User talk:JamesMLane

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, James. Thank you for your fine work around the encyclopedia. Judging from the work you've done, it seems that your forte is in politics; if you want to continue helping us, you can find plenty of articles in need of help in this field or others at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.

You might find these links helpful in starting new articles or helping with existing ones: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, and About 'Show preview'. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you'd like some help from the community on starting to edit, you can sign yourself up at the new users log. If you have any particular questions, you can see the help pages, or, for individual help, feel free to add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

You can sign your name on talk pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Thank you for your contributions; I hope you continue to help us.

-- Djinn112 05:39, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Procedure on copyvio (from pump)

Having noticed a probable copyvio at Don Lafferty, I added it to the list of possible copyright infringements (with the URL of the source material) and replaced the page's text with the copyvio messages. Am I supposed to do anything more? I see the copyvio page says things should stay there at least 7 days "before a decision is made" but that adroit use of the passive leaves it unclear who makes the decision. I'm guessing I can just ignore the matter and leave it to some panel of certified Great Minds but I'd like confirmation. JamesMLane 02:57, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That should do it, it gives people a chance to comment before it's decided whether or not to delete. RickK | Talk 05:12, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate knowing that I'm not leaving something undone. But as a new participant I'm curious about the process -- and I notice that you, like the copyvio page, use the passive voice ("before it's decided"). Who makes these decisions? JamesMLane 13:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copyvios

In general, if people feel that an item listed on the Votes for Deletion pages, they comment on it, by voting Delete or Keep. It's a rough consenus decision on whether something should or should not be deleted. After the article or image has been on the VfD page for 5 days (or & for copyrights, I think), then a sysop will take it on him or herself to clean up the page by deleting the things listed there. Hope that makes sense. :) RickK | Talk 01:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

wikipedia:deletion policy has the gory details... Martin 14:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay

James, could you apply your knowledge about the Choctaw origin of the word "Okay" to that article? That Fay paper is really long and hard for me to digest. Thanks, Kevin Saff 17:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Big O Tires

The convention regarding the "Inc." in the article title is probably best covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Since "Big O Tires" is more common than "Big O Tires, Inc.", we should stick to the former if possible. This is why articles are named Google, General Electric, Time Warner, etc., instead of "Google, Inc.", "General Electric Company", "Time Warner, Inc." The exception to this rule is when the "Inc" is needed for disambiguation, such as for Mars, Incorporated or Fossil, Inc.. Hope this helps. --Minesweeper 18:44, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Hi James, yes you should get a prompt if you're editing at the same time as someone else. What I think happened in this case is that you just accidently managed to delete some bits. It happens to us all sometimes, so don't worry about it. ;) Sorry if I deleted a comment of yours, I couldn't exaclty figure out what had happened. fabiform | talk 08:02, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Las Vegas, Nevada

James, In regards to your edits in this Wiki Entry please see my comments left for you in the Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada page and let me know. Misterrick 08:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

James, Click to Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada for a response to your latest message. Misterrick 19:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC).[reply]

John McCormack

Good call you made, on reflection. Tnx for the eyeballs! --Jerzy (t) 15:00, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

Adding lakes to the natural features section

See my comments here: MediaWiki talk:Colorado River system. B 13:48, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Virgin River

Thanks for you message. The highlighting seems to work better in some browsers than others. I've been experimenting with colors to find the best combination that works. I will probably redo them at some point, What kind of browser/computer are you using? It would help to know. -- Decumanus | Talk 14:57, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about your machine. I appreciate it. As for your suggestion. It always seemed appropriate to have both kinds of maps, ones with topo features and ones with state outlines. I disagree with the broad statement about preferences. I prefer topos myself. Keep in mind that I have made over a hundred such maps, ones for almost all the tributaries of the Colorado and the upper Missouri, and I'm working on the Ohio tributaries right now. You can follow the "images" link on my page to see all the maps that are in Wiki so far. It's an ongoing project of mine. Tweaking the color schemes has been part of it. I've noticed it doesn't work well on some machines, like I said. For some reason the green of the highlighted doesn't come out as well on some screens. In any case, the more maps the better, in my opinion. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:56, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that the next iteration of those map series will probably have the state outlines superimposed over the topo features. Best of both worlds. -- Decumanus | Talk 00:10, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to make some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll? 172 15:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA is not mentioned in the intro that is being voted on. The assertion of U.S. backing being voted on can be found here. 172 17:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Name for Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse page?

