User talk:Kevin Baas/Archive6

Page protection

Kevin, I didn't understand your request for unprotection of 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories. You wrote something about someone lying about the need for protection and someone being involved in the dispute? I was the admin who locked the page, so let me know what the issues are so I can consider whether to unlock it. Messages for you here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

9/11 domestic complicity "conspiracy theories"

FYI: It seems the 9/11 domestic complicity article (and others) were folded into the generic 9/11 conspiracy theories article. How did it happen and what should we do? zen master T 22:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Saddam and AQ

Hi - there's a vote going on at Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that you may be interested in.--csloat 06:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tags

Please do not remove the dispute tags from the election articles - there is a rather substantial dispute going on regarding them. Snowspinner 16:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Please investigate and comment on the talk page about multiple changes to the Conspiracy theory article made in the last week or so [1]. In my interpretation, clarity has been reduced and info on the mechanics of how "conspiracy theory" may bias the presentation of a subject has been downplayed or removed. zen master T 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom

You've been named in an arbcom case. Phil Sandifer 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Using deceptive edit summaries and reverting to versions of 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities which contain copyright violations could result in you being blocked from editing. Rhobite 23:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't deceptive. I added content, fixed wording... I made positive contributions. I don't see how that could get me blocked. I would imagine the opposite behaviour to be more conducive to those ends. Kevin baas 23:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. This edit of yours [2] is almost a word-for-word revert to your version from 12:54, November 18, 2005. You added no content, and you fixed no wording. All you did was erase two days of POV fixes, replace broken links which have been removed, and re-insert the two copyright violations from Wired News and Rock River Times. Rhobite 23:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see any "POV fixes" unless you mean those minor wording changes like "challenge"->"objection" were POV fixes. I saw a lot of POV breaks like the misleading phrase something like "GAO...amidst democratic calls for..." replacing something like "The GAO started their investigation prior to democratic calls for... (and independantly of)". I fixed wording like taht. I don't know what supposed copyright violations you are referrring to specifically. it could have helped if you cited some passage from them. I blocked quoted what i though you were referring to. You know what would be a due process? If you take the copyvio text and bring it to the talk page, and we can all work together on paraphrasing it for the article. As has been said, a lot of this was slapped together and needs to be revised like so. We're glad to have some other editors to come find those pieces and work on it with us! Kevin baas 23:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I did bring up the copyvios on the talk page yesterday, under the heading "Kevin baas plagiarism". You apparently ignored or missed this. You have been reported on WP:AN/I for repeatedly adding copyrighted material to articles and using deceptive edit summaries. Rhobite 23:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, I have been gone for sometime and only came into this discussion with the note on my talk page about an arbcom, with the arbcom seemed to be calling in more words or less "frivolous". You did not bring the actual content to the talk page to be rewritten. You simply removed it, when it is the only content with that information or even on that subject. Bring it to the talk page, copy and paste it to the talk page, then remove it from the article. Kevin baas 23:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And btw, I'm off for the day. Peace. Kevin baas 23:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm continually perplexed by your insistence that other people have to do all kinds of legwork but you don't even have to cite useful sources or write articles in your own words. What a double standard. Rhobite 23:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You misuse the word "double-standard". It would be a "double standard" if you had to copy unique content from an article page to a talk page when removing it for copyvio or factual inaccuracy and I didn't have to. It has to be the same thing. It is not a "double standard" if you have to open the door for yourself when walking out a door and I don't have to cite indirect sources because you have something against the direct sources. When the issues are two different issues involved, one to person a and the other to person b, there can be no double standard. It has to be the same issue. And I assure you that when it comes to this issue, I hold myself, just as I do everyone else, up to the same standard.

Now that i've cleared up the logic, let me remind you what I have already told you multiple times: I am aware, as you should be by now, since I have told you multiple times, that the article was written in haste amidst a swarm of information - the main focus was on aggregating information before it receding into "dusk" - before the news articles were lost in archives, before the memory of what happened or was going on expired, etc. - gathering as much of that information together for the sake breadth and depth, then organizing it, parsing it, cleaning it up - going over it, fixing it, but certainly not losing it.

