Misplaced Pages

User talk:Rex071404

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JamesMLane (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 8 August 2004 (Plugging the SBVT book). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:17, 8 August 2004 by JamesMLane (talk | contribs) (Plugging the SBVT book)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hello Rex071404 and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!



Re: Mediation, issue not ripe for

If you're honestly prepared to give this a go, and be polite in working this out, then I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, and forget past indiscretions. However, if you continue to personally attack and accuse people, however, I will file an arbitration request on that alone, John Kerry be damned.

And this includes comments like "Rex replies: Ambi, thank you for asking the questiomn. I feel that by saying you are "confused" it means either a) you did not read my answers (see above) or b) you are disregarding them?" Ambi 21:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex replies: Thank you for your comment. It sounds ominous. I hope you are not threatening me. I would not appreciate that.Rex071404 22:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No one is threatening you. Personal attacks have been common throughout your posts here, right up until today, and contrary to what you may believe, this does not go with the territory of disagreeing over an article. All you're being asked to do is abide by Misplaced Pages policy. I credit you for attempting to abide by the NPOV policy (and I appreciate that your latest version is markedly more neutral than your first edits here). However, the no personal attacks policy is just as important. If you refuse to do so, the Arbitration Committee is the body that deals with that. Save us both the trouble. Please? Ambi 22:26, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think we have moved past that and I ask that you look forward, not back. That said, what do you think of my Rex VVAW v.3 sample text? Please advise.Rex071404 23:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that ArbCom has the authority to stop users from editing certain pages if they are unable to control themselves. They also can prescribe any remedy up until and including a permanent ban. If you do not stop making personal attacks and blatantly POV edits and reverts, then Ambi, myself, and other users will have no choice but to go to ArbCom for relief. Consider this a friendly warning.--Neutrality 23:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Neutrality's "friendly warning"

I feel that many of his comments to me have an undertone of confrontation. It's one of the reasons I am suspect of his motives and it contributes to my concerns that this whole thing escalated out of hand for no valid reason. I truly do think that Neutrality had a "claim" on John Kerry before I arrived and I really do think that he has not shown me enough evidence of good faith for me to trust him. For example; I have asked everyone - including him - repeatedly no less, to comment on my VVAW v.3, yet from what I can see, Neutrality still does not. I would prefer that he stop commenting so much about me and instead comment on my suggested submissions to John Kerry. He is making me feel very uncomfortable. Rex071404 23:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Rex.

Regarding your addition of "U.S. Senator" to "lawyer" in the "Profession" line of the infobox: It's preferable to simply leave "lawyer" as the profession. This is because while "lawyer" is a profession, "Senator" is an office. Besides this, that Kerry is a U.S. Senator it is obvious to everyone — it appears in the first paragraph. That he is a lawyer is not so obvious, as that information appears later in the article.--Neutrality 04:30, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Excellent! We agree. This is a good first step. Now, on to more substantial issues. How do you propose we reconcile the group's version and yours? --Neutrality 04:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Re: of John Kerry and butterflies

Hey now; I'm not getting involved this time. I protected the article to stop the reversions; it's not good when an article's content keeps flipping back and forth between radically different versions. As I protected the article, I cannot comment on the dispute. I will however say that I did not see enough *constructive* dialogue ocurring on talk, but I did see too many reverts. Don't take the protection personally; I did not endorse the version I protected, I simply chose it as the most "stable". Yes, that's completely arbitrary, I know.

As for the butterfly, I took the picture myself. I'm glad you like it. Thanks. -- Hadal 07:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your accusations against me

In one of your edit summaries during the short period when the John Kerry article was unprotected, you wrote, "rv -JamesMLane is clearly mis-stating the facts. The discusion was not concluded - this page was unprotected before consensus was reached. JML is vandalizing". I take care not to misstate facts. I'd appreciate it if you'd specify what I said that you consider a misstatement, so that I can correct it if your criticism proves accurate. If your specification is that the page was unprotected before consensus was reached, I'm completely in agreement with that description of what happened, and I never said otherwise. I said only that the version I was inserting was the "plurality choice from poll." A plurality is less compelling than a majority, and consensus is on beyond both of them. I stand by the "plurality" statement based on the poll results. I also referred to that version as the "top finisher in the poll," again claiming only a plurality, not a consensus. I would also like to know whether your statement "JML is vandalizing" was based on anything other than your disagreement with my version. There was no consensus for the edits I made, but there was also no consensus for the edits you made. Making an edit that isn't backed by consensus is not, by itself, vandalism. JamesMLane 12:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: My Edit Summary referring to JamesMLane and his mis-statement of facts regarding John Kerry "poll"

