User talk:Kizzle/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Kizzle/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lst27 19:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm preparing a history of the TfT dispute, which I hope to have ready by the end of today (that's about seven hours from now in my time zone). (moved from user page -kizzle) JamesMLane 20:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

fyi

User talk:Fred Bauder#Rex071404 asks you to read his comments refers to you as a sockpuppet

Interesting, but he'll be back; he's just trying to be dramatic. Wolfman 05:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

told you so. heh. Derex 10:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: mediation request

Hi Kizzle -- since this seems to have begun as an article content dispute, before I go any further, I want to ask you if you have listed the page on requests for comment and mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to bring in more people to help resolve the dispute amicably? I realize the the sockpuppet issue is also there, but bringing in more editors might well defuse that issue as well. Please let me know.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peace offer

Kizzle; Please note that this message refers to you as Kizzle, not "Kizzle". Please take a look at my talk page under the section "Wolfpeace". User Wolfman and I have been able to bury the hatchet on much of our issues by talking. I think you and I could also do that, if you are interested. FYI: Because you are new here, you are not aware that I am basically the only pro-Bush editor on several of the articles where pro-Kerry types such as JamesMLane would otherwise have free reign. Don't be so quick to think I won't listen to you. It's primarily your frequent siding up with JML which has impeded my dialog with you, not the merits of your concerns. As evidence that I do indeed have good listening skills, here are your TfT complaints:

• "" tweak - dispensed with (see above)
• Q: Will I attempt to re-insert past attempted links in exact method I tried before? A: As explained, my aim is to bring "parity" with SBVT - as I view parity. I will attempt to do that in whatever way I am able to successfully. Axiomatically, this means that any editing approach I take which is blocked too much by others, is foreclosed to me. I thought you understood that.
• Q: What are my specific "gripes" which I would say show "POV" nature of TfT? A: I see that page as having too much pent-up editorial interest to rationally think that it will remain substantially the same (as it is now) for even a short time after it's unprotected. For this reason, I am holding my assessment in abeyence until I see what others do when it's open for editing again. I also thought you understood this already too.

Anyway, feel free to leave constructive comments on my talk page. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as TfT goes, I have no inititives to offer at this point. I am strictly in a "wait and see" mode there. If you are able to take at face value that this does not mean I am laying in wait to "ambush" the page as soon as it opens, there really is no reason to not join me in requesting that it be unprotected. Also, did I answer your questions (see above) to your satisfaction? If not, please explain. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi folks, BCorr here. I just want to say that I'll archive the mediation request as it seems like -- if you are both able to assume good faith -- that you two will be able to work out your differences without outside intervention. If this proves not to be the case after a few days, please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to de-archive the case. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Email

You can use the "E-mail this user" thing on the left-hand side. I entered a real address when I registered. AlistairMcMillan 22:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex stop watching my user contrib list

This article has been deleted. Note that its creation constituted vandalism. Please do not do anything like this again. Snowspinner 01:46, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

controversy

Kizzle, why are you going to such lengths to stoke controversy? Have you seen the new page Stolen Honor Documentary which I started? Please examine that and see if you can honestly say that I did not compose a fair and NPOV article. And if I did, doesn't that shatter your presumptions about me? I am still hoping we can resolve our disagreements. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Email again

What Alistair said, a couple topics up. This should get you there: [1] but if it doesn't, go to User:JamesMLane and select "E-mail this user". As for Rex's listening in, I think it's amusing that he's constantly accusing other people of following him around, when he does so much of it himself. (In fact, I'm sure he's reading this. Hiya, Rex! Have a nice weekend!) JamesMLane 02:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I shall. Thank you. You also. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quasi

The "quasiness" or lack thereof regarding a given documentary is not equally at issue between F911 and SH. F911 is actually acknowledged by MM himslef as not being solely a documentary. There is no such debate extant regarding SH. Therefore, while quasi may apply to F911, it does not apply to SH. You logic is relatiatory and not sound in this instance. BTW, what is wrong with the word anyway? "quasi- prefix; used to show that something is almost, but not completely, the thing described" [2] [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I took off the quasi-reference on SH. Quasi "lessens" the importance of the message contained within, I would be ok with "documentary/editorial"... there is no "quasi" documentary genre, and if any question I would refer to IMDB.com as it is a pretty standard reference for all references to movies. --kizzle 07:20, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

There is no denying that MM's style is very flamboyant and atypical for a documentary. The same cannot be said about the SH documentary. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Flamboyant and atypical does not generate an offshoot from an existing genre, it merely reshapes the traditional associations with it. And didn't you see, i took off quasi from SH? --kizzle 17:17, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

for my own reference...

User:Kizzle/John Kerry Military Service

User:Kizzle/John Kerry Military Service Controversy

Rex's departure?

Thanks for your note. I'll make a betting line at 3:1 that he doesn't stay away for more than a day or two. JamesMLane 05:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

answered on my talk page. Wolfman 06:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential election debate, 2004

Posed a question to you at Talk:U.S. presidential election debates, 2004.Bds yahoo 21:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, yes, you got under my skin, first by writing (in edit summary) that my edit adding some information about the content of the debate might not belong on the page "at all," moving it to another section (later renamed "Analysis"), and then complaining that there wasn't enough in this section, that it wasn't comprehensive or balanced. No kidding! It's no single user's job to provide a comprehensive or balanced article. This is a collective project. The rule around here is, you make the additions you want to see. Bds yahoo 20:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rex's comment

---

Final 2004 EV total:

• Bush 286
• Kerry 252

(ha ha) [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Military service of John Kerry

Since Kerry lost, might as well just leave the full military stuff in, as the article won't be growing much. I suggest we make the Military service of John Kerry page a disambig with links to the relevant section of the kerry article and to the 'controversy' article. the current content is essentially no different than the main kerry page content. my main thought is that will reduce maintenance costs (vandalism patrol, etc.) thoughts? Wolfman 17:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

done. merged (essentially copied) into main kerry article. turned into a disambig page. Wolfman 20:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's that you say? "Kerry lost"... (new battle cry of the DIMS "voter fraud, it was all voter fraud")

As for "permaban", is that anything like permafrost? Please advise. 216.153.214.94 07:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exit polls

All the current exit polls are weighted according to vote count, meaning that they are absolutely worthless for determining fraud. The only uselfull polls I can find are the ones already mentioned and these. A complete seems impossible. Kevin Baas | talk 21:38, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Election controversy official response section

Hey Kizzle, someone actually added info to that section but it was commented out, unfortunately those changes and your revert to commented out state were overwritten because of vandal reverting. Do you really think that should be commented out? I think it's fine left in there. Zen Master 19:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD listing

Thanks for your compliments. What you read was only part of what I wanted to say about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities! I've gotten the rest off my chest with a Comment in addition to my vote. JamesMLane 21:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Irregularities article title

Sorry I wasn't clear. I favor: (1) moving the math crunching to a new article, titled something like "2004 U.S. election statistical analysis"; (2) creating a new article, "2004 U.S. election voting controversies", for description of registration impediments, absent ballot problems, etc.; and (3) turn the current title into a redirect to one of those, I don't care which. JamesMLane 21:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The title using "statistical analysis" was one mentioned as a possibility by Zen Master. I think he's still pondering what title he thinks would be best. I see your point about original research -- maybe "data tabulations" or some such? The title shouldn't use "irregularities" in a way that implies that there definitely were irregularities; other than keeping out such POV terms, I don't expect to play much role in choosing the title for The article where we present exit poll data and use the discrepancies to cast doubt on the legitimacy of electronic voting machine totals. JamesMLane 22:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recount source

Well, I found a different source than you did. This way I can feel like I'm making some contribution.  :)

Actually, I preferred it because it didn't emphasize Cobb over Badnarik (who, unlike Cobb, was on the ballot in Ohio) and because, as an AP report, it wouldn't be considered to be as partisan as something that came basically from the Green Party or its allies. JamesMLane 17:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request IRC chat

I am requesting IRC chat on #wikipedia. Kevin Baas | talk 23:14, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Election controversy articles

Thanks for voicing your support for a summary article. I think we have the beginnings of one in 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, but of course I'm biased in favor of my creation.  :) Is that article along the lines of what you envision? JamesMLane 06:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your praise of the article. I understand about those annoying RL distractions that so unduly interfere with one's editing! Your specific comment was, "I don't know if you've already done it but the subsections should mirror the sub-pages and soon-to-be subpages of the main page." I agree that the structure should be mirrored. I wouldn't take either current structure as carved in stone, though. We can adjust either or both of them. In addition, some particular topics might be compact enough that they could be covered fully in the summary article, with no daughter article necessary. JamesMLane 07:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the point of view of the typical reader, I don't know whether including other controversies in the same article would be useful. People who wanted to know what was being argued about during the campaign (like the debate controversies or the role of the 527 groups) wouldn't necessarily want to read about post-election arguments, lawsuits, etc. People who wanted to know more about vote-rigging wouldn't care about the bulge in Bush's jacket. For that reason, my inclination is to confine the article to the voting controversies. You're certainly right, however, that other controversies would "fit" in the sense that the article wouldn't be unduly long with them. JamesMLane 03:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

can you handle this?

can you handle this? [3] The day that evidence of preparation for recount fraud is superfluous, is the day that we are royally f****d. Kevin Baas | talk 00:02, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Rex?

Since you think I'm "Rex" and reading "something" from "Rex" makes you laugh out loud, here is a holiday gift of laughter for you: "Something".

Regards,

216.153.214.94 07:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it's like the day before christmas

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] I also heard that Conyers stated very confidently that senators will be contesting the election on Air America radio today. i can't rediscover all of my sources. Kevin Baas^talk 08:39, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

I haven't recieved whatever you sent

[9] I have a spam filter, might be overzealous, it primarily depends on the domain that you are sending from. I know I have yahoo blocked. Kevin Baas^talk 00:50, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

play

I would love to bring this stuff to people's attention. (provided it doesn't just truamatize them). How is this going to be put in front of people's eyes; how many people are going to see it? what's the plan for distribution; etc.? I'd spend my time on helping out if I knew that it would make a respectable difference. Kevin Baas^talk 21:13, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll contribute when I have time not better spent making $ to feed my broke-a$$.

I gave it a little thought, and thought of the key idea "narrative", not in the story-book meaning of the word, but psychologically. Narrative as a means of legitimization. All good religions have a narrative. I looked through a book my friend was reading on nationalism, and it's main thesis was that nationalism relies on a shared narrative, which enforces the idea of a common origin. (think of this: if this was a republican thing, republicans would have no problem jumping on the band-wagon)

a civil rights documentary i saw came to mind: "eyes on the prize" i think it was called. Perhaps a historical aspect can be developed in it. That would also overcome any disbelief - "blacks being disenfranchised? bull$hit!" they might say, but with a little bit of history, the screenplay will figuratively ask them "where you born yesterday?" and remind them that history moves slowly.

