pinochet page is possibly remove most referances to the CIA coup and put that on it's own separate page like for example [[September 11, 1973 Chile Coup]], tell me what you think--Comrade Nick 11:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

congratulations on making it onto the wik list. i do not know you, yet i now have a deep respect for you Dmn 22:04, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Graph

I saw the graph on your userpage. How is that generated? I'd be interested in looking at mine, if it's not too much work to do. Meelar 01:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks but no. Cool idea, though--I bet a lot of people would be interested. Maybe you should charge ;) Meelar 02:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

anarchism

I said a bit more in response to another user on talk:anarchism. I wonder how accurate any article on politics can ever be, when politics would seem to me as the science of lying ;) are you an anarchist yourself, as your are alludied to being in the talk? if so, perhaps you could tell me if there is enough agreement amongst anarchists to allow much of any opinions from anarchists in the body of the article, and whether perhaps it might do best to generally refer to the opinions of outsiders looking in. While this would open up an entirely other form of bias, it might well allow us at minimum a bit of consistancy of definition, and perhaps some objectivity as well, perchance? (part of this appears on the article talk) Sam Spade 04:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

ah, sounds like me ;) So you'd suggest summing up their views is sufficient, rather than attempting to find some "kernel" of elusive truth? That is how the policy reads, I will admit. I am very focused on gaining some insight on these people after seeing the potent rise of anti-globalism, and the important role they have played in that. Besides they killed some important people back at the begining of last century, and are said by some (extremely partisan and biased pro-anarchist sources) to be synonymous w communism. All in all, my goal is to figure these guys out, and having a great wiki-article on the subject would seem to accomadate that ;) Sam Spade 04:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

172

172 didn't remove the protection. RickK 14:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Did User:TDC ask you to restore his version of History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953)? If not, then see Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953), where TDC and I have agreed that his version should be considered point by point on a temp page to which he controls access. Earlier, we came to the same agreement on Hugo Chavez. Evidently, he was satisfied with the outcome, given his acceptance of my offer once again on a different article. 172 00:54, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

FOX News and Franken

Thanks for your note. I sympathize -- and at this point, I'm not sure what else to say to him. I guess we should proceed with an RfC and solicit input from the community. I would think we'll see overwhelming support for removing the quotation. If I'm wrong...well, then at least we'll have tried! Cribcage 05:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Soviet Union History

Did you see the seperate thread that 172 started? I am sure I could use a hand there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:TDC/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927-1953)&diff=0&oldid=3474469

You might also be interested in going to the talk page, I have disected and refuted most of the diputed claims as either factualy inacurat, or grossly POV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TDC/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927-1953)

Ciao

TDC 13:56, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with the assertion that 172 can be difficult to deal with, but when this same process was used in the Hugo Chavez article, it worked out quite nicely. TDC 15:19, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion with Cecropia at Rei's adminship nomination

Thanks for moving this as I suggested. Though it was a tiny bit too much. May I ask why you want to leave it to TDC to decide whether his crybaby image can stay although the policy clearly says No personal attacks? Get-back-world-respect 00:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

New reply to you at my talk page. Get-back-world-respect 01:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Immigration

Hi VeryVerily. I see that you removed all my changes to the Immigration page, describing them as "speculation". A bit harsh, I think.

The article as it stands contains this sentence:

"Western European nations, Japan, and other countries have long been deeply concerned about their national culture being subsumed by a tide of immigrants. "

Surely it's facile to say that "a nation" is concerned about something. It has to be more accurate to say that certain groups within a nation are concerned about something. That's what I tried to do. And only ignorant people use offensive language like "a tide of immigrants". There is other material on the article that is similarly facile, but can we start by agreeing about this?

Feel free to email me at rsalkie@yahoo.co.uk

Best wishes. Raphael

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys

I don't think you have really "fixed" the page. From the comparison, you have lost links to anti-French sentiment in the United States, suggested that the opposition is only in "international forums", lost the axis of evil & War on Terrorism context of France's opposition to America ... as I say, not in my opinion "fixing", more "fiddling". Still. We all do it. FWIW, I'd vote to put some of that context back in. --Tagishsimon

Sorry; hadn't spotted the see also. I probably went off half cocked, didn't I? As you were. --Tagishsimon

Re: "Consensus had been reached before 172 started trolling; the poll was started afterwards and brought in random buddies of 172. The poll voters he cites consist mostly of users who had no role in and and were voting ideologically."

Usually you can get away with your cynical lies because I leave them ignored. But this time, I'll check to see what the other people whom you are implicitly slandering think about this. [3] 172 09:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I posted noted on the talk pages of Bcorr, AndyL, Ericd, Hanpuk, Ugen64, and Marcika about (a) how they are random buddies of 172 (b) how they no role editing or contributing to the Pinochet page (c) how they have visibly no understanding of the issues (d) and how they were voting ideologically. Let's see if they agree. 172 09:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Yawn. I'm guessing not all these users are as stupid as 172 hopes they are and will see through this smear campaign. AndyL and Hanpuk (and perhaps Tannin) are indeed "random buddies" of 172; many listed had not worked on the page, certainly not in its present form (and even, some, e.g., Ericd, only a bit); comments by AndyL, Ericd, Marcika, and Tannin (and perhaps 172) make it clear they were unaware of the issues we had been dealing with; and there is little doubt that several votes were cast ideologically. Not that it's worth my time to thumb through the poll again to respond to this smear campaign. - VV 09:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi VV, you made an edit in India with commment "rm prejudicial and q'able para", but the diff of the edit doesn't show you removing anything. So was there something you wanted to remove but missed out ? Jay 09:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

(btw editing your talk page says "WARNING: This page is 50 kilobytes long;")

A recent change to the Race article

Did you notice that the barely identified user who put in the NPOV warning also added a link to a web page advocating some points of view on race? (by Richard McCulloch) I'd be in favor of removing that link, but I'm not sure what the standards are for such attempts to promote a point of view by attaching it to a neutral article. P0M 22:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

New race POV content

I think maybe we should let it rest a week or so. The person that added the link appears to have registered just to make that one change. Maybe he'll watch what happens for a while. It is strange, however, that a brand new contributor would understand about adding a NPOV warning. Do you smell limburger cheese? P0M

not trying to censor anyone

I am sorry, I didn't mean to archive your comment on the Pinochet talk page just minutes after you had posted it. The Talk page had gotten so big that I had to move the previous discussion over in sections, and doing so I didn't notice that you added something. That being said, the page has gotten unmanageable in size, and it really must be archived. I will try again later this afternoon. -- Viajero 13:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

More on Pinochet

I don't question that you believe, in good faith, that the intro shouldn't mention the U.S. role in bringing Pinochet to power. I also don't question that you believe, in good faith, that if it is to be mentioned, it should be merely a reference to what "many believe," with all supporting facts left to be developed in the body of the article. I just don't share those beliefs. I think the subject is important enough to be mentioned in the intro. The "many believe" formulation seems to me to give an impression of a mere difference of opinion, like arguing about whether Pinochet's policies aided Chile's economy, and short-change the factual foundation.

My fundamental approach to the treatment of this issue in the intro is that the intro should summarize key facts, enough to hit the highlights but not in such detail as to be inappropriate for an intro. My hope was that my edit of the sandbox intro would be edited by others who shared this view. For example, perhaps we should drop the Nixon quote; perhaps we should add post-coup U.S. support for Pinochet.

Your edit wasn't done in bad faith, but it proceeded from a fundamentally different view of the intro. That's why I suggested a third sandbox. I wouldn't want to squelch your right to advocate for a shorter intro. Still, those of us trying to refine a summary of the facts can't accomplish anything if we have to keep reverting edits by you that delete all our versions, regardless of whether the Nixon quote is in or out, etc. If there are indeed other people who agree with me and are willing to do some work on the intro (and, I must admit, so far no one has jumped in on my side), then we would come up with our version, one not impeded by you or anyone else constantly deleting everything we write, after which there could be a comparison of that version with other versions of the intro -- your "many believe" version, an intro completely silent on the point (which I gather you'd really prefer), 172's "U.S.-backed" formulation, and anything else that surfaces. I was suggesting bad faith on your part only to the extent that, believing as you do that none of the supporting facts should be included in the introductory summary, you can't really participate in good faith in the process of selecting which facts make the best introductory summary.

By the way, I had the same thought you did about including the arrest in the intro. I have a limited tolerance for Wikibickering, though, and I decided I could handle only one Pinochet dispute at a time. These days, I think the two questions that would be most likely to impel a reader to consult an article on Pinochet are: (1) What was the U.S. role in his accession to power? and (2) What's this business about a former Chilean dictator getting arrested in London and threatened with extradition to Spain? That's part of the reason I think it appropriate for the intro to mention both those points. JamesMLane 21:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that the point of the sandbox is to experiment. In this instance, however, my impression, as a latecomer to the dispute, was that the option of confining the intro to the "many believe" statement had already been discussed and rejected by many. I didn't see much point to "experimenting" by using the sandbox to reiterate that view. In other words, the dispute focused on the introduction, not on the broader question of what the entire article should say about the U.S. role. That's why I was hoping that my edit would be the start of an attempt to reach a consensus as to what would be in the introduction. For that purpose, simply moving all the facts down to the article body was unhelpful because it was unlikely to produce a consensus.

As to this question of intro-versus-later-in-the-article: In general, I think we have the same view of the intro as a summary, that hits the highlights without attempting to tell the whole story. We just disagree about which points are highlights. As someone commented, the NPOV approach is hard to apply when contending points of view disagree not just about particular questions of fact, but about the relative importance of each of those questions. I suppose some ardent anti-Catholic out there would consider Pinochet's Catholicism (I'm assuming he's Catholic, considering his education) to be the single most important item, obviously meriting inclusion in the intro, because it confirms the hypothesis that "subjects of a foreign prince" are more likely to become dictators themselves. If you and I disagree with him on that hypothesis, he says, "Fine, NPOV means that we don't assert that in the article, but we should report that Pinochet was Catholic." I'd have no problem adding Pinochet's religious affiliation to the article but I wouldn't want it put in the intro. There's really no reliably NPOV way to adjudicate the importance of Pinochet's religion or his relationship with the CIA. Of course, the CIA's denial of any "direct role" is a fact, which the article should report, just as the article on O. J. Simpson reports his self-exculpatory statements. And, yes, I consider the parallel quite apt in terms of credibility.  :) JamesMLane 10:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with your change from ...In addition, some constitutional reforms were made to under a reformed constitution. I wanted to make clear that the multicandidate presidential elections were already decided in the constitution for the case that the cadidate lost. With having the election in the same sentence that the reform, it can give the idea that the reform was necessary for the elections to take place, what is not the case. I didn't change it in the page because I expect a new revert war soon anyway, but keep it in mind. Also, isn't it going to cause some process the adition to a protected page? Viajero's unprotection was against the rules, but I don't think two wrongs make one right. --AstroNomer 15:20, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Viet Cong

Care to remove your request for page protection, since we appear to have stabilized on split pages? --Michael Snow 18:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. VV 21:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I requested the re-protection of Pinochet. Unfortunately it got protected in the wrong version. I'd ask a developer to purge the edit war. It is really shameful. --AstroNomer 22:02, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Revert wars

Don't revert pages more than three times in a day. Snowspinner 23:28, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Proposed change to the Pinochet page

General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (born November 25, 1915), military leader of Chile from 1973 to 1990. He was one of the leaders of a U.S.-backed¹ military coup that deposed the socialist government of Salvador Allende in 1973. He stepped down from the presidency after losing a plebiscite in 1989, held under the reformed constitution, which restored civilian rule in 1990. He was succeeded by Patricio Aylwin. He retained his post as commander of the army until 1998. Pinochet has a lifelong seat in the Chilean Senate, which brought him immunity from prosecution.

Pinochet remains a controversial figure. Some regard him as a great modernizer who staved off communism and rescued a faltering economy (the "Miracle of Chile"), while others regard him as a brutal military dictator responsible for severe human rights violations and social decay. The coup and the United States's subsequent support for Pinochet's government have also engendered controversy, especially given that previous CIA policy was for Allende to be deposed. + - + - Pinochet was arrested in 1998 during a visit to London and charged with international human rights crimes. After a failed attempt to extradite him to Spain, he was returned to Chile in 2002 where the charges were dropped due to medical reasons.

¹ The United States government had previously sought to overthrow Allende and actively supported Pinochet after he came to power. The extent of their involvement in the September 11, 1973 coup is not fully known, as many documents are still classified.

This combines the best of both you and 172's edits..tell me if you like my proposed change on my talk page.

Comrade Nick @)--^---0:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey thanks...god only knows 172 didn't even bother to respond, and i gave him a little more leeway.

Maybe I could re-word the footnote (this might also NPOV it slightly):

¹ It is thought the United States government had previously sought to overthrow Allende. However the extent of their involvement in the September 11, 1973 coup is not fully known, as many documents are still classified.

Comrade Nick @)--^---10:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Maybe, I don't like the idea of a footnote myself. Just so long as there is mention that the U.S. had a possible hand in the coup. That way we could NPOV the article. Also, please join the IRC channel because that's where I learned of the 50 reverts (User:snowspinner told me) Thanks Very!

Comrade Nick @)--^---11:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I reverted your change on NYC Mohawk since (a) usage wasn't sarcasm, (b) you left the grammar broken, the latter being more important. If you feel strongly about removing it, I won't revert a second time, but leave the 'the' - it's necessary to have the sentence read right. —Morven 11:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Neofeudalism

FYI, I was biding my time until I had a chance to make a thorough revision of it. It didn't seem like a high priority because it is such an obscure page with few links. Glad to have you aboard. Not that it matters, it's a rotten article with little substance. Apparently, the guys who wrote the POV stuff are serious, although this Mike Church is such a goof that it's hard to tell. - Nat Krause 07:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Sorry about the curtness of the comment. I felt it was important that the RfC page be started by someone who wasn't involved in the spat, since just about everyone who was involved in the issue had taken sides. Of course, you can't start RfC pages without an "effort to resolve the dispute," so I had to make a token effort. Sorry that it came off as short. Snowspinner 02:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I phrased my comments to 172 in terms of "ignorant users", not because I think you are, but because *he* thinks you're ignorant. One of 172's faults is that he's quick to categorize people on the basis of very little evidence, which wouldn't necessarily be a problem (I have a lot of private opinions about other WP editors, some of them not very nice at all!), but he lacks self-control and all too often cuts loose with the invective. On the plus side, unlike certain users with three-letter ids beginning with W :-), 172 is capable of discussing issues, so there is at least the opportunity of working out mutually acceptable content; I suggest asking more probing questions, looking for underlying rationales for a position. Stan 05:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

please find other ways

Edit wars are not acceptable. Please find other ways to resolve disagreements. Thanks, Kingturtle 07:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, VV, I saw you had a disagreement with 172 about the My Lai Massacre. As far as I see it was mainly about whether to call your country US or America and whether to call "Charly" Vietcong or National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam (NLF). It would be interesting to see how the Vietnamese page called both sides, but apparently there is not yet even an article about the war in the Vietnamese section. Why do you two guys not collect some money and send used computers to Vietnam instead of engaging in fruitless edit wars? When I once had a similar conflict with TDC I remembered that there was a rule not to revert more than three times within a day, so I warned him and put a remark on requeast for comments. If that does not help you can also put it on request for protection. Get-back-world-respect 15:29, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Template:Sep11

Why did you move this from the Template: namespace to the MediaWiki: namespace? Sidebar type things go in the Template: namespace now. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and you don't need to use {{msg:Sep11}}. Just {{Sep11}} works now. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

WW2 People

Hello, thanks for contributing to Categories, but "WW2 people" is obsolete. Please, in the future, direct to "World War II people". Thanks, --Oldak Quill 00:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

New quickpoll

Please see Wikipedia:Quickpolls. You have been listed there. →Raul654 21:50, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Pinochet

The United States committed terrible mistakes in Latin America during the Cold War, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said. She suggested that backing Chile's former dictator Augusto Pinochet was one of Washington's errors. "When you speak of that era, I think many of us, as we look back on it, feel that there were many serious mistakes made," she told students in Atlanta on Thursday. [4]

The U.S. role in the coup and subsequent repression in Chile is certainly not a secret. Both before and after Pinochet's arrest, the alternative press reported extensively on U.S. involvement in Chile. In the Bay Area, the Information Service on Latin America (ISLA), published by the Data Center in Oakland, released a series of articles in December 1998 on Pinochet's bloody rule and his U.S. backing. In one of the articles, "The Hand of the CIA in the Coup of '73 Ignored by the Press in the United States" (originally published by the Mexican newspaper La Jornada), authors Jim Cason and David Brooks note that while "the dictator's career of repression is often recounted, with few exceptions (those that merely point out that the United States endorsed the coup) no mention is made of Washington's hardly disguised hand in the events of September of 1973, and during the following 17 years of dictatorship" (www.igc.org/isla/chile, Feature Coverage, Focus on Chile).

