User talk:Rex071404

Some past dialogs are saved in archives, here

Specials links

Wolfpeace

Talk page policy

Any messages left here for me will be greeted with a courteous reply.

Editing others' comments

Hey Rex, you know that I have tried to help you on several forums in cases where I think you're being mistreated by other users, but the recent behavior of editing other people's signed comments, even on your own user talk page, is a serious breach of WikiEtiquette which is just going to cause you problems. I realize how frustrating it can be to work on Wikipedia, especially when you feel you're outnumbered and outgunned, but deliberately misrepresenting people's words is not the answer. I strongly advise you not do this anymore, and perhaps consider apologizing and explaining that it was an outburst resulting from some temporary frustration that won't happen again. You may feel marginalized right now (believe me I understand), and not see the point in playing by the rules any further, but (a) there is hope of improving your reputation over time (although a few users will no doubt always hate you), and (b) it just isn't right to change others' words like that regardless. Well, just my two cents. Best, V V 00:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I have already apologized the the effected parties. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 00:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I see that now, great to know. It now looks more like a policy misunderstanding. V V 01:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your Contributions

It is not your focus on political pages that alarms me. It is your blatant pro-bush/anti-kerry bias that alarms me. Do you really think you are capable of making NPOV edits to 2004 election pages? I am aware of my bias and try very hard to make sure I do not let it infect my edits. I think my record shows I have reverted "Bush is a nazi" edits just as often as "Kerry is a liar" edits.

One other thing. A lot of your comments in edit summaries and talk pages seem to be instructions to other editors. Why do others have to make "a clear argument" for their edits, when you do not? Why do others have to sit back and discuss your edits at length before reverting them, while you don't hesitate to revert their edits immediately without even taking the time to sign the talk page? AlistairMcMillan 03:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't have the time or the energy to go through your contribution list and explain in detail why I think your edits are biased. How about you point to one pro-Kerry and one anti-Bush edit you've made in the past. AlistairMcMillan 04:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My talk page policy

I thought you might be interested in knowing my talk page policy, it's pretty simple: append only. I've had personal insults and so forth on my talk page. I leave them there. They ultimately harm the other person's reputation more than mine. I have found this policy to work out fine. Kevin Baas | talk 03:48, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

I'm not fully aware of the dynamic between you and N., but I believe you that it's tense. I see how "uhh.. ok" feels snide. It's certainly not very communicative. What I think he meant to say is that he feels the actions Pritcha was describing were not against policy or ettiquete, and were not unethical, and the conclusion that he draws is not logically substantiated by them. In other words, he sees Pritcha's comment as a stretch to disrepute him, with little rhetorical potency. He does not appreciate that - he percieves it as hostile. So in response, he meant to say all this, though he did in a somewhat sarcastic tone, showing that he didn't feel he needed to defend himself because he didn't feel that Pritcha's comments would affect a critical mind. Yet he drew attention to his concerns - he was a putting up a little watch flag, just in case. I think his response was meant to be defensive, but I understand how it was irritating.

We restored the comments because we believe that everyone has a right to be heard clearly, and represented fairly. Kevin Baas | talk 04:13, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Considering this, I can understand how you would feel that way. I'm sorry you felt harrased, it was not my intention to harrass you. Also, I assure you that I operated independantly and without bias. I would do the same for you as I did for N. It's just my policy; my version of justice - "everyone has a right to be heard clearly, and represented fairly". It was not directed at your person, but at the specific actions taken. Kevin Baas | talk 04:30, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

And might I add that I find Nysus' recent comment on TfT belittling, and think that he should have been more considerate. Kevin Baas | talk 04:33, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Thanks. So will I. Kevin Baas | talk 04:36, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Truth/Hostage