This is the context in which everything stands. And it is certainly not objectionable for you to be bringing in those latter stages. It is a task that those who have worked on the article in the begining are naturally unsuited for, since it is difficult to edit a text that has become all-too-familiar to you. We are happy that people are taking up a task that we are no longer capable of doing. We simply ask that you do it in a nuetral and deliberate fashion. That you do not remove, without the intention of returning, nor providing any means to return, large blocks of text that are both interesting and important, and have no substitute. Kevin baas 17:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is also imperative for the quality of content that you refrain from character attacks, sarcasm, and other uncivil behaviors. Kevin baas 17:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Posting copyright material onto Wikipedia endangers Wikipedia's status by leaving it open to a threat of legal action. As a result posting of such material can be seen as vandalism. If you again post information which legally Wikipedia cannot use in that form you will be subject to a longer block. FearÉIREANN 07:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration for User:TDC

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[3] or the Requests for comment/TDC[4]

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [5]

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

I will be proposing some changes to the article on the talk page and I would appreciate some feedback before I make any changes on this controversial topic. I thought you might like some advance notice since you have helped edit it in the past. Rkevins82 21:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing

Just wanted to express my appreciation for your contributions to wikipedia. You help keep wikipedia wonderful. --Dschor 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there

Get ready for another round of deeply quality-oriented editing. [6] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Movement to Impeach President Bush

Hello, I found your delineation of grounds for impeachment cogent. Maybe you could incorporate them into the introduction, etc.--Beth Wellington 04:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories

I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article . Thank you. Blackcats 04:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

See here. zen master T 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bar graphs

Nice, but it may be more practical if you replace "60% oppose" with "40% support" to have them all use the same statistic. Radiant_>|< 23:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, support+oppose does not neccessarily equal 100%, because of other votes. I think other votes shouldn't be counted in those numbers, but I didn't do the counting. Kevin baas 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks right to me

Thanks, Kevin. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Support for George W. Bush

Would you care for some reasons people support Bush that aren't specious? The ones you presented on the article talk page are pretty retarded if you ask me. I won't discuss there, since it does nothing to further the article at hand, but thought I'd respond anyways. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(My apologies for the length, it turned out longer than I had expected, and I had to cut myself off too. :-))Hmmm... well, first let me say that I think there is a difference in "supporting Bush" and voting for him. I think there are stupid people on either side that just vote for a candidate so the other one wouldn't win. And I think there is a deeper problem with that as well. There are groups of people on either side of the aisle that would support anything their party says. They categorically reject anything from the other party as either dumb or infeasible. They don't think about things. These are the type of people that would support Bush no matter what he says or does. Some of these people include the reasons you stated, but there are other as well. The way I see it, Kerry's campaign was a disaster, and it is simply astounding that Bush won (and yes, I've read all the "to think Bush won, you have to think..." stuff on your page, and elsewhere). Whenever I hear Bush speak, I don't get mad, I just think it's incredibly funny that that dude is the President. But people didn't seem to trust Kerry. He did come off as a little weak and elitest, and he alienated people. So people who might not really "support" Bush may have voted for him on the grounds that it wasn't Kerry. (My guess is some people in the South and Midwest felt this way) Okay, so back on topic... I've mentioned the people who blindly support Bush, and the people who don't but just voted "against Kerry" (Another guess of mine is that these are the people that now say they don't support Bush, leading to his low poll numbers) So, the real crux of the matter: the people who don't blindly support the Republicans, but continue to support Bush. There are some people that don't want to change leadership in a time of crisis. There are people who think Bush is a strong leader, willing to "get the job done" (so to speak). There are people that just like him as a person (his friendly, jovial, optimistic attitude, and such). There are people that see his policies as being good (perhaps Bush's weak stance on the border leads to him polling well among Hispanics, or his strong stance on defence leads to him polling well among "security moms", or his tax cuts lead to him polling well among business owners). You have to understand that there are pople who think his policies are sound. There are people that see the fact that the U.S. haven't been attacked on a large scale since 9-11 as a good sign. And people see the low unemployment as a good sign. Okay, sorry for the looong comments, but I think it's a bad idea to call people who support Bush dumb, or war-mongers, or anything of the sort. I think Conservatives and Liberals both want the same thing for the U.S., but have drastically different ways of doing it. I hope I made any sense in this rambling, and hope you can forgive me if I didn't. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It may very well be that each side doesn't see the other person's arguments, views, what-have-you as valid (whether a priori or a posteri). So there is then a difference between knowing why people feel a certain way, and knowing non-specious reasons why people think that a certain person is fit for performing the duties and responsibility of the office. I had alluded to some of the things you mentioned, such as "his friendly, jovial, optimistic attitude" - which I file under "irrelevant" because it does not reflect on his effort or ability to efficiently serve the office - in anticipation of them as responses. Bush's obstinancy in his policies doesn't make those policies good - and that's what the actual question is, is is he a good decision maker? Cause that's an important part of the job description. His obstinancy does not reflect on his decision making ability, and in fact is more likely to impede his ability to adapt to circumstances, or repair flaws in his initial analysis when more information comes to light. As for "security moms" and people who don't want to change leaders in time of crisis, well the latter is more-or-less a superstition and in any case has nothing to do with support for a particular candidate except insofar as they are the incumbent. The former are victims of the administration's long and intense fear-mongering campaign from the build up to the iraq war. (Which is a big no-no) And although they may be cuddling their security blankets, unless they can cite any reasons why Bush is better at providing for nationally security than any other potential president, then they don't actually have any reasons for suopporting Bush, just a vague irrational feeling.