Another local news organization, San Francisco-based Pacific News Service, offered an article by Andrew Reding headlined "Reno Should Indict Pinochet." Published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian (1/20/99), the article notes that U.S. government agencies such as the CIA and Defense Department are "determined to avoid further exposure of their ties" to Pinochet's secret police (the DINA) and the Chilean military. Reding describes how the DINA carried out international terrorist actions, including the assassinations in Washington, D.C. of former Allende minister Orlando Letelier and his American associate, Ronni Moffet. In an age when U.S. grand juries are convened with increasing frequency to go after accused terrorists, Reding writes that "a grand jury would be certain to indict Pinochet." [5]

Why is it still so difficult for you to face the reality of US complicity in Chile? -- Viajero 21:51, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VV, you ought to spend some time in Latin America. I don't mean on the beach at Cancún, but in the rural towns and countryside of places like Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, talking with cab drivers, campesinos, street vendors, and reading the local newspaper everyday, both for news as well as the editorials and the letters-to-the-editors. You'd discover that people there -- for the most part -- are fascinated by the US, some have been (cladestinely or otherwise), others want to go, most have family or friends there. They watch American TV shows, wear jeans, t-shirts, and baseball hats, and they want a piece of the action too. At the same, these people, mostly very poor by western standards, have no illusions about the role of the US in the region. For them, America is not a moral agent in their lives, it is an extremly powerful entity which is determined to maintain control of the economic activities in that part of the world. If you look at 20th century history of Latin America, you'll see a long list of actions on the part of the US government to ensure that the governments of these countries are sympathetic to its needs. Nearly always, it succeeds, such as in the case of its toppling of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala, which is paradigmatic for the things are done, but it also fails, as in the case of Castro's Cuba. (Do you also deny the existence of countless efforts over the years on the part of the US to depose him?). Now, if you don't the time or the opportunity to make an extended sojourn through that part of the world, I entirely understand; we all have our own priorities. But I have: I've spent nearly two years in the part of the world, spread over several visits, the last of which was in 2002, when I spent nearly the entire year there, in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina. I read a local paper there every day. I experienced paralyzing strikes in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, massive anti-government demonstrations in Argentina and Peru, I was in Argentina shortly after the peso was uncoupled from the dollar and the once prosperous Argentines were having to face the fact that it had become a poor country; and I was in Bolivia during a presidential election, when the US ambassador to the country said in a public speech in the presence of the outgoing president that if the Bolivian people voted for the "wrong guy" (a coca leader), the US would shut its markets to Bolivia and cut its aid (it was a serious threat; he nearly won). I think I now have a pretty good idea of how things work; why the place is dirt poor and how the dictators come to power; the patterns are obvious, if one is open-minded enough to see them. Like you, I have never seen a primary source document which "proves" US backing of the Pinochet coup, but based on the reaction of Kissinger and Nixon to Allende when he was elected, I accept it is as given when a reputable journalist like Peter Kornbluh, who does have access to primary sources, says it is so [6], because it fits in with everything else I know about Latin America. That being said, there probably isn't a single, "smoking gun" document which definitely proves US complicity. The US prides itself as beacon of democracy, and as such, it doesn't look good for it to be seen toppling democratically-elected foreign governments. So, such things are done in secret (like funding the Contras), without leaving much of a paper trail; these people aren't stupid; they also to concern themselves with domestic public opinion. Indeed, it would be fantastic if all of our articles were based strictly on primary sources, but that, as I am sure you are aware, it simply not feasible. -- Viajero 11:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Can we have a discussion through e-mail now? Can I reach you through the e-mail address with which you've posted your note on the mailing list? You have me cornered and you won. Now, is there anything that I can do to get you to stop stalking me? If you want to contact me first, send your demands to AbeSokolov@hotmail.com 172 03:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Japanese American Internment

I see you've been working on this for a while and your edits have been pretty good. But I think you should give a source for the "formal" definition of concentration camp. From what I know, the only people who would have given the term a formal definition is the British Military. And even if there is some British military standard along the lines of "a detention facility for civilians", the actuality of the Boer camps was "a place where people died of starvation and disease."

(I'm not lashing out at you. This is just a topic that's been bugging me for a long while). I've I put this page on "watch" so you can reply below. Mackerm 19:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, that is a good question, and to answer it requires a bit of history. About a year ago this article was very different and not terribly good. Among the assertions made at some points is that the camps were "by definition" concentration camps [7]. Since then lots of other wording was tried out - including by me - that seeks to incorporate the "by definition"-type claims, the loaded and overstated nature of this term, and its persistent currency. The current formulation - that some argue it meets the formal definition - may not be the best one. VV 04:48, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think one solution is to exactly quote the arguments of quoups which advocate the usage of "concentration camp". That way, the issue will be with them, not the Wikipedia editors. And I happen to know that http://janm.org/ has this sort of argument on its site. Mackerm 06:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Found it! http://www.janmonline.org/nrc/q&a.html#term Mackerm 06:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contrib by Hour chart

How'd you get/make that? Is there an easy way? Looks real cool :) Ilyanep 18:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes please...and can you show me how to use the script so I can update it myself? (Do I need to use Linux?) Ilyanep 01:18, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Did you fall into a coma or something there? Ilyanep 18:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot. Guess I'm gonna have to stop sleeping to fill in that big empty gap in the middle :). If you ever release the script...please tell me...sounds interesting (and I do have Mandrake Linux. [9.2 as of yet, 10.00 soon). Ilyanep 01:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-fascism

Don't blank articles that are currently being discussed on VfD. RickK 06:48, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Your dispute with 172

When I returned from my wikivacation, I was rather disappointed to discover that you and 172 had gotten into yet another quickpoll. However, I haven't observed any significant problems since then, and 172 reports that you two have privately found a mutually agreeable resolution. Before I do anything else about this, I wanted to confirm this with you. Are you agreed that the present situation is satisfactory, and can we reasonably hope that this dispute will not rear its ugly head again? Please let me know. --Michael Snow 20:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Basically, what I am trying to determine is whether I can safely withdraw my request for arbitration, delete both your RfC pages, and consider the dispute ended. I think 172 feels the dispute is over, particularly because you are no longer "stalking" him.

Michael Snow-- just a correction, I have not been referring to this practice as "stalking" since our rapprochement. In our private correspondence, I gained an understanding of how he had been viewing the conflict. So, I now describe VV's actions and statements based on an assumption of good faith (and on top of that I'll now add competence). However, I worry that if a third party tries to rehash everything, this detente will be jeopardized. Please be careful about what you put in scare quotes. 172 04:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I used stalking because the accusation had been leveled on both sides in the past, and used scare quotes to indicate that I wasn't necessarily endorsing such accusations. I'm glad to hear you have discontinued using it, and even happier to see a commitment to assume good faith and competence. I also hope VeryVerily will use the same assumptions about you. I'm not trying to revisit the past, just determine that it is indeed past, and I have no desire to jeopardize the current situation, which seems to me a significant improvement. --Michael Snow 05:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In case I'm jumping the gun, I don't think that VV should be expected to make a statement reciprocating my comments here. 172 06:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, I was expressing a hope as to how he will conduct himself, not implying that he's required to do anything. Future conduct on all sides will do far more to ensure that this dispute is over than any statements any of us might make. --Michael Snow 16:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your response was a little more uncertain, though perhaps I might have expected that. I would point out that 172 has made statements indicating he would abide by the 3-revert limit in the future and even joined the Harmonious editing club, whose members theoretically agree to "only revert once". If you would also agree to limit yourself to 3 reverts in the future, at least in dealing with 172, we would at least have made some progress.

FYI, I am not asking VV to limit himself to 3 edits on any article. I have no opinion on whether or not he should make this decision. 172 04:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You both would do well to remember that it's not the end of the world if an article temporarily contains information you consider inappropriate or even inaccurate. Instead, you can take the time to discuss ways to reach agreement, recruit other people to the discussion, and follow steps like Wikipedia:Requests for comment (preferably with respect to the article, not the other user).

My /Arbitration page has had quite a bit of work, though I've left it incomplete since the dispute has died down and the arbitration request remains in limbo. Since 172 looked into my contributions and found it, I figured you might do so as well. My motive, as always, is quite simply to get this dispute resolved. As you say, I've been working hard on this, and I'm glad to see that both of you are working more toward this goal than in the past. Anyway, I would be happy to destroy this product of my hard work if we're ready to end this dispute and move on.

About Danny, I believe he is generally conscientious in his activity on Wikipedia, and I think that explains the strong support for him becoming a bureaucrat. One case of incivility, where he used strong language based on his strong feelings about the matter, does not in my mind disqualify him from being a bureaucrat. He did at least later rewrite the statement to remove the abuse, which shows me he recognizes the error; of course, a personal apology to you would have been far better. On this point, I can depart from my usual impartiality and say that your conduct was definitely better than his, though I would recommend that you not now go about calling him "monstrous". I am not "unbothered" by the situation, but for my part I am willing to forgive him, though naturally that's easier for me to do because I am not the offended party.

As for Kevehs, that's a separate dispute I looked at briefly, but it's a tangent I don't care much about and hope not to become involved in. I think my response to 172 about it, which you may already have seen, says all I have to say about that subject. --Michael Snow 21:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)\

I'm okay with long replies (as you might guess from the exchange with UninvitedCompany above your posts on my talk page). When you respond to all of my points, it at least shows that you read what I say carefully. By the way, about your feeling marginalized, you might want to read UninvitedCompany's observations about MeatBall:ForgiveAndForget in that conversation.

We all prove our ability to work well together by actions, not words, but sometimes words can provide a starting point for better actions. People can also be reminded of their words, particularly when the words have been put in writing. Though as indicated above, I do not expect any particular words or formula of commitment from you, and 172 does well to say he does not expect it either. Making demands is rarely a productive approach to disputes.

Your tit-for-tat approach may be understandable in light of your experiences, but it makes it very difficult to de-escalate once a dispute starts. Still, as you show by pulling back from the anarchism dispute, at least you realize that it's not necessary to respond to every last "tat". Naturally, as with starting a dispute, de-escalation requires some willingness to participate from both sides. There have been past lulls in your dispute with 172, but from what I can tell the dispute has mostly escalated steadily, and this is definitely the most prolonged period of de-escalation. For that I commend you both.

I'll decline to discuss the merits of Danny's rewrite, or the signatories to it, because I agree with 172 that we're all better off not rehashing everything that has happened. I will say that though the definition of personal attacks may not be clear, I think the best approach lies in the advice Jimbo has given in some past disputes - though the other side may be blatantly violating policy, keep your own slate absolutely clean. Don't stoop to their level, don't even go near the line, and be patient enough to let their actions convict them in the eyes of the community. --Michael Snow 23:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So that you know, I have withdrawn my request for arbitration and archived both of your RfC pages. Since a comment of yours in support of arbitration is still preserved on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, you may wish to consider making a statement in support of my withdrawal, if you feel it is appropriate. This might serve as a gesture of good will on your part. As before, I'm not trying to require some specific action, and I thank you for your patience in listening to my suggestions. --Michael Snow 04:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

In our correspondence by e-mail, I recall that you expressed your hope that we'd be able to find common ground on some issue. Well, I think that I've found one.

User:Sparky wants to add some tabloid garbage accusing Ronald Reagan of rape and desertion. I kept on removing this section; unfortunately, I just now had to agree to refrain from editing that article. But I bet you can successfully protect encyclopedic standards on the article against Sparky's assault. I'd appreciate it if you took a look. Thanks, 172 17:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

Thanks for following up. Usually I just revert that kind of crap, but that article has lately been such a magnet for it that I thought it important to mention it, rather than just hide the evidence. -- Jmabel 06:11, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the Reagan article. I'll let you know when/if Sparky reinserts the section accusing Reagan of rape. 172 18:06, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fox News

Hello, VV. I'd like to take a moment to again tell you that I wish no animosity between us, and all I want is a good, solid, NPOV article on Fox News. If I offended you in any way, I apologize; though I believe your actions were inappropriate, I do not want to dwell on this incident any further, and you think the same. I set up a poll on Fox News's talk page, so that we may settle this peaceably; I have in addion added it under "Article content" to theCurrent polls page. Thanks and best wishes, Neutrality 06:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I saw your edit on my adminship nom. I'm sorry you feel that way. :( Neutrality 06:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • I was neither itching for a fight nor trying to push a point of view, and I must disagree when it comes to what you say are neutral words. "A study by the media watchdog group FAIR study found..." is more legitimate than "claimed," because "claim" implies uncertainty at best and illegitimacy at worst. "Claim" would be appropriate for a statement of opinion ("FAIR claimed that FOX has ideological biases") but not for statements of fact ("FAIR also claimed since 1998, one out of every 12 episodes of The O'Reilly Factor has featured a segment on Jesse Jackson" makes less sense than "FAIR found...," because it’s a independent fact that can be verified.
  • By the way, I don’t want to delete the Coulter paragraph. Neutrality 06:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • In addition, you placed the Coulter quote in the wrong place. Her column criticizes PIPA, not FAIR.

Why are you reverting Guanaco's attempt to remove double redirects?

Why are you reverting Guanaco's attempt to remove double redirects? Your change on Reddi's user page didn't change the fact is says "USA" only now it double redirects. What's up? - Tεxτurε 20:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because the bot is editing Talk and User pages. See User talk:Guanaco. VV 20:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Didn't know that was a bad thing - Tεxτurε 20:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a bad thing, but moreover it's an unnecessary thing, and so my reasoning is that it's better not to do it on the grounds that it might be a bad thing. Maybe I need to calm down on the bot reverts. VV 20:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, could you show me the double redirect? I don't see one. VV 20:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My apologies. Not a double redirect but an unnecessary redirect. Your revert on Reddi's talk page points to United States of America for "USA" ( [[United States of America|USA]]) but that linked page is a redirect to United States. Guanaco's change would have made it ([[United States|USA]]) and avoid the redirect with no change to the text. - Tεxτurε 20:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, if it's unnecessary to edit Talk and User pages, which it might be, it's doubly unnecessary for you to go and re-edit those pages - why not just get Guanaco to change his/her bot instead? Otherwise I can't see the freaking point... you're just increasing the number of useless edits, AND re-introducing unnecessary redirects. Graft 21:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just a random passing comment: fixing redirects and links to disambiguation pages on talk and user pages isn't usually considered a bad thing - I do it regularly (with links to disambiguation pages) and have done so for a long time. I don't use a bot, but I see no problems with fixing these things either way. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These are all good points, of course; it's just that I disagree with editing other people's signed comments or user pages, even for trivial changes. I realize there are two schools of thought on this, but my preference is to undo potentially improper edits by a bot, which has no feelings of its own anyway. VV 04:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, to respond to Graft's point, I did go to Guanaco first; see User talk:Guanaco. He then said he had changed it, but apparently due to a bug it continued altering Talk pages. VV 04:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

>>>

Hi, Got a note saying you'd replied here to a discussion elsewhere on the 'satanism' article. Can't find the reply. Wassup?

