User talk:JamesMLane/Archive2

Useful_idiot

How is it you came to know that I created that entry? Please advise.

Also, as I read the source page, in particular the quote which I supplied, it would appear that this particular quote is constitued solely of a recitation of a fact (ie; the original statement) by Lenin.

If indeed I am correct in my intereptation of that, then it's axiomatic that no release from the author is required for these reasons:

1) Lenin's statements of that nature are in the public domain

2) The person who posted that statement by Lenin on the web is presenting it as if that's what Lenin indeed said.

3) That statement then (and my quoting of it as a source) by Lenin is a fact

4) Facts are not copyrightable, only the particular presentation of them

5) In either case, it's such a small portion of the page sourced, that fair use certainly comes into play.

I read that source link as representing itself to be repeating what Lenin said. For that reason, there is no original work by the web-poster of it and consequently, no need to inquire about copyright.

Even so, I am creeped out by what appears to be a "stalking" effort by you. So once again I ask, how did you come to know I added that listing?

Also, I intend to add a few others. Would you care to collaborate?

Please advise.

Rex071404 19:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I acted on your advice and enhanced the Useful_idiot page.

Thanks for the input!

Rex071404 01:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

If it isn't in the AC's current mandate, they seem to think it is, as there's a "temporary injunction" header on every current case page. That's what I based that comment on. Ambi 07:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O'reilly propaganda category

Are you adding the category only as a demonstration because you support Moore's movies, or do you honestly support listing O'reilly's show as a propaganda program (keep in mind the other insidious things already in that category e.g. Nazi and white supremicist stuff). Now, for me the category sticks if there's something to back it up. I listen to the radio show and have seen the TV program quite often. The article, as written is pretty NPOV. If you'd be willing to add some specific instances of propaganda-ish statements, I'd definitely say that the category fits and I'd be all for leaving it in. What do you think? Alternatively, perhaps something like "yellow journalism" would better characterize the article. --ABQCat 02:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry dispute

Oh, I wish I knew what to do. I don't think Rex would be any more receptive to my suggestions or (informal) mediation, and I'm not sure it'd be appropriate for me to get involved. I've blocked him (well, his IP) before, so he probably doesn't see me as a "good cop". If Rex has refused mediation and RfC has been utilized, I suppose there's arbitration to consider. Whether this dispute is among the "most serious" (a necessary criterion for the arbcom, apparently), I couldn't say. I wish I could offer better suggestions. Regards, -- Hadal 08:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: My Edit Summary referring to JamesMLane and his mis-statement of facts regarding John Kerry "poll"

The key phrase in your message is: "poll results". Because the discussion was still under way and because there was no consensus, it is not factually correct to say that there were "poll results". While it is true that the pro-Kerry POVr's were trying to force the issue, I was still waiting for more contructive dialog and answers to various questions I had posed to the group. Since clearly and obviously there was a dicussion under way, it is patently mis-leading to suggest that somehow there was any agreement to stop "polling" and run with the partial results we had so far. Hence, for you to say "poll results" is not accurate. Had you said "partially completed results of one of several polls still under way", this would have been accurate. Rex071404 16:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you want us to dialog, don't call me "fixated"

JML, about the "mis-statement": Do you, yes or no, concede it is indeed true that when you used the term "poll results" you mis-stated the fact regarding the current status of the "poll". If you do not answer this question, I will lose respect for you. Rex071404 17:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I do not concede that. As for my other comment, I sincerely believe that you are fixated and that your fixation is part of the problem that has afflicted the John Kerry page -- a situation unlike any other disagreement among Wikipedians that I've encountered in the several months that I've been here. My comment was an attempt to give you an idea of how your behavior appears from someone else's perspective. Given your response, I gather that this is yet another area in which communications from my planet don't reach yours. JamesMLane 17:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "fixated"? Rex071404 18:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

I'm trying to stay away from the Kerry dispute at the moment. However, if you want to lodge an arbitration complaint, be my guest - I'll do what I can to supply additional evidence. Somehow I think you'll have numerous other users to support you. Ambi 07:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kerry dispute

As you may be aware, I gave Rex a 24 hour block yesterday. So let me start by saying that I do know how frustrating dealing with him can be. Looking over his contributions since that block, although he is still pushing the same viewpoint, he appears to be discussing it more. The arbcom moves very slowly - it is far more likely that you are going to find a result by discussing with him and trying to reach a compromise. I am not averse to blocking him again if his bad behavior continues, but at this point, I can't really justify that if the people he's arguing with are simply saying "You should be banned, there's no point in discussing with you." I can justify it if people appear to be assuming good faith and he's continuing to be disruptive. So my advice is that, if you want the situation to improve in the short term, attempts at compromise, civility, and consensus will be far more effective. Snowspinner 13:11, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Comment from anon user

66.144.4.2 inserted this into Djinni's welcoming message to me:

• Taking my comments off a talk page is rude and concitered vandalic.

JML responds:

1. Inserting your comment into Djinni's was pretty rude.
2. It was someone else who deleted your comment, but I would've done so if I'd seen it first. The Talk:John Kerry page is not for discussing John Kerry the person, but rather for discussing John Kerry the article.
3. I was going to tell you that there's no such word as "vandalic" but I checked and discovered that there is. Thanks, I learned something. JamesMLane 18:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

re: Deletion process

I took the liberty of copying your question to Wikipedia talk:Deletion process and am answering it there. Rossami 14:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex

Do you want to set up an evidence page to present to arbitration? I'll help.--Neutrality 04:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco has since fixed the problem, so everything's alright now on the Kerry article. 172 04:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if fast relief is likely from the arbitration committee. It is a painfully slow, cumbersome, and increasingly legalistic bureaucracy. They are still working on cases from months ago. Perhaps this is a proper occasion for a quickpoll? They've fallen out of favor lately, but there's likely enough support for temporarily blocking the user names/IPs of this user for revert warring. 172 04:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There may be no optimal way of handling this. The only solution may be continually blocking this user and protecting the page until he gives up. 172 04:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello again. It's no imposition. (Rex is the one who should be apologizing for imposing anyway.) I may be wrong, but I can't recall seeing any quickpolls announced on Wikipedia:Recentchanges. This seems to be an example of "instruction creep." John Kerry is a very visible article and many users have Wikipedia:Quickpolls on their watchlist, so a quickpoll will be visible enough without such a prominent announcement. If you want, perhaps you can leave a note on the quickpoll talk page about this, allowing someone who feels that a bulletin on recent changes is necessary to add one. People make up these policies as they go along anyway. I may be wrong, but these policies don't seem to rigid to me. 172 05:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • It is a wiki, after all. Nothing is written in stone.--Neutrality 05:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hum, I'm sure that getting someone else to sponsor it, so to speak, can only help. I'll see if I can find someone online who can launch the poll. 172 05:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Raul654 is going to take a look at the Kerry page. If one can be a Wiki-policy expert, he's one of them. He'll definitely know how to handle this. 172 06:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem. (After dealing with lunacy for 20 months on Wikipedia, this is nothing.) Thanks to you as well. 172 06:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, Quickpolls are dead, after a lack of consensus as to whether they should continue. Even the one the ArbCom posted about trolling had a cloud over its head in that respect.