Saw your comment above, Eloquence is trying to conduct a poll, you may wish to express an opinion, it's at the BOTTOM of the talk page, Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse_reports#Poll_on_page_title . I was the one who objected to "scandal" and move the page to Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse_reports .

Pinochet

I am bothered by what now increasingly appear to be accusations from you that my edits to the sandbox were not done in good faith. You should understand that I feel the CIA issue is far more than adequately covered in the article already (by noting it's half the article, I did not mean that it should be, I meant this one issue is getting exaggerated coverage). I don't think having several sentences about the specific pieces of evidence about the CIA is appropriate in what is essentially a biographical entry about a person. That is why I favor having slight mention there. The interested reader can consult the bloated section below to learn more about the subject. But whatever the case, your implication that I'm somehow putting a wrecking ball to good information for some agenda is disturbing and wrong. I initially wanted (and still would like) to not mention the CIA/alleged US role at all and just have it be an article section (note there is not even a mention of Pinochet's arrest in the non-sandbox intros!), but I added a short reference to the issue to satisfy those who felt it was important enough. (Of course, this was when I was working with reasonable users who could accept compromise and accepted that as fair.) V V 14:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. The point of the sandbox is to experiment - that's what I was doing by reshuffling the content. I don't think I deleted anything of substance, but rather moved it to a separate section. I think you are reading too much into this action; it was a counterproposal as to how to handle the new content, which I did think was excellent and appropriate for the article, just not the intro. I'm not sure I agree about what people would come to the Pinochet article for; questions they might have is, why does Pinochet have such a bad reputation?, was he a hero or monster?, how did his reign end? - in addition to the arrest, etc. (I once created a U.S. intervention in Chile article in the hopes of consolidating some content there, but that doesn't seem to have worked.) But I'm bothered by spending a quarter of the intro talking about a foreign nation (the US) in an article on a Chilean politican. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from, but having had to hash out wording on this intro for what may be months now, I'm getting a fairly strong sense of how it should be structured. My preference remains to state that the US supported Pinochet's government, and leave all the details (what kind of support? does that mean the coup?) to the article, but too many are pushing for specific coverage of the US coup allegations for that option to work (although Eloquence seems more willing to consider it now). The reason for putting "many believe" is that that is how I read the NPOV policy; if a point is disputed, say so. V V 07:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being in the section that you iniciated, I was not talking specifically about your edits. As you can see in the histories of the sandboxes, the one without the footnote has been worked on by several people, while the other by esentially one, but once the page is unprotected, that one pushes his version stubbornly, and refuses to take out the "US backed" part. --AstroNomer 14:33, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Tell me what you think of my latest proposal. I'm putting this note here b/c you might miss it because of 172's shenanigans. V V 22:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

New response on Talk:Augusto Pinochet. V V 23:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Nobel Peace Prize tag

The tag was useless. I warned about removing it at the talk page of the MediaWiki page.

Now that we have the categories system in place, the best thing to do is to add Category:Nobel Peace Prize instead. --Jia ng 21:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

James: thanks for comments about my critial mass item. I assure you CM was first active in Thanet. Some of its eco active supporters moved to london, uk and although I can not trace the path now I am sure they started being active at london based demos against pollution.

I had a close association with said group 20 odd years ago, and have been contacted by a US author who wrote a book on the Cycle collective, via a third party supporter. He included the Ramsgate cm in his work (Title?). Regardless it predates all other groups with said name and had very similar methods. IT SANDS ALONE AS THE PREGENITOR OF ALL OTHER GROUPS THAT FOLLOWED REGARDLESS OF LINEAGE. If politics is your bag, you are perhaps best qualified to confirm my assertion, which is based on active knowledge of the original events, as I was the first secretary of said group for over five years. I for one would like to know why if all later groups are not from the core group, why have they stolen the name of a group, allready active, proven by a tv programme. all the best Faedra 11:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The "alternative/alternate meaning" style is certainly more common, in my experience. The suggestion to leave in a divisor was removed from wikipedia:disambiguation a while ago so those should not be added (the convention is to indent). IMO The summary of the article is redundant with the first introductory sentence so is not needed. Those looking for the US politician will see soon enough they're in the wrong place after reading the first sentence...

