Signing your comments properly is very important. Whenever you reply on a Talk page (or anything except an article), type in "-- ~~~~" after your words. This adds a signature, sort of like mine. -- Netoholic@ 07:29, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
Just like that. Two dashes, and four ~ (tildes). -- Netoholic@ 07:38, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
Go into your user preferences. Find the form field for "Your nickname (for signatures):". Type in "]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@". You can replace the @ with (talk) or anything else you'd like that link to read. -- Netoholic@ 07:45, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Ryan. If you have any more general questions, you can always ask at the help desk or privately on other users' talk pages. →Raul654 08:09, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the welcome. :) -- RyanFreisling@ 08:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll make an account soon. I am happy to see serious discussion on the Kennedy page. Thanks for the note. PS I grew up in a home with opera on the kitchen radio every Saturday, Live at the Met. Carmen, Faust, my mom loved it. I don't listen now but most of the stuff sounds familiar when I hear it. Thanks again. 24.147.97.230 04:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
In 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy#Provisional_ballots_in_Ohio you state that the "ruling was challenged by Democratic attorneys and overturned", yet I see no mention of that in the source link you left [1]. I would be very interested if this was in fact the case, so could you, when you have time, fill me in on what I'm missing? Thanks! noosphere 06:18, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
It says the ruling was turned down? Where does it say that? Are we talking about the same article? This is the one I'm talking about. And it says, "A new rule for counting provisional ballots in Cuyahoga County, Ohio was implemented on Tuesday, November 9". I don't see any mention it was turned down. Can you quote the specific passage where it says it? I'm lost. noosphere 08:35, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Aha! I knew I must have been missing something. Thank you, Ryan.
Do not use edit summaries to convey messages ("Netaholic - you should know by now how to address copyvio issues - it's not outright deletion."), use talk pages.
Also, do not label other editors' actions as "vandalism" unless they fit the defined criteria - it is considered a personal attack. -- Netoholic@ 17:23, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
My apologies if you interpreted as an attack. I saw it as a description of your less-than-positive contribution to the article in question. I appreciate your comment. Have a nice day. -- RyanFreisling@ 17:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ryan, just so you know I cut-and-pasted that text about the electoral challenge "resoundingly" from the Wikipedia article. I agree with your revision of the adjective, and didn't want you to think I was trying to slip something in there. The prior text, "surviving" or "withstanding" (I forget) a challenge "by the U.S. Congress," I thought implied a massive, serious threat to his election, whereas the vote totals elegantly show that it was more of a vocal minority that was behind the challenge. Anyway, thanks for your subtle clipping.
Kaisershatner 15:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Do I rock now? Comments on the colors or other attributes? Kevin Baas | talk 20:54, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
You rock wholeheartedly. I would pick up the blue in the bars and use it or a variant as one of the states' colors. I would also lighten the darkest brown. Last, i would reduce the whole thing's size by about 75%.
It looks lovely, and thanks again! -- RyanFreisling@ 21:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
can you handle this?
[2]
The day that evidence of preparation for recount fraud is superfluous, is the day that we are royally f****d. Kevin Baas | talk 00:02, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
"I believe ideally it should be, but the allegations and claims that have come out have not yet resulted in action that has changed the process of the election. Should the OH Electoral votes be challenged, or the OH Supreme Court respond in a noteworthy way to the recent lawsuit, or other significant issues arise that are more than testimony and affidavits, etc., then absolutely imho it should be. One can also argue that the filing of the Arnebeck suit, the meetings of the Congressional Forum, etc., are newsworthy events independently of the controversy."
I'm not sure what you mean - I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it. I don't appreciate the title, and what I'm inferring from this post. -- RyanFreisling@ 01:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Noted. I just wanted to make you aware of the RFC, for whatever it was worth to you. I was trying to be rhetorical, not offensive. I apologize. Kevin Baas | talk 05:45, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
Accepted, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted you. :) I saw the RFC, but I think the current 'Current Events' page is pretty good - I just added a video link for the Dec 13 hearing. -- RyanFreisling@ 05:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your note on my talk page. I'm all in favour of coming to a reasonable solution, so let's deal with this quickly. The House of Reps has not launched an investigation that will lead to the overturning of the results of the presidential election. So we shouldn't have wording in current events that implies that it may have as significant event such as that. I don't know how important the House Commission decision is (I'm British, so I wouldn't). But I can see how any House Commission may be relatively significant - particularly where it affects voting rules. I think both my concern is at the overplaying of the importance and your view that it is noteworthy news can both be accommodated. The lead in "US presidential controversy" should go. The news remain. And a note that it will not overturn the election result is added. I'll add this to current events. Hope this is ok. (As you may have guessed before, I want to keep things in perspective, not suppress noteworthy news.) jguk 21:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not at all - thanks for the response, I feel the same way. I'm not sure what you mean by "the lead in". Which part do you think provides a distorted view/perspective? -- RyanFreisling@ 21:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Having thought about it more, I think it's the heading "US presidential election controversy" that overplays it. That implies there is something serious enough to dispute the election results (which I don't think anyone really believes is the case even if they'd wish otherwise). Without that, IMHO sensationalist, heading, based on the last time I read the page, the story is sensibly reported. jguk 22:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree, but I think that although there may be many things serious enough to warrant disputing the results (crime is crime, fraud is fraud, statute re fraud is clear), the likelihood it will actually happen is astronomically near to nil. -- RyanFreisling@ 22:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd say nil - but I think we're there:) It always takes more than two to compromise, and I think we've come to a reasonable solution. Take care. jguk 22:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
-William Shakespeare
Excellent reference. :) Kevin Baastalk 05:51, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
html table around organization's list on election contro articleedit
Were you the one that added the html table formatting around the organizations list in the election controversies article? Either way I really think we should remove it as it is unnecessary, it adds size to the article and is ugly because border != 0. zen master 00:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, I believe Kevin made that table. -- RyanFreisling@ 00:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, my RFC summary exactly described the debate. You stated yourself that "No one disagrees that this should be a summary". Thus, there is consensus ("There is currently consensus that the main article should be made into a summary...". The debate is over how the editing should be done ("...but there is debate over the proper editing method.") Please stop reverting the RFC. It is NOT productive. Carrp 03:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You misstate the argument in your summary. That is unacceptable. No one feels the article should not be a summary with detail articles. That is already the model. At issue is the process. Please stop the spin. -- RyanFreisling@ 03:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In reference to your edit summary on the RFC page: "and have not made good faith edits, as an editor". I would like to refer you to Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Every edit I have made on the election controversy page has been an attempt to take an article that is well below WP standards and make it better. Removing absurdly irrelevant external links are not bad faith edits. I'll leave the RFC statement as it is because I will not get pulled into a revert war. Carrp 03:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My rationale is clear. The bad faith is in your assertion you 'cannot' participate in the editing process, that it is a foregone conclusion. It doesn't connote any motive. I am honestly sorry you were offended, but there is an entire section already in existence, addressing the edits you've made, and the community's response. -- RyanFreisling@ 03:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The community amounted to about three users, hardly a WP consensus. I do get the sense that some users are claiming "ownership" over the controversy articles, even if they don't directly state such a fact. The harsh truth is: The article in its current state is not a good article. It's far too long, poorly organized and barely readable by anyone lacking intimate knowledge of the subject. Information has been thrown into it over a period over several months and any attempt to remove information is met with strong resistance. What needs to be done now is to stop all this quarrelling over the process and start improving the article. Carrp 03:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed about what's needed next, disagree with your negative assessment of the article. And I'm not sure if 'some people' means me, but I don't object to changing the article - I object to supplanting the natural wiki process with parallel development and outright article replacement. Let's all try to focus on editing the actual article narrative, as the references and links can easily be moved. It's the selective removal of sources, and the absence of edits of substance to the article, that contributes to a slowdown in the article's improvement. -- RyanFreisling@ 04:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. If it was removed, it would by interesting to know who removed it/requested it's removal (is responsible), and if possible, what their reasoning was. Kevin Baastalk 21:17, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
What's up Ryan, I am writing a paper for a journalism class on the 2004 election controversies, and I wanted to know if you could help me with something. I'm currently doing the section on exit polling and in writing an argument about its use as evidence towards the vote count being wrong rather than the exit polling, I'm having troubles answering a defense of the vote count being correct:
"Kerry underperformed the exit polls in states all across the nation, in states with both Democratic and Republican election officials, in states with all different kinds of election machines and tabulation machines from various companies.
Which is a more likely hypothesis: that a national conspiracy of utterly breathtaking size managed to systematically steal millions of votes for Bush unnoticed, or that the exit polls skewed toward Kerry due to methodological problems?"
He's got a point, while there is a significant discrepancy of battleground states towards non-battleground states, the fact that almost all 49 states with recorded exit polls are skewed towards Kerry in respect to the actual vote count is hard to dismiss as not hurting the case for the exit polls being correct, as to imply fraud means you have to assume fraud in almost all states (albeit on a much smaller scale in smaller states, but they couldn't have done all the states, as manipulating states that are assuredly going to Kerry yields no advantage and plenty of disadvantages for Republicans) What do you think? --kizzle 23:05, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps both happened? the above doesn't explain the discrepancy between swing and non-swing states. (And doesn't explain that the only available data suggest that the poll should be skewed in the opposite direction. And doesn't explain that when you correct for the irregularities 9see Moss v. Bush), the exit poll, in ohio at least, is reasonably accurate.) Kevin Baastalk 23:13, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
The likelihood of the direction of the skew going so overwhelmingly for one candidate, and the debunked assemblage of supposed reasons for that skew, is still a very open question. There is absolutely no possible polling methodology that would have so overwhelmingly favored one candidate over the other. Moreover, if you look at the exit poll data, you see that the Kerry skew was 'corrected' by a late application of overwhelmingly pro-Bush votes, which has been referred to by some as 'weighting', but the exit polls were already weighted. None of these issues, nor many others, has ever been explained to my satisfaction. If a methodological error brought this about, all the more reason to examine the exit polls and methods more closely. Bear in mind that the new Mitofsky process, etc. was designed since the 2000 election, to safeguard against exactly this kind of situation. None of the alleged 'reasons' for the irregularities vis-a-vis exit polls is possible, given the design of the exit polling strategy described prior to the election. -- RyanFreisling@ 23:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I saw that Kizzle posted that quote to the exit polls article. imho, the quote itself is superfluous to the point being made, and does not belong as the 'representative' or 'most informative' quote for the Freeman section. Removed it and mod'ed the text accordingly. -- RyanFreisling@ 00:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I just added that quote as a critique of Freeman's paper, I've been searching for any criticisms on his paper, as there is no analysis of his paper like there is for CalTech... while his paper is much more rock-solid, and even MysteryPollster.com's criticisms of his paper are pretty weak, I couldn't get over that one. And seeing as its some random post to the comments section of MysteryPollster, it definetely is not the most influential quote, It was just the only criticism that I could not easily dismiss from his paper.
