User talk:Wolfman/Archive 2
Neutrality user name
Hi, I just replied to your message at User_talk:Ropers#Question. Ropers 22:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Bush
Understanding what's been going on on the Bush article will not be easy - it's a mess. But I want to clear up two misconceptions right away: (a) referring to Kevin baas's "edits" (as being productive etc.) is not really accurate, as many of them are not "his" but simple reverts to others' versions or cut-and-pasted paragraphs from Talk pages; (b) the sentence about Harvard was not contributed by me, the last sane version just included it and I heard no justification for its removal, although maybe it should go.
Anyway, the conflicts appear to number three: (a) portrayal of Bush's foreign perception in a balanced way vs. a purely negative way with no countervailing info; (b) referring to the 2000 election article for info on it vs. giving a few key pro-Gore arguments and referring to the article for more info; (c) placing the PNAC para logically vs. placing it even before talk about Bush's campaign. VV 23:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I left a note for him.
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Hi. I removed the LA Times editorial link from the above article. The LA Times page requires regitration. See Wikipedia:External links - try to avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications. I'm sure there are plenty of editorials which convey the same message and do not require registration. --Tagishsimon
- Hmm. A huge fraction of the links in this story are to free registration sites like NY Times and Washington Post. That's simply who is doing the reporting on this story. Checking the Wikipedia policy page you listed, I'm not clear if there's a distinction between a reference link embedded in an article and a further reading link at the bottom. The LA Times editorial is uniquely significant in that it is, to my knowledge, the only major newspaper which has flat-out called the Swift Vet charges false. Would it be in accord with Wiki policy to quote the LA Times editorial in the "Controversy" section and provide a reference link? And if not, what are we to do about all the other free-reg reference links; must they be removed? Wolfman 19:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm. I don't have the energy for a campaign against all link to registration-only sites (and so to that extent, apologies for singling out that link), but I do wish they'd disappear from the wiki, since they're useless to me - I won't register. I'm not sure I agree the LST is the only editorial to take the stance it did [1]; perhaps the only one in the US, but I doubt even that. I guess if you want to put it back, you're welcome ... you could append a (registration required) warning so that people's time is not wasted; and while you're on the page, add it to other know registration required links. --Tagishsimon
SBVT
Good work on the edits to SBVT. Gives it more structure and coherence. --Nysus 20:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Journalists with bias
Thanks for the list of journalists. Not intrusive at all. Your list is probably a lot more comprehensive than anything i could have come up with anyway. AlistairMcMillan 04:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking you, but thanks anyway. If you want to discuss any of them with me, please add Wiki links to those that have them. If you don't do this, I won't take your oveture to dialog seriously. Rex071404 06:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Unless and until you have a bona fide interest in dialoging with me, please refrain from making any further comments of non-official nature, on my talk page. Thank you. Rex071404 06:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Let me be more clear: I am instructing you; unless and until you want to dialog, other than communications which you are authorized to make to me by virtue of a Role of Authority on this Wiki, do not comment again on my Talk Page. Thank you. Rex071404 07:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rex's latest charge
In case you haven't seen this, here's Rex's 37468th charge against us: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 10:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Suggestions for change to SBVT heading
I made some suggestions for changing the heading that now reads SBVT sparks debate over Kerry war records over in SBVT talk. See what you think.
A few Things.
First of all, why is your userpage blank? Second of all, I just wanted to let you know that your revert of Talk:John Kerry was not of an anon ip, it was of a user (although I do agree with your reversion). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
SBVT NPOV
I have restored the NPOV notice. Wolfman, DON'T YOU DARE remove that again (until we agree that it can come down)! HOW DARE YOU tell me that I am not allowed to "dispute the neutrality" of this article! In fact, by deleting the NPOV notice, you confirm that you are being POV! Rex071404 01:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3-revert rule
Due to your violation of the 3-revert rule this evening at SBVT and your insulting comments to me, I have added a new charge against you here. Rex071404 02:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Possible complaint against Rex
I've just begun to look at the SBVT page but my preliminary impression is that Rex has learned absolutely nothing. If you need to follow through by going to the ArbCom about SBVT, would it be reasonable to include his conduct at George W. Bush? I haven't been involved with that page; I just know that, once he couldn't take out his spleen on the John Kerry page, he became very active over there. If his Bush edits were objectionable, it might support a request that he be blocked from editing any article relating primarily to the 2004 election, including but not limited to the following (and then give a list of the ones currently in existence). JamesMLane 07:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Peace offer
If you are willing, I will set up a sub page offf my talk page and we can discuss our past disagreements. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 04:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have startd the page. [2] Please excuse the name typo for page title. If you know how to correct that, that's fine with me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 05:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rex071404/woflfpeace I have commented already. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 05:14, 1 Sep 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"?
Your comments are appreciated.
[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 05:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
wp: [3]
SBVT
A while ago I created SBVT as a redirect to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but there's no Talk redirect. Thus, Talk:SBVT is a dead link but Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth works fine. Was that your issue? JamesMLane 19:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Peace
If our new dialog is going to bear fruit, I am going to need you to comment about your opposiiton to my edits on SBVT and wait for answer. You can comment on SBVT talk if you want. I am feeling pressued by your multiple reversions of my edits on SBVT. What's up? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 16:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Arb com
Withrawal of the Arb com is the 1st aim of my dialog with you. However, in case you misunderstood, I recognize that withdrawl is predicated on us reachng agreement. Rather than quit at this point, let's see if we can dailog about Gardner and make progress on that.