I agree that the label sounds cold. Suggestions for alternatives? --Jia ng 00:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suppose it's fine as long as it fits on one line. Otherwise, the tag wraps and it starts looking ugly. The trend seems to be going the other way though. --Jia ng 23:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

on Fahrenheit 9/11

You asked me to describe my view on the deterioration of the F911 article. My main concern is simple. An encyclopedia article should consist primarily of facts about the subject of the article. My rough count says that on 6/30 (when I made my initial comment) there were around 16 paragraphs of content about the movie and 2-3 paragraphs about what other people thought about the movie. A nice, concise description of the film, documented circumstances about its release, etc. and enough about the controversy to get the point across that not everyone agreed with the content. The current article looks like about 40 paragraphs, at least half of which are not about the film, but about various peoples' opinions on the content of the film. The typical format is "the film said such-and-such, but critics point out that so-and-so, though others argue this-and-that". The whole thing becomes a weirdly-structured debate transcript and the point of the article is obscured.

Secondary concerns are the insistence of folks to walk the edge of NPOV (such as the added line in the first section about "widely described as propaganda") but this is more controllable, I guess. I haven't actually seen the film yet so don't feel able to jump into the fray but I do feel that from a user point of view this was a much more useful article a few days ago. Jgm 02:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good call on Palmdale article

Thanks for reverting those edits by that anon user from Palmdale. I saw the path of misinformatio and destruction spreading and was waiting a while to get deeply involved so as not to provoke some kind of pissy reaction. Almost everything I read by the user was either POV, factually wrong, or (as you found) a copy vio. I had to resist the urge to revert everything right away. Fittingly the user decided to edit the toilet and fart articles in the middle of that spree. Got a laugh out of that. :) -- Decumanus 20:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And more thanks. I was watching "from a distance" and had higher priority tasks to do. It was obvious that the anon writer was doing promotion, not article writing as is normally done in Wikipedia. Now that some time has passed, I'll see if I can get the article cleaned up in an appropriate way. BTW, I too live near Palmdale, which as you mentioned is not a qualification 'per se' to writing the article, but it helps! It also helps to be a native of the area, I suppose. Please see my article on Tehachapi to get an idea of how my Palmdale revision might go. Your work is not unappreciated from these quarters. --avnative 00:00, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to be nominated for adminship?

You seem like a fine candidate. I'd be happy to nominate you. Would you like me to? Neutrality 00:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Obviously, I'm very honored and flattered, but at this point I'll decline with thanks. To decline with no explanation would seem a churlish response to your kind offer, so: Your suggestion prompted me to get around to doing something I'd been intending for a while, viz., to get a better idea of the role of the admins. Hence, I've now read some of the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. My conclusion, just from the parts I've read, is that right now, with certain other things going on in my life, I'm not willing to make the time commitment of adminship. Heck, I'm not willing to make the time commitment to read the rest of that list. :) &nbsp Maybe in a couple months. JamesMLane 05:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I understand. Thanks. ;) Neutrality 21:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kindly comment over on Talk:American and British English differences. If I'd known I'd be greeted with such a good-natured response I'd have backed down much sooner :-)

chocolateboy 09:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moore/Bradbury

Repeating what I said on the Talk:Michael Moore page (and redirecting this discussion here):

I'll concede your points. I let myself get led down a sidepath. Following Bradbury's title-borrowings leads us down a path are really not germane. However, whoever brought it up probably did so precisely because they didn't understand what is and isn't OK when it comes to borrowing bits of written work.

I still think the current discussion in Fahrenheit 451 needs retouching. The problem as I see it is that friends to whom I have spoken about this understand even less about IP than I do, and don't understand why Bradbury can't sue "because Moore stole his idea."

The current discussion says

"However, since Bradbury has not trademarked the title, legal action is unlikely."

I would prefer for it to say something more explanatory. You can undoubtedly wordsmith this better than I. I'm thinking it should say something more like

"Since Bradbury has not trademarked the title, and since borrowing short phrases does not infringe copyright, successful legal action is unlikely."

We can always fall back on "just the facts, ma'am" and that's sometimes appropriate in contentious topics, but I think neutral and accurate interpretation is usually appropriate. The sentence "However, since Bradbury has not trademarked the title, legal action is unlikely" is, in fact, NPOV interpretation. But I think it could use some clarification, since I honestly don't believe the average reader understands trademark-versus-copyright.