Link doesn't work. Also, the idea here is the minute you don't get your way, no matter what, and MULTIPLE people all disagree with you, you threaten to do something (normally match someone edit for edit, etc). Then you complain when people remove things you put in w/o discussion, even when you don't discuss. Then, you threaten to put on a NPOV tag unless people agree with you. That's hostage tactics, not appealing to truth. Lyellin 05:21, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

link requires WAPO log in [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

just got the spectator one to work. Alright, so documents that just came out may have been forged. That doesn't relate to TfT at all Rex. Besides the first link coming from a radically POV source. Lyellin 05:24, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Read my TfT talk - they are intimately related due to being potatoes being dug from the same spot in the same field [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just read it again (second time), and again I do not see the connection. Nor do I see the connection between fed documents to the DNC and someone coming out to speak for TfT. Just because multiple people are critizing bush does not mean they are all related. Lyellin 05:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

what does "appealing" or asserting have to do wtih anything? Where have I used that phrase? Forgive me, I don't remember doing so, but I've typed a lot of things on these pages, disregarding the actual content i'm working on in another window. Lyellin 05:26, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Ssee above "That's hostage tactics, not appealing to truth." [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks- I'm forgetting what I'm saying. I apologize for that. But asserting vs appealing is immaterial. Either word works for me, I stilld on't believe you are doing it. Lyellin 05:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Explanations

I know that you and Neutrality have a considerable history. I am also aware that various people may be monitoring your edits. I am not going to speculate on your reasons for editing the vote tally as you did, or whether you might have hoped this would go undetected; I can't read your mind to determine either of those things. My position is simply that the content of the edit in question indicates that it was not an accidental mistake, and what you offer as your "only explanation" on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex0714042 is not a plausible explanation. --Michael Snow 18:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But, in order to come to that conclusion, you have to disregard my assurance that it was a mistake. If not, then you are not assuming good faith. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 18:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I assumed good faith when I first looked at the evidence. I considered the content of the edit, as well as your assurance that it was a mistake. In my opinion, that assurance fails to explain the content, particularly the "etc.", because you claim to have made a typo, and etc. is a rather difficult combination of characters to accidentally type in. Therefore, I conclude that the evidence shows your assurance to be implausible, and my assumptions of good faith about the edit stop at that point. If you would like to explain how the "etc." was a good faith addition, please feel free to do so. --Michael Snow 18:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML's goal of getting me "hard banned" from this Wiki

Here a link to an edit by JML, where he states his "hard ban" goal to Neutrality. These two seem inordinately focused on making and/or amplifying trouble for me. Here is another, where JML is even more explicit with Kevin Baas. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.

Peace profound. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily's POV

I posted evidence of VV's POV-ness (if that's a word) on Talk:George W. Bush. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 16:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the notice on FCVF. That was odd. Kevin Baas | talk 17:41, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Archive links

I fixed your talk page archive links so that they're internal instead of external links. I hope you don't mind. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 18:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyright of timeline

Given that you clearly don't know what you are talking about, I'm moving this here so it doesn't clutter the Bush controvery discussion page. Feel free to ask any further questions on my talk page.--Eloquence *

Where is the signed release? Did you post an image of that too for proof? Also, I'd like to study the image for a while 1st. Please repost a link to it here to it's native site location. this way the relase issues can be confiremd and we can study it for objections prior to reposting.

Thank you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The image is clearly marked as Creative-Commons-SA in the version uploaded as well as the one hosted on the author's website, follow the links. As for delaying inclusion, this is not the way wiki works. If you have objections about the timeline, raise them here. We do not postpone the posting of content until every party has had an opportunity to raise objections.--Eloquence *

GWB timeline

I removed that timlines graphic - it is clearly marked "copyrighted". This wiki would need a GPL (?) release - there is no "fair use" for us on that. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Please only remove things when you have a vague understanding of what you are doing.

Any licensed work is copyrighted. That includes all content on Wikipedia, which is copyrighted by its respective authors. Yes, that's right - you do not "lose copyright" when you contribute to Wikipedia. You only put it under a free license. In fact, you can take your own content and use it in a manner that contradicts that license - it's just that you cannot take away people's rights to use it in the manner described in the license. See also open content, copyleft etc.

The question is not whether a work is copyrighted, it is whether it is under a license that satisfies certain criteria. This includes the GNU Free Documentation License, the Creative Commons Share-Alike License, the Creative Commons Attribution License, the GNU General Public License and many others. See Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for details. I emailed Simon and convinced him that, in the interest of sharing, he should put his timeline under a free license, either the GFDL or the CC-SA (because these are the most "compatible" ones). He used the CC-SA, as is clearly noted on the image.--Eloquence *

Wolfpeace

Not at all. I have been most impressed by some of your recent moves: Neutrality RFC & arbcom removal of cross-complaint.

