User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 5

My associates and I have installed the wikimedia-1.1.0 software at http://www.wikinfo.org, alternative address, http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/. It is hosted by ibiblio.org. Except for the math function it all works. Please report bugs here on my talk page or by email to me at fredbaud@ctelco.net. The wikidata base dump was not installed. Software has been developed which allows easy importing of Wikipedia articles and to date about 30,000 have been imported. Certain policies have been changed from Wikipedia although the notion of using American English has been abandoned; International English is used. The concept of neutral point of view for each article has been changed to a policy of accepting a cluster of articles with differing points of view. Several policies which have been observed to cause tension on Wikipedia have been liberalized. See Wikinfo. Fred Bauder 13:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It may be useful when trying to locate information on a book to try the search engine at Redbaud.com

---

That any writer's books can be obtained from Amazon is a triviality. That French versions of a French writers books can be obtained from French Amazon is equally a triviality, to any person literate in French. It would be no less sensible to link to Amazon from the article of every person with published work. Granted it's a convenience, of sorts, it's not one that has any palce here. There is nothing encyclopedic in providing that information. In any case, if--as you, unlike most philosophers, seem to think, given your initial version of the article--Levy is a philosopher of note, his books will be readily available wherever French people buy their philosophy books, won't they?

---

Material has been removed here and placed in User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 1 and in User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 2

We need to finish up JRR 1

People are getting restless. We need to close up Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien; I think the easiest way to do this would be to officially proclaim that he is, indeed, a reincarnation of 24/EntmootOfTrolls/&c., which will be quick and uncontroversial. The new section is here. Could you possibly have a look at it? Thanks. James F. (talk) 04:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

wiki-info

what does "little factual basis for a sympathetic point of view" mean? Almost every view has somebody who can be documented as sympathetic. I'm curious, esp. since I was thinking of editing on the wiki-info as well as the pedia here. You seem to suggest that a key peice of their policy is unfairly represented? Sam [Spade] 20:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikinfo's policy on sympathetic point of view does not extend to totalitarian ideologies and related subjects. White nationalism due to its association in popular culture with Neonazism probably deserves some sort of special treatment as legitimate grievances are usually not taken seriously. Fred Bauder 12:54, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the general point your making (particularly "legitimate grievances are usually not taken seriously"), but I do understand that Wikinfo's policy apparently does not extend to unpopular ideologies. On a separate note...

White grievances, for example, with affirmative action, or immigration, which White nationialists raise are often not taken seriously due to the associations with racism which White nationalist represent. Fred Bauder 19:27, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

I understand that, but in my eyes that would display an especially clear need for allowing a sympathetic point of view for them on wikinfo. I guess I am always for bringing up the lowest common denominator, but I don't see why they (or anyone) should be the exception to the rule. Sam [Spade] 02:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

arbitration

Might I enquire as to why you have changed your vote? I understood and agreed with your previous stance, but I see that you have made a 180-degree turn and have chosen to accept without comment. I'm not aware of the particulars on this, but I assume you are in no way required to provide explanations for your votes or decisions one way or the other. That said, I would prefer to be enlightened as to your reasoning, and would perhaps enjoy an opportunity to attempt to sway you, assuming that was both acceptable and necessary. Sam [Spade] 18:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mav that we need to take a look at the requirement that editors strive for NPOV in the context of the case of an editor who is allegedly not trying at all. Fred Bauder 23:18, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. Sam [Spade] 02:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration: Mr Natural Health

Hi, I'm just leaving a note on every Arbitration Committee Member's talk page pleading with them to look at this case more quickly. He is back in full flow these last few days [1] --bodnotbod 02:23, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Early National Socialism

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Early National Socialism/draftAndyL 08:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade's attempt to streach for a factual basis for this slur is of the same temper.

What exactly does this mean? "of the same temper"? Sam [Spade] 21:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It means that you are trying to work up factual support for hate speech. Fred Bauder 22:07, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

statement moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER#An_additional_slur Sam [Spade] 06:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My Arbitration Case

As the Wikipedia is currently experiencing technical difficulties which prohibit me from editing or defending myself, I expect you to relay this message to the rest of your committee.

