User talk:VeryVerily

Please add new messages at the bottom.

I reserve the right to post replies on this page instead of your user page, although I usually don't.

File:Argentina-Perito Moreno-Glacier.jpg

Glacier, courtesy of User:Chmouel

"Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how." — Mary Schmich

Selective general archival through end of May. Long additions subject to early archival.

Thanks for reverting my user page! Angela 09:05, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your effort on the attacks on humanitarian workers page!2toise 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! :) VV 20:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bravo verily, Verily Verily, for your very worthwhile IMHO recent addition to the Genocide page. Puts a lot of controversies in context. TonyClarke 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lodar, VeryVerily. Good suggestion on not yanking paragraphs out of an already contentious article without first going to the Talk page. By the way, I had already seen that the passage had been deleted, so I could figure out what your comment meant. Other people may be puzzled, however. Good luck, and keep on trying to talk sense to people. P0M

Regarding your recent edit to Bush family conspiracy theory: Oh, yeah, sure, go and bring evidence into it. What a spoilsport! ;-) -- Cyan 05:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak 05:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): Thanks for your responses at User_talk:Peak#Multi-regional hypothesis. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I will post some responses there rather than here, but in the meantime, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the general tone of your response, and hope that we can resolve any remaining points of misunderstanding amicably. Peak

Thanks, I did not dare doing that with the GWB National Guard accusations.

;-) -- V V 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the terror word at March 11, ...Madrid. I was getting very angry. Pfortuny 08:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

KR

User:Hanpuk is busy trying to whitewash the Khmer Rouge article based on topics we have went over there and other places before. I've run out of reverts for the day. --mav 06:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

your thoughts might be usefull over at Talk:Khmer Rouge PMA 22:47, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I didn't even notice until just now, when I checked the history. Meelar 06:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Rigged"

I like your latest wording best. I hope Meelar agrees. Cecropia 01:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VV, I'm in my own little drama right now and I'd rather not step into the middle of another one. Sorry. RickK

lousy English

I would like to express our (collective) great gratitude to all Wikipedians who correct grammatical errors and unidiomatic expressions from pages where ESL-wikipedians have put their mark on the prose. Some foreigners' English is worse than others' — this is not politically correct to state, but I do it anyways — and that of Finns belong to the worst. Thank you! Thank you very much!

If your work on Continuation War wasn't enough (and frankly, that very article is far from ready with respect to factual content and NPOV, imho), or if you would like more praise, take a look at: User:Tuomas#Articles_in_need_of_a_check_by_a_native_English_speaker ;-))

/Tuomas 08:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Grammer fix

I don't mind the Grammer fix, as a matter of fact I encourge you to fix my grammer because I have a habit of typing fast. Thanks Comarde Nick

compliments

I wanted to compliment you on your civility, something which should be standard on the wiki, but in practice is rare enough to earn my compliments. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation re:Indo-European

The article says "The Basque language is unusual in that it does not appear to be related to any known languages." Why do you insist in inserting "living"? Basque does not appear to be related to any known languages, period. It is of course true, that if we go back two or three thousand years, there may be languages to which Basque would then seem to be related, but we don't have any remains of such languages and hence "living" is unnecessary, as Basque does not appear to be related to any dead languages either. Vice 21:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See "aquitanian" at [1]. V V 21:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point - I was unaware of that. Perhaps then you should include a short reference to Aquitanian in the sentence? Vice 22:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We could, but I don't see the point. It's just an offhand reference in a list of non-IE languages in Europe, a bit of a tangent. Deeper details belong in the Basque article, which the reader seeking further information can click on. V V 22:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: John Kerry

I am struggling to gain some breathing space on that page. It seems to me that user Neutrality is overly focused on reverting or otherwise aggressively deleting my edits there. User 172 sugegsted this topic may be of interest to you. Would you please review the recent edit history and talk history for John Kerry and offer whatever suggestions that you can? Rex071404 02:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on Rex's page about the dispute being only one word. I assume you're referring to whatever the latest dispute is. I haven't been paying attention to the details lately because I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I'd need to devote substantial time to the arbitration proceeding. (I held off doing so as long as possible, making what I regarded as multiple efforts to effect improvements in less drastic ways. In hindsight, I wish that I'd put in more effort earlier to trying to get Rex blocked.) So, I don't know what particular one-word current dispute you're referring to, but I do know that the John Kerry article has been an unending succession of disputes. I have to doubt that resolving the current one will make everything sweetness and light.