So you see, although I know all of these things, they all disappoint me, because none of them hold up to a cursory critique. These things may properly go in the public perceptions section, which makes them a good response, but nothing of them can be relayed outside of that section, and they remain just that - a perception. Oh, I missed one - business people and taxes - well according to every modern economic theory we have, and according to every nobel prize winner in economic alive - that policy is bad for the economy, so rather than that policy being a reflection of him efficienly serving his duty to promote the general welfare, it's a reflection of him doing the opposite, and the people who support the policy are just being selfish, they're not really judging it on it's ability to promote the general welfare proper, so they're not judging the president's policies within the context of american government proper - they're not judging how good of a president he is as such. Or if they actually believe that that policy promotes the genereal welfare proper, then they have still to put forth non-specious reasons that it does - which will be hard to do considering the academic state of affairs.

But my point is I'm still looking for non-specious reasons why Bush supposedly efficiently performs his duties and responsibilities as president, such as "tak[ing] care that the laws are faithfully executed" and the like. Kevin baas 16:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies then. I thought you were looking for reasons people support Bush, not evidence to show he is a good President. Because I think it is obvious the reasons why people support Bush, but evidence showing him to be a good and effective leader is obviously harder to find. Those that support Bush might point to the capture of Saddam, the fact that the U.S. hasn't been attacked on a large scale since 9-11, the stabilisation of the economy after 9-11 and the hurricanes (and not all studies say that tax-cuts are detrimental to the economy, but that's a discussion for another time, perhaps), ummm... but now that I think about it, the "positive feelings" people may have towards Bush are not irrelevant. People like to feel good, and if Bush makes them feel good, they will be inclined to support him. If Kerry, or the Democrats/Greens/Others in general, don't make them feel good, they probably won't support them. If people feel that they can trust Bush, they will support him. If people think Bush will be a better military leader in a time of war, they are more likely to support him. If they feel that the others don't present any ideas, they are less likely to support them. Feelings are a very important part of politics. Both sides try and use rhetoric and hyperbole to convince the people in the middle that their side is right and the other is evil and wrong. I dunno. Oh well, nice talking to you. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, I never thought of it. Feelings are an essential part of the general welfare, the ultimate end, one might say. If in the final analysis the president makes people feel good, then what's the problem? But then one can't rightly neglect the "general" part - I'm sure if you add up the feelings, the bad feelings would outweigh the good ones, because critics, from my understanding, feel much more strongly than supporters. Kevin Baas^talk 17:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, without a doubt. There are people who hate, haaaaate, Bush, but I haven't found many that think he's just the greatest person on Earth, and loooooove him. But I honestly think that's why some people support him; he just makes them feel safe and good. Oh well, see you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I found an explanation here that so far seems the most plausible to me. Kevin Baas^talk 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean there is a reason to support (or vote) for George Bush? I can't think of one. But then, I don't pretend to be NPOV when it comes to this pathetic excuse for a leader.molly bloom 05:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

