User talk:Kevin Baas/Archive3

This is a matter between VV, Gz, and the mediators.

Please let us handle it. Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not an "active contributor" to the George W. Bush article - in fact, I never want to see the damn thing again. Also, mediation requests are not about one particular user's actions. That is what the Arbitration Committee is for. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Source Information on 2000 Election page

All that source information now seems to apply to the Florida Voter File that has been spun off into its own article. Any chance you can delete/archive/generally clean up all that source information that's no longer needed? I'm going to try and condense the talk information to be only about things currently being discussed/disputed soon. Thanks! Rbsteffes 20:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I see you said this: "The allegations you made against Gzornenplatz on VV's talk page are completely unsubstantiated" on Neutrality's talk page. Hmmm, so I guess it is true that Neutrality sometimes cries "personal attack" when there is none.... [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 03:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to. If Bush, then stop reverting my edits. V V 00:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I have explained to you my different perceptions of the claims of "consensus". Yes, Gz is also reverting. Now quit the posturing, it's just lame. V V 01:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VV, regarding "versions of consensus". Yes, we clearly have a different understanding of what consensus means. You think that consensus means your opinion, regardless of what anybody else thinks. I think that consensus means each person's opinion is given equal weight. It is clear that these two definitions are incompatible. But perhaps Game theory might provide some insight. Kevin Baas | talk 17:27, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Regarding VV

Let me butt in here >> Kevin Baas: I disagree with that you are saying to VV. I think there is an entrenched pro-Kerry cabal here which goes out of its' way to slander Bush and make editing difficult for those who don't toe the dem/liberal party line. My observations of the edits over at George W. Bush lead me to believe that VV has been under inordinate pressure to capitulate to this cabal and yet, in the face of that, he has kept of a high measure of good form. Frankly KB, I am appalled at your heavy handed lambasting of VV. I think you need to learn how to have more plyability (if not flexibility) in dealing with editors who you've targeted as being in a minority. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not characterize people as being pro- or anti-, rather I accept info from people from an unbiased critical perspective. Characterizing people, or communities, for that matter, as "cabals", and such conspiracy theoretic - thinking, distorts one's vision of reality, and obstructs one's ability to engage in civil and productive discussion, so I keep away from it as much as possible. I do not target anyone as a minority, I treat every person the same. If Gzornenplatz was conducting himself the same way as VV, I would treat him the same as VV. Kevin Baas | talk 23:56, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't make distinctions, and kudos to you if you are able to live viably without doing that. However, distinctions in and of themselves are not a problem. Rather, its adverse treatment, meted out solely on the basis of a pre-conceived distinctions (bias/bigotry) which is a problem among people. Personally, I feel there is a bias against certain conservative and/or Christian editor's viewpoints among some loose confederacies of editors here. I may be wrong, but that's how I've seen it so far. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 02:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily

Do you have an explanation for why you keep reinstating VeryVerily's archived listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comment? The page has not had any real activity for weeks, so the discussion is quite stale. I recognize that you still have a personal dispute with him, but I don't think there is anything to be gained from that listing at this time. I would suggest you try and work within the mediation process. --Michael Snow 06:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know that the dispute is still ongoing, but the RfC listing itself is stale. Other than Rex071404, who sided with VeryVerily, nobody new has joined that discussion in over a month. I still suggest you focus your attentions on the mediation process. --Michael Snow 16:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The practice has generally been to archive listings when discussion has petered out. While in theory it might be nice to keep a listing as long as the dispute continues in some form, in case new input helps to resolve it, in practice too many people see the RfC listings merely as a sign that so-and-so is a problem user. This sometimes exacerbates the dispute and may even create new ones elsewhere. I think I understand your reasoning, and would happily operate that way in a world where people are less judgmental and have thicker skins, but I hope you also understand my reasons for deciding to archive the listing. --Michael Snow 17:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to mediate the dispute over George W. Bush -- Please Reply at RfM

I am willing to mediate the dispute over George W. Bush listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#VeryVerily_and_Gzornenplatz.2C_Kevin_Baas if I am an acceptable choice.

Please indicate if I am an acceptable choice. If not, please indicate specifically who would be, and we can begin.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anti-American sentiment

I strive for staying away from articles where VeryVerily is engaged. My experience is that he fights for his delusions with more jealousy than wit. This last attempt seemed initially a bit more successful, and I carried a hope that both of us should somehow have matured. Well... maybe not. I retract to my personal defence of disengagement.