The key phrase in your message is: "poll results". Because the discussion was still under way and because there was no consensus, it is not factually correct to say that there were "poll results". While it is true that the pro-Kerry POVr's were trying to force the issue, I was still waiting for more contructive dialog and answers to various questions I had posed to the group. Since clearly and obviously there was a dicussion under way, it is patently mis-leading to suggest that somehow there was any agreement to stop "polling" and run with the partial results we had so far. Hence, for you to say "poll results" is not accurate. Had you said "partially completed results of one of several polls still under way", this would have been accurate. Rex071404 16:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In one of your other comments you used the metaphor of people being on different planets. I often have that feeling in these discussions. I certainly didn't suggest that there was any agreement to stop polling or any agreement to use a particular version. In fact, I commented to Guanaco that I thought his unprotection of the page was a bad solution. What's patently misleading is for you to characterize as "vandalism" an edit that had more support than any other -- yes, had more support at that particular moment in time based on partially completed result of a poll still under way, but, nevertheless, had more support than any other alternative.
You will doubtless read my response to Ambi on the Talk:John Kerry page. It appears to me that these difficulties in interplanetary communication will continue for the foreseeable future, with everyone involved spending huge amounts of time and accomplishing nothing. What are the alternatives? Obviously, I would prefer that you get beyond your fixation with your particular version, your insistence that everyone use your version as the base, and your dismissal of all contrary opinions as biased. You presumably would prefer some similarly unrealistic change on the part of the several contributors who join me in disagreeing with you. Failing any such miracle quick fix on either side, it seems that the only resolution may be to dump the whole mess on the Arbitration Committee and let them try to sort it out. That will waste a lot of time all around (yours, mine, other editors', the ArbCom's). Not without reason is arbitration described as a last resort. If you have any suggestion as to an alternative way to proceed, I'm all ears. JamesMLane 17:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
JML, about the "mis-statement": Do you, yes or no, concede it is indeed true that when you used the term "poll results" you mis-stated the fact regarding the current status of the "poll". If you do not answer this question, I will lose respect for you. Rex071404 17:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I do not concede that. JamesMLane 17:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Warning

Your edit warring on John Kerry has caused the page to be protected for several days now. Furthermore, you have violated policies limiting reversions to three times a day, and have skirted along the edges of the personal attacks policy. Since John Kerry is obviously in the news quite a bit right now, the ability to update the page as new things happen is very important. Therefore, edit wars that cause the page to be protected are particularly harmful. I am going to unprotect the page. Please do not continue your edit war on it. Note that, under the Misplaced Pages blocking policy, further disruption of the function of the article and of Misplaced Pages can lead to you being blocked from editing Misplaced Pages temporarily. Snowspinner 18:58, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

It is not my intention nor my right to dictate article content. However, I think that it would be wise for you to discuss changes on the talk page before making them at this juncture - it seems as though your approach to the article is not widely shared by your fellow editors, and that some compromise and discussion is certainly in order. Snowspinner 19:18, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I have left some comments on Talk:John Kerry that may help you avoid further blocks. Snowspinner 23:19, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Good call

I just wanted to say, I think backing away from the article for a few days shows a great deal of maturity and restraint, and to congratulate you on being big enough to walk away from the situation instead of pouring more gasoline onto it. Good job. :) Snowspinner 13:19, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Reply/Abortion

Rex, I replied to the abortion issue on my talk page, so as to keep the conversation in a logical and easy to read fashion. Lyellin 11:21, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry

Would you please consider leaving the paragraph that you believe should be removed in the article until a consensus is reached on Talk:John Kerry? This revert warring is going nowhere, and it would be bad if John Kerry had to be protected again. Thanks. Guanaco 05:41, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I would consider it, but what about the fact that Neutrality keeps reverting - all the while adding copious amounts of glowing bio material for Kerry. where does he get it all...? I suggest he gets it direct from Kerry campaign. Look how he was also invloved in the edit wars on George_W._Bush
Rex071404 05:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since the page is protected on the version with the paragraph, could you explain why it should be removed on the talk page? It would be very unproductive to let John Kerry sit for a week protected, because no one discussed the paragraph or attempted to come to a consensus. Guanaco 06:12, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

The issues you are involved in

Rex - I've been asked, as an impartial admin, to look at your behavior on the John Kerry article. My thoughts are as follows - your edits have been POV (this is a distinct no-no), but not blatantly so. To me, most of them seem more like issues of phrasing than of substance. Many of the problems you are fighting over would best be resolved by talking about it on the article's talk page.