I myself am trying to find an answer to this criticism, as it doesn't exactly help my paper. Here's the thing, I know fully well the discrepancy not only between the 12 battleground states (including Nebraska because of Chuck Hagel) is much more divergent than the rest of them, but that's not my point. If one is going to use the exit polls as an indicator that election fraud occured, how does one explain that almost all 49 states polled show a red shift towards Bush, even non-battleground states? Clearly there is a systemwide favor towards Kerry in the exit polls as compared to the vote counts, we all can admit that. But if our reason for this discrepancy is voter fraud and thus the vote count being off, then we must accept that it occured in many many more states than simply the 12 battleground states. Is that what you are holding to? --kizzle 03:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really holding to any particular opinion as to the cause (especially given the obscurity on the issue), except to say that the discrepancy was indeed sizable, in states that included more than the 12 - for example, the 'red shift' was huge in NY state, which was never in doubt as a 'blue' state. Unfortunately, that fact doesn't tell us whether fraud, or mistake, is more likely. The assumption that the likelihood of fraud is tied to battleground states is flawed. They're separate issues. -- RyanFreisling@ 04:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Of course exit poll discrepancies in themselves do not prove fraud. But that does not mean that people use exit polls to justify the possibility of fraud. Put it simply, the reason why the exit polls section is included in the 2004 election controversies is because its an indicator that something possibly was wrong with the vote count. If one is to use the exit poll as a justification for the belief in the occurance of fraud, they must also accept that this vote must have been committed in a majority of states, not only the 12 battleground states. This is a separate and autonomous conclusion from the discrepancy between battleground and non-battleground states, of which I also see a huge discrepancy. If you personally are not holding on to exit polls as an indicator towards fraud, then you obviously wouldn't be in a position to answer the question, but I believe that they are indicative, and this fact is something which I have not been able to resolve with my personal intuitions.--kizzle 04:58, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not 'holding on' to anything as an indicator of fraud - there are many. I think you meant 'must also accept that this fraud may have occured'. And my belief doesn't really bear on my ability to 'answer the question', I'll answer according to what I know to be factual, not my unsupported intuitions. I think one presumes too much knowledge to conclusively state that the exit polls, their manipulation and possible fraud had to occur in multiple states - hypothetically, the data could have been manipulated after collection, etc. They are related, controversial issues, not a house of interdependent cards. The irregularities in the exit polls (as with so many other aspects of the election) is to me the real issue, not whether they are to be believed or not as some kind of 'control group' to illustrate fraud. They had been used quite successfully in other elections, in other places and other nations - but their utter failure this time (regardless of your perspective) is, itself, suspect. -- RyanFreisling@ 06:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, you could respond to my queries with a bit less guarded wording, but I think we're on the same page. I only would want you to state factual information, the only thing I'm trying to resolve is that a belief that exit polls support a fraudulent vote count takes this from the "red shift" seen towards Kerry's direction. The fact that the battleground states, despite having twice as many respondants and thus much less error, have much more significant errors, 7 states completely out of the margin of error, of which the odds of all 7 beyond this margin are 10 million to 1, increases the likelihood that these states were specifically targeted. However, this red shift is also apparent in many other states and almost universally towards Bush. Thus, if one concludes that this unanimous red shift supports the case for fraud, they must also hold that this fraud goes beyond 12 battleground states and is rampant within many other states. And let me ask you this, what specifically interests you about the irregularities in themselves if not its relevance to a case for fraud, because if the exit polls are indeed correct that this is what we have. Exit polls are not being used as a 'control group' to illustrate fraud as you say, they are the preliminary evidence for such a viewpoint. But, whatever, we're getting in circles, you don't have an answer for this critique of the claim for fraud, i'll move on :) --kizzle 12:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
My answer, while perhaps not as sound-bitey as you would like, is above. And it is a valid answer. The 'red shift' may or may not support the case for fraud - what I am interested in is it's irregularity, not an assumption of an unsupported indication of fraud. I am interested in the irregularities because (as I already mentioned) the system was scrapped and redesigned specifically for this election, specifically to avoid this from happening... and the occurence of such massive discrepancies is, to those in the know, quite a surprise to say the least. I'd go so far as to say they are genuinely inexplicable. As far as an assumption that these discrepancies are themselves an indication of fraud, I can only say that if you begin from a flawed premise, you are unlikely to reach a factual solution. The entire argument is flawed and you cannot formulate a logical response to an illogical question. -- RyanFreisling@ 17:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If I may butt in here (I'd use kizzle's talk page or the /smoke/exit polls talk page, but commenting here is closer to the relevant discussion.) ... I think what Ryan's trying to say is something that I am in agreement with: it's a subtlety, it doesn't make your point any weaker. Yes, exit polls are used as an indicator of fraud, and yes, the more an exit poll is skewed the higher the probability (and most probable degree of severity) of fraud. None of this is being disputed. What is being acknowledged, is that this is statistics, and, as such, cannot, by definition, imply logical neccessity. Logical neccessity would require probabilities exactly equal (infinitely close doesn't count) to either 1 or 0. Absent such probability measures (which can't really be called probability measures anymore), phrases such as "absolutely certain" or "can only be", etc. are mathematically false. Any person competent in statistics and/or probabilty would be turned off by the use of such a phrase, and rightly so. Kevin Baastalk 18:27, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
Of course the only thing statistics can imply is correlation and not causation, i'm really not trying to say that exit polls make anything true a priori. But are you telling me that you simply view the irregularities as "inexplicable" and "a surprise"? You have no conclusions based upon this data, keeping in mind statistics can only correlate? If it were me, knowing full well that statistics do not prove anything, I would have at least intuitions based upon logical assumptions from this data. And if its not fraud, how exactly do you explain the 10,000:1 odds that Bush beat the margin of error in exit polls in 7 of 12 battleground states? Was it because the interviewers were young, women were oversampled, weather conditions, 50-foot distance of pollsters to voting station, interviewers did not sample through the whole day, Mitovsky's 'Kerry voters were more likely to respond than Bush voters', Republican constituencies were under-represented, or that since 1988 exit polls have favored democrats (all are explanations of which I am working on addressing)... if it wasn't fraud then what was it? Or are you content to simply state that there were significant errors way outside the margin of error, but you have no ideas as to how it happened? I'm on the same side Ryan, seriously, as while your response is quite logical, its definetely guarded language to say the least. --kizzle 22:13, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle, you have said you are 'on the same side' as me a few times in discussion, and that's where your error lies. I'm not fighting whatever battle it is you think "we're" fighting. I view the irregularities as 'inexplicable' simply because I have seen absolutely no proof of any cause for what I view as stunningly irregular exit poll results in 2004. The MOE was blown this time by such a massive degree, in more than just the battleground states, that something happened. I have simply seen no proof of what it was. And I don't view wikipedia as the platform to speculate. I'm sorry you view that as guarded. -- RyanFreisling@ 23:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nah, just your general wording is a bit guarded, but whatever :). I just wanted to know if you had any ideas as to the cause of these irregularities, and while Wikipedia articles are not the place for speculation based upon logical assumptions, talk pages and argument papers are.--kizzle 22:08, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Which I why I deleted the aforementioned quote from the actual article... and I'm not sure what you're trying to get from denigrating my words as 'guarded' and otherwise casting me in a tentative light, I've not done it to you, nor your assertions. Trust me, if I knew any causes of the exit poll discrepancies, you would be among the first 100,000 to hear about it. -- RyanFreisling@ 01:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok dude. I'm not trying to denigrate you in any way, i'm probably just misreading you :) ...all i wanted was a guess, conjecture, speculation, anything about the implications of most all states exhibiting "red shift". --kizzle 05:16, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
The implications are anywhere from inexplicable to terrifying. We're all trying to find fact to stand on. -- RyanFreisling@ 06:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We all are. I'd say that Ryan's take on this here may be construed as even more terrifying than Kizzle's: ryan's acknowledges that, given all the knowledge we have about irregularities, (which is quite alarming) that only accounts for some of the discrepancy. Many of us are trying to find fact to stand on. I recall again a statement a friend of mine said "People don't want the truth, they want answers." Personally, I'm hard to satisfy. I think we all see this as a historical event. Hell - it's only the second time in the history of the u.s. that electoral votes were objected to, and the first time it was because of irregularities. And any of us who have been learning a lot about kenneth blackwell don't have much confidence in the man's moral (or psychological, for that matter) integrity, and that tends to skew the probabilities. So we're looking at it, and thinking "I'm here now. I see this. I'm an adult now. It's my turn; it's my responsibility. What am I going to do? What can I do? No, really, I can do, and if one of us doesn't noone will. I read the history books. Who did that? What were they thinking and feeling? What affect did it have? Now it's my turn to make the kind of choices they had to make. I'm here, and this is happening now. Don't hesitate; don't freeze up. Do what should be done." Which is, as we all understand, telling people what you know, the few facts that you have to balance on. This is one medium that I think we've done a pretty good job on. They'll be some tweaks here and there, still, but we caught the deluge with a paper cup. Kizzle's working on another medium, a one with different possibilities. And I think it's a good next step. Give more people more facts to stand on, and a shoulder or two to stand on. (hell, we've had our share.) Kevin Baastalk 07:55, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
Oh? A voting irregularities-related project? Sounds interesting... -- RyanFreisling@ 22:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey, about the exit poll data, so far I don't believe the official results have been released. I am working on a project, you can view it here... I'm trying to come up with a commentary which I'll either turn into a script for a documentary or an essay to submit to publications (all I have done for commentary is exit polls, voting machine research is 80% done). If you have any feedback, see any incorrect data, or have any info you think should be included (keeping in mind while length is not a problem for the moment, the commentary needs to focus on those who know absolutely nothing about any of this)... please let me know in the talk pages. So far in my research I haven't come across any news that the un-"corrected" polls will ever be released, so far the 12:23am freeman/simon data is the most accurate so far. But as I've been researching I've tried to add sources and misc. things I've learned. For example, once I'm done with my voting machines section, I'm going to try to add an entire HAVA section to the irregularities article, there is some shady shit going on, check out BBV chapter 16 (I learned a bunch of shit about Bev Harris and her filing a Qui Tam lawsuit as well, and why there's a blackboxvoting.org and .com, and why Keith Olbermann wouldn't interview her), HAVA/ITAA/Election Center definetely needs to be given more prominance, as its the reason why voting machines are more prevelent this year than last election, along with who was responsible for it, and Scope.co.nz/David Allen's transcript of the conference call.--kizzle 23:19, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
The data have been released. You will not see the raw data, nor the precinct-level data, released any time soon. That raise any flags? You can also get this data at the Roper Center for $79, which contains the national and state exit poll data for 2000 and 2004. The article's URL points to the 'FastTrack' system, which is publishing the data. I'm not hosting it, if you thought I was. Good to see your project getting started, I'll see what I can contribute!
And, you must cover the saga of Kevin Shelley, California SoS. -- RyanFreisling@ 00:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
About Shelley, is this what you're talking about, how him de-certifying them for California use because of post-certification modifications? What else do i need to know? --kizzle 19:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Lots. Read up on how he has been forced to resign for what appear to be vastly overblown or trumped-up charges, after his move decertifying Diebold and establishing rigid requirements for CA. There have been calls by those leading the campaign against him [4] for his election requirements to be thrown out entirely.
Here's a list of links I saw on DU. [5] and a bunch of links on the specific regulations [6]
SACRAMENTO — Pressure mounted for Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to resign as auditors announced Tuesday that they had requested a criminal investigation into his hiring practices and handling of employees' complaints.