On the vandalism in progress page you wrote This is not vandalism, whatever else it is. VV 10:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC). As I am still fairly new to this place and certainly the first time involved in anything like an "edit war" (something I am rather unhappy about) I would appreciate your advice how to proceed. Refdoc 10:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks I have done RfC three days ago, without getting any comments. I have asked for mediation but got only abuse back from him. I am a bit at my wits end Refdoc 11:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could you at least protect the two pages (in whatever form) and ad a dispute notic ein which will not get deleted immediately ? Refdoc 11:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks ! Refdoc 11:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Same message for GBWR and VV: Would it be possible for both of you to make a concise list of your disagreements on the anti-American page, so that we can try and resolve that conflict? The page has been protected for over a week without any attempt to resolve the dispute.pir 09:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, VV. To avoid any potential edit conflicts, let me explain what I believe re. anti-Americanism. I object to the very specific meaning in which this term is usually used, namely the one which assumes the existence of a racist, irrational ideology that seeks to exterminate America and all things American, analogous to Nazi-style anti-Semitism. Such an ideology does not exist, in fact cannot exist because the American people are ethnically very diverse. Various things that do exist are e.g. reactionary Muslim movements that oppose liberal moral values or secularism, or socialist anti-capitalism, or opposition to an American Empire (what the neo-cons call the responsibility/duty of US global leadership). However these are movements that are directed against certain people's ideas as opposed to these people themselves on the basis of their race ; also they are not based on irrational hatred, they are based on rational objections to political philosophies. The fundamental difference between e.g. an anti-capitalist and an anti-Semite is that the anti-capitalist, to achieve his/her aim, only needs to convince the pro-capitalist (or, in reality, the general public) that capitalism is wrong ; whereas the anti-Semite to achieve his/her aim needs to eliminate Jews themselves. I hope you can see that crucial difference too.

I was thinking about the points you made, and I do admit that anti-American sentiment exists, not in the meaning which I describe above and in which it is always used by the American right, but as one of the expressions of the political movements I mentioned, as well as others. I also agree to some extent with you that opposition to a country's policies often results into a mildly hostile attitude towards any citizens of that country even if these citizens are not all responsible for these policies. For example the country where I come from was occupied by Nazi Germany during WWII, and people suffered a lot during that occupation (e.g. men were forced to fight in the Wehrmacht, dissidents were summarily executed or killed in concentration camps, families were forcibly moved to far-away countries, many women were forced to work in Germany to make up for labour shortages resulting from German men being soldiers, etc.). As a result of these experiences with German policies there is still today a certain anti-German sentiment, especially among older people. However this anti-German sentiment is totally different in its nature from anti-Semitism or other forms of racism.

Well, even if you disagree with my view of "anti-Americanism", I hope that you can see how this is essential for (i.e. it touches the very essence of) the anti-Americanism article, and that it is a widely held view outside the US. I have of course no intention of suppressing the opinions you hold or entering edit wars over this. I think we can work together productively by contextualising these differing views, esp. by stating what the differences are, who they are directed against and who holds them. -pir 10:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Stopthebus18

Reply to your comment on My Talk

Please stop changing articles aganist voted consensus.

Please stop making radical changes to the "Popularity" section of George W. Bush; the community has already determined its content at the talk page. Minor spelling, grammar, and syntax fixes are all right, but do not change the content again without discussing on talk. Neutrality 01:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second this. Your changes are not "minor improvements" since you changed essential parts ("tends to be lower" vs "is much lower" etc.) which were voted on, and your version received 2 votes, Neutrality's 11. Please try to convince people on the talk page before making substantial changes to that part of the article. Gzornenplatz 02:07, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. There were two main options being decided on, and then a third which seemed intermediary gained a flock. This is not a fine enough process to determine every word of the paragraph in question. (Even if it were, polls are not binding.) The information I added was clearly relevant, and the "tends to be lower" gets rid of the POV judgement "much". VV 03:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now that you see others disagreeing with your changes though, could you take the process back to the talk page? Getting the page protected is no solution. How about we vote about the specific sentences? Gzornenplatz 04:23, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

The problem with these "votes" is that they invariably wind up becoming a referendum on George W. Bush, who is very unpopular on Wikipedia. The key is to follow NPOV guidelines: Show both sides, put in language which everyone can agree is accurate. In this case, little need be said: links are provided to statistics which will give the precise answers any reader may seek. As for "consensus", there is no consensus if I disagree with it. And simply hitting "revert" every time I make a change, which is Neutrality's policy, is not going to be tolerated by me, period. VV 04:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But not everyone agrees your version is accurate; and there is no full consensus if anyone disagrees with it. If we cannot get such a consensus, we can only vote on it. Or do you have another idea? Gzornenplatz 04:42, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Can you clarify what about my version is not accurate? If one of the claims is not accurate, perhaps that one can be reworded to your satisfaction, but since you reverted everything, I can only assume you regard all of them as inaccurate or unacceptable. So, what then? Do you disagree that Bush's popularity "tends to be lower"? You may think this understates the case, but that does not make it "inaccurate". So please clarify. VV 05:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it understates the case to the point of being misleading. To me his popularity is quite clearly lower internationally than in the U.S., seeing that he tied with Saddam Hussein as the greatest threat to peace in a U.K. poll etc. Just read this. Gzornenplatz 05:30, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Then why not simply cite the statistics instead of trying to interpret them for the reader, in a potentially controversial way? (FWIW, the poll results I saw say 49% said Saddam is a greater threat than Bush, 32% the opposite, far from a tie and not too surprising for someone who has gained such hate from the left.) VV 06:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I've seen was 45%-45% [8]. I agree with the principle of not interpreting for the reader, but it is hard to avoid any description beyond the raw figures. You previously rejected even my compromise of "relatively unpopular". Do you have a proposal for an uncontroversial wording of that first sentence? Gzornenplatz 06:43, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I saw this in the left-wing Guardian. Different polls, perhaps. I'm not sure what problem you have with "tends to be lower". It's a big world, resistant to broad brushstrokes, and even among the handful surveyed in the cite there were variations; e.g., Bush is very popular in Israel. My wording states that it tends to be lower outside the U.S. (but isn't always everywhere). "Relatively" is ambiguous between "relative to", say, the U.S., and "relatively" in the sense of "very" or "fairly", so isn't as good. I just really don't see what the big deal is about my wording, although maybe there isn't and Neutrality would revert anything. Anyway, is this your only objection? VV 07:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Tends to be lower" is not saying much - that may have applied to many former presidents, but Bush's levels of unpopularity (e.g. 85% disapproval in France and Germany) are unprecedented. "Tends to be lower" might just mean that his popularity is 60% in the U.S. and 55% internationally - lower, but still positive. That does not adequately reflect the reality. And, even if we say "it is much lower", the reader will not expect that it is lower in absolutely every place - it is just the general trend, a few exceptions like Israel notwithstanding. "Relatively" is true in both respects, I think - relative to the U.S. as well as in a more general sense. It's not my only objection, no, I also think that link you removed is relevant. Gzornenplatz 07:47, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

VV, I have filed a complaint aganist you at RfC. Neutrality 04:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I bet you'll get a kick out of this if you haven't seen it already. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Shown on Prime Time TV in Cuba 172 10:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I support V in the above discussion

V's word choice is clearly less POV than the version which won the "vote". Rex071404 01:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contrib By Hour Chart

Could you please update the contrib by hour chart you made for me when you have the time? I believe the chart is at Media:IlyanepContribByHour.png or some similar name. Thanks in advance — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, uhm...you posted the old one (6/21/04). Hate to bother you, but you kinda uploaded the same picture :P. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, never mind...*stupid mozilla browser cache*. Thanks a lot anyways :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the article link. This actually makes Fidel's co-opting of Michael Moore's propaganda film pretty innocuous by comparison. 172 12:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A light warning

Consider this a light warning, since you're an established user and I know you know these things. But if you're asked to discuss a change on the talk page, you should probably discuss it. There's been a request for protection of George W. Bush, which I'm not going to grant, because I think protecting that page would be a bad idea, and because the request was absurdly premature anyway. But it's clear that there's some heavy conflict on the page, and I think some talk page discussion would not be out of line, unproductive as it may turn out to be. :)

I'm already playing traffic cop on John Kerry, and it makes me want to cry, so anything you can do to keep me from playing traffic cop other places would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much. Snowspinner 23:48, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't pretend the situation is good by any stretch of the imagination, though I will refrain from making judgments about user conduct here that could be later read as bias. My advice to you is to propose compromise versions, and to use RfC or other aspects of the dispute resolution process (mediation, etc) as needed. I will offer the same advice to GBWR. Snowspinner 00:08, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Are you aware of the wiki principle that if there does not seem to be consensus about editing there are talk pages where you can discuss and explain, and there is a possibility to make edit summaries or read those of others? In case you want to reply here please let me know at my page as I do not watch user talk pages. Get-back-world-respect 23:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GBWR

Please have your argument with GBWR somewhere other than my talk page. In front of a mediator, for instance. Snowspinner 01:20, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that, sort of transitioned into an argument. I have cut-and-pasted the last round off your page. VV 01:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mediation request

I've tried to convince GBWR to do this as well, and it has proven difficult. So I thought I'd try to convince you to make the request and maybe GBWR will accept it. Will you please make a mediation request with him? Thanks... Snowspinner 13:49, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Re: John Kerry

I am struggling to gain some breathing space on that page. It seems to me that user Neutrality is overly focused on reverting or otherwise aggressively deleting my edits there. User 172 sugegsted this topic may be of interest to you. Would you please review the recent edit history and talk history for John Kerry and offer whatever suggestions that you can? Rex071404 02:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on Rex's page about the dispute being only one word. I assume you're referring to whatever the latest dispute is. I haven't been paying attention to the details lately because I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I'd need to devote substantial time to the arbitration proceeding. (I held off doing so as long as possible, making what I regarded as multiple efforts to effect improvements in less drastic ways. In hindsight, I wish that I'd put in more effort earlier to trying to get Rex blocked.) So, I don't know what particular one-word current dispute you're referring to, but I do know that the John Kerry article has been an unending succession of disputes. I have to doubt that resolving the current one will make everything sweetness and light.

My political differences with Rex may, obviously, be biasing me -- but, trying as best I can to be objective, I still conclude that he has a completely wrong approach to Wikipedia editing. Perhaps you, as someone more identified politically with the right than I am, would be able to say things that Rex would hear. (He once made a reference to him and me being on different planets, a regrettably apt analogy.) If you want to plunge into this, some suggestions for you to get an idea of what I see as the problem: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence, particularly Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#POV inclusions, deletions and modifications, where my level of detail is excruciating but, IMO, worthwhile; and my final attempt to explain Wikiquette to him, at Talk:John Kerry#Rex and Wikipedia. To the extent you think my criticisms are accurate, perhaps your imprimatur would help. To the extent you don't think so, I'd be interested in hearing your disagreement, if you chose to spend the time elaborating, because I'd value your ideas and you might help improve my understanding of Wikiquette. JamesMLane 06:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I won't further impose on your time by commenting point-by-point on what you say, except for the single most important thing: I agree with your view that a new editor should be "approached with a positive attitude and an assumption of good faith." I believe that I did so. If a fair-minded person were, for some incomprehensible reason, to wade through the 500 or so kilobytes of Talk generated in the past month, I would have no trepidation on that score. Be that as it may, I appreciate your willingness to try to communicate with Rex instead of just fleeing from the whole mess, for which no one could blame you. JamesMLane 10:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There comes a point where assurances of future improvements are no longer adequate to forestall corrective action (are you listening, Saddam?). The difference between me and George Bush is that I'm working through our local equivalent of the U.N. By the way, congratulations on your accession to wealth. Please note the fundraising link at the top of the page.  :) JamesMLane 10:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please help

I have been adding comments to the GWB Talk page, where appropriate, to back you up from the whelming tide of Neutrality, et al. Please, if you feel led to, help me out here: [9] A kind word or two would be appreciated Rex071404 05:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll look at what's going on. Of course, my late entry into the fray means I'm not as well versed in the history as many of the people on that page. VV 05:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your recognition of the limitations of your knowledge. I won't burden you with all the details about Rex's numerous transgressions. One of the more recent ones, however, involved you. I may decide to complete my writeup of this incident and add it to the ArbCom page, and some people may see it as putting you in a bad light. Therefore, please feel free to let me know of any respect in which my current draft, at User:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement, is unfair to you. Heck, it's a wiki, edit it yourself if you please! JamesMLane 08:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have added a response re my own role to that page. VV 08:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved your response to User talk:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement and I'm about to sign off. If you want to essay an edit of the draft, feel free, otherwise I'll look at it tomorrow and take account of what you've said. (I'll probably delete that little snideness about you. I was mainly venting. This whole Kerry experience has been very stressful for me. I figured better to blow off steam on the subpage than on Talk:John Kerry.) JamesMLane 08:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second Ropers' complaint

Re: Neutrality Rfc [10]

As it is a fact that Neutrality is moving to higher levels of authority on this Wiki, his name clearly has the potential to add a mistaken level of official imprimature to his edits and/or other actions. I agree that he must change his name.

Additionally, I also agree with Ropers' logic and can personally attest to having had editorial difficulties with Neutrality.

Rex071404 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC

PNAC

Please discuss this at talk. And objectively compare with the pages I cited. neoconservative vs. conservative. def. of hegemony def. of interventionist If we cooperate in good faith and approach the problem rationally and objectively, we can come to agreement on what most accurately and plainly describes reality, irrespective of sentiments. Kevin Baas | talk 01:45, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Let me assure you that I understand and take into account the falliblity of my own mind as much as that of others. Respecting this, I develop and implement strategies to avoid seeping my own bias into material, and likewise to avoid any seeping bias from social manifestations. This is why I prefer academic terminology - because it is more stable; because it is less affected by the sentimental circumstances of the times - it is balanced out by every event throughout history which resides under it's scope, and has a body of knowledge associated with such events,and interpertations, from past and present, of those events. This is how we "learn from history" - because this allows us to stand back from the present emotionally-situated (and thus distorted) context, and see it in a fuller surrounding and causual chain, provided that we can rely upon the general persistence of human psychology and consequent behavior throughout history. Again, in order to overcome the inevitable bias of out present condition, we must stand back from our emotions, and have faith in the legitimacy of recorded history and knowledge. This is why I insist on using academic terminology. I feel that the separating of current events from the continuity of history is a dangerous rejection of the prudence that the passing down of knowledge provides. In sun, academic terminolgy is, because of such accumulated dialogue, more reliable and objective than our imagination. This is again, why I insist that we accept the prudence of generations with good faith, regardless of local sentiment. Kevin Baas | talk 04:43, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Your vote needed at George_W._Bush

Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there any chance you might stop reverting on George W. Bush, or do I have to file a request for arbitration? Gzornenplatz 10:37, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

New Bush vote now under way - please vote

Here [11]

Rex071404 15:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Watch the rv's at George_W._Bush

There is an anti-Bush, pro-Kerry crowd lurking who will complain to ArbCom and get you blocked from editing there. They did it to me on John Kerry.

What happens is, they tag-team revert you, then they file an RfA and get you blocked.

Rex071404 17:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote 2004 links

See interesting Vote 2004 links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rex071404

Rex071404 05:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Information specific to Neutrality 08.17.2004

On this page here Neutrality admits that he was involved in an "edit war" about Fox News. At this page section here Neutrality is told by Fred Bauder that moving (evidence) "statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate". At this page section here on August 13th, 2004 (only four days ago!) he was warned and admonished by Guanaco for "You have reverted John Kerry nine times in 24 hours". Also, at this link here you can find this sentence; "C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it." by Neutrality (from July 15th, 2004).