My political differences with Rex may, obviously, be biasing me -- but, trying as best I can to be objective, I still conclude that he has a completely wrong approach to Wikipedia editing. Perhaps you, as someone more identified politically with the right than I am, would be able to say things that Rex would hear. (He once made a reference to him and me being on different planets, a regrettably apt analogy.) If you want to plunge into this, some suggestions for you to get an idea of what I see as the problem: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence, particularly Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#POV inclusions, deletions and modifications, where my level of detail is excruciating but, IMO, worthwhile; and my final attempt to explain Wikiquette to him, at Talk:John Kerry#Rex and Wikipedia. To the extent you think my criticisms are accurate, perhaps your imprimatur would help. To the extent you don't think so, I'd be interested in hearing your disagreement, if you chose to spend the time elaborating, because I'd value your ideas and you might help improve my understanding of Wikiquette. JamesMLane 06:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I won't further impose on your time by commenting point-by-point on what you say, except for the single most important thing: I agree with your view that a new editor should be "approached with a positive attitude and an assumption of good faith." I believe that I did so. If a fair-minded person were, for some incomprehensible reason, to wade through the 500 or so kilobytes of Talk generated in the past month, I would have no trepidation on that score. Be that as it may, I appreciate your willingness to try to communicate with Rex instead of just fleeing from the whole mess, for which no one could blame you. JamesMLane 10:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There comes a point where assurances of future improvements are no longer adequate to forestall corrective action (are you listening, Saddam?). The difference between me and George Bush is that I'm working through our local equivalent of the U.N. By the way, congratulations on your accession to wealth. Please note the fundraising link at the top of the page. :) JamesMLane 10:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please help

I have been adding comments to the GWB Talk page, where appropriate, to back you up from the whelming tide of Neutrality, et al. Please, if you feel led to, help me out here: [2] A kind word or two would be appreciated Rex071404 05:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll look at what's going on. Of course, my late entry into the fray means I'm not as well versed in the history as many of the people on that page. V V 05:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your recognition of the limitations of your knowledge. I won't burden you with all the details about Rex's numerous transgressions. One of the more recent ones, however, involved you. I may decide to complete my writeup of this incident and add it to the ArbCom page, and some people may see it as putting you in a bad light. Therefore, please feel free to let me know of any respect in which my current draft, at User:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement, is unfair to you. Heck, it's a wiki, edit it yourself if you please! JamesMLane 08:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have added a response re my own role to that page. V V 08:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved your response to User talk:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement and I'm about to sign off. If you want to essay an edit of the draft, feel free, otherwise I'll look at it tomorrow and take account of what you've said. (I'll probably delete that little snideness about you. I was mainly venting. This whole Kerry experience has been very stressful for me. I figured better to blow off steam on the subpage than on Talk:John Kerry.) JamesMLane 08:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second Ropers' complaint

Re: Neutrality Rfc [3]

As it is a fact that Neutrality is moving to higher levels of authority on this Wiki, his name clearly has the potential to add a mistaken level of official imprimature to his edits and/or other actions. I agree that he must change his name.

Additionally, I also agree with Ropers' logic and can personally attest to having had editorial difficulties with Neutrality.

Rex071404 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC

PNAC

Please discuss this at talk. And objectively compare with the pages I cited. neoconservative vs. conservative. def. of hegemony def. of interventionist If we cooperate in good faith and approach the problem rationally and objectively, we can come to agreement on what most accurately and plainly describes reality, irrespective of sentiments. Kevin Baas | talk 01:45, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Let me assure you that I understand and take into account the falliblity of my own mind as much as that of others. Respecting this, I develop and implement strategies to avoid seeping my own bias into material, and likewise to avoid any seeping bias from social manifestations. This is why I prefer academic terminology - because it is more stable; because it is less affected by the sentimental circumstances of the times - it is balanced out by every event throughout history which resides under it's scope, and has a body of knowledge associated with such events,and interpertations, from past and present, of those events. This is how we "learn from history" - because this allows us to stand back from the present emotionally-situated (and thus distorted) context, and see it in a fuller surrounding and causual chain, provided that we can rely upon the general persistence of human psychology and consequent behavior throughout history. Again, in order to overcome the inevitable bias of out present condition, we must stand back from our emotions, and have faith in the legitimacy of recorded history and knowledge. This is why I insist on using academic terminology. I feel that the separating of current events from the continuity of history is a dangerous rejection of the prudence that the passing down of knowledge provides. In sun, academic terminolgy is, because of such accumulated dialogue, more reliable and objective than our imagination. This is again, why I insist that we accept the prudence of generations with good faith, regardless of local sentiment. Kevin Baas | talk 04:43, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Your vote needed at George_W._Bush

Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there any chance you might stop reverting on George W. Bush, or do I have to file a request for arbitration? Gzornenplatz 10:37, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

New Bush vote now under way - please vote

Here [4]

Rex071404 15:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Watch the rv's at George_W._Bush

There is an anti-Bush, pro-Kerry crowd lurking who will complain to ArbCom and get you blocked from editing there. They did it to me on John Kerry.