BTW why don't authors trademark more of their stuff? Does it cost a lot to register a trademark? Dirk Pitt^TM is a registered trademark of Clive Cussler but I can't think of many others offhand. Dpbsmith 13:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although I'm a lawyer, I don't do IP work. Your suggestion -- "Since Bradbury has not trademarked the title, and since borrowing short phrases does not infringe copyright, successful legal action is unlikely." -- looks OK to me, although as a matter of style I'd replace "since" with "because". I guess we could put that sentence in, then an explanation of how some people think borrowing of this type is bad "etiquette" even if legally permissible, which would invite the response that Bradbury did it too, which would invite the reply that he borrowed only from dead guys, which would invite the rejoinder that the whole concept of "public domain" is relevant only to copyright as opposed to etiquette, which would... well, who knows what would come next, except that we can be sure we're already pretty far removed from the nominal subject of the article.

As for authors trademarking things, trademark protects only against "passing off" type offenses, i.e., likelihood of confusion. In one of the discussions of this Bradbury tiff in some Talk page or other, I commented that "the Pepsi Generation" is a trademarked slogan -- but that I could nevertheless title a book The Pepsi Generation. The reason is that no one looking at a book would mistake it for a can of cola. Even where the products are the same, trademark cases get into questions of whether there's a confusing similarity. If Bradbury had trademarked "Fahrenheit 451," could he then prevent anyone from using any form of "Fahrenheit ___" where the blank is filled in by some number? What about my forthcoming masterwork on human metabolism, Fahrenheit 98.6? I think Moore would have a good argument that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is sufficiently different, especially given that the intense publicity for his movie should make clear to anyone that this is not a film version of a science fiction novel. JamesMLane 04:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Useful_idiot

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)

I acted on your advice and enhanced the Useful_idiot page.

Thanks for the input!

Rex071404 01:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it isn't in the AC's current mandate, they seem to think it is, as there's a "temporary injunction" header on every current case page. That's what I based that comment on. Ambi 07:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O'reilly propaganda category

Are you adding the category only as a demonstration because you support Moore's movies, or do you honestly support listing O'reilly's show as a propaganda program (keep in mind the other insidious things already in that category e.g. Nazi and white supremicist stuff). Now, for me the category sticks if there's something to back it up. I listen to the radio show and have seen the TV program quite often. The article, as written is pretty NPOV. If you'd be willing to add some specific instances of propaganda-ish statements, I'd definitely say that the category fits and I'd be all for leaving it in. What do you think? Alternatively, perhaps something like "yellow journalism" would better characterize the article. --ABQCat 02:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry dispute

Oh, I wish I knew what to do. I don't think Rex would be any more receptive to my suggestions or (informal) mediation, and I'm not sure it'd be appropriate for me to get involved. I've blocked him (well, his IP) before, so he probably doesn't see me as a "good cop". If Rex has refused mediation and RfC has been utilized, I suppose there's arbitration to consider. Whether this dispute is among the "most serious" (a necessary criterion for the arbcom, apparently), I couldn't say. I wish I could offer better suggestions. Regards, -- Hadal 08:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

The key phrase in your message is: "poll results". Because the discussion was still under way and because there was no consensus, it is not factually correct to say that there were "poll results". While it is true that the pro-Kerry POVr's were trying to force the issue, I was still waiting for more contructive dialog and answers to various questions I had posed to the group. Since clearly and obviously there was a dicussion under way, it is patently mis-leading to suggest that somehow there was any agreement to stop "polling" and run with the partial results we had so far. Hence, for you to say "poll results" is not accurate. Had you said "partially completed results of one of several polls still under way", this would have been accurate. Rex071404 16:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you want us to dialog, don't call me "fixated"

JML, about the "mis-statement": Do you, yes or no, concede it is indeed true that when you used the term "poll results" you mis-stated the fact regarding the current status of the "poll". If you do not answer this question, I will lose respect for you. Rex071404 17:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I do not concede that. As for my other comment, I sincerely believe that you are fixated and that your fixation is part of the problem that has afflicted the John Kerry page -- a situation unlike any other disagreement among Wikipedians that I've encountered in the several months that I've been here. My comment was an attempt to give you an idea of how your behavior appears from someone else's perspective. Given your response, I gather that this is yet another area in which communications from my planet don't reach yours. JamesMLane 17:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "fixated"? Rex071404 18:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

I'm trying to stay away from the Kerry dispute at the moment. However, if you want to lodge an arbitration complaint, be my guest - I'll do what I can to supply additional evidence. Somehow I think you'll have numerous other users to support you. Ambi 07:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kerry dispute