Another image that comes to mind is - and this may sound absurd - there was a special on (football star) Brett Favre on T.V. a while ago, it was pretty much a documentary/biography. It went through his trials and tribulations and was a real "hero" story; an epic, the way it was put together. (and things people could relate to - humanizing the hero) When his father died, they got all religous and the preacher said he played a great game, like he was playing for his father - everyone got all emotional and stuff, supporting this hero through his grief, and seeing him play all the harder for it. Great example of a "narrative", in my opinion, as much as I hate sports and esp. football. Kevin Baas^talk 19:55, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I was reading this book on writting for law, titled something like "how to write for law, and win", and one of the things from it that i burned into my brain is to focus on people. Make it personal, use names when possible, the people are the characters; develop their character, make it about people. everyone can understand people interacting, the tone of voice; they can always sense fear, aggression, compassion, etc. - it's universal, and drama is simply a composition of such emotions.

We've got blackwell, conyers, boxer, and jackson to name a few. I'm looking over the script. that just struck me. Kevin Baas^talk 00:49, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

I'm discussing this on the discussion page for the screenplay.

I added "a guide to voting in ohio, america", first draft, to the screenplay page. that's the method of organization and presentation that made it best come out of my head. (with a little satirical embelishment) Kevin Baas^talk 04:19, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

I'm not at my usual computer right now. But fwiw, my standard alias is happyjack27, and if that's taken i just append a 0. once in a while i'm on aol-im, to see if my friend from years ago, who's now in NY, is online. perhaps i should install icq. (i like that it's opensource, but it's bloated!) Kevin Baas^talk 01:17, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Just a small suggestion for you. Remember that trials have cross-examinations, and this element would be helpful here. Also, if you're looking for an investigative play that might give you presentation or stylistic ideas, go see Copenhagen (play), or rent a video of its performance. — Cortonin | Talk 09:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

neighbor?

Well then we're both screwed :)--kizzle 01:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

you live in my hood, kizzle? Wolfman 01:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

right on. el cerrito here. have some friends out your way, in concord. Wolfman 09:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

was at ucb. now ucsb, but still keep my home base here when not teaching. Wolfman 17:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Shelley connex

Great find! A doubleplusgood correlation - I'll do a little digging, see who floats it and see what happens. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check this out too - a recent thread re: Alexander: [10]

Rex redivivus

Like you, I noticed Rex's return. In fact, a couple weeks ago he violated the terms of his ArbCom ban by making this edit within the four-month period during which he was prohibited from editing articles on U.S. politics.

I suppose I could go leave him a note welcoming him back, but there's no need. If he's back, he's probably patrolling your talk page and stalking my contribution list. Either way, he'll see this, so I can give him my message here: Hi, Rex! I hope the end of the campaign season has made you less combative. JamesMLane 00:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But it has been 4 months now, yes? 216.153.214.94 04:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Bushbulge.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Bungopolis 09:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: PBS broadcast

It may be public domain, but if I remember correctly FOX News was shooting the debate and may have restrictions on redistribution. Even if that's the case, though, it might be permissable under fair use. I'm no expert on copyright either, it's a minefield and quite confusing. In general we don't like to upload images unless they can be confirmed to be either public domain or distributable under a Free (GFDL-compatible) license like many of the Creative Commons licenses. See Wikipedia:Images and Image copyright tags for more information. --Bungopolis 00:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a vote you might be interested in

Talk:Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda#Requested move: Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda .26rarr.3B Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda Kevin Baas^talk 22:42, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory#Voting .28rename vs keep as is.29 Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:49, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Your suggestion at the Bush article

You wrote:

Ah James, always so helpful, why don't you run for admin? --kizzle 23:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Because I already waste way too much time on this project as it is! I appreciate your thought, but for now I'll stick with the hoi polloi. JamesMLane 02:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

EffWhyEye Disavowed

[11] :) -- RyanFreisling @ 01:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Not That Kizzle!

That's pretty hilarious that you're not the same Kizzle as the one on Hackermedia.net. :) This caused quite a funny phone call this afternoon, and is DOUBLY hilarious because your opinions on things are somewhat opposite of the Hackermedia Kizzle. Thanks for the laugh. --Jscott 01:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

vote at GWB article

I invite your vote at the George Bush article [[12]]--MONGO 05:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

current focus

i'm currently focusing on news articles for wikinews, esp. in regard to the Downing Street memo and surrounding events. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Admin warning #1

I have to warn you that making a major edit and marking it as minor is a policy violation.

(cur) (last)  20:56, Jun 14, 2005 Kizzle m

Your change to Koran desecration buried a very significant point. Please use the Edit summary box, or the talk page to explain edits which change the flow, scope or focus of the article this much. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Are you an admin? --kizzle 21:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought everyone knew this. Yes, I am. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

About NPOV policy

I have repeated this several times. This article can contain the information which you seek to include, just not in the intro paragraph as it is not essential nor descriptive of the title subject, which refers to the Newsweek allegations. This does not mean it cannot include your info, but that it doesn't belong in the intro. --kizzle 21:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You have several people telling you to stop pushing the prisoner end of Qur'an desecration into the intro paragraph... this has been explained several times in the above text. This article is not about prisoner abuse of their own Qur'ans, as this is not what sparked controversy. It is the U.S. abusing the Qur'ans which represents to some that the U.S. is abusing the Islam faith itself. The claims by the Pentagon of prisoners abusing their own Qur'ans is entirely tertiary to the subject being discussed in the article (this text might sound familliar, I've said it before).

Thanks for mentioning the POV about the U.S. abusing the Qur'ans which represents to some that the U.S. is abusing the Islam faith itself. That point really ought to be mentioned in the article. But if it is, then it would be equally important to mention the Pentagon claim that prisoners abused the Koran. It relates to the POV held by some that Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are abusing the Islamic faith.

Don't worry: this wasn't a "warning". I'm just explaining NPOV to you! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the POV that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are abusing the Islamic faith is:

• Not essential to the Newsweek allegations of guards abusing the Qur-an, of which the subject of the article is.
• Not the cause of international controversy
• Not the reason why Islamic protestors are angry.

That is why this POV, while needing to be expressed, should not be a major point of the article. The external ramifications of these muslims abusing their own Qur'an is little to none, as at best one can claim that they're not being good muslims. However, the external ramifications of the guards abusing the Qur'ans are huge, as we can see from the international response. In other words, a man abusing his own Qur'an is not news. Another white catholic man in a position of power (perception of the guards by the muslim world) abusing this muslim's man Qur'an is significant news. So include it somewhere as an "Official Response" section or some sort as to indicate that the Pentagon is saying "Well, the detainees did it too!" but don't put it in the central intro, as it is inappropriate in an article whose main purpose is to describe the guards abusing the Qur'an.

Good points all. I've split the article into US abuse and Detainee abuse (see [[Allegations of Qur'an desecration (disambiguation)). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

You are not listening to me. The info should not be split off, but it "should not be a major point of the article" (see above) either. --kizzle 01:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that I misunderstood. And perhaps I did not explain my idea well. My purpose for creating a side article was to mention the "minor point" that the Pentagon said it was detainees rather than US personnel who had done the Koran desecration.

But if we're agreeing now that only one article is required (and that it's okay to mention Pentagon, Michelle Malkin, Max Boot and others who say that the MAIN abuse of the Koran was by the prisonels) - then the side article is not necessary. But only if toytoy, csloot & you agree that other POVs than the US desecrated the Koran are just as much allowed in a "general article on Koran desecration at gitmo". Otherwise, we'd be back to:

1. an article claiming the US desecrated the Koran
2. claims that the prisoners did worse than the US => excluded from either (a) its own article or (b) the article which is only about US desecration claims

It all hinges on whether NPOV policy permits / requires us to avoid endorsing or dismissing either side in a controversy - or not. If you can show me where it says that the Wikipedia is allowed to take sides in a controversy, i.e., say that one side is right and the other is just making stuff up to defend itself, then I'll shut up and go away. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand the significance of the event then. It's not a competition between how many people abused the Qur'an or the specific incidents involved. It doesn't matter if it was 20 prisoners or 2, it matters if the guards, the people in position, the idealogical representation of the American government abused the Qur'an. They should not be mentioned with the same significance, as it is completely inaccurate to equate the two. Tell me this, what is the world's reaction to the prisoner's abusing the Qur'an versus the world's reaction to the guards abusing the Qur'an? The article, in turn, should reflect this difference of significance in its organizational layout of info. --kizzle 03:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you dialoguing with me about this. I don't mean to split the discussion. My convention is to open up a side discussion only to seek deeper understanding of what someone is saying, so I can participate more effectively on the article discussion page.

It sounds like you're saying that the key element of the Qur'an desecration controversy is public opinion, i.e., the reaction to the various news reports of alleged Koran abuse. And I think the whole gitmo team (here at W) agrees that nearly all of that reaction has been:

• the general belief, especially in anti-US quarters, that the intial Newsweek report (US flushing) was true
• that such treatment of Islam's most revered holy book is a true outrage
• that the use of scripture desecration to facilitate prisoner confessions is wholly unwarranted
• and even that the only solution is to close the prison and release the detainees, becausethey're all innocent anyway

(Okay, not sure how many people espouse that last one.)

In such a case, I'd say the topic being discussed is "public reaction to reports of US Koran desecration at Gitmo".

However, since this is a neutral Encyclopedia - as opposed to an "objective" one, or a liberal one - all pertinent POV must be described. I've started to list these at Wikipedia:POV/Koran abuse.

And also, as an encyclopedia, we need to think about the big picture. Is it Koran desecration in general which is being objected to? I think there's already an article defining how Muslims feel about improper treatment of (what they regard as) the holiest of holy books. I got lots of Muslim friends. They all revere it, even my agnostic Iraqi-American friend.

But a title like "Koran desecration at Gitmo" seems to denote the topic as any reported incidents of anyone desecrated a Koran at Camp X-Ray rather than reports that US personnel desecrated the Koran. The topic's scope and the article title should match.

So am I welcome to re-join the gitmo team, or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Glad we're discussing before we make changes, I'm happy to talk about it :). As in all concepts, there is a hierarchy of information which is significant to the concept itself, from entirely essential information necessary to grasp the concept, to tertiary information stemming from circumstances arising from it. If all we are to consider is what information falls under "Koran desecration at Gitmo", then you are correct. However, we must consider this hierarchy of significance in fleshing the article out.

So, like I keep agreeing with you, the information about detainees does logically fit under "Koran desecration at Gitmo", as it is detainees "desecrating" the "Koran" "at Gitmo". However, I don't think anyone can argue that the significance of the detainees desecrating their own book is nearly as much as the guards are. If one is to argue for prominence in displaying your info in the intro to the article, one must argue that the information not only fits under simple logical inclusion ("desecrating" the "Koran" "at Gitmo"), but that it is highly significant. All the information in the article fits under the scope we are talking about, but yet we can't fit it all in the introductory paragraph. But how do we weigh significance?

Significance of information is similar to public opinion, but it is a better correlation to public impact. Both the information about the Pentagon releasing reports that the Qur'an abuse took place by detainees, and the guards desecrating the Qur'an, are true. However, one of these (which I'll let you guess) has affected the world in a much greater fashion than the other. It is this ability to affect so many lives on this Earth that renders one of these statements more signifiant than the other.

I don't disagree with you about all relevant POV must be discussed, this is not what is up for debate. What we are debating is the appropriate location within the article that matches the significance of the POV. Also, "that such treatment of Islam's most revered holy book is a true outrage" is true but not necessary. The outrage is specifically directed towards the Americans desecrating the Qur'an, not the prisoners, unless you can find several sources which argue the same thing (and not the Pentagon reports, unless you can clearly see outrage in an official government report disapproving of their prisoners' quality of faith).