Let the record about these episodes, speak for itself. Rex071404 06:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I object to the basis of this complaint against VV as being unfounded and fraudulent. As another editor who has been recently active on the George_W._Bush page, I have been watching and measuring the activity on the talk page there. I can tell you that the comments and questions I raise, do not garner full participation from the same various editors who now complain about VV. Suffice it to say, because these various editors refuse to deliberate, they ought not to be allowed to complain about VV at this time. I recently ran into revert war trouble at John Kerry and found the same symptom there: A few loosely aligned pro-Democrat edtitors reach a partial consensus among themselves, and then close their minds to even the most well reasoned and fact-supported rebuttals. Rex071404 07:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily

This user has been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment for some time but has not changed his behaviour of reverting parts of George W. Bush against talk page consensus (where polls have gone 20-3 and 5-0 against him), causing the page to be protected regularly. I suggest putting him on a strict three-revert limit, if not excluding him from editing the Bush page entirely. Gzornenplatz 14:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

I also request that user VeryVerily be examined by the arbitration committee. I am particularly concerned with the user's conduct on the George W. Bush page. Kevin Baas | talk 19:51, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

I am concerned with the user's:

• complete disregard for consensus
• complete disregard for the 3-revert rule; constant reversions
• failure to discuss changes, justify edits, make reasoned arguments, address reasoned arguments, etc.
• insertion of POV
• suppression of relevant and significant information
• complete obstinacy in this conduct

Kevin Baas | talk 01:42, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

---

I'd like to note that I don't think VV's conduct can be reasonably looked at without looking at the larger issue of his treatment by the community at large, and, specifically, by people who are supposed to be in the position of settling disputes. I refer here to [12], which I think probably had the effect of making both requests for comment and mediation ineffective options for VeryVerily. I'm not asking for sanction against Danny (Or against Mirv or Hephestos, both of whom later signed this summary), but I think that this action and the consequences it probably had for dispute resolution with VV need to be taken into account. Snowspinner 16:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Evidence

• [13] - Page history of George W. Bush showing lots of reverts and four page protections. Notice edit summaries. Notice consistency of user conduct.
• [14] –page history, anti-american sentiment
• [15] –page history, u.s. presidential election

Dialogue

• Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_11 Notice two instances of strong and explicit consensus.
• Talk:anti-American sentiment
• Talk:U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Scrub_list.2C_numbers
• User talk:Stevertigo
• User talk:Snowspinner
• User_talk:Gzornenplatz
• User_talk:VeryVerily
• User_talk:VeryVerily/archive (archived 2004 Aug 21)

The forgoing is from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I am sorry that I just noticed that you were not notified of this on your talk page. You may make a short response on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and may also request relief regarding those how have made complaints against you, and others such as User:Neutrality who are involved in the matter. Fred Bauder 19:05, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please Stop!

Read this (and see GWB talk) before you revert any more:

Uh Consensus means we are supposed to try to understand and agree

It seems that each "vote" or discussion falls into camps divided along the pro-Bush and anti-Bush lines. Is this honest dialog? Is there a real attempt to reach consensus? I feel that Kevin Baas in particular is convinced that Bush (and associates) pro-actively schemed in 2000 to wrongly block African-American voters so as to steal the election. I feel this because KB seems to have an extreme desire to push the "disenfranchised" angle. I also feel that this view of his adds a POV which makes gaining consensus impossible. Question for group: Why are we not allowing both premises to be in the sentences? Why must ONLY the "there was 'disenfranchisment' therefore Bush cheated" angle be emphasized? To me, reaching consensus means respecting each others views and attempting to combine them. I have explained my views to Kevin about this, his response was:

"Alright rex, it doesn't look like this conversation is going anywhere. I have said nothing that can be construed to be the least bit controversial, and I stand by it unperturbed. I have done my best to communicate with you. There is nothing more that can be said. The facts are as they are. So be it. Kevin Baas | talk 06:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)" [16].

That does not sound to me like he is actually trying to appreciate and incoporate into the article all view points. The purpose of a poll (not a "vote" - like someone changed the title to) is to find out where we stand, not shout-down dissent. We are supposed to homogonize our views into an acceptable text, not "vote" on who to weed out. I have posted detailed thoughts as to why I feel the term "disenfranchised" ought not to be included (or at the least, not made to be too greatly emphasized). This logic carries over to my concerns about "Validity". Also, I have asked other questions and raised other points above. Collaborative editing requires much dialog. I am talking here, what about the rest of you?

Also please take note of this Edit Smmary [17] by Kevin Bass "Business and political career - put para on consensus, pending resolution of changes via vote on talk page.)". It's clear from this that Kevin's aim is to silence dissenters via a "voting" process rather than try to reach a meeting of the minds. That is not collaboration and any so-called "consensus" reached that way is fraudulent.

Rex071404 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

minor point, no one changed the title -- you didn't post a title (I did). - Wolfman

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimous agreement, sometimes that can't be achieved. You logically can't both include the word 'disenfranchised' and not include it. Looking up, I see that people have dialogued with you quite a bit about it. It's disingenous and unfair to suggest that the other editors have been unwilling to talk (see you last line above. Wolfman 17:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is the text of the edit I made just now

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

It is I feel more accurate than the Kevin Bass version, but still incoporates his preferred verbiage, including "The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed". I would be satisified to accept this.

And frankly, this is a big concession from me because it would be more truthful to say:

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. At the request of the Gore campaign, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

Rex071404 17:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I'm not interested in interfering with this discussion between you two, I would like to point out a minor correction: The version that Rex calls "the Kevin Bass version" (and btw, it's Baas, rather than Bass. people misspell my last name a lot, so it doesn't bother me) was actually written by Neutrality, and got the most votes. The version that I (Kevin Baas) suggested didn't get as many votes, so I don't think that it should be put into the article. Kevin Baas | talk 18:52, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Unprotection

FOX News has been unprotected based on your request. --Michael Snow 16:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cool. VV 19:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex arbitration

Thanks for having taken the time to comment on User:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement. Having cooled off some, I've now gotten around to rewriting it. I think the new version takes account of your comment by noting that both sides in the edit war had raised allegations of bad faith. I hope you'll find it unobjectionable -- you've been given less prominence in this rewrite, a "demotion" that you'll probably like! I haven't yet shipped this off to the ArbCom, so please let me know if you have any problems with it. JamesMLane 14:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, VV.

Why are you reverting my changes to Anti-American sentiment? Neutrality 03:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

)

Bush?

What's up with all the mass reverts? I'm haven't really been keeping up with much on that page, so there may be underlying issues I don't get. But at least a lot of the edits by kevin baas seemed productive and reasonably explained to me. I rv'd once, but should have asked for info first -- which I'm doing now.

At the very least, I don't understand why you want to deny that Bush got into Harvard shadily, when that article doesn't allege it. It's kind of like saying that no one has publicly accused Bush of beating his dog. Well see, now I'm wondering if he does.Wolfman 22:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it does seem a bit daft to have an article, say "edit it" and then have some person such as yourself simply undo what Ive done. If this rather bullyish tendency is the way of things here, I dont think this will be a place I or anyone else should be spending much time on at all. JDH

Well, its not a good opening as it is -- it rather looks like a potted plant, teetering on the lower step of a tenenment foyer. I dont see all to many people taking to the streets to defend "democide" from being called "genocide." It seems a rather strange proposition that someone would protest the definition of genocide on any comparable scale that people might protest the act itself. JDH

Edits to Bush

VV Whereas before I would try to cut and paste text in such a way as to preserve unrelated edits, the constant reverting you (KB) have engaged in have made me unwilling to take the time to preserve your other edits. This accounts for some of what is below.

Alright, one at a time, For each reason, do you dispute (a) the accuracy of the reason, and if so, on what grounds, or, if not, (b) that the reason is sufficient cause for the change, and if so, on what grounds.

• Removal of "There are no public reports suggesting...":

  Reason: This is like saying "There are no reports that bush is a reptillian humanoid." It is completely random. The article makes no such accusations.

  VV As I recall, it did, and it is a common accusation, whether in the article or not. But I have no strong opinion on that.

  It might have before, but i don't see it anywhere in there now. The point, which wolfman has made also, is that you're shooting yourself in the foot with that one. Many people are unaware of these accusations, and only become aware by hearing "I do not beat my dog.". Furthermore, it tacitly validates the accusations, because it shows that they were threatening enough to provoke a response. Really, I think it does more damage than good to people's opinion of Bush. I guess if you want to leave it in, fine. It's not a big issue for me. I just think it's kind of awkward. Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

  VV I don't see how I'm shooting myself in the foot, unless you think I'm on a pro-Bush crusade. But I didn't add that line, anyway; I only reverted it back.

• Florida election controversy: restore consensus.

  Reason: consensus.

• Public perception: restore consensus.

  Reason: consensus.

  VV Answered ad nauseam.

  I answered these two below. Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

• Removal of: "office, though it did average 5.6% across the full length of Clinton's terms in"

  Reason: this article is not about clinton. The insertion is completely irrelevant and does not inform the reader about bush.

  VV The article claims unemployment going up under Bush, by selective citation, which this extra info counterbalances. Is this not obvious?

  1. Well why compare it to clinton, among all of the presidents?
  2. Why have bush's start and end figures, and clinton's avg. figures? They should both by avg. or both start and end, so that people can make a direct comparison.
  3. What do you mean by selective citation? Unemployment rate is a very standard statistic. Just because it goes up or down doesn't mean that the article is unbalanced. The choice of putting unemployment rate in there is neutral, because it is relevant and significant, has an equal chance of being "good" or "bad", and would easily belong on every president's article.
  4. Honestly, I really don't think we should compare. This is the only instance in this entire article where another president is mentioned, and likewise where a comparison of performance is made. That is really my main problem with it. I don't think it belongs. Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

  VV Yes, it's unbalanced to cite two unrepresentative statistics. The average over Clinton's term is a better benchmark for the immediate effect of Bush's election than the figure at one point which is clearly unusually low. Clinton is Bush's predecessor, obviously. Yes, it would be better to have Bush's av figure.

  Wolfman finally put figures in that can be compared, so you don't have to worry about that aspect anymore. Kevin Baas | talk 17:28, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

• Foreign policy: mention of vice president and secretary of defense.

  Reason:two of most prominent positions in the white house, and the most publicly discussed (and seemingly active) members of the bush administration. "the bush-cheney-rumsfield team". also the fact they they are both founders of PNAC is very significant

  VV See explanation above. I haven't picked through that para, although I assume your version would need NPOV'ing, since you wrote it.

• Foreign policy: mention of critism of critics, "threat to world peace".

  Reason: This is the predominant criticism.

  VV I don't agree, and it's just empty rhetoric. Also, in-depth discussion of the PNAC does not belong here, anymore than would coverage of The Weekly Standard.

  It's a one-liner. I wouldn't call that "in-depth". It's not empty rhetoric. It's what a whole lot of people (mostly outside of the U.S.) believe. I don't think they'd be too happy with you calling their beliefs "empty rhetoric". Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

  VV I may believe Clinton is a sociopath, as may others, but putting that "Critics believe that Clinton's amoral behavior indicates he is a sociopath" is over the top. VV 23:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  It's not a matter of "over-the-top" or what have you. it's a matter of what is. if a significant amount of people actually thought that about clinton, then i'd say that it should very well be in the clinton article.

  Regardless, I think it's a poor analogy. People don't think that bush is a sociopath, they just think that his policies are not very well though out. they don't think it's intentional. they just think that it's dangerously unpragmatic - foreign policy is a tricky and sensitive thing. Humans are dangerous animals. he's human, that's all - no surprise here. they're not making any unreasonable criticisms. Perhaps it seems unreasonable to you simply because it's your country.(i'm assuming you're american) what if it was someone else's country? would it seem as unreasonable then? Kevin Baas | talk 23:50, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

• Domestic policy, economy: Insertion of facts about tax-income distribution, by non-partisian authority.

  Reason: very relevant and significant.

• Domestic policy, economy: Insertion of fact about unprecedented statement by ten nobel prize laurates and over 450 economists.

  Reason: very relevant and significant.

  VV Again, see above. I haven't picked through this to evaluate its bias, which I'm sure is there. VV 22:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Baas | talk 16:16, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Thanks, VV. Since you said some of the changes were inadvertent, just take the time to selectively revert, please, and RESPECT CONSENSUS. I am more concerned with consensus than my edits, because consensus is everyone's edits, and you are disrepecting all of the other contributors by disrespecting it. I will not tolerate any user thinking that they are more right than all the other contributors put together. Your "reasoning" for disrespecting consensus, obviously, I will never be satisfied with. Why? Because I give it equal weight as everyone else's reasoning. That is only rational, and you should not be surprised by it. Since, I give each person's opinion equal weight (upon the scale of justice, if you will), I allow no-one, not even someone who i completely agree with, not even myself, to consider themselves above the sum total of those weights. I assure you, that if your version had consensus, and someone else was behaving as you are, I would treat them the same way that I am treating you: I would protect the consensus, regardless of what my opinion of it was.

"what does explanation above" mean? is that that those changes were inadvertent?

which ones are (a) and which ones (b)?

I'll try to respond to them in particular, i wanted to get my first response to you quickly. Kevin Baas | talk 22:28, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

"Explanation above" refers to my opening comments "Whereas before...", where I also noted why I'm not selectively reverting, in addition to the reason of my suspicions about the new material you added (which I'll get to when the other stuff dies down). VV 22:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And btw, feel free to pick at my language on my edits. Trim them, perhaps, without removing crucial information. Or balance them out with a comparable source on the same subject, or what have you. just please don't outright remove them without first demonstrating that they are either irrelevant, insignificant, or unrepresentative. Again, go ahead and pick at my edits, respectfully. Try to make edits that you think will be agreeable. i'll let reasonable changes stand. Kevin Baas | talk 22:36, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

So will I. VV 00:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your reversion of George W. Bush

Dear VV -- I've noticed that after I unprotected the article, the first edit was your reversion of Kevin Baas's edits to your last version -- i.e., it appears as though you're restarting the revert war immediately.

I think it would be very helpful if you could work on some compromise between the two version. E.g., where you removed the detail on the Florida controversy and the Supreme Court and replaced it with a phrase about Gore's concession. I think that this could be a good place for you to work on a compromise between the two versions.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are two contrary takes. One, yes you're of course right that reverting right after protection risks restarting the conflict. But on the flip side protection on a certain version does not mean that version "wins" and should be kept afterwards. I'll start by restoring some of kb's edits, although I doubt it will help. VV 20:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi VV -- thanks for the reply and for taking my suggestion to heart. I will say, though, that I don't believe in m:The Wrong Version and that protections doesn't mean a temporary "win" for "one side." It's just freezing the state of the article temporarily (and ideally, arbitrarily, although I know this isn't always true in practice), and that int is only for a very short period in the overall life of the article. And overall, I don't believe that a certain version should be kept afterwards -- just that it should be edited by all involved in a spirit of collaboration, and that even if one editor refuses to behave that way, others should "turn the other cheek" whilst simultaneously widening the groups of people working on the articl, so that it doesn't remain a 1:1 conflict.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please respond to the section above on bush.