As you may be aware, I gave Rex a 24 hour block yesterday. So let me start by saying that I do know how frustrating dealing with him can be. Looking over his contributions since that block, although he is still pushing the same viewpoint, he appears to be discussing it more. The arbcom moves very slowly - it is far more likely that you are going to find a result by discussing with him and trying to reach a compromise. I am not averse to blocking him again if his bad behavior continues, but at this point, I can't really justify that if the people he's arguing with are simply saying "You should be banned, there's no point in discussing with you." I can justify it if people appear to be assuming good faith and he's continuing to be disruptive. So my advice is that, if you want the situation to improve in the short term, attempts at compromise, civility, and consensus will be far more effective. Snowspinner 13:11, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Comment from anon user

66.144.4.2 inserted this into Djinni's welcoming message to me:

Taking my comments off a talk page is rude and concitered vandalic.

JML responds:

Inserting your comment into Djinni's was pretty rude.
It was someone else who deleted your comment, but I would've done so if I'd seen it first. The Talk:John Kerry page is not for discussing John Kerry the person, but rather for discussing John Kerry the article.
I was going to tell you that there's no such word as "vandalic" but I checked and discovered that there is. Thanks, I learned something. JamesMLane 18:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

re: Deletion process

I took the liberty of copying your question to Wikipedia talk:Deletion process and am answering it there. Rossami 14:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex

Do you want to set up an evidence page to present to arbitration? I'll help.--Neutrality 04:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco has since fixed the problem, so everything's alright now on the Kerry article. 172 04:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if fast relief is likely from the arbitration committee. It is a painfully slow, cumbersome, and increasingly legalistic bureaucracy. They are still working on cases from months ago. Perhaps this is a proper occasion for a quickpoll? They've fallen out of favor lately, but there's likely enough support for temporarily blocking the user names/IPs of this user for revert warring. 172 04:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There may be no optimal way of handling this. The only solution may be continually blocking this user and protecting the page until he gives up. 172 04:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello again. It's no imposition. (Rex is the one who should be apologizing for imposing anyway.) I may be wrong, but I can't recall seeing any quickpolls announced on Wikipedia:Recentchanges. This seems to be an example of "instruction creep." John Kerry is a very visible article and many users have Wikipedia:Quickpolls on their watchlist, so a quickpoll will be visible enough without such a prominent announcement. If you want, perhaps you can leave a note on the quickpoll talk page about this, allowing someone who feels that a bulletin on recent changes is necessary to add one. People make up these policies as they go along anyway. I may be wrong, but these policies don't seem to rigid to me. 172 05:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- It is a wiki, after all. Nothing is written in stone.--Neutrality 05:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hum, I'm sure that getting someone else to sponsor it, so to speak, can only help. I'll see if I can find someone online who can launch the poll. 172 05:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Raul654 is going to take a look at the Kerry page. If one can be a Wiki-policy expert, he's one of them. He'll definitely know how to handle this. 172 06:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem. (After dealing with lunacy for 20 months on Wikipedia, this is nothing.) Thanks to you as well. 172 06:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, Quickpolls are dead, after a lack of consensus as to whether they should continue. Even the one the ArbCom posted about trolling had a cloud over its head in that respect.

Anyway, if you want to proceed with arbitration, be my guest. I think I'd better pull my head in on this article, considering that I'm running for the AC, but I'll still give you a hand with collating evidence if you need it. Ambi 09:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Kerry Problem

Hi James, I understand what you mean regarding Rex's aggressiveness; however I'm trying to look at the article to see what can be done for a satisfactory conclusion, hopefully without jumping back into it. My own experience seems to indicate that, on contentious articles where a clear majority of interested Wikipedians fall on one side of an issue, it is almost impossible for an editor with a contrary view to make any but the most unobjectionable edit with reversion or worse. Enter Rex (or a Rex-like editor). IOW, only a bombastic editor in such a circumstance even gets paid attention to.

Please see suggestion, as I made it on Rex's page, for protecting the article and hashing everything out on a temp page. There people can let a contentious edit go for awhile while talking it without the need for an edit war, since the temp page is not live. This was done on several articles. I particularly think it worked well on Terrorism about a half-year ago. The editors agreed on nothing, not the definition of the word, whether terrorists really existed, who terrorists were, and so on and so on. It was protected for a month or so, not unprotected until consensus was reached and everyone agreed to let it go live. Perfect? No. But at least we had a workable article free from massive changes several times a day and patchwork protection. If Rex will agree, and everyone else will, too, I think it's the only way we'll get somewhere. I know a lot of people would like to solve the problem by banning Rex, but the article could be much better.