What happens is, they tag-team revert you, then they file an RfA and get you blocked.

Rex071404 17:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote 2004 links

See interesting Vote 2004 links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rex071404

Rex071404 05:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Information specific to Neutrality 08.17.2004

On this page here Neutrality admits that he was involved in an "edit war" about Fox News. At this page section here Neutrality is told by Fred Bauder that moving (evidence) "statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate". At this page section here on August 13th, 2004 (only four days ago!) he was warned and admonished by Guanaco for "You have reverted John Kerry nine times in 24 hours". Also, at this link here you can find this sentence; "C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it." by Neutrality (from July 15th, 2004).

Let the record about these episodes, speak for itself. Rex071404 06:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfA Nonsense

Thank you for the kind words on RfA. I'm not going to dignify the attacks with a response, but I appreciate that you stepped up to speak.

If you're curious: I first became active during the Quickpoll saga. I grew interested in the administrative workings -- but I saw that people tended to vandalize each other's pet articles, so I decided it would be wise to maintain separate accounts for contributing versus talking. The community has affirmed this practice on numerous occasions, so I feel I'm on solid ground -- and I use my real name and valid email for voting and controversial discussions, so I daresay I've got a better claim to legitimacy than certain other users.

As I said, I won't dignify the personal attacks on RfA, because they're irrelevant to the merits of the nomination. But thanks again for stepping to my defense. I noticed it, and I do appreciate it. Cribcage 17:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

FOX News has been unprotected based on your request. --Michael Snow 16:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cool. V V 19:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex arbitration

Thanks for having taken the time to comment on User:JamesMLane/ArbCom supplement. Having cooled off some, I've now gotten around to rewriting it. I think the new version takes account of your comment by noting that both sides in the edit war had raised allegations of bad faith. I hope you'll find it unobjectionable -- you've been given less prominence in this rewrite, a "demotion" that you'll probably like! I haven't yet shipped this off to the ArbCom, so please let me know if you have any problems with it. JamesMLane 14:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, VV.

Why are you reverting my changes to Anti-American sentiment? Neutrality 03:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

)

Bush?

What's up with all the mass reverts? I'm haven't really been keeping up with much on that page, so there may be underlying issues I don't get. But at least a lot of the edits by kevin baas seemed productive and reasonably explained to me. I rv'd once, but should have asked for info first -- which I'm doing now.

At the very least, I don't understand why you want to deny that Bush got into Harvard shadily, when that article doesn't allege it. It's kind of like saying that no one has publicly accused Bush of beating his dog. Well see, now I'm wondering if he does.Wolfman 22:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it does seem a bit daft to have an article, say "edit it" and then have some person such as yourself simply undo what Ive done. If this rather bullyish tendency is the way of things here, I dont think this will be a place I or anyone else should be spending much time on at all. JDH

Well, its not a good opening as it is -- it rather looks like a potted plant, teetering on the lower step of a tenenment foyer. I dont see all to many people taking to the streets to defend "democide" from being called "genocide." It seems a rather strange proposition that someone would protest the definition of genocide on any comparable scale that people might protest the act itself. JDH

Edits to Bush

V V Whereas before I would try to cut and paste text in such a way as to preserve unrelated edits, the constant reverting you (KB) have engaged in have made me unwilling to take the time to preserve your other edits. This accounts for some of what is below.

Alright, one at a time, For each reason, do you dispute (a) the accuracy of the reason, and if so, on what grounds, or, if not, (b) that the reason is sufficient cause for the change, and if so, on what grounds.