Please respond to the section above on bush. Kevin Baas | talk 22:02, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Questions about your request for comment

1. Has he ever blocked someone before against policy or was this an isolated incidence?
2. Have you, or anyone tried to resolve the matter before the rfc - did you send him an email, edit his talk page - that kind of thing? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Not to my knowledge. I paged through the block log, and only saw one other suspicious block (an IP # for two weeks), which I don't know about. I haven't looked further back in time.
2. I was unable to write him a reply to his note because I found out I was blocked when I was trying to. However, I did post to the mailing list and (after going anonymous) the village pump, where he might have seen it. I asked others to unblock since I figured my luck was better with a third party than trying to convince Aevar. Grunt posted a note on his talk page, which he replied to rather airily, as did Michael Snow. Anyway, I don't believe there is any such requirement for reporting admin actions; an abuse of admin powers is a serious matter regardless of whether one "talks it over" with the admin in question. VV 00:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've looked at his user page and agree that his reply to Grunt wasn't very helpful. But I do believe admins should be given the same deal as everyone else. I routinely tell vandals "do that again and I'll block you" I think admins should be told "do that again and I'll start a rfc". Anway I wont comment on the rfc until tomorrow to give him a chance to explain himself.

As for you. Clearly you are very upset. I would be too if someone had blocked me. But think on this - you've allready won because you were unblocked almost straight away. The block was a minor inconvenience - nothing more. I understand you were in an edit war before you were blocked? Perhaps a cooling off period isn't such a bad idea. It should have been enforced through protection rather than banning, but the point it - revert wars are usually bad. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's not so awful to be "dragged in" when things seem to work out pretty quickly afterwards. Just for your information, as perhaps you have already figured out, what happened with the unblocking is that Ævar unblocked the IP autoblock that resulted from your attempts to edit. Apparently he thought what he was doing would also unblock you. I noted this on the RfC listing for reference. Interestingly enough, it looks like his (failed) unblock was actually before you started casting around for some admin to unblock you (unless there are other contributions than that one IP). As to why nobody else stepped up, well of course you know your own reputation, and then some of the people you asked have gotten into enough controversy over blocking/unblocking that maybe they didn't want to take this one on. But after a quick look it turned out to be pretty clearcut, as you said.

Also, since apparently you think this issue is now resolved, I wanted to ask you - do you want that RfC page kept, or deleted? Personally, I would say this is a great situation for a complete forgive and forget and delete the page, because I believe Ævar just made a mistake and clearly won't repeat it. But I'll defer to your wishes if you prefer otherwise.

Incidentally, I don't use IRC either, or I probably would have seen any discussion there. Still, because the chain of events on the wiki alone seemed to be missing some pieces (like why is Ævar suddenly blocking someone he's barely ever interacted with over a revert war on an article he has no attachment to) I figured it had to be involved somehow and thought Ævar might have talked to you there. That's likely where Node made the request to have you blocked.

Now that I look at it, playing mediator/referee/whatever on Talk:Henry Kissinger doesn't sound nearly as "unappealing" as some disputes I've seen. Shockingly, there was even some passably civil discussion happening on the talk page around the time of the revert war - just not during it, but already an encouraging sign. And it seems pretty easy for me to imagine what I think could be a good resolution. --Michael Snow 05:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In terms of reputation, I was mostly getting at that you're known for being involved in politically charged disputes over NPOV, and for participating in revert wars. That makes you a polarizing influence when new disputes come up, and people with a distaste for conflict may be reluctant to be seen as "on your side" in a dispute, regardless of whether they might agree with you on the merits in a less contentious atmosphere. Which leaves just the regular supporters and critics, many of whom are equally polarizing. Like all politics, wiki disputes have a capacity for vicious cycles like this.

I'm pretty confident the connection is IRC. Node has stated his location as Phoenix, and Ævar has indicated that he's in Denmark. And yes, you would have been better off reverting to your in-between version rather than Stargoat's complete removal of the quote. It's a lot easier to cast someone in a negative light when they're just deleting content rather than attempting to improve it.

Finally, you were definitely right to delist the RfC. The dispute it was about got resolved, so it serves no purpose anymore. Meddling in the status of your own listing could be a conflict of interest, but the fact that people raised your behavior as an issue doesn't make this one a listing about you. --Michael Snow 17:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello VV. I am very astonished by your conduct. I do not know what to say. I really don't know how to make you respect other people. I really don't know how to make you understand the virtue of the policies here. I am at a loss here. Though I try and I try, I can't seem to figure out how to interact with a person of your conduct. Kevin Baas | talk 00:47, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Let me butt in here >> Kevin Baas: I disagree with that you are saying to VV. I think there is an entrenched pro-Kerry cabal here which goes out of its' way to slander Bush and make editing difficult for those who don't toe the dem/liberal party line. My observations of the edits over at George W. Bush lead me to believe that VV has been under inordinate pressure to capitulate to this cabal and yet, in the face of that, he has kept of a high measure of good form. Frankly KB, I am appalled at your heavy handed lambasting of VV. I think you need to learn how to have more plyability (if not flexibility) in dealing with editors who you've targeted as being in a minority. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are the one reverting consensus. I have told you a ridiculous number of times that I will always protect the consensus. I have given you my reasons. If you have somehow formed the idea in your head that your endless revert war against the community will be at all effective, then I think you should seriously reconsider the logic of this proposition. If you think your behavior is acceptable, or that conduct counter to the policies of this forum will be tolerated, you should likewise reconsider. Kevin Baas | talk 01:00, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

You might also notice that I am not the only person who is restoring consensus, nor am I the only person constituting this consensus. Kevin Baas | talk 01:02, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

I'm not VV, but I need to point out that you are not supporting your arguments here; you are simply making accusations without proof. Samboy 02:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are my arguments, and how are they not supported? What accusations are unsubstantiated?

VV is well aware of the evidence. If you're interested, you can take a look at the george w. bush talk page, the most recent two archives for the talk page, and the page history dating back over a month. You may also want to look at the RfC for VV. Kevin Baas | talk 16:50, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

VV, regarding "versions of consensus". Yes, we clearly have a different understanding of what consensus means. You think that consensus means your opinion, regardless of what anybody else thinks. I think that consensus means each person's opinion is given equal weight. It is clear that these two definitions are incompatible. But perhaps Game theory might provide some insight. Kevin Baas | talk 17:27, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

This is getting boring. Dream up a new form of posturing or stop posting on my Talk page. VV 17:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who's doing the posturing? Take a look at Game theory. Do you understand how it's relevant? I'll give you an example: if everyone goes 50 mph down a road, there are no accidents, and everyone gets to their destination faster. However, if some people go much faster, there are accidents, and everyone gets to their destination slower. Do you see how game theory applies in this situation? Kevin Baas | talk 17:51, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Posturing, such as "You think that consensus means your opinion", etc. Yes, I'm quite familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma type situations, and indeed I adopt a strategy similar to "tit-for-tat". You're defecting, and so so am I. VV 18:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you are refering to the iterated prisoner's dilemna, than your violation of the "assume good faith policy" (which you have openly admitted to on my talk page) clearly demonstrates that you are, in fact, not adopting said strategy. But that is a different part of game theory than I was refering to. Kevin Baas | talk 18:38, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

And regarding "You think that consensus means your opinion" - I was stated what is evident de facto. Kevin Baas | talk 18:41, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

This is an example of posturing. And I stated on your Talk page that your past behavior makes it impossible for me to assume good faith, which incidentally is not a "policy" but advice. VV 19:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Policy/advice/ettiquete - irrelevant. Tit-for-tat? I assume good faith, you don't. Is that tit-for-tat? Kevin Baas | talk 19:20, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

I see, so your attribution of what is "de facto" evident showed good faith? At any rate, by tit-for-tat I did not mean to include surrendering my power of judgement. If you care for a longer explanation, see [18]. By the way, your first sentence is an example of what I mean by posturing. VV 19:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stating that the particular characterization of "assume good faith" as policy/advice/ettiquete/what-have-you is not important to what i meant to say is not, by any stretch of the imagination, posturing. regarding "surrendering your power of judgement" - i do not see what this phrase has to do with anything that we are discussing. regarding "attribution" and "de facto" - that is an oxymoron. one cannot attribute de facto; the act of attribution makes something de jure. My point is, that you can say whatever you want, you can characterize things however you like, that is all de jure. But your actions don't neccessary correspond with any of that. your actions, taken alone, constitute the de facto, and that is what is relevant in a discussion regarding conduct. Kevin Baas | talk 19:49, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

This is unadulterated nonsense. I was quoting your use of de facto; stop wasting my time with irrelevant, frivolous, and incorrect technical points, and if you care about such nitpickings then spell etiquette correctly. VV 06:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

anti-American sentiment

Hi there,

Though of a diametrically opposed view to yourself, I have no particular exasperation at the lack of progress working out US-orientated articles (it's not the be-all and end-all of the Universe, and Wikipedia will not be swaying the US presidential election!!!). However, that said, I did feel compelled to make some suggestions, and add some discussion to Talk:Anti-American sentiment. I would be most interested to hear your responses, considering your stance.

Regards, zoney ███ talk 15:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. It's always worth standing up for your views (Wikipedia actually needs this from Wikipedians or NPOV could never be established), but don't let it get you down when everything seems to be against you. You can always come back tomorrow, after a break and a good sleep, and try again!

Arb, notice

FWIW, I noticed it, and I initially felt inclined to notify you, but I felt that it was the requestor's responsibility, so I recused myself. Everyone seems to have waited it out. Kevin Baas | talk 20:16, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Please vote on GWB ASAP

here Rex071404 00:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Gzornenplatz has requested mediation with you over reversions of George W. Bush. It would be appreciated if you could reply as to whether or not you accept, over at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Ambi 05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfC on Axis of evil / Asses of evil filed

See RfC here regarding this:

Axis of evil Should "AssesOfEvil.png" (see image on this page) be included in the article under guise of "parody"?

File:AssesOfEvil.png

Your comments are appreciated.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 05:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aren't you guys having enough trouble? Fred Bauder 11:41, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean? VV 18:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An apology.

I'm sorry Gzornenplatz is using requests for mediation as a forum to personally attack you. His behavior is unacceptable, and I certainly did not intend for this to happen. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? How do you read a personal attack into anything I said there? You better substantiate this accusation, or take it back. Gzornenplatz 19:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Hey there, you're being very naughty breaking the revert rule at Henry Kissinger. Go stand in a corner. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:40, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Well, I'm not thrilled to get dragged into this, but the 3-revert limit isn't one of the listed justifications for blocking people, and I support the idea that we should rely on explicit policy to justify blocks. Is the message above all the warning he gave you, or was there more on IRC or something? Seems sort of cryptic as the prelude to blocking. You know our guidelines, of course, but if you were a new user I would like to see something more explicit ("vandalize Wikipedia again and you'll be blocked!").

Of course, if we were enforcing the 3-revert limit with blocks I would have been happy to block you myself. Instead, we use page protection, and I protected the page once I could figure out what the fuss was about (no complaints about The Wrong Version, please). Anyway, welcome back (in a manner of speaking, since judging by the page history you hardly left, though I suppose the block may have slowed you down just a little). --Michael Snow 23:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Crank editor

Gzornenplatz has been stalking me ever since the most recent deletion attempt on the Empire of Atlantium article, which appears to have caused him/her to initiate some sort of crusade - he/she appears to believe that everything I post relating to micronations is somehow "self promotional" unless it conforms to his POV (ie, "micronations are irrelevant rubbish"), and unless every second word is in inverted commas. I believe he/she has used highly questionable means on several occasions while waging his/her campaign (the sort that warrant banning) - I have taken this up with one of the developers and am awaiting a response. Several days age he/she began interpolating false data into the Micronation article opening paragraph which resulted in protection being necessitated. These interpolations were done without reference to sources quoted by me on the talk page that show the interpolations to be false. In the past day or so he/she has been attempting to delete a valid external link from Republic of Minerva, Sedang and Hutt River Province. I have restored them, and posted reasons why to talk pages - to which he he/she has responded with another rant concerning my "self promotion". --Gene_poole 22:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is certainly interesting to know that others have been stalked by Gzornenplatz. I've heard the same story from one other editor in the past few days too, so this is obviously a pattern of behaviour. Would you be prepared to jointly take him to arbitration with me on that basis? I've been compiling a huge volume of data against him recently, and I'm particularly keen to expose his use of techniques that will get him/her an instant ban. These actions, if they are verified, go well beyond anything that call for simple mediation. I'm happy to discuss this in more detail offline: [19] --Gene_poole 01:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution

Hi VV. Edits from 24.7.126.117 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 02:04, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Contrib By Hour

Hi -- if you have the time, can you please update my contib by hour chart? Thanks a lot. (BTW, I've been doing a lot of edits around midnight, aroung 5 or 6 AM UTC, so it's should rise there). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll get to it after I deal with a few other things. VV 00:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, I'm in no rush. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Despite all this, are you still willing to press ahead with mediation? If so, do you have any preferences for a mediator?

Kevin Baas has suggested Cimon Avaro, Dante Alighieri, llywch, or moink. Ambi 07:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Statutes of limitation

Strictly speaking, there isn't any for RfC, and I would rather not pile up procedures to the point that rules override common sense, as they sometimes threaten to do. In theory at least, the RfC stage should still be more about finding ways to fix the problem, instead of being a weapon to be used against "people who don't cooperate with what I want to do". Regardless, I think archiving it last time was correct, and since Kevin Baas has only dragged it back out and not added anything new, it's even more stale now. At this point, it looks like you two are still debating with each other, but the RfC listing is old news and if he wants to push the issue publicly again, he should start over from the beginning. So good luck with mediation or whatever course the matter takes.

I would say that calling it to the attention of someone else is better than archiving it yourself, so thanks for mentioning it. Making judgment calls when you have a personal involvement always smells bad to people, even if the judgment is correct. If I recall, that was one of the things that helped exacerbate the problems between you and 172 once upon a time.

The reputation I described earlier is extrapolated, I suppose you could say. It's not meant in the sense that people are constantly discussing you behind your back (not an easy thing here anyway). Rather, I'm restating basic information that people would probably recognize assuming they have some familiarity with you. How widely that "reputation" is distributed is a different question, but since there are many people who regularly read about and study up on active Wikipedia controversies, without necessarily getting personally involved, it has undoubtedly reached people you've not interacted with directly. Requests for adminship is a good place to get a sense of how reputations manifest themselves here, both in type and strength; different candidates show up differently not just in whether they're controversial, but their activity patterns produce different levels of intensity. Anyway, by commenting on your reputation I mean no offense and I'm not trying to be judgmental, rather I'm trying to describe my observations for you. --Michael Snow 05:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kevin told me he was restoring the listing primarily because the underlying dispute is still active (I don't think there's any argument about that), but has indicated that he accepts the decision to archive it. --Michael Snow 18:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to mediate the dispute over George W. Bush -- Please Reply at RfM

I am willing to mediate the dispute over George W. Bush listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#VeryVerily_and_Gzornenplatz.2C_Kevin_Baas if I am an acceptable choice.

Please indicate if I am an acceptable choice. If not, please indicate specifically who would be, and we can begin.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adminship nomination

Hi, are you aware that somebody has just put you up as a candidate on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? I don't know how you feel about this, but I think you probably already know that you wouldn't receive consensus support, and the nomination is not really a good idea. If I knew that you were opposed, I would cancel or remove the nomination myself, but for now that would be premature. Anyway, I really wish people would follow instructions and actually ask permission before nominating people. --Michael Snow 22:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's not irregular at all for nominees to leave nominations up for a while before making up their minds how to respond. All in all, I think you handled the situation very well. My concern is mostly that quite a few people who are in similar positions positively object to being nominated because they know that it will just promote an attack-fest. That's why I consider it important that people at least ask for permission before nominating.