BYW, I read some of the Bush people's praise of the Kerry article. The things they liked were heavily weighted with things many of the editors wanted to keep out. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To follow up, I agree with the substance of what you say, and I will reiterate that I really don't want to become an active editor on Bush or Kerry if I can avoid it (with the exception maybe of VVAW-related stuff because I have knowledge and personal feelings on it). But I am concerned about the revert wars and the general attitude. I am trying to put across the idea that Rex is A problem, but he is not THE problem. The problem is a few editors (including but not limited to Rex) who think that everything in the article has to pass their muster or it gets summarily reverted. -- Cecropia | Talk 09:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your hostile threats about SBVT are inappropriate - and als0, you are wrong

The information you posted on my talk page does not, as I said it did not, refer to the book cover image "unfit.jpg" as having been discussed for removal. Frankly, when you go on the attack against my edits, I don't know what to think. The simple fact is that the removal of the "unfit.jpg" image from John Kerry was, itself, never agreed upon. Whover removed this originally, did so unilaterally and without consensus. And to top it off, you compound the controversy by reverting me without discussion. Personally, I am coming to believe that you are so pro-Kerry in your bias, that you are unable to comprehend even the most simple things which I tell you. Regardless of what you point out in your coment on my page, any fair reading of the replies to your Kerry Talk posting about SBVT, does not make it at all clear that epople were in agreement to remove the .jpg. Also, your justification of removing it - your assessment of Bush's page - is irrelevant due to the fact that there is no parity on editing standards between the articles. In fact, I and other have raised the point about applying equal standards to make points we want to make, and the group has ignored us. Additionally, we are not "comparing" Bush page to Kerry page. Rather, what we are doing is trying to make Kerry page informative, factual, balanced and NPOV. Currently, it is failing the later two goals miserablyRex071404 02:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane you are wrong, the NY Times reports the break-in as a fact, which did occur

Here is the link

It's from New York Times, Published: February 15, 2004. "Kerry's Brother Helps Make the Big Calls"

Here is the excerpt where the fact of the break-in having occured is reported:

He describes the 1972 campaign as a brutal lesson in realpolitik. He said that neighbors in his family's largely Republican hometown, Lowell, stopped speaking to his parents, and that editors at local newspapers took unwarranted political potshots at his brother.

Mr. Kerry said his brother's campaign failed to respond to critics — a mistake the campaign has not repeated.

Mr. Kerry was arrested during that campaign. He describes the incident with a slight grin. An anonymous telephone caller informed him that an opponent was planning to cut his campaign's phone lines, so he and an associate broke into the building where the phone lines were housed to make sure they were secure. The police arrived with suspicious alacrity, he said, leading him and others in the campaign to believe that political opponents had set him up. He was arrested for breaking and entering, but the charges were later dropped.

"It was obviously not the smart way to do it," Mr. Kerry said.

JamesMLane, please be candid enough to amdit you are wrong on this point. I have given you a careful and correct explanation and I have provided a verfied corroboration from New York Times. I am restoring my edits on that section and I ask that you leave them alone this time. Thank you Rex071404 04:54, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

I was considering nominating you for adminship, but wanted to make sure you are interested first. Let me know. — マイケル ₪ 19:01, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Request for help with a move

Following the links you provided. Back to you soon. I would hope you welcome the experience, if it turns out i advise you to proceed & i'd take the blame if i misjudged the risks...? --Jerzy (t) 20:57, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

OK:

The history of Modeling (NLP) reads as one entry, summarized "(Modeling (NLP) moved to Modelling (NLP))". That history could be forged AFAIK, rather than provided by a previous Move operation, but that's far-fetched. (Why would anyone bother?)
The Hx of Modelling (NLP) looks unremarkable, at a glance.
As to the "What links here" page of Modelling (NLP),
- the indication, just above the redirect, of Modelling (NLP) itself being something that links there, is false. I've seen that before, and seen no problem from renaming in that situation.
- The only redirect is the one you propose to convert back to an article, so you should find no double redirects when done.
- The existing direct links from articles (Model and Neuro-linguistic programming) will become redirected links; an overzealous job would include changing those two articles to bypass the redir, and its effect would often be overlooked by users. That is not part of the move-operation "code of honor", and might well get done by somebody's bot.
I haven't studied the arguments you both made (my head hurts when i contemplate trying to be sure i grasp which is the British and which the American spelling!), but offhand it looks like you've reached agreement on the change you have in mind.
Bottom line: i recommend you proceed yourself with the move.
- Move the article, not the link. (The link gets obliterated; a new link in the opposite direction gets created, to tie the old name to the new one.
- You can paste the existing name into the target-title pane and edit out the extra L.
- Remember to check the move-the-talk-page box.
- Read the instructions on the move page, mostly because it'll help you remember better how the thing works when you contemplate your next rename.
- If there should be a problem, it would AFAIK simply be a refusal to effect the change; i had one that i couldn't explain, and which the admin i consulted couldn't see any problem with. They tried and it went fine, so maybe i had been confused about what i was doing, and maybe it was just a Mystery of the Internet.
- Let me know about questions, or problems, or just how reassuring it is to have it succeed after i've gone and made such a big deal out of it.

And if you'd really prefer i do the move, let me know that; no problem.
--Jerzy (t) 22:13, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Pope John XX

Hi, thanks for the note. I stubbify any page that still has room in the default-sized edit box. I've been asked to de-stub a page before, is that what you would like me to do? I don't know if Wikipedia has a stub policy other than not to stub disambiguation pages, year and "year in" pages, and lists. If you can provide me with some kind of a link, that'd be great. In the mean time, I'll destub Pope John XX. _{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 21:57, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry & Rex

Sigh. I was really hoping I could stay out of the mess on John Kerry, but I seem to be being pulled in from all directions. If you'll indulge me, I'll list a few of my impressions: First, I know very little about Rex, and haven't gotten myself fully up to speed. But most of the material on the RfAr page did not seem very damning, especially the quotes listed as "attacks" on users: (to Neutrality) "Right at the beginning of the 1st edit war (which he started)...", "In my view, I think that N. was trying to get the last post in again last night - just like he did previously.", "You are using a few revision oversights by me AS AN EXCUSE to remove on a wholesale basis, perfectly factual information about John Kerry. And in it's stead, you are inserting pro-Kerry propaganda.", "rv -This page has been re-open for less than an hour and already Neutrality is reverting me again without comment", etc. I've had far worse things said to me twice before breakfast without batting an eye. As for the POV pushing section, I saw two issues: whether to call some term "briefly" and some injury "minor". My gut is to agree with you on the first and agree with Rex on the second ("minor injury" is I think a technical term used in law, medicine, etc.), but anyway I don't see him being much more aggressive than his detractors, and if he is, it may only be because he is outnumbered. I know from working with Neutrality that he is stubborn and revert-happy, so I can empathize with Rex's frustration in that respect.

Anyway, Rex has only been around a couple of weeks and has not learned the ropes instantaneously. It must be disheartening to get an RfAr within days of arrival. From his own comments he indicated that he has changed his behavior to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. My suspicion is that he would be quite open to a dialogue if such were approached with a positive attitude and an assumption of good faith. Of course, I am handicapped by my lack of experience with him, but from reading the conversation on Talk:John Kerry he seems both sincere and communicative, if pushy. I realize this impression may not comport with your experience.

Maybe, of course, I'm more inclined towards patience because I somewhat more identify with his politics, and feel openly rightist users face an uphill battle on Wikipedia. But, FWIW, I'm largely snoozing through this whole 2004 U.S. election business, with only modest interest in the outcome and even less in the process, and I know little of Kerry and his controversies and care even less. I don't know enough about the Vietnam stories to even clearly perceive the relevance of them, so in a sense I am neutral.

Anyway, I will try myself to communicate with Rex. I don't know that I'm the ideal choice to do so, since I empathize too much with his experiences with Neutrality, and have had sour experiences using "community" solutions to conflicts, but I can put in two cents.