The financing of his 2002 campaign is already being investigated by state authorities and a federal grand jury, and legislators are examining his office's alleged mismanagement of $46 million in federal voting funds.
So a highly critical, 50-page audit by the state Personnel Board deepened the political and legal problems that have dogged Shelley for six months. The audit accused Shelley, a demanding boss known for outbursts of temper, of maintaining a hostile work environment during the 18 months ending June 30.
California's chief county elections official says Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's administration has created a "full-blown crisis" that threatens the state's compliance with federal law and its ability to conduct the 2006 elections.
In testimony prepared for a legislative committee, Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Conny McCormack blasted Shelley's process for approving voting machine systems the counties must purchase, and suggested he had manipulated the system "to favor or punish some equipment vendors." She called on the Legislature to step in and take over the process.
"County election officials have concluded that the voting system certification process in California is completely broken," McCormack, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, wrote to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee scrutinizing Shelley's alleged misuse of millions in federal Help America Vote Act funds.
Shelley spokeswoman Caren Daniels-Meade defended Shelley's certification process, calling any suggestion of political manipulation "absolutely bunk." McCormack, Daniels-Meade said, simply disagrees with Shelley's support of a requirement that electronic voting machines have a verified paper trail.
is the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials part of the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers??? Because if it is I got a great connection. --kizzle 00:52, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Also, looks like there might be something more to it:
Until California’s Secretary of State intervened earlier this month and decertified all touchscreen machines in the wake of serious failures encountered during the March primary election, she was planning to spend more than $100 million on a countywide Diebold touchscreen network. (CityBeat erroneously reported on April 29 that the $100 million had already been spent.) McCormack spoke to CityBeat in response to our report that she had asked Diebold to make software changes in L.A. County for last October’s recall election without getting the changes certified. She offered no denial of the charge that she had circumvented the legal requirement for certification; when pressed on the issue, she ended the conversation.
Q:You are friends with Deborah Seiler, Diebold’s chief sales representative in California, and L.A. County is now buying equipment from Diebold. Is the friendship appropriate?
A:I’ve had a long-term friendship with her. There’s nothing wrong with a friendship. Has it influenced my judgment? Of course not. In terms of the Diebold contract for L.A. County, I was not on the evaluation committee. I removed myself from that. But Diebold was the only vendor that met all the requirements for L.A. County. Sequoia wrote a letter saying it could not meet the requirements. And ES&S failed the demonstration, because it couldn’t handle seven languages.
Q:Why are you against introducing a voter-verified paper trail?
A:It’s a concept that hasn’t been tested, with the exception of two pilot projects in Sacramento and Wilton, Connecticut, both of which were appalling failures. The paper jammed, and the operators had to use coat hangers to try to unjam the equipment. It’s a concept that hasn’t been thought out thoroughly or tested thoroughly. If it could be proven to work, every registrar in the country would be fine with it. But our opinions are being discarded in favor of people like Kim Alexander. It’s a case of ready, fire, aim. It’s the wrong sequence for adopting a new process.
Sorry to innundate you with links, I'm just getting all this great shit from different sources.... as for the above link between the two organizations, I didn't mention what the connection was, but the Election Center helps run the International clerks election officials association, look up black box voting book on www.blackboxvoting.org chapter 6, all about Election Center, chap 16 is also more about Election Center's connection with ITAA, some serious stuff. But here's a good starting point for Shelley info, its a DU thread: [10]
I've researched his situation fairly extensively and that thread is not among my faves (the letter itself sucks and is more generalized ranting than a review of Shelley's scenario) - the core threads are on the list I forwarded you, but it's good to see some ongoing activity nonetheless. I'll keep you posted. -- RyanFreisling@ 03:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You know, I was thinking about it yesterday... whether or not those charges were overblown or trumped up, lets assume for a moment they were all completely true. Not only the timing of the lawsuit in comparison to his de-certificaiton of Diebold is peculiar, but the fact that he mismanaged funds, his employees picked exactly that moment to come out against him as being a mean boss (can you really sue someone for that?), and for the ridiculous sexual harassment charges (otherwise known as yelling at a woman, or "not letting a woman into the same elevator") .... even if they were all true, it sure is a huge coincidence they happened at the same time. Do you happen to have a chronology of events by date in terms of when he de-certified the system, when he was placed under investigation, and when the other complaints were filed against him? --kizzle 20:03, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Not offhand, but here's an excellent sum up with lots of supporting links: [11] And yes indeed, the timing is suspect, even if true - although given the legal snares, his resignation under these threats is understandable. -- RyanFreisling@ 00:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to look at your draft (smoke/exit_polls) over the weekend.
I've written a good deal more since the early papers. Aside from the working
papers and the book, I have written several newspaper and magazine articles,
and been done many interviews. (Although none of the ones for the mainstream
media have aired) Have you seen my webpage on election research/writing:
www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep?
After I look at your draft, I'll send you the working papers, but in the
meantime, please take a look at my most recent article written February 16,
2005 for *In These Times*: "Exit Poll Report Suggests a Corrupted Election
(despite what you may have heard)"
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/.
Thanks, Steve
Steven F. Freeman * Center for Organizational Dynamics * University of
Pennsylvania * (215) 898-6967 * Fax: (215) 898-8934 * stfreema@sas.upenn.edu
Good stuff - very validating. I remember my first personal reply from Rep. Conyers... use the invigoration and the motivation to good end! -- RyanFreisling@ 15:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I got what seemed like a personal letter from sensennbrenner, after about my 4th letter to him, which you can see on my user page, letters to congressmen. It was a very short reply, basically saying, "i understand that you feel i have not addressed what you wrote me. i repeat that it is not my duty, responsibility, or place, to concern myself with these matters." i agree that it is not his place, and i'm glad he recognizes that. the next step is for him to get out of that place where he does not belong: to leave the white house. as an american citizen, i recognize that it is my duty, responsibility, and place, to concern myself with these matters, and to do everything within my powers to resolve them in favor of the general welfare and the basic rights of all americans. I fail to see how being a congressman would absolve me of this duty. anyways, sorry for the catharsis. i'm glad that i distracted him, at least. so what did conyers write? tell me! tell me! Kevin Baastalk 22:56, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
That's an excellent response. I expected little else from him. Conyers was quite detailed in his response to a number of allegations I sent to him on Nov 4. A few made the report, but I hardly think I 'broke' the stories for him. I wrote him about my fundamental question: "Instead of all this talk about impropriety and irregularities in this election, I want to know how it is that this and the previous Congress so fundamentally failed at their core obligation: to ensure a peaceful, inviolate means of electing our representatives. Instead of focusing on fraud after it has occured, why couldn't Congress use HAVA in order to create a valid election?" His response was simple and clear... "We failed. There is no excuse, but I think the reason is clear... the voting industry is dominated by partisan interests who are seeking to consolidate power." -- RyanFreisling@ 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
hehe, no I agree that they disavowed it, it was just the most nit-pickiest thing that you can't disavow something as something, you just disavow it, so maybe say that the pentagon has just disavowed it, but not disavowed it as "inaccurate"... basically i have too much time on my hands... but like i said, i'm not an english major so i could be wrong :)--kizzle 06:32, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I was getting a little peeved with people not following the guidelines and allowing such entries to remain a whole month. I also wasn't in a great mood. Sorry :) (And I did look at the release, I searched for "new york" and "nyse", not finding those I concluded that was opinion on the part of the entry author, and not present in the release. Thanks for checking it.) --Golbez 03:29, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Wait, I just looked at it and didn't find the word "anticompetitive". If you're citing another source, please use THAT as the external reference. Or am I not looking for the right thing? --Golbez 03:30, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hey there thanks! - You were correc tthat the dissenting opinions (including those within the committee) would not be in the press release. No problem, I was referring to the text used in the Chris Pierce [12] ssga essay, which was reprinted and reused in a bunch of the money rags, but maybe we should just put a verbatim snippet in there instead from [13] from
Commissioners Paul Atkins and Cynthia Glassman voted against it and pledged to publish written dissents. (my emphasis added)
Reg NMS extends the trade-through rule across all markets for quotes on automated execution systems, but not for quotes available only on the slow, human-managed NYSE floor.
"Reg NMS may allow the New York Stock Exchange to take one step forward, but in doing so will drag the rest of the market backward," Atkins said, adding it "revives the spirit of the 1970s by continuing to experiment with market centralization.... It's time for us to shed the 1970s mentality."
Glassman called the measure "a massive intrusion" by government into the markets and said, "I actually think this is a sad day for the commission."