Anyway, if you want to proceed with arbitration, be my guest. I think I'd better pull my head in on this article, considering that I'm running for the AC, but I'll still give you a hand with collating evidence if you need it. Ambi 09:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Kerry Problem

Hi James, I understand what you mean regarding Rex's aggressiveness; however I'm trying to look at the article to see what can be done for a satisfactory conclusion, hopefully without jumping back into it. My own experience seems to indicate that, on contentious articles where a clear majority of interested Wikipedians fall on one side of an issue, it is almost impossible for an editor with a contrary view to make any but the most unobjectionable edit with reversion or worse. Enter Rex (or a Rex-like editor). IOW, only a bombastic editor in such a circumstance even gets paid attention to.

Please see suggestion, as I made it on Rex's page, for protecting the article and hashing everything out on a temp page. There people can let a contentious edit go for awhile while talking it without the need for an edit war, since the temp page is not live. This was done on several articles. I particularly think it worked well on Terrorism about a half-year ago. The editors agreed on nothing, not the definition of the word, whether terrorists really existed, who terrorists were, and so on and so on. It was protected for a month or so, not unprotected until consensus was reached and everyone agreed to let it go live. Perfect? No. But at least we had a workable article free from massive changes several times a day and patchwork protection. If Rex will agree, and everyone else will, too, I think it's the only way we'll get somewhere. I know a lot of people would like to solve the problem by banning Rex, but the article could be much better.

BYW, I read some of the Bush people's praise of the Kerry article. The things they liked were heavily weighted with things many of the editors wanted to keep out. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To follow up, I agree with the substance of what you say, and I will reiterate that I really don't want to become an active editor on Bush or Kerry if I can avoid it (with the exception maybe of VVAW-related stuff because I have knowledge and personal feelings on it). But I am concerned about the revert wars and the general attitude. I am trying to put across the idea that Rex is A problem, but he is not THE problem. The problem is a few editors (including but not limited to Rex) who think that everything in the article has to pass their muster or it gets summarily reverted. -- Cecropia | Talk 09:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your hostile threats about SBVT are inappropriate - and als0, you are wrong

The information you posted on my talk page does not, as I said it did not, refer to the book cover image "unfit.jpg" as having been discussed for removal. Frankly, when you go on the attack against my edits, I don't know what to think. The simple fact is that the removal of the "unfit.jpg" image from John Kerry was, itself, never agreed upon. Whover removed this originally, did so unilaterally and without consensus. And to top it off, you compound the controversy by reverting me without discussion. Personally, I am coming to believe that you are so pro-Kerry in your bias, that you are unable to comprehend even the most simple things which I tell you. Regardless of what you point out in your coment on my page, any fair reading of the replies to your Kerry Talk posting about SBVT, does not make it at all clear that epople were in agreement to remove the .jpg. Also, your justification of removing it - your assessment of Bush's page - is irrelevant due to the fact that there is no parity on editing standards between the articles. In fact, I and other have raised the point about applying equal standards to make points we want to make, and the group has ignored us. Additionally, we are not "comparing" Bush page to Kerry page. Rather, what we are doing is trying to make Kerry page informative, factual, balanced and NPOV. Currently, it is failing the later two goals miserablyRex071404 02:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane you are wrong, the NY Times reports the break-in as a fact, which did occur

Here is the link

It's from New York Times, Published: February 15, 2004. "Kerry's Brother Helps Make the Big Calls"

Here is the excerpt where the fact of the break-in having occured is reported:

He describes the 1972 campaign as a brutal lesson in realpolitik. He said that neighbors in his family's largely Republican hometown, Lowell, stopped speaking to his parents, and that editors at local newspapers took unwarranted political potshots at his brother.

Mr. Kerry said his brother's campaign failed to respond to critics — a mistake the campaign has not repeated.

Mr. Kerry was arrested during that campaign. He describes the incident with a slight grin. An anonymous telephone caller informed him that an opponent was planning to cut his campaign's phone lines, so he and an associate broke into the building where the phone lines were housed to make sure they were secure. The police arrived with suspicious alacrity, he said, leading him and others in the campaign to believe that political opponents had set him up. He was arrested for breaking and entering, but the charges were later dropped.

"It was obviously not the smart way to do it," Mr. Kerry said.

JamesMLane, please be candid enough to amdit you are wrong on this point. I have given you a careful and correct explanation and I have provided a verfied corroboration from New York Times. I am restoring my edits on that section and I ask that you leave them alone this time. Thank you Rex071404 04:54, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

I was considering nominating you for adminship, but wanted to make sure you are interested first. Let me know. — マイケル ₪ 19:01, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Request for help with a move

Following the links you provided. Back to you soon. I would hope you welcome the experience, if it turns out i advise you to proceed & i'd take the blame if i misjudged the risks...? --Jerzy(t) 20:57, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

OK:

• The history of Modeling (NLP) reads as one entry, summarized "(Modeling (NLP) moved to Modelling (NLP))". That history could be forged AFAIK, rather than provided by a previous Move operation, but that's far-fetched. (Why would anyone bother?)
• The Hx of Modelling (NLP) looks unremarkable, at a glance.
• As to the "What links here" page of Modelling (NLP),
  • the indication, just above the redirect, of Modelling (NLP) itself being something that links there, is false. I've seen that before, and seen no problem from renaming in that situation.
  • The only redirect is the one you propose to convert back to an article, so you should find no double redirects when done.
  • The existing direct links from articles (Model and Neuro-linguistic programming) will become redirected links; an overzealous job would include changing those two articles to bypass the redir, and its effect would often be overlooked by users. That is not part of the move-operation "code of honor", and might well get done by somebody's bot.
• I haven't studied the arguments you both made (my head hurts when i contemplate trying to be sure i grasp which is the British and which the American spelling!), but offhand it looks like you've reached agreement on the change you have in mind.
• Bottom line: i recommend you proceed yourself with the move.
  • Move the article, not the link. (The link gets obliterated; a new link in the opposite direction gets created, to tie the old name to the new one.
  • You can paste the existing name into the target-title pane and edit out the extra L.
  • Remember to check the move-the-talk-page box.
  • Read the instructions on the move page, mostly because it'll help you remember better how the thing works when you contemplate your next rename.
  • If there should be a problem, it would AFAIK simply be a refusal to effect the change; i had one that i couldn't explain, and which the admin i consulted couldn't see any problem with. They tried and it went fine, so maybe i had been confused about what i was doing, and maybe it was just a Mystery of the Internet.
  • Let me know about questions, or problems, or just how reassuring it is to have it succeed after i've gone and made such a big deal out of it.