Removal of "There are no public reports suggesting...":
Reason: This is like saying "There are no reports that bush is a reptillian humanoid." It is completely random. The article makes no such accusations.
V V As I recall, it did, and it is a common accusation, whether in the article or not. But I have no strong opinion on that.
It might have before, but i don't see it anywhere in there now. The point, which wolfman has made also, is that you're shooting yourself in the foot with that one. Many people are unaware of these accusations, and only become aware by hearing "I do not beat my dog.". Furthermore, it tacitly validates the accusations, because it shows that they were threatening enough to provoke a response. Really, I think it does more damage than good to people's opinion of Bush. I guess if you want to leave it in, fine. It's not a big issue for me. I just think it's kind of awkward. Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
V V I don't see how I'm shooting myself in the foot, unless you think I'm on a pro-Bush crusade. But I didn't add that line, anyway; I only reverted it back.
Florida election controversy: restore consensus.
Reason: consensus.
Public perception: restore consensus.
Reason: consensus.
V V Answered ad nauseam.
I answered these two below. Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
Removal of: "office, though it did average 5.6% across the full length of Clinton's terms in"
Reason: this article is not about clinton. The insertion is completely irrelevant and does not inform the reader about bush.
V V The article claims unemployment going up under Bush, by selective citation, which this extra info counterbalances. Is this not obvious?
Well why compare it to clinton, among all of the presidents?

Why have bush's start and end figures, and clinton's avg. figures? They should both by avg. or both start and end, so that people can make a direct comparison.

What do you mean by selective citation? Unemployment rate is a very standard statistic. Just because it goes up or down doesn't mean that the article is unbalanced. The choice of putting unemployment rate in there is neutral, because it is relevant and significant, has an equal chance of being "good" or "bad", and would easily belong on every president's article.

Honestly, I really don't think we should compare. This is the only instance in this entire article where another president is mentioned, and likewise where a comparison of performance is made. That is really my main problem with it. I don't think it belongs. Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

V V Yes, it's unbalanced to cite two unrepresentative statistics. The average over Clinton's term is a better benchmark for the immediate effect of Bush's election than the figure at one point which is clearly unusually low. Clinton is Bush's predecessor, obviously. Yes, it would be better to have Bush's av figure.
Wolfman finally put figures in that can be compared, so you don't have to worry about that aspect anymore. Kevin Baas | talk 17:28, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
Foreign policy: mention of vice president and secretary of defense.
Reason:two of most prominent positions in the white house, and the most publicly discussed (and seemingly active) members of the bush administration. "the bush-cheney-rumsfield team". also the fact they they are both founders of PNAC is very significant
V V See explanation above. I haven't picked through that para, although I assume your version would need NPOV'ing, since you wrote it.
Foreign policy: mention of critism of critics, "threat to world peace".
Reason: This is the predominant criticism.
V V I don't agree, and it's just empty rhetoric. Also, in-depth discussion of the PNAC does not belong here, anymore than would coverage of The Weekly Standard.
It's a one-liner. I wouldn't call that "in-depth". It's not empty rhetoric. It's what a whole lot of people (mostly outside of the U.S.) believe. I don't think they'd be too happy with you calling their beliefs "empty rhetoric". Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
V V I may believe Clinton is a sociopath, as may others, but putting that "Critics believe that Clinton's amoral behavior indicates he is a sociopath" is over the top. V V 23:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "over-the-top" or what have you. it's a matter of what is. if a significant amount of people actually thought that about clinton, then i'd say that it should very well be in the clinton article.

Regardless, I think it's a poor analogy. People don't think that bush is a sociopath, they just think that his policies are not very well though out. they don't think it's intentional. they just think that it's dangerously unpragmatic - foreign policy is a tricky and sensitive thing. Humans are dangerous animals. he's human, that's all - no surprise here. they're not making any unreasonable criticisms. Perhaps it seems unreasonable to you simply because it's your country.(i'm assuming you're american) what if it was someone else's country? would it seem as unreasonable then? Kevin Baas | talk 23:50, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
Domestic policy, economy: Insertion of facts about tax-income distribution, by non-partisian authority.
Reason: very relevant and significant.
Domestic policy, economy: Insertion of fact about unprecedented statement by ten nobel prize laurates and over 450 economists.
Reason: very relevant and significant.
V V Again, see above. I haven't picked through this to evaluate its bias, which I'm sure is there. V V 22:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Baas | talk 16:16, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Thanks, VV. Since you said some of the changes were inadvertent, just take the time to selectively revert, please, and RESPECT CONSENSUS. I am more concerned with consensus than my edits, because consensus is everyone's edits, and you are disrepecting all of the other contributors by disrespecting it. I will not tolerate any user thinking that they are more right than all the other contributors put together. Your "reasoning" for disrespecting consensus, obviously, I will never be satisfied with. Why? Because I give it equal weight as everyone else's reasoning. That is only rational, and you should not be surprised by it. Since, I give each person's opinion equal weight (upon the scale of justice, if you will), I allow no-one, not even someone who i completely agree with, not even myself, to consider themselves above the sum total of those weights. I assure you, that if your version had consensus, and someone else was behaving as you are, I would treat them the same way that I am treating you: I would protect the consensus, regardless of what my opinion of it was.

