Wikipedia

Rex071404

Joined 21 July 2004
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 30 July 2004 (→Coulter 'rape the earth' quote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Learn more about this page

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

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

John Kerry and my reversion of your edits

I don't know why you're singling me out as your oppressor. I was among at least five other users who reverted your edits (Jgm, Snoyes, Bkonrad, Etaoin, and User:169.229.144.82) that day. You claim to be impartial, but your edits prove otherwise. You linked to a GOP "Who is John Kerry?" screed as a source, you removed significant chunks of valid content, and posted downright wacky bits such as the following, from a conservative blog site no less:

"Some have suggested that rather than be awarded with a medal for this action, Kerry should have been reprimanded for endagering his crew by (beaching his boat.) "

This, along with your other edits, was reverted not just by me, but by a good number of other concerned editors. As a Canadian with no dog in this fight, surely you can appreciate that I may be somewhat more objective in this matter? I don't particularly care for either Bush or Kerry. If it weren't on Wikipedia I wouldn't care what was written about either; but since you decided to use the article as your soapbox, I felt compelled to step in.

As for the Nixon/Colson bit, I don't see what the issue is. Mind pointing it out? -- Hadal 19:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can only back up what Hadal said. For the record, I'm Australian. Ambivalenthysteria 16:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me !

Oh please, the both of you are using a few revision oversights by me to remove on a wholesale basis, perfectly factual information about John Kerry. And in it's stead, you are inserting pro-Kerry propaganda.

Please play nicely with other users

Please play nicely with other users, or you may find yourself blocked for misbehavior. Now that there is a dispute, please discuss any major changes with other users on the talk page before making edits to the page. -- Karada 01:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your comments on User talk:Neutrality

I can't speak for the rest of your argument (I don't have the time or inclination to read it all - try bullet points next time!), but if at the end of it you are asking people not to change what you put in an article, forget it. Every time you edit an article, it says down the bottom in bold: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it". So you're fighting an uphill battle there. - Mark 09:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:NPOV. Except in uncontentious cases, Wikipedia does reports opinions, not facts. Put crudely, this means saying "X said this, Y said that, Z says this with evidence A". We have been working quite hard to keep simple slurs out of political articles -- please attribute your material, and provide a cite to a reliable source or sources, and you will have far fewer problems. -- Karada 21:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry

Please do not make threats.

Look, I hate getting into edit wars. I thank you for initially taking the issue to talk. But if you continue to re-add this biased material before a consensus is reached on the talk page, I will have no alternative but to revert you. If you are going to edit on Wikipedia, you must adhere to the NPOV policy, which you have so far failed to do.

I understand that you do not like the man (for the record, neither do I), but that does not justify adding biased material. What, precisely, do you consider to be pro-Kerry about the two disputed sections? As far as I can see, they're both quite neutral in their presentation - which yours are clearly not.

As to whether the issue about the Vietnam Veterans meeting goes in, discuss it at talk. Until a consensus is reached, it stays out. Ambivalenthysteria 12:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kerry Edits Update

What follows, for your edification, is the perfectly factual, evenly presented information about the 1971 meeting which "pro-kerry" censors keep removing. And to answer the rehetorical(?) question on the John Kerry history pages, posed by Gzornenplatz "what has Kerry to do with it if another member of the VVAW makes some dubious proposal?", the 1971 meeting MATTERS, because RELIABLE REPORTS by CREDIBLE WITESSES place Kerry at the meeting and AT THAT MEETING, where violence was proposed. Further, since VIOLENCE WAS PROPOSED, and since there is a bona-fide dispute about the accuracy of Kerry's denails of attendence, the history and facts surroundign that meeting MUST be presented to the public! If you keep deleting this, you ae in effect a pro-kerry censor.

Pleas READ the links in the section I am posting, so you can make an EDUCATED assement of the facts, rather than simply LEAPING to the conclusion that this is not germane!

Here now, is the information which the pro-Kerry censors keep deleting:

1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

File:Kerryrally.jpg
John Kerry speaks at an anti-Vietnam War rally.