And if you'd really prefer i do the move, let me know that; no problem.
--Jerzy(t) 22:13, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Pope John XX

Hi, thanks for the note. I stubbify any page that still has room in the default-sized edit box. I've been asked to de-stub a page before, is that what you would like me to do? I don't know if Wikipedia has a stub policy other than not to stub disambiguation pages, year and "year in" pages, and lists. If you can provide me with some kind of a link, that'd be great. In the mean time, I'll destub Pope John XX. _{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 21:57, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry & Rex

Sigh. I was really hoping I could stay out of the mess on John Kerry, but I seem to be being pulled in from all directions. If you'll indulge me, I'll list a few of my impressions: First, I know very little about Rex, and haven't gotten myself fully up to speed. But most of the material on the RfAr page did not seem very damning, especially the quotes listed as "attacks" on users: (to Neutrality) "Right at the beginning of the 1st edit war (which he started)...", "In my view, I think that N. was trying to get the last post in again last night - just like he did previously.", "You are using a few revision oversights by me AS AN EXCUSE to remove on a wholesale basis, perfectly factual information about John Kerry. And in it's stead, you are inserting pro-Kerry propaganda.", "rv -This page has been re-open for less than an hour and already Neutrality is reverting me again without comment", etc. I've had far worse things said to me twice before breakfast without batting an eye. As for the POV pushing section, I saw two issues: whether to call some term "briefly" and some injury "minor". My gut is to agree with you on the first and agree with Rex on the second ("minor injury" is I think a technical term used in law, medicine, etc.), but anyway I don't see him being much more aggressive than his detractors, and if he is, it may only be because he is outnumbered. I know from working with Neutrality that he is stubborn and revert-happy, so I can empathize with Rex's frustration in that respect.

Anyway, Rex has only been around a couple of weeks and has not learned the ropes instantaneously. It must be disheartening to get an RfAr within days of arrival. From his own comments he indicated that he has changed his behavior to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. My suspicion is that he would be quite open to a dialogue if such were approached with a positive attitude and an assumption of good faith. Of course, I am handicapped by my lack of experience with him, but from reading the conversation on Talk:John Kerry he seems both sincere and communicative, if pushy. I realize this impression may not comport with your experience.

Maybe, of course, I'm more inclined towards patience because I somewhat more identify with his politics, and feel openly rightist users face an uphill battle on Wikipedia. But, FWIW, I'm largely snoozing through this whole 2004 U.S. election business, with only modest interest in the outcome and even less in the process, and I know little of Kerry and his controversies and care even less. I don't know enough about the Vietnam stories to even clearly perceive the relevance of them, so in a sense I am neutral.

Anyway, I will try myself to communicate with Rex. I don't know that I'm the ideal choice to do so, since I empathize too much with his experiences with Neutrality, and have had sour experiences using "community" solutions to conflicts, but I can put in two cents.

VV 09:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VV, although I'm not James, I'd just suggust that if you haven't already, look through the talk archives as well. Just to get the full picture- I don't know if it will change your mind, but it might help you understand where everyone is coming from. If you have already, ignore me ;) Lyellin 09:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't looked thoroughly through the archives, just the most recent discussion and the items quoted on the RfAr page, so of course my perspective is lacking. Whether I do look through them depends on how deeply I decide to involve myself in this issue. VV 10:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, I didn't mean to imply you hadn't approached him with the positive attitude, etc. Rather, I'm suggesting that now that he's had his initial experience of newbie blundering about, blowback, and harsh words, but has since alluded to improving his conduct, it might be appropriate to give him another chance. Of course, if it's as bad as you may feel, I can understand not wanting to do that - but it may be the only way out. VV 10:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Invitation to JamesMLane for further dialog

JamesMLane, please be advised that I invite you to dialog with me, at length if you need to, on my personal Talk Page. I am open to and am interested in addressing and satisfying your concerns so to as to enable you to desist from pressing for my expulsion from the pool of editors on the John Kerry page. Rex071404 19:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question about ArbCom procedure

(From User talk:Fred Bauder) I noticed your comment on User talk:Rex071404 about the arbitration concerning him. Therefore, of all the arbitrators, I've singled you out to be pestered with a question about procedure. Is there a point at which the "record" is closed so that the Committee can make a decision? After the initial request was made, I added a few items. Then, more recently, I added a very detailed account of one particular illustrative incident. Now, in the course of doing something not directly related to the arbitration proceeding, I came upon something else that I'd forgotten before but that adds a little morsel to the case. If I'd remembered it initially I would've included it, but it's no big deal. My concern is that if the complainants keep adding things, and Rex keeps adding responses or other defenses, we'll just have a version of the Talk:John Kerry debate carried over to a new page, and the ArbCom will never have a completed record on which to act. In requesting a preliminary injunction, I've mentioned why I think speed is important, so I wouldn't want to delay the proceeding by continuing to add things. Any advice you can give on the timing (complaints, responses, ArbCom action) would be appreciated. (I've never been involved in an arbitration before.) JamesMLane 02:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This matter is still in its beginning pages as far as arbitration is concerned, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision. That is the page to watch, the proposed decision page. Once a bunch of proposed decisions have been proposed and voted on the case becomes more inflexible as changing everything is difficult and time consuming. So to answer your question, you can add to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence and even to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 as you are named as a participant in the case. It is possible for you all to add so much that the pages become confusing and not useful for us, but we know how to delete... (or refactor). As Rex071404 claims he has turned over a new leaf and is now requesting mediation I am particularly interested in evidence that he has or has not changed his behavior. For example in the section above this he requests dialog. Is this real, what happens when you try? Fred Bauder 12:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. A couple of points that occur to me offhand:

• In an attempt at dialog, I made this post on Rex's Talk page. Raul654 endorsed it and amplified on it. Rex deleted (not archived, but deleted) my comment and Raul's without responding.
• There was a prior request for mediation iniitated by Gamaliel -- see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 9#User:Rex071404 and User:Gamaliel. Rex's response included the statement, "I object to 'mediation' as being not ripe at this point." In the absence of consent to mediation from both sides, the Mediation Committee took no action. (My phrase "absence of consent" is carefully chosen. When people have said that Rex rejected mediation, he has cavilled at that description, though I think it is plainly accurate.) Now, with a Request for Arbitration filed by several participants and extensively documented, Rex has requested mediation. I invoke the historic skepticism concerning deathbed conversions (without meaning to imply that an ArbCom decision against Rex is a certainty). JamesMLane 14:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your explanation of ArbCom decision procedures is helpful. I'm left unclear on one point, though: What's the procedure concerning my request for interim relief? It seems that, if my request follows the normal course, then that issue would be decided at approximately the same time as the rest of the proceeding. If that's the only available procedure, then every or almost every such request is, de facto, denied. JamesMLane 14:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has in the past issued temporary orders and will in this case if it is warranted. My own comments regarding issuance of temporary orders in this matter can be found at the bottom of the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 13:50, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Additional invitation to dialog 08.13.04

I notice as of a few minutes ago, you have again begun reverting me tonight without 1st stating your concerns on the talk page then asking for and waiting for my reply. Frankly, I get the feeling you are too focused on trying to kick me off as an editor. Again I will ask, are you willing to try to develop harmonized text as Mbecker and I were doing today? Also, the "example" you point to above, is exactly one week old and was prior to my 24 hour ban by Snowspinner which lasted until 08.07.04 Rex071404 00:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my block of you lasted until 8/2/04. Snowspinner 03:31, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I had in mind some dialog with Snowspinner from on or about 08.06.04 Rex071404 06:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, James.

I'm up for adminship. If you can vote in support, I'd appreciate it very much. :) Neutrality 01:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404

Thank you for welcoming me to the proceedings. I was rather upset with the wholly biased additions that the respondent was making to the article "John Kerry," leading me to participate.

It seems that the Committee are against permanent editing restrictions. At the very least, however, the user should be precluded from editing "John Kerry" until the election, if not until the Inauguration next year (in case of a fiasco in Florida). -- Emsworth 13:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WP:AOTW

Thanks for your message - I'm glad that you agree that WP:PR was the right place for Alan Keyes. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"He is temperamentally..."

"The more important point, though, is Rex's approach to editing. I go through this history in such detail because it illustrates Rex’s fundamental problem: He is temperamentally unsuited to engage in collaborative editing, at least on a subject about which he feels so strongly. Over and over we've seen him fixated on his version of some point."...

Thank you for sharing your analysis. Am I to infer from your critique that your "temperment" is without flaw?

Rex071404 17:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keyes, featured article status, and etc.

Perhaps we should feature Keyes on the main page without putting him on the permanent list of featured articles; that way, we could avoid compromising the standards of wp:fac. I think the best place to discuss this would be Wikipedia talk:featured article candidates, so I've taken the liberty of copying your comment there, and leaving a note on the village pump.

I hope it's clear that I simply didn't think of the political ramifications of featuring Obama. I've raised two issues on the FAC talk; one is about Keyes, one is about the suitability of featuring those in campaigns on the main page (potentially, this could be extended to most current events). Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:16, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Policy

I think the current and most important is at Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks. It's, in some ways, only a small step, but I think it's a step that would go a long ways towards solving a lot of the problems. Snowspinner 14:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Richard Avedon

I was so flattered by your nice message about my work on the Richard Avedon entry that I thought I'd drop you a message back and say: Thank you!

As I see Wikipedia is highly lacking on information on some of the great photographers in history, I've basically been going through the list of photographers and trying to fill in some kind of information about them. As someone with a Bachelor of Science in Photography, I figured I'd try my best to fill in nice, comprehensive information about photographers like Richard Avedon and Eugene Atget.

However, I have never heard of Streetstudio, even after 3 long courses in the History of Photography and another 3 in Art History. Nor can I see what it could possibly have to do with Richard Avedon. I commend you, though, for keeping an eye out for these kinds of inappropriate additions and fan-related gushing. Thanks! — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]] 21:42, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Rex -- SBVT

Hi James, sorry to bother you with this. I know this whole Rex thing is a monstrous headache, and you've certainly pulled more than your share of the load in dealing with it.

But, I'm not very familiar with the whole arbcom thing, or policy in general. Could you please have a look at the SBVT talk page and let me know what you think? Is this behavior actionable in arbcom?

Back when the injunction was placed, I had a bad feeling about SBVT not being in included in the list. It seems Rex has found a new toy, the NPOV tag. See the Coulter page for a (considerably less egregious) example. Wolfman 02:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think his behavior on Bush will get him banned. He's obnoxious over there, but probably doesn't cross the line. I think the difference is that he likes to inject negative POV more than positive POV. He also has learned a bit in a tricksy sort of way. Certainly nothing about being a neutral editor, but some about stomping on the line instead of crossing over it.

My concern is that SBVT is a huge part of the material he got banned over before. We just moved it to a different article. He pretty much hadn't touched SBVT before he slapped a NPOV tag on it. I'm convinced if we hadn't held his feet to the fire, he never would have given a reason. Just look at the lame reasons, he gave off the top of his head when called on it. When I contacted you, he still hadn't agreed to give a reason — it was a purely vexatious maneuver.

After the tiff last night, he started making the usual Rex-type hypercritical edits as well as some more subtle sleazy innuendo edits. I think at this point, I'll just give him the rope to hang himself with. He seems more than willing to put the noose over his own head. And, he was kind enough to bring this matter to arbcom's attention himself. Saved me the trouble.