What's up Ryan, don't know if you're back from your wikivacation yet, but just wanted some help on something. I'm currently fleshing out the voting machines section on my userpage, take a look at the organizational structure. I first introduce HAVA, give a brief primer on the different types of voting machines and the process from a voter touching the screen to the vote being added to the main count. My current version then goes directly into describing Diebold, which I have a frickin mountain of information. The only problem is, I'm discussing several different conclusions (like partisanship, insecurity, centralization of power over votes, lack of quality auditing procedure) which apply to all the other companies, so when I get to describing ES&S, I feel like I'll be repeating what I said before. But if I describe all the voting machines at one time, I feel that it will be too much information overload for the viewer, its somewhat better in my opinion to go through each company separately so that the viewer can digest the info. Also, keep me honest and tell me if you see anything that has been refuted/updated or is plain wrong. --kizzle 20:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
poll you might want to check out (but only if you vote the right way ;) )--kizzle July 9, 2005 17:57 (UTC)
holy shit! just went to your user page to see what you're about. at first glance, i thought the 'picture of the day' was supposed to be you. frightened me, till i looked a little closer. anyway, miss freisling, pleased to meet you over in the W talk page. Derex 04:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
looks like you had a complete makeover! considerably easier on the eyes ;) Derex 01:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
you want me in my beard & longhair wolfman suit? or my cleancut & dashing derex disguise? Derex 02:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
lets see it derex. --kizzle 06:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
i present: the wolfman, at your service, but slowly. not as dashing as derex, but considerably fiercer. Derex@ 23:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
re: your 'rove' bunny shot. very nice, but i still like this one better. Derex 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
cough...new ungrainy picture...cough. --kizzle 05:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think someone's been out in their raincoat with nothing on underneath again. It's too cold for that kind of voyeurism :) -- User:RyanFreisling@ 05:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering if you saw my last bit from way early this morning in the George W. Bush talk page — figured you would want to continue the discussion unless you consider it closed.. —Charles O'Rourke 00:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty circular - I've made my point enough times, and the issue has consensus to remain status quo, so I'm happy to leave it be. -- RyanFreisling@ 01:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I guess so. Not sure why we're not understanding each other. In any case, if there's a consensus, I'm fine with it. I was just trying to add another opinion. —Charles O'Rourke 01:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
just wanted to appologize for accidentally undoing your edit to Karl Rove. I was trying to get rid of the vandalism, and didn't see that your edit got undone as well. --ZeWrestlerTalk 14:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
No problem - thanks! :) -- RyanFreisling@ 14:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, good work on dealing with the obvious POV pusher, 214.13.4.151. Keep up the good work. Calicocat 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the RfC on 214, you can add yourself to it under "users who support" or "other uses who support" and add any comments there. The RfC is for 214's "edits" on another article, but I just put my name under "users who support." I hope the admins do something about this person. Calicocat 14:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, there seems to be a much more temperate group of editors working on the article entitled Plame affair, which I started. I invite you to have a look and perhaps participate pending the unblocking and resolution of issues at Karl Rove. Also, I created Karl Rove/temp in which you might edit in or out some of the content you had ligitimate issues with. My best, Calicocat 18:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
nice work on adding the blackwell report! I've been swimming in pre-coingate sources while writing my stuff, so while I'm familliar with coingate as getting the state to invest in rare-coins that turned up missing, why is this connected to possibilities of election fraud? --kizzle 01:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Also, take a look at this and this... simply amazing. --kizzle 05:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Remember that it said "fixed his TERRIBLE GRAMMER :)". Note the little :) symbol. I was trying to joke on it, and he didn't get angry, so I guess the :), as always, did the trick. He even gave me a nice message. Your post was basically "don't correct post unless you know grammar yourself" without the might of the :) or the :-) to diffuse any negative intepretaion. Since you did say it wasn't personal, then I apologize for those troll remarks, which as I said to Android, were a bit over the top. I didn't report anything such as trolling, which I have seen people do before when it is not necessary(I am sure that user Sasquatch won't lose his sysop rights). Well, then you are probably not arrogant, either. As a side note, I must say however that you were not "quick like ninja" this time, that response took a will.Voice of All(MTG) 17:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean 'took a while'? No, I'm not a troll, I stand by my contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks for the retractions. And, it's 'sneaky like ninja', not quick... Haste makes waste... :) -- RyanFreisling@ 18:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
LOL--"took a will". I can think of a lot of hilarious ways to interpret that. By the way, you missed a perfect opportunity to put a :) after the correction. I agree not to make corrections on talk pages, but you must agree use the :) at all times. And what is wrong with "quick", hasn't Kizzle already copyrighted "sneaky like ninja"? The quick ninja is a good one...Voice of All(MTG) 18:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
For using it now, I expect a check of $0.05 sent to my house. --kizzle 22:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
How about I give you a 10 blank checks, I figure the paper is worth $.05.Voice of All(MTG) 00:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Beware - as a rabid individualist, whenever told I must do anything, I immediately refuse it on moral grounds. -- RyanFreisling@ 18:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I order you to to refuse my order. <keanu reeves voice>...whoah... --kizzle 22:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Now you've gone and done it - you've broken my peanut-shaped noggin in two with your fancy book-learnin' and yer logical puzzlin'. Ow. -- RyanFreisling@ 22:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
To clear this up, I never get angry. People have told me that I have an inhuman level of patience. Besides, its more fun to see how thins play out then to expload and ruin a potentially enlightening conversation before it even starts.Gavin the Chosen 18:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent - that patience will serve you well, here on Wikipedia. And welcome - if I can be of assistance as you get settled, please don't hesitate to contact me! -- RyanFreisling@ 18:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Just doing a little sourcing and I can't find mine where it says that exit polls early on in the day caused Karen Hughes and Karl Rove to have a "near-death experience"... can you find a major reputable source that I can link to? --kizzle 22:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
It was most well-known from the AP 12:20am EST radio newsfeed. I'll try to find a transcript, but here's plenty of info.
To paraphrase the AP report:
Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically"
thanks ry ry, I think I'm going to use the Portland Phoenix one for now. I already have the info, I just lost the actual source where I got it from. Since this is going to be a paper, it doesn't have to be a URL, so if you know it was an AP 12:20am EST radio newsfeed, is there a way I can reference to this as a foot-note? It just has to be accurate enough for someone with a lexis-nexis account to find it. --kizzle 00:58, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, can you email me with your email address so I can send you something? --kizzle 18:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
I wanted to let you know about an article I'm developing, Gold Star Families for Peace, any positive contributions from you would be welcome. My best, Calicocat 18:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Ted Kennedy sockpuppet, POV, ad hominem, vandalsedit
Please add the Ted Kennedy page to your watchlist. Agiantman, and several IPs keep pushing in the same POV crap. JamesMLane and I, along with Silverback and others, have to keep reverting it out. They then accuse us of vandalism("asshole vandals"). Thank you.Voice of All(MTG) 01:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
That is very strange. You posted what really appeared to be a neutral and friendly comment. This person or bot cannot tell the difference between his friends and his enemies, which is why he has no friends except those that he constructs as puppets. Thank you.
Robert McClenon 01:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the photo you took is excellent and is of a subject matter ( a marble? bust) that I haven't seen as a featured picture. I have (hopefully) convinced a well known conservatist to allow me to use his pictures and some of them are here: Caribou-Targhee National Forest. I took the photo on Cirque of the Towers article, but most of mine otherwise are lousy. Let me know when and where the voting is when it happens. Thanks!--MONGO 02:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
That -bro character, IP always starting 172 for America on line is a pain in the neck...I had numerous bouts with him. Good you caught the 3RR violation.--MONGO 03:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks MONGO. I do appreciate the support. I'm gonna head off to bed, but I hope the 3RR will be acted upon, and the article reverted. Hope you're well. -- RyanFreisling@ 03:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Not that am ever interested in being an admin, but if I was I would. I'll pass it to someone else. Later.--MONGO 03:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, I also want to thank you for dealing with that guy as best you can. He's clearly a nuisance, and you should know that you are appreciated. Sadly, I used up my three reverts for the day, but hopefully something will be done. LizardWizard 05:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks LizardWizard. I think this user's nuisance factor would decrease massively if he created an account - which is why, unfortunately, it is unlikely ever to happen. Thanks for the support, it means a lot! Keep up the good work. -- RyanFreisling@ 05:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
opps, I may have messed up your picture - helpedit
Hello, Ryan:
I was looking at Robert_McClenon's page, and I saw this picture that looked interesting, and clicked on the name to see who the person was, and found this:
Then, I saw the "rev" link, and thought it was a "diff" link, and clicked on it too see how you could see a "difference" in two image versions, and accidentally may (or may not?) have reverted the image or otherwise messed it up.
I honestly don't know what effect my click had -I was only trying to "look," not "touch."
Therefore, I am writing you to notify you of this, so that you may fix it if I have somehow reverted it incorrectly.
I tried clicking on the most recent version right before the revision, and attempted to fix it myself, but I don't know how.
I am sorry for the inconvenience. Please let me know what happened and accept my apologies for my carelessness.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I am writing in my native color of dark blue, which I use (by convention) on talk pages where I edit. I am writing to tell you that I think I fixed it, based on the number of bytes the current version has. Please let me know if all is well with your image. Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
you know, there are people w/multiple barnstars. ;) Kevin Baastalk: new 21:47, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
as are your tireless efforts. :) I don't know the policy behind barnstars but i'm assuming you have to be an administrator or something to give one. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
care to revert this page-blanking?: [18]
(notice it is not a move - it is a redirect to the page that links to it; a loopback) it is essentially a deletion without a vfd. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I understand how you feel. I supported the other picture whose nomination failed after being relisted (and failed again). THe issue for me isn't just the percentage but the support distribution.
[4] Gzuckier, Robert McClenon, Ta bu shi da yu and you gave no preference (assume all 3?)
[3] The opposers didn't specify (assume all)
Which one would you have me promote? 5 to 8 doesn't meet the 2/3 (barely misses). I don't like this vote counting which is why I generally go with my feel of the discussion and not vote counting. I'm going to move the picture back as if nothing has happened (move our discussion to talk) and let someone else promote it. That's sounds like the most fair way to do this. This link isBroken 22:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree and I thank you. Voice of All's comment was for a prior layout - all the comments rightly point to the top image. I'm nominating the top one and had the retouched one there as a kindness to Benjamin Gatti's efforts and to evoke comments from others (there were none). -- RyanFreisling@ 22:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry that your picture didn't become feature; I thought it was both technically excellent and ascetically pleasing, and would have voted for it myself had I not closed the discussion. However, I'm really going to have to concur with BrokenSegue's comments above. There was a significant variation as far as which picture would be featured if it passed; in effect; there were four propositions being voted on, without many specifics. I suggest waiting a few days and then nominating the version you like best. If you have any more questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me again. With warm regards --Neutralitytalk 04:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I only included the Benjamin Gatti image out of respect for his efforts, and made the interim versions available for review and comment by others, but there was never more than one image at once nominated. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer, it seems I provided too much information and background! If I had made my changes silently, it would have helped my image's case - which isn't really right. There was never more than any one image under real consideration at any time- all the others were in response to various requests (emphasize background, lighten it, darken it, fix the shadow, etc... I only sought to be responsive. -- RyanFreisling@ 05:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
By having multiple images on display it generally means that multiple images are under consideration, no matter what you meant to do. If someone requests the picture to be changed and someone provides a changed version then that version too is a candidate. Saying, "I only included the Benjamin Gatti image out of respect for his efforts" isn't really accurate. It isn't your nomination really so he would be allowed to display his version of the image without your permission. Just wait a month or two and try again. This link isBroken 12:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
It was my nomination, however - he is welcome to post his image, but I'm perfectly within my rights to remove it - I did not, so as to open the discussion. I'm a little disappointed that this decision on your part takes so much explanation to contravene the literal truth - that the image met the criteria. -- RyanFreisling@ 13:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Sadly that isn't true. It isn't your nomination in any sense of the meaning except that you initiated it. I could suggest any number of variants on the picture and you wouln't be in your rights to remove them (unles I am being malicious, which I'm not). I too am sadened by bureaucracy and hope that is gets cleared away one day. And remember, whether or not that is the "truth" that it is featured image is a matter of opinion in nearly all cases. I hope we don't need to use up any more time on this fruitless discussion. Happy editing and I await your renomination! This link isBroken 20:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Once again, desrcibing this as fruitless is pretty bad form on your part. I've been completely straightforward and unfortunately, you seem more concerned with labeling my observations rather than responding to them. If I 'nominate and support', that's a nomination I initiate - and quite frankly, if you had these concerns, never raised them, and then deny promotion on that basis, that's also pretty bad form (if not bad faith). I'm not sure what your problem is with me, but you may want to ask if you've conducted yourself as respectfully as you should... I've given you no reason to be dismissive. -- RyanFreisling@ 22:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that this conversation is the very definition of fruitless. My comment was a defense of an argument, based upon your comments about your request for me to review a now closed nomination, which has already been reviewed by another admin, which will only be reviewable again in a couple of months when it is renominated, which has nothing to do with adding new and great content to wikipedia. I know this is important to you but this little debate has grown quite useless and you shouldn't take all of my comments as attacks upon you and your image. Why would I have something against you (I've been more than fair)? If you feel you've been wronged you're welcome to start an RFC on my behavior. I really don't think I can say or do anything more to convince you or explain it to you. If you still feel you need to know more, try contacting another admin (try the village pump) maybe they will be able to explain it better than I. I don't want this conversation to go on forever (and become more heated) so I don't plan to respond here again (you of course can still contact me at my talk page). This link isBroken 19:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't say that User:RonCram's 3RR violation isn't being dealt with. He needed to be properly warned first, and now that he's ignored the warning, he's recieved a one-hour block. Don't break 3rr yourself- contact somebody, or show a little patience, however frustrating that might be. If this block doesn't help fix the problem, the best recourse may be RfC or RfAr. See also: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --Scimitarparley 14:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Great. Hopefully a short block will help sort things out, although, cynical sort that I am, I worry that revert-warriors don't always learn from experience. It's good to be re-assured that at least one side won't be violating 3RR. --Scimitarparley 15:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, if you can get a good version of the Antinous picture you should start up a vote page again for featured article. Please tell me when you do so(if you do so).