you sound like a republican, in that 1. you confuse thinks like "reason" and "explanation", 2. you make rash assumptions, 3. you don't do even the most rudimentary research such as clicking on a link, and 4. you're unneccessarily ascerbic. Kevin Baas^talk 10:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Drafts

I've added links on each draft at for example Draft 6A to all of the other drafts, it's really the only way to make comparisons. If you think this is stupid then let me know, otherwise I'll keep it up. hydnjo talk 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Page draft - Great!

I love your main page draft - the best I've seen so far. Combines all the good features of the rest. My vote is on yours. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Great draft Kevin. Well done. Jombo 13:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you cold add the links to the other languages at the left, so the Main Page would no longer be a special case in this respect. --212.18.0.3 17:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

2004 U.S. Election

Why did you cut the allegations of Democratic wrongdoing from the article? Rkevins82 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved them to the 2004 vote suppression main article, where they are more in due proportion, and as you can see I left the less specious allegation there. Kevin Baas^talk 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Election talks

A discussion has begun on how to handle the official election for replacing the Main Page. To make sure it is set up sensibly, and according to participants' consensus, your input is needed. --Go for it! 09:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

hey

kevin, i'm not sure if you know me under this name, but i used to run into you a bunch under my old name, wolfman. so, i know you're a decent chap. just a note on psychology though. comments like the last line of yours on kizzle's page are pretty much guaranteed to put people off. if i hadn't just been joking, and i hadn't known you, getting talked down to would definitely not have inspired a co-operative spirit (in me or anyone else). as it is, i got a little snarky anyway. if you were yanking my chain though, you did a damn good job of it ;) cheers, Derex 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

More or fewer

I'm confused about your intro: To see what this concept looks like with more boxes and portals, see the draft's talk page. Did you mean to say fewer rather than more? hydnjo talk 21:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey there mr design supremo

Hello there! I noticed you've done quite a comendable job on the recent main page drafts you've done.. I just wondered if you'd be able to take a look at the wikinews football portal (wikifootball) and make it look even sexier? I'd really appreciate if you could! Cheers :-)

The magical Spum-dandy 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Image source/license

Image:Good2 color crop.jpg. I'll spare your talk page the standard spiel. :-) Stan 12:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, saw you wrote about a complaint against the Iraq war at the Supreme Court. As the war clearly violated the UN Charter which is binding law in the US I am very interested in the outcome of trials regarding this question. In Germany we had a trial about an officer refusing to follow orders because he regarded the war as illegal and he won. [7] Can you tell me more? Get-back-world-respect 02:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The case, as far I understand, was aimed at nullifying the resolution to temporarily transfer the power to declare war to the president. And obviously, it failed, though I imagine, as usual, not on the basis of its merits. Members of the house judiciary committee filed it around the time of the resolution, with the help of consititutional attorney John Bonifaz. Kevin Baas^talk 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of any trials regarding the UN Charter? Get-back-world-respect 02:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Not aware of any. Law as it is written, unfortunatley, doesn't always play out that way in society. International law is esp. volatile. Kevin Baas^talk 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

International law is not volatile. The US Supreme Court overruled some of the governments practices regarding Guantanamo. I would be very interested how US courts would deny the fact that the Iraq war was illegal. Get-back-world-respect 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean volatile as in legally or theoretically. I mean that it's not well followed or enforced. Much more difficult thing to enforce given that actual power is not colateral w/it. Kevin Baas^talk 17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt (talk • contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The main page alternate you created

It's done. The boxes are fixed. I've posted it as a bonafide Main Page alternate (misty breeze). Though it still needs a little work:

• The vertical margin between the columns is wider in IE than in Firefox.
• The red circles are choppy in IE. Can you fix this? These appear complete in Firefox, and look gooooood.
  