My thinking boils down to the gross POV nature of the preceding quotes which I am trying to follow with the Gardner quote. Placing those so high up in the articles sets a POv tone. If those quotes were lower on the page or better yet, if their views were mentioned but not quoted, I would no longer think than Gardner's quote must be there. I am prepared to yield some on this. Are you? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 (also, read this)]] 19:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Kerry Bills
Please read the two links you added, Neither of those links list Kerry as the "sponsor". Rather, both links list someone else. What say ye?
[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 18:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I take you word at that and am satisfied with the table the way it is - I acccept the two new bills you have linked to. Also, do you see what I mean about Kerry? Unlike my other home-state senator (Kennedy - I'm from Massachusetts), Kerry has done very little. The democrats should have run someone else - Kerry has no senate accomplishments to speak of - and that's no exaggeration. This is why we have the Vietnam service fiasco - Kerry has nothing else to point to but promises.
Also, please remember to sign your posts
[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 18:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
True, but they are not running for president, Kerry is.
For the new table, please use my model.
Cut & paste the HTML into your editor and re-use
Tables should look the same.
BTW: Do you now agree that I was not trying to pull a fast one with this table?
[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 18:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*** Very Important !!! ***
On each new law page you create, please include the link to the legislative history - this is very important - we need to set a good precendent for the creation of these kinds of law pages - without the history , any bill can be attributed to any office holder - and that's not good. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 19:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm going on trust right now. I'll verify later. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 19:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page: http://wikisource.org/wiki/US_Public_Law_106-165
has no link to its legislative history.
[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 19:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
SBVT v. John Kerry
Wolfman, Hope you don't mind continuing the conversation here rather than on the SBVT Talk page.
As I said, I believe that John Kerry's service in Vietnam was generally honorable, and admirable, but comparable to that of most other Vietnam veterans, including the members of SBVT. But I also believe that Kerry has repeatedly lied about his Vietnam experiences to advance his political career, while the SBVT are simply telling the truth.
That's really the issue for me. It's not that I think what Kerry did in Vietnam was particularly dishonorable. I don't. The SBVT do, but that reflects the higher standards of their military culture. (Which Kerry was never really a part of.) I'm more troubled by what he did in the anitwar movement, but even there it's been a long time, and I think he might have been forgiven if he'd shown any sort of contrition. But Kerry himself made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. If he hadn't done that, I don't think we'd be talking about this. But his portrayal of himself in the role of a war hero is a fraud. And the contrast with his actual role as an antiwar hero made a reaction by the veterans inevitable. Kerry and the Democrats made a huge mistake, and they're paying the price. Anonip 22:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
JML influence
Don't let JML's "I told you so" get you all riled up. You and I did great work on John Kerry's legislation. Let's not descend into acrimony - see all my comments before you start a "link battle", please. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 
]] 20:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the link mix at about 60% kerry/40% SBVT is just about right, the way it is now. Also, I have suggested as a conciliation, that we deleted the "other" subsection from within the links, provided that the link to the SBVT site itself remains. This, I feel is a fair balance. Also, your implied option of many many links would be a grave error. It would be viewed as vandalism and would also put you at risk in the ongoing Arb case. In fact, you should see the proposed decision page for that - the Arbitrators have found consinderable fault with my accusers too (not just me). Pay particular attention to the risk of injecting partisanship into the article. Anyway, I am satisified with the links section as is, and may even agree to a few selective removals. As it stands, I am the only editor looking at this from SBVT, while the others are looking from Kerry. That being the case, since you and I are talking, just tell me what you want to change about the links (other than completely remove) and chances are I'll probably agree. We could easily resolve this tonight, if you would suggest. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You are over-reacting - the issue is probably already moot - I deleted a balanced mix over the last few minutes. Tell me what you think of the current mix. Also, I am right about what the Arbitrators are saying - you should read that page - it would accrue to your benefit. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks on the satire issue. good to know I'm not completely out of my mind with regards to wiki policy. Lyellin 01:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton
Nice job with that second edit. Your wording is clearer and more NPOV than mine. RadicalSubversiv E 23:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rex
Wolfman, 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)
Vandal alert
A vandal keeps deleting the legis. page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_of_legislation_by_John_Kerry
[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wolfpeace
I am guessing, now that you are signing Nysus initiated anti-Rex talk pages "lists", that our attempts to clear the air between us, have been deemed a failure by you? Please birng me up to speed on your thoughts in this area. Thanks [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton
Regarding Hillary Clinton, I'm not saying I'm necessarily attached to that particular phrasing, but I believe the criticism to be a significant part of that leveled against her. I say this because it frequently comes up in conversations with friends of mine who aren't as supportive of her as I am. It's an urban legend, yes, but a significant one that many people nonetheless attach to her, and one that we'll be unable to conclusively address, except by stating her public actions and statements. I believe the information should be included in some form. Respectfully yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:36, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of copying your comments and mine to Talk:Hillary Clinton, so they'll all be in one place (I assume it's on your watchlist, as mine?). Hope to hear from you there, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:32, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)