But I did notice, not without a certain relief, that you and others found at least some of my proposed wordings worth to put back again.

regards!
--Ruhrjung 19:34, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Rex

Thanks for calling my attention to the RfC. I was in the process of writing up the incident for submission as evidence in the pending ArbCom proceeding against Rex.

I've tried to be tolerant with him. Now I've completely had it. He's currently under a temporary block from editing three specific Kerry-related pages. Not enough. He should be permanently hard-banned, just expelled completely from the project. I realize that getting to that point will require huge additional amounts of wasted time in pursuing the matter. Not pursuing it will result in huge additional amounts of wasted time dealing with Rex. What a situation. The RfC? Nice idea, but I predict it will have zero effect on Rex's conduct. Frankly, I don't know what to do. JamesMLane 21:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You could try treating me like a person, instead of slug. You could try asking and understanding why I sometimes take issue with the JML/Neutrality/KB cabal. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 21:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kevin, FWIW, I've added this incident to the evidence in the ArbCom proceeding: [1]. I've also added my support to the RfC. JamesMLane 22:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My talk page policy

a.k.a.

My talk page of today

(my dialog is copied from Rex's talk & indented)

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

You do know that I deleted those (subject now of RfC) comments from my talk page 1st today and only modified them into increasingly worse taunts when others kept reverting me on my own talk page, yes? If you read the page history and the edits, you will see this quite plainly. And while my actions there today are regrettable, I am really tired of Neutrality butting in on me and being snide to me. He knows the tense state of the dynamic between us and in that context, he was totally off base to be putting snide comments on my talk page and then also restoring them after deletion. What do you say about that? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Then in light of that, consider what went through my mind when I saw those comments restored again and again. I felt that I was being subjected to tag-team harrasment [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

I accept your apologies. I will be less quick to "draw swords" on you in the future. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]]

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

Better apology

Here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like taht you show me exactly where that supposed new policy is, because I cannot find it. I believe it would be a major change in policy, given that it would mean that sysops could from now on protect their favorite version; before, protecting sysops had to be neutral and avoid being involved in the conflict. If this has so drastically changed, I would like to see the policy proper and find how this was decided and for which benefits compared to neutrality. I do not think a COP should take sides in a conflict. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Alert Re: Central Voter File

Someone has messed with this: "Florida Central Voting File" The talk history is gone and the page has been moved. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:00, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Further explanation

here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your (2) TfT polls of the editors answers

Please review your (2) answers to anti-Rex polls here. From my vantage point, your answers conflict. I'd be interested to know what your current views are on this. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Thanks for your statement of support. In terms of the "feelings" issue, I have told the ArbCom that the proposed finding of fact "is not even close to a correct statement of what I, as one of the complaining witnesses, felt (or feel)." (Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision#Objection to proposed finding of fact about the complaining witnesses). One concern I have is that I may have gone into too much detail about specific edits (Kerry crewmembers, Nicaragua), so that such basic points get buried. Nevertheless, I felt that the only way to counter the generalized accusation of POV editing was to examine specific edits. JamesMLane 21:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

a separate page for the crisis in German-American relations?

I just restored the latest version of anti-American sentiment after the "usual" revertion by VV, including a removal of the category:persecution that imho really wasn't fitting. I guess no-one is happy with the state of that article, and that this has proved an unexpected test of Wikipedia's NPOV dogm. To me it seems as the part on Germany under the heading American arrogance might fit equally well under some other headings, and I'm not sure if this is the preferable location, neither if the length of the text is proportionate to its importance. Maybe a separate page on this crisis in the German-American relations would be a good idea? /Tuomas 06:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Accepted. Though I do hope you've looked at the evidence objectively before endorsing. None of those so far signing have a "spotless" record. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Re: your question to Rex about a page name. Check 'my contributions' at the top of your screen to see what you have edited. The page name you want should be there. Wolfman 18:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voting_File

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Current Events

Do you really think that the Current Events page is appropriate for large articles with in-depth quotes which can just as easily be found in the articles they're linked to? Rick K 18:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

No. I don't think that. Kevin Baas | talk 18:20, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

That's how I read your comment on User:Mateo SA's Talk page. Please see Talk:Current events#too much analysis.

