User talk:Xenophrenic: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:33, 2 November 2009 editXenophrenic (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits response← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:03, 2 November 2009 edit undoPhoenix and Winslow (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,909 edits →The Churchill-related article Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 263:		Line 263:
	::::The trouble is that when the article conveys all those things, it doesn't cite any sources. It's a clear violation of ] and ] according to your standards of enforcement. But you have no objection to the unsourced passages where the article "conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results." You only object to that addition of further details, clarifying that it was the ''right-wing'' media that responded (and very effectively) to Churchill's challenge. I've reactivated this discussion on the article Talk page where it belongs, so that others may participate. Please don't delete it again. Thanks. ] (]) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		::::The trouble is that when the article conveys all those things, it doesn't cite any sources. It's a clear violation of ] and ] according to your standards of enforcement. But you have no objection to the unsourced passages where the article "conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results." You only object to that addition of further details, clarifying that it was the ''right-wing'' media that responded (and very effectively) to Churchill's challenge. I've reactivated this discussion on the article Talk page where it belongs, so that others may participate. Please don't delete it again. Thanks. ] (]) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I've not deleted any discussions; perhaps you have me confused with another editor. I have, however, continued discussions on our personal talk pages when the content is inappropriate for article talk pages - see above. I've responded on the article talk page and your talk page as well. Regards, ] (]) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::::I've not deleted any discussions; perhaps you have me confused with another editor. I have, however, continued discussions on our personal talk pages when the content is inappropriate for article talk pages - see above. I've responded on the article talk page and your talk page as well. Regards, ] (]) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

			]
			Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for ], even if they do not technically violate the ]. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ] (]) 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)<!-- Template:3RR --><noinclude>
			{{Pp-template}}

Revision as of 21:03, 2 November 2009

Notice to posters: Let's try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may also refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Thanks. Xenophrenic (Talk)

Incivility: I reserve the right to remove uncivil or disruptive comments and/or threads from this talk page.

Spam: I also reserve the right to delete any bulk messages that I regard as spamming.

Typo

Sorry for the slow reply re:Typo. I've been traveling for pleasure and not editing as much as possible. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Report

The Drudge Report has been changed, I think that the Matt Drudge page should reflect that. It was decided that it should be left to the reader to decide if Drudge Report was conservative. Soxwon (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, as you could probably tell by my talk page, there has been quite a *ahem* "spirited" discussion over this so I don't want to start another lol. Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Leahy

A recent edit you made to this article was reverted. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the purpose of this comment of yours. Could you please fill me in? Thanks! Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bearian")

I was doing you the favor of telling you that an edit you made was reverted by another editor. Normally, the other editor should have alerted you to that fact. I "patrol" the Leahy article, and dozens of others, to keep track of such cases. The purpose is to alert you that you probably need to go to the talk page to resolve this issue, if you so desire. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Documentary about Médecins Sans Frontières work

Hi, we seem to be working in parallel about this documentary! If you would like to discuss, let's meet up on the Médecins Sans Frontières Talk page. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sierra Vista, Arizona

I made a change to the page (Sierra Vista, Arizona) to reflect details from the cancer cluster summary reports. I see that you monitor and edit a variety of pages. It is interesting the many areas of interest that you follow. I would like to see the Sierra Vista, Arizona page reflect the real beauty of our local city and would like to work with you to make it a better page. I look forward to working with you. tgilbertson (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I undid the change because the write-up is opinion based. The articles you are citing are bias and the findings are what needs to be reflected. I would like to work with you to make sure that Sierra Vista, Arizona page reflects accurate unbias information. I look forward to working with you. tgilbertson (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I added information in the history. I hope you take the time to review, comment and make changes. Tgilbertson (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your email

Sorry I hadn't checked in a few days... But I just got the email you sent me last Tuesday. Regarding the user in question, I am afraid he actually did not send me his IP address via email. The one he sent was the 127.0.0.1 Misplaced Pages Dummy IP address, and not a real IP address, so I was unable to find the source of his blocked IP problem. When I asked him to resend, he balked, citing "privacy concerns". He DID say that he contacted the admin that issued the block, and got it straightened out with him. I don't know who that admin was, however, so you may want to see if he contacted Avraham, as he issued the IP block on the possibly related IP address you inquired about. He also issued the WP:IPBE for the user in question, so he likely knows what IPs he was using. See for more information on the extent of the conversation we had on the matter. I hope this helps some... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Jayron32. I'm still waiting for a response and confirmation from Avraham. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just posted a request for an update to the list. As soon as I hear anything, I will let you know. Thank you very much for your patience! -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver

I have removed your section again and started a new talk section. Please remember that it is very easy to missuse statistics. You seem to not be seeing that Silver made a number of assumptions in his report. He assumed that he had most of the larger sites and cities, but there is no evidence that this is the case. He simply reported what he found. You cannot report his total with this assumption reported as factual. Once you go down that avenue you will have to expand the section greatly to include all of the assumptions that he made in his blog. Once you do that you go past the use of a blog as a reliable source. Simply report the factual information that he reported. He found 346 reported sites and total their estimates. There is no need to attempt to parse the report which results in a POV. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input on this. I've replied on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The articles didn't really provide significant amounts of space to the subject and many were local that didn't represent a widespread trend. Soxwon (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you leave the articles cited there, and move the content after them? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Per your lack of response, the content you deleted has been restored. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wars & Kittens

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

sorry it looked like an edit war to me. my mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, TomCat :) Looks like everything worked itself out. Stay well, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party Astroturfing

I'm assuming your comment meant you were for the new edit is that correct? Soxwon (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but it looks like I was late to the party. You guys appear to be mowing down the roadblocks and concerns at a good clip now. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing what one can accomplish once you realize we're all here for the same reason :). Soxwon (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD

Should this and this be moved to speedy deletion? Was I a bit too fast?Soxwon (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Revolutions of 2009 can and should be scrapped (unless the Beatles should somehow reform and sing about it). Not only are there not enough events to qualify for a whole category; the ones presently being inserted aren't really applicable. The 21st-century revolutions category has the potential to be useful, 90 years from now, as it is much broader. Are there really that many events that qualify as "revolutions"? I'll watch and see what others think, but I am leaning toward the "Delete and revisit after you can populate the category" side right now. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Nubiatech's talk page.
Message added 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tea Party protests

IF you insist on using Google as a reference, that is fine with me. But don't censor other references in the article. The Squicks (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship? Thank you for your admission that your personal attack was unfounded. Not in so many polite words, of course, but through your response here, which is good enough for me. I, too, shall consider the matter closed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I insist on using complete sources, and not replacing them with inferior sources that do not contain the pertinent content. No references have been censored -- you are refering to an edit that you lost during an edit conflict as you kept reinserting your reference in rapid-fire manner without review. It appears to be fine now. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Early childhood

Hey Xenophrenic. I'm still embarassed about the content I removed saying the link didn't work. It really didn't when I tried it a couple times, but I know it doesn't look good so I just wanted to thank you for catching my error. I should have been more deliberative and maybe discussed it anyway. I did look for a date in the ref, because then the link wouldn't necessarily have to have worked, but there was only an accessed on date.