Thanks for looking into it. I have seldom been more annoyed with our dear friend, and probably lost my cool more than I should have. Wolfman 18:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JML, let this serve as official notice that you can count on me to join with you to file a complaint against Rex for disruptive editing behavior. I find it is impossible to work with Rex even after spending an entire day yesterday trying to reasonably and rationally get him to come to address my compromise language. And now the article is in protected status because of it. It appears it will stay that way because he now states that he will not respond to me for an "inderterminate amount of time". --Nysus 16:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reply

I have answered you here. Rex071404 02:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have answered you again, here Rex071404 06:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And again here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (read this)]] 16:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SBVT Talk is gone

Nevermind, situation has resolved itself. Don't know if it was a glitch or sysop intervention.Wolfman 19:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have no idea what has happened. Tried archiving the moot parts of the anon ip discussion, so we could focus on current issues. He says he has quit. Mucked it up a bit when I tried to retrieve the one issue still on the table: the Schatche account. Page is just gone entirely now. Didn't know I could even do such a thing, or maybe I got locked out. Who does one go tell to get such things fixed? Wolfman 19:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, not the issue. I was in mid-edit, trying to fix a screw-up and it just went away completely. Couldn't get there at all. Weird, because I could still get to the history from my watchlist. I wonder if maybe some sysop suspended the page for a few minutes because he thought I might be a vandal. I was really inept there for a couple minutes. At any rate, it cleared up. I just sort of panicked thinking I had somehow killed the whole discussion. Wolfman 20:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

thanks.

SVBT

I will check the service times - but you and Nysus are gainging up on me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]]

TorHavn

I'm not trying to be nasty, but trying to find merit for the inclusion of TorHavn is difficult. At the moment, I would IMHO tend towards redirecting TorHavn to micronation. This would change if you were to provide evidence of notability otherwise. Perhaps some element of controversy, a micronational first, etc. I'll let you work on the article for a while, if not there is always WP:VFD, but that's always a bit messy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was already run through WP:VFD, Template:VfD-TorHavn, so I've just redirected it. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's talk page

I just saw what went on over on Rex's talk page because Rex mentioned it here and claimed N. was "vandalizing" it. I am appalled at his behavior. I thought that Rex had some sort of moral center and was just an overenergetic advocate, but it seems that he really has no bounds of decency at all. I don't know what the rules are for such things, but if I was running the show I'd boot him just for pulling that, or at least give him a stern dressing down. Is there anything that can be done about his behavior? I can't imagine how many users he'd drive away if he's allowed to continue like this. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, RFC

Rex is now listed on WP:RFC, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rex0714042 for vandalizing his talk page. You are wlecome to leave your on comments on this page. Kevin Baas | talk 20:59, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

Comment for you

here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration request filed

Changing talk page comments is one thing, but altering votes on VfD is quite another. I've filed an arbitration request - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2 for details. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understood your meaning ;), but thanks anyway for clarifying it with positive words. I left a note on Rex's talk page. Other than that, I'm inclined to stay out of it, as it's getting too ugly. VV 00:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex

JML, I hope you will be willing to help put a stop to Rex's disruptive editing techniques. Please visit Talk:Texans_for_Truth#Rex and sign on if you agree. --Nysus 02:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV pending

If you again delete those TfT links prior to my agreement, I am going to put up an NPOV tag. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SBVT discussions

Have you quit these discussions? I have not seen any more comments or updates since I posted v3 and v4. Please take note, Kevin Baas and I have "buried the hatchet" I am amenable to that with you also. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1971 hearing

How is this for a starting point? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:24, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for dropping the note on my talk page about that grossly offensive finding of "fact". I've written a long response on that talk page, and I intend to follow this through. I've been trying to stay out of this, as I only ever became involved in the first place because I reverted Rex's early edits as an anon while on RC patrol, and I hate political disputes. But this isn't on, regardless. I'm left to wonder how, for nearly identical behaviour, RK gets a four-month ban, whereas Rex gets to have all his opponents tarred with the same brush. Some justice. Ambi 09:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

arbcom

Thanks for the heads-up. Is arbcom aware that Rex has laudably retracted all counter-complaints? [1] On what authority, then, does arbcom propose to restrict the future edits of the complainants?

Also, arbcom seems a bit loose with collective charges. Earlier there was a finding that several of us injected detail in the heat of the election. I don't believe that's true (at least for me), though I did edit the details Rex inserted. And now, they want to psycho-analyze how I 'felt' about Rex -- ridiculous. Wolfman 15:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's highly offensive to me when they equate my action to Rex's. Rex has done nothing but troll from day one. I hope they make the temporary injunction permanant, and add some other articles Rex has "found." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While I find the whole thing rather offensive, and, to be honest, weird (what business is it of the arbitration committee whether or not some editors were ignoring the "societal significance" of people who support Bush? That's a content dispute, not a behavioral dispute), I find that these political articles just get me pissed off, and that it's probably best for me to bow out of the whole mess, at least until I recharge a little. john k 16:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hope that you won't mind if I bud in on this conversation, but IMHO the rulings of the arbcom have been getting worse and worse each time. The arbcom consistently sanctions productive users (and in a couple of cases to the point of driving them away from Wikipedia entirely) while rewarding trouble-makers who fool them by playing the victim. Recently, arbcom sanctioned Adam Carr for "incivility" on the Lyndon LaRouche article while allowing the LaRouche cultists to continue propagandizing that article. If they keep it up, I'll consider bringing a case against the arbcom before the arbcom. 172 19:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are asserting that you felt a certain way. Only you know how you feel, and they have no right to speculate as to your feelings, and esp. not to arbitrarily assert a characterization of them against your will. I would simply say something like "I do not feel this way.", in addition to any other comment you wish to offer, if indeed, this is not the way you feel. Also, I don't think your feelings are relevant to the case, and they should not be part of the judgement. The case concerns actions, not speculations of feelings or motives. Kevin Baas | talk 21:05, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Bush military controversy article

Gah, have you been looking at Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy lately? (Clearly I almost immediately broke my own intention not to get involved in irritating political arguments) It's like a right wing blog comments section in there...Where do these people (other than Cecropia, who has of course been around, and who is generally a good contributor despite his irritating political beliefs) come from? Anyway, as far as I can gather, the article, which should technically, I guess, discuss George W. Bush's service in the national guard, consists largely of amateur typography discussion. My main substantive suggestion has been to shorten this material to a point where it's relatively uncontroversial so that it doesn't dominate the article (beyond this, I've engaged in some unwise partisan invective). In response to this, and to my attempts to explain why I don't think that the accusations of forgery have been anywhere near proved, and all I get back are accusations that I'm a moral relativist (yes, really), and completely unfounded speculation that this is taking Kerry down. While I probably haven't behaved as well as I could in the argument, it's very distressing to me that our article on this subject seems to be being written by these people without much interference. Any thoughts? john k 01:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think that you analyzed the problems of governance of the arbcom very well. Perhaps the problem isn't the rulings but rather that this legalistic model is not workable on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any ideas for change, as I'll try to do what I can to support some new proposals. 172 12:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SBVT

I didn't notice that the SVBT page was protected (it only has a "disputed neutrality" notice at the top) - I was just following up on a request to get rid of some POV redirects and I idly glanced at the article and noticed that data was missing. (The entire article is still somewhat lacking in NPOV - it carefully gives quotes and names from the Kerry side, but doesn't provide quite as much detail on the other side.)