"what does explanation above" mean? is that that those changes were inadvertent?

which ones are (a) and which ones (b)?

I'll try to respond to them in particular, i wanted to get my first response to you quickly. Kevin Baas | talk 22:28, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

"Explanation above" refers to my opening comments "Whereas before...", where I also noted why I'm not selectively reverting, in addition to the reason of my suspicions about the new material you added (which I'll get to when the other stuff dies down). V V 22:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And btw, feel free to pick at my language on my edits. Trim them, perhaps, without removing crucial information. Or balance them out with a comparable source on the same subject, or what have you. just please don't outright remove them without first demonstrating that they are either irrelevant, insignificant, or unrepresentative. Again, go ahead and pick at my edits, respectfully. Try to make edits that you think will be agreeable. i'll let reasonable changes stand. Kevin Baas | talk 22:36, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

So will I. V V 00:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I object to the basis of this complaint against V V as being unfounded and fraudulent. As another editor who has been recently active on the George_W._Bush page, I have been watching and measuring the activity on the talk page there. I can tell you that the comments and questions I raise, do not garner full participation from the same various editors who now complain about V V. Suffice it to say, because these various editors refuse to deliberate, they ought not to be allowed to complain about V V at this time. I recently ran into revert war trouble at John Kerry and found the same symptom there: A few loosely aligned pro-Democrat edtitors reach a partial consensus among themselves, and then close their minds to even the most well reasoned and fact-supported rebuttals. Rex071404 07:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily

This user has been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment for some time but has not changed his behaviour of reverting parts of George W. Bush against talk page consensus (where polls have gone 20-3 and 5-0 against him), causing the page to be protected regularly. I suggest putting him on a strict three-revert limit, if not excluding him from editing the Bush page entirely. Gzornenplatz 14:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I also request that user VeryVerily be examined by the arbitration committee. I am particularly concerned with the user's conduct on the George W. Bush page. Kevin Baas | talk 19:51, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

I am concerned with the user's:

complete disregard for consensus
complete disregard for the 3-revert rule; constant reversions
failure to discuss changes, justify edits, make reasoned arguments, address reasoned arguments, etc.
insertion of POV
suppression of relevant and significant information
complete obstinacy in this conduct

Kevin Baas | talk 01:42, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I don't think VV's conduct can be reasonably looked at without looking at the larger issue of his treatment by the community at large, and, specifically, by people who are supposed to be in the position of settling disputes. I refer here to [5], which I think probably had the effect of making both requests for comment and mediation ineffective options for VeryVerily. I'm not asking for sanction against Danny (Or against Mirv or Hephestos, both of whom later signed this summary), but I think that this action and the consequences it probably had for dispute resolution with VV need to be taken into account. Snowspinner 16:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Evidence

[6] - Page history of George W. Bush showing lots of reverts and four page protections. Notice edit summaries. Notice consistency of user conduct.
[7] –page history, anti-american sentiment
[8] –page history, u.s. presidential election

Dialogue

Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_11 Notice two instances of strong and explicit consensus.
Talk:anti-American sentiment
Talk:U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Scrub_list.2C_numbers
User talk:Stevertigo
User talk:Snowspinner
User_talk:Gzornenplatz
User_talk:VeryVerily
User_talk:VeryVerily/archive (archived 2004 Aug 21)

The forgoing is from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I am sorry that I just noticed that you were not notified of this on your talk page. You may make a short response on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and may also request relief regarding those how have made complaints against you, and others such as User:Neutrality who are involved in the matter. Fred Bauder 19:05, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please respond to the section above on bush.

Please respond to the section above on bush. Kevin Baas | talk 22:02, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

anti-American sentiment

Hi there,

Though of a diametrically opposed view to yourself, I have no particular exasperation at the lack of progress working out US-orientated articles (it's not the be-all and end-all of the Universe, and Wikipedia will not be swaying the US presidential election!!!). However, that said, I did feel compelled to make some suggestions, and add some discussion to Talk:Anti-American sentiment. I would be most interested to hear your responses, considering your stance.

