User talk:Wolfman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Allende's last speech

I just saw your listing on VfD. That English translation got transwikied? Oh, no. :-( It's copyvio, and I'm pretty sure it's an unauthorized translation, too. (There is an authorized one in existence.) I did list it on Copyright problems, but hadn't put the copyvio template on the article, because the template wouldn't work with the printed sources I'd found — it's designed for web sources. Please see all details here, where I ask for somebody help slap the copyvio template on. What a mess. Of course none of it's your fault, Wolfman, but what do you think is best to do? I would suggest you remove it from VfD, anyway. And how does one un-transwiki stuff? Bishonen 23:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see my question at Talk:Salvador_Allende#Allende.27s_Last_Speech -- Jmabel 23:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Frances Fisher

I have cleaned it up. Mike H 00:35, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Allende again

Well, the claim is both, since both the original Spanish transcription and a translation (but hardly this one, which is a pretty bad translation) have been published, in the books I mentioned. But I agree that copyright in the original broadcast is a tricky issue, that's why I asked about it on Talk:Copyright problems. (I put a note on the article's Talk page also.) I'm also thinking the text of the article may be getting deleted any minute now, per my request on Talk:Copyright problems, since text deletion comes with putting on the copyvio template. It just doesn't seem the best moment to VfD it. I dunno, though. The VfD is up to you, obviously. But I do know that if the original is copyvio, no translation of it will be clean, either — please see this comment. Thanks, Wolfman, and maybe I should mention I won't be reachable for some fifteen hours now; it's three in the morning here, and work tomorrow. Bishonen 00:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit war between VV, Rex, KB, Gz, Guanaco, Eloquence, Mike Storm, Style, Blankfaze, Neutrality, Get-Back-World-Respect, etc..

Principle, conduct, equal representation. One person's voice versus 20 people's voices - whose should be heard? How many times does one person have to revert a page before their voice is heard above the voice of 20 people? Trick question, that will never happen: one person, one voice. If vv wants the popularity section to be different, he should discuss it on the talk page, and only make changes that are in agreement with the consensus, regardless of what he thinks or feels. That's what eveyone else here does. I see no reason why he should be an exception.

1. Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_10#Popularity
2. Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_11#Disputed_popularity_section
3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/VeryVerily2
4. (see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/VeryVerily),
5. and look at the page history of GWB. you might want to look back a couple hundred edits - VV's edit war goes back seven page protections; it has caused the page to be protected seven times.

The issue began with a censorship edit by Sevantpol on 02:54, 2004 Jul 14.

I hope this helps answer your question. Feel free to ask more questions. You can also talk to the people endorsing the RFC's, and users on other pages that VV is engaged in revert wars in. Kevin Baas | talk 15:50, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC) Kevin Baas | talk 15:50, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to make clear that the version that is not VV's is not my version, either, it is User:Neutrality's version.

I don't know what the specific differences are between the two versions besides significantly->relativity, no paragraph breaks, ommision of some stats, and a minor reformating & rewording that makes it less readable. However, these differences are not the point of dispute. The point of dispute is conduct and principle. I will not back down on this. I am more obstinate than VV. If he uses due process and respects others, and by so doing a consensus is arrived at, I will be happy to protect that consensus against disruptive editors. Until then, he will not get his way by force in this forum. No one will get their way by force in this forum, no matter how annoying they are, no matter how many reversions and page protections they go through. That behavior simply will not be tolerated. Either he will learn that he has to use reason and cooperation, or he will get nothing whatsoever accomplished. Kevin Baas | talk 16:17, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Oh, and regard something VV said in a past edit summary: "no one argued any objection to them other than that there was a "poll" about it" - this statement is false. If you look through on the talk page and in the talk page archives, you will see objections that have been raised. Kevin Baas | talk 16:31, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your note. (And I hope you don't mind my fun with the header title.) To answer your question, it is largely procedural, in that I object strongly to anyone reverting every edit I try to make to an article. The supposed "justification" - the twenty, or whatever it is now, people I'm suppoedly against - is absurd. My opponents are two - Kevin baas and Gzornenplatz - and Kb announced his refusal to discuss the issues with me [1], and Gzornenplatz was one primary author (along with me) of the revisions (!), which we worked out together in Talk. In any case, the claim of Kb's twenty backers is based on a poll between giving detail of foreign popularity or giving a sketchy account, which Kb treats as though it froze the text in stone. To show how absurd this is, note that (a) all that Kerry stuff was added afterwards and not reverted by Kb with cries of "consensus" and (b) as for the word significantly, so heavily pushed, the choice of word there was changed twice while the "poll" was in progress and after half the votes had been cast [2] [3]. Thus the claims this was agreed to by consensus are just absurd. At any rate, polls are no substitute for discussion, and in my opinion are next to useless for finding NPOV (the operative policy) as they simply promote swarming and ideological head-counting. These are simple matters that could be talked about. At this point, however, Kb - if he really believes the things he is saying - seems beyond redemption. Yes, you are right the differences are not substantial, but I chose my wording carefully, while for the purposes of the poll I don't think it was made particularly precise. I hope this clarifies my position. VV 00:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's better with the qualifier (adverb) than without, but I'm willing to let it rest. If indeed that was Kb's primary gripe, his claims of consensus really were wholly empty (for the reasons I mentioned). Thanks for your help. VV 11:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see the context of VV's cited refusal of discussion. You'll see that I was responding to a comment that was "Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others." What I meant to say was that, because of the nature of VV's comment, I felt that it would be futile for me to discuss that particular subject, as he had clearly expressed that there was no way for me to make him listen to what I had to say, so I wasn't going to waste either of our time attempting to do so.

