Talk:Jeb Bush/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removals in November 2004

This test has been removed and was subsequently restored: He also narrowly avoided scandal after the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing in 1995 when he refused to renounce his parish priest's assertions that the bombing was God's way of punishing our society for allowing more liberal attitudes towards women and gays. Fortunately for Bush, the local media quickly dropped the story and Bush remained focused on mounting a second attempt at running for governor.

It should be removed because it is unsubstanciated and mere innuendo inappropriate for inclusion in the article.

I removed this:

Journalist Greg Palast has alleged that some African-American voters were deliberately prevented from voting in the 2002 election through the use of inaccurate voter "purge" lists of felons and deceased people.

The reason is that it doesn't have much to do with Jeb Bush. If the allegation was that he ordered it or was aware of it. Then it should stay, but just because something happened in Florida and one free-lance journalist associates it with Bush doesn't make it encyclopedia material.

I also removed this:

Further, while Governor Bush has traditionally been a supporter of free enterprise, in the wake of hurricane Charley he criticized the price gouging which was a consequence of the free market. He described the practice of increasing the price of scarce goods in response to increased demand as "horrific," authorizing his Attorney General, Charlie Crist, to began proceedings against entrepreneurs engaged in price gouging.

The reason is simply that Florida (like many states) has a law against price gouging. Laws against price gouging may be controversial, but it isn't hypocrisy for a governor to uphold a law.

There are many other areas of controversy if someone wants to add them before I get to them. Examples:

• He was peripherally involved in Iran Contra by delivering a letter from an acquaintance to his father, who passed it on to Oliver North.
• He indirectly borrowed money from a savings and loan that went into default and was bailed out as part of the S&L fiasco.
• The 2000 election vote recount in Florida.

Ydorb 23:19, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

You seem a bit too excited to get these "many other areas of controversy" into the article. The Iran Contra thing is a huge stretch, the S&L is legit, and the 2000 recount has been certified and recertified and investigated and researched, ad infinitum - all of which do nothing to incriminate Jeb Bush in any wrongdoing whatsoever. (DJ November 8 2004)

But, laws against price gouging are contrary to free enterprise. There's a line between "enforcing the law" and "giving aid and comfort to the law." He could enforce it without agreeing with it, but it sounds as if he agrees completely with it, either philosophically or for political reasons. --Golbez 23:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I would think that the 2000 presidential election in Florida would be considered a "controversy," and, whether or not Jeb had anything to do with anything unethical, think it would be worth at least a mention here. There is no doubt that people associate the Florida election with controversy (that is, nobody claims that it wasn't a controvertial election), and much of that controversy was fueled by Jeb Bush being W. Bush's brother. I don't think that it would be POV to say that this was a controversy that involved him --Asbestos 00:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That topic was already discussed by others who created this article. Their discussion is at the top of this page. I did not edit out anything they discussed.

SummerFR 03:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

Could someone please source the "cynical little turd" remark? I found it only in Wikipedia mirrors. Gazpacho 03:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's from the 1994 Miami Herald aritcle, listed in the references. I don't think it is available on line, unless you subscribe to some archives. For context, I've reproduced part of the article below. Ydorb 17:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

As a childhood jock, Jeb could hit a ball over the backyard fence (once busting a neighbor's window). He developed a killer serve on the tennis court. Fiercely competitive, partial to the underdog, he sometimes refereed kid squabbles. Jeb attended a public elementary school, then transferred to a private school. When his father became a congressman and moved to Washington, Jeb, an eighth grader, stayed in Houston with another family. In 1968 he went off to Andover in New Hampshire, where he wrote a term paper on his father's losing Senate bid.

Sometimes he found it hard to live up to others' expectations. "I was a cynical little turd in a cynical little school," he once admitted -- a youth squealing his share of tires and smoking a little pot. "I admit it," Jeb said recently. "I inhaled."

At 17, Jeb, a slender six feet three inches, went to Leon, Mexico, on a student exchange program. At a motorcycle race one Sunday, he met a well-to-do Mexican girl, 16-year-old, five-foot one-inch Columba. She didn't speak English too well. Jeb didn't speak Spanish too well. In a three-year, love-letter courtship, they became bilingual.

"I've been faithful to my wife for 20 years," Jeb said, without anyone asking. What's more, he said, he never slept with another woman.

Terri Schiavo comment

I edited out a (gramatically incorrect) entry about Governor Bush intervening in the Terri Schiavo case, where it said that her husband Michael Schiavo intended to "murder" her (quotations mine). Irrespective of one's stance on the issue, murder is the wrong term to use in the context.

The original version was: "Most recently, Bush involved himself in the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely disabled woman on a feeding tube whose husband intended to muder her [her parents opposed her killing ]." There was also a grammatic error regarding the Governor being pro-life.

Jeb Bush

• Hello SummerFR. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an awful lot of your recent changes to this article appear to be stridently pro-Jeb. An encyclopaedia entry such as this should really be purely objective - neither pro- nor anti-Bush. If you could clean up your additions to reflect that, that'd be great. It really is starting to read like a glossy political pamphlet produced by the Republican party. Jez 03:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Hello Jez from SummerFR

It's hard to correct you since you didn't give any specific examples of the text you find objectionable. Can you give some examples? Also, I realize that the text I am writing is NOT stridently "ANTI-Jeb" and therefore, may appear to some to be slanted in favor of him, but I am honestly trying to be fair. Finally, I am not a Republican. I am a teacher, and I know some students like to see photos when they read- they're the reason I am trying to include photos, to keep their interest.

Thanks for your comments, SummerFR

PS I apologize for not linking to your name, as I do not yet know how to use everything on this site. Also, I did not delete anything anyone else wrote about Jeb Bush, just FYI; though I did write most of what is there at this moment (about 80% of the entire text right now is what I wrote; however, I am not finished yet.) Please do feel free to post examples of what upsets you, as I want to keep within the guidelines of this site. Thanks.

---

To Jez From SummerFR, After reading more about wikipedia, I realize now that what you did to the Jeb Bush article, in wikipedia lingo, is called "Sneaky Vandelism" -

From wikipedia:

Deletion and Changes

What if somebody tries to delete a section of an article, or add a couple of words to alter its meaning? Does Wikipedia have backups for its articles? Does Wikipedia scrutinize its articles for even the smallest changes made to less popular articles? Also, does all this mean that the content of articles is subject to constant changes in meaning and detail, and that an article will be completely different over time?

These are problems handled by Wikipedia's version system. We effectively retain all previous versions of every article, as it was at each point in time, and each of these versions can be individually viewed. Even deleted articles can be undeleted. This allows any change to be reversed, or partially reversed, with little effort.

So-called sneaky vandalism, where a few words are inserted in a way intended to change the meaning without being noticed, is rarely effective, because we do not scrutinize articles for changes manually — instead we rely on software features which plainly mark for our review the differences between two versions of an article. Our technology, together with certain telltale signs learned from experience, makes such vandalism easy to detect.

It is true that articles change over time, eventually into what may seem to be an entirely new article. This is by design — a brief look at an older paper encyclopedia will show you that, even when the subject is historical, what we know about the subject and our attitude toward it is a rapidly moving target. This problem is exacerbated with modern topics like software and current events. By allowing gradual changes to be made over time, we continuously adapt to new information and new perspectives in a way that static encyclopedias cannot.

---

[To SummerFR from Jez]

I don't accept that this was "sneaky vandalism". Nor do I appreciate you inferring that I am vandalising these pages. All I did was make some minor edits that did NOT change the meaning of the text. If you don't like it, change it back. I didn't "engage in a discussion with you" because I didn't see your comments on this discussion page until this afternoon. How about a having a little more patience next time? Anyway, I'm not getting into this any further with you. You are perfectly entitled to say I was wrong in my edits, but don't call me a vandal. Jez 15:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

To Jez - I am not "calling you a vandal" -- I posted the definition of "sneaky vandalism" above from a wiki page, and that's EXACTLY what you did.

And, I called two admins to take a look at it.

So, next time, try to more patience in your rebuke of me -- and let's first see what they have to say, after they review all your edits.

And, by the way, I didn't appreciate anything you did, from your first nasty comment aimed at me when you then went and changed OTHER people's writing, to your ignoring my reply (yes, you saw it, as your waited to do your edits until I replied), to you ignoring my calls to admins, to you ignoring wiki's definition of "sneaky vandalism."

You really have a lot of gall for someone who has been here less than two months - and you don't seem to like free speech that much either, in light of what I sincerely believe IS your vandalism. We'll see what others think.

By the way, it was very clever of you to make all those edits in almost every section on just one entry into the article, and to call it mostly "typo" changes. I'll give you credit for your sneakiness.

But, you did change the meaning - and, worse, in my view, you DELETED and changed OTHER people's work; work that had already been discussed and agreed upon. So -- who made you God? And who made you God in light of the fact you've been here at wikipedia less than two months? Just asking...

SummerFR

• Hello admins, if you're reading this. I'm not interested in getting into a flame war with Summer FR. What she says may or may not be right. For the record, I made a few changes that in my view did not alter the text meaning. Were these changes not acceptable? If so, I'd be delighted for you tell me exactly what was wrong (admins, not you SummerFR - like I say, I'm not interested in a flame war). Anyway, I'm happy to leave it at that. Mountains out of molehills... Jez 17:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

To Admins: Here's what JEZ posted on this thread above, in the past few hours, AFTER he edited away other people's text without discussion:

[From Jez:]

Good grief! A bit touchy aren't we? I hadn't replied to your comments before now because I hadn't seen them. I'm not on Wikipedia all the time - maybe once or twice a day. I haven't got the time right now to answer all your points, but if you think my edits were wrong - fine! Off the top of my head:

1) "he enjoyed his time at school" and "he went to an Elvis Presley concert". I just thought these were irrelevant. There's no real problem having them there, but I thought them rather odd in an encyclopaedia entry. If you think I'm wrong, fine. I won't change them back.

2) "grown" vs "grown up" - maybe this is a case of US English vs British English - a minor point - both are acceptable to me, but I personally would put "grown up". Maybe you don't in the State. I don't know. I won't change it back. (in fact I won't change anything back if you're going to get this het up about it). One thing you should understand about Wikipedia - your input can and will get edited by many other people. I didn't "criticize" you above. I thought I rather politely pointed out it seemed a bit too pro-Jeb. That's all.

3) "irrefutable success" and a couple of other little phrases. That particular one I just changed to simply "success". That's the kind of thing I was referring to when I said it read like a Republican Party blurb.

4) No - I'm not "with" wikipedia any more than you are.

5) I made a few minor changes. I did not "water the article down".

6) Lighten up. Like I said, I didn't discuss this with you because I didn't see your most recent comments on this discussion page until five minutes ago. If my editing offended you, I'm sorry. But the article will be edited by many other people as time goes by. I for one will leave it well alone if it upsets you so much.

