Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mirv (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 6 September 2004 (re ViP listings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some past dialogs are saved in archives, here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rex071404/archive1

Rex, James isn't goading me into anything. I have been thinking about this section myself. It just can't handle the hundreds of articles & editorials out there. Now, a Lexis-Nexis search of titles clearly shows that a representative sample would be overwhelming pro-Kerry. So, I have no intention at all of letting you continue adding anti-Kerry links while holding back myself. That would provide a seriously distorted view of coverage. So, we can certainly get into a link-adding war, and you know perfectly well that I will do it and that I have more ammunition. But why go there? The section is basically pointless, and just stirs up trouble. I'm amazed you're not leaping at the chance to cut a pretty clearly pro-Kerry section (not POV, just reflective). I suspect that your resistance is because I suggested it, and you think it must therefore be biased. But, all I'm trying to do is make this article less troublesome, with no real sacrifice to its quality. What say ye?Wolfman 00:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex,

• I have every bit as much right to add links as you. If that's vandalism, then so is yours.
• This article is not the subject of arbcom procedings. If it were, you would already be banned. If you would like to motion to have it included, that would be fine with me. I have not the slightest concern about your threat anyway, as my actions are well within policy.
• 'Other' is not at all redundant. The point is that many,many news reports & editorials are referenced in the article. And so those sections are redundant.
• I haven't even looked at the links you added. So, it's not the specific links that concern me. It's just that this section by it's very nature promotes link warring. You have added many links in the last few days. No one else has. That's because everyone else already thinks there are too many. I have restrained myself many times from adding links. Why should I, when you aren't?
• I truly believe it's a pointless section.
• It's not just you and me that have to agree on what articles to include. There are several others active, plus new editors drop in all the time.

Ok, you want the links. I can't imagine why, truly. But, I'll go through and evaluate the specific articles & editorials. I may add some & I may request you to remove some. Seems to me like a lot of pointless work. But I'm willing to see if we can resolve this. If not, I'll call a vote requesting removal of the section on redundancy grounds.Wolfman 00:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I just said I'd have a look. The fact that I'm not even objecting to anything specific should make it clear to you that it's the section itself I find troublesome and not your specific links. I will tell you right now, without even looking, that I would find any links to nakedly partisan sites objectionable.

As to the arbitrators, I have no worries and no plans to look. I find that whole page a frustrating distraction, and it's just going to have to proceed (or not) without my further attention. SBVT is not in the jurisdiction of the complaint, but even if it is, so what? I'm working on making this a good, fair article. If arbcom has a problem with my actions, I'll take whatever comes my way.Wolfman 01:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

This page is really only for vandals; editing disputes don't belong there, which is why I removed your listing of Nysus. I see you used RfC, which is a good first step; if fruitful discussion still isn't forthcoming you should try Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection—but please, not ViP: listing non-vandals there only creates hard feelings and isn't at all helpful. —No-One Jones 17:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)