And yes, you are welcome to re-join the team, as long as you seek concensus before making substantial changes in the future :) --kizzle 16:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think I finally might "get it" well enough to leave this side discussion and take it back to the QD talk page. Meet me there? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help, sure thing :) --kizzle 18:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

AAR

You're just lucky I have to sign off for a while. But I shall return. JamesMLane 02:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DU

I looked in the profiles under "K" and there's no listing for kobeisguilty (see [13]). I'm not familiar enough with the site to know how I can look at any particular user's posts, even a user listed as currently active. DU generates a lot of valuable information, although there is a problem with preaching to the choir. It's also not clear to me what the ideological boundaries are. A few months ago, I also raised some questions about the statistical analysis of the exit polls, and I got a civil and thoughtful answer rather than a banning. It may depend on which moderator is on duty on any particular day. JamesMLane 20:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikifun, Round 9, Question 19

I am pleasantly surprised you figured out Question 19. I will award you a bonus point if you can fully elaborate your answer. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The answer to your puzzle...

I'm sorry, but after I saw the puzzle on JML's talk page, I couldn't resist giving it my own shot... (caveat: I'd seen the puzzle once, long ago, so long that I couldn't remember any of the details or the solution, but it may have given me a slight edge in working out the solution.)

To start, we have to assume the prisoners are all perfect logicians: if there is a sound deduction to be made from the evidence, they will make it. Because there are only two white hats, any prisoner who sees two white hats on the other two prisoners will immediately know his own hat is red. From the fact that the first prisoner doesn't know his own hat's color, we know that between the second and third prisoner, there must be at least one red hat.

The second prisoner is able to follow the first prisoner's train of thought, so he knows that between his own hat and the third prisoner's, at least one must be red. If the third prisoner had a white hat on, then the second prisoner would know that his own must be the red one. Because this does not happen, the third prisoner knows that his own hat must be red. -- Antaeus Feldspar 29 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)

Correct... JML e-mailed me the same answer, you guys all heard of it before so you only get half-credit ;) And welcome back, haven't seen you editing pages in a while. --kizzle June 29, 2005 00:53 (UTC)

There's another necessary assumption: that the third prisoner, who is blind, is not also deaf. Otherwise he doesn't know about the responses of the first two. I pointed this out and Antaeus Feldspar didn't, so I should get more credit than he does! JamesMLane 29 June 2005 01:31 (UTC)

-.5 points to JML for trivial nit-picking observation ;)--kizzle June 29, 2005 02:07 (UTC)

Watch your language there, fella. I make my living from trivial nitpicking observations. JamesMLane 1 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)

Sullivan comment

The edit you directed me to ([14]) removed a statement attributed to Sullivan and followed by brackets, as if for a citation, but the brackets were empty. Without checking the original, I'm not really clear on its status. Does Sullivan report having observed torture? Is he conveying statements made to him by prisoners and/or guards who asserted having observed it? Is he drawing an inference from other facts? Is he summarizing something that the Pentagon has admitted? Each of these categories would be subject to a different analysis. Based on the Molly Ivins column, it seems that Sullivan is pulling together information from reputable, named sources (the Red Cross), possibly augmenting it with information from more dubious sources, and then presenting a summary -- which might be a perfectly valid synopsis of what the sources said, or might be going beyond them. In the latter case, it would bear some similarity to the van Wormer/Frank controversy, because Sullivan's credentials for drawing the inferences would be relevant. Sorry to be so wishy-washy, but it looks to me like that article is another sink that I could pour time into, and I'm going to have to resist the temptation to get further into the dispute. JamesMLane 1 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)

No doubt he's probably pulling from various sources, some authoratative, some dubious, I'm just trying to get a notion of where your threshold lies in including outside opinion of un-involved parties. Yeah, I highly suggest staying away from this article, there's an admin who's going gung-ho reverting despite being outvoted 5-1 two separate times.--kizzle July 1, 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Your latest revert suggests that I discuss before I remove. I did. I have also raise the matter on the talk page since then.

I also removed the FAQ. We don't have FAQs on Wikipedia, we reach consensus through discussion, not through somebody writing a FAQ (a device for reducing discussion) and sticking it on a page expressly intended for discussion. Don't put it back.

If you want to make an exception to the rule that we don't just string together a bunch of selected quotes on Wikipedia, then justify it, don't expect people coming tothe article anew to care about a "FAQ". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Plans...

Change the world. How 'bout you?

Do whatever I can to end this insanity. In the meantime, I've helped improve wikinews. I made a proposal for an automated workspace, and it just recently got implemented. Yea!

BTW, I got a letter back from 'ol Sensenbrenner (my so-called "representative"). First half was about how the president is doing such a great job in Iraq, and the second half was about how he likes holding presidents accountable through impeachment, like what he helped do to clinton for a perfectly legal act of consensual sex that didn't kill anybody or cost the american people hundreds of billions of dollars or aid the spread of terrorism throughout the world. Odd, because i don't see what the first part has to do with the second, and i didn't write about either of these things. i just asked him to do his job as the chairmen of the judiciary committee and look into these documents. In any case, regards the second part of what he wrote, i see the words but not the actions, and i certainly don't hear the words on the house floor, coming from him. So it's all very disconnected.

I'm hoping that the valerie plame thing will dissillusion some people. I think the slow ones are finally starting to catch on. anycase, i've got much less time w/my new job as an it consultant for the city. :-) Kevin Baas^{talk: new} July 6, 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Well, he worked hard at suppressing all Minority Staff meetings that Conyers sought to hold. His tactics on the floor are appalling, and his response is almost as smug as it is predictable. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

Doing pretty fine, Kevin... still truckin on the screenplay, check this out :) Hope you like your new job. --kizzle July 7, 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Her

Btw - that's "don't take *her* word for it" (I'm female). Just thought I'd let ya know! -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

Wouldn't have guessed from your username, I'll keep it in mind. :) --kizzle July 7, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

check email

check your email...--MONGO July 7, 2005 06:43 (UTC)

Poll

Thanks for the alert. By the way, how's Granny doing? JamesMLane 22:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Haha, that was seriously funny, I haven't visited my grandmother in about 3 years, so that was perfect timing. --kizzle 00:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Funny? I'd say it's almost... eerie.... JamesMLane 04:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

yep 1.5 works for me. btw, i was just visiting at sb for a year, so won't be teaching in the fall. back from a long wikibreak, and just felt like having a new name. like it? Derex 20:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

uhh...Wolfman? Aww well, I probably wouldn't have taken any economics classes, but it would have been fun.. and yeah, like the new name :) --kizzle 22:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

yep, hoooowl. i might be down a few times next year. maybe we can grab a beer. Derex 06:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

hell yeah, e-mail me when you're in town. --kizzle 16:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

just noticed looking through the coulter archive that your very first post was to rex, about keeping the quotations. man, that takes me back. i kind of miss old rex, in a very twisted & masochistic way. maybe it's stockholm syndrome. Derex 05:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for posting that... explains a well-known song by Muse called "stockholm syndrome" that I had wondered what it was referring to. Ya, I think you missed it before when Rex came back for a bit... funny enough he was actually quite civilized this time around, but people weren't ready to dialog with him. Haha, yeah takes me back to the day... although I think little rexs are popping up on the gwb and coulter pages as we speak... I'm about to quit and take a wiki-vacation (which I'll be taking anyways when SB starts in the fall). By the way, randomly, I have a paper I've been working on about electronic voting machines... do you know any profs at SB who would be down to let me take an independent study class from them and help draft a research paper (keeping in mind that I'm undergrad)? I'm already at about 40-50 pages double-spaced, but I need some feedback and devil's advocate...ery... and since I'm done with my degree and general ed reqs, I thought I might put these random units to good use. It'll also help cause my re-admission papers are still going through and most classes are filled by now :) --kizzle 05:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, i don't know anybody useful. i taught over at bren (no undergrads there) & didn't stray too much beyond. i imagine somebody over at public policy or political science would help you. be mindful that the profs probably don't get any teaching credit for it, just satisfaction. so, it's important to demonstrate that you've got enthusiasm & a good start & are really interested in your problem & and have a well-considered research plan. at least that's what gets me to do it. of course, if your research appears to be suitable for an academic journal, that might engage the self-interest of a prof as well. knock on a few well-chosen doors with the right attitude & i'm sure you'll get a taker. (if someone says no, ask them who might say yes). good luck. Derex 06:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

done. and i'm an asshole, not a bastard. Derex 15:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The Coulter

Not sure how i feel about this one - she's an awful, monstrous person - and while I'd rather other people have the benefit of reading her vitriolic sludge (as I must), I hesitate to give her even one more word in print, as she's a complete and utter Nazi stooge. I will thus abstain. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hey kiz, let's wander on over here, so we (I) don't totally fill up that talk page with a side discussion. Really though, what arguments are you speaking of in regards to O'neil and Clarke? I'm quite the political junkie, so it's a bit surprising that I don't know which you are referring to, but it's very possible that I've just forgotten them. Oh, and if you can answer here it'll be easier, or if you like we can continue on the talk page. As an aside, do you understand what I was getting at on the irregularities page? I have a hard time figuring out how its possible to put fraud in an election as only effecting this or that race. Anywho, regards. -bro 172.165.157.184 10:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

K, well first of all, I don't know whether it can be classified as a full-blown argument that either of them said in their book, it was more of a recollection of events. But both Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, who are both Republicans, said that plans were being made about Iraq way before 9/11 ever happened. Yes, I realize that Fox news painted them as ax grinders, but you have to realize that the possibility of such a label being applied is not sufficient to refute their arguments/observations only based upon that assumption. Assuming for a moment that their only intentions were to tell the truth, the response from the white house painting them as ax-grinders would be exactly the same as what we saw. In addition, if I recall correctly, Clarke left his government post on his own volition (though O'Neill left/quit more on forced circumstances), thus I don't think he would be too bitter at his previous bosses for simply firing him. That is why I bring this up in light of the Downing Street Memo, as it corroborates what is coming from this memo... that Bush was planning to go into Iraq way before 9/11. I even have another personal source, although its completely unsourcable...my good friend's dad is a high up military person, not a general but almost, and my friend said that when Bush came into office, he said "just wait, in 2 years, we're going into Iraq." He told me that before 9/11.