7) about deleting "teaching Mexicans how to speak English.", I just felt it was redundant. We had already been told he was in Mexico - all that was necessary was to say he was there as an English teacher. That's all. Don't like my change? Fine. Change it back.

Jez 14:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Note to Admins: I have cleaned up this page somewhat, deleting many of my comments about what I found offensive about his edits, so you admins can decide for yourself. I left Jez's few comments here, so you can read what he wrote in its entirety, and I left some of my comments here as well. SummerFR

---

Why is the 1994 election loss even mentioned in the section on Business experience; it is dealt with entirely below and is merely extraneous here. Nobs 23:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Ydorb: Please explain the necessity to delete the historic fact that in Florida's 181 year history Jeb Bush was the "first Republican to be re-elected to the office of Florida governor". Nobs 16:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete that from the article. I removed it from the lead paragraph, along with what I thought were other non essential facts. That fact remains later on in the article. See [1] for what I was trying to follow. Please feel free to edit the lead as you see fit. Ydorb 18:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Admin Matani2005 for restoring JEB article

Matani2005, it seems to me that in your edit on the article, you restored the text that had been deleted and changed by JEZ. Thank you. I appreciate your help, as the edits JEZ made did not aid any reader in any way. SummerFR 01:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How Jeb Bush changed history

I've been trying to copy edit this article, but gave up when coming to the "How Jeb Bush changed history section." The entire thing, title and all, is POV, and I'm not quite sure where to begin. Is there someone familiar with criticisms of Jeb Bush that could temper this by giving the other side of the story? Also, SummerFR, could you use the "preview" button rather than making 44 edits in a row? Makes it easier for the rest of us, and uses less server space. Cheers. --BaronLarf 16:37, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this article is a disaster area that is so far out of whack it's like it never even heard of the concept of NPOV. It's like it was taken straight from one of his political advisors or something. And the photos are atrocious, what seems like thousands of postage stamp sized things blown up and all pixellated from being larger on scree than they actually are. We need to totally redo this page. DreamGuy 08:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

New photographs

There are many photographs on here which I have some problems with.

1. Many are small and low quality, and are blown up in the article, making them even grainier
2. There sources are sometimes unclear, and when the sources are specified, they seem to violate copyrights. One of them even has an AP mark visible (Image:Jebandhisdad.jpg)

I'm tempted to send them all to WP:IFD --BaronLarf 17:12, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Kindly read my Talk Page re the photos. Also, I posted this you on your page:

Your photo comment re Jeb Bush page

Thank you for any format changes you did to improve the Jeb Bush article. I was a bit perplexed that you came to that page, after I then saw this on your user page: :"Trying to make articles on George W. Bush neutral really makes me want to scream, though, so I don't do much on that page."

Ini any event -- please note: you are the 2nd person to change the way quotes appear in the article, and both you and the other wiki person claim to have the format correct, but neither one of you agree. So. I will just wait till the 3rd person comes along and changes the format again. Same thing with certain other format changes that others approved (and I never did in the first place), but you changed, and, I am sure, again, someone will come along and then change your format saying it was wrong, too. So, I am staying away from format arguments since no one here seems to actually agree on format. With respect to photos, kindly read my talk page and you will see an on-going discussion about it. Thanks again for your interest and help, and I am being sincere, because if you made the page look better, I appreciate it. But, FYI, I believe the photo issue is already resolved. And, I will let the other person I am already involved on that, on my talk page, know more. SummerFR 17:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFM — I read your talk page, and the only relevant thing I saw was this comment by FreplySpang:

Hi SummerFR, I see that you have added many photos to Jeb Bush that you have labeled as "Courtesy of myflorida.com." Thank you for indicating the source. However, I am concerned that this may be an inappropriate use of copyrighted images. The page "Copyright Statement: Conditions of Use" on that site [1] (http://myflorida.com/myflorida/copyright.html) explicitly states: "No material from MyFlorida.com ... may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way.... For purposes of this Agreement, the use of any such material on any other Web site or networked computer environment is prohibited." It is important for Wikipedia to avoid infringing on copyrights, especially because the contents of Wikipedia are freely redistributed under the GFDL. There is more information about this at Wikipedia:Image use policy.

I think it would be best if these images were removed from Wikipedia, unless you can obtain explicit permission to use them. According to my understanding of Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale, they do not qualify. At least, they should be tagged as described at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please obtain and document permission, or remove the images.

Thank you, FreplySpang (talk) 22:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just looked at the picture files (including Image:Jebandcolumba.jpg, Image:Jebschildren.jpg, Image:Jebwithstudent.jpg, Image:Jebrev holmes.jpg, Image:Jebbushandfrankbrogan.jpg, Image:Bilde.jpg, Image:Jebsanjosecenter.jpg, Image:Jebbush2002win.jpg, Image:0305bushjennings.jpg, Image:Jebandhisdad.jpg, Image:Tonijennings.jpg, Image:J bushrisingstar.jpg, Image:Jebbushasiadb DSC008901.jpg and Image:Jebwithopenbook.jpg) and I still don't see any image tags on them. Stating the source of the files doesn't allow you to use copyrighted images. How has this been resolved?

Thanks much. --BaronLarf 18:18, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Photo Issue: See below email to me from Gov Bush's spokesperson, Alia Faraj

To BaronLarf From SummerFR:

Thank you for any format changes you did to improve the Jeb Bush article. I was a bit perplexed that you came to that page, after I then saw this on your user page: "Trying to make articles on George W. Bush neutral really makes me want to scream, though, so I don't do much on that page." In any event -- please note: you are the 2nd person to change the way quotes appear in the article, and both you and the other wiki person claim to have the format correct, but neither one of you agree. So. I will just wait till the 3rd person comes along and changes the format again. Same thing with certain other format changes that others approved (and I never did in the first place), but you changed, and, I am sure, again, someone will come along and then change your format saying it was wrong, too. So, I am staying away from format arguments since no one here seems to actually agree on format. With respect to photos, kindly read my talk page and you will see an on-going discussion about it. Thanks again for your interest and help, and I am being sincere, because if you made the page look better, I appreciate it. But, FYI, I believe the photo issue is already resolved. And, I will let the other person I am already involved on that, on my talk page, know more. SummerFR 17:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To continue the photo issue discussion:

I have only been here at wiki less than one week now, if I'm not mistaken. I am aware of the importance of not using copyrighted photos; but, I am also aware of this fact: when you ask a person or entity "Can I have permission to use your copyrighted photo?" then, they in turn want to know: How are you going to use it?

And, to answer that inevitable question, sometimes one has to say: "Well, here, look, this is what I want to do with it." It helps lawyers to see something real before they say YES!

So, in my one week here, I was planning to first finish the one entry about Jeb Bush. But, with these questions from wiki people, here is what I did:

I emailed Gov Bush last night, Friday, and let him know I needed a response for wikipedia. I am posting for you that correspondence below, though I have deleted my personal email address from it. And, since today is Saturday, I expect that on Monday, or Tuesday, or some weekday in the near future, we will have a more definitive answer. Gov Bush's office does not take forever on these sort of requests. But, in the meantime, in my opinion, it doesn't help for wiki people to now be deleting photos, since myflorida.com lawyers are going to want to see the photos and how the photos are used. Thus, I think there has to be some kind of a window, a span of time, and a preview mode of a page, for a person to create a page and then show someone like a lawyer. Just food for thought.

Here are the emails though I don't know how to format them on this wiki box so that the email text look like emails. For some reason the text is not staying flush left on a preview: SummerFR 18:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From: "Faraj, Alia" [her myflorida.com email address deleted] To: [SummerFR] CC: [myflorida.com and Gov Bush] Subject: FW: Permission request to use myflorida.com phhotos on wiki entry about you Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:49:34 -0400

Hello [SummerFR],

I am checking with the appropriate people at MyFlorida and will get back in touch with you as soon as I get a response. Thank you very much for checking with us.

Sincerely,

Alia

________________________________

---

Original Message-----

From: [SummerFR] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:12 PM To: Jeb Bush Subject: Permission request to use myflorida.com photos on wiki entry about you

Dear Gov Bush,

Is it OK with you that I post photos from myflorida.com in a wikipedia entry I am writing about you?

If there is someone else I need to contact, kindly let me know.

Below is a request I received from wiki, and my reply. I will be sharing

your reply here with wiki.

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely, [my real name deleted here in post on wiki page for Jeb discussion] aka SummerFR on wikipedia.com

---

Copyrighted photos from myflorida.com

Hi SummerFR, I see that you have added many photos to Jeb Bush that you have labeled as "Courtesy of myflorida.com." Thank you for indicating the source. However, I am concerned that this may be an inappropriate use of copyrighted images. The page "Copyright Statement: Conditions of Use" on that site [1] explicitly states: "No material from MyFlorida.com ... may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way.... For purposes of this Agreement, the use of any such material on any other Web site or networked computer environment is prohibited." It is important for Wikipedia to avoid infringing on copyrights, especially because the contents of Wikipedia are freely redistributed under the GFDL. There is more information about this at Wikipedia:Image use policy.

I think it would be best if these images were removed from Wikipedia, unless you can obtain explicit permission to use them. According to my understanding of Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale, they do not qualify. At least, they should be tagged as described at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please obtain and document permission, or remove the images.

Thank you, FreplySpang (talk) 22:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

FreplySpang, Thanks for your nice message here and for your format help. I appreciate it. I am not yet as familiar with wiki format.