The rules are quite clear that, prior to arbitration, a plaintiff must attempt to resolve the issue via the mediation committee -- as Snowspinner has not done this, I expect the committee to follow its own rules and insist that Snowspinner attempt to resolve his personal issues with me, by discussing with me in a mediated fashion.

I am happy to accept mediation and believe that mediation, on this issue, is long overdue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I am disappointed that you have not responded to the above -- if you are on vacation, please inform the parties which you are judging. Regardless, I have begun a defense at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lir/Evidence/Defense Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lyndon LaRouche

-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Israel Shahak

Hi Fred,

I have no problem with the edit you made to Israel Shahak, but all the same, I'd rather you didn't edit protected articles. Thanks!

DanKeshet 02:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172

I'm not sure why you left the note regarding the restoration of the arbcom request on 172's talk page when it was Sam Spade who made the changes. :) Snowspinner 14:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what he's talking about (snowspin) or why he feels a need to mess about in all this, plying in the mud so to speak. Either way, you can see my response to you here: User_talk:172#WP:RfAR

Sam [Spade] 18:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche

-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Arbitration case

I strongly object to you listing my name alongside Lance6Wins at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. I have not been accused of any offence and the case against Lance6Wins is not a dispute between him and me. I didn't even initialize the case against Lance6Wins. I am the poor sysop who has been trying to defend Wikipedia against assault by a fanatic. The case concerns Lance6Wins' behaviour over many months and not about particular articles nor about my recent blocks of his IPs. --Zero 08:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"In legalese, he has filed a counterclaim." Since when do defendants have the right to file counterclaims against witnesses? Funny sort of law you practice, Fred. --Zero 00:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's quasi-law. We're a quasi-judicial body. :) Martin 20:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade

How would you recommend I be less bullheaded? Sam [Spade] 19:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche

Further to this matter, since I have been censured and penalised for personal attacks, I think it is now appropriate that I ask you to make an additional ruling that User:Herschelkrustofsky be required to refrain from calling named individuals "fascists," particularly those who are not Wikipedians and not present to defend themselves, unless there is evidence that they belong to a fascist organisation or have espoused views generally accepted as fascist. I refer to his repeated description of an Australian Member of Parliament, Michael Danby, as (to quote just the most recent example) "Australia's most outspokenly fascist Member of Parliament, Michael Danby." This is untrue and grossly offensive, and may also expose Wikipedia to action for defamation. I think fairness dictates that if I am to be censured for calling Herschelkrustofsky a slanderer, he should be required to cease being one. Adam 00:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The most reference instance is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#For those of you just joining us. Adam 12:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a perfectly true statement, and highly relevant to the debate within which it was made. However I am willing to refrain from futher such comments, provided Herschelkrustofsky is instructed to cease slandering people as fascists and this instruction is enforced. Adam 14:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"

Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me sevral days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question about ArbCom procedure

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)

You copied my question to my Talk page and answered it there. I infer that you prefer to have all the discussion in one place instead of bouncing back and forth between Talk pages (I agree, I really dislike that feature of so many Wikipedia conversations), and that you prefer the one place to be my Talk page instead of yours (fine with me). Accordingly, I've replied there. Thanks for your response. JamesMLane 14:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

When can I expect a formal response to my request above re Herschelkrustofsky? This is a matter I take very seriously. Adam 07:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, Section Proposed findings of fact, where the following proposed finding, "6) User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in personal attacks directed at User:Adam Carr though association with Adam Carr's employer, Michael Danby who he characterizes as "Australia's most outspokenly fascist Member of Parliament" see[2]" has been added and is being voted on.

Also in the section Proposed remedies, "7) User Herschelkrustofsky is banned for one day for making personal attacks." and in the subsection Enforcement, "4) In the event of additional personal attacks by either party, either User Herschelkrustofsky or User Adam Carr are subject to short bans, the duration of the ban to gradually increase upon subsequent offenses." Fred Bauder 12:56, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Arbitration Committee:

I have read the following:

=== Remedies===

1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) User:Adam Carr is banned for one day for making a personal attack.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

4) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

Enforcement

1) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

3) If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

I have attempted twice to restore this passage to the article:

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has tried to clear LaRouche's name, arguing that investigators and political opponents had abused the legal process to eliminate him. Clark wrote in 1995, in a letter to then serving Attorney General Janet Reno: "I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."[http:// larouchein2004.net/ exoneration/ clarkletter.htm]

In the early 1990s, while LaRouche was in prison, full page advertisements, calling for LaRouche to be exonerated, appeared in papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post. Among the signators were heads of state and cabinet-level officials from around the world, including Arturo Frondizi, former President of Argentina; leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, including Amelia Boynton Robinson (the heroine of Bloody Sunday) and Rosa Parks; former Minnesota Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Eugene McCarthy; and prominent artists, such as violinist Norbert Brainin, former primarius of the Amadeus Quartet.