As for the irregularities page, I understand some of your confusion. In a normal argument or paper talking about stuff that went wrong last election, I would bring up the WA gubernatorial election as well (although it merely consists of allegations, no proof). However, in Wikipedia, we have to limit the information given in any article to the scope of the title. Simply put, the scope on that page is 2004 U.S. Presidential election controversies and irregularities. Irregularities are discussed in the impact that they had on the presidential race. Yes, this is on the same ballot as the gubernatorial race in WA, but it still can be thought of as two different elections. And in WA's case, there weren't any substantial controversies of the presidential vote.--kizzle 14:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I can't argue much of the clarke/o'niell stuff, other than to say fox has little to nothing to do with my opinions on things. Can't even remember the last time I watched cable news. I think part of the confusion on the irregularities page is the title, such as, when most people refer to the elections in 2002, they refer to it as midterm election of 2002, when they refer to the elections of 2000/2004, they refer to it as the presidential election of 2000/2004. So I think part of the confusion is coming from that. About the fraud, the sad thing is, there is and will be fraud in every election, ever. But most will only become widely known when it's a close race and a candidate thinks it will benefit him/her. I understand that the fraud was magnified by the challenged of the Gov. race, but it was equally probable that it was the same in the pres. race, just that it wasn't close enough to bother with. If it were a closer race, and bush needed WA to win, you can bet it would have been thrust forward. So, to boil down, I think perhaps the title is misleading, as it conveys, at least to me and those I know, the entire election of 2004. -bro 172.163.215.214 21:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Definetely there will be fraud in every election. I just think its possible for us to limit it to "Mary Poppins" registrations and selling a small number of votes for crack, rather than allowing widespread manipulation via unauditable, insecure voting machines made by highly partisan companies with employees who have prior convictions of fraud using sophisticated "backdoor" programming. --kizzle 22:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I wish, but I really haven't decided which is worse. I lean towards to fake voters, multiple voters really, just because it's the harder one to control/eliminate. In the end, it all sucks, but it will never go away, oh well. -bro 172.163.215.214 00:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

nice name

especially phonetically

yours, Kzzl

My appreciation

Thanks for your help in reverting the vandal hitting my user page. An oddity: The IP that was spuriously adding my name to various articles had been used, only two hours earlier, to create a stub about Jimmy "Jax" Pinchak. I thought it might be a hoax, but it turns out to be a real child actor. He's appearing in a TV series that was mentioned in the stub but with a red link, so I did a little research and wrote Over There (series). Thus the siege of vandalism resulted in a small expansion of our coverage. Strange are the ways of the wiki.

Meanwhile, I've been on a mini-vacation from the whole George W. Bush situation. Thanks for copying and sending me the book excerpt; I hope soon to do something about it. Your user page also reminds me that the RfC is still hanging fire. I don't know whether I can contribute anything to your election 2004 project, but I'll give it another look. JamesMLane 22:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, hold off on my project... I was just in a bad case of writer's block which I'm over now. I know you're a well-trained writer from taking the bar... after I'm completely done with everything if you wouldn't mind, I'll send you the complete word document with sources and foot-notes if you could just proof for me, as I've never written a paper longer than 12 pages, and that was trying to prove John Searle's "Chinese Room" analogy was retarded (and I sent it to him at his UC Berkeley email as well, alas, no response). After that, I'm gathering about 100 emails of all the major academics/important people (conyers, stephen freeman, bev harris, cobb, doug jones) and asking for one-page letters of recommendation for me to take with when I pitch to my friend who is in the process of selling a movie to warner bros or paramount right now. So it's gotta be tip-top shape as they're all going to fact-check me. --kizzle 22:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The weird have so little to do that is productive

Thought I would bring this to your attention since this also mentions you...not sure what you ever did to Brodo but he seems to like you too...but since he is also known as "bro" that certainly explains his apparent problem with you. Anywho, he made this post and adorned his user page with my beautiful picture...[[15]]--MONGO 07:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. As they say on Wikipedia, vandalism is the sincerest form of flattery. --kizzle 07:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Good question about barnstars...I was getting ready to develop an article about the 1988 Yellowstone Fires...I spent 37 days there then fighting those fires and am putting the info together and I get to see this sorry waste of life wasting my time...oh well. I say let it go..."don't feed the trolls". Also, I inserted the info (essentially) that James wanted as his reluctant version of the Rfc...but deleted the sentence discussing the psychology stuff...If he decides he wants it in, then that's fine too. After trying multiple times in the Bush article to update the passages and dealing with the vandalism I got fed up with that mess and I am resuming my efforts to just do one or two vandalism reverts a day there...What's the status on the partial block for such situations (blocking vandalized pages from edits aside from registered users)?--MONGO 08:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The status is that its on hold, despite many people on here requesting it. Its basically one guy on the actual bugzilla site is holding to his dogma that preventing anon ip edits, no matter what, is wrong. I highly suggest clicking on the link on James's talk page, getting an account, and putting your feedback in, as its stalling right now due to simply 2 people on bugzilla... not enough people know about it, so if you know anybody else who wants such an option, direct them to the bug link. --kizzle 08:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and get to it tomorrow...the night is old.--MONGO 08:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

but since he is also known as "bro" that certainly explains his apparent problem with you. Wait, since when do I have a problem with kiz? We've spoken over quite a few pages, and while certainly disagreeing, its been quite a pleasant experience. Oh, wait, more nonsense. Sorry to clutter up your page kiz, but this is ohso entertaining. -bro 172.137.190.250 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

My Kung-Fu is very strong

Just thought you'd like to know - your [comment] on Karl Rove is now immortalized on my userpage. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 20:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sweeeeet :). I'm flattered. --kizzle 20:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Block

You can just ask to be blocked, you don't have to vandalise pages to get it. Would you like me to block you for 24 hours? -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe we go with 48 hours under repeated vandalisms to George W. Bush. Redwolf24 21:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

But its much more fun..... yeah sure, why not. I need to get this stuff done instead of lounging. But I didn't repeatedly vandalize the page, so just 24h please. :) --kizzle 21:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Go get your work done. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What the F%&@ was that about, Kizzle? Don't wig out on us!--MONGO 00:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Had shit to do today, and i'm a full-blown wikiholic. this is what i'm reduced to ;) plus I now have my highly offending vandalized version of GWB as my start page. by the way, i can't even believe that picture is allowed on Wikipedia, as I didn't upload it. --kizzle 00:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were blocked? Your ninja powers include editing while blocked? JamesMLane 02:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It's kinda fun being blocked, now I know how rex felt. --kizzle 04:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, not to encourage more, but it's funnier than the one with Jar Jar Binks' picture there instead of Bush...don't worry...only three more years...I must be getting old to think that 3 years is a short period of time, especially when it means 3 more years of George Jr.--MONGO 03:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT VANDALIZE George Bush page. Anyone, even kids can could have seen it. I know that was just a one time trick out of the bag, and I must say quite a bag...but that was TOTALLY uncalled-for.Voice of All(MTG) 03:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Voice of All(MTG). This could have caused problems for Wikipedia. Whoever is actually depicted in that photo might be very upset at being identified as George W. Bush. JamesMLane 03:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

HA! Unless it really is part of him as seen with an electron microscope.--MONGO 04:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it was uncalled for, but I got my work done. I couldn't believe that image was on Wikipedia. Dude, there's some pretty disturbing stuff uploaded to Wikipedia. --kizzle 04:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, somehow my block got extended. If someone could be as so kind to let Francs2000 know that I'd like to be unblocked now. Thanks. --kizzle 21:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I like how you ask to be unblocked from editing by editing your user talk page to add a comment. How do you do this? Your power have grown since last time.............................................oh wait, what last time?:)Voice of All(MTG) 21:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, no, all I'm allowed to edit is my user talk page, thus i can't even message anyone else. So I'll just sit here and talk and talk by myself :). --kizzle 21:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, Kiz. Not, sorry I missed that one. BD enjoyed it though. I've really got to get this seminar together, but here I am. I'm almost tempted ... Derex 15:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kizbiscuit

Hey there - I emphasized my post on the irreg/controversy article, hopefully that answers your question re: relevance(s) to the election, etc. Hope you're well, and recovering from your bout with temporary insanity! -- RyanFreisling @ 13:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, ya I'm back to normal. Every once in a while you just gotta let out some steam! --kizzle 16:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Semi protection?

Check it out....[16]--MONGO 17:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

WikiFun Round 9: Lightning Round Time

I have decided to attempt to advance and end the round quickly. Parts of the question will be revealed with more hints and/or be more elaborated on as every two days. I have currently provided more hints on the answer pages for the current remaining questions. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

sourcin

Hope I answered your query somewhat on my talk page. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

ignore

fyi - i'm now ignoring 'bro', if you are confused as to my silence. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Avi Rubin gets $7.5m to study Election reform (good news)

[17]. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 21:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice. I hope none of it goes to Stanford's Hoover institute. --kizzle 21:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Something you might be very interested in

n:2004_Bush_campaign_chairman_pleads_guilty_to_election_fraud,_conspiracy

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/10/national/w231835D50.DTL

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! I just sent "countdown@msnbc.org" this email:

Keith,
I thought you might be interested in some pretty
shocking news related to election fraud:

Despite a zero-tolerance policy on tampering with
voters, the Republican Party has quietly paid hundreds
of thousands of dollars to provide private defense
lawyers for a former Bush campaign official charged
with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New
Hampshire.

James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman
for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal
court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring
with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in
Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union
get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.

A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up
phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New
Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic
voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors
allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that
day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.

At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional
director, before moving to President Bush's 2004
re-election campaign.

A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP
consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated
with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of
specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a
telephone firm to help in the scheme.

...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/10/national/w231835D50.DTL

also see:

The Indictment -
http://wid.ap.org/documents/tobinindictment.pdf 

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's recent letter on voter
suppression -
http://wid.ap.org/documents/rncletter.pdf

Republican National Commitee -
http://www.rnc.org

(The shocking part, ofcourse, is that there was some
justice, not that the GOP engaged in election fraud.
(which is obvious to anyone paying attention))

Hope you can use this!
-Kevin Baas

Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

getting a head start on losing the 2006 election?--I-2-d2 21:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow Kevin, you really must have gotten under his skin. --kizzle 17:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't take the credit for that. In all fairness, I have to attribute the credit to reality. It tends to get under people's skin a lot. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 17:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

psst

[18] -- RyanFreisling @ 01:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry - I meant to point out the anon user's link attack on that article (latest history). He/she has deleted the Palast links 3x, claiming the style guidelines demand it. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for opening up the clean slate on Talk:Ted Kennedy. I had been trying to do that since yesterday without completely removing everything, but you've done well to clear it all together. Thanks a million for stepping up and taking control where other admins haven't. - Sleepnomore 20:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but no problem :) --kizzle 20:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your help would be appreciated

I thought things were going so much better last night with the clean slate on Talk:Ted Kennedy. User:Silverback refuses to let the issue go, however. I don't have a problem with his complaints, but they don't belong on user talk pages. Would you please help to restore the "clean slate" you did before as I felt there was much better progress that way. - Sleepnomore 14:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture - comments requested

My photo of the bust of Antinous, currently under comment for featured picture

[19] I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI my image lost by one vote - wish you'd participated. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edit's are considered vandalism

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. , please cease your vandalism, or you will be blocked--I-2-d2 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --kizzle 00:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yo

Thought you'd want to see this 'interesting' series of articles by Klonimus - [20], [21], [22] etc. See his user page. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

We could use your input

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories&action=history Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I will begin drafing it at User:Hipocrite/BD7RFC in the next few hours. I would appreciate your input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! A lot of work going down for someone who's constant message to me was 'Focus on the edits...not the editors."

Or, perhaps your advice was just for others, huh? lol! Big Daddy 04:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's a shame you've become the focus by consistantly defending your right to polemics. --kizzle 18:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh.

edit conflict as I was trying to move it. :)

You need to certify the basis for the RFC or it will be deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh?--kizzle 23:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Our friend

Kizzle, first of all, thanks for your kind words about my discourse on the Coulter talk page. (I mistakenly told you 'thank you' on your user page; I am taking the liberty of deleting it there.) I was probably too wordy, but I meant all of them.

