Kevin, I didn't understand your request for unprotection of 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories. You wrote something about someone lying about the need for protection and someone being involved in the dispute? I was the admin who locked the page, so let me know what the issues are so I can consider whether to unlock it. Messages for you here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
FYI: It seems the 9/11 domestic complicity article (and others) were folded into the generic 9/11 conspiracy theories article. How did it happen and what should we do? zen master T 22:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi - there's a vote going on at Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that you may be interested in.-- csloat 06:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Please do not remove the dispute tags from the election articles - there is a rather substantial dispute going on regarding them. Snowspinner 16:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Please investigate and comment on the talk page about multiple changes to the Conspiracy theory article made in the last week or so [1]. In my interpretation, clarity has been reduced and info on the mechanics of how "conspiracy theory" may bias the presentation of a subject has been downplayed or removed. zen master T 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
You've been named in an arbcom case. Phil Sandifer 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Using deceptive edit summaries and reverting to versions of 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities which contain copyright violations could result in you being blocked from editing. Rhobite 23:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Posting copyright material onto Wikipedia endangers Wikipedia's status by leaving it open to a threat of legal action. As a result posting of such material can be seen as vandalism. If you again post information which legally Wikipedia cannot use in that form you will be subject to a longer block. FearÉIREANN 07:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.
I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2 [3] or the Requests for comment/TDC [4]
Currently there is arbitration pending on
User:TDC.
[5]
I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page. Travb 01:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I will be proposing some changes to the article on the talk page and I would appreciate some feedback before I make any changes on this controversial topic. I thought you might like some advance notice since you have helped edit it in the past. Rkevins82 21:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to express my appreciation for your contributions to wikipedia. You help keep wikipedia wonderful. -- Dschor 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Get ready for another round of deeply quality-oriented editing. [6] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I found your delineation of grounds for impeachment cogent. Maybe you could incorporate them into the introduction, etc.-- Beth Wellington 04:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article . Thank you. Blackcats 04:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
See here. zen master T 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice, but it may be more practical if you replace "60% oppose" with "40% support" to have them all use the same statistic. R adiant _>|< 23:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, support+oppose does not neccessarily equal 100%, because of other votes. I think other votes shouldn't be counted in those numbers, but I didn't do the counting. Kevin baas 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Kevin. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you care for some reasons people support Bush that aren't specious? The ones you presented on the article talk page are pretty retarded if you ask me. I won't discuss there, since it does nothing to further the article at hand, but thought I'd respond anyways. -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It may very well be that each side doesn't see the other person's arguments, views, what-have-you as valid (whether a priori or a posteri). So there is then a difference between knowing why people feel a certain way, and knowing non-specious reasons why people think that a certain person is fit for performing the duties and responsibility of the office. I had alluded to some of the things you mentioned, such as "his friendly, jovial, optimistic attitude" - which I file under "irrelevant" because it does not reflect on his effort or ability to efficiently serve the office - in anticipation of them as responses. Bush's obstinancy in his policies doesn't make those policies good - and that's what the actual question is, is is he a good decision maker? Cause that's an important part of the job description. His obstinancy does not reflect on his decision making ability, and in fact is more likely to impede his ability to adapt to circumstances, or repair flaws in his initial analysis when more information comes to light. As for "security moms" and people who don't want to change leaders in time of crisis, well the latter is more-or-less a superstition and in any case has nothing to do with support for a particular candidate except insofar as they are the incumbent. The former are victims of the administration's long and intense fear-mongering campaign from the build up to the iraq war. (Which is a big no-no) And although they may be cuddling their security blankets, unless they can cite any reasons why Bush is better at providing for nationally security than any other potential president, then they don't actually have any reasons for suopporting Bush, just a vague irrational feeling.
So you see, although I know all of these things, they all disappoint me, because none of them hold up to a cursory critique. These things may properly go in the public perceptions section, which makes them a good response, but nothing of them can be relayed outside of that section, and they remain just that - a perception. Oh, I missed one - business people and taxes - well according to every modern economic theory we have, and according to every nobel prize winner in economic alive - that policy is bad for the economy, so rather than that policy being a reflection of him efficienly serving his duty to promote the general welfare, it's a reflection of him doing the opposite, and the people who support the policy are just being selfish, they're not really judging it on it's ability to promote the general welfare proper, so they're not judging the president's policies within the context of american government proper - they're not judging how good of a president he is as such. Or if they actually believe that that policy promotes the genereal welfare proper, then they have still to put forth non-specious reasons that it does - which will be hard to do considering the academic state of affairs.