It is interesting, and perhaps puzzling, that these individuals came to the defense of a man who has been so universally condemned in the press throughout the English-speaking world.

It had been reverted by administrator Guanaco. When I replaced it he reverted it again, with the explanation that it was forbidden by the AC ruling. I put it back in, saying that I had read the AC ruling. Then it was reverted by administrator AndyL. Could you please explain how the ruling forbids this? The section is certainly factual and I think it makes the article more neutral. Weed Harper 14:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. There is no restriction on editing of the article Lyndon LaRouche. The only proposition, which was rejected, would have restricted editing by Herschelkrustofsky. I will leave a note on User Talk:Guanaco. Fred Bauder 14:39, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to call your attention to the following, which indicates that Adam Carr has resumed his campaign of personal attacks, in defiance of the Arbitration Committee rulings:

"I have no objection to Snowspinner or some other User not previously involved attempting to write a compromise or composite article incorporating elements of the pro-LaRouche and anti-LaRouche articles. I am not optimistic of their chances of success (it will be like trying to write an article on evolution by merging a Darwinian article and a creationist article), but I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. I am emphatically not willing that Herschelkrustofsky should be the person to undertake this task, since he is not only a LaRouche cult member and thus a partisan in this controversy, but also a proved and notorious liar and slanderer. Anything he writes will be just another attempt to wheedle his lying LaRouche garbage into Wikipedia and will be immediately reverted. Adam 11:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)" (from Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#The_Basic_Version

--Herschelkrustofsky 15:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please re-consider Re: Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404

On the advice of Mbecker, I am voluntarily abstaining from any John Kerry edits for several days. Also, I have added substaintial information to my section of the evidence page, please review that. [3] Also, please take note that my principal accuser Neutrality has also been involved in aggressive revert activities at George_W._Bush and yet, though I have also begun to edit George_W._Bush, I have not been involved in acrimonious debates on that talk page nor any reverts there at all. There is no tactful way to say this, but if you look at the state the John Kerry page was before I arrived, I think you'd agree that this entrenched group of editors who is after me (principally JamesMLane and Neutrality) had a very heavy pro-Kerry bias on that page. I truly do want to avoid being kicked out and to that end, have several times asked my principal accuser Neutrality to dialog with me on my talk page and I also requested mediation with him. He declined both. Rex071404 07:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you feel User Neutrality's behavior should be considered please add your request to the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404 requesting whatever relief you feel is justified. Be sure to put some examples of specific edits on the Evidence page also. Fred Bauder 12:21, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky

Has Herschelkrustofsky been formally advised that he must desist from calling Michael Danby a fascist? What was his response? Adam 12:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right now 3 arbitrators have voted for a remedy which would ban him for one day. I don't know if he understands at this point that he must desist from calling Michael Danby a fascist? As we have no decree on the point I haven't tried to tell him. Fred Bauder 12:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I am not interested in having him banned. I am interested in having him told that he must not call people fascists. Adam 14:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At this point I have just made a request on his talk page. Fred Bauder 15:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Rex071404 John Kerry ban

Given the extreme pro-Kerry condition of the John Kerry page when I began editing it and the furious reaction of the entrenched editors there, I am not surpised that Arbitrators would leap to their defense. I am however, surprised that you you do it so easily based on what amounts to their half of the story of a tit-for-tat battle.

With election 2004 underway, the ponderously slow process of the Arb committee means that my "temp" ban is in fact a death sentence.

For your information, I was patiently and thoroughly tallying details (many already submitted into evidence) about Neutrality, etc's equally agressive efforts as mine.

But alas, this Wiki has turned into bascially a pro-Kerry farce - with only the aggresive "anti-Kerry" editors being banned. The pro-Kerry crew it seems, can do no wrong.