Regards, zoney ███ talk 15:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. It's always worth standing up for your views (Wikipedia actually needs this from Wikipedians or NPOV could never be established), but don't let it get you down when everything seems to be against you. You can always come back tomorrow, after a break and a good sleep, and try again!

Arb, notice

FWIW, I noticed it, and I initially felt inclined to notify you, but I felt that it was the requestor's responsibility, so I recused myself. Everyone seems to have waited it out. Kevin Baas | talk 20:16, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Your reversion of George W. Bush

Dear VV -- I've noticed that after I unprotected the article, the first edit was your reversion of Kevin Baas's edits to your last version -- i.e., it appears as though you're restarting the revert war immediately.

I think it would be very helpful if you could work on some compromise between the two version. E.g., where you removed the detail on the Florida controversy and the Supreme Court and replaced it with a phrase about Gore's concession. I think that this could be a good place for you to work on a compromise between the two versions.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are two contrary takes. One, yes you're of course right that reverting right after protection risks restarting the conflict. But on the flip side protection on a certain version does not mean that version "wins" and should be kept afterwards. I'll start by restoring some of kb's edits, although I doubt it will help. V V 20:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi VV -- thanks for the reply and for taking my suggestion to heart. I will say, though, that I don't believe in m:The Wrong Version and that protections doesn't mean a temporary "win" for "one side." It's just freezing the state of the article temporarily (and ideally, arbitrarily, although I know this isn't always true in practice), and that int is only for a very short period in the overall life of the article. And overall, I don't believe that a certain version should be kept afterwards -- just that it should be edited by all involved in a spirit of collaboration, and that even if one editor refuses to behave that way, others should "turn the other cheek" whilst simultaneously widening the groups of people working on the articl, so that it doesn't remain a 1:1 conflict.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please vote on GWB ASAP

here Rex071404 00:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please Stop!

Read this (and see GWB talk) before you revert any more:

Uh Consensus means we are supposed to try to understand and agree

It seems that each "vote" or discussion falls into camps divided along the pro-Bush and anti-Bush lines. Is this honest dialog? Is there a real attempt to reach consensus? I feel that Kevin Baas in particular is convinced that Bush (and associates) pro-actively schemed in 2000 to wrongly block African-American voters so as to steal the election. I feel this because KB seems to have an extreme desire to push the "disenfranchised" angle. I also feel that this view of his adds a POV which makes gaining consensus impossible. Question for group: Why are we not allowing both premises to be in the sentences? Why must ONLY the "there was 'disenfranchisment' therefore Bush cheated" angle be emphasized? To me, reaching consensus means respecting each others views and attempting to combine them. I have explained my views to Kevin about this, his response was:

"Alright rex, it doesn't look like this conversation is going anywhere. I have said nothing that can be construed to be the least bit controversial, and I stand by it unperturbed. I have done my best to communicate with you. There is nothing more that can be said. The facts are as they are. So be it. Kevin Baas | talk 06:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)" [9].

That does not sound to me like he is actually trying to appreciate and incoporate into the article all view points. The purpose of a poll (not a "vote" - like someone changed the title to) is to find out where we stand, not shout-down dissent. We are supposed to homogonize our views into an acceptable text, not "vote" on who to weed out. I have posted detailed thoughts as to why I feel the term "disenfranchised" ought not to be included (or at the least, not made to be too greatly emphasized). This logic carries over to my concerns about "Validity". Also, I have asked other questions and raised other points above. Collaborative editing requires much dialog. I am talking here, what about the rest of you?

Also please take note of this Edit Smmary [10] by Kevin Bass "Business and political career - put para on consensus, pending resolution of changes via vote on talk page.)". It's clear from this that Kevin's aim is to silence dissenters via a "voting" process rather than try to reach a meeting of the minds. That is not collaboration and any so-called "consensus" reached that way is fraudulent.

Rex071404 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

minor point, no one changed the title -- you didn't post a title (I did). - Wolfman

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimous agreement, sometimes that can't be achieved. You logically can't both include the word 'disenfranchised' and not include it. Looking up, I see that people have dialogued with you quite a bit about it. It's disingenous and unfair to suggest that the other editors have been unwilling to talk (see you last line above. Wolfman 17:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is the text of the edit I made just now

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

It is I feel more accurate than the Kevin Bass version, but still incoporates his preferred verbiage, including "The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed". I would be satisified to accept this.