--Go for it! 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WTC Collapse Talk

I'm not sure what the next step in the proper course of action is, but I'm guessing it would be to solicit some opinions. Have a look at a very interesting page. It's nuts. Thanks.

[8]

SkeenaR 00:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Article For Deletion

I thought I might draw your attention to this as well.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Your design is popping up in the Main Page draft

There seems to be some support for your heading style in the reference section of the Main Page Draft. You might want to get over there and throw in your support as well. Remember, everyone is allowed 3 reverts per day per page. There is also discussion concerning it on the talk page there. --Go for it! 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule

Remember, you get 3 reverts per day per page. I've already used mine up on the Main Page Redesign today, but you haven't. So hang in there and don't let David or his sidekick intimidate you.

By the way, this "consensus" David Levy and HereToHelp keep pushing doesn't exist. David keeps referring to some mumbo jumbo mystical magical method that he used to come to his conclusions, but we aren't at liberty to analyze the process by which he arrived at them, so it's really nothing more than rhetoric. He's appears to be using bullshit artistry to bamboozle everyone into the design he favors. And out of some extraordinary circumstance it is also the precisely same version that HereToHelp favors. Notice how they are always in absolute agreement with each other, and how their posts intertwine so flawlessly? Now that's teamwork. --Go for it! 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User Rename

Do you still want to be renamed to User:Kevin Baas? The new limit (recently changed) is 6800 edits, you have 6394. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool :) I'll go and do that then. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Care to vote?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)

--Striver 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxes - Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration

Your comments about taxes do not make sense to me. The section said "Supporters argue that total benefits to wealthier individuals are a reflection of higher taxes paid." You changed it to "claim". Your explanation was "this is an inaccurate mathematical statement, because if it were try the _percentage_ would be flat, and it isn't. So this is a claim, not an argument.)" The wording appeared fine. Rkevins82 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

to say that it is an argument implies that it has sound premises. it doesn't they are claiming that wealthier individuals pay x% of the taxes they used to, while less wealthy individuals also pay x% of the taxes they used to, thus for wealtheir individuals, and that the fact that wealtheir individuals pay more taxes to begin with makes (100%-x%)*what they pay in taxes=what they save in taxes ("benefits") higher for wealtheir people. However, the %of savings was _not_ the same across the board, it was higher for wealthy individuals, and this is _exactly_ what critics complain about - that it's _reverse_ progressive taxation. using the word "argue" here misleads the reader into thinking that it is not reverse progressive taxation. Kevin Baas^talk 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

personal attack

I consider this edit [9] of yours to be a personal attack. If it was directed at me, I want to you apologize. Are insults like this how you repay me for being polite and talking with you at length here [10]? I don't know what your problem is, but if you talk to me like that again, I will not speak with you for any reason. And by the way, are you stalking my edits? Merecat 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on the relevant articles. And no, I am not stalking you. Are you stalking me? ;-) Kevin Baas^talk 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Compass and straightedge

Please comment. John Reid 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You've been personally attacked by Rhobite

Sorry to bring bad news. Along with me, you've been called a "single-issue editor whose main goal here is to malign George W. Bush." [11] I believe Rhobite's an admin, so I posted the incident on the Administrator's noticeboard. [12] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think there is merit to that critique of Kevin, though I would use softer language. Merecat 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

I noticed this edit of yours today. I will not quickly forget some of your recent edits and actions, including this one.