Rex071404 16:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: this is a cross-post - I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404. Martin 22:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Am I allowed to post comments to the Talk page of John Kerry?

Please advise, ASAP. Rex071404 08:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't. Find other areas of interest to edit for now. Fred Bauder 11:03, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

PolishPoliticians

Re: talking to PolishPoliticians, apparently Szopen has already beaten me to it at User_talk:PolishPoliticians#Naming_wars, to a degree at least. (s)He is aiming for a long term solution.

I'll put the relevant pages on my watchlist, and help out if/when nescesary. Kim Bruning 20:57, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arb

Thanks for notifying me of the RfAr. I had actually noticed it but was just going to ignore it until I heard from an arbitrator that it was being considered. VV 22:40, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Fred.

On VeryVerily's talk page, you mentioned me as being "involved in the dispute." Actually, I'm not a party to this; that matter is solely between Kevin baas and VV. Thanks. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Your insistence that snowspinner's comment remain on the arbitration page is in direct contradiction to your stated opinion on the matter, on [4].

Please either change your proposition, or practice it.

And BTW, I noticed the comment above by neutrality, which is mistaken. Gzornenplatz initiated the arbitration. I simply put on a supporting opinion. By that fact, I am involved in the matter, but i am not the sole party nor the dominant party in RfAr. And there are many parties involved in the dispute (though not neccessarily involved in RfAr), as listed on the RfC, and evidenced by the links to evidence and dialogue on the RfAr and RfC. Kevin Baas | talk 20:10, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Perhaps the stated policy needs to be rephrased. Any person may join in the complaint or counter-complaint in any request for arbitration. That way we can do the whole thing at once. Fred Bauder 20:32, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Fine, but until the stated policy is rephrased and agreed upon (ratified), the current, instated policy must be followed without exception. Kevin Baas | talk 20:42, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Per your request, new edit links added to Arbitration case

here Rex071404 06:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And my response is up as well. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Comment

See new comment by me here Rex071404 05:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have answered you

here Rex071404 16:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Matter of Michael

I don't care about the matter of Michael. What I DO care about is getting Guanaco to stop unilateral unblocking. RickK 22:09, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

IRC Banning

Fred, I've been banned from the #wikipedia IRC channel by Snowspinner, for what he considers "personal attacks" against him.

I don't feel I did make any personal attack, nor am I aware that banning from IRC for "personal attacks" is supported by policy (but with so many policies, perhaps it is and I've missed it). And in any case, I think it contravenes policy for Snowspinner to take action in a dispute to which he is a party to.

In what way do I contest the banning, and Snowspinner's banning for a dispute he is party to?

A log of the conversation leading up to the ban is given at User:Orthogonal/IRC ban by Snowspinner.

Thanks. -- orthogonal 04:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. Sorry you're getting dragged into this. The short form is that orthogonal has been harassing me in IRC for about a month. Today, in the name of "parody" he changed his nick to Sn0wsinner and proceeded to make a few comments at my expense. Though this was in the context of parody, with other users imitating Jimbo and Larry, between the nick and the fact that orthogonal's feelings towards me have been made clear in the past, I was not amused. I told orthogonal to stop when I got back to the channel and found that. He decided to push the issue and troll me. I banned him.

That said, IRC's not your department, so I doubt you're worying about it that much. Fennec has indicated that he backs me on it, noting that he wanted to ban him himself. But I figured I'd at least explain, since this got dumped on your talk page. Snowspinner 06:14, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Arb case

I have added an additional charge against Wolfman this evening: Violation of the "3-revert rule". See evidence here. Rex071404 04:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tibet

Hi, you recently reverted my reversion of the same POV text added to two articles about Tibet. Are you sure that's what you meant to do? Markalexander100 07:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although Anon's edits might be edited a bit, they seem simply the Chinese point of view which should be included. Some language needs to be added so that important events like establishing a Chinese presence in Lhasa can be seen from Tibetan, Chinese and international points of veiw. Fred Bauder 10:23, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The revised History of Tibet section is fine; I've edited out the duplication in the Tibet article, re-added Anon's deletion, and deleted Anon's misstatement of fact. Markalexander100 10:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco

I request that you recuse yourself from this case, it is clear from your actions that you are prejudiced against me. RickK 04:49, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

There is no basis for recusal. The only interaction we have ever had resulted from you removing material which others have placed in your arbitration case. Twice you have removed it, twice I have restored it. Just quit editing what others feel is relevant evidence. Fred Bauder 11:54, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Not true. You added the email from Jimbo about his decision concerning Michael AFTER the creation of the arbitration. You are manufacturing evidence. You are insisting on including irrelevant information. RickK 19:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Further explanation

here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact / Rex arbitration

To facilitate easier access to the David Brooks article, I edited the URL to an AltaVista/NYT partnership one which requires no login:

see David Brooks NY Times, 9-11-04

(this is your old URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/opinion/11brooks.html)

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche again

Hi Fred,

Could you please review the recent edit war at Eurasian Land-Bridge and consider whether Weed Harper and Hershelkrustofsky have violated the ArbCom ruling regarding LaRouche related "original research" ie:

1) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.[5]

Thanks AndyL 18:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I may express my view, the relevant part of the ArbCom decision is the part that allows reference to LaRouche only where "highly relevant." Since the article in question is about a proposal authored by LaRouche, I would submit that the inclusion of LaRouche's name is highly relevant. Andy and Adam are upset that LaRouche is being given credit for having authored the proposal, but I think that the evidence put together by Weed Harper makes the case. I would also ask you to consider whether the continued (and presently protected) attempts to inappropriately redirect the article may constitute vandalism.

Sincerely, Herschelkrustofsky 22:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would interpret the decision to exclude areas like the Eurasian Land-Bridge which are original research and thus subject to reversion. Areas which are included would include articles about his political activities. Fred Bauder 23:09, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion the Lyndon LaRouche intiative regarding the Eurasian Land-Bridge is original research by Lyndon LaRouche and thus subject to deletion. Fred Bauder 23:30, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have found references to the Eurasian Land-Bridge proposal on the web, in press accounts from Hong Kong [6], India [7] and [8], and Japan [9]. None of these media are affiliated with LaRouche, so how do you reconcile this with your view that it is "original research"? Weed Harper 20:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is his particular spin added to promote him which is at issue. Unless it is in the article on him. Fred Bauder 02:11, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

So, if I understand you right, it is not a question of original research, but rather that you feel LaRouche is not "highly relevant" to the article? Please advise. Weed Harper 15:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To the extent LaRouche references are relevant to the Eurasian Land-Bridge proposal it is because of the original work he, and his wife have done with respect to it. Fred Bauder 17:40, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

What if Weed's article were edited so that it describes the proposal, but doesn't mentioned LaRouche or his wife? That would seem to me a bit peculiar, but preferable to deceiving the reader by re-directing the article to "Asian Highway." --Herschelkrustofsky 20:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche's proposal? Fred Bauder 23:42, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that would be LaRouche's proposal. Catch-22. But, out there in the real world, the proposal exists, it is acknowledged by the all-important press citations, and, there are numerous links on Wikipedia to an article that is presently re-directed to an article about a different topic. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, well it would seem best to let others straighten that all out, how about editing something about something else that interests you? Most of the known universe lies open to your editing. Fred Bauder 01:26, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 asks you to read his comments

here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, to better see what I have been up against, please review the brief edit war over at Ann Coulter and read the recent talk page comments there [10] [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, other than "anon ip" editors, please take notice that it is consistently the same few editors who revert, revert and revert me across different articles. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, please take notice of user Kizzle who appears to be a sockpuppet and has not edited any pages other than those I am editing [11]. Not even John Kerry which based on Kizzle's edits ought to interest him/her. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you have something to say to me, say it to my face. don't write it on someone else's talk page and have some anon-ip tell me about it. If you want to open dialog write on my page instead of someone else's. FB, I apologize for this thread, it doesn't belong on your page until Rex converses with me first. --kizzle 03:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And, user Nysus (to a large degree) is another one who has done nothing but a edit a few similar articles and the lines of the above examples [12] [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I started another new page tonight: Original Intent. I did this after not finding those words in a "find on this page" browser search of the United States Constitution page. Though my new page was quickly redirected to Originalism by user Neutrality, that's not the reason for this comment. I leave this note to point out that there seems to be no substanative discussion or article on this Wiki about the ongoing legal arena bruhaha over the issue of "Original Intent" (though I did add what I could to "Originalism" tonight). This really surprises me as to my knowledge, this issue is squarely in the center of the conservative legal theories which would block rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas. I haven't looked yet, but I am wondering about this Wiki's coverage of the issue of "Judicial Activism" as well. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, your history is not good. In the early years of the Republic there were a number of communities, for example, Oneida Community which adapted unusual sexual practices. They felt secure that the Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution protected them from legal harassment. It was Mormonism which eventually resulted in the Supreme Court abrogating the Liberty of American citizens in that respect as there was popular pressure to do something about polygamy. Fred Bauder 12:21, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, you said of me, "your history is not good". Do you mean my evident grasp of it? Or attempts to portray it? I am not sure what you mean. I cannot evaluate your statement and respond to it fully without more information. Please advise. Even so, while I am waiting for your reply, I will however, guess and try to reply.