But my point is I'm still looking for non-specious reasons why Bush supposedly efficiently performs his duties and responsibilities as president, such as "tak[ing] care that the laws are faithfully executed" and the like. Kevin baas 16:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I found an explanation here that so far seems the most plausible to me. Kevin Baas talk 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added links on each draft at for example Draft 6A to all of the other drafts, it's really the only way to make comparisons. If you think this is stupid then let me know, otherwise I'll keep it up. hydnjo talk 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I love your main page draft - the best I've seen so far. Combines all the good features of the rest. My vote is on yours. — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 10:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Same here. Great draft Kevin. Well done. Jombo 13:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you cold add the links to the other languages at the left, so the Main Page would no longer be a special case in this respect. -- 212.18.0.3 17:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you cut the allegations of Democratic wrongdoing from the article? Rkevins82 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
A discussion has begun on how to handle the official election for replacing the Main Page. To make sure it is set up sensibly, and according to participants' consensus, your input is needed. -- Go for it! 09:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
kevin, i'm not sure if you know me under this name, but i used to run into you a bunch under my old name, wolfman. so, i know you're a decent chap. just a note on psychology though. comments like the last line of yours on kizzle's page are pretty much guaranteed to put people off. if i hadn't just been joking, and i hadn't known you, getting talked down to would definitely not have inspired a co-operative spirit (in me or anyone else). as it is, i got a little snarky anyway. if you were yanking my chain though, you did a damn good job of it ;) cheers, Derex 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused about your intro: To see what this concept looks like with more boxes and portals, see the draft's talk page. Did you mean to say fewer rather than more? hydnjo talk 21:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello there! I noticed you've done quite a comendable job on the recent main page drafts you've done.. I just wondered if you'd be able to take a look at the wikinews football portal (wikifootball) and make it look even sexier? I'd really appreciate if you could! Cheers :-)
The magical Spum-dandy 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Image:Good2 color crop.jpg. I'll spare your talk page the standard spiel. :-) Stan 12:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt ( talk • contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It's done. The boxes are fixed. I've posted it as a bonafide Main Page alternate (misty breeze). Though it still needs a little work:
-- Go for it! 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the next step in the proper course of action is, but I'm guessing it would be to solicit some opinions. Have a look at a very interesting page. It's nuts. Thanks.
SkeenaR 00:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought I might draw your attention to this as well.
There seems to be some support for your heading style in the reference section of the Main Page Draft. You might want to get over there and throw in your support as well. Remember, everyone is allowed 3 reverts per day per page. There is also discussion concerning it on the talk page there. -- Go for it! 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Remember, you get 3 reverts per day per page. I've already used mine up on the Main Page Redesign today, but you haven't. So hang in there and don't let David or his sidekick intimidate you.
By the way, this "consensus" David Levy and HereToHelp keep pushing doesn't exist. David keeps referring to some mumbo jumbo mystical magical method that he used to come to his conclusions, but we aren't at liberty to analyze the process by which he arrived at them, so it's really nothing more than rhetoric. He's appears to be using bullshit artistry to bamboozle everyone into the design he favors. And out of some extraordinary circumstance it is also the precisely same version that HereToHelp favors. Notice how they are always in absolute agreement with each other, and how their posts intertwine so flawlessly? Now that's teamwork. -- Go for it! 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you still want to be renamed to User:Kevin Baas? The new limit (recently changed) is 6800 edits, you have 6394. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Care to vote?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)
-- Striver 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Your comments about taxes do not make sense to me. The section said "Supporters argue that total benefits to wealthier individuals are a reflection of higher taxes paid." You changed it to "claim". Your explanation was "this is an inaccurate mathematical statement, because if it were try the _percentage_ would be flat, and it isn't. So this is a claim, not an argument.)" The wording appeared fine. Rkevins82 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
to say that it is an argument implies that it has sound premises. it doesn't they are claiming that wealthier individuals pay x% of the taxes they used to, while less wealthy individuals also pay x% of the taxes they used to, thus for wealtheir individuals, and that the fact that wealtheir individuals pay more taxes to begin with makes (100%-x%)*what they pay in taxes=what they save in taxes ("benefits") higher for wealtheir people. However, the %of savings was _not_ the same across the board, it was higher for wealthy individuals, and this is _exactly_ what critics complain about - that it's _reverse_ progressive taxation. using the word "argue" here misleads the reader into thinking that it is not reverse progressive taxation. Kevin Baas talk 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I consider this edit [9] of yours to be a personal attack. If it was directed at me, I want to you apologize. Are insults like this how you repay me for being polite and talking with you at length here [10]? I don't know what your problem is, but if you talk to me like that again, I will not speak with you for any reason. And by the way, are you stalking my edits? Merecat 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Please comment. John Reid 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bring bad news. Along with me, you've been called a "single-issue editor whose main goal here is to malign George W. Bush." [11] I believe Rhobite's an admin, so I posted the incident on the Administrator's noticeboard. [12] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I think there is merit to that critique of Kevin, though I would use softer language. Merecat 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this edit of yours today. I will not quickly forget some of your recent edits and actions, including this one.
