March to August 2004
I saw your comment about Nationmaster on Talk:José Martí. They are known to copy our pages, and are listed on copies of Wikipedia content.
Here's some tips:
Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela . 02:52, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
It looks fine on my end, can you be more specific? Gamaliel 22:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea how I changed the Tausky. Any ideas? I'm using explorer 5.1 for mac Gamaliel 22:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question, which will perhaps be nonsensical to you :) I notice you made the "Hroswitha" redirect the other day - are you by any chance a quiz bowl player? Adam Bishop 01:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
It's nice to see the double play trio of Tinker, Evers and Chance finally finished. Consider yourself wikipaid (if I can call it that, at one wikidollar a biography... at any rate, thanks). -- Matty j 07:30, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
GO bulls! Nice to meet you! Dominick 02:36, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for adding all those Van Vechten photographs! -- Larrybob 22:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I saw that Lst27 claimed your bounty for creating a "substantive" article on the Kinshasa Highway, transferring wikimoney from your account to his/hers. Needless to say, the article is not in the least bit "substantive", and I have transferred the money back, as only the person offering the bounty should be the one awarding it. - snoyes 14:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You insist in erasing my link : For more on Famous Puerto Ricans Click here: List Of Puerto Ricans, from my articule. Do you have something against people having access to that link? Do you have something against Puerto Ricans? It seems that you have a problem with me, what's up? Stop vandalizing my page and lets get along O.K? User: Marine 69-71
Having a link to List of Puerto Ricans under a ==See also== section near the bottom of an article about a Puerto Rican, makes perfect sense to me. If and when a category called category:Puerto Ricans gets created, then that link will get replaced. -- mav 04:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's NOT an "irrelevancy" and you are PROVING your BIAS by saying that!==
Rex071404 17:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
By the way, I am guessing that you are trying to start an EDIT WAR, so as to get the Kerry page "protected" and thereby lock in your obvious pro-Kerry censorship!
Rex071404 17:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Here is my post (which YOU keep removing!): {deleted five paragraph section and picture which can be seen on the John Kerry page history}
Please calm down. I have no wish to have a fued over this. I do not "keep removing" this. I removed it once entirely once. Others did the same. It was repeatedly restored. Apparently the consensus is that some version of this incident belongs. This does not mean your version or the original version is holy writ. I edited it with an eye towards condensing it. Five paragraphs is not called for, so I revised it into a one paragraph version. You expanded it to four, I culled that down to two. I figured we were working towards a version we both could live with.
I believe this is an irrelevancy, as I would believe it to be an irrelevancy to the career and biography of any politican of any party. A quickly shouted down suggestion at a meeting he may or may not have attended? A suggestion which no one, pro or anti Kerry, claims he ever had any hand in formulating? Who fucking cares? It doesn't deserve one paragraph, much less five. Rant about my supposed bias all you want, this is irrelevant nonsense. And your anti-Kerry bias, with your rants on Talk:John Kerry Catholic priest abuse and the Weathermen, is plain to see.
Rex071404 20:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex071404 20:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If I wanted an edit war, I would have reverted all your edits. If you want to rant and make wild accusations, do it somewhere else. Gamaliel 17:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your snide comments prove nothing. I am NOT "ranting" and I am not making "accusations", neither at you, nor at Mr. Kerry. As for what you consider "wild", I will tell you that as a child, I loved the book "where the wild things are", but I am gussing you don;t mean that. So then, precisly what are you refrring to as "wild"?...
Rex071404 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also, it is indeed you who, without valid cause (and possible pro-Kerry bias), keeps butchering this: {Five paragraphs and picture deleted again for space reasons.}
Hi Gamaliel,
I know you feel strongly about the election, as do many others, but that is not an excuse for mass reversion, which is generally against policy, especially without explanation.
As to Kerry and the VVAW and that Kansas City meeting, it is quite relevant to Kerry's article, and I'm sure Kerry and most of his supporters know it. Perhaps more important than the fact of his being at the meeting, well backed up by articles in the mainstream press and tacitly acknowledged by Kerry himself, are the possible reasons why he says he doesn't remember it.