Are you trying to suggest that simply bcause fom time to time in the past, the USA had occuring within it's confines, various sexual practices that deviated enough from the "norm" that looking back, we ought to interpret the existance of those practices as defacto evidence of "license" for said practices, under the Constitution? If so, I don't agree with your reasoning. Fred, aren't you an attorney? If so, certainly you must know that evidence of lack of enforcement against something, is not evidence of licenese for that same thing, yes?

Fred, it is inarguably true that the vast majority of all those who designed and installed our government and guiding/governing documents (Declaration of Independance and Constitution) were theists of one ilk or another - that is, most (if not all) at minimum, believed that there is a God and He grants us our rights. It was from within this view of the world, that these leaders peered out. And it was from that vantage point, that they wrote our 1st laws which set up our initial set of stated presumptions. Simply because it was so widely understood back then that marriage meant one man and one woman, that it was not explicitly stated anywhere, does not mean that's not what the personal and governing view of the leaders of USA who authored our charters was premised on. Now, if people want to come along and say "hey, gay marriage, great!", they are free to do that. And under our system of self-governing laws, if they get enough votes, they are entitled to it. But please don't tell me that say the Massachusetts Constitution which was written by puritans and pilgrims, etc. and is the oldest active one in the world, omitted a definiiton of mariage as man/woman because they intended to leave the door open for man/man. etc. No, it was left out for the same reasons that there is no mention of cannibalism or space travel either - no one expected anyone to be looking for that, so it was not addressed.

As for my grasp of history, I am offended that you would make such a broad sweeping condemnation of my understanding. I'll have you know that I've read quite a bit. As an example, I'll ask you, have you read these: "900 days - The Seige of Lenningrad". "Murrow, his Life and Times", "Ford, The Men and the Machine", "The House of Morgan", "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee", "The Story of Civilisation" (Will & Ariel Durant), "Maus", Maus II"? This is a sampling of some I can remember off the top of my head. Have you read them all? Suffice it to say, we differ in our views, not because I am under-informed, but because I apply a different test to what I read than you and therefore come to different conclusions. By the way, since much of my discussions on the Wiki have revolved Vietnam era issues and John Kerry, etc. I'd like to suggest that you read "The Tunnels of Cu chi" if you haven't already. It is very interesting.

Also, neither do I agree with your suppositions about what any Oneida Community members felt. How do you know what they felt? Are there personal accounts written by them which reflect their feelings about "Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution"?

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dog references

Hi Fred, I'm just using the recommended APA style references from the cite your sources page. I used the semicolon because this better divides up the authors. HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. it would be a good idea to break up references and further reading, because we need to know what the cited material is that goes into this story and what is thought to be good reading material that is supplementary to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It can be confusing, expecially if the text of the article does not contain comments which refer to the references. In this case all three are references and are interesting further reading. Fred Bauder 15:19, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Dogs

Fred, I'm sorry that we seem to be not quite understanding each other on the dog page. I just wanted to say that there is so much work to do--and so much information out there--on everything related to dogs that I am always delighted when someone else starts pitching in to any dog article. I don't want to scare you away from the dog article by being annoyingly stubborn--not even by being just plain old ordinary stubborn. For example, it's nice to have more info on dog society. And there are so many other topics to cover, too! :-) Elf | Talk 21:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)