Also, why do some people called you "she" when your name is Ryan? That seems a bit odd...which one is it?Voice of All(talk) 04:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I just thought it was odd that people were calling you "she" when I thought you were probably male based on your name. Since those people are actually right, then, yes, there is nothing odd about it.
And don't forget to remind me about that picture.Voice of All(talk) 17:42, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
You've been reported for a WP:3RR violatation here. I don't know if it's true or not, but if you want to not be blocked, you could possibly avoid it by undoing your revert. Even if something's badly wrong with the article, it's not worth violating 3RR over. Friday(talk) 03:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey. Just wanted you to know that philosophically I agree that in any certain dispute there is not necessarily equal blame to be parceled out. Rather than assigning any blame, what I chose to do was protect the page. Blocking this or that user in this particular situation for violating 3RR -- now that the page is protected -- really achieves no useful goal. The purpose of the 3RR rule, beyond as a brightline to punish vandalism, is to discourage edit warring. Edit warring is discouraged because it impedes discussion and consensus-building. Since the protect took care of the edit warring, a block on either of you would have served no purpose except to actually impede discussions, which obviously contravenes the spirit of what each policy tries to encourage. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.
I feel like you and BigDaddy777 and Paul Klenk were arguing on the 3RR page because you were hoping someone there would pass judgment on the other's actions. But that's not the purpose of the page. Once I as an administrator decided to deal with the incident report with a protection (backed up by another admin, since Paul chose to call my actions into question), the incident report was really closed. End of story. Beyond that the 3RR page is not a place to argue a case for any certain editor to be punished, or to expect some kind of judgment to be passed. If you want to argue, court-style, for an editor's conduct to be ruled upon and possibly punished, that is a matter for the Arbitration Committee WP:RFAr.
To the rest, I'm sorry that you feel that I've hampered your ability to defend yourself on the 3RR page, but it was threatening to spiral out of control in what is an improper venue for that sort of thing. If you like, I would not object to you placing a link on that page to a place where your response is housed -- on the talk page now, or wherever the discussion might be continuing. What I don't want to see is discussion continuing there. Respectfully · Katefan0(scribble) 20:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll continue to monitor the page. Don't get discouraged. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
(I'll respond here, as it's related.) In answer to your question, you asked the wrong question. :) 3RR is merely an arbitrary number set to stop edit wars. It doesn't mean you are allowed to revert any lower number. Edit wars are a Bad Thing. It takes two (or more) to edit war. You appear to have been in an edit war. There is also a simple way to stop an edit war. Stop reverting. This isn't really passing a judgment, just general rules of thumb. I don't know, or even care to determine if you or anyone else actually violated the letter of the policy, what is important is that an edit war violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Now, from my few dealings with Paul Klenk recently, it is clear he has some civility issues, and like I said, it takes two to make an edit war. But, unless it is clear-cut vandalism, even the most egregious edit, like POV, doesn't justify an edit war. That's one last thing, you need to tell the difference between POV and vandalism (I think it's at WP:V). Other than that, do what Kate said. I don't think I answered your question, but... (end of sentence :) Dmcdevit·t 21:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ryan - don't know if you've been following the edit war being waged by Silverback on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda lately but it has gotten out of control -- look at this for example. I could really use some help here... thanks. --csloat 20:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello Ryan, I take it you've given up on restoring the 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories article? Everything is in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article currently as I presume you are aware. Perhaps we should use a word with larger, more international scope than just "domestic"? Though, that doesn't mean to say some americans weren't perhaps complicit on at least some level. zen master T 23:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Since you have begun interacting with Bigdaddy again [19] and endorsed the original RfC [20], I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed.[21] Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. 69.121.133.154 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777edit
Next, I hope you know I am trying to be as honest as I can be, and defend myself to you when I feel it is necessary, with as little rancor as possible. If I am ever excessive in that regard, I want you to feel free to point it out; it is only fair. When I read your comments, I do ponder them carefully and tell you what I think. If I myself do not admit when I am wrong often enough, that too I would like to know about. I know this whole thing is a bit tense, and obviously we do not see eye to eye on everything, but I have to call things as I see them, Ryan. If someone were accusing you falsely, or if I thought they were -- even if later proven wrong -- I would defend you vigorously, and would enjoy doing so. I would never stand for anyone blocking you on a hunch.
This thing with Fvw is a bit strange. I keep looking for the evidence; I don't see it; he can point it out if he chooses. Am I wrong to expect that? He seems to be throwing out non-answers. I don't know another way to deal with it, except talk to him. I really am serious about offering to be blocked if BD can be proved to have done the things he is accused of. But what is strange is, his name does not appear in the section heading of that page, although he is talked about by those reporting the incident. Because of that lack of direct accusation, I am not even sure it was wise for him to show up on the page and defend himself. I know he is always very quick to do so, sometimes needlessly, but he also has a right to defend himself.
Also, if I have ever bullied anyone, I do wish they would come to me and say something. If they have told you, or you just observed something, it is obviously preferable that we go directly to the person with whom we have a problem, and talk about it. That goes for whats his name (I forget the name I think Kizzle knows) who just took an identity. And if you still have problems with me, or are harboring a resentment, come talk to me. Tell me exactly what you take issue with, and I will listen and answer you directly. We may not agree on a resolution, but we can try to at least, and perhaps compromise. And meanwhile, I am trying to find some ways of doing nice things for you as a way of letting you know I am willing to work together. We are bound to show up on pages editing together again. I'm not going anywhere. It is best that we find some common ground. Thanks. paul klenktalk 04:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for gracing my page with your comments. If you want a good howl, take a look at my user page and the links to my new pages on non-English wikis. They were all created in English two days ago. Of the fifteen, fourteen have already been translated. I left a short comment at the bottom of each, inviting others to translate, plus a template where they could sign their name as translator. People just showed up and did it. The Chinese and Russian ones are very cool, and the Finnish -- my goodness -- that language is oh so curious.
The reason I bring it up, besides the entertainment value, is that this effort has availed me of many new relationships with foreign translators. If you have a pet article you've authored and would like to see in a pet language, I can easily find a translator and have it published on another wiki. There is nothing quite like watching others translate your own words. In fact, about 20 minutes or so after I created my de:wiki page, de:User:Chadmull came along and translated it into German. His efforts on my page were his second and third edits, when he did not even have a user page of his own. Totally amazing. paul klenktalk
Hehe - good stuff. Sounds like a good idea, if only to doppelganger-proof your user page. Maybe I'll do the same. :) -- RyanFreisling@ 05:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that -- I did have a Spanish vandal problem. They didn't have a doppelganger template at es:wiki. I worked with an admin there, who did the software while I helped with the translation. The first es:wiki doppelganger template was created today (cuenta preventiva -- "preventive account"), and I am the first to use it. paul klenktalk
Aww see, now we're all playing nice :) If only Wikipedia had a Request_for_Keg_Party, there would never be any RfA's or RfC's, and Ryan would get hit on by all her co-editors. --kizzle 06:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I messed up the evidence page for BD. I thought those comments were from Paul. Sorry. Just so you know, I put BD on the Vandalism in Progress page. Since he's in arby, it might be ignored, but...I'm not going to stand here and let him *alter people's posts*. Deleting them is one thing. Altering them is quite another. And to me anyway, making the posts something like "Radical Stalker..." is also vandalism. Anyway, sorry if I caused any inconvenience. --Woohookitty 05:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Move for a temporary injunction against BigDaddy777edit
Do you subscribe to/read the mailing list? Guettarda 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Just figured you should know, since it appeared that Snowspinner was mischaracterising you. I'll AGF with regards to Fred and assume that he had not looked at the article and was taking Snow's comments at face value.
I also found Snowspinner's reply to my comments telling. It seems that he does think that it's appropriate to insult fellow editors. His faith in the mainstream media is touching. I've only been quoted in the press 3 or 4 times, twice by friends, and I think they got what I said wrong every time. So - the new standard for Wikipedia articles is things that have been covered by the mainstream media. That's good to know. I think I will have to delete about 200 of the articles I have started :( Guettarda 20:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
your input would be much appreciated at the talk pages of the controversies articles. While the articles do need sweeping for quality sources, Delerium and Snowspinner are going gung-ho with removing info. --kizzle 18:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes they are. I don't want to appear to pounce, as Snowspinner has already made personal attacks towards me here and on the mailing list as well. If I single-handedly revert a lot of their poorly-conceived edits, it will reduce the perception of consensus we've achieved in the months these articles have persisted. The most recent deletion, of the 'have to suppress voters' quote, is beyond the pale. -- RyanFreisling@ 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking just that - can't figure out what the justification for that one is. Guettarda 19:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Do these people not read links before they delete them, or pronounce upon deletions? Guettarda 15:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I know my rfa was closed and you still voted in support. Lol! That means a lot to me. Thank you very much, I wish you my best. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
writing a paper on rosa parks for school, and came across this passage in MLK's stride toward freedom. I swear we never learn as a country:
In 1954, there were some 30,000 Negroes of voting age in Montgomery County, but onlyh a few more than 2000 were registered. This low figure was in part the result of the Negroes' own lack of interest or persistence in surmounting the barriers erecetd against them; but the barriers were themselves formidable. Alabama law gives the registrars wide discretionary powers. At the registration offfice are separate lines and separate tables for voters according to race. The registrars servicing Negro lines move at a noticeably leisurely pace, so that of fifty Negroes in line, as few as fifteen may be reached by the end of the day...