And frankly, this is a big concession from me because it would be more truthful to say:

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. At the request of the Gore campaign, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 5-4 and 7-2 decisions that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

Rex071404 17:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I'm not interested in interfering with this discussion between you two, I would like to point out a minor correction: The version that Rex calls "the Kevin Bass version" (and btw, it's Baas, rather than Bass. people misspell my last name a lot, so it doesn't bother me) was actually written by Neutrality, and got the most votes. The version that I (Kevin Baas) suggested didn't get as many votes, so I don't think that it should be put into the article. Kevin Baas | talk 18:52, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Mediation

Gzornenplatz has requested mediation with you over reversions of George W. Bush. It would be appreciated if you could reply as to whether or not you accept, over at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Ambi 05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfC on Axis of evil / Asses of evil filed

See RfC here regarding this:

Axis of evil Should "AssesOfEvil.png" (see image on this page) be included in the article under guise of "parody"?

File:AssesOfEvil.png

Your comments are appreciated.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 05:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aren't you guys having enough trouble? Fred Bauder 11:41, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean? V V 18:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An apology.

I'm sorry Gzornenplatz is using requests for mediation as a forum to personally attack you. His behavior is unacceptable, and I certainly did not intend for this to happen. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? How do you read a personal attack into anything I said there? You better substantiate this accusation, or take it back. Gzornenplatz 19:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Hey there, you're being very naughty breaking the revert rule at Henry Kissinger. Go stand in a corner. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:40, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Well, I'm not thrilled to get dragged into this, but the 3-revert limit isn't one of the listed justifications for blocking people, and I support the idea that we should rely on explicit policy to justify blocks. Is the message above all the warning he gave you, or was there more on IRC or something? Seems sort of cryptic as the prelude to blocking. You know our guidelines, of course, but if you were a new user I would like to see something more explicit ("vandalize Wikipedia again and you'll be blocked!").

Of course, if we were enforcing the 3-revert limit with blocks I would have been happy to block you myself. Instead, we use page protection, and I protected the page once I could figure out what the fuss was about (no complaints about The Wrong Version, please). Anyway, welcome back (in a manner of speaking, since judging by the page history you hardly left, though I suppose the block may have slowed you down just a little). --Michael Snow 23:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions about your request for comment

Has he ever blocked someone before against policy or was this an isolated incidence?
Have you, or anyone tried to resolve the matter before the rfc - did you send him an email, edit his talk page - that kind of thing? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I paged through the block log, and only saw one other suspicious block (an IP # for two weeks), which I don't know about. I haven't looked further back in time.
I was unable to write him a reply to his note because I found out I was blocked when I was trying to. However, I did post to the mailing list and (after going anonymous) the village pump, where he might have seen it. I asked others to unblock since I figured my luck was better with a third party than trying to convince Aevar. Grunt posted a note on his talk page, which he replied to rather airily, as did Michael Snow. Anyway, I don't believe there is any such requirement for reporting admin actions; an abuse of admin powers is a serious matter regardless of whether one "talks it over" with the admin in question. V V 00:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've looked at his user page and agree that his reply to Grunt wasn't very helpful. But I do believe admins should be given the same deal as everyone else. I routinely tell vandals "do that again and I'll block you" I think admins should be told "do that again and I'll start a rfc". Anway I wont comment on the rfc until tomorrow to give him a chance to explain himself.

As for you. Clearly you are very upset. I would be too if someone had blocked me. But think on this - you've allready won because you were unblocked almost straight away. The block was a minor inconvenience - nothing more. I understand you were in an edit war before you were blocked? Perhaps a cooling off period isn't such a bad idea. It should have been enforced through protection rather than banning, but the point it - revert wars are usually bad. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's not so awful to be "dragged in" when things seem to work out pretty quickly afterwards. Just for your information, as perhaps you have already figured out, what happened with the unblocking is that Ævar unblocked the IP autoblock that resulted from your attempts to edit. Apparently he thought what he was doing would also unblock you. I noted this on the RfC listing for reference. Interestingly enough, it looks like his (failed) unblock was actually before you started casting around for some admin to unblock you (unless there are other contributions than that one IP). As to why nobody else stepped up, well of course you know your own reputation, and then some of the people you asked have gotten into enough controversy over blocking/unblocking that maybe they didn't want to take this one on. But after a quick look it turned out to be pretty clearcut, as you said.

Also, since apparently you think this issue is now resolved, I wanted to ask you - do you want that RfC page kept, or deleted? Personally, I would say this is a great situation for a complete forgive and forget and delete the page, because I believe Ævar just made a mistake and clearly won't repeat it. But I'll defer to your wishes if you prefer otherwise.