From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri, at which a member proposed that they escalate their tactics.

At this meeting, one of the VVAW activists made the suggestion that the VVAW members should assassinate various United States politicians (including US Senators) who were in favor of continuing the Vietnam War.

According to some, that statement was immediately shouted down by a large majority. Though the suggestion to kill US politicians was voted down, the VVAW members did vote to meet with North Vietnamese leaders.

Over the years, Kerry has repeatedly stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City, stating instead that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. However, as reported in the New York Sun on Mar 12, 2004; Page:1 Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not rememeber attending.

Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times, was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" (NY Times Jan,26th 1972, pg 17)

Rex071404 13:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if any of my corrections may have inadvertently changed the meaning of any of your edits. That was not my intent. External links are generally not allowed in article text; they belong in ==External Links== at the bottom. Howeever, when they are allowed (to give reference to a citation, for example) they are in the style I used, which produces a link number, like this: [12].
If something about the citation is needed in the text, put it in the article text in a sensible manner. For example:
Over the years, Kerry has repeatedly stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City, stating instead that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. However, as reported in the New York Sun on Mar 12, 2004; Page:1 Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not rememeber attending.
Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times, was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" (NY Times Jan,26th 1972, pg 17)
easily becomes:
Over the years, Kerry has repeatedly stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City, stating instead that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. However, the New York Sun reported in a front page article on March 12, 2004 that "Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not rememeber attending." [1]
Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times (page 17), was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" [2]
OK? Wiki styles are intended to give sense and consistency to articles. As far as I know, I have not reverted any of your material. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I checked the Kerry article. It was User:Gamaliel who has been mass reverting. Everyone makes errors in assuming who made edits, but it is a good idea in contentious articles to check who made edits you dislike before yelling at people. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind word

I am still new here.

Rex071404 22:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. It takes a while to get to know the culture and style and then it becomes easier to know how to work on the articles, especially contentious ones. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The ONLY disagreement is from Kerry syncophants. All the media reports do indeed say that the suggestion for violence was made. In fact, the man who offered the suggestion has conceded in recent interviews that is was indeed made.

The problem is that in the name of FALSE neutrality about this, certain pro-Kerry Wikis want this softpedaled.

The point is that something that was indisputably dangerous occured there and was admitted to by the man who said it. The only remaining question is how much wiggle room Kerry should be allowed in his denials...

Rex071404 23:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AndyL

Please be careful to leave comments on a users talk page, rather than their user page, which is generally off limits to the editing of others. Thanks, Sam [Spade] 03:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


yep

I have had issues w andy myself (see this) and I can assure you that when interacting with him, or with any wikipedian, it is always best to obey Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, wikipedia:civility in particular. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 03:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 03:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we have a Wikipedia:Civility rule aginst "incivility"...

"... behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress...", why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?

I find that to be VERY "stress(ful)"

Rex071404 03:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed Bkonrad's comment from Talk:John Kerry. I've reverted - please do not remove other people's comments. Ambivalenthysteria 21:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guessed as much. I've fixed it up, anyway. :) Ambivalenthysteria 22:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?

I await an answer...

Rex071404 03:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


To answer your question: because I'm back early :) AndyL 04:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

oh I see, and what an AMAZING coincidence about who you protected in favor of ...

Rex071404 04:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I replied at the Kerry talk page. Ambivalenthysteria 04:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just saw the questions you posted on Neutrality's page. Basically, the article RfC is just a pointer saying "hey, we're having a dispute, come add your opinion". The user RfC is a little bit different, in that it has a seperate page, evidence is collected, people discuss whose version of events was more correct. This is (to my knowledge, anyway), used to decide if the dispute resolution process needs to go any further, or if the complaint is frivolous.