Second, I have left BigDaddy777 some words on his talk page, but have noticed he has not been contributing for about a day. Has he been blocked, or is he absent by his own choice?

(We'll get through this, I promise.) Regards, paul klenk 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to try and help out, he has edited a couple times since the RfC (specifically one choice comment vowing to recruit editors to come to his aid, look in the RfC under "Evidence since RfC was filed"), but overall it has slowed down. Good luck with your efforts, I would much rather this end with BigDaddy learning to be civil, because I do agree with him that content is tilted to the left (though not intentionally) on Wikipedia, and I think the articles here would benefit from his scrutiny. --kizzle 05:04, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

We have been in touch, yes. It will be a challenge, but I will give it a try. paul klenk 00:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

" Big Daddy, ...I'd respond to your comment but I'm afraid that would constitute feeding the troll. --kizzle 16:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)"

"Its generally the old white balding fat men who have problems getting girls." --kizzle

don't be such a bitter bee. --kizzle 21:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

"If you think Ann Coulter is beautiful, you need to find more beautiful people to hang out with." --kizzle

And Kizzle goes to great lengths to accuse ME of making 'personal attacks'??

Hmmmm...Hello Kettle! LOL!!!

Big Daddy 03:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

For the first comment, if you actually participated in the RfC, you'd see my offer to retract and apologize for such an allegation if you withdraw your personal attacks. "Its generally the old white balding fat men who have problems getting girls..." and "If you think Ann Coulter is beautiful, you need to find more beautiful people to hang out with"... I wasn't referring to you, just responding to your "theory" about why us liberals are closet Coulter admirers. Bitter bee was actually made in good faith, I was trying to be playful with a certain editor to get them to lighten up. Sigh.... this is about your 6th attempt to try to justify your hostile behavior.... just don't do it. Period. --kizzle 18:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this evidence makes it clear to all reasonable and objective people that, if one wanted to issue an RfC for the reasons you've ostensibly stated (instead of the real reason which is as a vindictive retaliatory attempt at silencing someone whom you feel endangers the liberal hegemony on Wik) then you and Ryan would be the first in line... Big Daddy (coming home soon)

Kizzle, to be clear, if the reply to the RFC is anything along the lines of above (IE: My accusers are just trying to silence me! I have done nothing wrong!), then I will proceed immediately to RFAr. There is adequate consensus on the RFC page that the editor in question needs to make changes to his talk page behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Illinoisian#Warning.3F (Wow! And I thought Hippocrite only stalked me!) Ps Kizzle, it seems I greatly underestimated your troubled history on Wikipedia as well. For those unaware, just read this very talk page and follow the links. It's a tawdry history filled with repeated accusations and warnings from administrators and users alike. I think most reasonable people would agree that, in light of these revelations that both Hippocrite and Kizzle have a very questionable history on Wikipedia, that any attempts to discipline others must be met with, at the very least, a modicum of suspicion... Big Daddy 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the user in question was banned from wikipedia indefinetly for trolling and vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I do have a history of dealing with troublesome users who do not respect civility or the community itself; you certainly aren't the first, and you won't be the last. That's just the way it goes. See you at Arbitration. --kizzle 22:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In a perverse sort of way, I have to give you credit. You both have this little game figured out. Too bad I discovered it, huh? It's important to note that the user Illinoisian who Hippocrite stalked, harrassed and slandered (as well as others we'll discuss at a later date) was also a conservative. So Kizzle, who has been warned by administrators and editors throughout his tenure here for a variety of violations, plays the good guy 'just trying to help.' While Hippocrite, exhibiting almost the same identical pattern in case after case, falsely accuses conservatives of a variety of petty rules violations. It's eerily uncanny how Hippocrite smeared others before me in virtually the same nitpicking fashion. Sorry guys, the gigs up. I've got WAY too much info on how you've subverted wikipedia to make it your own little POV paradise. I have to say though that hippocrite calling the FOUNDER of Wikipedia, just another editor takes the cake! I knew from the very beginning of this farce that, if I just waited long enough, you guys would overplay your hand. But I had no idea just how absurdly it would all come down. Big Daddy 07:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for more fuel for the Arbitration case. --kizzle 08:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Request

I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

---

hey kiz, weren't you supposed to be gone after you settled coulter? something about school? what, you need a 12-step program for your addiction? anyways, i'm back, sort of, in and out likely. had a totally shitty couple months, watching a death schiavo-style except conscious. i am really, really, really, really pissed at the jerry falwells of the world right now, and at the politicians they own. anyways, glad to see you're still addicted here; it's cheaper than some habits i've had ;) Derex 05:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

ya, more or less I was gone after coulter and Bush RfC working on my outline until rex's protoge came on board, then I felt I needed to stick around a little longer. I'll still be around but I won't be editing much in article space in about a week, i got re-admitted and my reliving college days officially starts on thursday. anytime you go back to visit hit me up :) ... sorry you had to watch that shit, hope it wasn't like a brother or anything really close, but glad you're back bro. By the way, I emailed every single professor in the poly sci department with my paper and a whole rigorous set of milestones I'd have to pass pleading with them to let me take independent study for peer review, a couple wrote back saying they'd be interested but they were on leave, but I don't think any of them are going to do it. You'd figure some prof would be a liberal activist on the side, especially in SB with its history, but I guess not. And I'm taking econ 1 with sonstelie if you know who that is... need some business sense to round out the philosophy...so you can help me on my homework :) --kizzle 18:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

sorry man. i wrote a long rant about how corrupt the whole system is. but, my browser crashed before i saved. short version: there's no reward to being an 'educator'. sometimes it's actually penalized. friend at ucsb actually got chewed out for perfect evals because it meant she was prioritizing that over research. and the 'research' end is corrupt too. it's shocking how much completely useless & incompetent stuff gets published and how much useful & innovative stuff gets rejected. anyways, it was a long rant and writing it uplifted my soul in a bitter & cynical way.

was my ex-wife's mother, very sad & brutal. literally died in her arms. can starve her to death for 3 weeks with doctor's supervision, but can't help her die peacefully. that's murder everywhere but oregon. and bush is trying to stop it there by yanking medical licenses. hope he dies that way himself or maybe for lack of stem-cell research. hell, why not both at once?

will almost surely be down sometime this fall; will look you up. Derex 20:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BD777 RFC page

kizzle, I noticed that some of my recent comments to the "Motion to Suspend" section, along with a large chunk of other text, got deleted during one of your recent revisions. I was running into edit conclicts myself... Is that what happened? May I restore what was cut? paul klenk 02:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey paul, I moved everything from Gator's comment below to the talk in the hopes that my offer to BigDaddy wouldn't get ignored by more talk. --kizzle 02:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that -- thanks. I am certain your request for his comment will not go unheard, or unheeded. paul klenk 03:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle writes: "I'm afraid I can't stop those who want you to be punished..."

Call me crazy, but that sounds like a threat. Why would anyone want to punish me for merely bringing balance to Wikipedia? You apparently know who they are. Can you tell me their names? Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this very serious matter! Big Daddy (on the road again.)

People want you to be punished because of your conduct in the matter and the fact that you still have refused to comment on your own RfC. I don't know anything more than you do, but as it stands, you basically have me and paul on your side believing that you can change with everyone else giving up on you as a lost cause. I won't say anything further on the matter, but it would be significantly in your best interests if you respect Wikipedia procedures by commenting on the RfC before Tuesday is over.--kizzle 00:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You refuse to mention names so I can't really believe you, unless you're indicting EVERYBODY - katefan, ryan, drex, etc etc. If that's true, it's a VERY SERIOUS charge. What you're in essence saying is that a group of vindictive people are trying to censor me without cause because of my political beliefs. That's what I have maintained from the beginning. It has to be that since the only thing you could otherwise accuse me of at the time of this charge is namecalling which is how YOU introduced yourself to me. Name calling....Sounds like something's fishy is going on. But I will reserve judgment for after I've spoken with some higher-ups in Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind me reporting your actions. Thanks! Big Daddy (on the road)

You are not understanding what I'm saying. Your conduct and accordance with Wikipedia official policies has been less than stellar since you started editing here. This is the reason why the RfC was filed against you. Almost everyone has given up on your ability to change from your hostile ways, paul and I (until wednesday) have not. As for reporting my actions, I seriously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about nor any faint idea as to what you could report, but feel free to do whatever you wish. --kizzle 02:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Will do...Big Daddy (on the road thru tomorrow...)

By the way, if you don't edit the RfC by end of today, don't even think about using the excuse that you were on the road, given the amount of edits you've made on your anon account since you've been "on the road". --kizzle 22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yer Reel

Has playback problems on Mac. Is there a torrent or binary for the full download? Thanks - can't wait to see it! -- RyanFreisling @ 13:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You mean my paper? --kizzle 17:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm, yeah - the video thing you told me to look at doesn't work on Windows Media Player for Mac. Just fyi, do with it what you will. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Preparing for reconciliation

I want the BD RfC resolved, or at least put in the past. I'm asking him to answer the RfC. I respect your reasons and intentions for bringing the RfC and the usefulness of RfCs to WP culture. This user did have it coming. However, this particular RfC is very dependent on characterizations of comments, rather than hardcore facts (which do exist) for its weight. Characterizations are often very POV in and of themselves, and accurate ones usually include points valid to each side. Many false accusations of "vandalism" were thrown around at one point; this certainly could not have given the user any confidence in the credibility of the "team" involved. Also, this isn't, in the grand scheme of things, the biggest deal in the world. To help those involved to prepare for this reconciliation (I am sending this identical message to the three original signatories), I am asking them to:

• Go over your own edit history with respect to the user, in detail, with the same scrupulousness with which you have examined his. View it as an adversary might. This requires time and work.

1. Identify anything, directed at the user or referring to him, that has been a violation of WP policy, or could be construed as such, including the possible inadvertant deletion of a user's text on a talk page by someone that, technically, was a violation of vandalism policy, and later reverted by an admin. Because RfCs involve behavior before and after they are brought, do not limit your review to pre-RfC history.
2. Identify all comments you have made that could be misconstrued as an "attack" -- based, of course, on the same standards which the other user is being held to. Recognize how unforgiving edit histories are.
3. Then, apologize to the user in advance for any and all of these things which you have done, even if his sins are greater than your own. This is known in Wikiquette as admitting one's mistakes.

• Give the user some credit -- to his face -- for identifying the bias in the Rove article (the NPOV tag I added has never been seriously questioned, has it?), and for the reasonableness, if not the certainty, of a newbie making conclusions, however silly, of a liberal "cabal" or clique at WP (indicated by comments such as "Sticking together on Rove").
• Let the user know you're not perfect, and will happily accept an apology from him as well.
• If the user chooses not to give the answer he is being asked to give, be prepared to move on.

You can never pile too much love onto an adversary. It's called "heaping coals on their head." I'm asking this user to swallow his pride and admit his errors. Let's all be prepared to do the same. This may require us helping him to find ways to save face. We all screw up from time to time. We all require grace. If I've made any errors, let me know as well.

If it only took one sin to be damned to hell, we'd all be damned to hell. Once we were there, would there by any point in arguing about who's sins were worse? Hardly.

paul klenk 10:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment are exactly that. This RFC has attracted plenty of comment. Enough, surely, to let BD know his style is not acceptable in Wikipedia. The only reason to leave the RFC up now is because one key comment is missing: BD's response. If he'd simply leave a statement that he will respect the cited policies (even without admitting fault), then I'd agree the RFC should come down.