Merecat 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
In light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. Maybe you want to make an observation there, if not OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. Left you a request for a little more info on the map's component data [13]. Thanks Kevin :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
and to: That being said, please refrain from spamming my talk page with cathartic vitriol. Thank you
the same to you. thewolfstar 23:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
and just plain don't spam my page. And I still say there's a lot of unfriendly shit going on in Wikipedia thewolfstar 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments above. I don't want to get into a debate on the dumb argument thing I don't have any energy left for that. I appreciate what you said about Wikipedia and I suppose it's true. We, people in general, have a hard time getting along even when we're in groups of people that agree on many issues. Why is that I wonder? I guess our selfcenteredness would account for a lot of it. I hate that trait in myself. Fear, selfcenteredness and selfishness. The roots of all human evil.
I apologize also for going off the deep end on you like I did. I will tell you honestly, though that very few people have made an attempt to be friendly and welcome me into this place. And Merecat has been the best friend I've had since I've been here. I don't agree always with the way he puts certain things, but so what. He is a good guy. Please just tell me, and I am asking you sincerely, Why are you so against Merecat?
peace, Maggie thewolfstar 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
How is this that the page has a protected notice, but it's being edited? Merecat 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope that you will add your vote and thoughts to the "deletion" nomination page. Prometheuspan 23:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [14]
Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision-- Rictonilpog 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI - Merecat, the editor about whom you certified an RfC, has been shown to be a likely sockpuppet of User:Rex071404. Thought you should know. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The section you restored was removed for reasons discussed in the talk page. [15] I will let it stay for the time being, but if you have reasons you think it should stay, please contribute them. Thanks.-- DCAnderson 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Kevin, I didn't understand your request for unprotection of 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories. You wrote something about someone lying about the need for protection and someone being involved in the dispute? I was the admin who locked the page, so let me know what the issues are so I can consider whether to unlock it. Messages for you here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
FYI: It seems the 9/11 domestic complicity article (and others) were folded into the generic 9/11 conspiracy theories article. How did it happen and what should we do? zen master T 22:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi - there's a vote going on at Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that you may be interested in.-- csloat 06:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Please do not remove the dispute tags from the election articles - there is a rather substantial dispute going on regarding them. Snowspinner 16:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Please investigate and comment on the talk page about multiple changes to the Conspiracy theory article made in the last week or so [1]. In my interpretation, clarity has been reduced and info on the mechanics of how "conspiracy theory" may bias the presentation of a subject has been downplayed or removed. zen master T 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
You've been named in an arbcom case. Phil Sandifer 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Using deceptive edit summaries and reverting to versions of 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities which contain copyright violations could result in you being blocked from editing. Rhobite 23:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Posting copyright material onto Wikipedia endangers Wikipedia's status by leaving it open to a threat of legal action. As a result posting of such material can be seen as vandalism. If you again post information which legally Wikipedia cannot use in that form you will be subject to a longer block. FearÉIREANN 07:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.
I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2 [3] or the Requests for comment/TDC [4]
Currently there is arbitration pending on
User:TDC.