You'll also see that the polls were accompanied by discussion, and followed up by discussion, in which many supportive arguments were made and not rebutted.

You'll also see that I have made more attempts at discussion than VV.

I think any reasonable person would see that, under VV's logic, his version is as unjustified as neutrality's. However, there are two exceptions: neutrality's is supported by arguments, and more people agree with neutrality's version.

My primary gripe, as I have stated repeatedly, and have made clear through other means (such as RfC, for example), is VV's conduct. Please make a note of this for future reference. Kevin Baas | talk 15:37, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Tom DeLay

I made some changes. I think you injected a very left of center POV. "Fervent" is also sort of prejudicial, but mainly why call him "anti-enviroment" and not "pro-business," also "anti-gun control," but not "pro-gun rights?" Simpler to list the facts and I thought the ratings from interest groups helped illuminate his position without adding my POV. Kaisershatner 17:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note: I did not make the edits Kaisershatner is referring to. Have contacted him about this error. Wolfman 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is true. Sorry for the misreading; still kinda new around here.  :) 146.203.71.124 19:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Howls

In fact, after I made that comment, I should have clarified - you do seem to be consistant, it's the other editor there who was not. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TfT

On TfT, you seem to be insistant that I affirmatively state "all conflicts resolved". However, by driving to that goal, you miss another point which is: Parties to a conflict may in fact decide that the issue is mooted or perhaps insoluble. Either of those views would preclude a person from being able to honestly say "all is now resolved" or "these are my only isues". Wolfman, simply because I don't think you are being disingenuous, does not mean certain others of the editors there have not shown certain "colors" to me which are making be suspect their sincerity. The simple fact is that they are trying to ge me to put a finite limit on the scope of my concerns with TfT and I am declining to do that. I simply will not try to "guess" how things are going to go there - not before I see how some of the others behave towards any edits I might make. And in fact, at this point I am undecided as to whether or not I will even edit TfT again. Why others can't accept ambiguity in my answer, puzzles me. The simply fact is, at this point I am ambivalent in regards to that particluar article. Frankly, I feel that placing demands on me for "certaintiy" at this point, is unfair. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

c&p moves

Hey: when you need to change a page's title, please use the "move" link rather than cut-and-pasting; it keeps the edit history intact. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response on my talk. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Your TfT vote ==

I see you have gone back on your word of "peace" towards me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TfT pointers

The Wiki pointers you added just now are good. thank you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge of Global warming skepticism and Global warming controversy

(William M. Connolley 19:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I'm not sure I'm convinced by this merge idea. Why did you decide to suggest it?

(move talk to here to keep the conversational flow...)

It seems odd to have an article on controversy and a separate one on skepticism. Isn't there controversy precisely because there are skeptics? Is there something like a 'Global warming believers' page, too? I assumed this division developed sort of accidentally, for example, until today we had a page on both 'disarmament of iraq' and 'iraq disarmament crisis'.

Not a big deal to me, though. I'll defer in this to your expertise as a climate modeler. Wolfman 19:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I'm ambivalent. "unfortunately" the skeptics on wiki (mostly Ed Poor... well, you can see the article history) have left the field for the moment so aren't in a position to "defend" themselves or "their" articles. Hmm, thats a lot of quotes. You're right, there is no GW believers page (an I don't want to create one). And maybe you're right about the merge too. I was mostly wondering if you had a really strong reason for it.

some anon

Can't let "vastly increased spending on military weapons systems" go, eh? Well, I put that in as a red herring in order to see how contributors chose what and how to edit. There's no support for this blatantly editorial and comment, and you keep reverting it. Now I have to settle for providing a factual basis for military spending, and that's not enough. If you want to keep plopping in that Bush has increased spending on weapons systems, at least provide some factual basis for the assertion. Some shred of NPOV would be appreciated. User_talk:68.50.202.228

your tone is extremely rude. my edit summary was clear as to why i reverted that phrase. "vastly" is not an issue for me, the issue is that this paragraph is about weapons systems, not the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. you will find that you get a lot farther around here without a hostile and judgemental attitude. do you really think that your comment has encouraged me to edit in a spirit of compromise and good faith? think again. your lack of social skills will serve you as poorly here as they must in real life. Wolfman 17:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine. I'll settle for being rude and lacking in social skills. Still would like to see some discussion of the POV issues raised, but I guess that's too much to hope for.

kizzle/rex

thank you, I apologize for inappropriate personal attacks, some days I don't have the patience to deal with Rex's holier-than-thou attitude. --kizzle 05:22, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

It's me you owe the apology to. And don't attack me about 'holiness' either! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

block

---

I didn't block you, I just protected the page (for a few minutes until I learned someone else had blocked you, heh). Adam Bishop 03:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the block log has had too many blocks today and the ones from yesterday are already pushed out. I think it was User:Guanaco though. Adam Bishop 04:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look at this: User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Ban.3F - --kizzle 04:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

It was Arminius who blocked you. I unblocked you when I saw that it was completely outside the blocking policy. You can see all the blocks and unblocks at the block log. Guanaco 21:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your question and comments. The blocked was fully executed despite interuptions by admins who felt differently. I would suggest not engaging in that kind of behavior in the future, or similar results could occur. I hope you took the time off to revalute why you come here to wikipedia. The best way to avoid future conflicts and problems is to be constructive in your editing. Next time try finding another page to edit then continually reverting. Thanks and good luck. Arminius 15:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Please resume editing articles constructively.Arminius 16:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)