Merecat 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's good to hear that you have a good memory in certain cases. But if you are impling vengeance, frankly, that kind of thinking disgusts me, and certainly is not productive. Kevin Baas^talk 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC started on Merecat

In light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. Maybe you want to make an observation there, if not OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As you are someone who appears to have at least somewhat followed this situation, I too would be interested in your opinion on this matter. But like Nescio, "if not OK". Would you be the second certifying party, or are you not involved to that extent? Thanks. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Map

Hey there. Left you a request for a little more info on the map's component data [13]. Thanks Kevin :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

same here

and to: That being said, please refrain from spamming my talk page with cathartic vitriol. Thank you

the same to you. thewolfstar 23:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry for the confusion of identity. I don't believe what i wrote was cathartic or vitriolic. It was not a long reckless purge of feelings, and it was not bitter - it was assertive and, had you been the person i thought you were, a factually accurate account of events. i rescinded my undue remarks which were neither cathartic nor vitrolic. Rest assured that i have not and will not spam your talk page with cathartic vitriol. (and i'll try not to confuse you with a different user again.) Kevin Baas^talk 23:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

then don't spam my page with dumb arguments

and just plain don't spam my page. And I still say there's a lot of unfriendly shit going on in Wikipedia thewolfstar 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think my arguments "dumb", then address their premises and show them to be fallicous. Otherwise, you're just bickering. I didn't mean to spam your talk page; I'm sorry I made you feel that way.

I never said that there wasn't unfriendly shit going on in the wikipedia. There's a lof of unfriendly shit going on in the real world. How could one reasonably expect wikipedia, which exists in the real world, to be far from the real world? It takes skill and restraint to work together cooperatively on such a difficult project with such a large community of different personalities, perhaps more so than in the "real world", because the issues are often contentious and rarely trivial. I take what I learn from life and try to apply it to interacting w/others on wikipedia, and vice versa. I often find myself learning from wikipedia faster than in the "real world" in some ways, such as managing stress, resolving conflicts, and discussing in manners which preclude conflict, regardless of the personality that I'm interacting with. I maintain a wikistress meter on my user page. Anycase, peace. Kevin Baas^talk 01:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your comments above. I don't want to get into a debate on the dumb argument thing I don't have any energy left for that. I appreciate what you said about Wikipedia and I suppose it's true. We, people in general, have a hard time getting along even when we're in groups of people that agree on many issues. Why is that I wonder? I guess our selfcenteredness would account for a lot of it. I hate that trait in myself. Fear, selfcenteredness and selfishness. The roots of all human evil.

I apologize also for going off the deep end on you like I did. I will tell you honestly, though that very few people have made an attempt to be friendly and welcome me into this place. And Merecat has been the best friend I've had since I've been here. I don't agree always with the way he puts certain things, but so what. He is a good guy. Please just tell me, and I am asking you sincerely, Why are you so against Merecat?

peace, Maggiethewolfstar 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,
I kinda asked you a question and you never responded, for whatever reason. Why are you so against Merecat? thewolfstar 02:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I heard you, and I'll answer when I have time. Patience, my friend. Let me just say concisely for now as a temporary answer "I am not against Merecat." Kevin Baas^talk 15:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase John F. Kennedy: It is not ppl that I don't like, it's certain aspects of being human that we all share in common that I don't like. Also, it is here actions that I am against, not Merecat. Method of dialogue. Protocols of exchanging information that i would say are "sub-optimal" - as has become evident a posteri. Look at the RFC. If i recall correctly 4 different ppl on there share this perspective. Kevin Baas^talk 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But in all honesty, let me add that certain things really did get my goat - for example, the whole "...was not ruled on..." issue regarding the president's authority to unilaterally abrograte treaties. it took me and nescio a while to explain to merecat that this meant it "...was not ruled on..." -- that just got ridiculous. and i was thinking, how can one deal with things like that, and being very persuaded that, you can't. Kevin Baas^talk 15:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

page protect edits at Katherine Harris

How is this that the page has a protected notice, but it's being edited? Merecat 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then the notice should be removed. go ahead and remove it if you feel like it. Kevin Baas^talk 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion for "rationales to impeach"

I hope that you will add your vote and thoughts to the "deletion" nomination page. Prometheuspan 23:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [14]

URGENT! Your vote needed

Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat is Rex071404

FYI - Merecat, the editor about whom you certified an RfC, has been shown to be a likely sockpuppet of User:Rex071404. Thought you should know. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

The section you restored was removed for reasons discussed in the talk page.[15] I will let it stay for the time being, but if you have reasons you think it should stay, please contribute them. Thanks.--DCAnderson 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)