The note in the history log that you mentioned is called an "edit summary". See Wikipedia:Edit summary for an explation of this function. Ambivalenthysteria 06:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mind if you remove the entire discussion above the "POLL" heading, as it was just between us, it's in the page histories anyway, and there's no point having everyone reading through that to get to the poll-related discussions. If you do want to remove it, just note that I agreed in the edit summar, so it won't get reverted. Ambivalenthysteria 07:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please don't break page formatting

Please post your comments at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, particularly when the page gets long, it becomes very hard to follow. That's the only reason I moved them. Ambivalenthysteria 07:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's hardly an attack, let alone an ad hominem attack. You called me a bigot. Gamaliel asked you to apologise. You refused. I said that was unacceptable, and pointed you to the appropriate policy. Pray tell, how does that make it an attack? Ambivalenthysteria 07:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again you misstate the facts. I did not 'call" you a bigot, rather I asked you point blank if you are one and you still have not answered. So perhaps I should ask again. Are you?

Further, you did not ask for any apology and you certainly have the ability to speak up if offended. That 3d party was butting in where he should be nosing out - it was not his place to direct me to "apolgize" to yooooou, especially since you did not tell me you were seeking one. Also, based on the distinction between asking a question and making a statement, I still am not peruaded that any aplogy was due you, regardless. Additionally, comments of your nature should be hashed out on our individual pages, not BLASTED across the top of a heavily read discussion page. The placement and tone of you stament, alongg with it's mis-characterization of what my words wre, combine to make it aan ad hominem attack. You should delete that section entirely, it makes you look infantile and abusive of your role! Rex071404 07:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Posting an RfC

I don't know if Neutrality is online right now but I can answer your question on the rewording of your posting on RfC.

RfC are posted with a neutral comment about the article and are not signed (which I think you didn't). Neutrality's wording is good. Among other wording that would have been acceptable would have been something like "How should material concerning Kerry and the November 1971 meeting of the VVAW be covered and presented in the John Kerry article."

You can elaborate if more material is to be covered: "Is it fair to say that widgets are primarily an American invention and does evidence show that widgets are dangerous or beneficial to the environment." But no question of how well or badly users are in editing the article and no leading, i.e., no "Widgets are dangerous to the environment but some editors deny this. Who is right?" -- Cecropia | Talk 06:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't see any link to have started entering data on a page for that. This is how they beat me to it and made me the issue on a user Rfc, rather than the page being the issue as I had requested. Also, my edit links on my personla discussio page o not seem to work right. Try editing the last section and the 2nd to last opnes instead. The only way to get to the bottom of my page is via the master edit tab at the top of the page. The sectional edit html links do not work rightRex071404 06:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
They're two seperate things. What I was trying to say, is that article disputes don't have their own RfC page - that just happens on the article Talk page. So no one "beat you to it" - as far as posting the RfC goes, you did the right thing. Oh, and that section editing thing is a known bug. Hopefully it'll be fixed someday. :( Ambivalenthysteria 06:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

The long quote you inserted to define Useful idiot comes from a website with a copyright notice -- see http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/copyright.html for the boilerplate rights language. Has the author specifically released this text under the GNU Free Documentation License? If not, merely linking back to the author's page is not enough to entitle us to use the material. JamesMLane 18:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How is it you came to know that I created that entry?

Please advise.

Also, as I read the source page, in particular the quote which I supplied, it would appear that this particular quote is constitued solely of a recitation of a fact (ie; the original statement) by Lenin.

If indeed I am correct in my intereptation of that, then it's axiomatic that no release from the author is required for these reasons:

1) Lenin's statements of that nature are in the public domain

2) The person who posted that statement by Lenin on the web is presenting it as if that's what Lenin indeed said.

3) That statement then (and my quoting of it as a source) by Lenin is a fact

4) Facts are not copyrightable, only the particular presentation of them

5) In either case, it's such a small portion of the page sourced, that fair use certainly comes into play.

I read that source link as representing itself to be repeating what Lenin said. For that reason, there is no original work by the web-poster of it and consequently, no need to inquire about copyright.

Even so, I am creeped out by what appears to be a "stalking" effort by you. So once again I ask, how did you come to know I added that listing?