I don't know how you got "large articles with in-depth quotes which can just as easily be found in the articles they're linked to" out of "a brief paragraph". Kevin Baas | talk 18:37, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Mateo SA insisted on including this item on the Current events page:

U.S. presidential election: At a campaign stop in Hamilton, New Jersey, a heckler is arrested after disrupting a speech by First Lady Laura Bush. Sue Niederer, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq in February, is charged with defiant trespassing. Niederer describes the arrest as a violation of her right to freedom of speech, claiming she had a ticket to the event. One Republican Party volunteer describes how volunteers like her had been trained to deal with such disruptions, saying that "if anybody acts up, I just start chanting, 'Four more years!'" (CNN.com) (CBS News)

I twice deleted the last two sentences, and he restored them twice, claiming that I was censoring him. I then wrote on his Talk page what I wrote, which you objected to. Please tell me how else I am supposed to interpret what you wrote. Rick K 18:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Independently of percieved infractions by others, firstly. For a fuller explanation of my position on the matter, see my post on Talk:Current events. Kevin Baas | talk 19:23, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

I only restored the sentences that RickK deleted once; a previous deletion of the entire article was reverted by Cyprus2k1. I should note that in restoring the deletion, I was in part reacting to RickK's assertion that the sentences were "POV"; I don't see any bias in those sentences, as they simply reported events that had taken place (and in the case of the Republican volunteer, were bragged about). Mateo SA 23:35, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

VV edit war

I'm curious about the reversion back & forth about Bush popularity. The only significant difference I see between the versions is in the first sentence -- significantly v generally, & compared to Kerry. Are there other substantive disagreements that I'm missing here? Wolfman 14:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm aware that this is a long standing issue. I'm also aware that VV is quite insistent on his version, contrary to popular taste. But what I'm trying to nail down is the substantive difference between the versions. It seemed to me like a lot of the differences are pretty trivial, with the real action being in the first sentence. It's hard to keep track of every point in the diffs, since things are re-arranged. But, it seems like every point in your version is also in VV's. I'm mostly asking if that's true, or am I missing something? I read the links you provided, but am still unsure of the answer. Thanks. Wolfman 16:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

KB, this comment of yours: "I am more obstinate than VV" is not something to brag about. Also, your application of this: "No one will get their way by force in this forum" is flawed. The editors who oppose VV at George W. Bush are in fact refusing to accomodate his views at all. In taking that passive aggressive stance against him, they are not engaging in Consensus decision making with him. The entrenched editors are indeed getting their way by force. It's a passive agressive force, but it is force nonetheless. In fact, the very word "obstinate" with which you describe yourself does indeed connote a meaning of an unmovable posture. Looking at the laws of thermodynamics, it's clear that you must have tremendous inertia in order to remain so unmoveable. Hopefully you won't try to deny that intertia is a passive force. It is indeed, if it were not, no force would be rquired to overcome it. My observations lead me to believe that you are more interested in defeating VV than reaching agreement with him. This approach, coming from someone as smart as you are, really surprises me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me say this, then: each bit of information will have one bit of representation, each unit of force will have one unit of effect, and each person will have one voice. Consensus is reached when these principles are understood by all of the users.

I will match each unit of force by an equal unit of force, so that there is balance. I don't see how anyone should expect any different. If they behave a certain way, why shouldn't others behave the same way? What if all people behaved a certain way? Tit-for-tat. When I said I am more obstinate than VV, I did not mean that I am more obstinate in preferring a specific version, rather I meant that I am more obstinate in enforcing rules of conduct that are functional and conducive than VV is in trying to get his way all of the time, without cooperative discussion or regard for reasoned objection, which is neither functional or conducive. Kevin Baas | talk 22:19, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Properly understood and implimented, consensus editing would entail the majority understanding and subsuming the views of the minority. Anything else is merely mob rule with perfume on it. KB, what you have described to me is a "tit-for-tat" system, not a consensus building one. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True, when I was discussing how I enforce policy (majority understanding and incorporating the views of the minority), I was describing a tit-for-tat system. It has been shown, mathematically, to be the most effective system. I hope it will become clear to VV soon, that, on this page at least, if not the other pages that he is engaged in revert wars on, his policy of no mutually receptive discussion, but indefinite reversion to get his way, does not, and will never, work. His conduct does not lead to majority understanding and incorporating the views of the minority, it leads to absolute dictatorship, and the total frustration of other contributions. Unlike many of the editors on this page, I am not frustrated, and I will not learn to tolerate this disruptive behavior. Kevin Baas | talk 22:46, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