I did agree with Nysus's complaint, so I signed it. The CBS thing has no connection to TfT, their position pre-dated that. That's basically what I signed on about. That doesn't mean I'm not happy to resolve personal disputes with you. I've been away for almost a week, so I haven't been really keeping up with what's happening.

(Just now, I looked again and saw it was also a call for admin intervention. I hadn't noticed that, and have thus amended my stand.) Wolfman 17:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean? Have you re-instated the complaints? Also, what have I said you find offensive? I might add, I was surprised and pleased you had withdrawn unilaterally. I was, and still am, working towards being comfortable withdrawing myself. Your recent actions in arbcom had given me a very large boost in that direction. Wolfman 15:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This edit [1] will have to speak for itself on that. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes Neutrality is not being very gracious there, is he? That's his point of view, not mine. In fact, I disagree with his label 'troll'. Though we have our differences, I would not be speaking to a 'troll'. I don't know about the others feel. Wolfman 15:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, while my experience as of late with you has been more positive than previously, I do still feel that there is too much "self-bolstering" of criticial opinions occuring in the circle of dialog which is JML, Gamaliel, Neutrality and others, etc. The haughtily cliquish nature of this cotiere of editors is having an adverse impact on me personally and the Wiki in general. Don't be so quick to dismiss out of hand what Fred Bauder has been saying. He makes some good points - you would be well served to take them at face value without balking. This is my plan in regards to whatever they hand down - be it for or against me. That being the case and because of the acute hostility evidenced by certain current comments (and the thin gruel of the RfC and RfA2) against me, I see no bnefit to making a macro peace overtue. Perhaps a joint withdrawl with you still makes sense, but there is no way that JML and Neutrality are going to come away from this with anything but a self-convinced conviction that I am exclusively the one in error - unless the Arbcom persuades them otherwise. Hence, no good would have come from that overture. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alright. I do think there probably was a benefit to macro-peace, as it strongly bolsters the case that you have changed from the days before the injunction. So, there is some strategic sense in it. But, I understand that's an awfully hard move to make without some sort of reciprocation. As you can see from my comments to James, I don't much like being in arbcom; I imagine you don't either. I now plan to revert to my previous behavior of ignoring the proceedings; I was much happier that way. Wolfman 16:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, just an FYI to you: Your recent two-edit addition to the current RfC against me was, I feel "piling on". If you were to look more closely at my original edits, the timing of them and my reply to your charges, I think you'd have to agree that you are overdoing it in bringing those allegations. Frankly, it was your bringing of those allegations which was a major tipping point towards my beginning to think that dialoging with you individually may ultimately prove fruitless. Please read my defense on the RfC page. I really to feel that because you did not try "and fail" to address those edits with me, that your injection of them into the RfC was in bad faith. That action by you has seriously undermined our dialog. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 16:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I pointed out both edits to you on the Talk page. You never took the opportunity to explain or apologize even after a week's time. It is not I who acted poorly in this matter. Wolfman 02:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are simply mistaken. Those talk pages were filling up rapidly and me missing your comments (why not show me links to them?) would have been easy. Also, my dialog overture to you came after this alleged transgression by me. Bearing this in mind, when you accepted my offer of dialog aiming towards "wolfpeace", you were obliged to bring up all outstanding complaints so as to afford me the opportunity to address them. More so, the fact that your reply here shows no conciliation at all, leads me to begin to doubt your sincerity. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The second deletion of my comment was well after negotiations had begun, which surprised me. Given your history of assiduous attention to the talk pages, I simply do not believe you did not see my comments. At any rate, you knew you had deleted my comments. Why should I have to point out your misbehavior for you to make it right?