Asking another user to catalog his own behavior, while always a useful abstract exercise, has absolutely no relevance to this RFC. BD's behavior is his own. He continues to thumb his nose at the community by refusal to even acknowledge the RFC. He continues to be hostile, last I checked. As such, I see no reason at all to remove the RFC before it naturally expires. What less could you ask of any user than a simple statement that he will abide by policy? Derex 17:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for a link

I'm trying to analyze User:BigDaddy777's behavior in context, based on the RfC. This is very hard, because the RfC quotes him out of context; I can't fairly analyze a quote that way. Working through the threads to do post mortems is extremely time consuming.

Would you please send me one or two links to a discussion of some length, representing BDs worst behavior? It should include more than just one or two isolated remarks.

Please leave it at my talk page under User talk:Paul Klenk#BG777 Worst-Of Threads, trying not duplicate a thread submitted someone else. I will continue to sort through the RfC, but one or two links would be a great help. Thanks.

paul klenk ^talk 07:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I'm not so sure about some of the links posted after the RfC was filed, personally, I don't have too much of a problem with most of them, but as for the links before the RfC was filed in the evidence section, they're all pretty bad and I don't think were taken out of context. Click on the links yourself to see the discussions where they were originating from. I personally don't understand why you continue to defend someone who is too bullheaded to even comment on their own RfC. I don't want to spend any more of my time with a problem user's behavior, especially one who refuses to acknowledge they even have a problem. I've already bent over backwards giving this user the benefit of the doubt time and time again, where he then threatens to report me while I am trying to help him. If you truly want to defend him, you spend the time analyzing whether or not the evidence section is taken out of context, cause I sure as hell am not going to. Regardless of what you might find, he did commit the personal attacks, he was uncivil and even implicitly admits that he was when he responded to my comment saying he was getting better, yet he continues to show a lack of respect for his co-editors by refusing to even acknowledge the case we have brought to try and get him to change his behavior. Enough second, third, and fourth chances. If he is refusing to acknowledge his behavior, than we need to move this to a platform where he is unable to ignore the ramifications. --kizzle 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I chose to withdraw because I am not sure I liked where it was heading. There wasn't one specific thing that made me do it, I just didn't really want to be associated with it anymore. I know I could have just deleted my name entirely, as opposed to a strikethrough, but I didn't really feel right doing that either (people should still see my views on the talk page). The RfC has gone far enough and does not need my support any longer. However, if arbitration is brought, I will gladly have a look at it. I don't agree with the way Big Daddy handles himself, but don't really have the energy to keep up with it all. Cheers my friend. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, just curious :) --kizzle 01:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ignore BD

Hi, Kizzle. Thank you for your thankless work on the RfC and the RfA on BigDaddy777. :) I was going to copy and paste (and mark as such) your exhortation on the RfC Talk page to ignore BD's Talk page diatribes and revert BD's low quality edits, but I thought that it would be better to ask if you would want to do it yourself? Let me know if you have reason to not want to do this, or if you don't want me to do it, either. Personally, I think it is a very good idea. --NightMonkey 08:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy doesn't make low quality edits. But he's happy to revert them when made by liberal POV warriors. Big Daddy 11:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, good idea. For me, it's a little easier in theory than in practice, because most of Little Baby's edits and comments are so low-quality and laughable that they invite criticism. But you're right. I'll endeavor to ignore his nonsense, and just revert his POV edits until Arbitration is concluded. Thanks again for all your hard work. Eleemosynary 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both eleemosynary and NightMonkey for your kind words. Ya, definitely easier in theory than in practice. --kizzle 23:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Stalking BD

Your desperate incessant nonsensical ramblings on my Talk page are now putting you in danger of becoming classified as a stalker. It would be a shame if you followed along the destructive path of user Eleemosynary. Just a heads up. Big Daddy. Ps Because of your abuse of the privilege of posting on my talk page, all future posts are on my delete immediately list. Big Daddy 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you giving me the rope to hang you with? Sigh... I won't post any more on your page if it offends you. --kizzle 18:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

if there's any "hanging" going on here, it's a suicide, not an execution. Derex 19:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Aww... Little Baby wants attention again. LOL. What a pathetic, pathetic troll. Eleemosynary 23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a quick comment to your "nail in the coffin". Hopefully I didn't overstep my bounds. I just wanted to make it clear when he posted it since it's not dated on his page. --Woohookitty 04:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah, that's chill. --kizzle 06:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Saddam and AQ page

Hi - there's a vote going on at Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that you may be interested in.--csloat 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

brawler

damn, man. i had know idea you were such a troublemaker. you & james? you & ryan? and now, you & big daddy. when do i get my turn? i think i can take you typing with my toes, punk ;) Derex 00:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, well definetely ryan when I tried to re-organize the 2004 irregularities article, she didn't take too kindly to strangers of my type. Me and james just polite banter on the RfC for Bush, that was the one (and probably only) time I took him to school in arguing, but then he used his super-james smarts, ignored my argument, and he eventually got his way ;) --kizzle 00:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah, james just pulls a rope-a-dope ... attrition through dogged politeness, then the intellectual jab in the 8th round. ryan kind of scares me though with her bad-ass ninja self. did she take you? might have to pick a fight with her someday, just to test my mettle. Derex 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article as it stands today is definetely more along her lines, so basically I got trounced. --kizzle 01:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

---

i'm so far ahead of you, i've already got it placed into evidence. i was in the middle of that sequence ... hope my tantrum over at arbcom & on BD's page actually set it off. you did beat me by an edit conflict in telling james how he managed to ruin us. tell me the truth though, you really do have a secret decoder ring, don't you? Derex @ 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You wrote, "And thanks for telling everyone I didn't have a secret decoder ring, I told you to keep it a secret." See, I thought Derex was right and you really do have one, and I was engaging in our typical liberal disinformation campaign by lying about it. If I accidentally told the truth, please accept my apologies. Just do me a favor and don't report me to headquarters in Pyongyang. JamesMLane 07:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I would suggest that you put it on your list of what you want for Christmas, but apparently I'm not allowed to make such references to religious holidays.

perhaps Festivus, then? Derex @ 08:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

James, I'm filing the RfA against you in the morning for mentioning a religious holiday. And Derex, you're a dirty anti-Seinfeldite. --kizzle 08:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A note

Kizzle & Friends--

I just want to say that I do stand for NPOV here at WP. However, the way in which you deal with Big Daddy is pretty awful. I know, "Have you seen how he acts?" All I am saying is that throughout this ordeal, you have ganged up on him somewhat, and you have been uncivil. I did agree with you that Big Daddy's behavior is atrocious, but your response, while in much lowercase writing, was not without hostility and incivility. I am not sure where I now stand. I think Big Daddy needs to be punished somewhat, but the lengths to which you have gone to drive this editor from WP may have been too much. You should have massaged him into submission, not bitch-slapped him. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I don't really want to rewrite this on various people's talk pages, so I hope they (James, Eleemo, etc.) will see it here. I just feel a lot of anger coming from you folks. Rather then be brash and hostile, I thought I'd let you all know my feelings on this matter in a calm way. I hope everything works out with you guys and Big Daddy. Please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, or email me if you want things confidential, if you think I am being out-of-line, or if you want to comment. I hope we can just put all of this behind us. Cheers my friends. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You are definetely not out of line, and I welcome your opinion. I do have a level of resentment towards BD but this comes from absorbing many of his personal attacks. In the beginning, I tried to get him to simply recognize that we're all here for the same goal: to make Wikipedia better, and not to push a political agenda. Please see my posts to him (the 4 bullet points among others) begging him to be nice to the rest of us. After the RfC was filed, I complimented him for getting better and offered to suspend the RfC if he would just recognize that he needed to be more civil, but he was too stubborn to do so. I feel I tried everything I could before I took this to RfA and before things got nasty, but you are definetely welcome to your opinion. There's only so much I can take before I get defensive, and I think many editors here bent over backwards trying to get BD to focus on the article rather than the editors themselves. Regardless, I apologize if I acted in a way that you felt was inappropriate. --kizzle 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No apology necessary, but appreciated nonetheless. BD got under a lot of people's skins, mine included, I just think some of the comments about him, not even to him, were a little less civil than they could be. And it's not just you, so I hope you do not feel like I am singling you out. There is just so much hostility creeping into Wikipedia, and didn't know where else to get it off my chest. I thank you for your kind response. See you around. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I also have no problem with your stating your opinion, but, having considered it, I think you're wrong. How should we have "massaged" him? Most newcomers find the web of rules and procedures a bit intimidating and are grateful to receive explanations so that they can fit into the community. Big Daddy wasn't like that. He started out with a chip on his shoulder, apparently believing that anything standing in his way was a liberal plot. For all the time that several of us spent in trying to help him become a legitimate contributor, I couldn't see that it made any difference in his conduct. Furthermore, I've seen this type before. The zealot (of the left, of the right, or of some particular cause like fathers' rights) comes to Wikipedia motivated by the opportunity to push his (or her, but usually his) POV. Some people are patient and they try to help him fit in, but they accomplish nothing. The zealot leaves after a comparatively short time, either because he's banned or because he realizes to his disgust that he can't make Wikipedia into the soapbox that he wants. Meanwhile, he's wasted a huge amount of legitimate editors' time. Big Daddy isn't the first of these types who's afflicted my Wikipedia editing. I confess that I have less patience with them as time goes on. JamesMLane 04:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting into your talk page Kizzle, but I agree with James. It's not necessarily peculiar to conservative POV warriors either; I've dealt with left-zealots also, and neither is fun to experience. People genuinely willing to learn how to fit into the community can be directed in the proper way, and really truly can be "massaged." But people who are adversarial even after having had things patiently explained, IMO, are just not worth it. It's an enormous drain of time and resources that could be devoted to actually building the project. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

James and Katefan (sorry kizzle, it seems we've hijacked your talk page, I hope you'll forgive us)-- I agree with you to an extent. I think there are some people that will never "get it", and just can't seem to work within the wiki-style community. However, we all must try and remain cool under fire. I have fallen victim to people who made me angry in the past and lapsed momentarily into personal attacks, but we should never make this a common occurence. The fact that you (James) have less and less patience with people like these should tell you something. We cannot let this type of person to ruin our reputation as worthy editors. I am not saying it has yet, but rather, some people may be put off after reading some of the things written. And Katefan, from the start there were people being snide to Big Daddy. I agree that he was outrageously annoying at times, but that does not give us the right to sink into incivility. Hostility breeds hostility, and I simply feel we could have done a better job being civil. He is gone, and I am ready to move on. Thank you for your time. See you all around. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I also don't favor incivility. It's a question of how much time to spend trying to help someone before you give up. When I gave up on Big Daddy, I didn't start insulting him, I just stopped trying to give him advice that he quite obviously didn't want. JamesMLane 17:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