But you miss the larger point: Follow my logic here; If VV's edits were "correct" according to the group, they would not be opposed. It's only his edits which are wrong according to the group, which are opposed. This is precisely why the group itself is wrong. By failing to interpolate VV's ideas into the master version, the group is not appreciating and allowing for the presence of minority views. Only allowing those edits which the majority approves of, is mob rule. Consensus editing means looking for ways to include not finding votes to exclude minority views. I am simply amazed that you insist on fighting over one word such as "significantly vs. generally". Who cares if VV is "wrong". Neither one of these words should really matter. Unless of course the majority is indeed pushing a POV and needs a particular word to make its exact point. KB, I know I am right on this and I don't have a dog in the fight on this article. You really should stretch your mind here and try to hear what I am saying. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your "logic" is certainly not Aristotelian or propositional logic: Your assertion that you are inherently "right" is inconsistent with your assertion that other people are inherently "wrong": nobody can be right if everybody is wrong. That is logic. As to consensus: To me, incorporating the views of the minority means being receptive to eachother. VV is not being receptive to others. I have been receptive to VV where opportunities were presented, and I have certainly been receptive to others, including, as I hope you'll concede, you. (for example, the recent ordeal with RFA) To me, building consensus does not mean that the minority rules the majority (or vice versa), it means being receptive to each other. Incorporating the views of the minority means not acquiring hubris; not reasoning that the minority is wrong simply because they are the minority - this does not logically follow - and protecting oneself from developing such a prejudice. This prevents self-reinforcement of the wills and beliefs of the majority, i.e. mob rule, which I am as opposed to as you. But I do not believe, as you seem to have expressed that you believe, that the majority is inherently "wrong" and that the minority is inherently "right", or even that you, as you suppose, are inherently "right", anymore than I believe that I am inherently "right", which I don't. This is logical: it remains consistent when you apply it from the point of view of another person, or indeed, every person. Kevin Baas | talk 01:32, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

KB: It's true that my system of logic is simplistic compared to yours. It's more like "Paper, Scissors, Rock". Rock always crushes scissors, etc. In other words, the group mandate to subsume the sincerely offered edits of the minority is always present. If you are not doing this, you are "wrong". And if I am telling you that you should, I am "right". Please don't read too deeply into this. I am only pointing out that the current majority at George W. Bush is failing in their always present duty to interpolate the opposing views where possible. Frankly, you have no idea if VV is daft or what - so why you oppose his edits based on how he offers them (unilaterally) rather than what the edit is, baffles me. If it's just a word that doesn't matter - let it go - because it obviously matters to him. In fact, were you to let him get his way sometimes, you'd have a stronger justification to oppose those unilateral edits he might make which you can't stand. At it is now, the majority and VV are at loggerheads and that's dumb. Take a cue from the mocking anon IP tweak against me below and go see how I reached consensus with the editorial crew over at Lawrence v. Texas. Of course, I still had to fight with Neutrality there, but he's the one who chose that path, not me or the others. Rock always crushes scissors. Editors always have a duty to try to let the other guy get his view in too. If you are not doing that, it's not Consensus decision making - it's mob rule or fratricide. And neither of those are "right". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex: "I am simply amazed that you insist on fighting over one word" (see also, Talk:Lawrence v. Texas & hypocrisy) (this comment left anonymously by 68.6.82.11)

There are two things that I have been trying to make clear, that apparently have not yet been made clear:

My contention is not over wording, or content at all, for that matter, but process, i.e. conduct.
Judging each user independantly only on the basis of their process and conduct, without regard to "majorities" or "minorities" - as I strongly feel is the proper way to judge them - I think that the evidence would show, to an impartial observer, that I have worked more towards Consensus decision making than VV, by any reasonable measure that is irrespective of the distributions of opinion or the opinions themselves, as such measures should be. Kevin Baas | talk 17:07, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Such a view presumes that everyone involved has "good" manners. This is a faulty presumption. This is why you ought to also look at the edits themselves - in order to bypass disputes about who's "misbehaving" whenever posible. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 17:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reserve the right to be concerned about a person's behavior more than content, as their long term behavior has an affect on an indefinite amount of content. The functionality of this encyclopedia depends solely on the behavior of it's contributors. Kevin Baas | talk 21:07, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