I've tried to add the publication date, but I don't use the long form cite format, so I'm not sure exactly how, but I think it would be a good tweak. Links do go dead and if there's only an accessed on date, that's not really good enough (although I suppose it could still be tracked down. I was confused on the source so I think I was tired at the time anyway).

I still think that section from one source is pretty negative and violates BLP guidelines, but after my mistake I've been to embarassed to mess with it. Anyway, have a good weekend, and I'm sorry if I left the impression that I was misrepresenting my removal. I'm not sure why the links didn't work at that time, they work fine now (as you stated) and it may have just been a CPU related issue on my end. These things happen sometimes. Oh well. Gulp. Very embarassing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, ChildofMidnight. There is certainly no need for you to apologize for what was most certainly a glich with the interwebs. I do, however, appreciate you taking the time to follow up on the matter -- that's considerate, and unfortunately uncommon in these parts.

The source in question is used for several sections of content in that article, and I noticed it contains both critical and complimentary information about the living person. The section you removed is definitely not flattering, but I believe the content meets BLP sourcing and reference quality standards, which is why I interjected. That doesn't mean you can't make a case against that content on other BLP grounds; for instance, is that unflattering content relevant to the subject's notability? If a reasonable case along those lines can be made, you won't find me arguing against it. Where BLPs are concerned, I'm of the opinion that only the most relevant and pertinent negative information should be included, regardless of my opinion of the subject.

I will definitely have an enjoyable weekend, and I wish you the same. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your response and understanding. I appreciate it. The "psychiatric treatment" bit in particular seems rather pointy. Did he see a counselor? was he insitutionalized? It just seems kind of mean spirited to include the way its written as it insinuates things without offering any indication of significance or relevance (in my opinion). Lots of kid whose parents go through divorces meet with a psychiatrist. I don't see the relevance.

To me, the content in the source shows he was from a broken home and had a difficult childhood at times, between his academic struggles and the disputes and difficulties of his parents and their antagonism to one another. Beyond that I don't see why the more salacious details are relevant or worth including.

Anyway, I only edited it because I saw the section get re-added on my watchlist after an anon (if I remember right) took it out. I didn't check to see how long it had been in the article or if it was added, but it seemed kind of pointy, and then the link didn't work, and I misread the ref (couldn't figure out it's source for some reason which I see now is NY Magazine) and couldn't find a date, so I removed that section. I think it's appropriate to include some of the bits, but it can focus on biographical details and what's notable and relevant rather than trying to cherry pick parts of the guy's childhood to make him look bad, as it seems to do.

The whole gay section seems to have that kind of innuendo feel to it also. I'm not really that interested in the subject, but ideally I think it would all be made more encyclopedic and the enquirer type scandals and salacious details would be toned down to a few sentences stating the issues more encyclopedically. Anyway, I'm not going to bother with it. I'm taking the problem with the link I had as a sign. :) Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing reminds me of a "He was born penniless and illiterate" line I fell for in another biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

TDC

Again? I believe I only marked it as closed once. -- Avi (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded the e-mail to them AND sent a reminder. They have not contacted you? Perhaps send an e-mail straight to ArbCom-l -- Avi (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded it again to func-l and arbcom-l saying that you're still patiently waiting :) -- Avi (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana has reviewed the evidence you submitted and feels that, without much doubt, all the accounts and IPs are related. As such, I've tagged all the accounts as socks of TDC. We're currently working to see if a range block could be implemented. Thank you for your patience over the past few months with this case. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Garafalo and Olbermann on the Tea Parties

I think you're being a little disingenuous in your explanation of a recent revert. While Olbermann is sitting in the interviewer's chair, he's hardly an unbiased party and essentially agrees with Garafalo's statements, smiling and nodding along with Garafalo's attempted witticism regarding the brain structure and pressure on the frontal lobes of Republicans, conservatives,etc. I think the recent edit by an anonymous IP is reasonable and should be left alone. Thanks -- Rydra Wong (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said he was unbiased. I also never said that he disagrees with Garafalo. Yes, he nods, and smiles a lot -- just as he does with most of his guests. He never specifically states his agreement, and to interject that assumption is WP:OR.

I appreciate your view, but if you still disagree, perhaps the article talk page would be a better place to continue this conversation. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dalton Trumbo

I have again removed the link to the official site for the movie adaptation as source for the information. The other link to Spark Notes should be sufficient. Web sites to promote a motion picture do not tend to be examples of original research, and simply compile information from other sources, and due to it's purpose (to promote the film) information can not be taken as non biased. We certainly would not cite most commercial websites that promote a product as impartial entities. It is not my intent to start an edit war, and I hope you understand this. If you would like to discuss this feel free to contact me.

Thank You(75.69.241.91 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Xenophrenic. You have new messages at Irbisgreif's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irbisgreif (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MSF FAR

I have nominated Médecins Sans Frontières for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Userbox offer

Considering the statement on your user page's "COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT", section #2 "Xenophrenic is not assuming good faith!" I offer you this user box in good faith. You can bend/edit it to reflect your views as I did for mine. Hope you have use for it and enjoy it as I did on my userpage.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your offer. While I did get a chuckle out of your modified user box, I'm afraid I must pass - I'm trying to avoid the use of all such descriptors and labels. I find them to be too brief and narrow to represent my actual views, feelings and traits, which are usually far more complicated and nuanced.