Also, I intend to add a few others. Would you care to collaborate?

Please advise.

Rex071404 19:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On Talk:John Kerry, one of the participants, older≠wiser, said of you, "He is obviously a single-issue POV warrior with no apparent interest in Wikipedia other than forcing his POV on this article ...." I didn't know whether that statement was correct or not, so I looked at your contributions list. I found a handful of non-Kerry-related articles. The one on Useful idiot caught my eye -- I'd heard Lenin's phrase years ago, and thought the article might be interesting, so I read it. (I find my Wikipedia editing very tme-consuming because I keep getting distracted by things like this.) IIRC, there were some other articles on your list that didn't particularly interest me and which I didn't read. I wasn't stalking you, just surfing.
As to the copyvio issue, I don't think this passage is a direct quotation from Lenin. I've never heard it before. It refers to Lenin in the third person. The website doesn't enclose it in quotation marks or do anything else to indicate that it's a quote as opposed to a paraphrase. If it were a quotation, one would think that someone else would have used it on the Web, but a Google search for the phrase "simpleminded bourgeois dupes who unwittingly aided" yields no hits except the worldnewsstand site. All these factors point strongly to the conclusion that this language is a summary/paraphrase, written by the worldnewsstand site owner or a friend of his, and fully entitled to copyright protection.
That leaves us with fair use. I always hate to fall back on fair use. It makes me nervous. It's just too hard to be sure in advance what a court will say about what is or isn't fair use. You're right that the excerpt from the protected work isn't a large portion of the original, which is helpful, but there are other factors. The case for fair use would be strengthened if the article identified the author of the quoted paraphrase. I know you've linked to the site but the reader won't know who wrote the quoted passage. Incidentally, it reminded me of a related quotation, which I've seen variously attributed -- sometimes to Lenin, sometimes to Marx: "When we are ready to hang the capitalists, they will compete with each other to sell us the rope." JamesMLane 23:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I acted on your advice and enhanced the Useful_idiot page.
Thanks for the input!
Rex071404 01:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User Actions

I think the advice that BKonrad (Older-Wiser) is probably about what the situation calls for. You can post an RfC or got the Member's Advocates. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:39, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Hi Rex

Just over looking at the Anne Coulter discussion page. They're basically desperate to find someone with something nicish to say about Anne. Having just been reading the Kerry discussion, I thought you sounded like you might be a fan of Anne's. Or at the least, you're quite obviously a fellow right-winger. So, thought I'd tip you off that someone of your political bent is actively sought over there.

Peace. (War?)

Coulter Quote

The Coulter quote is accurate. I put it there from a book I have called Take Them at Their Words: Shocking, Amusing and Baffling Quotations from the Gop and Their Friends, 1994-2004. Additionally if you had done a search on the internet you would see that the quote is attributed to her numerous times. If it helps I will add the date that she was on the Hannity show (6/20/01) StoptheBus18 16:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS Check out this Salon article about the book which features some quotes, it includes the Coulter quote http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2004/06/09/at_their_words/index2.html

Coulter 'rape the earth' quote

'Rape' quote should stay out. The Internet sources which I found are all 2nd hand (hearsay) and do not cite a 1st hand source such as a bona-fide transcript which can be read on line.

Also, that particular quote is gratuitously inflammatory. There is no need to intentionally quote something that serves only to the fan flames of religious and sexual indentitiy politics the way including that quote does.

Additonally, the overall tone of the Ann_Coulter is already so harsh against her that including this is mere piling on and adds a stink of too much POV tone overall.

For example, there are some who suggest (and claim to be able to document) that Hitler was among other things, an astrological reading, vegetarian, self-loathing bi-sexual. And yet, regardless of those points, there is enoguh in the public record about him to paint an accurate and rightly adverse picture with out talking up those points.

The Colter 'rape' "quote" I want stricken is along those same lines, It's inclusion serves no purpose other than to stir up gratuitious acrimony.

Rex071404 20:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In response to your declining of mediation

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rex071404&oldid=4924288"