What you say is true and that's precisely why those who can devise a resolution to a stand-off should. If you have the greater capacity to resolve disputes (owing to a less problematic system of behavior) then you ought to do all you can to utilize your superior abilities - and work towards creative solutions. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 21:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True, and clearly expressed. Complex problems require creative solutions. I think me and VV are finally making some progress, not absent the aid of creativity. And I am now implenting a new strategy of straightforward, if somewhat excessively specific and detailed, assertively confontational dialogue. (an example of which can be seen on the popular GWB talk page) I hope that this is more effective at resolving disputes while at the same time encouraging more conducive behavior. Thank you for your pleasent dialogue and your helpful advice. Kevin Baas | talk 23:50, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

FYI to anon IP (68.6.82.11): I didn't start the revert war at Lawrence v. Texas, Neutrality did. I was only defending my edit. Those who keep reverting VV's edits at George W. Bush are doing the same to him as Neutrality did to me - revert unilaterally. More so, Neutrality did not even dialog, but I did. And, there was no "majority" supporting Neutrality's actions against me. Neutrality vs. me is a consequence of him pursuing a personal animus against me across several articles. The VV issue is a matter of a group ganging up on VV. Therefore, please look more carefully and you will see that the issues are not the same. This is especially true because the two words in the battle at GWB have no editorial distinction to speak of. The words in dispute between me and Neutrality were radically different. Also, through dialog and flexiblity with other editors, I was able to reach group agreement and resolved the editing issue. The GWB people vs. VV have been unable to do that. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

68.6.82.11 here -- why do you say KB reverted VV, rather than VV reverted KB? 68.6.82.11 05:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

68.6.82.11, unless you've been following this in detail as I have, you would not understand. Suffice it to say, the typical pattern is that VV makes a non-agreed-upon edit, the others revert him and a revert war results. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CyborgTosser

Hi,

I'm not sure if you've ever visited the Request for adminship page, but users can vote on which users get to be admins.

One vote going on now is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CyborgTosser. I opposed his adminship because he doesn't have as many edits as most people need before getting to be admin (and much of them are things like 150+ edits of his own user page). But more importantly, I haven't seen him interacting much, and certainly have not seen him try to resolve something contentious like a Israel/Palestine page or something like that. Anyhow, if you're interested, give it a look. Ruy Lopez 19:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mistake on popular vote2.gif, Kerry Won Washington State

Hey thanks for the images over on the election pages but I believe kerry won washington state so it should be either some shade of blue or white, right?

File:2004 us popular vote2.gif Zen Master 05:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

US Election issues

Do you and maybe a couple of others working on this article want to meet on say wiki IRC, to discuss it, so we can try and mutually agree a consensus on its progress? FT2 00:19, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

OK, short answer. go to [2] (I use this one because I know it works and the Java code is good). Get onto that IRC network anyhow you can. When you are connected, typing in the command: /server irc.freenode.net will zap you over to wikipedia's IRC, the command /nick Kevin_bass will fix the nick, and the command /join #wikipedia will join the channel.

Pennsylvania prof's analysis

That link is already included in the external links section at the bottom, perhaps we should create an "Independent Analysis" section on the page somewhere? I increasingly don't like the "list of complaints" section, we should move all that stuff to the relevant sub sections. Zen Master 20:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic's comment

I restored the comment because I thought that, although it was unnecessarily sharp, it wasn't so bad as to call for deletion. Obviously, this is a judgment call. I'll admit my bias is generally in favor of inclusion. In my experience, it's often a choice between letting a comment sit there, as evidence of the caliber of its author's participation, or removing it, and letting the author turn the focus to "censorship" instead of to the original comment.

After putting up with Rex for all these months, though, I certainly understand your feeling about having to waste time on nonsubstantive matters. JamesMLane 20:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004 Election Data

Are you the guy with archived CNN exit poll data?

I analyzed the Slate data to figure out which states (of 19) had the most significant variation. I'd really like to see (or do) the same analysis on all 49 exit poll states... See dnamining.com/exit

Bill Bruno

Here's my excel file. There's also an excel file on Ohio there. I can email these, too, if need be. Kevin Baas | talk 17:08, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment - more sources on the way! -- RyanFreisling @ 20:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. --mav 11:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

/temp

reply

A scattergraph with X axis showing 100-0 on the left, 50/50 middle and 0-100 right, and Y axis showing % growth +/- in voting ration would be intersting FT2 00:41, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

The 1st graoph is the important one Not the 2nd. the 1st is clearer to me, and the 2nd redundant To make it strike home, add 2 tags "More republican counties" at the left and "more democrat counties" at the right