I'll trust your words that your offer was made in good faith, despite recent comments that might indicate the edited user box you display is less than accurate; it does use the qualifier "usually", after all. Best regards to you, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I dislike userboxes too, only that this one I found quite intriguing and couldn't resist. As for the "usually", of course there are always occasions where doubt comes in, yet at the end it is or can be resolved even w/o talking but rather watching. Guess you can agree on the latter (and yes, it was honestly in good faith). I stand to my comments yet my comments don't have to stay. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too, stand by my comments, even when their usefulness eludes less perceptive readers. As for lists; if I were to keep a "trust list", it would start blank and only be populated by those that earned their way onto it -- by that same standard, I'm confident I am on every list I desire to be on. Here's hoping all our future interactions land us on our respective A-lists. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ACORN

I see that you are a regular contributer to the page , and thought this might be helpful. I would have snt it to Eyesocket, but he hasn´t been active in a while. Cheers.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me in the best spirit of collaboration :) - Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock Farm......

I thought you might have a little input in this user. I have a strong belief he is a sockpuppeteer you may have had prior dealings with. User:Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou?, User:Fight the bias. Their is an Ani conversation over a quote they attribute to you at ]. If you are aware of the root account it would def help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Discussions

September - Lengthy discussions between Gustnado and Xenophrenic about the WSI
Xenophrenic, you put a large amount of discussion relative to the subject on my talk page. All of it except the comments about etiquette belong on the talk page for the article. Because it would be rude for me to copy it there without your permission, I will ask you to put it there so all can share the discussion. I will point out two things that need to be debated on the main page, since you think they are relevant: the rally that Pitkin spoke at was not an SBVT rally, and there were thousands present. I challenge you to prove otherwise. I await you bringing those to the talk page (I have added a bunch there) I also want to challenge this that you left on my talk page: "I will continue to discuss issues with you until there is clear understanding, but that does not mean inappropriately sourced content remains in the article during those discussions." I presume, based on that, that I may remove what I consider inappropriate sourced content until we make a decision in the talk pages, Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Hi, Gustnado. Most of what I wrote on your talk page is inappropriate for the article talk page. Personal conversations about respective points of view; speculation about motives behind certain edits, etc., are best left on our talk pages. If you have specific article-related issues you'd like to discuss, just bring them up on the article talk page -- as I see you've begun to do already. Regarding the two questions you have asked here: I do not think the number of people attending that rally, or the sponsors of that rally, are relevant to the WSI article. You are correct that the rally was not technically an SBVT rally. A search of the C-SPAN archives for "Swift Boat Rally" produced that video here. The first 15 seconds of the video has the commentator referring to SBVT rally. There were SBVT members speaking at that rally. The rally was promoted on the SBVT website. The sponsor of the rally is Vietnam Vets for Truth, a 527 PAC that has at least 4 members in common on both the SBVT and VVFT committees, and both SBVT and VVFT share the functional goal of stopping the election of a presidential candidate. I'm sure you can understand my confusing the two; however, my point remains: It can not be simply described as a vets rally. As for the number of attendees, I have already proven to myself that you are confusing "hundreds" with "thousands" by enlarging the several panoramic views from that video and easily counting heads. Would my analysis count as reliable content for the article? No; but I have no intention of adding that to the article. Finally, regarding my admonition that inappropriately sourced material may be removed: don't read anything into it beyond what I stated. I'm off to read your notes on the article talk page now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with describing it as a VVT (not SBFT) rally. The numbers may not be appropriate. You count, however, is wrong. I was present at the rally and did my own rough count. For my own curiosity, which VVT committee members are SBVT members? For that matter, where is the list of VVT committee members? Thanks. 199.33.140.2 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I'd go with a count from a magnified wide angle, elevated still-photo of the whole crowd long before I would trust a "rough count" from someone attempting to eye-ball it from the middle of the crowd. As for info on common members from each group, I'd have to check my links to kerrylied.com and my notes on the DC chapter of freepers. Running into some deadlinks though; I'll have to check some archived stuff. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Your link? Here's mine to a reliable source stating 8000-10000: Washington Times . Gustnado (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC) "...organizers estimated at between 8,000 and 10,000." Enough said. I'll stick to photographic evidence, thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Life magazine says "hundreds", as does a late edition AP story dated Sept. 12th. Organizers and supporters of events will always inflate attendance numbers; "Washington Times" has no motivation to fact-check those assertions, and they aren't required to as long as they state the estimate came from the organizers. The article in Life cites "numbers from law enforcement", and the AP story mentions neither organizers or law enforcement as their source. Interesting note, according to this conservative site, "the Sept. 12 'Kerry Lied' Rally on Capitol Hill, which was organized by the Vietnam Veterans for the Truth in association with Swift Boat Vets and POWs for the Truth." Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC) The Washington Times, at the start of the piece, says "thousands." Later, when it uses the numbers from the organizers, it clearly labels that estimate as such. The Life Magazine reference is to a photo title, not a report. The photo you speak of has not been presented. My personal attendance is primary source material. I paid attention to the crowd, and disagree with the "organizers estimate" in that the crowd was more like 4000, not 10000. As for the Powerline Blog article... what is the relevance to anything? They don't give any numbers. Gustnado (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC) The Washington Times uses numbers from the organizers, correct. The link I provided is to a Life Magazine photo (Ghetty image, actually); the article in Life to which I referred is an article in Life Magazine. The other photo(s) to which I referred are still images from the C-SPAN video; you are welcome to perform your own analysis on them. You are, as an attendee or supporter, allowed to claim whatever number you wish - knock yourself out; Life, the AP and law enforcement probably couldn't care less. As for the relevance of the Powerline article about the rally in association with SBVT, I'll let you ponder on that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC) The Washting Times uses numbers from the organizers in one place and identifies the source. In other words, it is reporting what the organizers claimed. In the other part, which I cited, it does not use the same numbers, does not cite the organizers, and hence is reporting on the fact, not what anyone claimed. You originally claimed there were no more than 25 vietnam vets, while there were about that many just involved in organizing and speaking, and obviously one hell of a lot more in attendance - so much for your photogrammetry skills. As to the Powerline cite, why don't you tell me what you think it means and why it might be significant. I believe John O'Neil spoke, and he was the SBVT spokesman, and also a VIetnam Vet. What's the issue? If you are trying to tar VVT with the SBVT's undeserved reputation, have at it. There are one hell of a lot of Vietnam Vets, myself among them, who do not consider SBVT scum (or whatever pejorative you used) but rather combat veterans reluctantly coming back for one more, and important, battle. I know you disagree. VVT and SBVT both shared their disgust with Kerry's actions in 71/72 and their belief of his unfitness to be CIC. SO did the most VV's and almost all veterans' organizations. Your point? Gustnado (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Event attendance numbers from organizers/supporters/attendees are routinely inflated, and always suspect. The Washington Times published those numbers from those sources, correct. The summarized lede refers to the "thousands" it cites in more detail (with sources) in the body of the article - don't confuse that with independent "reporting on the fact" - that is just common article writing format. I didn't claim there were 25 vets there; I have no way of knowing how many were vets. I did comment, however, that it sounded like there were only 25 vets based on the sound of the feedback when vets were addressed. As a supposed attendee, and a supposed Vietnam Vet, you go right ahead and claim 8000 - it's your prerogative. You are also entitled to your opinions about people and the fitness of presidential candidates; but when someone besmirches the character and military service of an individual for political reasons, they qualify as scum in my book. Go right ahead and keep defending that; that, too, is your prerogative. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC) (outdent)First, I did not intentionally edit your edit. As can be seen, one letter was changed, so you are being a bit tendentious here. Obviously, when I had the section open (do YOU know of any way to edit without having the entire topic open?), I slipped and hit that, and didn't notice that. I disagree with your interpretation of the article. That's that. Gustnado (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I also am offended at being a "supposed" attendee and a "supposed" Vietnam Vet. That's just plain discourteous and gratuitous. As for the motives of SBVT and VVT, they felt that they, who collectively had far more experience with John Kerry in Vietnam than anyone else, should bring out what they felt was the truth about Kerry. For that, these American combat veterans were themselves smeared, threatened and accused of being partisans. In my opinion, when someone builds an entire campaign on an exaggerated short tour of duty, he opens himself up to questioning of his conduct and character during that tour, and who best to do it than those who fought alongside him and those who did not but fought in the same unit under the same conditions? When, after that tour, he is a top-level leader in an organization which is demeaning the conduct of everyone else who fought in that war, he again becomes subject to scrutiny. John Kerry besmirched the character and honor of every Vietnam Veteran, intentionally, for political purposes. His actions and those of VVAW caused untold hardship to many veterans (myself not included), as documented by Burkette. His own comrades in VVAW avowed that his goal was political - he was using them and they were using him. So by your own definition, John Kerry is scum - clearly provable scum (just read his Senate Testimony from 1971). Gustnado (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Regarding your claims to being a Vietnam Vet that attended that rally: It has been said that some people claim to be vets when they are not; it has also been said that even confirmed vietnam vets have "highly suspect veracity". You can stop being offended that I don't take your claims at your word, it's nothing personal. Others have made false claims here before, so when, during the course of a discussion or argument, someone subtly mentions they are a vet, etc., to bolster their position - I subtly indicate that I ain't necessarily buying it. As I said, it is gratuitous and insulting. Having doubts is fine. Asserting them, when not relevant, is insulting. I have a friend who is well known for uncovering phony vets - especially phony SEALS, and Burkette probably provides the best evidence of the phony VV phenomenon. I don't recall mentioning my VV status (and don't feal like searching for whether I did or not. I mentioned attending the rally to provide an indication that I have first hand knowledge - even if it would violate confidentiality to actually prove to you that I was at the rally (not to mention it wouldn't do any good). Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) No, what I said is not gratuitous nor insulting. Let's be very clear, You have chosen to be insulted; I have not insulted you. And I am still not taking your claims at face-value (and, yes, you have mentioned vet status twice now). Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Of course it's insulting, and gratuitous. Adding "supposed" contributes nothing to the discussion. You are welcome to your opinion of my status, but you are also welcome to keep it to yourself. Gustnado (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) No, it's not gratuitous nor insulting. I added "supposed" to contribute the fact that I don't necessarily believe it. Of course I am welcome to my opinion of your status, and of course I am welcome to keep it to myself - and would have - had someone not interjected that status into the conversation as if it had some bearing. Now who could that have been? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Regarding your mischaracterization, again, of my statements, what part of "when someone besmirches the character and military service of an individual for political reasons, they qualify as scum in my book" confused you? Name the individual Kerry besmirched, please. All of us, but to be specific: I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of one thousand, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony... I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. And again you fail to name an individual veteran besmirched by Kerry. I'll consider my point made. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Since we're discussing Kerry's speech to the Fulbright committee now, I took the liberty to fill out the above quotes a little further. Let's hear your interpretation of what Kerry was saying: This makes all Vietnam Vets look like monsters, especially all officers ("officers at all levels of command"). English language 101. He said, "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command", not "all officers are committing monstrous acts." You failed at showing Kerry maligned an individual vet. Now you are failing at showing he maligned all vets. So far you have shown us 150 monsters whose actions were known to some officers. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) The other meme pushed by Kerry and friends was the Vietnam Vets were victims, mentally damaged, and that was the prevailing narrative in news media and fiction for about 20 years. It was extremely harmful to many vets. Also, as far as I know, only one of the "stories" Kerry mentioned above has been verified (although obviously, in a war such as this, many more atrocities happened, but not as a matter of routine or policy). Yeah, I know what you mean. I can't believe we were dumb enough to fall for that "war can have psychological ill effects" on people drivle. I'm sure glad we laid that clap-trap to rest after 20 years. And the one verified story, raising a village (to save the village), is a popular one. Or did you mean the one story about us dropping more ordnance tonnage on Vietnam than was used in WWI, WWII and Korea - combined? Wait, the one verified story must have been about shooting civilians - no, wait, that never happened. Did you mean rape? No way, we'd know if something like that happened. Which verified story were you talking about? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) If you want "atrocities known at all levels of command", consider the Viet Cong's policy of terrorism against village elders, with horrible atrocities carried out as routine; consider the North Vietnamese treatment of POWs; or, even consider the Allies' bombing of German and Japanese population centers in WW-II. No, I don't want. We're sticking to the subject at hand, and attempts to point over yonder and say "yeah, but what about them...?" won't derail this. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Until I hear this speech replayed in 3004, I knew little about Kerry and was unaware of his VVAW activities. After I heard the speech (and read the transcript), I was angered, appalled and disgusted, and decided to look into it for myself. No, no, no. You got the lines all wrong. You are supposed to say, "The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating ...and it hurt me more than any physical wounds I had. -Joe Ponder". Or, "He dishonored his country, and more importantly, the people he served with. He just sold them out. -Paul Galanti". These are tried and true, and proven effective in conveying moving outrage. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) The above shows how little respect you have for those who disagree with you - me in this case. I am not going to play this game any more in your talk section. Your rhetoric immediately above, and below here, and your gratuitous use of "supposed" belongs in a blog comments section, not in a supposed discussion of facts between editors. Gustnado (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I have all due respect for those with whom I disagree. That said, you are welcome to use any reasoning you find convenient to extract yourself from the discussion of facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) What I found was not pleasant - Kerry riding on his gussied up war record after having trashed his comrades in arms; VVAW coordinating with North Vietnam; Kerry lying about his military service and the press buying it hook line and sinker (what day to you think he was discharged from the Navy? Are you aware that his military biography on his campaign site changed, page by page, on the day he partially released his records?). No, Kerry trashed us, and in fact he trashed you, if you are an American, because he vilified the whole country. For that, he is scum, by your definition in particular. Fortunately, he is now irrelevant scum. Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) What you found was exactly what you wanted to find, no more and no less. And Kerry never trashed me, nor my whole country. You seem to fail to understand that in my country, a person can speak their mind on practically anything. In fact, as I have been recently reminded, in my country, a person can also misinterpret practically anything to suit themselves. I've heard the tales you mentioned, and I apparently know more about Kerry's military service, his records, the VVAW, etc., than you do. We can go there if you'd like, but first things first, I'm still waiting for your specifics on how Kerry trashed all vets. Kerry argued that warcrimes (not the titilating cutting off of ears or shocking of genitals you seem to be fixated on) were being committed because of American war policy, and that is already a proven fact. It is interesting that when someone raises this publicly, it is he that is "trashing the country", and not those responsible for the crime. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) The rest of your comments read like cut & paste from the swifties playbook. I've read his senate speech, as well as everything from Burkett and his ilk, and from vets that actually served with Kerry, and more. The contentions that Kerry besmirched every Vietnam vet, or caused hardship to many vets has already been proven ridiculous and politically generated, and if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of all that BS, you have an open invitation. It's a well-traveled path for me, but be forwarned, I insist on facts, not Swettisms. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Keep in mind that many SBVT vets did serve directly with Kerry (his fellow boat captains worked with him daily on ops and at home base - they more than anyone knew how he operated because it was their job to watch each other - swift boats never went out on lone patrol). Only some of my information comes from Swett's web site. Much of it came from my own research (and it's darned expensive for a mere individual to purchase Lexis-Nexis searches). I also insist on facts, which is why I am no longer holding to Burkett's assertions about the supposed SID investigation. There is no evidence that the investigation happened. Burkett, of course, didn't know this at the time - he too was a veteran trying to make sense of things (have you read his Prologue?) and used the only source at hand (which, by Misplaced Pages standards, would have qualified as a reliable source until it was later discredited). I have met a numnrt of the swifties first hand, know a couple better than that, and find the smears of them to be wrong and repugnant, but consistent with the character assassination normally practiced by the left - Kerry in 1971 for example. "character assassination normally practiced by the left..." You betcha. Smears come from a direction, eh? Thank you for that telling insight. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I ask once again for you to provide the names of members of the VVT "committee" who were also members of SBVT. Also, I'm curious about archives of the VVT site. Who has them? I'd love to see them. I think SBVT is still online, so no archives of interest there. Tks. Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I've been able to find some of the archived links using www.archive.org, such as this one here, but the link pointers from my old notes go to some different version of their website. I haven't had time to track back through them yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