Looking at it as a journalist, if he acknowledges being at the meeting, it opens the door for questions he would probably not want to have to answer. For example: "Did you know about the discussion to assassinate US politicians?" If he says no, the press will dig to find people who were there who can testify Kerry had heard of it. In that case (or if he acknowledges he had heard it but didn't take it seriously or whatever) the next question: "You knew there were people threatening violence who might possibly have committed it, with or without the VVAW's support. Did you tell any authorities about that? Why not?" In the post 9/11 milieu, those are questions he might not want to answer. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex071404 22:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
{Deleted five paragraph proposed section for space reasons}
Why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?
I await your answer...
Rex071404 04:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rex071404. Ambivalenthysteria 07:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I notice that you have been adding to the Modern Library or mentioning it on all related articles. I wrote a rather heated post about this yesterday, here: Wikipedia:Village_pump#Modern_Library - I didn't realise you were adding most of them and I don't mean anything personal; I also hate to be suggesting that all your well-intentioned work be revamped. But essentially, the list was something of an advertisement (more detail in the main article), and I think mentioning it as a recommendation is unfair to both the work, to many other major writers who are ignored on that list, and a bit on the side of commercialism and POV; if we could work out some kind of compromise on this I would love to hear of it. -- Simonides 06:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I think some sort of disclaimer, in consideration of the controversy surrounding the list, should be in order. I can't think of anything right now but I am open to suggestions. -- Simonides 07:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Possibly the category page, but certainly everywhere that the list is mentioned as some sort of achievement; I don't mind sharing in the task of making changes. I think we could use a standard sentence like "[[Modern Library]] selected [[Novel X]] among its top 100 novels." - the difference in implication being that Modern Library didn't establish the top 100 works, but selected them from its own pool. -- Simonides 08:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) Another suggestion. We could remove mention of the Modern Library from each article where it's mentioned, simply retaining the category, and use a clearer disclaimer on the Category page. This should be less work too. -- Simonides 08:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your most recent edit to the talk page for John Kerry resulted is a massive deletion of text
Is this what you intended or am I misreading the log and I have made an error? This is urgent, your assistance for restoration is needed. Rex071404 06:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
By refusing to addres the issue of the truthfulness off facts, JML, Wolfman and Neutrality were dialogin in bad faith. This prevented me form making changes that would suit them. their only interest is a pro-Kerry POV. Rex071404 07:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You graduated from USF? I'm going to be attending classes there. Mike H 23:40, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I did have some primary sources from the time, so I figured I'd use them. It's really neat to have a copy of ATWT the day Kennedy was shot, because it was preempted like that. Mike H 14:36, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
well you just vandalised yourself memoving my comment form the talk page, how rude.-- 63.224.222.123 07:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please do not insult other users. I know how difficult Rex can be to deal with - I blocked him for 24 hours yesterday because of how he was behaving on John Kerry. And, if his behavior continues, I will block him again. However, I can only justify doing this if the people he's debating with are not behaving badly. That is to say, please stop belittling Rex and his contributions, as much as you disagree with them. Suggesting that he's stupid and illiterate does not further the discussion. Looking at his contributions, I think he's been trying to be better since his 24 hour block. Please m:Assume good faith and let him have the chance to reform. Thanks. Snowspinner 13:18, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
That's the funniest thing I've seen in a long while. (baby jesus). Thanks for the laugh, very nearly put me on the floor literally. Wolfman 03:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That was hilarious. Thanks for doing that. By the way, I'm collecting evidence and I'd like it if you could help: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence.-- Neutrality 18:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't you mention that the strip was also known as Jiggs and Maggie, at least familiarly?
And in your Movies list, you don't have the names of some of the movies!
Cheers, Hayford Peirce 03:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
About the films: I'll bet that they probably had Jiggs and Maggie in the titles somewhere.
It's sort of like the old Phil Silvers TV show. It was actually called something like : "The Phil Silvers Show: You're In the Army Now." But everyone simply called it "the Sergeant Bilko show"....
Best, Hayford Peirce 04:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I was just told by another user, that we are not to remove Wiki links, regardless. Does this same rule apply to you, or not? Rex071404 17:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The fact that you concede that my comments are "often ignored" makes my point. What we disagree on is whether or not my inquires are nothing but gratuitous muck raking. I say that they are on point, thoughtful and germane. At the same time, I suppose you are free to characterize my efforts as posing "loaded questions" in attempt "to steer the debate".