The technology changes but the ignorance stays the same. Priceless. --kizzle 20:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, thanks for your calming words and insightful perspective over on the RfA page. zen masterT 06:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
That is some very good advice and I will take it. Though maybe you aren't aware of the full history that led up to everything, I was perhaps way too overly concerned with Conspiracy theory because it seemed like evidence for my proposal: Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory was being systematically removed to reduce the effectiveness of the second version of the same proposal at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. Perhaps I also didn't make any progress clarifying my complaint because I was stuck oscillating between wanting to go back to the old version of the article or trying to improve the new. I've also had some bad experiences with the majority and their methods in the past and so I assumed the worst and assumed very little progress could be made so aimed very low (only to signify a dispute). Also, it didn't seem like the majority thought I was wrong so much as they were simply dismissively claiming I was wrong then ignoring me, which is a pet peeve though I now realize this is at least partially my fault as I have way too high of an expectation for a detailed explanation for each and every rejection of my edits or talk page discussion posts. Anyway, thanks for the advice and calming words of wisdom. zen masterT 06:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
No one seems to be responding to comments I post and I thought you were involved in those pages. Also, I've removed a few commas from your user page. I hope you don't mind. Rkevins82 19:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry about figuring out where the map came from - I've sent similar messages to a few of the other main editors. Rkevins82 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Please vote at this AFD. It was relisted due to a lack of votes. I would like to close this sometime. Thank you. You are the last person I had to spam :-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I and at least one other editor have taken the test linked to on your user page. My results are @ User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases#Weltanschauung, and User:Silverback's results are on his user page. Let me know if you find this interesting :) Cheers, Sam Spade 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thats fun. I'm right by Pope_John_Paul_the_Great. In reality I'm a radical centrist, regardless of what these tests say ;) Sam Spade 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. I must say you've done an admirable job of keeping that article alive. You're the one deserving acolades. :) noosphere 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the RFC situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikiepdian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your oppose vote. I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one!Gator(talk) 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thnak you for your comments. I understand your position and I'll take them to heart.Gator(talk) 18:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi again - I was looking at your user page and noticed you have the quote "Rem tene; verba sequentur" attributed to "anonymous" -- I believe it should be attributed to Cato the Elder, the Roman Censor. The statement may have preceded him, but he is generally credited with having said it... At least, that's what I teach in my Classical Rhetoric course :) Have a good one! csloat 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
that's right. i went there. so thanks again for the non-attention, i'm drunk, but it doesn't matter. that was fucked up, and here i thought i was a friend of yours. it's on!!!! --kizzle 11:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Well at least they're healing anvils :) --kizzle 22:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your very kind (and cheery!) good wishes on my talk page. I'm sorry I was tardy in returning the sentiment, but I hope that your celebrations were as joyous and fulfilling as mine. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm very open to assistance and guidance. After, looking at the article edit and talk histories on the martin lutheron the jews and their liesmartin luther and the jews pages, perhaps you could assist by emailing me more appropriate prose (i.e., what would you write under the same circumstances)or suggestions regarding how to deal with the problem of repeated misconduct? Eagerly hoping for help. Collegially yours,Doright 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. More here.[[22]]Doright 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
No, relax, breathe again, Silverback is not an admin. You gave me palpitations at the mere thought of it. ;-) Bishonen | talk 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
Thank the Wikigods! I too had to cringe when I read that! --csloat 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I am seeking support for a user conduct RfC on User:24.55.228.56 (apparently also known as User:Mr j galt) over his conduct on the Plame pages and the Larry C. Johnson page - would you sign on? RfC requires that at least two users tried and failed to resolve the dispute with the user, and I believe that has happened in this case. Let me know and I will propose the RfC. --csloat 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I copied your post about the ohio recount on the election irregularities talk page to the election recoutns and legal challenges tlak page, because I think the content would be more appropriate on that page. Kevin baas 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you help me with a simple question? Just for my information, because I really don't know, when editing a controversial topic, is it allowed to insert comments by critics based upon editorials? Or does that constitute NPOV violation? You can answer here, but to get an idea of what I mean you can look for more info at Talk:Samuel_Alito#Opponents_of_the_unitary_executive_theory and at Talk:Samuel_Alito#Requests for comment.--Nomen Nescio 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm never mad...least of all to you...I just am blunt sometimes...forgive me if I seem mad, I'll tone it down.--MONGO 16:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You're in NYC, correct?--MONGO 16:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I am indeed. Big difference from the country (was it Wyoming, or Idaho?). And I didn't think you were mad at all... don't change a thing! -- User:RyanFreisling@ 16:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually in (ugh) Nebraska...Omaha to be precise...I was born in Montana, but my favorite state is Wyoming, for it's scenery mainly. The pictures you have sent are wonderful and I am appreciative of them...I thank you very much...what a sweetheart. In Omaha, we have one 635 foot building and one more over 500 feet and the rest are less than 300 feet...so hardly any canyons as one wanders the streets. I've been to NYC 5 times, each time to tour, as my dad used to live in Connecticut and we would venure there on Saturdays. I was atop the WTC, even on the outside platform, been to all the major sites of course. I sincerely believe that NYC is the world's greatest city for all the things that make it so great..history, architecture, culture, and the dream. My favorite is the Chrysler Building and I have a huge image of it in my hallway. I'll return after the WTC is rebuilt as sadly, I would be too moved by the scene as it is now. I'm searching through my images and when I find suitable ones, I'll send you one. Well, here's a decent one from last June...Lewis Falls, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming--MONGO 17:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're a lot better photographer than I am...that shot looking up the Chrysler Building is classic...even the building to the left, with the designs around the windows...awesome. Thanks! I also am fond that shot from the old pier...you could use these images to write and or enhance articles of course...good work.--MONGO 18:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I like other users see this user going out of his way to circumvent the spirit of an RfC by touching every single article in Category:Plame affair he can. I would support any formal arbitration brought against him. I haven't actively been involved in any edit wars or arguments with him, so I'm certain my views are unclouded. --waffle iron 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the groundwork on the RfC. I really wish it hadn't come to this and though the page protection had allowed for cool down, but it didn't get better. --waffle iron 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. Thanks for the heads up, but I am not familiar with this user as I don't monitor any of the pages he's edited. Sorry. --noosphere 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw that either the original or an imposter has oppened an account...and was quickly indef. blocked...just as a heads up, should it be the real Big Daddy character with a new IP...[23]--MONGO 12:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess Operation Dry Up Funding isn't going so well. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what they want us to think... -- User:RyanFreisling@ 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You have attempted to harrass me, stifle me, silence me, and engage in edit wars with me every time I have attempted to restore NPOV to an article that reflects your extreme POV. You have wikistalked me and you are now threatening me with a conduct RFC, a gross abuse of the RFC process. Your contributions are welcome, but if you persist in harrassing me, it will no doubt lead to an RFC on your conduct.--Mr j galt 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
" Your contributions are welcome". Hmmm...partial ironic mirroring when it does not apply. You know that is a classic troll technique. Others could assume more good faith if you didn't revert war so much and ignore discussion.
BTW, Ryan, long time no see :). I doubt you will let any of this get to you, but just to remind you: don't let it get to you.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I see you saw the same Newsweek article I did. Hopefully this will allow all parties involved in the RfCs regarding the Plame affair articles, Mr j galt included, to move on to other things. Although I would advise against introducing this in the Galt RfC, as it only concerns his conduct. I don't want to see content arguments diluting and distracting from the issue at hand. --waffle iron 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I actually saw your post first, and then read the article. Thanks for posting it! -- User:RyanFreisling@ 19:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not copy/paste articles from copyrighted sources like NYT. Your "DebatingALeak" subpage has been speedy deleted as a cut-and-paste copyvio. You may, of course, use the NYT article as a source, but not copy it verbatim. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3 paragraphs could probably qualify as "fair use" if there was critical commentary interspersed (e.g. a blog). However, even if it was, the foundation doesn't want any fair use material on user pages. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
But it was only one edit, so I didn't have time to add or edit my thoughts. (I was at the end of one session, prepping for another one). In any case, apologies. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 06:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
We have a BigDaddy777 wannabe reverting at will on the Mark Levin page. Will Beback and I are trying to deal with him as best we can, but any help/comments you can provide would be much appreciated. Thanks. Eleemosynary 01:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That was very nice of you to support Gator...have you ever considered, ah, Adminship? You've been around for some time and have been involved in dealing with some hostile editors and have always been fairly even keeled about it. We don't have enough female admins as it is anyway.--MONGO 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. It means a ton to me.Gator(talk) 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
also posted to my usertalk:
I would check out Wikipedia:Administrators and the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and lastly, the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. Spend some time doing some RC patrol and maybe some voting for deletions areas too. BUT...our best editors are not necessarily admins...because they are too busy doing what we are supposed to be doing...writing encyclopedia articles, watching out for violations of NPOV and editing existing pages accurately. Full time work and school too...impressive. Anyhoo, keep it in mind.--MONGO 14:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, my actual encyclopedia article edits have go way down. I am thinking about laying off RC patrol and RfPP for a while. I am still on AfD break...I guess thats what happens.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you as well :) It is sort of annoying to have to do this sort of thing every time another issue of the weekly standard is published; it's nice to have help fighting the good fight. This is exactly the strategy some Republicans have in mind, I think; dump enough information out there to keep the bloggers occupied spreading enough ambiguity over the issue to obscure the disaster that our Iraq policy has become. It's ludicrous, when the public record is so clear, that conservatives think they will be suddenly vindicated by semi-secret notes scrawled at forgotten meetings.... *sigh* hey send me an email sometime csloat at informationtornado.com --csloat 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that unfold...Rhobite has been one of the most helpful editors on articles related to 9/11, helping to keep completely unencyclopedic jargon out of those articles and I do respect his contributions. I know I have been hostile at the GWB article, I think I drove JamesMLane nuts for awhile. I don't think it was fair to label you or Kevin as single issue editors...but he didn't really violate NPA I don't think. I am still very incivil at times in the articles that relate to 9/11...and I probably need to cool it at times, so I am hardly one to lecture anyone about civility. What I did to keep my keel firmly planted in the sea was to get involved in articles that remind me of my earlier career...land management, etc. Whenever I feel like I am about to implode over article content in articles such as those about 9/11, I just go there and nobody bothers me, and I make a difference (I hope!) for Wikipedia...I don't think I would have stood a chance of becoming an admin had I not made significant contributions in the land management articles...bringing one to FA status and now maybe even another is close as the voting seems to be unanimously in support, but I was greatly assisted in the latter.--MONGO 05:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep up the good work...besides...we're all a bunch of POV pushers anyway...that's what makes us human!--MONGO 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Shoshone National Forest was mostly my work and is featured, but not on the main page yet. Retreat of glaciers since 1850 is currently under review, as linked off the discussion page and was the work of a number of editors...not soliciting a vote, mind you!. Choir eh...I suppose it's best I am not in the choir, my voice sounds a bit like two bricks rubbed against each other, but more baritone.--MONGO 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess Raul was reading my mind!...the article is admittedly a bit dry, but it is an excellent refernece point for anyone wanting to see a lot of evidence...one of the contributors is one of the best researchers in glacier retreat in the U.S., so it was really nice to have him aboard.--MONGO 06:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been away from my desk lately due to lots of work...looks like someone beat me to moving the page back...I also saw he was adding fact tags all over the place in the GWB arricle...I don't disagree the article needs more citations, but I don't like the look of fact tags all over. Let me know what else comes up:)--MONGO 23:10, 7 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. SincerelyNomen Nescio 18:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what Merecat is shooting for, but maybe more people should follow your lead. [26] I don't even get it sometimes. See ya. --LV(Dark Mark) 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
He removed my comments from his talk page (a worrisome sign): [27] -- User:RyanFreisling@ 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