[5]
I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page. Travb 01:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I will be proposing some changes to the article on the talk page and I would appreciate some feedback before I make any changes on this controversial topic. I thought you might like some advance notice since you have helped edit it in the past. Rkevins82 21:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to express my appreciation for your contributions to wikipedia. You help keep wikipedia wonderful. -- Dschor 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Get ready for another round of deeply quality-oriented editing. [6] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I found your delineation of grounds for impeachment cogent. Maybe you could incorporate them into the introduction, etc.-- Beth Wellington 04:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article . Thank you. Blackcats 04:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
See here. zen master T 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice, but it may be more practical if you replace "60% oppose" with "40% support" to have them all use the same statistic. R adiant _>|< 23:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, support+oppose does not neccessarily equal 100%, because of other votes. I think other votes shouldn't be counted in those numbers, but I didn't do the counting. Kevin baas 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Kevin. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you care for some reasons people support Bush that aren't specious? The ones you presented on the article talk page are pretty retarded if you ask me. I won't discuss there, since it does nothing to further the article at hand, but thought I'd respond anyways. -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It may very well be that each side doesn't see the other person's arguments, views, what-have-you as valid (whether a priori or a posteri). So there is then a difference between knowing why people feel a certain way, and knowing non-specious reasons why people think that a certain person is fit for performing the duties and responsibility of the office. I had alluded to some of the things you mentioned, such as "his friendly, jovial, optimistic attitude" - which I file under "irrelevant" because it does not reflect on his effort or ability to efficiently serve the office - in anticipation of them as responses. Bush's obstinancy in his policies doesn't make those policies good - and that's what the actual question is, is is he a good decision maker? Cause that's an important part of the job description. His obstinancy does not reflect on his decision making ability, and in fact is more likely to impede his ability to adapt to circumstances, or repair flaws in his initial analysis when more information comes to light. As for "security moms" and people who don't want to change leaders in time of crisis, well the latter is more-or-less a superstition and in any case has nothing to do with support for a particular candidate except insofar as they are the incumbent. The former are victims of the administration's long and intense fear-mongering campaign from the build up to the iraq war. (Which is a big no-no) And although they may be cuddling their security blankets, unless they can cite any reasons why Bush is better at providing for nationally security than any other potential president, then they don't actually have any reasons for suopporting Bush, just a vague irrational feeling.
So you see, although I know all of these things, they all disappoint me, because none of them hold up to a cursory critique. These things may properly go in the public perceptions section, which makes them a good response, but nothing of them can be relayed outside of that section, and they remain just that - a perception. Oh, I missed one - business people and taxes - well according to every modern economic theory we have, and according to every nobel prize winner in economic alive - that policy is bad for the economy, so rather than that policy being a reflection of him efficienly serving his duty to promote the general welfare, it's a reflection of him doing the opposite, and the people who support the policy are just being selfish, they're not really judging it on it's ability to promote the general welfare proper, so they're not judging the president's policies within the context of american government proper - they're not judging how good of a president he is as such. Or if they actually believe that that policy promotes the genereal welfare proper, then they have still to put forth non-specious reasons that it does - which will be hard to do considering the academic state of affairs.
But my point is I'm still looking for non-specious reasons why Bush supposedly efficiently performs his duties and responsibilities as president, such as "tak[ing] care that the laws are faithfully executed" and the like. Kevin baas 16:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I found an explanation here that so far seems the most plausible to me. Kevin Baas talk 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added links on each draft at for example Draft 6A to all of the other drafts, it's really the only way to make comparisons. If you think this is stupid then let me know, otherwise I'll keep it up. hydnjo talk 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I love your main page draft - the best I've seen so far. Combines all the good features of the rest. My vote is on yours. — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 10:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Same here. Great draft Kevin. Well done. Jombo 13:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you cold add the links to the other languages at the left, so the Main Page would no longer be a special case in this respect. -- 212.18.0.3 17:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you cut the allegations of Democratic wrongdoing from the article? Rkevins82 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
A discussion has begun on how to handle the official election for replacing the Main Page. To make sure it is set up sensibly, and according to participants' consensus, your input is needed. -- Go for it! 09:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
kevin, i'm not sure if you know me under this name, but i used to run into you a bunch under my old name, wolfman. so, i know you're a decent chap. just a note on psychology though. comments like the last line of yours on kizzle's page are pretty much guaranteed to put people off. if i hadn't just been joking, and i hadn't known you, getting talked down to would definitely not have inspired a co-operative spirit (in me or anyone else). as it is, i got a little snarky anyway. if you were yanking my chain though, you did a damn good job of it ;) cheers, Derex 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused about your intro: To see what this concept looks like with more boxes and portals, see the draft's talk page. Did you mean to say fewer rather than more? hydnjo talk 21:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello there! I noticed you've done quite a comendable job on the recent main page drafts you've done.. I just wondered if you'd be able to take a look at the wikinews football portal (wikifootball) and make it look even sexier? I'd really appreciate if you could! Cheers :-)
The magical Spum-dandy 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Image:Good2 color crop.jpg. I'll spare your talk page the standard spiel. :-) Stan 12:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt ( talk • contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It's done. The boxes are fixed. I've posted it as a bonafide Main Page alternate (misty breeze). Though it still needs a little work:
-- Go for it! 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the next step in the proper course of action is, but I'm guessing it would be to solicit some opinions. Have a look at a very interesting page. It's nuts. Thanks.