Summary Graphic from the Globe

Oh Map-Meister, would you create a summary graphic akin to the Boston Globe graphic,based similarly on EIDS and the Presidential Election Atlas?

image:BostonGlobe-04ElectionIssues.gif

You would rock, I think it really helps set the context for the article, and we'd avoid more Neto-esque sniping and poaching. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lovely. Thanks! See my talk page for comments. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Indeed. Super-lovely! -- RyanFreisling @ 22:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Data mining for 2004 election

Want to look at this link? [3]

Or similar links, and see what comes up in Groups, News or Web? I dont have time the next week to review these, I'm kinda hoping you will be able to instead :) FT2 21:33, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I missed you. I meant - here is a search with some interesting articles. Skim trhough them, see if any catch your eye, is all. FT2 01:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

irc chat

i'm down, i'm actually at my girlfriend's house now so I may be around tommorow if you're not on right now. --kizzle 23:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Cuyahoga.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Cuyahoga.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Think before you type.

Here, I'll make this as simple as possible for you: I did not make any allegations against any other user. I said the last VfD was bloated with invalid votes and this gave some people the impression that it was "overwhelming" when it wasn't (particularly since some people don't seem to take into account "merge and redirect" votes). Do not come onto my talk page screaming at me and telling me I'm "wrong" when I haven't done anything! Do not call me a liar and a slanderer when I have not lied or slandered anybody! You do not have that right. You, your actions, and your words are WRONG. They are simple WRONG. How does that feel? Not so good? Didn't think so. Reene ^✎ 00:58, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

You have made allegations against the people who, according to you, were given the impression that it was "overwhelming" because of invalid votes, and now also merge or redirect votes. The allegations being that their impressions were formed in the manner that you accord to them.

You have also made numerous allegations against all of the contributors to the articles, as well as allegations against specific contributors, and non-contributors. Perhaps you are not aware of them.

It shouldn't feel good when you doing something wrong. It doesn't feel good to be lied about and/or slandered. It shouldn't feel good to slander someone, though unfortunately it often does, and therefore people do it. Kevin Baas | talk 01:10, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Oh, as you can probably tell, I've removed your comments from my talk page as well. Your comments were even more inflammatory than zen master's. At least he knows when to drop it and how to conduct himself in a relatively appropriate manner. Reene ^✎ 00:59, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

you (Reene) claimed the vote was not overwhelming because of "invalid" user's votes meaning it was not an "overwhelming" vote to keep during the first VfD. I believe the vote record indicates there were 61+ "valid" user's that voted keep and 6 that voted delete, 10 to 1 in my mind is "overwhelming", you can disagree as always. I think some leeway should be given to Kevin baas being new to the way you (Reene) make claims, move on, and then outlandishly label all evidence that completely dubunks your claims as "personal attacks". But again, I consider the matter dropped without resolution. zen master 01:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, saying something like "If you do not, then you are lying and slandering a person, and that is WRONG. Do you hear me? It is just plain WRONG." (excessive use of bold and italics removed) is not merely "asserting". It's being quite aggressive and extremely rude as these comments were based upon absoloutely nothing. Ta Bu made a (what I felt to be) misleading statement on a VfD page; I responded to it (and notice that he's not throwing a fit about my response to his statement, possibly because he (rightly) feels that each and every person deserves a fair say without being harassed). I made no accusations against anybody. Do you hear me? Absoloutely none, zilch, zero. Both you and zen seem to have some huge problem with me though, perhaps because I don't share your POVs and perhaps because I've made it quite clear to zen that I have no interest in speaking to him (since you two seem to be friends or at the very least willing to back eachother up). That said I'd like you to stop posting on my talk page now. Your only interest seems to be to attempt to badger me into doing something and that is not something I will allow you to do. Goodbye. Do not comment on my talk page again on this issue. You've said enough and so have I. Reene ^✎ 09:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've told you that I do not make demands. I likewise do not take them. I share feelings and explanations, and respect other people's feelings and ask that mine respected as well. I have also told you that I am soon to stop talking with you, as it seems to be futile. It is now clearly so. As you can see (if you have checked back here), I posted my reply here and not your talk page, so as not to upset you further, as I can see that you are already very upset. I agree that we have both said enough. I will refrain from reiterating once more. You are welcome to discuss things with me on my talk page as much as you like. Kevin Baas | talk 09:33, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Reputation exactly (Reene)

But again, she doesn't have to do anything. Just look at the other, non recent, outlandish and undefended comments she has made on my user talk page. I am use to her making unsupported claims and then moving on. I do consider the matter dropped without resolution, but now more people know to be on the lookout for unsupported claims by User:Reene. zen master 00:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clint affidavit sketchy?