Please do not remove any photos yet. I believe I can get you what you need if you give me some time. Thanks. SummerFR

_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

Photo Discussion, Continued

• BaronLarf, I can not tell if you have seen my latest response to you about your concern over the myflorida.com photos, as I do not yet see any response from you

on the Jeb article discussion page. However, FYI, I did post an email response there that I received today from Gov Bush's spokeswoman, and I hope that satisfies you for now. Also, for the reasons I stated in my last response on the discussion page -- my belief that any lawyer will want to see how the photos are being used -- I intend to restore all photos as I had them, to enable those lawyers next week to see them on the page. I am asking that you leave those photos up for that purpose, since getting an answer is what both you and I seek, and I feel we will get an answer if they know what we are talking about. They will not know if you keep deleting the photos. In addition, I will later write to you a longer response on the discussion page of the Jeb article, outlining the reasons for a complaint I have about every single political and historical biography entry I have thus far read on wikipedia, and my complaint is this: there are not enough photos on those pages. There should have been more, and I will make my case about this. Consequently, in my view, as an educator and someone who wants to support the goals of wikipedia, the real problem here is not that I have posted too many photos, but that not enough photos have been posted on other wiki entries. That is something we can perhaps discuss more after you consider my reasoning, to come. Thanks, SummerFR 01:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding Gov Bush's spokeswoman, Alia Faraj, and her myflorida.com email address, on her above email to me -- I have left up her email address, intact, for several hours since posting it today, but, now I am deleting it, so that she is not spammed in any way by a person here or elsewhere. Thanks, all, for understanding, SummerFR 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

copied from SummerFR's TALK page are these four messages about this topic:

• Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are constantly subject to change, so you really can't show a "final" version of how the photos will be used. Also, if the photos stay in Wikipedia, you cannot control how they will be used in other Wikipedia articles. Here is some information that copyright holders need to know about allowing images to be used on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission. I understand your commitment to well-illustrated articles, but I still think the best longterm solution would be to remove these particular photos from Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 01:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate the info here. In the longterm solution area - I have been thinking about that, too, but my idea and solution is very different from yours, though I am too tired to suggest it right now. Maybe tomorrow. But, thanks again for the info here. SummerFR 01:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Okay. Just to let you know, I am thinking of asking a more experienced Wikipedian to take a look at the situation here. I don't have much experience with getting permission for images, and I want to make sure that everyone involved (me, you, the copyright holders of the photos) has the same idea of what kind of permission is necessary for images to be used on Wikipedia. I would hate to see you go to all this effort to wind up with unusable images. FreplySpang (talk) 01:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• That's OK with me. But, I would just add: there is already someone else on my case! LOL... (BaronLarf). So, however many more people want to join the discussion is fine with me, as I really do have a number of points I would like to make, in addition to what I have already said about both the Jeb article and other wiki biography-articles. Also, I would like to emphasize I am not a lawyer, nor am I a spokesperson for Gov Bush. Consequently, talking only with me, while interesting to me due to the issue, will only go so far. Obviously, other people on other sides of this will have to be involved. And, again, it is only Saturday, less than one day since I emailed Gov Bush about this issue. (And, I have only been here on wiki for a week, so I don't know every rule and policy and guideline in existence here.) I am somewhat flattered, however, that my writing about Jeb Bush is a subject that seems to have quickly attracted so much attention on this site (although I could have finished the article by now, as I wanted to "finish" my contribution, without the disturbance by the sneaky vandal.) Thanks for your message here on my Talk Page. I will copy our dialogue onto the discussion page about Jeb Bush since that's where other messages are located re this photo topic. SummerFR 02:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

copied from BaronLarf's TALK page are these messages about this topic:

Jeb Bush photos

Hi BaronLarf,

I was close to putting all the photos up on WP:CP too. But I figured it couldn't hurt to try to have a conversation about them with SummerFR first, especially because SummerFR is new to Wikipedia. I was surprised when s/he got into emailing the Bush folks for permission. It doesn't seem likely to me that the copyright holders will release the images under GFDL. Now I'm feeling a little over my head, and I'm thinking of asking someone with more Wikipedia experience to look in on things. I'm worried that the Bush folks will grant some kind of permission that will be incompatible with Wikipedia, and it will turn into a big confusing mess.

Also, yes, the article is POV and I'm trying to think of ways to NPOV-ify it. I know that Mother Jones ran a lengthy article about his ties to Big Sugar that tend to, hmm, undercut his claims of environmentalism. FreplySpang (talk) 01:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Freply Spang, I don't know what "POV" means in wiki talk, but I am guessing it means you think the article is too slanted pro-Jeb. The last link I added, in the concluding paragraph, is an opinion piece that I think is decidely anti-Jeb. Have you read it? What did you think of it? I added that in an effort to appease you, but it seems you want something akin to an in-depth analysis of the sort that Mother Jones can publish.

If you are willing to write opinion pieces or whatever, to extend the article, to a much longer version, and that is something wiki wants in an encyclopedia, well, then, do it. But, as I said to you or someone else, I honestly don't think any encyclopedia entry is the place to attempt to denigrate someone's acomplishments -- and, believe it or not, even while there is of course criticism one can make in every area about every governor, there are, in fact, MANY environmental accomplishments of this particular governor, in terms of expanding the preservation of land, helping endangered species, and a long list of other things I could name. You might be surprised to know that environmental groups -- none of which I belong to or head, by the way -- have not only endorsed Gov Bush in the past, but have given awards and honors to him, to reflect his comittment to the environement. Yes, it's true. Believe it or not. BTW, do you live in Florida as I do? Do you know these things as people in Florida do? That's why people vote for him. People here care about the environment, deeply, whether they head an environmental group or not. And, any governor who didn't care at all would not last very long in this state. Any rational person would tell you the same thing I am telling you. But, people out of state tend to thinmk they are experts about this state, when guess what - they are not. They like to come and protest here and the rest of the state gets polled by newspapers, and big surprise, no one in the state agrees with the out of the state protesters. It has happened constantly, in every controversy here, from One Florida on down. One Florida, for example, has 66% approval rating in this state. Do the busloads of protesters that have come from out of state to Florida to protest One Florida even know that? I will guess not. But the Miami Herald knows it, as they did the polling.

No, they do not all agree with him on every issue, and yes, there are controversies in Florida, and yes, I intend to mention that fact if you would only give me a chance to write all the text I would like to write, but, people like you seem way too eager to highlight one issue over a record that is a lot more than one or two issues in any area. It might be painful for you to know environmental groups have given him awards, but, I can prove to you they have.

Does Mother Jones ever want to write an article about that fact? Should that fact be mentioned in an encyclopedia? Is it so terrible that myflorida may want to cooperatie with wiki? These are fundamental issues for discussions on a political forum, not a forum about the gathering of knowledge, in a non-partisian way.

I notice that after a flurry of messages to me from you and BaronLarf about those photos, neither of you directly responded to me by mentioning that email, after I posted that email from myflorida. I think it was very nice of Gov Bush to respond so promptly to your concerns, on a weekend no less. But, does he ever get credit, from certain people, for something like being so responsible and easily accessible to the public, a hallmark of his many years in office? The answer, sadly in my view, is no, he never will. It doesn't mean he's right on every issue, but, he does try to do things that other leaders, and believe me I know this, would never do. SummerFR 04:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hi SummerFR,

Yes, "POV" is Wikipedia shorthand for "point-of-view." Wikipedia articles try for a "neutral point of view," as described in this policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. So when someone says an article is POV, it means that it is slanted away from the neutral. As I have mentioned to you, your writing does not come across as neutral. Adding on an external link is helpful and interesting, but does not change the point of view of the article as a whole.

You are misunderstanding my position when you characterize me as a "one issue" person. I am not looking for "in-depth analysis." I am not an expert on Jeb Bush, so I mentioned the Mother Jones article as one possible source of information from another perspective. I am trying to find ways to bring the article to a more neutral point of view.

If myflorida.com grants permission for the images to be used, that's fine with me. I just don't think their lawyers are likely to permit them to release all those photos under the GFDL, which is what Wikipedia asks. A good summary of the effects of the GFDL can be found [[2]].

If you want a place on Wikipedia to work on article drafts, you can create subpages of your user page. For instance, if you click on this link: User:SummerFR/Jeb Bush Draft it will give you a page that nobody else will edit. Then when you have finished it to your liking, you can copy its contents to the main article Jeb Bush. Whatever you put in the main article is subject to edits by others.

It's great that you find Gov. Bush to be responsive to Floridians in general, but major public figures don't usually read their own email (at least not the addresses that are publicly available). It would take up all their time and then some. So it didn't occur to me to comment on the fact that someone answered your email.

I encourage you to review the policy on neutral point of view or the NPOV tutorial (which is a much quicker read). -- FreplySpang (talk) 05:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• FreplySpang, I appreciate your info, and I am glad you didn't respond in a negative way to what I said, because I honestly was not seeking to be rude; I am just feeling exasperated at this moment. Instead of being able to simply finish the article as I would like to contribute to it, I am constantly sidetracked - with a vandal, constant restorations of photo, answering messages, etc. I just want to finish the article, then entertain your comments about it. I think it is much more neutral than you think it is; but that is because you may genuinely (and it's OK if you do) dislike him, while I genuinely feel the opposite, though I believe I can be fair about a limited entry in an encyclopedia. Instead of me reading your links, why don't you write a paragraph or two or three or more than you would like to see in an article about Jeb Bush, and I will give you my honest opinion? Maybe in the meanwhile I can finish what I would like to write. And, then, maybe between your writing and my writing we can find a compromise we can both live with. Right now the part that I am guessing you are finding most objectionable is the part I have not even started writing yet, and that is his record as governor. You write what you want - seriously. And I will write, too. Then, let's work together in a spirit of compromise. I am williing to do that. But, as for other sections already on about his background, I honestly think if you took out the name "JEB BUSH" and didn't know who this text was about, you would say: WOW! SOUNDS GREAT! But, because it's HIM, well, that response is out of the question. Maybe that's an experiment we can try on others - let them read the text without knowing who it is about, and see what they think. To me, it reads like any other bio in terms of fairness. The real issue of fairness is in his record as governor, which again, I haven't even been able to get to yet!!! Thanks for your message and info. SummerFR 05:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR— Welcome to the world of Wikipedia. Articles are not owned by any one user, and any user and should edit them to make the article meet a high standard of quality. One of these standards is that the article should not have an unobjective point of view (called POV here). FreplySpang, myself and others are merely trying to make sure this article meets this standard and others. I myself am a Republican; I'm not out to defame Jeb Bush. But I know that Wikipedia is not served by having only one perspective. Perhaps you believe that it is neutral, but the last few sections do indeed read as a haigiography.

Please stop changing back the stylistic improvements that I have been adding to the article. They are too numerous for me to name them all, but I'll try. Captions should be succinct. (See Wikipedia:Captions.) When I remove text from a caption, I put it into the main part of the article in order to make the caption more to the point. Copyright notices do not need to be in the caption; that information goes into the picture in the form of a tag (See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags). Random words throughout the article should not be bolded. Emdashes (—), which are marked up as —, take the place of "--". And so on. We don't expect you to be familiar with all of these policies; that's why we're fixing them up. But it just creates more work for us when you undo them all.

I agree with everything FreplySpang says about the photorgaphs. And again, please consider using the preview button more often; you have 22 edits on this article in four hours. That's an really high number. We're not trying to impede your additions to the article, we're just trying to work together with you to get the best article possible. Cheers.--BaronLarf 08:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree with either one of you at this point, since no one has ever given an example of what word or phrase they do not like. I have just sent this message, below, to both of you on your talk pages. Please do feel free to start a list of what you object to that I have written in the article; Thanks SummerFR

Request for info

FreplySpang, to you, too, as I just wrote this Baronlarf:

• BaronLarf, Please post on the Jeb Bush discussion page a list of all the words, phrases you find objectionable and you think should be changes, so I can know what you are talking about specifically. Thanks. SummerFR 09:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why I Think Wiki Should Be Encouraging More Photos In Its Historical Biographical Articles of Famous People

by SummerFR

I am writing this in an effort to make clear why I was disappointed to see so few photos in wiki entries I recently read. I realize the reason for so few photos may be because people did not have photos or did not want to give the photos, or, maybe the photos were available but the creators of the pages did not want the photos, or, perhaps wiki did not want them.