ISTM that you're being goaded. --Flawiki 00:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur. He is not worth your time, Ryan. -- noosphere 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Ryan. Thought you might be interested in seeing this, since you have a pic of yourself on your user page. Not to stir up paranoia or anything, but better safe than sorry, right? -- noosphere 19:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion, anyone could be a victim of cyberstalking/harrasment. You don't need to be an admin. I'm not saying it's going to happen, or even that it's likely to happen. But it may happen, especially if you get in to conflicts with users who aren't particularly mature or ethical. So I think the less personally-identifiable material one discloses, the safer they are from cyberstalking/harrasment. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but the WP:AMDB page seems to show that it's an unfortunate reality on Wikipedia. -- noosphere 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear RyanFreisling, thanks for the beautiful vase. And for reaffirming my faith in the Wiki community. peace Maggiethewolfstar 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I spelled it right...no just kidding...the page I created is here: [28]. To create a redirect you either have a new page or a blanked page and at the top you type: #REDIRECT [[articlefoo]] and you're done once you click the save page tab...I was completely confused about this at first too and even now I have to remind myself as I don't do that many. I see another semester has passed for you and I'm sure you did well. I was wondering what you were majoring in and where, but don't share that with us outside of email. Let me know if you need anything.--MONGO 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
OH anytime...have a great afternoon.--MONGO 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI: "histrionics" is not a perjorative. [29]Merecat 06:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
How is critiquing your source the equivalent of using "exaggerated emotional behavior calculated for effect?" That is entirely perjorative. --kizzle 06:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Presuming you infer that I was suggesting a negative effect. And you can only infer that if you assume bad faith. Very revealing of your mindset, this comment of yours. Merecat 06:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You characterized my (rightful) critique of your citation as an "exaggerated emotional behavior calculated for effect"... how am I supposed to assume good faith on your part and not take that as negative when you think my words are exaggerated and calculated for effect rather than simply trying to say what I believe? You might want to take your own advice there, buddy. --kizzle 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Merecat, it's dumbfounding to me that you could hope to claim, with the online equivalent of 'a straight face', that your characterization of kizzle's post as 'histrionics' was anything other than a poorly-considered effort to diminish or negate the factual merit of what he actually wrote. Take it to another talk page, 'cause I'm not buying it. Good night. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 06:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
you said you were going to put up a non-grainy picture. liar. --kizzle 09:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hum..the picture is good enough to see that she is attractive, while mine is good enough to see that I am not attractive...enough said! Actually, with some of the wackos I seem to have bumped into around this place, I encourage people to deliberately not post highly identifying images of themselves here...hence, I also have a grainy image...go ahead, try and enhance it, and watch your monitor blow up!--MONGO 10:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing NPOV tags on articles where there is a neutrality dispute is vandalism, and is blockable. Even if you believe the article to be NPOV, that does not justify the removal of a tag indicating the existence of a dispute. Phil Sandifer 04:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
If you slap a tag on an article, and don't discuss specifics, the tag is unjustified. I still haven't seen you step up and actually discuss the article - just attacking what you see as a political statement. Weak. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 04:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I would perhaps have more time to discuss if you would assume good faith and not revert the tags within two minutes of their being placed. But since you seem more interested in immediately initiating an edit war by vandalizing the tags, it is difficult to discuss. Then again, since I've expressed my problems with these articles about four times over the past 18 months only to be tag-team reverted by committed POV-pushers, I'm not exactly sure what there is to explain. Regardless, stop removing tags indicating a dispute. It is vandalism, and you will be blocked for it. Phil Sandifer 04:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Phil, lay off the insults and the bullying. It isn't vandalism to delete tags slapped on with no discussion, and you know it. Stop calling excellent editors POV-pushers. Guettarda 04:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. If only I had started a discussion first. Wait. I did. Please look at disputes before you try to intervene. Also, Ryan? Could you perhaps stop leaving messages on my user page? I have a talk page. Phil Sandifer 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Would you stop your tag madness, and try to focus on specific issues, on specific articles, and try to achieve specific ends? That will go a long way towards ensuring your concerns are acted upon. Threats and false accusations won't. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 04:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Your attempt to immediately initiate a forest fire edit war did not exactly leave time for discussion. But we seem to have reached 3RR, so perhaps now I can have time to respond to what I'm sure are the very reasonable and considered points you raised in response to my complaint on the talk page? Phil Sandifer 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Amazing how your mass tagging is caused by my 'forest fire'. Show some responsibility for your own actions. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 04:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The article has nine sub-articles. I tagged the entire set, since the entire set is POV. This is not mass-tagging. The extreme nature of the problem required tagging multiple articles so as to alert readers to the fact that the articles are problematic - which they are. Furthermore, it is appallingly hypocritical to continue to blast me for not engaging in discussion when I have the most recent edit in the discussion. Phil Sandifer 04:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"This is not mass-tagging". What else could you call this but "mass-tagging"? (Well, ok, I liked my own "drive-by tagging" better). Guettarda 05:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Phil seemed to have added an explanation[30] about 2 minutes after adding the tag[31] for the main article, 2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio. The post was a bit vague since it mentioned merely part of WP:NPOV and not how this page failed to meet it, but it nevertheless started discussion. The other's don't have an explanation. Discussion will be best centralized, so Phil should post a list of NPOV greviences for all the pages on one or all of those article's talk pages.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, I don't really consider this[32] very productive. He left a comment and you probably should have discussed at least a little before moving the tag, rather than giving a quick rebuttal and using that as justification to remove the tag. I everyone did that, there would be tag wars all the time, since, after all, there is a dispute. The only way the action is justified is if someone is trolling or just repeating bad conduct without Good Faith. I am not convinced just yet that Phil has bad faith. And the "blogosphere" certainly can be problem for such articles. I'll need more information before I can write off anyone's intentions yet.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the mass taggings are some of Phil's more constructive edits. For example, although all of the info in the election irregularities article is from the five external links (or in certain cases in the internal links), converting said article into standard reference style would be a substantial improvement. Kevin Baastalk 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Visited the Election irregularities page. It's hilarious - the righteous indignation of someone who believes that the article hurts Wikipedia's credibility. The same person who gets into such a tizzy about the fact that AFD has offended the webcomics community, and that not having hundreds of articles devoted to webcomics hurts Wikipedia. Talk about people who can't see past their own biases... Guettarda 04:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I apologized to you on my talk page for making a viscious remark at you in Merecat's hanging room. I should have made apologies to you here, as you might not have seen them.
Why are you all being so horrible to Merecat. Please try and help him now rather than hurt him? Merecat is a good guy and he needs help, not further harm. thewolfstar 22:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your apology a great deal. Please know that whatever Merecat's experience is, it's due to his/her own actions. There's no organized pogrom against him, or other editors (as far as I know) - the issue is not Merecat's POV, but his apparent sockpuppetry, trolling, personal attacks, revert warring, vote stacking and other uncollaborative behavior. Again, I am indeed grateful. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
If I may put in a word here, speaking for myself: We are trying to help him. We are trying to help him understand the policies and guidelines, and how to work collaboratively with others. "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime." Kevin Baastalk 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop with the histrionics Kevin. That's crazy talk. --kizzle 23:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep up the fighting and I'll revoke both of your Orders of Lenin. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 23:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You're not the boss of me, remember, you're in the Zionist Cabal. JamesMLane is the boss of me, though I'm planning a coup come midterm election time. --kizzle 23:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Oy, what a schlamiel I am - never mind. Oh - and if you need any help from the corrupt Fourth Estate, gimme a jingle. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You work in the press? --kizzle 23:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It's been alleged here, so it must be true... :) I didn't get into the cabal just for my blintzes. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 23:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin so I can't do any blocking, even if I wanted to. User:Stbalbach and User:Wil Beback started keeping track of him earlier and I think Wil is an admin. Anyway, what probably needs to happen is that the sock tags need to be removed and a single sock tag reapplied, and an evidence page made somewhere showing the IPs he uses and the diffs from RFCU. Rex071404 hasn't posted since November and we can't block the Texas IP addresses for longer than 24 hours at a time on the chance that they might later be assigned to an innocent third party. Merecat is currently banned for 24 hours for spamming the Afd. Usually even sock puppeteers get to keep their main account; the socks get banned and the puppet master gets temp blocked for abusing the system. My advice would be to wait and see what happens over the next few days. I think the original block was unjust since the "policy" he was blocked for violating was unwritten, so a warning should have been given first, and 24 hours is typical for a first offense of getting caught with your socks down. If merecat acknowledges that he was posting from IPs to avoid the block, or even simply lets the allegations sit without contesting them, I would assume good faith that he has learned his lesson, and let him keep posting from his one account. If in the future he continues to use the anonymous IPs to avoid 3RR, etc while editing, both he and the IP should get hit with 24 hour blocks for each offense, escalating as necessary. That's simply my opinion as an observer of the process over the last few months. The fact that no one has extended the ban after I posted the CU results pretty much means the "community" is going to let his block expire tonight and see if he can behave himself. Thatcher131 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Merecat is Rex, and is therefore violating numerous remedies of the Rex RfAr's. Disruption is rife, but I haven't even started to make that argument. Plain and simple - Merecat is entitled to no more support or 'free passes' than anyone else - and as Rex, he has already used them all up. Sockpuppeting should not be rewarded.
Are you fucking kidding me? Merecat is Rex? Oh and check your email. --kizzle 00:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope. It's appears to be the case. Will do. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Your opening statement basically called Merecat a sock for Rex and called for a block. I wanted to provide the rest of the recent history of both Anon Texan, who I have interacted with, and the AfD, which is relevant. I do believe that Nescio and Prometheuspan went way overboard (especially since no one knew anything about sock puppetry at the time) so I tried to provide a summary that touched on all the issues. It may still be a bit pro-Merecat; I am only human. Also, by your argument, if Merecat had simply not edited John Kerry, then there would be no cause for action at all, since he has been no more disruptive than Nescio or PPan et al. and he abandoned Rex when he started Merecat, which is allowed if discouraged. So I wanted to make a more detailed opening sumary. I'm sure there will be no shortage of people providing diffs of all kinds. So I hope the Arbcom will look at the whole situation. I do think that since you and Merecat were involved in a dispute over articles related to the 2004 election controversy, you should say so as an involved party and not try to look like a bystander reporting a crime. I am sure they will find you to have been reasonable and civil in your interactions with Merecat and quickly turn their attention elsewhere. (Of course, they may focus on Rex/Merecat alone.) On a side matter, you mentioned providing evidence of Merecat's disruption to counter Tbeatty's claims; that will all be done at the evidence stage. I wouldn't add to the opening statement any more unless someone specifically asks for more details (Fred accepted, so he's willing to let it go to evidence based on your statement alone). I want to be clear that I don't think you are acting in bad faith or are out to "get" Merecat for dishonorable reasons, but I do think you should be open about your conflicts with him; it won't hurt your case, if there weren't conflicts there wouldn't be an Arbcom. Cheers. Thatcher131 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
comment Prometheuspan is a bit of a pink elephant, no? Either the user has some sort of mental illness, or is a strawman trying to disrupt the article, and the AFD--172.129.23.247 17:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been open. I also want to be very clear - I don't claim that there's no cause for concern about Merecat's disruptive editing. He has been FAR more disruptive than Nescio. Ppan I don't know because I'm not an editor on the GwBImpeachment article (I find it kind of inappropriate). The revalation of his identity changes the entire context of what has been n overwhelmingly negative interaction with Merecat since the very first time I encountered him (when he unilaterally moved Plame affair and never even responded to requests to explain/return the article. It's important to note that I am one editor, with only my own experiences with Merecat. And those have led me to request ArbCom review the case. I'm glad we agree on that at least. :)
Your say-so is not evidence of notability. If they're notable on this matter, surely they've been cited somewhere other than their own publications. Find those sources, and cite those - do not simply stamp your feet and say they're notable. Phil Sandifer 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, in the spirit of your friendly warning, I must point out that you are well past three reverts on the article yourself. Phil Sandifer 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I am convinced that everyone in here is completely mad. There is a mass hypnotism happening in Wikipedia, there's no doubt about it. Do any of you really propose that you can teach Merecat about civility and kindness? He has more good manners and gentleness in his little toe than all of your bodies put together. Merecat doesn't need us to teach him a lesson by trapping him and punishing him. He needs all mean intentions and unkindness to just stay away from him right now.