SkeenaR 00:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought I might draw your attention to this as well.
There seems to be some support for your heading style in the reference section of the Main Page Draft. You might want to get over there and throw in your support as well. Remember, everyone is allowed 3 reverts per day per page. There is also discussion concerning it on the talk page there. -- Go for it! 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Remember, you get 3 reverts per day per page. I've already used mine up on the Main Page Redesign today, but you haven't. So hang in there and don't let David or his sidekick intimidate you.
By the way, this "consensus" David Levy and HereToHelp keep pushing doesn't exist. David keeps referring to some mumbo jumbo mystical magical method that he used to come to his conclusions, but we aren't at liberty to analyze the process by which he arrived at them, so it's really nothing more than rhetoric. He's appears to be using bullshit artistry to bamboozle everyone into the design he favors. And out of some extraordinary circumstance it is also the precisely same version that HereToHelp favors. Notice how they are always in absolute agreement with each other, and how their posts intertwine so flawlessly? Now that's teamwork. -- Go for it! 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you still want to be renamed to User:Kevin Baas? The new limit (recently changed) is 6800 edits, you have 6394. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Care to vote?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)
-- Striver 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Your comments about taxes do not make sense to me. The section said "Supporters argue that total benefits to wealthier individuals are a reflection of higher taxes paid." You changed it to "claim". Your explanation was "this is an inaccurate mathematical statement, because if it were try the _percentage_ would be flat, and it isn't. So this is a claim, not an argument.)" The wording appeared fine. Rkevins82 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
to say that it is an argument implies that it has sound premises. it doesn't they are claiming that wealthier individuals pay x% of the taxes they used to, while less wealthy individuals also pay x% of the taxes they used to, thus for wealtheir individuals, and that the fact that wealtheir individuals pay more taxes to begin with makes (100%-x%)*what they pay in taxes=what they save in taxes ("benefits") higher for wealtheir people. However, the %of savings was _not_ the same across the board, it was higher for wealthy individuals, and this is _exactly_ what critics complain about - that it's _reverse_ progressive taxation. using the word "argue" here misleads the reader into thinking that it is not reverse progressive taxation. Kevin Baas talk 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I consider this edit [9] of yours to be a personal attack. If it was directed at me, I want to you apologize. Are insults like this how you repay me for being polite and talking with you at length here [10]? I don't know what your problem is, but if you talk to me like that again, I will not speak with you for any reason. And by the way, are you stalking my edits? Merecat 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Please comment. John Reid 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bring bad news. Along with me, you've been called a "single-issue editor whose main goal here is to malign George W. Bush." [11] I believe Rhobite's an admin, so I posted the incident on the Administrator's noticeboard. [12] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I think there is merit to that critique of Kevin, though I would use softer language. Merecat 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this edit of yours today. I will not quickly forget some of your recent edits and actions, including this one.
Merecat 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
In light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. Maybe you want to make an observation there, if not OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. Left you a request for a little more info on the map's component data [13]. Thanks Kevin :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
and to: That being said, please refrain from spamming my talk page with cathartic vitriol. Thank you
the same to you. thewolfstar 23:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
and just plain don't spam my page. And I still say there's a lot of unfriendly shit going on in Wikipedia thewolfstar 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments above. I don't want to get into a debate on the dumb argument thing I don't have any energy left for that. I appreciate what you said about Wikipedia and I suppose it's true. We, people in general, have a hard time getting along even when we're in groups of people that agree on many issues. Why is that I wonder? I guess our selfcenteredness would account for a lot of it. I hate that trait in myself. Fear, selfcenteredness and selfishness. The roots of all human evil.
I apologize also for going off the deep end on you like I did. I will tell you honestly, though that very few people have made an attempt to be friendly and welcome me into this place. And Merecat has been the best friend I've had since I've been here. I don't agree always with the way he puts certain things, but so what. He is a good guy. Please just tell me, and I am asking you sincerely, Why are you so against Merecat?
peace, Maggie thewolfstar 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
How is this that the page has a protected notice, but it's being edited? Merecat 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope that you will add your vote and thoughts to the "deletion" nomination page. Prometheuspan 23:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [14]
Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision-- Rictonilpog 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI - Merecat, the editor about whom you certified an RfC, has been shown to be a likely sockpuppet of User:Rex071404. Thought you should know. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The section you restored was removed for reasons discussed in the talk page. [15] I will let it stay for the time being, but if you have reasons you think it should stay, please contribute them. Thanks.-- DCAnderson 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)