Frankly, I am pretty sure we all try to "steer the debate". That leaves "loaded questions". Which of my recent questions are you offended by, and why? Rex071404 05:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence"
No problem, Gamaliel; after all, it's good to include Mozart's reply. Cheers, Opus33 19:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Change of plans...we're accelerating our packing due to Bonnie. We may be too late, but we're going to leave on Thursday anyway. We should be in Tampa by Saturday. Mike H 22:37, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Cool! Nice! [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The "duplicates" of which you speak, are TOC name duplicates only. They actually are differing sections. The second set, is the "criticism" section which keeps merging with the bio section due to edits of others who keep reverting me and removing the "line" which separates sections
Rex071404 21:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The page is now protected again. Meanwhile, the ArbCom is apparently sitting back and giving everyone a full opportunity to present evidence and comments... which is fine as far as it goes but it means we'll be condemned to the current situation for a long time. I'm extremely frustrated. If you agree with me, I urge you to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Request for immediate temporary injunction and support my request there. Thanks! JamesMLane 04:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You suggestion that I am making "unilateral" declarations is patently false. Here are the facts:
Rather, he has jumped to quickly reverting me - and now you are tag-teaming with him. Shame!
Rex071404 02:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And if you don't think that others (mostly JML and Neutrality) ingore me - especially when I prove them wrong, watcth the JK talk page and see what JML says about this rebuttal of mine:
Rex071404 04:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In the Rex arbitration, you wrote: "I made the mistake of attempting to inject humor into a tense and ridiculous situation by typing in the edit summary 'John Kerry is friend to all children'. This was an obvious reference to Gamera and I thought it was an obvious bit of silliness." I took it as silliness but I thought you just made it up, spoofing Rex's idea of a cabal of Kerry operatives. The "obvious reference" missed me completely. Is this a catch phrase in the Gamera oeuvre? JamesMLane 14:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would you mind voting to support my adminship nomination on RfA? I'd be very thankful. Neutrality 02:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The original numbers from the Kerry web site are accurate. I double-checked them prior to my originally inserting that table some time ago. The currently displayed lower numbers are not accurate.
Also, I have extended an olive branch to Neutrality and would like to do so to you also.
I am intesrested to discuss why I was so bothered by the "baby Jesus" comment. Are you interested to dialog on that and related topics towards th aim of puttingg past difficulties behind us?
Please advise
Rex071404 07:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What the hell is your problem?
I have not restored the John Kerry chart to its original numbers simply because I have not gotten around to it. Unlike you, I don’t hover around the same 2 or 3 articles, I do a lot of varied work here on wikipedia. And I shouldn’t have to justify my actions to you, nor should you be throwing out rude and shrill accusations and taunts like “Your wilfull blindness on this amazes me” and “Are you afraid to be proven wrong?”. This is exactly the sort of negative behavior I am talking about in my comments above, and in your reply you provide a prime example of it. This is why I do not believe you are sincere when you claim that you have changed or will change your negative behavior.
Do not post here again unless you are prepared to be civil. Gamaliel 17:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Here is the original table, with the correct numbers (easily verifiable on Kerry web site):
Senator Kerry, in the last 10 years, as shown on his Senate web site [1], has sponsored these bills:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm here! It's really nice. Mike H 16:18, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
How does this vulgar Edit Summary of yours jibe with your previous protestations to me regarding you being a Christian?:
"22:14, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User:Gamaliel (fuck fuck fuck)" - from here
Rex071404 00:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, I honestly don’t believe that my joke can be construed as an intentional taunt. I believe it is an obvious and harmless joke (one that I’ve heard often) and was obviously intended to diffuse a tense situation caused by your accusations.
Even if a person honestly takes offense at such harmless humor, what do you think is the more appropriate, reasonable response?
1) I am offended by that joke and I’d appreciate it if you don’t make jokes about Jesus as I personally view them as anti-Christian, though I am sure you did not intend it that way.
2) You are an anti-Christian bigot!!
Gamaliel 18:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You said: "We should not have any interest in "balance" so it falls midway between Dem and GOP...".
Question to you: Why not?
Rex071404 15:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There's something akin to a vote over on Talk:SBVT. Just letting you know since you've been recently active over there. I might be digging in my heels a bit hard here, because his initial suggestion (elsewhere) was just over the top. Your thoughts would be appreciated, if you dare enter the soul-sucking, mind-numbing wasteland that is Talk SBVT. Wolfman 00:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
March to August 2004
I saw your comment about Nationmaster on Talk:José Martí. They are known to copy our pages, and are listed on copies of Wikipedia content.