The kind of help you can give Merecat now, is to either reach out in kindness to him, or at the very least, back off and stop harassing him. I'm not saying that Merecat was completly innocent in whatever went on between all of you. I'm just saying please, back off of him now. There's been enough hard feelings between all of us around here. thewolfstar 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Merecat should be truthful if he was in fact Rex, especially considering he still has a judgment assessed against him. Wikipedia has rules you know, and if Merecat is Rex, he has demonstrated repeatedly his inability to edit the John Kerry article with any sort of civility. If you think I hate the guy, you'd be wrong, just look at Rex's talk page, I was the last one to talk to him when he took off before and I wished him well, I even told him to stick around. --kizzle 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Then please - make the show of good faith and let the NPOV tag stand while these issues are being dealt with. Every time you remove the tag, it sends a clear message that you think that those of us with concerns about the article are full of it - and your breathtakingly dismissive edit summaries only make that worse. It poisons the well badly, and makes you look like you're engaged in damage control, not discussion - like your main goal is to preserve the article, not improve it. I honestly don't know how I can take seriosuly discussion and negotiation with someone who is so intent on covering up the discusison's existence. Your fast-revert of the tag when it was added cast a pall of bad faith over the discussion that continues not to clear, and your refusal to allow the tag to stand is a large part of that.
Please. Reconsider your stance on the tag. Phil Sandifer 05:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, I think you should let the tag stay. I think the editors who've been tagging the article are wrong to do so, in so far as they've not been able to come up with anything but vague, and/or unsubstantiated allegations, but they're clearly not going to rest until the tag stays. And, unfortunately, it's very easy for them to come up with a dispute, no matter how vague and unsubstantiated, that makes it look to the casual observer like there is a real dispute going on.
So in the end, as far as the tag issue goes, I think it's better to let this drop, at least until we've demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the "dispute" on the talk page is nothing but trolling. Anyway, it's better to conserve your energy for what really matters... what they're clearly building up to, which is substantial deletion and whitewashing of the controversy. Allowing yourself to get blocked for reverting their tag would only play in to their hands. -- noosphere 05:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Due to the deadlock on the article and the seeming lack of possibilities to move beyond it, and due to the grotesquely long-standing nature of the dispute, I have requested arbitration regarding the election controversy article. Phil Sandifer 06:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you are involved in a possible case that I do know something about, feel free to contanct me if you need me to give any relevant information. Thanks.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What is he talking about?! Kevin Baastalk 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This was the most appropriate standard warning template. You are abusing the Sockpuppet tag. This is a warning letting you know that you are abusing it. Either he is a sockpuppet and he would be blocked or the accusation is more than 7 days old and unconfirmed and the tags shouldn't be used. Sockpuppet accusation tags are only to be used for 7 days of the suspected sockpuppetry. Thanks! --Tbeatty 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Your repeated inaccurate warnings are erroneous and I reserve the right to delete them. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling@ 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Noticed he has been blocked indefinitely and a sock-template is left on his page. The matter seems concluded.Nomen Nescio 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This time, perhaps. But given Rex' clearly obsessive need to continue his battles, we'll see him again. It'll just be that much more pathetic each time. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Makes me wonder if another sock isn't already in use. Anyway, it's going to be a hot, sunnt and great weekend, don't forget do your groceries. 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please note. I have deleted a warning against WP:NPA that was placed here by tbeatty in obvious bad faith. He placed the warning in response to a question I asked him on his talk page ("Are you Rex?" [34]). To see the warnings he placed, please check the page history [35], [36]. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It was not in bad faith. Accusing people of being trolls and/or sock puppets is a Personal Attack. Please see WP:NPA. I have asked you to stop and I have left a {{subst NPA}} warning on your talk page. You ignore it and remove it. I ask you again to stop. --Tbeatty 23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty - it was clearly in bad faith, unwarranted and you clearly know it. I ask you again - "Are You Rex?". That is NOT a personal attack. If you can't be civil on my talk page, don't come back. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 23:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I had noticed - I was in the process of putting together comments, but I have to get grades in. BTW - email me, if you would. Guettarda 01:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Fred. I have requested that you recuse yourself from Phil Sandifer's RfAr, on the grounds of your specific, expressed bias for his position and against the other editors in his RfAr (as posted on the Wiki-en mailing list in response to his original post). Please accept this in the way it is requested... with respect. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 03:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any basis for this. I'm not sure which arbitration request you are refering to, in the first place. Nor am I sure what position Phil Sandifer has taken with respect to any particular issue or of any instance where I agreed with him. Perhaps you could provide links to the posts on the mailing list that you refer to. I doubt that just agreeing on some general policy issue would form a basis for recusal in any event. Most of us agree on basic policy. Fred Bauder 11:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If you will look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view you will see that all points of view regarding a matter should be fairly expressed. That includes the view of those who oppose election irregularities or believe they exist. However it is not appropriate to have 8 articles using almost 60 thousand words to do so. My initial take on the matter is that the material critical of the election should probably be trimmed down to about 20% of the volume of the main article, United States presidential election, 2004. Fred Bauder 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I value your opinion and I agree all the editors can and should work towards a much more concise set of content, especially as the prior election fades into the past. As far as %'s, I'd not be as deterministic, I'd look at the content itself for an indication. And I agree about needing to represent all POV's. Those content issues can (and should) be addressed outside of ArbCom, by constructive and cooperative editing... aided by mediation. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 17:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Good to hear you are flexible. If you want to mediate the matter please request mediation and perhaps arbitration can be avoided. Fred Bauder 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I will do so. And thanks for the goodwill. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 19:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strike that - I'll give mediation some more thought (I've posted about it on the article's 'Talk' page). I do have concerns about the RfAr not being judged objectively, and I always am inclined to address matters as collaboratively as possible, so mediation seems much more to my liking. I'll keep you posted. -- User:RyanFreisling@ 19:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Fred, does Wikipedia have eight (or more) articles on William Shakespeare's plays? What size should each article on each play be, in proportion to the main article on William Shakespeare? 20%?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.242.135 (talk • contribs)
Excellent, excellent point. --kizzle 07:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"Aha erlebnis," or in other words, Kizzle triggered one of my braincells into action?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
Seeing how you smoked out the merecat/rex connection, I thought you might be interested in User:Cal Burrattino, who I just noticed making this edit.
Since he's a new contributor to that page I took a look at his edit history and it appears that he made his first edit, possibly coincidentally, at 2006-05-12 20:53:08, which is only about two hours after merecat was blocked at 2006-05-12 19:07:40.
It could be just a coincidence, but since he's been mostly editing mostly United States presidential election, 2004 and 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities I thought you might be interested. Plus, looking at his edit summaries, he's been using terms like "tag" and "npov" almost since he joined, which makes me suspect he's not a genuinely new user. Probably somebody's sock, if not merecat. Cheers. -- noosphere 02:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Reeeeeex! I should have known. He make my head asplode. Guess it's safe to come back now. Derex 23:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
There must be a bug in the system...or else I am doing something stupid...anyway, here's the external link to the image [37]...sorry.--MONGO 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I love the Chrysler building, and of course any images you take are always welcome on my page...have you considered articles about sections of NYC? Or even the parks, buildings, etc.? I know many already exist, but there are probably many more that don't andf your imagery would help document the greatest city in the world.--MONGO 02:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for another fine image of my favorite building! It is amazing how deco that building is, yet it seems so modern still in a way...of course the Empire is fabulous as well, but Chrysler is, well, my fav. As far as using me in support of your actions...absolutely. I agree that the Ohio election results of 2004 had question marks next to them...it is completely within our efforts at wikipedia to be the most complete encyclopedia on earth, and we should work to examine, with reputable references that follow WP:V and WP:RS all angles of events if we truly are trying to be neutral. Admittedly, 2000 simply was the ugliest election in U.S. history...and 2004 was at least the third ugliest...I mean, by this, the questions about the votes. Let's hope that either way, both parties will nominate leaders that inspire and in the end, hopefully the elected leader will do all they can to unite. The situation with Phil is an ugly one...scumbags off wiki have been harassing him..it has led recently to the leaving of one excellent admin...some those "people" at wikireview are simply bad news. Now this is aside from disagreements you and others have had with him in article space, so just letting you know, in case you aren't aware, that the links above are I believe, completely unrelated and unwarranted. Anyway, let me when I can help, and again, the offer to nominate you for adminship still stands.--MONGO 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
No, the ones above are fine I believe...it is that hivemind site that actually ends up taking one to wikireview I am concerned about and I don't see it anywhwere on your page...Katefan0 just left after those tards there claimed to have discovered her true identity and regradless of whether he deserves it or not, Phil has been a target of them as well...they are equal opportunity harassers.--MONGO 05:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep...an insidious ugliness. Kate was a real asset, but several folks there have questioned the purpose of "going after her" as was done...I can see no evidence to explain, aside from a deep desire to cause harm to the project and an ugly disrespect for others. My guess is, and I'm not an expert, that a few folks there suffer from some mental or emotional illness.--MONGO 05:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you should see some National Parks...but the little spot there of the tulips looks very pleasant. Grand Teton National Park is my favorite, epecially in late May or mid September. But Glacier National Park (US) has the Going-to-the-Sun Road and allows you to really get into the mountains easily. Food for thought though...if you fly to Jackson, WY. during the height of summer, it's costly in terms of airfare...motels and hotels there are about 130-150 a night minimum, so a week trip there and Yellowstone National Park just to the north will be in the order of 2 grand at least. Distances are vast though and on slow park roads...the time to go from Jackson to Mammoth Hot Springs in the north of Yellowstone is many hours so one must also plan on renting a car...I do not recommend a guided tour by bus. Many people say that Zion National Park is the most colorful.--MONGO 06:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Omaha, Nebraska at night
Thank you once again for outstanding images of NYC...I moved them to my userpage. One for you of the gigantic metropolis of Omaha, Nebraska, HA!...the lone tall building is the First National Tower, which at 633 feet is the tallest building between Minneapolis and Denver...not that that is a big deal, there is not other city between those two! It is only 46 stories...behind it out of view is the Woodman Tower, which is just over 500 feet and all the other larger buildings are under 300 feet...The Union Pacific railroad HQ is a little left of the tower...taken from Gallup corporate HQ slightly north of downtown and directly on the Missouri River. First National Tower is taller than anything in Kansas City and the same height as the Gateway Arch in St. Louis.--MONGO 05:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes...a tripod...I will get one of those...Wsiegmund told me the same thing...but the part you missed was that Omaha is so fast paced...so exciting...so hectic that almost any picture taken is bound to have some shimmy to it...this place rocks! HA! Check it out! [38]--MONGO 03:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Stormfront links on your page? :D. I was just looking at their garbage the other day. Somehow, its ALWAYS the big jew conspiracy to control everything. Their arguments are that of experienced, professional, Level 60trolls. Its actually kind of funny to see how many words you can get before "JEW CONSPIRACY" comes up :D. Its sad that people are actually like that though...still funny though.Voice-of-AllTalk 08:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Nomen Nescio 18:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Nomen Nescio 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Red_Headed_Woodpecker5.JPG#file){kind=link}