V V 09:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VV, although I'm not James, I'd just suggust that if you haven't already, look through the talk archives as well. Just to get the full picture- I don't know if it will change your mind, but it might help you understand where everyone is coming from. If you have already, ignore me ;) Lyellin 09:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't looked thoroughly through the archives, just the most recent discussion and the items quoted on the RfAr page, so of course my perspective is lacking. Whether I do look through them depends on how deeply I decide to involve myself in this issue. V V 10:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, I didn't mean to imply you hadn't approached him with the positive attitude, etc. Rather, I'm suggesting that now that he's had his initial experience of newbie blundering about, blowback, and harsh words, but has since alluded to improving his conduct, it might be appropriate to give him another chance. Of course, if it's as bad as you may feel, I can understand not wanting to do that - but it may be the only way out. V V 10:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Invitation to JamesMLane for further dialog

JamesMLane, please be advised that I invite you to dialog with me, at length if you need to, on my personal Talk Page. I am open to and am interested in addressing and satisfying your concerns so to as to enable you to desist from pressing for my expulsion from the pool of editors on the John Kerry page. Rex071404 19:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question about ArbCom procedure

(From User talk:Fred Bauder) I noticed your comment on User talk:Rex071404 about the arbitration concerning him. Therefore, of all the arbitrators, I've singled you out to be pestered with a question about procedure. Is there a point at which the "record" is closed so that the Committee can make a decision? After the initial request was made, I added a few items. Then, more recently, I added a very detailed account of one particular illustrative incident. Now, in the course of doing something not directly related to the arbitration proceeding, I came upon something else that I'd forgotten before but that adds a little morsel to the case. If I'd remembered it initially I would've included it, but it's no big deal. My concern is that if the complainants keep adding things, and Rex keeps adding responses or other defenses, we'll just have a version of the Talk:John Kerry debate carried over to a new page, and the ArbCom will never have a completed record on which to act. In requesting a preliminary injunction, I've mentioned why I think speed is important, so I wouldn't want to delay the proceeding by continuing to add things. Any advice you can give on the timing (complaints, responses, ArbCom action) would be appreciated. (I've never been involved in an arbitration before.) JamesMLane 02:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This matter is still in its beginning pages as far as arbitration is concerned, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision. That is the page to watch, the proposed decision page. Once a bunch of proposed decisions have been proposed and voted on the case becomes more inflexible as changing everything is difficult and time consuming. So to answer your question, you can add to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence and even to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 as you are named as a participant in the case. It is possible for you all to add so much that the pages become confusing and not useful for us, but we know how to delete... (or refactor). As Rex071404 claims he has turned over a new leaf and is now requesting mediation I am particularly interested in evidence that he has or has not changed his behavior. For example in the section above this he requests dialog. Is this real, what happens when you try? Fred Bauder 12:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. A couple of points that occur to me offhand:

In an attempt at dialog, I made this post on Rex's Talk page. Raul654 endorsed it and amplified on it. Rex deleted (not archived, but deleted) my comment and Raul's without responding.
There was a prior request for mediation iniitated by Gamaliel -- see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 9#User:Rex071404 and User:Gamaliel. Rex's response included the statement, "I object to 'mediation' as being not ripe at this point." In the absence of consent to mediation from both sides, the Mediation Committee took no action. (My phrase "absence of consent" is carefully chosen. When people have said that Rex rejected mediation, he has cavilled at that description, though I think it is plainly accurate.) Now, with a Request for Arbitration filed by several participants and extensively documented, Rex has requested mediation. I invoke the historic skepticism concerning deathbed conversions (without meaning to imply that an ArbCom decision against Rex is a certainty). JamesMLane 14:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your explanation of ArbCom decision procedures is helpful. I'm left unclear on one point, though: What's the procedure concerning my request for interim relief? It seems that, if my request follows the normal course, then that issue would be decided at approximately the same time as the rest of the proceeding. If that's the only available procedure, then every or almost every such request is, de facto, denied. JamesMLane 14:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has in the past issued temporary orders and will in this case if it is warranted. My own comments regarding issuance of temporary orders in this matter can be found at the bottom of the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 13:50, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Additional invitation to dialog 08.13.04

I notice as of a few minutes ago, you have again begun reverting me tonight without 1st stating your concerns on the talk page then asking for and waiting for my reply. Frankly, I get the feeling you are too focused on trying to kick me off as an editor. Again I will ask, are you willing to try to develop harmonized text as Mbecker and I were doing today? Also, the "example" you point to above, is exactly one week old and was prior to my 24 hour ban by Snowspinner which lasted until 08.07.04 Rex071404 00:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my block of you lasted until 8/2/04. Snowspinner 03:31, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I had in mind some dialog with Snowspinner from on or about 08.06.04 Rex071404 06:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, James.

I'm up for adminship. If you can vote in support, I'd appreciate it very much. :) Neutrality 01:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)