However, as a result, you have caused a very high profile article to be protected. This is quite bad. More importantly, your attitude has been anti-social, to the point of being disruptive. You have insulted other users and hurled baseless accusations at them. This is totally unacceptable.

Others suggested starting a quickpoll to ban you. This is too drastic - I think you could be a good contributor here, if given the chance. So here's my proposed solution, and I'd like you to agree to it. I will unprotect John Kerry, but you will not be allowed to edit that article. If you want changes made, you can propose them on the talk page, and (if others agree) they can make them for you. If you do not agree with this, then I will start a quickpoll to do this, and I promise you the end result will be the same. What are your thoughts on the matter? →Raul654 07:02, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Raul, sorry to butt in here. I haven't followed the Kerry article closely in recent days, but I am aware that Rex has been rather aggressive, and needs to tone down quite a bit (which I believe he has started to do). However, IMHO, the Kerry article has been a puff piece in many ways. The U.S. public is about evenly divided (and hotly so) between Bush and Kerry, but you'd never know that from Misplaced Pages, where Kerry's article moves toward flattery and the Bush one towards disdain. In short, Rex has been performing an encyclopedic service, so to speak, though in the wrong way perhaps, and I think the Kerry article is better for it.
Having said that, I have a problem with your proposal. It seems to be that you are asking Rex to submit his ideas in advance to a hostile crowd to be vetted. I don't think this is acceptable in the context of Misplaced Pages. If Rex has to talk things out in advance, so should everyone else in such a contentious article. Therefore I would greatly prefer that the article be protected, a /Temp or /Draft page set up, and have the issues hashed out there and on the temporary page's Talk. Sincerely, Cecropia | Talk 07:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Which was suggusted when all of this was first occuring, and ignored, basically. Cecropia, I'd love to do it that way, if Rex, you'll agree, and we can get the others to. Lyellin 07:37, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
I would like to note that the attitude of Misplaced Pages has never been, to my knowledge, too supportive of declaring the "crowd' wrong and allowing them to be trivialized. Whether Rex has to submit his edits in advance or not for approval, if the crowd can generate consensus for X, then, in the absence of a ruling from Jimbo or some other equally authoritative source, X is what happens. So the hostility of the crowd is immaterial, as they remain the judge and jury for article content.
I also strenuously object to page protection in this case. The page is just too important to let be long-term protected like this. Rex's behavior is prone towards excessive reversion and borderline personal attacks, and, regardless of the problems with the page, this is not acceptable. If Rex is willing to accept Raul's proposal, good, and I'm glad to hear it. If not, personally, I think the page should be unprotected, and the "disruption" clause of blocking policy should be invoked as needed to restore order on the page. Snowspinner 13:52, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
I largely concur with Snowspinner. My chief difference with him is in his overly charitable phrase "borderline personal attacks." In my case, for example, Rex has said, "JamesMLane is clearly mis-stating the facts. .... JML is vandalizing." If this is a "borderline" personal attack, then the border needs to be moved several miles. JamesMLane 14:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with Snowspinner. Mob rule is not what the wiki is about. The majority is not right. People gravitate to articles they feel strongly about, which results in severe biases on heavy POV pages. Have a look at m:Power_structure. Banning Rex for being counter-concensus is shockingly authoritarian. Sam 16:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am really surpised by the hostile nature of the aim towards banning me. And for what? Being unkind in my descriptions of the pro-Kerry editors as being just that, pro-Kerry? The shocking lack of intellectual honesty among those group amazes me. Who among you can say that I have posted falsehoods about Kerry? Take a look at the text concenring the circumstances surrounding Kerry's 1st Purple Heart. I have to fight tooth and nail to get the to even where it is now, a basically fair account of what happnened. If had wanted to be POV, I would quote is commanding officer, who, regardless of the smears and lies the Boston Globe is now spreading, is indeed steadfast in hios opposition to Kerry. this man asserts that Kerry's 1st Purpple Heart was certainly undeserved and more likely fradulently obtained. am I trying to get THAT in? No, I am not. The problem with the John Kerry page is that the editors who are camped there take every tidbit about Kerry that sounds good and use THAT as their starting point. As a result, anyone who says otherwise, is "in opposition" or "being bad". Take the "snopes" lin for instance. I moved this to the Online Media section where is belongs, because by no fair measure should that link be described (as it has been) as offer a "fuller account" of Kerry's medal details. What it offers is a one-sided conclsion summary of facts which purports to prove as "false" any criticisms of Kerry Medal details. To allow such use of that link is absurd. It is sherr hearsay - and biased hearsay at that. I could gon one, but I am trying to earn a living, so I must get back to work. FYI: This is why I ddo my editing in spurts - unlike the cumulative applied time of all the pro-Kerry editors there, I am unable to devote the aggregate amount of time that they do. This is a relaity of life and shoudl not be viewed adversly. My edits will come in spurts do to time contraints. If the others would not revert me so much, the would see that the points I add, and clarify to Kerry are s=no so earht shattering that their lives are going to end. Also, just what is Neutrality's agenda, if not bias? He jumps all over my edits, like a fly on stink - same thing about Wolfman. There have been thre people, them and me, involved in most edit/revert battles there. If I am 1/3 at fault - they are 2/3'rs at fault. Rex071404 19:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rex, I don't expect to convince you of anything, but in fairness I'll give you a summary of the main reasons why I think you should be blocked from editing about Kerry.
  • Conduct toward other editors. To say that a particular passage in the article is biased pro-Kerry is perfectly OK. To say that another editor is biased pro-Kerry is a borderline personal attack. To say that another editor is a vandal, as you did about me, is unacceptable. It's also unacceptable to attack Neutrality the way you did: "Neutrality cheats again! Just like the prior 3 times, Neutrality has snuck in his version just before the page is locked. I accuse him of sweet talking various persons to be able to be ready with the last revert. I accuse Neutrality of corrupting the process."
  • Repeated anti-Kerry POV in your edits. For example, the article already states that Kerry's second tour of duty lasted four months. That is a fact. The readers may draw from it what conclusions they please. If you want to dismiss that as a "brief" stint, compared with the long arduous years that George Bush spent keeping the skies of Alabama free from Communism, fine, that's your right. But it's POV for an encyclopedia article to make the characterization that Kerry "briefly" commanded Swift boats, as you wanted.
  • Overall method of editing: Sticking with that particular example, you inserted "briefly" into the article. It was, quite properly, deleted. Over a period of less than an hour, you reverted the article four times to re-insert your opinion that Kerry's tour of duty was brief. In short, on this one point, and in one hour, you violated the three-reverts limit, only a few days after Snowspinner had reminded you of it (User talk:Rex071404#Warning).
On each of these points, many other examples could be cited.
Given my history with this page, I'm obviously the wrong person to try to help you improve your method of participating in Misplaced Pages, but you might benefit from seeking guidance from someone who's more removed from the fray and who has both credibility and experience. JamesMLane 01:44, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rex - JamesM is correct on every single one of those points -- 95% of the problem is your disruptive conduct (the remaining 5% is your POV edits). To put it another way - a POV editor who is will to work with others is not a problem user - it's when he gets into revert wars with other users instead of disucssing differences that he becomes disruptive. →Raul654 01:48, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Plugging the SBVT book