But, I was hoping to see more photos in the articles I read about political people here, as these articles are "the best' of wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Politics_and_government

I used a lot of photos in the article I am contributing to at present, which I will not name, since it seems to be too much of a hot button issue to even mention the name of the subject for some people. But, here is why I used a lot of photos:

1) wiki's goal - to expand knowledge. Photos help to impart knowledge about someone who is a historical figure in this day and age.

2) wiki's intended audience - I read on a wiki page a very astute piece of advice for writers, advising them not to assume the readers of a wiki article knows anything, since wiki is worldwide and people are coming from varied backgrounds. In light of this intended audience, more photos can only help. That doesn't mean a 100 photos on a page, but it does perhaps mean more than the very slim number of photos I saw on those bios on that URL above.

3) wiki in the online 21st century - Not only are we are living in a visual world, with a young population that has developed and grown up on visuals as a medium of learning, but we are also online with those learners. Consequently, if it does not do so, wiki should not only be open to more photos, but also to links to web sites/films/videos/etc and anything else of a visual nature that might help impart knowldge about a text. Obviously, an online encyclopedia is different than an offline one.

4) Think more about young learners using wiki and put yourself in the role of a teacher. In my mind, here is what I can hear students asking me as I show them links from the above URL:

(1) After seeing the wiki page on Barack Obama, a student may ask: "Well, it says here on the wiki article that Barack was bron in Hawaii. Does that mean he was born in a hut?" (Barack's parents are Harvard educated and I am guessing NO hut was the place of his birth, but where is a photo of his home in Hawaii or Chicago or anywhere else? Some kids, of any color, think all black people are born in the ghetto. Can you help me to teach them otherwise? Without a photo of his nice home also on the wiki page, you are not doing any teacher any favors in this regard.)

(2) After looking at the wiki page on Margaret Thatcher, a student may ask: "She lives in England. Is there a White House in England, too? Or was she like a queen in a castle?" The student is figuring out that Margaret Thatcher had something to do with political power, but the words "10 Downing Street" don't mean much to that kid at this point. A photo would have meant a lot, though.

(3) After looking at the wiki page on John Major and seeing the heading "media Representation" a student will no doubt ask: What is that? Surely there is one political cartoon somewhere in the universe of John Major that is not too insulting that could have been on this page. Then, that kid would have had more of a clue: it means something like THIS visual. In the newspapers. Instead, the teacher has to go and get the example to show the student when the example could have, and should have, been on that page.

(4) Also on John Major: "Why does the wiki article say Brixont, England is like the capital of Jamaica? Is the weather warmer in that part of England?" This is how kids think. They try. But, you could help them out more, too, you know. And, a photo is often what helps kids, especially kids who do not speak English as a first language.

5) My own experience with reading biographies was I was a child was this: I read every bio in my elementary school library that was published by one particular publisher, because that series of books had drawings throughout the book. It was fascinating to see how people may have dressed, or worn their hair, or what kind of house they had, at THAT MOMENT IN TIME, because these were all historical bios. I did not choose the other bios to read. Because those other ones did not have the visuals to help me imagine what life was like for that person back when. Maybe you can also recall reading a bio way back when that had drawings. If so, that may have been the series I was reading, too.

6) Biographies today, when published for kids, usually include a LOT of photos. You would think you are reading a picture book if you ever picked up and read the bio of Ben & Jerry I read not long ago in an elementary school.

And, I realize wiki is not an elementary school library.

But, in your effort to reach all people, and new readers perhaps, and readers unfamiliar with the meaning of text, perhaps you need to rethink how few photos are in those current bios you post as teh best bios. As good as those bios may be, none at all were what I would consider as sufficient to meeting the needs of your intended audience or the goals of this site because of the lack of visuals.

Any teacher knows that a developing reader will stick with a text longer is there is something other than words on a page.

I hope nothing I have said here is offensive to anyone. I think wiki has a great gift to offer the world.

But, I do believe photos of historical people, in their wiki entries, should be encouraged, and not discouraged.

It would serve the fundamental purposes of this site and its intended audience.

Thanks for letting me have my say here. I appreciate it.

SummerFR 08:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR, I understand your point that photos improve an article. I don't think anyone is disputing that idea. There are a couple of problems with the photos that you've added, though. 1. The photos aren't particularly high quality. It looks unprofessional to have grainy pictures in an article, and we generally try to avoid that. 2. The copyright issue. SummerFR, please try to understand why we can't rush out and grab any pictures we see off the internet to put in our articles. Pictures that are placed in Wikipedia fall under what is known as "GFDL." This is a set of permissions that govern how the pictures can be used by others. If a picture is placed here, other people are allowed to take the picture from Wikipedia and use it in a variety of ways. This is from the page on the GFDL permissions that FreplySpang linked to above: This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely. Many, if not most, professional photographers are reluctant to allow their pictures to be used, copied, and freely shared. This is a large part of the reason you don't see pictures in every Wikipedia article: getting permission from the photographers can be difficult, once they understand what our license actually entails. Joyous 02:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

List Your "Objectionable Words and Phrases" From Jeb Article Here

OK, here is space for the list. If you have an example, anyone, go to it, and place it here! Kindly note the following though:

1) When a person negociates the first ever trade agreement with a Latin American country between a state in the US and that country, and it is truly the first agreement of its kind for that region, well, that is "permanently changing the landscape" of the world. There was no trading before between that country and ours. The world has now changed. It will never be the same again, because someone, let's say that someone's initials are JB, finally did it. No one else did it before.

2) When a person creates te first charter school in the state, or the first faith based prison in the country, or the first web site for a state, or any one of a very long lists of firsts I could name, well, that too is "permanently changing the landscape of a state."

3) When a person's ideas for education reform are tried out when he is governor, and then some of those ideas become the basis for a nation's education reform law called No Child Left Behind, well, that too is a change. That too is permamently changing the landscape, but this time, of a nation.

I could go on. But, if you have a better way to describe all this than I did in my concluding sentence, let's hear it.

SummerFR 09:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• BaronLarf,, Please stop reverting my edits that I just stayed up all night to do because of the reason I already explained to you. You asked me for permission about the photos. I got you an email from myflorida. com You were silent when I posted that email. I put all the photos back so those lawyers could see them. Now you are going back in and changing all my work yet again. Please stop it. It is annoying. You are not doing anything that is helpful to your alleged complaint of pro=Jeb slant. You are just doing what you want, no matter than I got you an email and asked you to stop so the lawyers could see. Please stop it now. If you are so big on woiki rules, then you know you can not keep reverting back that page 3X in 24 hours as yo have done. So, stop it. SummerFR

Accusing someone of three reverts in 24 hours is a serious accusation. I have not done this. I suggest you learn more about it before leveling a charge like that again. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. --BaronLarf 09:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Here's the charge you almost leveled against me when I was here less than one week:

I'm tempted to send them all to WP:IFD --BaronLarf 17:12, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting for your list of objections to the article. And, your comment on the email. And, your agreement to leave me in peace. If you want to arbitrate this matter with wiki,

please do so. I am feeling very harassed by you at this moment due to your constant editing out of photos I have asked you to leave in for lawyers to see. SummerFR 09:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) And by the way: Here's how much time I now feel I spend dealing with harassment as opposed to contributing: 100 to 1 at this site. And, also - where are all these other Republican pages you have such a problem with, and you mention on your Talk page? You ask me for permission under threat of reporting me, and I get it for you. Then you are back to editing me out after five hours of my work. No, I didn't get to do anything I wanted to do tonight, again. You can count 400 or 22 edits but it's always work I do just to create what I want. When do I get a chance without you on my back or someone else on my case as I am trying to contribute? Is the subject matter of this article really that objectionable to you??? So far y ou haven't listed one objection yet, and neither has anyone else. SummerFR 09:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR — there's no need to trade accusations here. WP:IFD is the place where pictures go to be debated about their deletion. I had considered doing that since they violate Wikipedia policy over copyright status. I'm not "reporting you" or something, don't worry. The only edits that I made, which I then listed in the talk page, consisted of replacing stylistic changes to the articles which I had made once and you then removed. I provided you several links regarding my reasons for doing so.

I'm not trying to pester you; you've made major changes to an important article, and you shouldn't expect that you can just edit the article on your own without the imput of others. I regret that you think that you were not able to do what you wanted to do tonight. Perhaps you could write the article offsite and then post your work on here when it's all completed. That would also cut down on the number of edits, I would think.

Now, regarding language that is not neutral.

• "How Jeb Bush changed history"
• "Neither McBride nor Reno had any expertise in what polls showed was the top issue to Florida voters: Education."
• "Perhaps even more notable to those who like to study election results is the following: back in Jeb Bush's initial race for governor in 1994, it was reported Bush lost by the smallest margin of votes in Florida history; however, after running on his 1st term record in his 2002 campaign for a 2nd term, Jeb Bush won by the largest margin of votes in Florida history!"
• "How Jeb Bush changed economic history"
• "How Jeb Bush changed education history"
• "Jeb Bush's proven appeal to Florida's highly diverse group of voters, along with his groundbreaking 2nd term and irrefutable success in expanding the so-called "big tent" of the Florida Republican Party he heads, appears to have propelled him into a commanding political position, with unlimited future leadership opportunities."
• "Jeb Bush is certain to be remembered (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/20/Perspective/Seven_year_itch.shtml) for much more than his famous name. He is a leader who remains committed to his traditional beliefs, while championing many innovations in Florida, all of which results in an on-going and varied list of historic changes. State governors routinely attempt to modify policy, but rarely does one governor's personal vision permanently alter the landscape of a state, a nation and the world."

Just for starters. My issues isn't so much with any one sentence as much as it is with the overall tone, mentioning only one (perfectly valid) point of view. I apologize for making you wait a few hours before responding; I needed to sleep. Cheers.--BaronLarf 19:23, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Here is my response:

1) You continue to ignore and continue to fail to acknowledge the email I posted here above from my florida.com and Gov Bush's spokeswoman, Alia Farej, even though you pestered and pestered me about permission to usse images before. Have you lost interest in this matter? FrelySpang seems to have bowed out, according to her message to me on my Talk Page, after she too appeared so concerned about photo copyrights. It seems to me the concern only lasts if you can harass a person, but if permission appears like it might be forthcoming, you and others go silent. Interesting.