The bit about the 5 skippers was from this Washington Post story. Both of the good Washington Post articles I saw about this topic, including this one, are already listed at bottom of the page. 18:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Noel 18:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS, I really like that new intro para - very NPOV. Noel 19:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, in case you missed this in the blizzard of comments going up on Talk:SBVT, here it is again:

Ah, a .. point. It's incorrect to say "Bushites are entitled to say that he shouldn't have been", because not all Bush supports (e.g. McCain, IIRC) agree with that. People can probably be divided into three groups - people who support Bush, people who support Kerry, and people who support neither - but the division into people who think Kerry deserved the medals, people who think he didn't, and people who don't have a firm opinion is an orthagonal division (although of course some of these 9 'compartments' may be sparesely populated). It's important, in a heated topic like this, to think clearly, and speak accurately...

Well, hopefully things have quieted down enough that I can write that overview of the Killian events (which the article is currently totally lacking, diving right into evidence). Noel 19:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peace offer

JML, the suggestion you made on Lawrence v. Texas talk page regarding wording was quite good and I promptly agreed with it. Frankly, if you were to renounce your vendetta against me, I would have a lot less problem taking your suggestions at face value. You do know that Wolfman and I recently and for the most part, "buried the hatchet" yes? I mention that because even though you have been my principal talk page adversary as of late, you have shown a lot more open-mindedness towards consensus than some others who I will not mention here. Are you willing to consider renouncing your vendetta? Please advise. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Follow up question for you here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

advice

If a hypothetical user refuses to discuss anymore on a protected page, what is the next avenue of resolution (i.e. forcing to talk/ban from the article)? --kizzle 20:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it considered bad form to ask Mirv to lift protection? Given the lack of dialogue on the TfT Talk page, it's going to stay locked forever if we have to wait for dispute resolution. Wolfman 01:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML what's your e-mail or a way outside of WP that I can contact you? --kizzle 22:32, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Secret discussions? Hmmm.....[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

my my we monitor contrib lists... --kizzle 00:49, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

McCrone

James, how was my statement about McCrone's work on the Vinland Map "unsupported"? All that's unsupported is your assertion it's unsupported. I know you have read the Yale Daily News Article quoting Ms. Olin, who represents a Smithsonian team, which represents the leading edge in VM research. Please explain. The line goes right back in unless you can find some authority who or which continues to back McCrone's "anachronistic ink" finding, and who have a standing in the field comparable to Olin and crew. JDG 00:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James, quite right! I overlooked the first link to the Shroud of Turin, and right in the opening paragraph where it belonged, too. I've added a paragraph on the US Holy Shroud Guild, with a brief reference to McCrone, into the temporary new Shroud entry. Not a mention of McCrone in the Shroud entry, of course. Isn't that JDG person repellant! Wetman 01:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AllWetMan, I commend you on speaking your mind on User Talk pages. I'm quite sure most solid contributors viewing this and other personal darts you've hurled my way shake their heads at such "ad hominem" immaturity. But I'm with you on this— Talk pages are appropriate for blowing off a little steam here and there (within reason), as well as complimenting people on good work. Both are personal. Plus, many apparent insults end up being quite positive. In this case, for instance, being found repellant by the likes o' you is a real ego booster. Thanks. JDG 18:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stolen Honor

Be advised that I am monitoring your editing activities on that page. Don't get any ideas about butchering it with massive insertions of pro-Kerry screed. PS: Have a nice day. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Threats by Rex

I just posted this to the Arbcom evidence page, but I'm wondering if it's worth the effort on putting together a third arbcom request featuring all the threats he's made across numerous articles. Thoughts? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The full name of Stolen Honor Documentary is a perfectly valid Wiki link. I do not agree that the short name of Stolen Honor is as informative to the readers in regards to telling tham what the link actually goes to. I did not agree to the "redirect" which the other party imposed in creating the new short name and I'd rather not get in any battles to revert that. Instead, where appropriate, I am going to simply use the longer name. This is one fo those appropriate occassions. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at this: User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Ban.3F - --kizzle 04:56, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

"In remainder"

A "remainder" dictates how the Barony (or any other dignity) will descend. Although I have not heard "in remainder" used before, I strongly believe that the phrase means that Nigel Nicolson was the heir-presumptive to the Barony of Carnock. (The present Lord Carnock, Nigel Nicolson's first cousin, seems to be unmarried.) The entire passage relating to the Barony is now moot, however, for Nigel Nicolson is dead; thus, I would suggest that it be omitted and not replaced. I would also suggest that, if "in remainder" were ever encountered, a more clear and easily understandable phrase, such as "heir-presumptive," be used. -- Emsworth 02:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In remainder does not mean "heir presumptive" - one can be "in remainder" to a peerage while being much more distant than the heir presumptive. For instance, the Earl of Carlisle is in remainder to the Dukedom of Norfolk, but is nowhere near being the heir-presumptive. "In remainder" simply means that one is somewhere in the line of succession for that peerage title. john k 06:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Shining and Copyright Law

Hi James,

You said: The smattering that I learned for the bar exam was: "You can copyright words and pictures. You cannot copyright facts or ideas."

Yes, it's true you can't copyright ideas. For example, King's copyright on The Shining does not prohibit me from writing a book about an ensouled hotel. J.K. Rowling can't stop me from writing a book about a wizard school, just as she, in turn, may have been inspired by The Worst Witch and other similar works. But my own work cannot be veiled "fan fiction" or what is called a pastiche.