Rex: The following comment of mine appears in Talk:John Kerry#SBVT. I suggested that everything after the Hibbard passage should be moved to the SBVT article, to be replaced by my shortened version. I specifically pointed out that covers of critical books are not reproduced in the Bush article. Paul O'Neill's book is a lot more significant than SBVT's.

I don't think SBVT is very significant. In fact, their attack on Kerry is greatly overemphasized in the article as it now stands. We don't need to plug their book, for example. The article on George W. Bush doesn't reproduce the cover of any of the numerous anti-Bush books. I'd support something along these lines: In the "Criticism" section, leave in the stuff through and including Hibbard's attack on Kerry. Then add: "Also criticizing Kerry are over 200 other Vietnam Era veterans who, in 2004, established the group known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth {SBVT). They have questioned Kerry's service record and his medals. Several people who were in the same unit with Kerry are part of SBVT, but all the members of Kerry's crew who are still living support his presidential bid." Then the question is whether the back-and-forth about their attacks should be incorporated into the SBVT article or separated in a separate article, that would be wikilinked in this passage. I'd favor the former because the SBVT article is short enough that it can reasonably accommodate the rest of what's now in the "Criticism" section.
If that view is widespread, then indeed much of the SBVT material should be moved JamesMLane 18:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Things seemed to have been quieter and more reasonable here lately, but now you appear to be back in your old form. I had refrained from adding any evidence to the arbitration request, in the hope that we could avoid that step. If you continue this scorched-earth style of editing, though, I’ll have to add to the dossier there. JamesMLane 01:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)