Here's some tips:
Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela . 02:52, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
It looks fine on my end, can you be more specific? Gamaliel 22:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea how I changed the Tausky. Any ideas? I'm using explorer 5.1 for mac Gamaliel 22:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question, which will perhaps be nonsensical to you :) I notice you made the "Hroswitha" redirect the other day - are you by any chance a quiz bowl player? Adam Bishop 01:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
It's nice to see the double play trio of Tinker, Evers and Chance finally finished. Consider yourself wikipaid (if I can call it that, at one wikidollar a biography... at any rate, thanks). -- Matty j 07:30, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
GO bulls! Nice to meet you! Dominick 02:36, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for adding all those Van Vechten photographs! -- Larrybob 22:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I saw that Lst27 claimed your bounty for creating a "substantive" article on the Kinshasa Highway, transferring wikimoney from your account to his/hers. Needless to say, the article is not in the least bit "substantive", and I have transferred the money back, as only the person offering the bounty should be the one awarding it. - snoyes 14:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You insist in erasing my link : For more on Famous Puerto Ricans Click here: List Of Puerto Ricans, from my articule. Do you have something against people having access to that link? Do you have something against Puerto Ricans? It seems that you have a problem with me, what's up? Stop vandalizing my page and lets get along O.K? User: Marine 69-71
Having a link to List of Puerto Ricans under a ==See also== section near the bottom of an article about a Puerto Rican, makes perfect sense to me. If and when a category called category:Puerto Ricans gets created, then that link will get replaced. -- mav 04:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's NOT an "irrelevancy" and you are PROVING your BIAS by saying that!==
Rex071404 17:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
By the way, I am guessing that you are trying to start an EDIT WAR, so as to get the Kerry page "protected" and thereby lock in your obvious pro-Kerry censorship!
Rex071404 17:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Here is my post (which YOU keep removing!): {deleted five paragraph section and picture which can be seen on the John Kerry page history}
Please calm down. I have no wish to have a fued over this. I do not "keep removing" this. I removed it once entirely once. Others did the same. It was repeatedly restored. Apparently the consensus is that some version of this incident belongs. This does not mean your version or the original version is holy writ. I edited it with an eye towards condensing it. Five paragraphs is not called for, so I revised it into a one paragraph version. You expanded it to four, I culled that down to two. I figured we were working towards a version we both could live with.
I believe this is an irrelevancy, as I would believe it to be an irrelevancy to the career and biography of any politican of any party. A quickly shouted down suggestion at a meeting he may or may not have attended? A suggestion which no one, pro or anti Kerry, claims he ever had any hand in formulating? Who fucking cares? It doesn't deserve one paragraph, much less five. Rant about my supposed bias all you want, this is irrelevant nonsense. And your anti-Kerry bias, with your rants on Talk:John Kerry Catholic priest abuse and the Weathermen, is plain to see.
Rex071404 20:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex071404 20:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If I wanted an edit war, I would have reverted all your edits. If you want to rant and make wild accusations, do it somewhere else. Gamaliel 17:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your snide comments prove nothing. I am NOT "ranting" and I am not making "accusations", neither at you, nor at Mr. Kerry. As for what you consider "wild", I will tell you that as a child, I loved the book "where the wild things are", but I am gussing you don;t mean that. So then, precisly what are you refrring to as "wild"?...
Rex071404 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also, it is indeed you who, without valid cause (and possible pro-Kerry bias), keeps butchering this: {Five paragraphs and picture deleted again for space reasons.}
Hi Gamaliel,
I know you feel strongly about the election, as do many others, but that is not an excuse for mass reversion, which is generally against policy, especially without explanation.
As to Kerry and the VVAW and that Kansas City meeting, it is quite relevant to Kerry's article, and I'm sure Kerry and most of his supporters know it. Perhaps more important than the fact of his being at the meeting, well backed up by articles in the mainstream press and tacitly acknowledged by Kerry himself, are the possible reasons why he says he doesn't remember it.