The problem arises out of the writer's art, and how much a work derives from the copyrighted work, especially as the author retains rights to "derivative" works. A possible out is when you're dealing with criticism and satire. The Shining is a work of fiction, and carries a certain presumption of originality beyond what you would find in, say, a history book. The problem with Dysprosia's summary is that (1) his synopsis, virtually an extreme condensation, could conceivably cause someone who would purchase the book or buy the movie DVD to say "well, I've got the whole story, including the ending, why should I spend my money" and (2) it adds no art of his own of significance to make his summary a critical work. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nader article

Thanks for the note, and I'm sorry if the edit summary came off as a bit harsh. Quite frankly, I think the entire 2000 section of the article needs serious work -- as it is, it provides little actual information on his campaign, and lots of endless point-counterpoint on where to lay blame for what. RadicalSubversiv E 07:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Myths, Correctness, Facts, and Truth

Winter Soldier Investigation

* Note: There is a myth that it is illegal to use .50 caliber weapons against enemy personnel.

You didn't like that phrasing, but "myth" seems like the best and most popular description for that incorrect belief. I also chose that phrasing because including "myth" in a web search for relevant facts brings up a number of statements that the weaponry is legal, although it is not surprising that many are opinions as they are trying to prove a negative because the suggested treaties do not mention a caliber/calibre. There are also armed forces sources which specifically state the weaponry is legal; hardly surprising that this would be considered during weapon/vehicle design. I'll use different phrasing. You might search Chapter Two of https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/CLAMO-Public.nsf/0/1af4860452f962c085256a490049856f/ SEWilco 19:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Homeopathy and "controversy"

James, in reverting my change you state that "it's NPOV to state that there's controversy". This is true, however I do not believe it is a fair representation of the subject to state, "Homeopathy...is a controversial system of alternative medicine...". Using that argument, anything could be said to be controversial.

Perhaps a compromise would provide a better representation to the reader: remove the world "controversial" from the first sentence, and add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph: The effectiveness of Homeopathy is controversial.

Sound good?

Scottporad my talk page

Saddam Chavez pic

I have updated the picture with copyright info as well as its source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hussien_and_Chavez.jpg TDC 18:45, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

MRI - Damadian

One internet source is: http://whyfiles.org/188nobel_mri/2.html

Maybe my writing needs rephrasing, but to take Damadians claims at face value is not NPOV either.

Please stop deleting evidence only to ask for it saying there is no evideñce

This is disgraceful and intellectually meaningless masturbation. Thank you - irismeister 19:30, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

old subpage

can this be deleted now? i think it's just left over stuff, but it shows up in google. Wolfman 03:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion or collaboration ?

(James, this is a carefully written page, which took a night of my life and many hours of documentation. Why do you come, and revert it in 1s w/o proper discussion? Isn't this COLLABORATIVE ?) - irismeister 00:19, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Admin

Would you like me to nominate you for adminship? I'd be glad to do so. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Please be more careful about what image you revert to. Evercat 21:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revival of the draft

Your right I should have marked it to be merged. - SimonP 20:41, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright of copies

[[2]] "The disputed material is copied from the website of the Center for Pacific and American Studies at the University of Tokyo, which represents that the text was taken from a work of the U.S. government." [3]

The disputed material is not represented as being from a public domain source. It merely refers to a certain source. The Wikipedia entry Congressional Record refers to the Congressional Record, but is under Wikipedia's license. A recent printing of Moby-Dick might have public domain material, but also might be protected by copyright...and a public domain source might be used but alterations do not have to be marked.

However, look at the "CIS" reference at the top.

• CIS is a company which is now part of Lexis/Nexis [4]
• The CIS/Index User Guide shows the same format is used as the disputed material; search for some of the labels. [5]

Perhaps you wish to alter your comments? -- SEWilco 11:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted material from Lexis-Nexis CIS-Index is not being used. The annotations and abstracts in the Fulbright Hearing article, while noted in the CIS Index, are also contained, VERBATIM, in the Public Domain compilation of hearing proceedings produced by the Government Printing Office. I understand your confusion when you see similar text in the CIS Index, but please note that CIS is *NOT* the original source of the abstract summaries being used. CIS does take and use the summaries (when available) directly from the GPO documents when they develop their abstracts, just as they do with slip law notations, etc. -Rob

back door draft

your recent addition to conscription has been npov disputed Wolfman 06:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FYI: See message at Neutrality's page. Wolfman 16:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Previous Problem With Nirvana Article

This regards the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_the_Lights_Out

I came across that article from a link from a Nirvana message baord. I at the time had never been to Wikipedia and did not know what this site was. My dillema is this: This might sound really strange and believe me I've learned my lesson: The tracklisting for the upcoming Nirvana boxset is under lock and key. It has not been released yet at all. Not even one song is known on the listing. I had edited the page just screwing around with test data, because I had never used this site before. I had made a FAKE list of songs to test editing the page.

After I had made my edit and figured out how to do it, I had deleted what I had typed. Everything was safe and sound until I came back much later on. People had looked at the history of that page edit and took the FAKE list I made up and reposted it. Vandals had messed with the page, and for some reason an editor of this site had protected the page, and reverted back to my first version with the fake tracklisting. So for awhile the page was protected with the fake tracklisting. I then became frantic. What if someone from the press got ahold of that list and thought it was true while the page was uneditable? I emailed some of the ediors on the page about it. What I ask and beg is that you and others is to keep an eye on that article for anyone posting that old tracklisting I made. IT IS NOT REAL. I simply used it as test data to practice editing a page. I don't know why anyone reverted back to it without any research, and after I deleted it.

The tracklisting as of yet does not exist and won't for a month. Right now the tracklisting is blank on that page, after I talked to some people about it. And I ask of you that it stays like that until an official word is out. Could you even protect the page so that vandals cannot further do it again, at least until nov 23 when the real trackisting will be revealed? Thank you, and again I don't know why this got so out of hand.

User:216.153.214.94

Just in case you don't know. I'm pretty certain that 216.153.214.94 is Rex071404.