September - Lengthy discussions between Gustnado and Xenophrenic about the WSI

Xenophrenic, you put a large amount of discussion relative to the subject on my talk page. All of it except the comments about etiquette belong on the talk page for the article. Because it would be rude for me to copy it there without your permission, I will ask you to put it there so all can share the discussion.

I will point out two things that need to be debated on the main page, since you think they are relevant: the rally that Pitkin spoke at was not an SBVT rally, and there were thousands present. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I await you bringing those to the talk page (I have added a bunch there)

I also want to challenge this that you left on my talk page: "I will continue to discuss issues with you until there is clear understanding, but that does not mean inappropriately sourced content remains in the article during those discussions."

I presume, based on that, that I may remove what I consider inappropriate sourced content until we make a decision in the talk pages, Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Gustnado. Most of what I wrote on your talk page is inappropriate for the article talk page. Personal conversations about respective points of view; speculation about motives behind certain edits, etc., are best left on our talk pages. If you have specific article-related issues you'd like to discuss, just bring them up on the article talk page -- as I see you've begun to do already.

Regarding the two questions you have asked here: I do not think the number of people attending that rally, or the sponsors of that rally, are relevant to the WSI article. You are correct that the rally was not technically an SBVT rally. A search of the C-SPAN archives for "Swift Boat Rally" produced that video here. The first 15 seconds of the video has the commentator referring to SBVT rally. There were SBVT members speaking at that rally. The rally was promoted on the SBVT website. The sponsor of the rally is Vietnam Vets for Truth, a 527 PAC that has at least 4 members in common on both the SBVT and VVFT committees, and both SBVT and VVFT share the functional goal of stopping the election of a presidential candidate. I'm sure you can understand my confusing the two; however, my point remains: It can not be simply described as a vets rally. As for the number of attendees, I have already proven to myself that you are confusing "hundreds" with "thousands" by enlarging the several panoramic views from that video and easily counting heads. Would my analysis count as reliable content for the article? No; but I have no intention of adding that to the article. Finally, regarding my admonition that inappropriately sourced material may be removed: don't read anything into it beyond what I stated. I'm off to read your notes on the article talk page now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with describing it as a VVT (not SBFT) rally. The numbers may not be appropriate. You count, however, is wrong. I was present at the rally and did my own rough count. For my own curiosity, which VVT committee members are SBVT members? For that matter, where is the list of VVT committee members? Thanks. 199.33.140.2 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with a count from a magnified wide angle, elevated still-photo of the whole crowd long before I would trust a "rough count" from someone attempting to eye-ball it from the middle of the crowd. As for info on common members from each group, I'd have to check my links to kerrylied.com and my notes on the DC chapter of freepers. Running into some deadlinks though; I'll have to check some archived stuff. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your link? Here's mine to a reliable source stating 8000-10000: Washington Times . Gustnado (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"...organizers estimated at between 8,000 and 10,000." Enough said. I'll stick to photographic evidence, thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Life magazine says "hundreds", as does a late edition AP story dated Sept. 12th. Organizers and supporters of events will always inflate attendance numbers; "Washington Times" has no motivation to fact-check those assertions, and they aren't required to as long as they state the estimate came from the organizers. The article in Life cites "numbers from law enforcement", and the AP story mentions neither organizers or law enforcement as their source. Interesting note, according to this conservative site, "the Sept. 12 'Kerry Lied' Rally on Capitol Hill, which was organized by the Vietnam Veterans for the Truth in association with Swift Boat Vets and POWs for the Truth." Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Times, at the start of the piece, says "thousands." Later, when it uses the numbers from the organizers, it clearly labels that estimate as such. The Life Magazine reference is to a photo title, not a report. The photo you speak of has not been presented. My personal attendance is primary source material. I paid attention to the crowd, and disagree with the "organizers estimate" in that the crowd was more like 4000, not 10000. As for the Powerline Blog article... what is the relevance to anything? They don't give any numbers. Gustnado (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Times uses numbers from the organizers, correct. The link I provided is to a Life Magazine photo (Ghetty image, actually); the article in Life to which I referred is an article in Life Magazine. The other photo(s) to which I referred are still images from the C-SPAN video; you are welcome to perform your own analysis on them. You are, as an attendee or supporter, allowed to claim whatever number you wish - knock yourself out; Life, the AP and law enforcement probably couldn't care less. As for the relevance of the Powerline article about the rally in association with SBVT, I'll let you ponder on that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Washting Times uses numbers from the organizers in one place and identifies the source. In other words, it is reporting what the organizers claimed. In the other part, which I cited, it does not use the same numbers, does not cite the organizers, and hence is reporting on the fact, not what anyone claimed. You originally claimed there were no more than 25 vietnam vets, while there were about that many just involved in organizing and speaking, and obviously one hell of a lot more in attendance - so much for your photogrammetry skills. As to the Powerline cite, why don't you tell me what you think it means and why it might be significant. I believe John O'Neil spoke, and he was the SBVT spokesman, and also a VIetnam Vet. What's the issue? If you are trying to tar VVT with the SBVT's undeserved reputation, have at it. There are one hell of a lot of Vietnam Vets, myself among them, who do not consider SBVT scum (or whatever pejorative you used) but rather combat veterans reluctantly coming back for one more, and important, battle. I know you disagree. VVT and SBVT both shared their disgust with Kerry's actions in 71/72 and their belief of his unfitness to be CIC. SO did the most VV's and almost all veterans' organizations. Your point? Gustnado (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Event attendance numbers from organizers/supporters/attendees are routinely inflated, and always suspect. The Washington Times published those numbers from those sources, correct. The summarized lede refers to the "thousands" it cites in more detail (with sources) in the body of the article - don't confuse that with independent "reporting on the fact" - that is just common article writing format. I didn't claim there were 25 vets there; I have no way of knowing how many were vets. I did comment, however, that it sounded like there were only 25 vets based on the sound of the feedback when vets were addressed. As a supposed attendee, and a supposed Vietnam Vet, you go right ahead and claim 8000 - it's your prerogative. You are also entitled to your opinions about people and the fitness of presidential candidates; but when someone besmirches the character and military service of an individual for political reasons, they qualify as scum in my book. Go right ahead and keep defending that; that, too, is your prerogative. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)First, I did not intentionally edit your edit. As can be seen, one letter was changed, so you are being a bit tendentious here. Obviously, when I had the section open (do YOU know of any way to edit without having the entire topic open?), I slipped and hit that, and didn't notice that. I disagree with your interpretation of the article. That's that. Gustnado (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I also am offended at being a "supposed" attendee and a "supposed" Vietnam Vet. That's just plain discourteous and gratuitous. As for the motives of SBVT and VVT, they felt that they, who collectively had far more experience with John Kerry in Vietnam than anyone else, should bring out what they felt was the truth about Kerry. For that, these American combat veterans were themselves smeared, threatened and accused of being partisans. In my opinion, when someone builds an entire campaign on an exaggerated short tour of duty, he opens himself up to questioning of his conduct and character during that tour, and who best to do it than those who fought alongside him and those who did not but fought in the same unit under the same conditions? When, after that tour, he is a top-level leader in an organization which is demeaning the conduct of everyone else who fought in that war, he again becomes subject to scrutiny. John Kerry besmirched the character and honor of every Vietnam Veteran, intentionally, for political purposes. His actions and those of VVAW caused untold hardship to many veterans (myself not included), as documented by Burkette. His own comrades in VVAW avowed that his goal was political - he was using them and they were using him. So by your own definition, John Kerry is scum - clearly provable scum (just read his Senate Testimony from 1971). Gustnado (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your claims to being a Vietnam Vet that attended that rally: It has been said that some people claim to be vets when they are not; it has also been said that even confirmed vietnam vets have "highly suspect veracity". You can stop being offended that I don't take your claims at your word, it's nothing personal. Others have made false claims here before, so when, during the course of a discussion or argument, someone subtly mentions they are a vet, etc., to bolster their position - I subtly indicate that I ain't necessarily buying it.

As I said, it is gratuitous and insulting. Having doubts is fine. Asserting them, when not relevant, is insulting. I have a friend who is well known for uncovering phony vets - especially phony SEALS, and Burkette probably provides the best evidence of the phony VV phenomenon. I don't recall mentioning my VV status (and don't feal like searching for whether I did or not. I mentioned attending the rally to provide an indication that I have first hand knowledge - even if it would violate confidentiality to actually prove to you that I was at the rally (not to mention it wouldn't do any good). Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, what I said is not gratuitous nor insulting. Let's be very clear, You have chosen to be insulted; I have not insulted you. And I am still not taking your claims at face-value (and, yes, you have mentioned vet status twice now). Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's insulting, and gratuitous. Adding "supposed" contributes nothing to the discussion. You are welcome to your opinion of my status, but you are also welcome to keep it to yourself. Gustnado (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not gratuitous nor insulting. I added "supposed" to contribute the fact that I don't necessarily believe it. Of course I am welcome to my opinion of your status, and of course I am welcome to keep it to myself - and would have - had someone not interjected that status into the conversation as if it had some bearing. Now who could that have been? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your mischaracterization, again, of my statements, what part of "when someone besmirches the character and military service of an individual for political reasons, they qualify as scum in my book" confused you? Name the individual Kerry besmirched, please.