2) You are falsely accusing me in your above comments by saying "you made major changes to an important article.". For your information, I am the ONLY one who made NO MAJOR CHANGES WHATSOEVER TO THE ARTICLE I FOUND HERE A WEEK AGO which NOT ONE PERSON HAD WORKED ON IN WHAT I BELIEVE WERE MONTHS. So please, you and others, stop saying "I" made "major changes." I did no such thing. I am the only one who respected the text that was there. What I did was ADD NEW TEXT IN OTHER NEW SECTIONS. There was a poster here, JEZ, who didn't care that others had discussed text; he went ahead and made major changes to THEIR original text which a WIKI ADMIN then RESTORED as stated on this page. So, get your facts straight.

Adding new sections to an article is considered to be a "major change." Joyous 03:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

3) You last complaint above about my last sentence was already anticipated by me, and already answered by me, above., just for starters. So, what is YOUR response to MY statement regarding the last sentence of the article? I asked you if you have a better suggestion on how to write that. I'm still waiting for your better suggestion.

4) I would also like to know how and why you think my new headings are "not neutral." When a person changes history, it seems to me a perfectly neutral heading is "HOW THAT PERSON CHANGED HISTORY." What do you suggest is more "neutral" than that?

5) A true fact is a true fact, and it was exactly as I stated: "Neither Mc Bride nor Reno had any expertise,..." What is not "neutral" about stating that fact as I stated it? What is your suggestion?

6) What is not "neutral" about an opening sentence that accurately sums up everything I just wrote and proved in the article? (Re: "Jeb Bush's proven appeal....")

Just for starters, what is really your problem appears to me to be this: You don't like the subject of the article. It's not that you want it "neutral" it's that you want it and me to go away.

Here is my response to that: Other people do appreciate true information, and that is what I am providing.

I still haven't finished what I would like to contribute. I am too tired to do anything on this article this week, so to all the vandals out there reading this, go and have your fun. I am exhausted from the harassment here. It is extremely sad to me.

SummerFR 23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS I am still waiting for you to document your big problem with Republican articles, as you stated on your Talk Page. And, though you claim to be a Republican, who does not like the president, and that is fine with me, I am not afilliated with any political party. And, for your information, Florida is home to lots of independent voters like me. SummerFR 23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR — please calm down. I am not attacking you. You asked me what my problems were with the article and I told you. I do indeed appreciate "true information," but I also value a neutral article.

(My problem with most articles about Republicans is that they are overly biased the other way — the one on George W. Bush used to spend way to much time on the national guard and alleged drug abuse and not enough on real issues. Recently it seems to have gotten better, though. I didn't address this before on this talk page because I didn't think it was applicable)

First, I think the claim that Jeb Bush has changed the world is dubious, at best. Even if he did, the heading just isn't encyclopedic. Franklin Roosevelt and Julius Caesar changed the world. They do not have headings on their pages saying "How FDR/Julius Caesar changed the world."

When I say "major changes", I mean as opposed to a minor edit. Again, I recommend you read a bit more about how Wikipedia works before telling me to get my facts straight.

Just because an editor, FreplySpang in this case, decides that he does not have the time to delve in to an intense discussion on an article or image does not make his concerns any less valid. Those pictures currently still do violate the copyright policy, unless the State of Florida releases the images for use under the GFDL.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "So, what is YOUR response to MY statement regarding the last sentence of the article? I asked you if you have a better suggestion on how to write that. I'm still waiting for your better suggestion."

If you wish, you can leave the text the way you have it, and let someone with a different point of view add common crticisms on Jeb Bush. I don't expect you, an apparent supporter of Jeb, to necessarily write this. When I wrote that this article needed NPOV'ing here, it was a call for other editors with the necessary knowledge to step up and improve it, not for you to necessarily stop what you were doing.

Despite what you may think (and what you're posting on other people's talk pages), I don't have a problem with Jeb Bush, not at all. Nor am I trying to harrass you. I'm just trying to make this article better. I wish that we could work together on this rather than battling. I hope that when you decide to return, we can. Cheers. --BaronLarf 00:26, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. — I second what FreplySpang said in your talk page. If you feel that you need to write unimpeded, try writing your article here: User:SummerFR/Jeb Bush Draft and then paste it into the Jeb Bush article when you are finished.

The way I read your response is this: You have ignored everything I wrote, and I could repeat everything I wrote in response, but I won't.

As to Jeb Bush changing the world, reread what I wrote about that, above, in my defense of the last sentence which you have ignored.

And, as to your more neutral suggestions, I see this: NONE. you have ignored my request for that.

As for your long list of Republican articles that are such a problem, I see you have mentioned ONE name. But, that one name warrants a whole section on your Talk Page as a major problem you are devoted too? Try being NEUTRAL in your categorizing of what you are doing. ONE article you worked on is not a "Republican problem" you are having at this site. I have been harassed here more in a short week than you have been bothered by Republican articles on this entire site, of that I am sure.

So, yes., it would be fun to work with you - but since you ignore my responses, and have no "neutral" texdt suggestions, our relationship would be a bit one-sided, no?

And, I don't appreciate another false accusation from you here: "Despite what you may think (and what you're posting on other people's talk pages)....l." I have no idea what you are talking about re "posting on other people's talk pages" about you.

All in all, you sure spend a lot of time on me: counting my edits, following me around, taking BOLD off a CAPTION in a section about CHANGING HISTORY so that a reader now can NOT quickly grasp the article. Is there no other article on this entire site as deserving of your attention?

And, again, you still ignore the email from myflorida. com that I have repeatedly mentioned to you, and asked you to acknowledge. As for your suggestions to me, I have one for you: since you're really NOT helpful, please leave me alone.

And, as I told you already, I am an independent.

Seems to me a lot of people -- in this state -- understand exactly what I mean. I realize you don't. SummerFR 01:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS Your pal Frely Spang already split, as an email from myflorida.com was apparently too much for her to handle.

SummerFR — I am finding it hard to keep replying to you in a cordial tone. I have answered every question that you have posed to the best of my abilities. I do not follow you around. I have seen your email. I am working on plenty of other pages; look at my user contributions. Your political affiliation does not concern me. I have referred this article for peer review so others can weigh-in on the article. FreplySpang is not my "pal;" I have never encountered him before editing this article. I have no plans to "leave well enough alone;" I will not stop striving for an accurate and neutral article. Cheers. --BaronLarf 01:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi SummerFR and everyone. No, my real life is too much to handle. (And if BaronLarf were my pal he would know that I'm a "her"!) I don't understand why you are waving that email message around so much. It does not grant permission for the use of the photos. All it says is that the spokesperson will ask someone else if the photos may be used. I appreciate your efforts in contacting the copyright holder but they have not given you any answer yet. Please listen to Mel Etitis; he is an experienced Wikipedia member. And I honestly hope your headache goes away soon. FreplySpang (talk) 21:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR, come, do you really think that titles such as How Jeb Bush changed history, How Jeb Bush changed economic history and so on are not titles from a specific point of view? I read your arguments above for why you believe the titles are accurate. I'm not doubting that he changed history, but my question is: who didn't change history?

Anyone that gets placed in a history book or in the news has changed history. Every politician and every mother who gave birth to a politician changed history. Did Jeb change history more than Albert Einstein did, more than Marie Curie, more than George Washington, more than George W. Bush did? Wherever you draw the line of which achievements get ranked as "history-changing" is going to be from a single point of view, and, if we're going to rank them, shouldn't everyone above the line get a heading "How so-and-so changed history"? Clearly not: it's lunacy.

On another note, calling the edits of all other editors who edit your work "harassment" won't get you very far. The point of this project is to write articles in collaboration, and that specifically means allowing others to edit, or even remove, your work. If this system isn't to your liking you should feel free to write your own articles elsewhere on the web (you can even copy material from Wikipedia), but while you're here you're going to have to understand that you can only get your way by compromising or by convincing others that you are right, not by brute force. — Asbestos | Talk 22:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More harassment

From peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Jeb Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

< Wikipedia:Peer review

[edit]

Jeb Bush

This article has had many recent updates by a new user, but is in need of some NPOV editing by someone familiar with Jeb Bush. In addition, there are disputes over many of the pictures used in the article, which appear to have been lifted from the state of Florida's website and do not have copyright tags on them. I have tried to address my concerns on the talk page and through contacting other users individually, but it has started to descend into an open dispute between myself and SummerFR in spite of all of my efforts to work together. I hope that by listing it on peer review some other users could help get this article to be both accurate and neutral, as well as helping with the photo issues.--BaronLarf 01:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have been harassed nonstop for the one week I have been here because of my attempt -- repeat: ATTEMPT -- to make my contributions to this article. The person above has repeatedly made false accusations against me as discussed on the discussion page for this article. He or she is apparently so concerned that Jeb Bush might get credit for one of his many achievements that the above USER is driving me crazy -- following me around, counting my edits and announcing the number when he posts on the article, constantly deleting photos and reverting my work, failing to answer my questions, and ignoring my responses to his questions, and ignoring an email from myflorida.com that he pestered me for under threat of action against me. This is not a "neutral" concern as he claims for "peer review." What he or she has done is called blantant harassment, and it is continuous and persistant against me.

I have never been as harassed as badly anywhere online as I have been on this site and I am familiar with many web site forums from all sides of the political aisle. The liberals at this site who hate Jeb Bush are really ruining this site for the people who want to learn about him. I am not doing any more work on this article for a week at least since my contributions are constantly destroyed for no reason. I am hoping to get rid of a migraine headache brought on by the above poster and others including a poster named JEZ. I appreciate the one wiki administrator who restored text to this article, MATINI2005, however no administrator is any match for the nonstop harassment by the above poster, BaronLarf. SummerFR 03:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really do not believe that this is the place to air grievances, so I won't respond to them here. I am only trying to get others to look the article over. Cheers. --BaronLarf 03:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

"Peer Review" is for completed articles being nominated for an award and honor as "feature article." Since the JEB article is not finished, and since you are certainly not trying to honor it, this matter of your harassment against me really belongs in the forum I said, called arbitration. As you know so much about wikipedia, feel free to start the correct process. It is not "peer review." SummerFR 03:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, still waiting for your acknowledgement of Alia Farej, Gov Bush's spokesperson, and her email re the photo copyrights, and I posted that email and pointed it out to you repeatedly on the article discussion page. Yet, here, again, you are pretending no such email exists when it does, and it is posted. SummerFR 03:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR 03:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is the email again, posted now for the 2nd time on this discussion page, after being demanded, and then ignored, by BaronLarf.

From: "Faraj, Alia" [her myflorida.com email address deleted] To: [SummerFR] CC: [myflorida.com and Gov Bush] Subject: FW: Permission request to use myflorida.com phhotos on wiki entry about you Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:49:34 -0400

Hello [SummerFR],

I am checking with the appropriate people at MyFlorida and will get back in touch with you as soon as I get a response. Thank you very much for checking with us.

Sincerely,

Alia

________________________________

Original Message-----

From: [SummerFR] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:12 PM To: Jeb Bush Subject: Permission request to use myflorida.com photos on wiki entry about you

Dear Gov Bush,

Is it OK with you that I post photos from myflorida.com in a wikipedia entry I am writing about you?