A typical passage from a heart-warming BD email: If you haven't caught on, I'm not only articulate and telegenic ... I've had success in every endeavor I've engaged in. I'm going out on a limb here with narcissist. Btw, he at least does admit he's not a medical doctor, despite a lengthy diagnosis of my personal and mental disabilities. He might also have a bit of OCD, given his persistent crush on James. I almost feel bad for him. Btw, don't respond to an email, that would give him you address. I just blocked him as spam. Derex @ 20:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Derex, I came to the same conclusion (narcissist), mostly because of the and now the whole world is watching comments. *shrug* · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh please post that whole email, that'll cheer me up :) --kizzle 20:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

slaps head ... stupid me, i already deleted it. forgot about the entertainment value. i'm sure you'll be getting your very own soon though. think of it as an early festivus present, with the "airing of grievances" and all :) Derex @ 20:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No I already got my present early this year, apparently BD felt the need to contact each one of us individually with his diabolical vow to stop the scourge of the earth that is known as Wikipedia. --kizzle 22:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel so unloved :( - Guettarda 22:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem

I know that you're just funnin'...hope you're doing good and classes aren't getting you down....I'm kind of like a bad cold...I just never seem to go away:)--MONGO 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush

It is not surprising that someone else has proposed some sort of semi-protection feature with regards to the George W. Bush article. You mentioned that there was a good consensus of folks in support of this idea on the Village pump not too long ago, do you have a link to an archived copy of this discussion? I would like to get a feel for how others felt about instituting this sort of a feature and see what exactly was proposed originally. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Pump archives only last for 14 days before they're permanently deleted, best I can show you is the actual bugzilla link here. --kizzle 17:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting, why are pump archives permanently deleted? Anyhow, are you interested in cooperatively bringing this to the attention of the developers one more time? This morning, on October 20th, the George W. Bush article was blatantly vandalised by an anonymous editor to read "George Bush is a son of a bitch" [23] and remained in that state for almost two hours before another editor, Rhobite, noticed and could revert the damage. With your support, I would like us to propose that we institute a "semi-protection" feature. Semi-protection would limit editing akin to how we limit page moves; edits to a semi-protected article could be made, but only by registered users who have had an account for a short period of time (i.e. 48 hours). In my opinion, this would be a good thing all around. We already have the protect feature, but that blocks all regular editors from editing, regardless of how long they have been contributing to Wikipedia. A semi-protection feature such as this would virtually eliminate all instances of "drive-by vandalism", which is exactly what articles such as the George W. Bush article need to be protected against. What are your thoughts? Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm down to try again. Your best bet is to start up a discussion again on bugzilla or comment at the link I gave you, and leave messages for other people to comment there as well. --kizzle 18:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the news 10.18.05

Find it at www.theregister.co.uk, here. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I read that article before. Its pretty hard to build a complete encyclopedia of knowledge and have it perfected within the relatively short time that Wikipedia has been around. At some point, the content system will probably have to change to bring the quality articles into some kind of concrete status, but Wikipedia is what it is: a work in progress right now. --kizzle 06:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Cabal rules violation warning

By this edit you solicited a listing on the Liberal Cabal page. I consider this improper. It's sort of like the Wikipedia rule that you shouldn't write an article about yourself, because, if you're notable, someone else will get to it. Here, if your edit qualifies for Cabal status, you should assume that it will be duly listed. To engage in this kind of campaigning undermines the integrity of the process. Will you agree not to leave such edit summaries in the future? Please advise. JamesMLane 03:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

First rule of Liberal Cabal: Don't talk about Liberal Cabal. Got it. --kizzle 18:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a cabal? How come no one invited me? Not technically a liberal, but I do love a good party. Derex @ 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As of now, you're not on the membership list, so you're not cleared for top-secret Cabal information. Sorry. JamesMLane 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

damn liberal elites, with your "membership lists" and your "secret decoder rings". so, i'm not good enough for you then. what do i have to do — pin up a communist flag in my garage? i've got a beer stein i stole in communist east berlin — does that count? maybe i'll just start the rex & derex cabal instead. Derex @ 00:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Beer???? What kind of elites do you think we are? We don't drink beer. We sip latte. Do you at least eat Brie? JamesMLane 03:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not the list. That's the list. Read 'em and sleep! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 04:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the Zionist cabal, slightly different from the Liberal cabal, though we still play a softball tournament against them every year. --kizzle 06:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember... we kicked your butt last time, when our lawyer got all you registered Libertarians ejected for misattribution of the 'Liberal' label. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

After snooping at Kizzle's page here just now, (yes, I admit it, I snooped) I read a few of the links in this section and came upon this link [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536&highlight=wikipedia]. I am extremely mortified to find out that by using the term "cabal" (Kizzle knows which page I titled using that word), I have used a word that smells of pollution from a group which I find repugnant. I am returning to the "cabal" deletion dialog page and am posting a request that that page be deleted. I am also posting it on Gamliel's page, knowing that he is an admin. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Allright, Rex, per your request I will delete it. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 14:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

REX loves you...

I see that...nice to be loved, eh? Hope you don't end up with "DRY DRUNK" syndrome...HA!--MONGO 05:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know

Whatever happens, hang in there. You'll always have my support. --Woohookitty 03:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC about Stolen Honor

You've participated in editing Stolen Honor. I've started a Request for Comment at Talk:Stolen Honor#RfC re scope of this article because we appeared to have reached a point of diminishing returns on the talk page. JamesMLane 11:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

bad faith revert ?

Your tag-team revert just now at Stolen Honor has the appearance of bad faith. By your own admission you stated that only 80% bothered you, but you reverted 100%. That and the way you conveniently RV'd after Gamaliel max'd out for today is not mertious, in my view. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to wade through and only correct the very small portion I agreed with. Gamaliel had nothing to do with it, I have my own opinions on the matter. --kizzle 22:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

To BigDaddy

How is phase II going? Seeing as Wikipedia just got 243,930 USD, you have a lot of work ahead of you. By the way, when you go to Wikipedia and instead of an edit button there's a view source button, I want you to think of me everytime. That's my gift to you. --kizzle 08:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

dkos

They kneel before my kung-fu. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone kneels before your kung-fu. You are one bad-ass ninja! --kizzle 01:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

All quotes below are verbatim from: Wikipedia:No original research

1. "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia."
2. "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations". (my emphasis)
3. "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed."

Kizzle, please don't fight the obvious here, the image in question is indisputably original research - read the Summary for it:

Object: Support for election campaign of John Kerry, here at a residence in Arizona

Source: self

Photographer: Nils Fretwurst

Date: 2004

File:Private support for JK election.jpg

That image is an NOR violation and must be deleted.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Rex, didn't see the photograph clause in the beginning. --kizzle 02:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#NOR_vs._photos_made_by_Wikipedians makes me doubt your claim. --kizzle 03:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk page dialogs do not supercede the actual policy itself. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Style and how-to

I found User:Kizzle/Spoon Feeding in "Category:Wikipedia style and how-to", but this is being deleted per this discussion. I'm not sure of its current status, so I didn't re-categorize it. Is it {{proposed}}? If it's appropriate for Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, it should probably be moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Feel free to edit or tag or categorize it as you see fit. -- Beland 08:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's for my own reference, the guideline got deleted to possibly merge into NPOV but I never did the work to do it. --kizzle 16:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

tnx

your kind comment will be remembered.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

no problem. --kizzle 01:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Libby

Read this Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wilson

Read this Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Keetowah and Civility

Keetoowah's comments on Talk:Ted Kennedy are uncivil to you. You can't do anything about that except ignoring them. Your comments to Keetoowah are uncivil. You can avoid them. Please be civil, even if that means ignoring things. Thank you. Robert McClenon 18:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's hard sometimes, and you're definetely a better man than I. --kizzle 18:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex

I have reached the conclusion that Rex's behaviour on John Kerry is sufficiently serious to warrant a Wikipedia:Requests for Comment intervention. I'm busy with other things but given your longer experience with him if you wish to start an RfC I'd be happy to be your second nominator. His behaviour so goes beyond elementary standards of objectively, civility and co-operation as to beggar belief. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I just got through with a lengthy RfC and RfA against another user, and as it stands, I think Rex is stubborn and wrong, but I still don't think he has violated civility or any other modes of conduct, besides possibly referring to me as a "rogue editor" and such, but I just chalk that up to his penchant for the dramatic. --kizzle 22:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My usage of rogue is based on #3, here [24] "3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls". I think you know kizzle that I do not make a habit of using pejoratives against you and I did not intend this as one. If you took it that way, I apologize. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't take offense, I just wish you would focus on my comments rather than assuming I'm abdicating my wiki duties or applying labels to what you think my style of dialog is. No offense taken, though. --kizzle 23:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

See Another way of looking at "wound" at Talk:John Kerry - thanks

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane for admin

I have created this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesMLane, but and not sure if I've posted it right.

Please look. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

your input requested

See Talk:John_Kerry#Kate_.2F_Rex_dailog.2C_re:_edits

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 case →Raul654 18:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:John Kerry

Please read this. Thank you.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kz, please delete that last comment of yours ASAP. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 07:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I'm chill bro. --kizzle 08:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Jokes

Actually it's my fault not yours. I'm just burnt out from all of these disputes. I mean. We had Big Daddy. And I've had Ben Gatti since June. Ben is on the Price Anderson article. He wants to make it into an anti-nuclear article and he games the system constantly. And now Rex, who apparently has no life outside of the John Kerry article. It's just maddening. Usually, I have a good sense of humor on here, but I'm not having fun right now. So it's my fault for being snippy. I'm sorry man. Keep jokin'. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Read Talk:Price-Anderson Act once. You will feel deja vu. :) Ben is abrasive...he changes his tactics every day...he games the system...he doesn't care a bit about Wikipedia...he's condescending as hell. he's a joy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex is toast

Look above. I got hit by Anonrtg and variants around 6 pm central time tonight. Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/RU_Severe#November_2005 has the record of it. Rex's posts ended and these ones began at roughly the same time. And now this person is creating imposters of me. It HAS to be Rex. Has to be. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well. We had someone on IRC do a checkuser and guess what...all of the anons are AOL users. *sigh* I'm close to leaving the project. This just isn't fun anymore and tonight was the topper. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, but seriously, aol anons are assholes, just try to ignore them--205.188.117.74 03:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. On a side note, 205, it's interesting that according to your contrib list and Rex's list of articles he's started, both you and Rex have an interest in Jay Alan Sekulow, a pretty obscure article with few editors working on it. Seems like you guys have a lot in common. --kizzle 04:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404

This has been going on quite long enough. I've opened an arbcom case, and as you are party to this conflict, could you go make a statement there? I think Rex really needs to be dealt with. Being a third party myself, I'm not sure if I got every one, but I'm going to alert Mr. Tibbs, JamesMLane, Derex, Jtdirl, and Woohookitty as well. I'd appreciate if you could alert anyone I've missed. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I started to do one of the statements but frankly, kizzle and jtdirl have been involved in this far longer than me. James M Lane too. If you guys need help, let me know, ok? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Me and James already called not-it on drafting any dispute resolution procedures. --kizzle 07:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Woohookitty is my contribution. So do I gather that you don't want to do a section? I don't understand your post. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've already spent huge amounts of time on Rex's previous RfAr's. I suppose I'll add something, but I'm really sick of explaining to the ArbCom over and over that this guy just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Maybe having some new complainants join in will be helpful in countering Rex's perennial cry that a handful of people are out to get him. JamesMLane 09:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex

I think you are misunderstanding me a bit. This case is about Rex NOT specifically about JK. What I went through tonight was vandalism caused by him. He also games the system...does reverts when he isn't supposed to, etc, etc. Even if Kerry is resolved, we still have a case against him. How do you know he won't pick something else to pick on next? The Arby is about him and his behavior, not JK. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about last night. I was up for 30 hours over this mess. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

no problem :) --kizzle 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

IRC

I got on, but evidently just a bit too late. The first thing I saw under the welcome message was:

kizzle has left freenode ()

<--| rex23 has left #wikipedia

So, did you guys get everything worked out? JamesMLane 11:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Transcript is on Rex's page, as I see you posted. I think it just comes down to a fundamental disagreement over the subjectivity of "minor" vs. "bandaged", as he believes both are equally objective and thus both should be allowed to be cited. I guess we also found out his passionate dislike for you. Before the transcripts he posted, he also explicitly denied using any sockpuppets this time around. --kizzle 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404's arby case has been accepted

Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Evidence. The general arby page for him is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I know your stance on this, but if you want to place evidence, go ahead. You are listed as one of the accusers, but a note is made that you won't be presenting evidence. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits

I noticed that 100% of your edits are marked as minor. In "My preferences", on the "editing" tab, you should uncheck the box next to "Mark all edits minor by default". It's difficult to determine which edits are actually minor if they're all marked that way. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 20:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That's because about 99% of my edits are minor. Very rarely do I change substantial portions to text, almost all my edits are talk page comments and small minor changes to different pages. I will try to keep that in mind if I do make any substantial changes to pages. Thanks for the advice. --kizzle 20:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see your point, but Wikipedia:Minor edit has a different take: "A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit." Minor edits are basically "...spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text..". Not marking all edits as minor is really out of consideration for other users, who may not bothering looking at a minor edit, but would look at a major edit. Carbonite | Talk 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Carbonite, I actually learned something new. I just had previously thought that major edits were additions of paragraphs, rewrites of sections, anything substantial in a large amount of words. I will uncheck the make minor all the time. --kizzle 20:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO RfA

When we first met, you probably thought I'd turn out to be another REX or like that BigDaddy character. You knew early on I wasn't some mad fascist, that I was truly a moderate, and I appreciate that. I really appreciate your support vote, Kizzle, and so you should also know that all you have to do is ask and I'll do all I can to help you.--MONGO 04:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem man, I got your back :) --kizzle 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Semi protection

I am in favor of the semi protection feature, but have been through George Bush, that damn encyclopedic merit thing and my own close RfA, that if I draw it up, I'll be labelled, and to be honest, I am just doing my thing now with the RC patrol and article creation/enhancement as I'm just not up to a lot of controversy. I will support it though! Advertise it in the village pump, but I really do think that it needs to be run through Wales and the developers....the Bush article is a disaster. I never even see James there hardly...he must be very disheartened. But I do not think he really supports the semiprotection, neither does Sidaway or some other respected editors. I gotta log out for awhile so I'll get back to you on this.--MONGO 21:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think people are just moving towards the kludge option, but as a complete solution that's bullshit. Wikipedia needs to eventually handle extreme cases of vandalism better than such an ad-hoc solution. --kizzle 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would word the discussion, er, proposal so that it doesn't have a slap in the face with it. It needs to empahsize that the level of vandalism is discrediting Wikipedia's ability to be the best web based encyclopedia there is. We can take some random days from 1 year ago, six months ago and then over the past month and compare the number of minutes that the page remains in a vandalized state...I bet it goes up. I also bet that the total number of edits it gets in a day is far higher. When I came on board this past January, I almost never had to worry about overwriting a vandalized version when I did an edit...if anything, my POV edits were the biggest "vandalism" threat to the article.

We can word the proposal to emphasize the reality that almost nothing of merit has been added to the article in, well, it seems a couple of months now...why, because most of us are tired of looking at the vandalism and it is so distracting that we can't even go through the thing and make it a better article. It isn't a matter whether we have enough people watching it...it has turned into a battleground of the worst kind. I'd rather see some far leftys and far righties slug it out in a real edit war...at least somewhere in the middle the facts might get sorted out. But what we have now is just a mess...I mean, the article has a lot of great information and is relatively NPOV, but it needs trimming...there isn't time to deal with the trimming when all our efforts are put towards dealing with the vandals. Oh well, just typing here...I have become somewhat apathetic as of late with the vandalism to the page...I just go and edit the land management articles for peace!--MONGO 02:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ya, I agree with most of what you said. Unfortunately I have finals week now and I won't have time, so if anyone reading this wants to start up a proposal, I'd support it. --kizzle 03:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Would you mind weighing in at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts/concerns/comments, and feel free to edit the proposal as much as you want. Thanks, Mysekurity 05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Plus ça change...

Poignant and validating tidbit. Thank you very, very much for that - it was perfectly timed. I'm proud of you and keep up the great work. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"If we really want peace, then we have to work for justice. We've got to help our brothers and sisters. It's not enough for us to come to pray and sing the great hymns. My brothers and sisters, we've got to get in the way." (Congressman John Lewis (D-GA)

You know it doesn't make much sense

There ought to be a law against

Anyone who takes offense

At a day in your celebration

Cause we all know in our minds

That there ought to be a time

That we can set aside

To show just how much we love you

And I'm sure you will agree

It couldn't fit more perfectly

Than to have a world party on the day you came to be

Happy birthday to you

Happy birthday to you

Happy birthday

I just never understood

How a man who died for good

Could not have a day that would

Be set aside for his recognition

Because it should never be

Just because some cannot see

The dream as clear as he

That they should make it become an illusion

And we all know everything

That he stood for time will bring

For in peace our hearts will sing

Thanks to Martin Luther King

Happy birthday to you

Happy birthday to you

Happy birthday

Why has there never been a holiday

Where peace is celebrated

all throughout the world

The time is overdue

For people like me and you

You know the way to truth

Is love and unity to all God's children

It should be a great event

And the whole day should be spent

In full remembrance of those who lived and died for the oneness of all people

So let us all begin

We know that love can win

Let it out don't hold it in

Sing it loud as you can"

Stevie Wonder - "Happy Birthday"

Just letting you know

Here is our protection policy. Read it if you haven't. Go through protected pages to see what the protection tags look like. I assume that semi-protection tags would look similar. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

semiprotection creep

Hi,

There are things we disagree on, but I see nothing that says our understanding of page creep differs. Maybe I've missed something.

If I'm right, then all that we disagree on is:

• Splash and Woohookitty think that we don't need limits to prevent creep, or that limits can be added later, once we know that they're needed,
• you think there will be protection creep if we don't have time limits, and
• I think there will be protection creep even if we do have limits.

Have I missed anything?

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

=Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 4 case. Raul654 20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikifun

Hi, I've noticed you've taken part in Wikifun before.

Just to let you know, Round 11 begins today at 0900 GMT. Dmn 04:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw

Just wanted to say that it's been nice having the discussion on semi-protection with you. It's nice to debate with someone who sticks to the issues and doesn't do personal attacks. I wish we could clone you. :) I'm into another arby case with yet another person who doesn't do that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

don't make me

come down there and beat you. 'cause i'm in the mood for a good bar fight. ;-)

What are you going to do, lecture me on price elasticity? ;) --kizzle 21:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Semi Protect

Good...it's about time...I hate to see the exclusion of some anon editors, but truthfully, some articles are vandalized way too much. 'bout time so I voted my support.--MONGO 06:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Die Bold

But alas, it gets better n' better. Leon County, Florida has refused to allow Diebold machines. If you believe BBV (they have a dicey record on accuracy), The 'Hursti Hack' has been proven - it's a memory card hack in which invisible votes on the card (it passes a 'zero votes' count) affect the final total. Woo wee! [25]

My RFA

Thnak you for your comments. I WILL take them to heart and learn even more than I already have about that entire affair.Gator (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for listening to me. --kizzle 18:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Mongo like candy

Just so you don't miss it, I responded on my talk page. Cool to see what you look like man...didn't know you have musical talent...I don't have any![26]--MONGO 03:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad side

What are you implying? I have no bad side - I'm extraordinarily photogenic as well as being argumentative. Smell that? It's a joke :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. No, it's not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of photogenic, put up a new one of yours that isn't black and white and grainy. btw I put mine up just recently. --kizzle 21:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I want money first. Kidding, after all, User:RyanFreisling/Political_Quiz2, I'm a Marxist and above petty issues like that. I'll post a color one in a while :). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, now I really feel like a heartless bastard after taking that test. Most economists think of me as a left-wing nut, and that's at Berkeley. I always just thought I was a moderate, and they were the right-wingers. I came out at 92% on the non-Marxist scale. That puts the rest of my kind to the right of Pinochet. Maybe economics really is a form of brain-damage. At least I do like children, and other living things. But, I'm afraid I will be in leauge with Rex & BD in the future, now that I know myself better. Derex 17:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL

Wait! You want to talk to BD? Brave soul! :) I blocked him for 3 months this time btw. Blocked his IP I mean. Username is blocked indefinitely. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if he was even the one who created that site. If he wasn't, that might possibly be the funniest thing I've heard all week. 2 months claiming he's going to bring down Wikipedia and all he can do is link to some other guy's site. --kizzle 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Some advice

I'd recommend spending some time in #wikipedia-en-vandalism. On the S-P page today, you mentioned the case of a page that gets hit 10 times a day but that only one person has watchlisted. That doesn't really happen. :) If you go to W-E-V, you will see that one of the functions of the bot is to watchlist pages. So essentially everyone in that room is watching the pages that are vandalized...and we add new pages to the list constantly. So it's possible for a page to fall through the cracks but with that room and the Vandal Fighter and the RC patrol, it's pretty hard. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How long should an article be semi-protected?

I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 14:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:SEMI GWB comment

I liked it, so I put it back :). If you really want it gone, though, feel totally free to take it off. Blackcap (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it may be time to archive your page ;). Blackcap (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Spongebob Squarepants

I unprotected it. Those folks don't get it. :) When it's vandalised, it's by one IP at a time. They need to just post requests for blockage to ANI. Semi protection or protection just aren't the answers and we keep telling them that. Thanks for the heads up. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I also unprotected William Luther Pierce. Just not sustained enough. However, Chuck Norris has been hit very hard over a several week period. I think it's a good candidate for a couple of days anyway. To me the key here is sustained. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the list now, I think it's better. Most of those are on the vandal fighter hit list, i.e. Bush, penis, poop, Hitler, etc. Be patient. It'll work out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 05:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are NOT a thoroughly horrid person

Love me, long time. Machu Picchu, Peru

And I will avoid touching you at all times to avoid minor skin infections. Seriously though, happy f'in solstice, now that you're no longer drunk and missed it. May whatever God you worship take pity on your wretchedness and bring a rain of healing anvils upon your head. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Presents

Yes, you get a present too - you've been good this year, so I got you a cute little Gordon the Gopher. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yaaaaay! God bless us! God bless us all! This is the bestest Christmas ever!--kizzle 18:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget to pray for all the starving heathens out there. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

New Source

If you can put your toys and grog away, get ready for another round of deeply quality-oriented editing. [27] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you see why

I am close to leaving the project. 36 subject headings in 5 days and most are people yelling at me. I've archived my talk page 3 weeks running. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And 159 headings since December 2nd. I'm not kidding. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)