All of us, but to be specific:

I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of one thousand, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony... I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

And again you fail to name an individual veteran besmirched by Kerry. I'll consider my point made. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Since we're discussing Kerry's speech to the Fulbright committee now, I took the liberty to fill out the above quotes a little further. Let's hear your interpretation of what Kerry was saying:

This makes all Vietnam Vets look like monsters, especially all officers ("officers at all levels of command").

English language 101. He said, "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command", not "all officers are committing monstrous acts." You failed at showing Kerry maligned an individual vet. Now you are failing at showing he maligned all vets. So far you have shown us 150 monsters whose actions were known to some officers. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The other meme pushed by Kerry and friends was the Vietnam Vets were victims, mentally damaged, and that was the prevailing narrative in news media and fiction for about 20 years. It was extremely harmful to many vets. Also, as far as I know, only one of the "stories" Kerry mentioned above has been verified (although obviously, in a war such as this, many more atrocities happened, but not as a matter of routine or policy).

Yeah, I know what you mean. I can't believe we were dumb enough to fall for that "war can have psychological ill effects" on people drivle. I'm sure glad we laid that clap-trap to rest after 20 years. And the one verified story, raising a village (to save the village), is a popular one. Or did you mean the one story about us dropping more ordnance tonnage on Vietnam than was used in WWI, WWII and Korea - combined? Wait, the one verified story must have been about shooting civilians - no, wait, that never happened. Did you mean rape? No way, we'd know if something like that happened. Which verified story were you talking about? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want "atrocities known at all levels of command", consider the Viet Cong's policy of terrorism against village elders, with horrible atrocities carried out as routine; consider the North Vietnamese treatment of POWs; or, even consider the Allies' bombing of German and Japanese population centers in WW-II.

No, I don't want. We're sticking to the subject at hand, and attempts to point over yonder and say "yeah, but what about them...?" won't derail this. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Until I hear this speech replayed in 3004, I knew little about Kerry and was unaware of his VVAW activities. After I heard the speech (and read the transcript), I was angered, appalled and disgusted, and decided to look into it for myself.

No, no, no. You got the lines all wrong. You are supposed to say, "The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating ...and it hurt me more than any physical wounds I had. -Joe Ponder". Or, "He dishonored his country, and more importantly, the people he served with. He just sold them out. -Paul Galanti". These are tried and true, and proven effective in conveying moving outrage. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The above shows how little respect you have for those who disagree with you - me in this case. I am not going to play this game any more in your talk section. Your rhetoric immediately above, and below here, and your gratuitous use of "supposed" belongs in a blog comments section, not in a supposed discussion of facts between editors. Gustnado (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have all due respect for those with whom I disagree. That said, you are welcome to use any reasoning you find convenient to extract yourself from the discussion of facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What I found was not pleasant - Kerry riding on his gussied up war record after having trashed his comrades in arms; VVAW coordinating with North Vietnam; Kerry lying about his military service and the press buying it hook line and sinker (what day to you think he was discharged from the Navy? Are you aware that his military biography on his campaign site changed, page by page, on the day he partially released his records?). No, Kerry trashed us, and in fact he trashed you, if you are an American, because he vilified the whole country. For that, he is scum, by your definition in particular. Fortunately, he is now irrelevant scum. Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What you found was exactly what you wanted to find, no more and no less. And Kerry never trashed me, nor my whole country. You seem to fail to understand that in my country, a person can speak their mind on practically anything. In fact, as I have been recently reminded, in my country, a person can also misinterpret practically anything to suit themselves. I've heard the tales you mentioned, and I apparently know more about Kerry's military service, his records, the VVAW, etc., than you do. We can go there if you'd like, but first things first, I'm still waiting for your specifics on how Kerry trashed all vets. Kerry argued that warcrimes (not the titilating cutting off of ears or shocking of genitals you seem to be fixated on) were being committed because of American war policy, and that is already a proven fact. It is interesting that when someone raises this publicly, it is he that is "trashing the country", and not those responsible for the crime. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The rest of your comments read like cut & paste from the swifties playbook. I've read his senate speech, as well as everything from Burkett and his ilk, and from vets that actually served with Kerry, and more. The contentions that Kerry besmirched every Vietnam vet, or caused hardship to many vets has already been proven ridiculous and politically generated, and if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of all that BS, you have an open invitation. It's a well-traveled path for me, but be forwarned, I insist on facts, not Swettisms. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that many SBVT vets did serve directly with Kerry (his fellow boat captains worked with him daily on ops and at home base - they more than anyone knew how he operated because it was their job to watch each other - swift boats never went out on lone patrol). Only some of my information comes from Swett's web site. Much of it came from my own research (and it's darned expensive for a mere individual to purchase Lexis-Nexis searches). I also insist on facts, which is why I am no longer holding to Burkett's assertions about the supposed SID investigation. There is no evidence that the investigation happened. Burkett, of course, didn't know this at the time - he too was a veteran trying to make sense of things (have you read his Prologue?) and used the only source at hand (which, by Misplaced Pages standards, would have qualified as a reliable source until it was later discredited). I have met a numnrt of the swifties first hand, know a couple better than that, and find the smears of them to be wrong and repugnant, but consistent with the character assassination normally practiced by the left - Kerry in 1971 for example.

"character assassination normally practiced by the left..." You betcha. Smears come from a direction, eh? Thank you for that telling insight. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I ask once again for you to provide the names of members of the VVT "committee" who were also members of SBVT. Also, I'm curious about archives of the VVT site. Who has them? I'd love to see them. I think SBVT is still online, so no archives of interest there. Tks. Gustnado (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been able to find some of the archived links using www.archive.org, such as this one here, but the link pointers from my old notes go to some different version of their website. I haven't had time to track back through them yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