If there is someone else I need to contact, kindly let me know.

Below is a request I received from wiki, and my reply. I will be sharing

your reply here with wiki.

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely, [my real name deleted here in post on wiki page for Jeb discussion] aka SummerFR on wikipedia.com

SummerFR — How am I harassing you? What is served by copying the entire email again here? You've posted this email once before on this article. Why are you posting it again? It still has not received a reply, plus your email does not include any mention of the WP:GFDL, so even if they do give an affirmative reply, it would not allow wikipedia to use the images. I have posted the page on WP:RfC, so hopefully someone else can come in and help us out. We're losing sight of the objective; writing a neutral and comprehensive article. Cheers. --BaronLarf 04:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Leave me alone. SummerFR 04:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know nothing about Jeb Bush. However, I see a mountain of edits by SummerFR, a few mild edits by others, and then claims of interference by SummerFR. Nobody owns this page. My 2 cents. Wizzy…☎ 09:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR: It's hard not to agree with Wizzy. There is no sign of harrassment, but you are offending against Wikipedia:Wikiquette by your behaviour. The claims that those striving for neutrality are prejudiced is a particular giveaway that you're editing from (and attempting to impose on the article) a certain point of view. That should also stop. Finally, see Wikipedia:Headings.

To BaronLarf: the right place to go would have been RfA rather than peer review. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you; there has been NON STOP harassment, if you read the history of the editing and this talk page. Also, I am astonished that you, an admin, would make major changes to the article in the midst of arbitration, and after I posted a CONTROVERSIAL notice on the article. You should have left the article alone instead of deleting "THE HONORABLE GOVERNOR JEB BUSH" from the top of the info box. The only reason I placed that there was because I was following format of OTHER historical biographical articles in the wiki features section that ALSO HAVE AN "HONORABLE" in the title of the subject public figure, as such is also a term used here. At this moment I feel you are harassing me, too, in light of that edit you made and your rush to judgement here. SummerFR 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing about a controversial notice or arbitration that requires anyone to refrain from editing this article. Gamaliel 17:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nor am I saying such. SummerFR 18:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR: First, calm down; the use of capitals is seen as shouting, and it doesn't do you any good. Secondly, I made no substantial changes to the article. Thirdly, in any case, there is no reason for anyone not to edit the article; there is no arbitration in play — only peer review and RfC. Fourthly, the fact that you're describing my minor edits and my single comment as harassment sheds some light on your claims about BaronLarf. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know what ALL CAPS MEANS. I also know a little more about grammar than you do. SummerFR 18:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) And your insistance at deleting a wiki format title like THE HONORABLE at ths point in time sheds a whole lot of light on what you are about. SummerFR 18:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. If you know what the use of capitals means, then you're deliberately shouting, which makes it worse.
2. That you think that the change of the pronoun "he" to the use of his Christian name is a matter of correcting grammar is perplexing,. Note, though, that an encyclopædia article shouldn't refer to its subjects by their Christian names; that's more suitable to the style of a fanzine.
3. I've looked at every one of Bush's predecessors, none of whom has the title, in all capitals, "The honorable..." in the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to your page, you do not live in America, and FYI, all governors in this country have that title. I checked the way certain leaders's bios in wiki features were formatted and the ones I saw - British, by the way - had that title as well. So, you are removing a title known in England, and also used in America, without knowing what you are doing. If wiki's list of governors don't include that title, and I have not examined that page, then, in my view, it is an error on their part. "Honorable" is a traditional title in both your country and America, as far as I know. And, why you would remove it, without discussion first, is what makes me believe you had unethical motives. You also lie when you edit, claiming you have to keep reverting my EDITS (plural) when I made only ONE edit. You have repeatedly done that. You and everyone else who hates Jeb Bush's guts make it impossible for anyone else to learn anything. VERY UNFAIR AND YES THAT IS IN ALL CAPS. SummerFR 19:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC

I am sorry I yelled at you. But I am not sorry I corrected the grammar you keep destroying. It should not be "perplexing" why repeating "HE" as often in that paragraph is bad grammar. SummerFR

Also, to the person who deleted the Controversial label from this page. Please knock it off. When people see it, they can click it and find out what is going on here by what I wrote as the reason for me posting that label. So, kindly stop preventing people from learning. That seems to be a big goal of some people here: preventing the transmission of knowledge. Odd. SummerFR 19:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. It's not a question as to the correctness of the title, but as to whether and how it should be used in a Wikipedia article.
2. Accusing other editors of lying is a personal attack (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Also it's mistaken; I used the admins' "rollback" to revert your edit, and the text is automatically generated. And besides, the question as to whether it was one or more edits is hardly important enough to provoke aggressive and insulting language.
3. I don't "hate Jeb Bush's guts"; leaving aside the intemperate language, you have to stp assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is bigoted (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith).
4. The question of the use of 'he' isn't one of grammar, but of style. There's nothing wrong with repeating pronouns, but there is something odd about referring to the subject of an encyclopædia article by his Christian name, as I explained above.
5. We try to avoid disfiguring articles with Wikipedia notices if we can; the template to which you refer shouldn't be added just because one editor has a disagreement with others; it's for much more serious disagreements and long-running disagreements.
6. If you calm down, and start treating other editors with respect, this dispute can be settled. If you continue thrashing round, making accusations, shouting about prejudice and bad faith, you're only going to provoke appeal to procedures such as RfC or even arbitration which, on the evidence so far, you are bound to lose. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I feel your comments to me, right now -- as I am already feeling quite harassed -- about the outcome of an on-going arbitration proceeding in progress, are, in my view, not only totally insensitive and unkind to me, but completely inappropriate and off-base as to evidence in existence right on this page. And, in my opinion, whatever your age and experience, you are in no way qualified to be an administrator here, or anywhere else online, with such poor judgment and lack of understanding so evident, on your part, to me. SummerFR 23:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RE BartLarf's Cover UP

I tried to post this on Bartlarf's talk page but could not because someone else was editing it at the same time, so I am posting it here:

I deleted conversations about me posted on his talk page, because it was written and put there right after I posted my NOTICE OF ARBITRATION notice to him. He and his pals can talk about me all he wants or doesn't want, but I think he could at least wait until that arbitration is over.

It also appears to me that AFTER I notified Bartlarf of the Arbitration, he went to the JEB BUSH article discussion page and suddenly edited in new text, in a COVER UP, to make it look like he was discussing the article with me all along, when in fact he was not. SummerFR 02:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is my notice to him, so all text NOW scattered throughout on this JEB BUSH Article Discussion page which is from bartlarf and which is dated POST-arbitration notice from me -- APR 25 11:05 -- was his attempted cover-up, in my view: SummerFR 03:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE OF ARBITRATION I am leaving this message to notify you, as required by the artbitration rules, that I have asked for arbitration in this matter concerniing your harasssment of me re the JEB BUSH article. Please do not write me back. Thank you. SummerFR 11:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that I have no idea what SummerFR is talking about. Could we get back to talking about Jeb Bush? Cheers. --BaronLarf 03:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I will go through this thread when I am less stressed out. There IS new text that I have never seen nor read. If it is from someone else, then, it is from someone else, and I will have been mistaken, but it is hard to be on top of everything at this moment. Right now I am too tired to tell.

But, I know for a fact I am right about this point I made in my statement: BaronLarf, who is claiming a remarkable new interest in Jeb Bush, previously described himself as someone who finds it impossible to be neutral about George Bush, saying: "trying to make articles on Geroge W Bush neutral really makes me want to scream..." See below URL to examine what was there before he edited it out, after I pointed it out to him on this JEB BUSH discussion thread how surprised I was that he would want to be reading the Jeb Bush article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABaronLarf&diff=0&oldid=12710155

Trying to make articles on Republicans a more NPOV. Trying to make articles on George W. Bush neutral really makes me want to scream, though, so I don't do much on that page.

EDITED BY BARONLARF, AFTER MY COMMENT TO HIM ON THIS JEB BUSH DSCUSSION THREAD: +

• Trying to make articles on Republicans a bit more NPOV. I am a Republican, but I strive for neutrality on both sides. I've argued against including as much coverage of criticism on George W. Bush, but also argued that the article on Jeb Bush was too close to hagiography.

To me that's a cover-up, too. SummerFR 04:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR, no offense, but you need to chill out. The article as it exists right now is extremely biased thanks to all the wording you added (and tons of photos at sizes too large from their pixels) saying that he's the greatest thing since beer and pretzels. Just because someone wants to make it fall more in line with Wikipdeia policy it doesn't mean that there's some huge coverup. People here can have opinions on topics they write about, they just can;t have those opinions in the article itself. That's what the NPOV rule is all about. Right now we don't have that, we've got something that looks like a member of Jeb Bush's fan club wrote it. Writing an encyclopedia means that we approach things from a more detached viewpoint, not from a cheerleader attitude. DreamGuy 05:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR,

It also appears to me that AFTER I notified Bartlarf of the Arbitration, he went to the JEB BUSH article discussion page and suddenly edited in new text, in a COVER UP.

Before you fling around accusations of a "cover up," I think you should note two extremely important tools on Wikipedia: the page history, and user contributions. The history for this page can be viewed here, which you get to by clicking "History" at the top. BaronLarf's contributions can be seen here, the easiest way to get to them is to click "My contributions" and swap your name in the address bar with his.

Now, you posted your "Notice of Arbitration" at 11:05 on April 25th. BaronLarf made absolutely no edits here between your "Notice" and this accusation; his single edit since 04:18 April 25th has been, quite fairly, asking what on Earth you are talking about with these accusations. It is therefore bizzare (and insulting) to accuse BaronLarf of something which he quite clearly never did. It's also bizzare to think that using a talk page could be regarded as "covering up."

Notice, by the way, that BaronLarf, knowing about tools such as page histories, probably knows that you really can't "cover anything up" on Wikipedia: everything you ever did is buried somewhere in the archives.

Also, as a recommendation, try making a habit of checking the talk page's history every time you come back. There are comments in sections above directed at you which you have never replied to. For example, I left you a comment in the List Your "Objectionable Words and Phrases" From Jeb Article Here section.

And as a final recommendation, do try to calm down, as at least three people here have asked. People aren't going to take the time to listen to your arguments if you're acting hysterical (filing Requests for Arbitration, deleting people's comment's about you on their private talk pages, asking admins how to get users listed for vandalism, typing in all caps, etc etc).

— Asbestos | Talk 09:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photos in this article, POV issues

I have removed a large number of very small photos in this article that were scattered about with no captions. None of them was following the Wikipedia:Image use policy (they all lack the required standardized licensing information). Fair use is something we accept in special circumstances, but certainly not to litter an article with tiny little photos that add little to the information content therein. In general, we seek photos that are suitable for a print edition (about 300 dpi). I would like to ask the involved parties to add image copyright tags to the remaining photos.