I'm pretty sure too, check the contrib list and dates. --kizzle 16:47, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thirded. If the rest of the contrib list wasn't a dead giveaway, check out this edit. What do you want to bet that, as promised, he went to his conservative blogs to recruit an army of editors to outnumber us all, but he couldn't find anyone willing to follow such an egomaniac, unscrupulous leader into battle, so he went back to using his old sockpuppet? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that User:216.153.214.94 is Rex. If that IP user weren't Rex, then he or she would have acted improperly by editing Rex's comment on Neutrality's adminship nomination. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter too much right now. The use of a sockpuppet is not, by itself, misconduct that calls for action. (Of course, it's amusing that Rex would use a sockpuppet after so frequently claiming that genuine users were sockpuppets.) The only real consequence is that it should put the kibosh on the idea of closing either of the pending ArbCom proceedings. I went to the arbitration page to notify the ArbCom of this development and found that Antaeus Feldspar had already done so. JamesMLane 19:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I see by reading John Kerry talk, you are now conceding that Kerry's 1st "wound" was indeed minor. Perhaps you owe Rex071404 an apology. 216.153.214.94 06:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't. By the way, Rex, why are you bothering to edit as an anon IP? You're not fooling anyone. It was already obvious. This post from "216" exhibits a basic misunderstanding of something I wrote, which is another Rex hallmark. JamesMLane 17:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've heard from others that JamesMLane leaps to conclusions. This comment of his above seems to prove it: Leaping to conclusions based on his own un-verified presumptions. 216.153.214.94 19:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Rex serious? Does he actually think that he can waltz back in under an anon IP and act completely like Rex, taking up all Rex's old fights and grudges, and that somehow there will be any doubt that 216.153.214.94 is Rex and always was? I can't figure out, is he actually insane enough to think he's fooling anyone? I mean, anyone who deals with Rex knows he's insane, but this takes it to a whole new level that makes me worry for his safety: if he thinks he can run a sockpuppet this obvious and not be detected, next he'll think he can walk in front of speeding cars and they'll bounce off him! -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it seems inconceivable to the rational mind -- but then, some people seem to think that Bush is on course to balance the budget. JamesMLane 04:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... aren't the two of you hurling derogatory comments? Who is this "Rex" and why are you both so obsessed with him? 216.153.214.94 07:21, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pathetic. It's like dealing with a two-year-old that's in his fifth hour of insisting that it was aliens who took the cookies out of the jar and that if he just keeps it up he'll get away scot-free. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

talk:altmed

The reason is that for some reason the wikipedia won't let me copy stuff into them. I Don't know which end the problem is but until someone can work around it a large amount of that pages history only exists in it's history. I tried to revert it but it would not let me.Geni 15:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missile defense

I'm going to expand the article. My intention is to have it be the main article and have the NMD/TMD articles be more specific to those regimes. -Joseph (Talk) 10:57, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Leaping to conclusions

When one "leaps" to conclusions, they are jumping over some of the available evidence. Since my study of your edits and comments indicates that you do indeed "leap" over available evidence, there is no advantage to be gained in trying to persuade you. Hence, I will not attempt to answer your questions regarding "truth" - unless of course, you are willing to answer this: Yes or No, is it true to refer to the 1st "wound" received by John Kerry as minor? I believe that user Rex071404 asked you that question some months ago, yet you have still not answered it. And if your answer is "no" please state, in detail, why. 216.153.214.94 07:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've already discussed at length the question of how the John Kerry article should describe his first Purple Heart. There's no point in repeating myself. This business of conversing with Rex while he's wearing his 216.153.214.94 costume was amusing at first, but I weary of it. There's a reason Halloween is only one day a year. JamesMLane 16:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

216.153.214.94

Thanks very much for your help. Am I allowed to get rid of some of the rubbish he put on my talk page, or shall I just archive it with the rest?--Honeycake

QuartierLatin1968, I'm sorry your Talk page has been dragged into Rex's vendetta against me. You can ignore the foregoing comment from Rex (posting as "216.153.214.94"). He's simply going through all my edits and adding this same boilerplate comment after every one of them, totally without regard to the content. JamesMLane 04:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. There's one born every minute. :-) QuartierLatin1968 06:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Final 2004 EV total:

• Bush 289
• Kerry 252

(ha ha) [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

new evidence on rex arbcom page

you are my hero. sorry i have been sinking to rex's level recently, its just you only can take so much bullshit. peace :) --kizzle 08:58, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

as for your comment on the silly VfD..... can I buy you a beer? that was very well put. --kizzle 21:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Anon's query re Al Gore

GSC Admin Posted: Nov 6 2004, 07:26 AM
GSC President
I am actually the one who really wrote most of the content for the Wiki article and added the links. We have the same info here: http://www.algoresupportcenter >>
This person is Chris Jackson, from his site. Is this true? Did Chris Jackson write all of the content here in his own words for the Al Gore bio? Also, is he allowed to take the wiki material here and link it with his own site link for his own self-aggrandizement as if it is his alone? Did not others work on this bio as well? Are there not copyright laws to consider regarding Wikipedia?

Anon user.

Chris wrote quite a bit of content on Al Gore. If you want to determine whether he wrote "most" of it, you can go to the article history and trace it from its origin. As for copyright, contributors to Wikipedia retain the copyright to what they write, but they irrevocably license it under the GFDL. Copyright extends to specific words but not to facts or ideas. If Chris is using material he wrote, or presenting in his own words the info that's also covered in the Wikipedia article, there's no copyright issue. If he's using material written by others, he has to comply with the terms of the GFDL. The usual way to handle that is to credit Wikipedia and link back to the Wikipedia article. JamesMLane 19:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

You reverted an anon's additon of all titles on George W. Bush. While I agree this looks ugly, you cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) to back up your removal - yet nowhere on this page does it say you should use surname only, just that you "may". Cheers, Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The convention says only that you shouldn't use the title in the title of the article. VeryVerily 05:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right that the MoS says only "may", but of course it doesn't say anywhere that it's OK to use such titles throughout. The practice is to omit the honorifics, for U.S. Presidents or anyone else. The obvious comparison is John Kerry -- he's always "Kerry" in the article, not "Senator Kerry". Perhaps the MoS should be changed so that it expressly calls for omitting honorifics? JamesMLane 05:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And it was just "Bush" until it got changed. I don't think we should change the MoS just willy-nilly; perhaps we should put something up at VP first? As it stands now, if it doesn't say you can't, then you can - the honorific could be used throughout, but shouldn't. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 22:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with not changing the MoS willy-nilly. I'd suggest starting a thread on the MoS talk page, but you're right that VP is a logical place, so it might be best to post something there directing people to the MoS thread. I, myself, am too lazy to undertake any of this. If you draft something and want comments on it before you post, though, I'd do that much. The issue isn't front-burner for me unless and until we get someone obstinately reverting to add honorifics in some article I care about. JamesMLane 23:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Help request

Biblical inconsistencies is currently a messy list. Could you help tidy it up (it is huge)?

It will probably need to be cut into sections (e.g. by part of bible) and each section moved to a new page.CheeseDreams 01:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration matter of Rex071404 is closed

Excerpt:

2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.

Passed 6 to 0

3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.

Passed 6 to 0

4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.

Passed 5 to 0 with 1 abstain

5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.

Passed 5 to 1

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Final decision. --mav 05:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)