While nominations are sometimes removed by others when consensus support is obviously lacking, on RfA I often find it best to defer to the nominee's wishes. In the past, I've removed at least one nomination on sight because I knew the nominee would object and the discussion would quickly turn ugly. On the more contentious nominations, the bulk of the damage is indeed done fairly quickly by the initial swarm, but even later there will still be more piling on. I can think of at least a few people who I would have expected to add some vehement opposition had things continued. --Michael Snow 16:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my adminship nomination. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger

Acting in response to a request from User:Stargoat, I've unprotected Henry Kissinger (after mistakenly editing it myself before seeing the protection, though all I did was add links). Just thought I'd notify those who were active on Talk:Henry Kissinger. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:51, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. VV 23:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's latest

Neutrality posted a comment to User talk:Rex071404. By this edit, Rex changed it, to make it appear that Neutrality was confessing to "intentionally causing trouble." Neutrality tried to correct it, but Rex reverted and reverted and reverted to keep his falsehood in. When Lyellin mildly remonstrated with Rex over this, Rex responded with this edit, putting harsh words in Lyellin's mouth as well.

I mention all this because you seem to be about the only person on Wikipedia who's had any contact with Rex whom he doesn't regard as being out to get him. If you were to drop Rex a note, letting him know that this behavior is completely over the top, perhaps he'd desist. It's obviously not your problem and has no claim on your time, but if you were to invest a couple minutes now, you could conceivably save a lot of other people a lot of time down the road. Thanks for considering it. JamesMLane 18:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You might as well not bother. Soon after I left you the above message, Rex indulged himself in this edit, his most vile yet. As a result, the matter is now in RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rex0714042.

By the way, I hope this was clear in my intial post, but I didn't raise the matter here because I thought you had anything to do with Rex's misconduct or because I thought you've ever done anything like that. Quite the contrary -- I think that, although your political views seem closer to Rex's than to mine, you have the basic civility that he lacks. I feel sorry for you because sometimes, finding yourself on the same side as Rex, you'll be adversely impacted by the way he makes everyone on that side look unreasonable. It's guilt by association, and completely unfair to responsible conservatives, but as a practical matter, I expect Rex will often have that effect. JamesMLane 21:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey VV, thanks for talking with Rex. I really liked the advice you gave him. If he took it, I would quickly rescind my endorsement. However, I am not satisfied with his so-called "apology", which reads really more like an accusation and a duplicitous deferal of guilt than anything else. But again, I appreciate your genuine effort. It would save all of us a lot of trouble if it could be made effective. Thank you. Kevin Baas | talk 03:34, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Oh, and I was refering to his "apology" on the RfA page. Kevin Baas | talk 03:52, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

I find his apology reasonable. To me it seems like a policy misunderstanding: he thought his Talk page was his private grounds for having fun if he wanted, but in fact putting fake remarks there is not permissible. He seems to get that now. VV 20:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was refering to the one that is now crossed-off. Kevin Baas | talk 14:30, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

George Bush POV

Please stop making POV edits to George W. Bush. It is rather obvious that you support him, but Wikipedia has to maintain NPOV. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 20:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please don't delete posts from your talk page, and how is my post "posturing"? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 20:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are calling my edits POV when they're not. In general, I don't feel obliged to leave frivolous charges on my Talk page. VV 20:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are above WP:3RR by my count.--Eloquence*

So are you. VV 21:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence is not above three reverts per day on the GWB page. Kevin Baas | talk 22:41, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

I counted five. VV 22:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uno [20], dous [21], tres [22]. Kevin Baas | talk 22:47, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Ah, I see! My mistake. Kevin Baas | talk 22:48, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

In response to VV's first post in this section: See my post on Talk:George W. Bush. Then I want you to look me in the eye (metaphorically) and tell me that your edits to that page are not POV. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 16:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have responded on that page. VV 22:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Griko

Can you please explain what's the point of moving "Griko" to "Griko language"? Is this part of some regulation? Thanks.

It's just the standard for Wikipedia articles on languages. See English language, French language, etc. I don't think it's a great idea myself, but oh well. VV 15:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, but you'd better take care of the redirects to. Etz Haim 15:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The double redirects are the only real "problems", but I've gone ahead and done them all anyway. VV 15:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you are so cool :) Thanks, and keep in touch! Etz Haim 17:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No-boo

VV:

I recently added an article entitled 'No-boo' to the Wikipedia to document the AP's fabrication of the 'boos' during a Bush rally. Your good friend Gamaliel is leading a charge to wipe it out of existance, but I think it is Wikipedic in that it documents a real event, the word 'No-boo' or 'No-boo affair' has become a part of our current language, and that this entry is an important supporting document in the disussion of liberal bias in the media. I would like to solicit your 'keep' vote. Thanks for your consideration: Fish-man 18:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi VV! Just wanted to let you know that if you stay out of edit wars and other trouble, I'll nominate you for the adminship again in a few months. You have very good potential to be an admin. Keep up the good work, and try not to get into trouble or break wiki rules. Marcus2 18:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bush popularity

I don't see many substantive differences between the 2 versions getting reverted back & forth, except in the first sentence. In that sentence, I agree with you that Kerry should go, but agree with the other version that 'significantly' is appropriate.

By Kevin's comments on my talk page, I wonder if the dispute is becoming more about process than substance. Perhaps if you tried incrementally editing the popularity section (in unobjectionable steps) you might have fewer problems with kevin. Just a thought. Wolfman 16:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh, header change rather amusing actually. How do you feel about my edit striking the initial adjective (no generally, or significantly?) That seems to be kevin's only real objection. Thanks for answering. Wolfman 00:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey VV, have you noticed the most recent discussion on the GWB talk page? Talk:George_W._Bush#discussion_on_VV_.2F_KB_edit Kevin Baas | talk 21:22, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

You mean the one in which I took part? Yes, it seems to finally be winding down. VV 23:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was refering to my note that I give you the honors of changing the text to the version that we both, finally, agree upon. (You have my word that I will accept this change.) The other minor disputes are small matters that are independant of this, and I see no reason why we should hold back this progress until we reach agreement on the other, independant matters. Kevin Baas | talk 00:29, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

Anarchism

Thank you for reverting Anarchism. I did not think it was POV either, and was planning on making a big fuss about it. Revert war.. arbitration committee.. all very tiring. --- EDGE

List of neoconservatives

When undoing 66.20.28.21's POV edits, you could just do them at all once rather than making a string of nine tiny changes in the span of eight minutes. I know it's fun to try to maximize your "score", but it bloats the history page and is thus not good for everyone else.

Thanks.

By the way, he's at it again. --dreish~talk 03:07, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to maximize anything; I didn't notice the edits were by one user, and was just removing POV as I found it (and using section edit links). Anyway, if you see him at it again, just revert. VV 06:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If at all possible

Can you please send me the perl/python script that makes the contrib by hour chart? Or does it require Linux/Gnuplot? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It uses perl and Gnuplot. In fact, I was planning to go ahead and post it here; it's just been a matter of me not getting around to it. ;) I'll do it now. VV 06:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have requested arbitration re PNAC. CK 13:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush

By my count, you reverted Gzornenplatz three times (although that "restore NPOV" could have been a fourth one). I have protected the page, and I ask you to try to come to a consensus/compromise with Gzornenplatz. Of course, it's not very easy to come to a consensus based on five words, but it's better than an edit war... ugen64 00:54, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

PNAC

Sure I'll help. Send me an email so we can discuss this in a more private manner. Toodles. TDC 06:33, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

weak. All nations conscript as justification for conscription?

Really is that the best you can do. It is self serving of nations to want to preserve a priviledged protected status for civilians while considering them fair game to use as military assets. I too thought the atomic bombings were war crimes until I learned that women and children were conscripted to work in the factories. The military thought of them as military assets, how does this not legitimize them as military targets?--Silverback 08:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's about as legitimate as the US deciding (theoretically) that all of the POWs who were forced to work in Japanese factories were legitimate military targets also Moriori 21:42, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a more elegant way to "talk". On my talk page you argued "In any case, Japan's decisions in this regard do not reflect on the legitimacy of killing civilians". This is obviously wrong unless you also admit that it is not legitimate to kill civilians that are in the military through conscription. I can agree with you if you concede that they are also innocent civilians.

"It is the fact that they are fighting and shooting at their enemy that makes them soldiers", hmmm, it must be something more mundane than that, since even soldiers in supply lines or at desks are considered legitimate targets. Perhaps it is the uniform? I wonder if the women and children conscripted in those factories wore uniforms? If so, then perhaps it is the specifics of the insignia?

Perhaps you are too accepting of things they way they are instead of demanding that they make sense.--Silverback 09:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Accept vote?

I'm curious whether your "accept" vote for CK's frivolous request is intended to be some kind of "punishment" against me for not wanting to waste any mediator's time with this little squabble which is only four days old and still being actively discussed in Talk. VV 06:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, its not. I would refer it to mediation if you were willing to participate. Which is what I recommend. In addition to discussion and negotiation. Fred Bauder 12:10, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me mediation should not be started at the drop of a hat. You have no sympathy for my position that it is premature? VV 22:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do have sympathy with that view. Is it your position that when the issue does become "ripe" that you would accept mediation? Fred Bauder 22:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

response

I did not say his remarks were warranted, nor did I say they were correct; rather, I merely stated that he had good *reason* to make those... statements. Agreement with previous reasons does not necessarily indicate agreement with the statement following those reasons. ugen64 02:58, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, actually, you could call me a number of things: deletionist (I tend to speedy delete often), legalist (for following letters patent instead of convention at Lady Louise Windsor), umm... idiot, militarist, son of a *****, whatever. Personally, I don't care what you call me, or how you personally attack me, as long as it's not offensive to everyone else. ugen64 15:57, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

just a few people's theories

You state (briefly enough to be quoted) "It's not a matter of whether I "accept things the way they are". It's a matter of whether the article should reflect what the actual arguments being made are or just a few people's theories"

Theories should be judged by whether they are consistent with the facts and are defensible, dismissing theories just because they are only being advanced at this time by a "few people", is an invalid argument. Theories must start someplace. I have found that extreme theories can help crystalize my own thinking if I have difficulty defeating them on the merits. I end up having to recognize and then reject or explicitly reaffirm my assumptions. I write for the person who comes to this forum having been complacent in their thinking hoping to challenge them into the realization that they haven't really thought about what they beleive and why, and that unless can openly meet the arguments and challenges of extremism, they may be doomed to fall prey to them.

Perhaps seeing someone defending Timothy McVeigh using a net-lives-saved and collateral damage arguments will crystalize their thinking about the special status we unthinkingly grant to government. Yes, there is the danger they will become inspired by Timothy McVeigh, but there is also the possibility that they next time they step into the voting booth they will reject net-lives-saved and collateral damage arguments used to justify the FDA, or alternatively they may see the dangers of having government agencies and courts that don't respect the law.

I could just sit and hope that complacency and illusions will protect us, but I have more faith and trust in people than that. Challenge them and the truth will win out, if the debate is truly open.--Silverback 05:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this

General Intelligence Directorate

I think there might be the mother of all shit fights over this one. TDC 06:53, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

If you do not immediately stop destroying my articles I will also begin to go through your contributions and delete everything you wrote. Turrican

You have seen that I mean what I say. If you do not stop destroying my articles I will continue to revert your edits and neither of us will be able to contribute anything to Wikipedia. Personally I think its worth it since your propaganda damages Wikipedia far more then my contributions are able to balance out. I am willing to stop this senseless edit war as soon as your leave my history articles alone. Otherwise it will just end before an arbitration comitee. Turrican

WP:WPOINT

My reference to "unacceptable behavior" refers to the numerous revert wars between yourself and Turrican. This sort of thing needs to be settled on the talk pages. Mackensen 00:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do go on, report me on the vandalism page. But dont forget to add that YOU began to revert my articles. I sincerely doubt that anybody will take your side, considering your history of intolerable behaviour - are you not already currently engaged in several disputes ? Easy solution : Leavy my pages alone and I leave yours alone. Turrican

To answer your question on the GNAA VFD

On the GNAA VFD page you asked: "And were those two user pages recovered?" Demonslave's was recovered. Wolfman, however, just created a new one. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 04:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revert on RfA

Hi, I reverted your edit which seemed to leave RfA on a rather old version. I don't know exactly what you were trying to do (maybe link to Neutrality's previous nomination?), but apparently it didn't work. --Michael Snow 23:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good catch. A mistake, of course. VV 23:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FYI, I was viewing an old version as wiki text. I must have somehow inadvertently saved. VV 23:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vandal vs. userpage

Your userpage was hit. His damage was reverted. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:57, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

After checking into it, I dont think its all the same person.TDC 04:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

The nominee is almost certainly not going to get adminship, he knows that, I know that, everyone knows that. It is not usual practice to nominate someone you don't actually know. So I was curious as to why do it. Sometimes people are nominated in order to damage them. (There have been threats from red faction members to nominater others in the past in order to ruin their reputations). I thought that it was possibly the case here. Or perhaps the nominator was simply trying to troll VFA by nominating people who stood no chance. Anyway it's been pointed out to me who the nominator most likely really is. If this turns out to be true, then i have nothing to worry about, he is simply a harmless person who has a rather unhealthy interest in RFA. (I've deliberately put this on your talk page and left out names becasue i don't want to casue offence to anyone or to accuse them of doing something they didn't actually do. RFA has become somewhat of an unplesent place lately with a number of people voting to oppose people on dodgy grounds or using an oppose vote as an excuse to attack people.)I'd have emailed you but you have no email in the field:-( Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Theresa knott, I respect and approve of your politeness, and I would give you a barnstar for this if I knew how too, but it sounds almost as if you're saying that VeryVerily (if that's who you're talking about) will never be an admin. Now we should always have a ray of hope for Wikipedians becoming admins. By the way, before I would like to run for the adminship (unless if someone offers to nominate me I will accept), I try to put other people first, so I try to find out how long a user has been using the Wikipedia and how many edits they've made, and this user has been here for over a year and is still active with thousands of edits in his/her history. I plan to nominate this user in a few months if he abides by Wikipedia's policies or rather uses the Village pump. If he doesn't accept my nomination when I ask him, I won't nominate him. Marcus2 22:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection issues

Assuming for the moment that the IPs are Turrican (I investigated only page histories, tracking all the contributor histories would have seriously delayed my response to the request), the edits are still not all obviously vandalism. U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was, yes, but in that case I protected the non-vandalism version, which was the current revision anyway. Hugo Chávez might be vandalism (image removal), but without knowing whether there's some basis for disputing the appropriateness of the image, I can't be certain. I dislike the idea that you're never allowed to remove content, even though it might be excessive detail, biased, or both (I would think, given some of your experiences, you understand the problem with that attitude). Again, the version with the image was the current one anyway, so it got protected.

The others were either content disputes (Chilean coup of 1973 and East Germany) or stylistic questions involving capitalization (Consensus democracy and Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies) that are not directly addressed by the Manual of Style. Those don't qualify as vandalism from my perspective, and I cannot both protect the pages and arbitrate those differences. The ones for which Turrican had the most recent edit, which I therefore protected, were Chilean coup of 1973 and the two capitalization disputes. After Jmabel prompted further investigation, I determined that I could revert the Chilean coup article back to the previous revision under the protection policy. For the other two, I don't have a justification for choosing sides, and for that matter I fail to see why possibly incorrect capitalization is worth making a fuss about "wrong versions".

I'm aware of the request for arbitration, and of Turrican's stated intent towards you. I haven't seen anything directed at TDC, however, and again I didn't think it was necessary to investigate how closely the IPs tracked either of your recent contributions. Since these were anonymous rather than logged-in edits, and other people also got involved and were still reverted, the connection to these particular revert wars wasn't secure enough in my mind to warrant deviating from standard protection practices. Whether protection is the right response at all is as you say another question, but I did exercise some judgment there and only protected the pages in TDC's request if the pattern of reverts was clear and sustained.

By the way, I believe that when you refer in your request for arbitration to "a campaign of reverting my edits without prejudice", you actually mean with prejudice. --Michael Snow 23:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I overlooked "assymetric". The disputed capitalization on Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies could be explained by the fact that the title of the book is capitalized that way in the text, though not the article title, of I Saw Poland Betrayed. I have no idea how the capitalization appears on, say, an actual copy of the book. But familiarity with the internet world certainly teaches that deviations from the "rules" of capitalization happen all the time (eBay, iMac), which makes me hesitate to jump to the conclusion that insisting on an unusual capitalization is vandalism.