I have also reworded the "How Jeb Bush changed political history" (!) section. This title was clearly POV, as was some of the content. Someone seems to be intent on labeling Jeb Bush as "historic" at every opportunity; please avoid such labels and instead just describe exactly what happened and when. If you start making value statements like this, the other side can make value statements to the opposite effect; e.g., "making an impact on poverty or the income gap is more historically important than having a few minority officials." As I said, avoid such value statements, just describe what happened, or you will wind up arguing endlessly.

Looking over the article, I see a lot of POV issues here and there; more pruning is definitely needed. --Eloquence* 06:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Eloquence" - "more pruning" on that Jeb Bush article is "Definately" needed! Why today, for a brief few hours, he even had a mother again mentioned up there in the summary! We can't have that, now, can we? Jeb is all male, right? Not born of any mother, just a father and a brother who is president. So -- prune away! Hurry! Get rid of anything that might make him into a person born of a mother! Yes, hurry! Prune, prune, prune! Someone might think he was born of a mother, just like other people on this earth! Quick! Destroy that image of a human being, with God forbid, a mother! After all, what do we want to do here at Wikipedia? Make Jeb Bush seem like a human being? We can't have that! Prune, prune, prune!

The user who uploaded and added those images, SummerFR, has apparently left Wikipedia - see her talk page. So, she won't be tagging the images or getting permission from copyright holders. I have been trying to track down the sources of the images in order to list them for deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I have gotten through about half of them, and removed them from this page. (The rest are almost certainly copyright violations too. SummerFR didn't seem to understand the requirements of Wikipedia:Image use policy.) FreplySpang (talk) 01:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amazing how FreplySpang "knows all" -- and knows that SummerFR "won't be tagging images" when SummerFR was the only one who properly tagged an image. The image is one that Wikipedia had been using illegally online since before SummerFR arrived here in April. Where was Ms. FreplySpang and her "know-it-all" co-horts then? It's also rather amazing how Ms. FreplySpang, "gender studies" major that she is up in Boston, and "Harvard Government School" student, could not figure out how to tag the illegal image herself, but spent lots of time wrongly ranting about SummerFR -- SummerFR, again, being the only one who actually bothered to obtain legal permission and tag an image in this matter. Lots of wasted space on this talk page criticizing "SummerFR" for no actual reason. Some people would call that "harassment." But, here at Wikipedia, what's the name for it? "Wiki love?" or some such nonsense?

Reading this page makes it clear that her leaving was inevitable. One can only marvel at her imagining that arbitration might come out in her favor.

I've gone through and deleted nearly every occurrence of "Jeb". The standalones ("Jeb" without "Bush") were particularly egregious (I wonder what Ms. FR would think of an article on Clinton that repeatedly refers to "Bill"), and the others were unnecessary (and stylistically wrong for an encyclopedia). I also eliminated some of the more extreme rah rah wording. I also changed Democrat to Democratic when used as an adjective ("the Democrat Party" is a particularly egregious use of hyper-anti-Democrat code word terminology). The article could now at least be mistaken as NPOV when quickly skimmed. User 23:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Difficult to write back to "User" since it does not appear to be the name of any actual "User." And, rather than bad-mouthing "Ms. FR" as there is no one who was ever here by that name, you might try taking a look at all the others who disagree with you, and re-edited as SummerFR did, and agree with SummerFR -- the first name "Jeb" is more readable and appropriate in certain areas, especially for a politician who is very well-known by that particular name in the state, and especially when writing about him as a youngster. Sorry to ruin your inappropriate rant on "Ms. FR."

Given that you haven't signed your messages at all, your comment about "User" turns the mind to pots and kettles. Your main point, about "Jeb", is wrong for a number of reasons. First, that he's widely known by that name "in the state" is irrelevant; we're writing an international refernce work. Secondly, respectable refernce works use surnames, not first names to refer to their subjects. Thirdly, this applies to refernces to subjcts as children too. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Jeb Bush Copyrighted Photo Permission To SummerFR, Granted by FL General Counsel's Email to SummerFR, FYI

From the Image Discussion Page:

Image talk:Govjebbushportrait.jpg

Email Permission to SummerFR from the State of FL General Counsel

Via Email

May 10, 2005

Dear [SummerFR]:

>Thank you for contacting Governor Bush regarding reproductions of >photographs believed to originate on the MyFlorida.Com website. The State of >Florida hereby grants you permission to reproduce Governor Bush's official >portrait on Wikipedia. [....]

>Gerard York >Assistant General Counsel >Florida Department of Management Services >4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 >Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 >Office: (850) 410-1698 >Facsimile: (850) 922-6312 > >

---

Notes from Image Discussion Page

- 5/13/05 - Well, this is the 2nd time in less than three days that the image of Gov Bush has been tampered with -- and deleted from his bio page. And, this time, someone edited the image out of BOTH his Wikipedia bio page, and of the Image download page. Since Gov Bush's image apparently will be edited it out by Wikipedia on a daily basis, it is clear that the harassment continues of Jeb Bush's bio page, whether "SummerFR" is here being harassed at Wikipedia or not. No matter where "SummerFR" may be, the Jeb Bush page will be trashed by Wikipedia. Obviously, there's nothing "SummerFR" can do about that. (And, NO, "SummerFR" is NOT the one trashing his page or his image. Someone else, not known to "SummerFR," is doing that here at Wikipedia.)

Check Wikipedia more generally; there has been a problem, and many images are missing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to say I trust that you will solve the problem, but, that would be a lie.

I now have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds as though you might be wearing baking foil inside your hat, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that "wiki love" is alive and well on the Jeb Bush page, as always.

Changes to the Article

I made several changes to the article in an effort to make it better. I wrote specific reasons for my changes as I edited, on the edit history. 205.161.226.189

LOL, Summer. You forgot to sign that post, so I put in the IP you were on just then (they seem to be dynamic). Uh, don't you think what you wrote about "someone else, not known to SummerFR" above was a bit of a giveaway? Think about it. --Bishonen | talk 01:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or what you are talking about. So, LOL to you, too. 205.161.226.189

About your recent edit summaries: Wikipedia is a place that values civility and cooperation. Has it occurred to you that Governor Bush would be embarrassed if he were to see a supporter of his screaming the place down? Please stop. You're making people ashamed. --Bishonen | talk 02:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You lost me again. By the way, has it ever occurred to you why people having absolutely nothing to do with SummerFR or anyone you may know publicly describe this site as "hateful," "hostile" and "vile" replete with a "Wikipedia Liars Club"? Does that ever bother you at all? Maybe it should. Maybe instead of running newcomers off this site, you should thank SummerFR, since she was the one person who got you legal permission for a photo your site was illegally posting for months. Just a thought.

And, about your recent edits - grow up. BartLauf doesn't know a thing about Jeb Bush. Reverting to his version does your site no favors. Reverting to the version SummerFR and others wrote -- and I improved tonight -- makes your site look great. Sometimes it helps to have people who are actually knowledgable about a subject write the text, instead of people who know nothing and just want to waste time with their inane edit wars. Ever think of that? Or are you really bent on being the NON-encyclopedia? If so, drop the word "encyclopedia" from every page and write whatever you want.

Removal of comments from this page

205.161.226.71 (talk · contribs) has on anumber of occasions removed comments (his own and mine) from this page (e.g., [3]). I've warned him about this pointless activity (pointless because the comments are still in the page history), but his peculiar obsession extends to a Stalinist rewriting of history. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Summing up the Jeb Bush article: Is it Biased? Is it Anti-conservative, Anti-Woman, Anti-Black, and Anti-American, thanks to Wikipedians?

Well, let’s see what we’ve got here after a month of many edits on the Jeb Bush page.

We’ve got the following Wikipedians devoted to this page:

1) BartLauf – He has made ZERO factual contributions to the article, because, as he admits, he knows absolutely nothing about Jeb Bush. But, BartLauf, according to his user page info, is just your typical gay male, opera loving, Wisconsin Republican whose “passion” is to delete the accomplishments of Republicans like Jeb Bush from an encyclopedia. I have never met such a Republican before, but, what do I know. Bartlauf’s only “contribution” if you can call it that, was harassing SummerFR off the site, the one person who knew historical facts about Jeb Bush and who obtained legal permission for a photo illegally used by Wikipedia for months. And, to harass SummerFR off the site before she could contribute accomplishments of Jeb Bush’s record as governor. Great work, Bartlauf! That anti-Jeb bias you seem to have is truly something you can be proud of as a Wisconsin “Republican!”

2) FreplySpang – She has made ZERO factual contributions to the article, because she, too, knows absolutely nothing about Jeb Bush. But, Freply Spang, according to her user page info, is just your typical Gender Studies/Harvard Gov School feminist type, whose “passion” is to be the first to delete a photo of Florida’s first female lt. governor, and who likes to ignore the deletions about the professional accomplishments of Fl’s first female lt. governor. I have never met such a feminist who is so anti-woman before, but, what do I know. FreplySpanrg’s only “contribution” if you can call it that was to encourage Bartlauf’s harassment of SummerFR off the site, and to ignore SummerFR’s offer to work together with her. Great work, Freply Sprang! That anti-woman bias you seem to have is truly something you can be proud of, as a gender studies/Harvard gov student!

3) MelEstis – He has made ZERO factual contributions to the article, because he, too, knows absolutely nothing about Jeb Bush. But, MelEstis, according to his user page, is just your typical British admin here at Wikipedia, whose “passion” seems to be deleting the “Honorable” title commonly used in America for political leaders of all parties, and in his role as admin, to retaliate against people like SummerFR while she is being harassed off the site, because he doesn’t even know what retaliation is, so he can’t identify it. Also, he likes to call people names like “tin hat” and “Stalinist.” That’s really exemplary conduct for an admin there! But, he’s here on the Jeb Bush page all the time, without knowledge, without a clue, without any meaningful contribution whatsoever except to stir the pot. That anti-American bias you seem to want o impose with your deletion of “Honorable” from above Gov Bush’s box on his page is really honorable conduct! Great work, MelEstis!

In the US, "Honorable" is reserved for judges and judges alone. not political leaders of parties.

also, as Noam Chomsky says: "I don't hate the US. I love the US. I think it's the greatest country in the world. You are confusing my critique of the leaders of the US with hate and you are branding it as un-patriotic." Project2501a 14:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

And there are assorted other admins who know nothing about copy editing, photo releases, writing, history, or the subject of this article, all contributing ZERO factual information, but quick to harass off the site or ban any one who dares makes an historical or factual contribution to the article.

Thus, we are left with Wikipedia proclaiming that black people who co-found a state’s first charter school should be classified as having made a “charitable contribution” to humanity, as they are not worthy of being recognized for any “Civic Leadership.” That might be news to black leaders. And that’s not an intent to play any “race card” – that’s just were we are here at Wikipedia.