Incidentally, I don't use IRC either, or I probably would have seen any discussion there. Still, because the chain of events on the wiki alone seemed to be missing some pieces (like why is Ævar suddenly blocking someone he's barely ever interacted with over a revert war on an article he has no attachment to) I figured it had to be involved somehow and thought Ævar might have talked to you there. That's likely where Node made the request to have you blocked.

Now that I look at it, playing mediator/referee/whatever on Talk:Henry Kissinger doesn't sound nearly as "unappealing" as some disputes I've seen. Shockingly, there was even some passably civil discussion happening on the talk page around the time of the revert war - just not during it, but already an encouraging sign. And it seems pretty easy for me to imagine what I think could be a good resolution. --Michael Snow 05:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In terms of reputation, I was mostly getting at that you're known for being involved in politically charged disputes over NPOV, and for participating in revert wars. That makes you a polarizing influence when new disputes come up, and people with a distaste for conflict may be reluctant to be seen as "on your side" in a dispute, regardless of whether they might agree with you on the merits in a less contentious atmosphere. Which leaves just the regular supporters and critics, many of whom are equally polarizing. Like all politics, wiki disputes have a capacity for vicious cycles like this.

I'm pretty confident the connection is IRC. Node has stated his location as Phoenix, and Ævar has indicated that he's in Denmark. And yes, you would have been better off reverting to your in-between version rather than Stargoat's complete removal of the quote. It's a lot easier to cast someone in a negative light when they're just deleting content rather than attempting to improve it.

Finally, you were definitely right to delist the RfC. The dispute it was about got resolved, so it serves no purpose anymore. Meddling in the status of your own listing could be a conflict of interest, but the fact that people raised your behavior as an issue doesn't make this one a listing about you. --Michael Snow 17:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Crank editor

Gzornenplatz has been stalking me ever since the most recent deletion attempt on the Empire of Atlantium article, which appears to have caused him/her to initiate some sort of crusade - he/she appears to believe that everything I post relating to micronations is somehow "self promotional" unless it conforms to his POV (ie, "micronations are irrelevant rubbish"), and unless every second word is in inverted commas. I believe he/she has used highly questionable means on several occasions while waging his/her campaign (the sort that warrant banning) - I have taken this up with one of the developers and am awaiting a response. Several days age he/she began interpolating false data into the Micronation article opening paragraph which resulted in protection being necessitated. These interpolations were done without reference to sources quoted by me on the talk page that show the interpolations to be false. In the past day or so he/she has been attempting to delete a valid external link from Republic of Minerva, Sedang and Hutt River Province. I have restored them, and posted reasons why to talk pages - to which he he/she has responded with another rant concerning my "self promotion". --Gene_poole 22:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is certainly interesting to know that others have been stalked by Gzornenplatz. I've heard the same story from one other editor in the past few days too, so this is obviously a pattern of behaviour. Would you be prepared to jointly take him to arbitration with me on that basis? I've been compiling a huge volume of data against him recently, and I'm particularly keen to expose his use of techniques that will get him/her an instant ban. These actions, if they are verified, go well beyond anything that call for simple mediation. I'm happy to discuss this in more detail offline: [11] --Gene_poole 01:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution

Hi VV. Edits from 24.7.126.117 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 02:04, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Contrib By Hour

Hi -- if you have the time, can you please update my contib by hour chart? Thanks a lot. (BTW, I've been doing a lot of edits around midnight, aroung 5 or 6 AM UTC, so it's should rise there). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll get to it after I deal with a few other things. V V 00:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, I'm in no rush. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello VV. I am very astonished by your conduct. I do not know what to say. I really don't know how to make you respect other people. I really don't know how to make you understand the virtue of the policies here. I am at a loss here. Though I try and I try, I can't seem to figure out how to interact with a person of your conduct. Kevin Baas | talk 00:47, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

You are the one reverting consensus. I have told you a ridiculous number of times that I will always protect the consensus. I have given you my reasons. If you have somehow formed the idea in your head that your endless revert war against the community will be at all effective, then I think you should seriously reconsider the logic of this proposition. If you think your behavior is acceptable, or that conduct counter to the policies of this forum will be tolerated, you should likewise reconsider. Kevin Baas | talk 01:00, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

You might also notice that I am not the only person who is restoring consensus, nor am I the only person constituting this consensus. Kevin Baas | talk 01:02, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)