The legal distinction of with/out prejudice with respect to lawsuits is explained at prejudice (law). For the kind of usage you chose, with prejudice corresponds to having been judged in advance, i.e. Turrican has judged in advance that your edits should be reverted rather than judging the edits as they happen. That's a rather bland way of rephrasing it, of course. And in terms of getting the two reversed, I'm sure you have plenty of company there.

Anyway, you sound frustrated, and no doubt my persistent pursuit of impartiality contributes to your frustration. But given the situation, where the focus was on the protection feature rather than other remedies, impartiality was really the only approach I could take. Remedies like blocking require other evidence and a different approach to investigation. Unfortunately, the arbitration process is slow and frustrating in that regard. --Michael Snow 06:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What I mean is that all I can see based on what I've looked at is a dispute over capitalization. It may well be as you describe, but that would take some sleuthing I haven't had time to do. If this had happened to somebody else, I suppose it's possible that the person would have been summarily blocked, but almost certainly not by me. To be honest, I rarely get involved in the vandal-blocking business (among other things, I don't move fast enough for it). Most of my blocking activity has been related to enforcing bans that were already in place. --Michael Snow 04:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies

Nice amusing page at User:VeryVerily/Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. Since you asked, may I suggest the term "collaborationism" for "anti-authorism"? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 19:42, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.... VeryVerily 23:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for sorting out who's who mate. PMA 08:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade

See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 09:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias:

• From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
• Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing" [23]
• Attempts to sugarcoat racist views [24]
• The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim [25].
• Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)
• Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
  • User_talk:Andries#Nazism.2FChina
  • Talk:Nazism#China
• From Talk:Socialism:
  • "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
• Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism#protection). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
  • "Enforcing american spelling is a sign of nationalism, and would therefore seem to suggest your not an anarchist? Or perhaps your a "anarcho-nationalist"? ;p" (Sam Spade 08:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC), User_talk:Spleeman#Nationalism)
  • "Censorship isn't very anarchist" (Sam Spade 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC), Talk:Anarchism/Archive10#deleting_links)
• More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
  • Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
• Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
• Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking [26].

Your reversions

Although you have been banned before for breaking the reversion rules, so you obviously know already, I state that there is a Wikipedia:Three revert rule which you have been breaking on pages such as Great Purge and Khmer Rouge.

I also take issue with your going through peoples edit histories and reverting everything without a message to their talk page, the article discussion page or even anything in the reversion comment other than "rv". It goes against Wikietiquette. Ruy Lopez 03:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought you'd left this "crappy old" Wiki [27]? VeryVerily 08:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur with every word of that. I hereby implore you, VeryVerily, to obey the same rules that apply to everyone else, including the three-revert rule (see link above), as well as commonly accepted standards of decent behaviour. Shorne 03:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do these rules apply to you? VeryVerily 08:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your tools for preventing edit wars...

...might be useful if it wasn't for people like yourself. GuloGuloGulo 08:13, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

They are appropriate for some cases, but not others. There's a difference between run-of-the-mill content disputes and repeated attacks on articles. VeryVerily 08:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In other words, they are appropriate when you have a problem with someone's version of the article, but not when someone has a problem with your version. I would be more understanding if you had participated in the discussions that took place when the article was protected. Characterizing edits, however significant, as "attacks" doesn't leave one thinking that you are willing to discuss the issue and meet consensus. GuloGuloGulo 08:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

No, that is not an accurate rephrasing. If you're going to say things like that, don't bother posting on my Talk page. I participated in the discussions back in March the last time this occured, and at any rate the others were doing fine without me. VeryVerily 08:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reviewed your participation back in March, in which attempts to make the article NPOV were characterized as "pro-KR propaganda/apologism and related nonsense", and as "attacks" by "trolls and ideologues." While I happen to agree with some of your arguments, I have to say that labelling users like that is unconstructive. Hanpuk's ideas weren't discussed, his character was attacked. Similar behavior occured in regards to Shorne.

I don't know what else to say besides I really wish you would be willing to discuss the matter (the matter of the content, nothing else). If not with Shorne, then with me. GuloGuloGulo 09:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

That discussion was confusing, spread out as it was over several articles (Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, History of Cambodia, etc.), but in the end a huge amount of material was presented buttressing the assertions in the article and refuting the deniers. I'm not of the inclination to go look it up all over again for you, but you can. The fact is, Shorne and Richardchilton Hanpuk Ruy Lopez's assertions are way out the historical mainstream, akin to Holocaust denial. And many of their analyses constitute original research. (And yes my words against Hanpuk became harsher, but remember that was like his eighth account that was attacking me relentlessly and his words were much worse.) VeryVerily 09:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reviewed the talk pages of the articles you mentioned, and, besides handful of links presented by Stargoat cited to support death toll estimates, failed to uncover the "huge" amount of material refuting the "deniers." I don't believe that the assertations made are akin to "Holocaust denial", they seemed to me to be (sometimes overzealous) attempts to make the article NPOV. Again, your demonization of others as "deniers", akin to "Holocaust denial", do not help matters. I ask that you refrain from these labels. I don't believe anybody is doubting the terror and deaths caused by the Khmer Rouge, they are simply questioning under what circumstances and on what scale they occurred. GuloGuloGulo 09:37, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The term deniers was not meant to be demonizing but merely to specify who I meant. However, akin to Holocaust deniers is I believe an accurate description of the credibility of these people's theories. Just glancing around, I noted hard data on Talk:Khmer_Rouge/Archive_2. VeryVerily 10:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did miss that. Though I'm sure the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project is a good resource, it seems to have been cited, again, solely for the estimations of the death toll. There are disputes other than the number killed under Pol Pot that, while likely addressed in that source, are not elaborated upon in the talk page.

Simple comparison to "Holocaust deniers" is not enough to refute someone's credibility. Holocaust deniers are certainly lunatics, but just saying so is not as effective as explaining why. GuloGuloGulo 10:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone is a "lunatic" per se. But historical theories far outside the mainstream do not belong on Wikipedia. VeryVerily 10:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suppose we should eliminate the Holocaust denial article then, seeing as how it's so far out of the mainstream. GuloGuloGulo 00:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

You're missing the point. We have an article about Holocaust denial, but we don't mention the "opposing view" in every article which mentions the Holocaust. VeryVerily 02:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that there is a significant section about Holocaust denial and revisionism in the main Holocaust article. Why can there not be a similar section in the Khmer Rouge article? I'd like to say that I am very uncomfortable likening possible U.S. involvement in Cambodia to Holocaust denial, and am only doing so in an attempt to use a kind of maieutics in this conversation with you. GuloGuloGulo 04:07, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

It's not about U.S. involvement, it's about blaming the U.S. for all the problems the KR brought, including the deaths, famine, etc. A section on revisionism, if there really is a serious movement (as there is for Holocaust denial) rather than this being original research, might be appropriate, but rewriting the whole article to accommodate these views would not be appropriate. Putting "supposed" before every mention of "gas chambers" would not be kosher either, no? VeryVerily 04:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm shifting this over to the left again to avoid squishing.

I believe there is a "serious movement" that claims that many deaths during the Khmer Rouge's rule were caused by U.S. bombing of Cambodia (so-called "secret bombings".) A simple Google search of "'Secret Bombings' Cambodia" proves this. The online Encarta encyclopedia makes a passing mention of it [28]. This article [29] states that "The bombings were reported for the first time on May 9, 1969, in the New York Times." The Yale Cambodian Genocide Project that you yourself pointed out states "Cambodia was also slowly dragged into darkness when the Nixon administration conducted secret bombings of Cambodia during the early 1970s" [30]. There is an extensive UC Berkley Thesis with good information that states "In the late 1960s to the early 1970s, while the United States was still in Vietnam, American B-52s began massive "secret" bombings to eliminate North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia. In The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea, Craig Etcheson writes,

"The fact is that the United States dropped three times the quantity of explosives on Cambodia between 1970 and 1973 that it had dropped on Japan for the duration of World War II. Between 1969 and 1973, 539,129 tons of high explosives rained down on Cambodia; that is more than one billion pounds. This is equivalent to some 15,400 pounds of explosives for every square mile of Cambodian territory. Considering that probably less than 25 percent of the total area of Cambodia was bombed at one time or another, the actual explosive force per area would be at least four times this level."

At the very least, I think this proves that the other editors were not doing original research and that this is a "serious movement." GuloGuloGulo 05:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

The existence of the bombing campaign is not in doubt. But they were hitting targets, not targetting civilians. There is nothing in here about the phantom 600,000 people killed with aerial bombing (!), nor claiming the deaths imputed to the KR were actually wholly due to the bombing of a corner of Cambodia which had been dragged into the war. VeryVerily 06:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reviewing the differences between your version of the article and opposing versions, I found nothing suggesting "the deaths imputed to the KR were actually wholly due to the bombing." What was suggested is that the bombing campaigns resulted in much destruction, the deaths of many Cambodians, and the displacement of people from the countryside to the cities; how this affected the implementation of the KR's policies can be argued. The information below addresses the nature of the "targets" and the "phantom" (!!) 600,000 people killed.

From an International Committee of the Red Cross report: "While Phnom Penh fought the increasingly strong Khmer Rouge, the United States — as part of its strategy in the Vietnam war — dropped more than 500,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia, destroying much of the country and driving half the population into the cities as displaced persons." [31]

The following was found on a website by The International Campaign against Impunity (ICAI), which is "is committed to support victims of crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and torture in their fight against impunity." The document was not authored by the ICAI, but is "Reprinted with permission of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. Originally published as Nicole Barrett, Holding Individual Leaders Responsible for Violations of Customary International Law: The U.S. Bombardment of Cambodia and Laos. The document has extensive citations and is well-documented. I highly recommend that you check it out: [32] Please excuse my excessive quoting.

"While there were several incidents of U.S. attacks in Cambodia prior to 1969, the bombing operations were formalized in 1969. In a fourteen month period, March 1969 to May 1970, the U.S. military flew 3,630 B-52 raids against suspected Communist bases inside the Cambodian border. Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor to U.S. President Richard Nixon, asserted before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1973 that areas bombed were “unpopulated.” However, a memorandum written for the Secretary of Defense and sent to the White House by the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicates that “Breakfast” (Base Area 35) was home to approximately 1,640 Cambodian civilians, “Lunch” (Base Area 609) was populated by 198 Cambodian civilians, “Snack” (Base Area 351) had approximately 383 civilians, “Dinner” (Base Area 352) was home to approximately 770 civilians, and “Dessert” (Base Area 350) was inhabited by approximately 120 Cambodian peasants. The Joint Chiefs of Staff knew that the raids could not occur without endangering these Cambodians (“some Cambodian casualties would be sustained in the operation”) and acknowledged that “the surprise effect of attacks could tend to increase casualties.

"The Finnish Kampuchea Inquiry Commission estimates that, out of a total population of over seven million, six hundred thousand Cambodians died and over two million civilians became refugees as a result of the United States’ indiscriminate carpet bombing of towns, villages, jungle, and countryside from 1969 through April 1973. These estimates are modest compared to other sources... Historian Ben Kiernan interviewed a number of Cambodian refugees about the U.S. bombing. A peasant named Thuon Cheng remembered the bombing of his village, Banteay Chrey in northern Kampang Cham Province, where no communist troops had ever been stationed: 'In 1973 the Vietnamese stopped coming; in the same year, the village had to endure three months of intense bombardment by American B-52 planes. Bombs fell on Banteay Chrey three to six times per day, killing over one thousand people, or nearly a third of the village population, in three months.'

"Hong Var, resident of Sla in Takeo Province, one of the more heavily bombed areas, testified: 'The peasants frequently told in detail about their horrifying experiences . . . when Sla was a target of U.S. and Lon Nol bombers. They told how they had to dig trenches, and be prepared at any time to run from the fields, put out cooking fires, and so on.

"Over one hundred protests were filed by Cambodia with the United Nations from July 30, 1968 to March 9, 1970, the 27-month period preceding the March 18, 1970 overthrow of Prince Sihanouk’s government... These communications complained of acts of aggression including attacks on villages, peasants working in their fields, and fishermen in Cambodian territorial waters.38 Large numbers of deaths and injuries, as well as widespread destruction of livestock, crops, houses, and other property, resulted from these bombing attacks.

"United States Air Force maps of the targets for these attacks show that these bombs fell on densely populated, fertile areas. The U.S. Chief of Targets sitting in Thailand described the Cambodian bombing targets as “almost suburban in character with close-spaced villages throughout.” The U.S. bombing maps have been described as “hallucinatory” as the bombs were targeted to fall on the most densely inhabited areas of the country. Witnesses in Cambodia during this period report that the U.S. bombing had destroyed the fabric of Cambodian society."

There's also Chomsky's 400-page book After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the reconstruction of imperial ideology, which I have specifically avoided up to now so as not to be subjected to accusations of choosing a supposedly unreliable source. No, I have cited more mainstream (read: right-wing) sources, including a book produced for the US government.

Hell, even the New York Stock Exchange went into a bit of a tailspin in 1970 or so when word of the "wider war" began to leak. I don't see how anyone can pretend that these bombings never happened. Shorne 08:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VV: I find it rather amusing that you have "tools to prevent edit wars" on your page, at the same time as you are such an eager participant in them. (Although I did use one of then to good affect on the South Korea page to try and dampen the flames there a little bit.)Im not sure that you deserve the request for arbitration, but your views on what NPOV is seem a little unorthodox. And, oh, the three edit rule exists for a reason. --Ce garcon 08:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3 revert rule broken at United States

You keep reverting United States to use unnecessarily POV-loaded phrases such as "limits free markets with social welfare", "regulates virtually every industry", "has some of the most liberal laws", "tough laws", etc. Is it really so hard to represent the various PsOV in the article without writing from a blatant POV yourself? I really don't think it is. Please try. I am new to this dispute, but the dispute is not new. It seems that you've got a lot of other people angry about this also, so I probably won't spend as much time on this article as I would otherwise, but I just wanted to try "appealing to reason" with you here before I go revert it again.

I'm sure that having edited as much as you have you're aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, and I hope that your fourth, fifth, and sixth reverts today (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) were just an accident, and that you won't revert my next one (#2 for me) again for at least 24 hours. Because that would be grounds for you getting banned. But even then: please don't revert this again. To paraphrase Jon Stewart on Crossfire, Please, stop. You're hurting America. ~leif ☺ _HELO 11:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you're new to this conflict, you may not know what I'm up against. I'm subject to a guerrilla attack by a user who vandalized by user page several times and is systematically reverting all my edits. Ruy Lopez is a sockpuppet account of a user who has created more than a dozen accounts (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton) and goes on rampages deleting everything he doesn't like. Shorne is a communist POV pusher and stalker who goes on similar rampages. The 3RR is dead letter enforced only against unpopular editors (which may include me). In the case of the United States article, much of what they put in there - such as that French dislike of McDonald's is opposition to "capitalism" - is gibberish (some corrected by others). (Indeed, that whole section is pointless.) I wholly disagree that "limits free markets with social welfare" and "regulates virtually every industry" are POV. See Immigration for discussion of how the US does - as a matter of fact - have some of the most liberal laws. There is also an active discussion at Talk:United States about this. And so on. Join the conversation if you want, but reverting my edits is just plain provocative. VeryVerily 11:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I really don't care about who the other people reverting against you are. All I can see is that your version in this particular dispute uses unnecessary adjectives to convey your POV, and you have reverted it seven times in less than 24 hours. To describe a body of law as "liberal" is often questionable in itself, but to say "some of the most liberal in the world" is just unnecessary. Why not stick to facts about the laws instead of your opinions of them? You write Wikipedia articles like you're writing an editorial, and you need to stop doing that. I am not going to revert this article a 3rd time right now, because edit wars are harmful and I'm sure you'll just revert again anyhow. Hopefully administrative action will be taken soon to halt your crazy reversion rampage. ~leif ☺ _HELO 12:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think liberal has a specific and clear meaning in this context. If it said lax instead would you be happier? An encylopedia entry not about immigration but mentioning it should give a brief and accurate synopsis of the facts, which means it can't be loaded up with descriptions of, e.g., the laws passed in 1965, but should summarize the relevant details (in this case that the U.S. accepts unequalled immigration). And there are more substantive issues you're skipping over in that whole rotten section, put in by these problem users (who should not continue to be coddled). I have been writing here a long time and know the editorial policies pretty well. And as for your last bonne chance, well, you just may get your wish. VeryVerily 12:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't the article to go into details about immigration law in, but that doesn't mean the single sentence summary has to state your analysis as the facts. Instead you could make indisputable statements that leave the door open for other view points... Like, "The United States has more relaxed immigration laws than many other countries, having granted X immigrants citizenship in 2003". That leaves room for someone else to make a counter statement like "critics have claimed that their immigration laws are not very lax however, because so and so (other facts)". Obviously I'm not going to be writing this section; I'm just trying to show you what I mean by writing about different POVs from an NPOV. If your current statement that the US has "some of the most liberal laws on immigration" is allowed to stay, that really doesn't leave much room for other POVs there, does it?