You really think the programmer Clint's affidavit and story checks out? I am skeptical, if he testifies at the hearing today or tomorrow then ok. zen master 17:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT

Thanks for signing my RfC on ExplorerCDT. Would it be correct to say that your only post on his talk page was to post the URL of the Arbitration request, and that prior to this you didn't approach him directly? If so I think you should move your signature to the "Users who endorse" section rather than the "certify" section, otherwise add your evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (short of the arbitration request, which is normally considered the last step) to the appropriate section. I want to do this right. Thanks again. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Your response on the NPOV tag of the elections controversies page was rude and uncalled for, and contained no argument against what I had stated. Please try to keep your emotions in check and respond to criticism with well thought out responses. It is exactly that kind of action which demonstrates the reason why that article need a NPOV tag. DreamGuy 22:28, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

(from [Talk:2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities]:) I want to make you think about it, instead of telling you the answer, because it is more pedagogical. The problematic phrase is: "votes were reported as problematic". Kevin Baas | talk 22:39, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

You construe that as a personal attack? I was making an objective statement, that applies to anyone equally. I would not consider it a personal attack if you did the same to me, I would consider it a logical fact that is indisputable. The point of making the statement was to draw a critical focus onto a certain part of your comment. I intentionally refrained from making an argument against what you said, so that you could re-consider it yourself. I ask you to keep your emotions in check and respond to criticism with well thought out responses. Regarding NPOV tag and action, I do not see any logical connection. Kevin Baas | talk 22:48, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

US election map

Red/blue map used in main election article, is this any use in the controversy article?

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

You heard correctly that the GFDL 2.0 may become closer to the CC-by-sa license. The details of this need to be hashed out with the FSF, so we'll have to wait and see. Nevertheless, the issue of dual-licensing can still matter even with an improved GFDL 2.0, because I am not trying to change Wikipedia's license, but instead trying to make Wikipedia content available under more than one license, specifically for usage with WikiTravel and other CC-by-sa projects. So don't consider my request to be an attack on the GFDL per se, just that I need your permission for additional use outside of Wikipedia. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 19:46, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Untagged images

Hi! Thanks for uploading these images. I notice that they currently don't have any image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 07:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

G'day mate

Just a quick question: what's the source of Image:2004 us per 1000004.png? And the copyright? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought so, but just wanted to check :) Excellent work on the election article, incidently. With a bit more cleanup I reckon it'll be perfect! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Four more years

Mwhahahahaha!

Isn't it past your curfew? Kevin Baas | talk 00:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

What a douchebag. 5 bucks says he's a 30-year-old virgin living with his mom. --kizzle 10:49, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Little Present

Since you haven't been able to chew on some hard stats for a while, check out Florida's recent inspection, and the interesting mathematical patterns in the deltas: report DU discussion -- RyanFreisling @ 07:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And this

Redundant image uploads

Instead of uploading images like Ohio_recount3.jpg, Ohio_recount4.jpg, etc., you may want to consider reuploading under the same name - this lets people easily see the image's history without having to guess at the names of previous revisions, keeps the namespace clear of numerous orphaned images, and obviates the need to edit any pages that link to it. --Korath ^会話 01:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ohio recount status map

Bravo! -- RyanFreisling @ 23:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good confirmation site for recount info

If you haven't already, check the Cobb site. They have the election recount reports there.-- RyanFreisling @ 01:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page-move vandalism

Kevin: thanks for your attempt to correct the vandalism at U.S. presidential election, 2004. However, please be aware that copy-and-paste is not the proper way to correct such problems. It is imperative that the page history be preserved, so you could simply have moved the page back where it belonged, rather than pasting the content and making a redirect. It was all sorted out in the end, but there is still a problem by which the page history was duplicated. Please be more cautious in the future. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page move fixing.

When undoing a page move, please do not cut and paste the article. This leaves the history behind. You should instead use the move function to move it back to the original location. This will work provided the redirect created by the first move has not been edited. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All logged-in users can move pages. An administrator is only needed if there's something in the way. As for Cologne Blue, the move option is on the left in the "Edit" section. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)