Now, you are berating me for something wrong that you did. I don't appreciate that. I am willing to negotiate with you, but I am not willing to be brow-beaten. Wolfman 06:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Therein is where we differ: I do not agree that I knew what you claim I knew. For you to presume that - without explicit confirmation - is to not afford me the benefit of the doubt. Being doubted makes me suspicious. Even so, if I sound like I am "brow-beating" you, please accept my apologies. That is not my intent. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK. My understanding of your position is this: you neither were aware of deleting my comments, nor saw my complaints on the Talk page. Since you say so, I will believe you. Thus, I will delete those two issues from the RFC. I hope you can see why I would have been skeptical until you stated that outright. Addendum, if you pointed me at your response on that page, I had not noticed it previously. I took the liberty of removing both my complaint & your response, since the response is moot without the complaint. Wolfman 06:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you - by affording me the opportunity to address these, you have given me due process and I appreciate that. My suspicions have been alleviated. As an additonal note: Of the comments I typically receive on talk pages regarding my edits, yours are some of the more accessible. I appreciate that too. Also, for the record, I am keeping the link to your deletion of charges/defense here in case someone wants to review what has been resolved. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]]

Hey, thanks for the kind word over on the Killian page. I really do try to be reasonable, when I think other people are also.

I probably won't keep editing over there, as I actually don't much care about the memos. I just was annoyed at the complete lack of even the pretense of balance. Earlier tonight, a reader wouldn't have even guessed that there might be any current dispute at all.

I have no idea what the Kerry page was like before you got there (as I arrived later). But, the Killian page probably made me react like you did to Kerry.Wolfman 06:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As an exercize, go back via the edit history log of John Kerry and look at some of the older versions around early July - you'll see. Pay particular attention to what it looked like after Neutrality was editing - just around the time I arrived. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 13:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't say that. Check the edit history again. Wolfman 07:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re: Voting contradiction?

A Kerry flip-flop! ;-) The two polls are worded differently. I don't think the wording of the second poll is appropriate - it is too ad hominem and not productive. The first poll: although my comment may suggest that i am strongly for it, I was reluctant to vote for it, as the wording, in my opinion, is too strong. I am concerned that your edits are too pov, from what i've seen from the kerry fiasco and other edits, and i'm also concerned that the intense focus on them may ultimately slow progress on this page down, rather than accelerate it (as happened w/SBFT). I am more in agreement with wolfman on that poll than i am w/anyone else. I'm not sure it merits "administrative review" - which is not part of policy or procedure, as far as i know. I think if you were somewhat more conservative w/your edits, and consumed less attention by them, progress on the article would be accelerated, and you'd still get through the edits that you would get thru with the slower, longer, harder process. Regarding links for instance, I'm sure people would accept some of your links, just not all of them. find out what those links are and why, and go from there, instead of (apparently) trying to push all of them thru. I hope this clears up any confusion on my stance. Kevin Baas | talk 20:13, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Few Things

First of all, nice quotes on your user page. Second of all, who's happy joe? (just curious where the icon came from) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Happy Joe" is the inner Joe, all those who could be Joe, would be. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, chill out!

I just saw your latest post on Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the one that goes in part "such a statement is false and an attack". Look, I'm something of a conservative (but basically a libertarian), and you're making even me uncomforable. Just turn the intensity down a notch or two, OK? As an example, here's what you could have written:

Your initial comment claimed that I was "slanting the intro". From my perspective, such a statement is not only not correct, but is also an implicit comment on me. Furthermore, I think your edits have as much "slant" as mine do.

See? Pretty much the same content, but a lot lower temperature. Look, you need to look at it from an enlightened self-interest angle, OK? You won't have a lot of success getting things done if you keep jumping down peoples' throats. OK? Noel 01:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What you say is true, except that JamesMLane has been going out of his way to stoke trouble for me and has stated his intention of wanting to get me "hard banned" (permanantly kicked out) from this Wiki. He has been a prime mover of the pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush crowd. Go check his list of contributions and read them - you will see what I mean. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 02:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but by jumping up and down and getting upset you're just giving him more ammo! Chill out, be calm! Noel 03:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS: You're doing really well over on Talk:Killian memos. Please just apply that same type over on Talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The best way to handle JML is just treat him as if his comments were written by someone else. Respond to the content, not the person. Noel 03:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you can't control him - and he can't control you. So please stick to what you can control, and take a deep breath - no, make that three deep breaths - before replying to anything he posts. Remember, every time you react to him personally (as opposed to saying "here's source X for fact Y"), you're just giving him more ammo. Noel 14:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)