I'm really still astonished that a seasoned editor like yourself has the audacity to suggest that 7 reverts in a row is acceptable, and that the "3RR" somehow doesn't or shouldn't apply to this dispute. It's my opinion that you should be banned from editing until you agree to follow this simple policy. ~leif ☺ _HELO 13:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know under what standard it would be suggested that the U.S. laws are not some of the most (pretty weasely) liberal in the world, so I disagree about POV (critics may think they're not liberal enough anyway, but that's another matter). The 3RR, despite its name, is a guideline, not a rule. It was not enforced against users who were reverting me back when we (even) had quickpolls, and it's not enforced against vandals now, who are allowed to run wild. I support multiple reverts against "subvandalism", stalkers, and users who should be banned. (See some of the comments Shorne got early on from various editors.) Your opinion is duly noted; it is fortunate for the sake of the project that you aren't in a position to force your will on me. VeryVerily 13:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, what critics may think is most definitely not another matter. The article's matter-of-fact use of your "most liberal laws" wording precludes opposing views from being expressed there. It's a textbook case of unnecessary POV language. I'm reluctant to argue too much more about this particular phrase, because I have a feeling you'll eventually budge on it and try and leave the rest in there. And there is a lot more POV than the immigration sentence at issue here.

Also, if the 3RR isn't a rule, why does it have "rule" in it's name? Where does it say that it is "just a guideline"? By my understanding, it applies in any case like this one where there is an actual content dispute, and would only not apply in cases of clear vandalism (where editors could break the rule to remove the vandalism, obviously). Can you show examples of places where the rule is "not enforced against vandals"? (I assume you're actually talking about wikipedia:vandalism when you say vandalism, and not just about people with different opinions than yours.) ~leif ☺ _HELO 13:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Leif. VeryVerily is very much mistaken in his view that the policy against numerous reversions in not enforced or that he is not subject to NPOV editing requirements. We have here an editor who could, if he moderated his behavior a bit, be a productive editor. As it stands now, he will soon be banned leaving the field to Shorne and Ruy Lopez. Fred Bauder 13:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

The events of April 2 made it clear there is no such rule - and that was when there was a clear mechanism of enforcement. Re vandals, consider the IP army of Turrican, who vandalized my user page and then went on other rampages, and against who nothing was done (I don't know if he went over 3 reverts, but it hardly seems relevant); no, I'm not calling "people with different opinions" vandals, fercrissake - although Ruy Lopez has engaged in clear acts of vandalism via his other accounts (which of course won't be considered by the authorities, because he is willing to use deception and lies, and I am not). But I do use subvandalism to refer to people who have no interests in the goals of Wikipedia and are engaging in mass erasure and destruction of content they don't like (as is happening on the Cambodia articles). If vigilant editors such as myself are restricted from repelling such attacks, then they with their sockpuppet armies will have a run of the place. And FB is clearly twisting my words, as I did not assert I was not subject to NPOV; rather, I was defending my position as NPOV. This perverse reading bodes ill for the conversation. And I believe I am one of Wikipedia's most productive editors, and I wish the powers that be would stop using procedural grounds to privilege artful troublemakers over honest contributors. VeryVerily 23:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(personal attack removed by Grunt at 01:58, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)) 68.1.174.46 01:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An appeal to reason

Please raise your dispute with my version of the Karl Marx article on the article's talk page rather than reverting like a vandal. I have accomodated all your initial complaints; you, on the other hand, make no effort to work towards consensus, preferring to simply revert instead. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi! If you would like to protest against the reverting rule, try your luck at the Village pump. And if you would like me to appoint you again for administrator, please prove that you can change your behavior, unless you'd rather not be one. Marcus2 14:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am once again asking you to explain yourself, VV. Both 172 and Boraczek have contributed to building a better version of the Karl Marx article, and Boraczek in particular is known as an outspoken anti-communist. What excuse can you possibly have now? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

172's last edit was to revert Boraczek. I don't see anything being "worked out". VeryVerily 22:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact that no further editing occured until you returned can be seen as a pretty good sign that things had indeed been worked out. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or maybe no further editing would have occured till Boraczek returned? Really, what kind of reasoning is this? VeryVerily 22:48, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine, believe whatever you want, the point is that we have a dispute to solve, and you haven't been exactly very helpful. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"attacks"

from Wikipedia:Protected page

• September 11, 2001 attacks—revert war over use of the word "terrorist", 198 and VV vs. Gzornenplatz. —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I had no role in this edit war. I'm sick of Mirv's attacks on me. VeryVerily 11:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • How is it an attack when I state, truthfully, that you were involved in the edit war? Please explain. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You are correct that I engaged in one revert, which I had forgotten. Whether a single edit constitutes "edit warring" is I suppose a matter of opinion. I think it does not. VeryVerily 00:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's three fifteen reverts in one day, VV. It's not a matter of opinion anymore; you're engaging in an edit war. Please stop. If you have a disagreement, the grown-up way to deal with it is to discuss it on the talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

No use trying to reason with VV: for more information see here.

You are an asshole.

Yes, you. You are an asshole. Bds yahoo 00:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requests for administrative enforcement

• VeryVerily has violated injunction #3 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. It says "Enacted 3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this." Yet he not only editted, but just reverted changes that me and Ce garcon had worked on [33] pertaining to the very Cold War Gwangju massacre (with the South Korean dictatorship claimed had been instigated by North Korea and so on). It appears this is breaking the temporary order but the arbs would know best. Ruy Lopez 11:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• VeryVerily has violated the injunction below (#2) by reverting Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision three times in twenty-four hours (actually, only one hour). Please impose the twenty-four-hour ban that the injunction specifies. Shorne 10:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a project talk page, not an article, and it's a stretch to say I reverted it more than once. VeryVerily 10:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have moved this to talk; only arbitrators may edit that page. Interpretation and enforcement in this matter may be done by any sysop. Arbitrators generally don't try to enforce arbitration orders personally. Fred Bauder 11:41, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

No thanks

VV, if I believe an article needs to be editted, or is unjustly reverted, I'll do so. I do not need any prompting. Please do not believe that I will act as a proxy. Thanks. Stargoat 13:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reversions

Stop reverting to such a degree. Firstly, the lead section as it stood was not good (see Wikipedia:lead section. Secondly, it is totally inappropriate for you to revert like that. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. in case this sounds like I'm coming down heavily on you, that's not the way I meant for this to come out. I think you do excellent work, only I dislike the way you revert in the manner you revert! Could you add positive stuff in to the article? I'll make sure it doesn't go away. My concern is to make this a great article we can place with pride on WP:FAC! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is why I don't like discussing through edit summaries. The lead section needs work, however. Could we work towards improving it? I'd be happy to work with both you and jguk to come to some sort of consensus on this. I'm about to go to the movies, but am willing to chat later. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely :-) What needs to go into the lead section though? I find lead sections to always be the trickiest part of an article... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Argh! Why did you revert again? I'm going to revert back again and ask for the page to be locked. It's either that or I file an RFC or take this to the arbcom. I could understand you changing the lead section, but a reversion after so many edits? c'mon now! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Care to explain where I didn't readd your material? and I might just point out that it was originally me who had to readd my material after one of your reverts — just check the edit history and it's pretty clear. Wikipedia is running pretty slowly for me so I can't revert back again. I will be filing an RFC however. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, P.S. I haven't been on jguk's "case" because he has largely been responsive on the talk page. I haven't found the need to message him personally. This isn't an attack on you, incidently, it's merely an explanation for why I haven't messaged him personally. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's get something very clear. You do not own that article. I suggest you back off mate. I am allowed to make contributions, and if you don't like them, there's not much I can do. But you can't just revert me numerous times. I am allowed to make changes, especially if I feel they are needed. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never claimed to own the article. You seem to be think that no changes should be made to it. That's not the way it works. I will continue to modify it to improve it. I suggest you also stop reverting. You've already been picked up by other members of Wikipedia for reversions. I suggest you modify the way you edit. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. my offer to work with you in editing the article holds. I am still willing to compromise. Just expect changes, and don't fight them. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, but I have been watching how you've edited that page! Check the page's talk. I suggest you take a good hard look at your reversions. Want me to file an arbcom dispute? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez

I know you haven't disobeyed the temporary injunction, so I didn't do anything. I also know that you are editing articles to try make them better and to increase their quality! However, I did comment that you were flying close to the wind with your reversions. I would appreciate more talk and less reversion. I would definitely like to come to some sort consensus on the article I'm working on. I agree that it's not balanced. I think that we could put more information about the great freedom that American's have with freedom of speech and a free press (even if some say its "concentrated"), along with the amazing strides towards dealing with racism and injustice. I think all this stuff could be added better and would be most happy to assist with adding it in the article! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Threatening?

Please. I'm not threatening anything. You are still up to your same tricks on that article. You keep reverting and refuse to let me make changes. I think I've been very patient with you so far. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne

I'm afraid Shorne is not going to stop. Shall we open a discussion about user conduct in Wikipedia:Request for comment ? What do you think? Boraczek 13:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you should go right ahead. Shorne 13:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily, I hope you can participate productively in this RfC and the associated Mediation. I think it will do us all some good. I have in the past sometimes edited without providing adequate references, perhaps you have too, but Shorne has essentially no other way, and accords no respect to references provided by others. Fred Bauder 13:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

What Kafkaesque poppycock! Shorne 14:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Shorne is Hancuk who was in between. Shorne's first edit was September 25; Hanpuk's last edit was May 7. Fred Bauder 15:29, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC). User:GayCommunist seems unlikely, see his user contributions: [34].

Still looking for reds under the beds, are you? There could only be one person in the world with any opinions different from yours? Shorne 23:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment Shorne

A few of us are talking about doing a RfC regarding Shorne. Before we can do that we must pass this threshold:

"Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

If you feel that any issues exist with respect to his edits, please enter into a dialogue on User talk:Shorne and see how much progress we can make through negotiation. Fred Bauder 18:49, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

DIALOGUE?!? Are you kidding? I've made all the steps in the direction of negotiation. You're completely off the beam if you think that this stubborn VeryVerily has any intention of engaging in dialogue.

By the way, go ahead with your silly RfC. I welcome the opportunity. I shall also quote this passage to show what you're up to. Shorne 23:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't know anything about the ongoing dispute with Shorne generally, but with regard to the one article I've seen, Human rights in the United States, is there anything actually wrong with the paragraph:

The US has also detained US citizens without charges, as most recently in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who in September 2004 was also compelled to forfeit his US citizenship. While the Bush administration claimed that such treatment was justified for an "enemy combatant," critics regarded it as a violation of Hamdi's civil rights. In addition, the US routinely detains non-citizens, who do not enjoy the same legal protections.

This is all true, is it not? Evercat 12:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dead end road

I have recused myself from the arbitration cases which affect you due to your jumping in to help with the disputes I have been involved with user Shorne. It is nice to have more than 3 reverts, but to be more than a POV warrior you have to be willing to do research and cite sources which support the information you feel needs to be included in an article. I fear you are focusing too much on reverting as some kind of an all purpose weapon, when, in fact, it is frowned on by Wikipedia policy, and ultimately grounds for a ban. I wish you would slow down and reconsider your attitude and focus more on basic research and citing of credible references than on reverting edits on the basis of point of view. Fred Bauder 14:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Update on mediation request with User:VeryVerily

The section /*Request mediation with User:VeryVerily*/ at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there.

Thanks, BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 22:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Serving notice

I have filed a request for arbitration against user VeryVerily at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

Do conduct yourself accordingly.

Shorne 10:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

cc: Ruy Lopez

• Welcome to the vast "right wing conspiracy" VV. Want some similar fun, come check out ACORN. Wgfinley 14:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

fair enough

sorry bout the deletions... I was making the sections into pages of their own, keeping the text the same. Just thought it would be easier to navigate if "history of anarchism" wasn't the same page as "anarchy" and "schools of thought"

as it says at the top, "This article is 75 kb long, (and it really does seem kinda long to me)

actually the more I think about it.

Actually the more I think about it, that page really should be condensed. It is incredibly hard to navigate, and while I really don't have any problem with the deinitions held within, I think it really should get organized a bit.

okay... I'll stop there, I'll just make "anarchy" (which really isn't the same thing as anarchism, and deserves to be an outside link in my opinion) and "history of anarchism" separate links.

if you don't like it you won't hurt my feelings.

I have no problem with the content, it is just very difficult to navigate as it has expanded to quite a tall page. Sliding that scrollbar a half inch, in my opinion should not whizz by 5 screensfull of text.

Rest assured, I am not deleting, just organizing.

Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies : Neutrality

This section was added by Chalst and should not be construed as being endorsed by me.

Ah, indeed, I should have said so myself. But since the matter is aired, what do you think of what I wrote? ---- Charles Stewart 07:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, but I'm not sure it counts as an underlying value difference that results in conflicts. VeryVerily 07:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PNAC, blah blah blah

I know the survey is pretty pointless, but I don't think you're helping yourself much by adding in the "beating your wife" bit.

What's your gripe about the prior version with this?

From my perspective, it read like something Rex would have come up with in his day - a paragraph based on something sensible, but then twisted around to imply silly things. That PNAC have tried to take advantage of 9/11 is a common accusation, and should be represented in the article. But that current section is either deliberately implying sinister things, or very badly worded. In any case, I've been talking with Bryan on IRC, and I'm curious as to what your exact concerns are. Ambi 09:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion?

I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on my last comment in the discussion that started under the header "Your tools for preventing edit wars..." Do you plan on responding? GuloGuloGulo 05:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've had my hands full. VeryVerily 05:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that means that you will respond eventually; I hope so. GuloGuloGulo 05:50, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I just did. VeryVerily 06:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit War with Shorne

Last night I just so happen take a look at the United States article and noted it was protected! I seen this edit summary made by Shorne: (cur) (last) 19:44, 12 Oct 2004 Shorne (Not to worry. VeryVerily is just being an asshole, as always. See the talk page.) From my perceptive that is a personal attack, may I suggest doing a Request for Comment?--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 05:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ohh, ok I'll check out the Arb. requests, if you have and problems just contact me on my talk. :)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 06:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

9/11 attacks

Than if terrorism mentioned in article than that's ok, perhaps I'll reword it a little to reflect npov--198 00:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes your correct you convinced me. Also I find it most interesting that the article about the plane not hitting the pentagon was on the french wiki ;)--198 01:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

I am requesting arbitration regarding your refusal to follow the three revert rule. --Michael Snow 05:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)