The issue that I have is not necessarily the reference (which I can't find, but I'm not that resourceful) would be the language used in the wording should the source be kept. Undue weight is very heavy there. Do as you please, of course, but we really should work on how the information is presented. Keegan (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP before adding the information again. Specifically this section which says that such potentially negative information should be "corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources". I don't see multiple, highly reliable sources there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) :To be perfectly honest, your blatant disregard to the BLP policy is appalling. When you have an admin, in your case two admins, telling you something - especially as we're both OTRS members so you clearly don't know the full story - it's best to ask questions, and stop reverting. I see that you're not interested in logical discussion so I won't waste my time. If you want information, instead of reverting and ignoring one of the most important policies that we have, let me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And with regards to your other changes which you made while reverting my edit, I apologize for missing that. I'll be happy to request on the protected article's talk page that that information be re-added. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - you should probably confirm this before an admin makes the changes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment; you're right. I've struck my above comments (if you'd prefer I remove them entirely, let me know). I did not mean to come off so rude however this is a situation where I believe we should have discussed things, rather than reverted. I've commented on the article's talk page and would hope you can follow up there. You're welcome to "take this situation to noticeboards" if you feel that will be beneficial. I have not willfully ignored any of your comments - and the other content that I removed was just an oversight, for which I apologized for. At this point, reviewing the four sources you've added, I think a case can be made for leaving them. Though some of your comments in edit summaries and talk pages were, at first read, only attempts at making a bigger issue than necessary. I think we both got a little carried away here. I apologize for my part in it and will shortly be leaving a comment for the admin who protected the article asking him to unprotect it, when you could (if you want) restore your edit. I wont do anything until I get word back from you, however. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight back at ArbCom

You are mentioned (implicitly) here. PhGustaf (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe your comment over at the ArbCom discussion of Law's reversal of Sandstein's block is slightly inaccurate. On the basic idea that CoM is interested in ACORN in precisely ways that violate his Obama topic ban, I could not agree more. However, it is not the case that ACORN has endorsed only one candidate. The organization has made lots of endorsements over time, though indeed Obama is the most prominent one, and the one mainly motivating CoM. LotLE×talk 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Press release

Please explain how a press release from a notable organization on said organizations website is less reliable than the same press release picked up by another organization? It isn't. If you want to make an argument that the contents shouldn't be on the page for another reason, please feel free to do so. By claiming that it isn't a reliable source pertaining the view AIM is not a valid claim. The criticism about it being a reliable source would be valid if it weren't for the attribution or if the group were not one of the pre-eminent Native American Rights organizations in the country, but as the reference is to the stance of AIM it is perfectly a reliable source.---Balloonman 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the article talk page. The short answer is: It's a gross violation of WP:BLP, which requires reliable second and third-party sources for disparaging content. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, if you had cited BLP originally instead of RS, I probably would have looked at the edit and moved on. I disagree with you about the primary sources, I think they add value, and context (if somebody reads them they will see that AIM has an ax to grind, which is lost in the secondary source.) But frankly, I don't care enough about this article or Ward Churchill. You'll probably note that I've made all of a dozen edits on the WC page in the past 2 or 3 years. I'm actually surprised that Churchill survived my watchlist purge... but I've taken care of that now.---Balloonman 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Do you think that User:NYsullivan is a sockpuppet for User:Balloonman? I'm not quite sure, but the creation of the new account at exactly the moment when doing so would apparently avoid 3RR for the latter looks suspicious to me. LotLE×talk 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, with the addition of brand new User:CU1989, I am entirely certain these are sockpuppets. Aaghh! Going through WP:SSP is way too much work :-(. LotLE×talk 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible, I guess. My assumption would be that User:168.103.215.166 (geolocated to Colorado ... home of the controversy) added the content to the article first, then registered an account name, User:NYsullivan, with which to continue editing that article 10 minutes later. Balloonman came in much later, and is probably unrelated. New User:CU1989 is much more likely to be related to 168.103.215.166/NYsullivan. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe you're right. I added that IP address to the report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations#Report_date_October_9_2009.2C_22:56_.28UTC.29. I'm sure I filled out that report wrong in some respect(s), but maybe someone better familiar with the procedure can sort it out. LotLE×talk 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno for the common sense... if a user is going to use Socks, they are either going to start out with their main account, or they are going to avoid using their Admin Account all together bu starting out with Socks and stay with Socks. Plus, it doesn't make much sense for a user to goto the talk page and then use a Sock unless you really are out to assume bad faith.---Balloonman 03:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMFAO!---Balloonman 03:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice

FYI - I responded to you comments on my talk page. Gustnado (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting you to ANI

{wink}↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! My life is now complete. You have restored my self-confidence and my faith that I, too, might someday be part of the "in crowd". I promise not to waste this opportunity. But first, I must contact my drama coach for some brush-up... Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Churchill-related article

My opinion is that you aren't really being helpful or constructive. You're setting up hoops and saying, "Jump through these." If you want to improve the article, then offer a revised paragraph that resolves all of your concerns. If your purpose isn't to improve the article, then what is your purpose? Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I obviously disagree. The hoops (we call them Misplaced Pages Policies around here) must be jumped through, unfortunately. I agree that jumping through these hoops can be tedious and annoying, and that it would be much more fun to be able to add absolutely anything to articles without these requirements -- but that is not the reality of our situation here. As for me offering a revised paragraph, my version is already implemented in the article. The paragraph we are now discussing was introduced by Phoenix. I hope that clears things up for you. Oh, and as for your final leading question, it doesn't make any sense to me. Could you please rephrase? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It just seems a little like baiting to me, and as we've seen at WP:ANI, 64/Phoenix is a little excitable. You might be more successful if you try editing his proposed paragraph to comply with your strict interpretation of policy. Evidently you insist on unimpeachably reliable source like the New York Times cited after each and every period or comma, or you're going to keep reverting. Does that cover it? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It is not I that insists on reliable sources, it is Misplaced Pages. We are all constrained by that same annoying yoke. I might be able to edit his suggested paragraph if I only knew where he was getting the content he put in it. Perhaps he will enlighten us in his response. The article already conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results. Perhaps you can tell me what it is Phoenix would like to convey with his new paragraph? (I examined your contributions to that same article for examples of productivity - that didn't cover it.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that when the article conveys all those things, it doesn't cite any sources. It's a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:RS according to your standards of enforcement. But you have no objection to the unsourced passages where the article "conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results." You only object to that addition of further details, clarifying that it was the right-wing media that responded (and very effectively) to Churchill's challenge. I've reactivated this discussion on the article Talk page where it belongs, so that others may participate. Please don't delete it again. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've not deleted any discussions; perhaps you have me confused with another editor. I have, however, continued discussions on our personal talk pages when the content is inappropriate for article talk pages - see above. I've responded on the article talk page and your talk page as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)