Looking at it as a journalist, if he acknowledges being at the meeting, it opens the door for questions he would probably not want to have to answer. For example: "Did you know about the discussion to assassinate US politicians?" If he says no, the press will dig to find people who were there who can testify Kerry had heard of it. In that case (or if he acknowledges he had heard it but didn't take it seriously or whatever) the next question: "You knew there were people threatening violence who might possibly have committed it, with or without the VVAW's support. Did you tell any authorities about that? Why not?" In the post 9/11 milieu, those are questions he might not want to answer. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex071404 22:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
{Deleted five paragraph proposed section for space reasons}
Why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?
I await your answer...
Rex071404 04:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rex071404. Ambivalenthysteria 07:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I notice that you have been adding to the Modern Library or mentioning it on all related articles. I wrote a rather heated post about this yesterday, here: Wikipedia:Village_pump#Modern_Library - I didn't realise you were adding most of them and I don't mean anything personal; I also hate to be suggesting that all your well-intentioned work be revamped. But essentially, the list was something of an advertisement (more detail in the main article), and I think mentioning it as a recommendation is unfair to both the work, to many other major writers who are ignored on that list, and a bit on the side of commercialism and POV; if we could work out some kind of compromise on this I would love to hear of it. -- Simonides 06:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I think some sort of disclaimer, in consideration of the controversy surrounding the list, should be in order. I can't think of anything right now but I am open to suggestions. -- Simonides 07:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Possibly the category page, but certainly everywhere that the list is mentioned as some sort of achievement; I don't mind sharing in the task of making changes. I think we could use a standard sentence like "[[Modern Library]] selected [[Novel X]] among its top 100 novels." - the difference in implication being that Modern Library didn't establish the top 100 works, but selected them from its own pool. -- Simonides 08:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) Another suggestion. We could remove mention of the Modern Library from each article where it's mentioned, simply retaining the category, and use a clearer disclaimer on the Category page. This should be less work too. -- Simonides 08:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your most recent edit to the talk page for John Kerry resulted is a massive deletion of text
Is this what you intended or am I misreading the log and I have made an error? This is urgent, your assistance for restoration is needed. Rex071404 06:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
By refusing to addres the issue of the truthfulness off facts, JML, Wolfman and Neutrality were dialogin in bad faith. This prevented me form making changes that would suit them. their only interest is a pro-Kerry POV. Rex071404 07:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You graduated from USF? I'm going to be attending classes there. Mike H 23:40, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I did have some primary sources from the time, so I figured I'd use them. It's really neat to have a copy of ATWT the day Kennedy was shot, because it was preempted like that. Mike H 14:36, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
well you just vandalised yourself memoving my comment form the talk page, how rude.-- 63.224.222.123 07:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please do not insult other users. I know how difficult Rex can be to deal with - I blocked him for 24 hours yesterday because of how he was behaving on John Kerry. And, if his behavior continues, I will block him again. However, I can only justify doing this if the people he's debating with are not behaving badly. That is to say, please stop belittling Rex and his contributions, as much as you disagree with them. Suggesting that he's stupid and illiterate does not further the discussion. Looking at his contributions, I think he's been trying to be better since his 24 hour block. Please m:Assume good faith and let him have the chance to reform. Thanks. Snowspinner 13:18, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
That's the funniest thing I've seen in a long while. (baby jesus). Thanks for the laugh, very nearly put me on the floor literally. Wolfman 03:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That was hilarious. Thanks for doing that. By the way, I'm collecting evidence and I'd like it if you could help: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence.-- Neutrality 18:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't you mention that the strip was also known as Jiggs and Maggie, at least familiarly?
And in your Movies list, you don't have the names of some of the movies!
Cheers, Hayford Peirce 03:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
About the films: I'll bet that they probably had Jiggs and Maggie in the titles somewhere.
It's sort of like the old Phil Silvers TV show. It was actually called something like : "The Phil Silvers Show: You're In the Army Now." But everyone simply called it "the Sergeant Bilko show"....
Best, Hayford Peirce 04:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I was just told by another user, that we are not to remove Wiki links, regardless. Does this same rule apply to you, or not? Rex071404 17:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The fact that you concede that my comments are "often ignored" makes my point. What we disagree on is whether or not my inquires are nothing but gratuitous muck raking. I say that they are on point, thoughtful and germane. At the same time, I suppose you are free to characterize my efforts as posing "loaded questions" in attempt "to steer the debate".