OOOH! I should save this quote. It's a notable example of sophistry : Using the race card to make us feel guitly. Good job. that's worth 1000 florida votes right there.

OK. So. We can clearly see that based on this Jeb Bush article page:

a) this is NOT an “open content” project, since those who know something are required to leave;

No, this is an open content project. there's just a general anti-troll/anti-flame/anti-partisan hack sentiment Project2501a 14:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

b) this is NOT a project whereby the quality of the article can improve over time, since the version deleted last night was a version that actually ELIMINATED the bias and IMPROVED the text in accordance with stated policies of Wikipedia, all of which are ignored by Wikipedia’s “admins.”

Consequently, there are apparently some invisible rules and guidelines here at Wikipedia that take precedent over any written rules or guidelines.

Therefore, what is Wikipedia?

It is certainly not an “encyclopedia” since bias is favored, good writing is deleted, material historical facts are dismissed -- and the only material historical factual information contributed to an article is contributed by people who are banned or harassed off Wikipedia.

Maybe Wikipedia should call itself something like “Opinion-Pedia” or “PettyBickering-Pedia” or “Infotainment-Pedia.”

Because it’s not an “encyclopedia.”

This guy had it right, and he wasn’t even talking about the Jeb Bush article. From a Yahoo discussion page, his comment below was posted on April 15, 2005:

"Wikipedia is awful. The process overtook the product about a year ago. Over-regulated bickering takes precedent over making an encyclopedia." Posted by: Riley at April 15, 2005 10:15 AM

http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000100.html For a good example of what he means, see this page, especially Nobs’ question as to why a material and relevant historical fact was deleted on the Jeb Bush summary. The person who deleted it had no idea why he deleted it – just your typical Wikipedia mindless editing…carry on!

Stop crying "Wolf!". Please. You're not interested in Wikipedia. You're just interested in shaping the Jeb Bush article as you wish it to be. Project2501a 14:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Every American school child is taught that when writing to a Congressman, Honorable is the accepted form of address, and that will in fact get the letter read and responded to quicker. A Governor, in the United States, is not a political leader of a party, he is a fiduciary or trustee. Just as I don't pretend to understand the fealty of the British system, I would hope British partisans would leave us Americans to resolve our own partisan differences and not foster the transatlantic dispute any further unnecessarily. Nobs 20:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the correctness of titles, but with their usage in Wikipedia. My understanding is that most titles, especially honorifics, aren't used, or that when they are they're abbreviated (especially in image captions and the like). In any case, the issue of "honourable" is pretty trivial, and surely not what all the above posturing and bad rhetoric is about. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there's a vote going on right now: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles. It's awfully heated, though, so you'd better be sure you mean anything you post. — Asbestos | Talk 21:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me — I hadn't noticed. I see that the current favourite (as it were) is "The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed". If you can't have democracy, voting is the next best thing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Three simple examples: A Congressman, The Honorable Newt Gingrich (FBI letter to Gingrich) [4]; A Senator, the Honorable Hilary Rodham Clinton [5]; a Governor, Bill Richardson, (2008 Dispite all the stereotypes EuropeaDemocratic Presidential hopeful, from 2004 Democratic Convention Speaking schedule) [6]. ns have about Americans, we actually aren't that crude and crass in our civil dealings with one another. Nobs 16:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what all this stuff about the U.S. and Europe has to do with it all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Assuming the original premise is correct, that a Brit removed "Honorable" title from Jeb Bush's office. Personally, I don't feel the necessity to investigate every users credentials, unless there's an unfounded rumor or innuendo. I prefer the focus on subtance of the discussion. As an aside, don't you find interesting the DNC use of the title "Honorable" on the entire list? [7] After reading through the entire list of "Honorables" (General Wesley Clark excepted), one finds at the bottom John Kerry (not even listed as Senator John Kerry). Truelly, this is typically American. Kindest regards Nobs 20:57, 16 May in the Vulgar era 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user who denies they are SummerFR:

• My name is BaronLarf. Please get it right.
• I am not gay. But what does that matter? How does my love of opera mean that I'm unqualified to edit a Wikipedia page? Please stop making personal attacks.
• I never pushed you off the site. I tried to show you why some of your contributions needed to be modified to fit with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and exercised (and am still exercsing) great restraint as you brought me to a fruitless arbitration hearing.
• Your continued pollution of this discussion page does nothing to improve the article, nor does your vendetta against us. If you want to improve the Jeb Bush article, please do it in cooperation with others. If not, no one is forcing you to contribute here.

--BaronLarf 20:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

How a Wikipedian Wants to Keep Out People Who Know Facts About the Subject of an Article

From "Noel" --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN

POV-pushers with DHCP pools

So once again (see, e.g WP:AN/I#User:SummerFR) we are having problems with POV-pushers coming in as anons from DHCP pools, which make it a lot of work to deal with them (and there's always the issue that a range block might impact innocents). So here's a suggestion: add another flag to articles which, when set, allows them to be edited only from logged-in accounts. We would set this flag only on articles which are the target of POV-pushers, and they'd be then forced to sign up for an account, which we could block. (Yes, they can sign up for another account, but that's still a certain amount of work, and we already have sock-puppets to deal with.) Yes, yes, I know this is a change to our policy of allowing people to edit without logging in, but it's a minimal change. Also, you can think of it as being a milder form of Wikipedia:Protection - and like protecting, we can always clear it after a while, once the problem editor has given up. Noel (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To Noel: What's a "POV-pusher"? Someone who gets Wikipedia legal permission to use an official photo Wikipedia is using illegally (that would be SummerFR who got the permission), someone who knows actual facts about the subject (that would be SummerFR and none of the other people who harassed her on this page), and someone who is not Anti-American? (SummerFR is not anti-American). Oh yes, by all means, Noel -- you need to ban those people from Wikipedia right away!!! And, instead, keep the people who post photos illegally for MONTHS, keep the people who know NOTHING about a subject, and keep the people who put down America. Go to it, Noel!!! Push that Wikipedia-POV of yours! Carry on!

More dirt heaped on SummerFR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive22#User:SummerFR

[edit]

User:SummerFR

OK, I know this is technically a 3RR, but the main issues are other, especially that the ArbCom seem quite keen to deal with the civility issues of this user. Compare SummerFR'S rejected and somewhat notorious Request For Arbitration and also Tony Sidaway's comment here. 205.161.226.189 is obviously User:SummerFR editing anonymously. I blocked her for 24 hours for manifold reverts within a few hours at Jeb Bush, with a message to her talk page. It turns out that she's editing from a dynamic IP, and she now continues energetically to revert from 205.161.226.71. If everything she has access to can be blocked for a while, that would be nice; if not, I suppose we'll manage, I don't think the ArbCom will leave her at large for very long. She has turned Jeb Bush into hagiography, and please note the aggressiveness of her edit summaries. FreplySpang has e-mailed Sannse that SummerFR is baaaaack. --Bishonen | talk 04:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

That's dynamic, but it's a total of 254 IP addresses. Block the /24 as appropriate, being sure to stay around in case of collateral damage - David Gerard 13:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC) _ Coming in now from 205.245.14.162, see [48] FreplySpang (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a technical suggestion for a mechanism to help deal with POV-pushers coming in as anons from DHCP pools - see WP:AN#POV-pushers with DHCP pools. Noel (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Here’s an idea: why doesn’t Wikipedia just delete what SummerFR wrote on her Talk Pages and User Page, as she wrote: “I don’t like this place and I have decided not to stay. Good-bye. SummerFR” And, delete her edit history from those pages as well. And, finally, delete the polite arbitration request she made. That way, you guys can keep on telling lies, and no one will know you are telling lies about here.

Oh, wait – I see Wikipedia has already deleted all that from SummerFR’s User Page and Talk Page. That deletion ensures no one can detemine for themselves what really went on here.

Oh – and, that was some “notorious” editing done by the Admins on the Jeb Bush page, including one revert by “Bishoen” – deleting out the professional background of FL’s first women Lt. Gov., and other edits that were just as biased. Very good, Wikipedia!

Anyone following this matter really can see you admins really do just mindlessly “carry on” without regard to the quality of the product! Very impressive, Wikipedia! Here’s another wild idea: promote Freeply Spang to Admin since she, too, doesn’t care about the professional accomplishments of FL’s first woman Lt. Gov, and has no idea how to get legal permission for a photo. Wait, never mind, you’re already doing that, too! Wow! Wikipedia’s recognition of incompetence is just awe-inspiring! (Or is this praise not “civil” enough?)

SummerFR / SummerFR's anonymous IPs: There is no vendetta against you. Wikipedia's history of pages has all changes stored there. Your user page and talk page are still there. Please stop filling up this talk page with material unrelated to the Jeb Bush article. We've said it before; if you don't like the way Wikipedia requires collaboration and compromise to work, then don't come here. --BaronLarf 17:17, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Collaboration?"" You mean like when you harass a user off the site? You mean when you and other "admins" delete material information? And delete it over and over? That's may be your defination of "collaboration," but it's not the way real collaboration works. In a real collaboration, peope who contribute important facts -- for example, right in the summary of the subject's article page -- would not be constantly deleted. Your success is harassing off a user from this site is something you should be ashamed of, and Wikipedia should have punished you for, and been ashamed of as well. And, they should have punished those admins who then deleted more information from the page. Instead, you are acting like a saint, when you are far, far from it. This user, not involved with the Jeb Bush article, knows what others have experienced here, and sums it up well in the last paragraph below:

From: http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000100.html

I went to Wiki once a few months ago, from a web search I was doing. Obviously I found an article in wiki that fit the bill. Thing is, one of the sites I frequent within the topic was not listed in their external links. So I took upon myself to add it, what a mistake!!

I have never heard so many voices resounding ridiculous arguments about why a site couldn't be listed there. Worse I made an effort to argue that it should be there - pointless. Based on the conversations and arguments against it was VERY CLEAR that none of them had visited the site before handing down judgement on that site. Okay, big deal right - one thing...one time!...

Actually - this occurs every time I attempt to add something to Wiki. 2 or 3 or more people come out and just start up with ridiculous arguments that really make the article feel "owned"....so what if there is an edit button...you bring hell upon yourself if you push it and actually add something.

Wiki is reamed full of jealous, selfish, unqualifed, and childishness people who use their time and admin power to argue stupidity based on bias to their own opinons and wants/desires. Sorry, not ALL of you I'm sure...but, I've been up against enough of it that I sure as hell won't be editing Wiki ever again...it's just too time consuming as it is, put in the argument time, whining, etc - and it's just not worth it. Posted by: JustBecause at April 11, 2005 08:20 AM

Worst governor in America

That needs to be mentioned in this article. So focused on isolated concerns like Schiavo and let's sex offenders wreak havoc on Florida's children. -Amit