User talk:Rex071404/archive2

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

Rex,

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

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

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

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

Vandalism in progress

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

Perceptions

I do not characterize people as being pro- or anti-, rather I accept info from people from an unbiased critical perspective. Characterizing people, or communities, for that matter, as "cabals", and such conspiracy theoretic - thinking, distorts one's vision of reality, and obstructs one's ability to engage in civil and productive discussion, so I keep away from it as much as possible. I do not target anyone as a minority, I treat every person the same. If Gzornenplatz was conducting himself the same way as VV, I would treat him the same as VV. Kevin Baas | talk 23:55, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

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

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

Interested party

See Wikipedia:Mediation - you are either an involved (in mediation) party, a mediator, or have no right to comment. I'm guessing Neutrality removed your comment in light of this. Kevin Baas | talk 15:42, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

That is true, and I am not complaining about that - rather I am simply going on record to be sure people know I have taken an interest and am watching the developments. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: your request for mediation

Dear Rex0171404, before any formal mediation happens, based on what you've said and a review of the extremely lengthy talk:Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I'd like to suggest that the next step is to go ahead and answer Nysus's questions, and to do it in the spirit of assuming good faith. If, in fact, your presumption that he is asking loaded questions is correct, and that furthermore Nysus does not answer your questions, it will be clearer what the next step should be. (crossposted to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation)

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Bcorr. I am very willing to work with Rex on this issue. As the record has shown, I have been very patient with him on this matter and I will continue to be until this matter is resolved. --Nysus 18:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Nysus -- I'll crosspost this at RfM. BCorr|Брайен 18:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex,

Changing others' signed comments in misleading ways is simple vandalism. Feel free to refactor or delete stuff you don't want on your talk page, but don't alter it to say something the author didn't intend. —No-One Jones ^m 19:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to give them a hint - please do not spam my talk page. Those particular editors have gone out of their way to make problems for me and the comments which they left here just now were in no way attempts to dialog positively with me. Hence, the nose-tweaking. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 19:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah. If you get unhelpful posts on your talk page, you could delete them; you could archive them; or you could return them to the offending users' talk pages—but altering them in the way you did was still not on. —No-One Jones ^m 19:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in light of the ongoing hassles those three have been obviously coordinating against me, I think a little prompting to make them "stand off" was in order. Even so, it's over now and they obviously got my message. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair warning to talk page spammers

Neutrality posted a comment on User talk:Rex071404. By this edit, Rex changed it, to make it appear that Neutrality was confessing to "intentionally causing trouble." Neutrality tried to correct it, but Rex reverted and reverted and reverted to keep his falsehood in. When Lyellin mildly remonstrated with Rex over this, Rex responded with this edit, putting harsh words in Lyellin's mouth as well.