Frankly, I am pretty sure we all try to "steer the debate". That leaves "loaded questions". Which of my recent questions are you offended by, and why? Rex071404 05:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence"
No problem, Gamaliel; after all, it's good to include Mozart's reply. Cheers, Opus33 19:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Change of plans...we're accelerating our packing due to Bonnie. We may be too late, but we're going to leave on Thursday anyway. We should be in Tampa by Saturday. Mike H 22:37, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Cool! Nice! [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The "duplicates" of which you speak, are TOC name duplicates only. They actually are differing sections. The second set, is the "criticism" section which keeps merging with the bio section due to edits of others who keep reverting me and removing the "line" which separates sections
Rex071404 21:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The page is now protected again. Meanwhile, the ArbCom is apparently sitting back and giving everyone a full opportunity to present evidence and comments... which is fine as far as it goes but it means we'll be condemned to the current situation for a long time. I'm extremely frustrated. If you agree with me, I urge you to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Request for immediate temporary injunction and support my request there. Thanks! JamesMLane 04:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You suggestion that I am making "unilateral" declarations is patently false. Here are the facts:
Rather, he has jumped to quickly reverting me - and now you are tag-teaming with him. Shame!
Rex071404 02:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And if you don't think that others (mostly JML and Neutrality) ingore me - especially when I prove them wrong, watcth the JK talk page and see what JML says about this rebuttal of mine:
Rex071404 04:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In the Rex arbitration, you wrote: "I made the mistake of attempting to inject humor into a tense and ridiculous situation by typing in the edit summary 'John Kerry is friend to all children'. This was an obvious reference to Gamera and I thought it was an obvious bit of silliness." I took it as silliness but I thought you just made it up, spoofing Rex's idea of a cabal of Kerry operatives. The "obvious reference" missed me completely. Is this a catch phrase in the Gamera oeuvre? JamesMLane 14:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would you mind voting to support my adminship nomination on RfA? I'd be very thankful. Neutrality 02:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The original numbers from the Kerry web site are accurate. I double-checked them prior to my originally inserting that table some time ago. The currently displayed lower numbers are not accurate.
Also, I have extended an olive branch to Neutrality and would like to do so to you also.
I am intesrested to discuss why I was so bothered by the "baby Jesus" comment. Are you interested to dialog on that and related topics towards th aim of puttingg past difficulties behind us?
Please advise
Rex071404 07:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What the hell is your problem?
I have not restored the John Kerry chart to its original numbers simply because I have not gotten around to it. Unlike you, I don’t hover around the same 2 or 3 articles, I do a lot of varied work here on wikipedia. And I shouldn’t have to justify my actions to you, nor should you be throwing out rude and shrill accusations and taunts like “Your wilfull blindness on this amazes me” and “Are you afraid to be proven wrong?”. This is exactly the sort of negative behavior I am talking about in my comments above, and in your reply you provide a prime example of it. This is why I do not believe you are sincere when you claim that you have changed or will change your negative behavior.
Do not post here again unless you are prepared to be civil. Gamaliel 17:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Here is the original table, with the correct numbers (easily verifiable on Kerry web site):
Senator Kerry, in the last 10 years, as shown on his Senate web site [1], has sponsored these bills:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm here! It's really nice. Mike H 16:18, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
How does this vulgar Edit Summary of yours jibe with your previous protestations to me regarding you being a Christian?:
"22:14, 14 Aug 2004 (hist) User:Gamaliel (fuck fuck fuck)" - from here
Rex071404 00:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, I honestly don’t believe that my joke can be construed as an intentional taunt. I believe it is an obvious and harmless joke (one that I’ve heard often) and was obviously intended to diffuse a tense situation caused by your accusations.
Even if a person honestly takes offense at such harmless humor, what do you think is the more appropriate, reasonable response?
1) I am offended by that joke and I’d appreciate it if you don’t make jokes about Jesus as I personally view them as anti-Christian, though I am sure you did not intend it that way.
2) You are an anti-Christian bigot!!
Gamaliel 18:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You said: "We should not have any interest in "balance" so it falls midway between Dem and GOP...".
Question to you: Why not?
Rex071404 15:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There's something akin to a vote over on Talk:SBVT. Just letting you know since you've been recently active over there. I might be digging in my heels a bit hard here, because his initial suggestion (elsewhere) was just over the top. Your thoughts would be appreciated, if you dare enter the soul-sucking, mind-numbing wasteland that is Talk SBVT. Wolfman 00:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)