User talk:Kevin Baas/Archive7

Arbitration

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)[reply]

Of all the policies an admin would know, I would expect them to at least know the dispute resolution process. Kevin Baas^talk 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had RfCs in the past, and the mediation cabal was pointed at it. Phil Sandifer 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recusal

I have expressed support for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Expressing support for Wikipedia policy is not a basis for recusal. Fred Bauder 12:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you have expressed support for NPOV, though I see where you have expressed an opinion about editors, and that is what I am refering to. Kevin Baas^talk 12:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mediation has not been tried. Kevin Baas^talk 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on terms

Just dropped by your talk page to find out if you have any polls regarding your statement "popular opinion does not support this association." Were you reffering to the current survey in which you voted for? If not are you working with a poll that could possibly be shared on the talk page regarding the usage of the term "war on terror" in relation to Iraq War. Hope to hear from you soon, Thank You --Zer0faults 23:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate in the future if you would provide a link to the referenced discussion. Kevin Baas^talk 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen polls and the like - i'll find a few examples later. basically ppl outside the u.s. don't consider it so, and wikipedia isn't supposed to be ameri-centric, and any way you cut it this is not a categorization that has any sort of consensus in the public. There are two signifcant and notable points of view on the matter, and so long as there is, it would be a POV violation for the article to chose one and reject the other. Kevin Baas^talk 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep stating "basically ppl outside the u.s. don't consider it so" but dont have a poll to support this and still haven't offered one. Where outside the US are we talking? So far UK government uses the term, India's government uses the term as well. So out of countries who claim english as their primary language we have India Uk and US all stating the term. India is the second most populous country in the world, how many people does that leave unaccounted for in countries who's primary language is english? --Zer0faults 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

I just want a second opinion on things going on with that article right now. Do you think I'm being too rash in insisting that the article intro state that the casus belli of the Iraq War was WMD? -- Mr. Tibbs 21:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's perfectly reasonable. Assuming wars have reasons for them and aren't just random senseless destruction, it's kind of a central issue what that reason is, eh? It provides the context. I mean, geez, president bush and his fellows thought it important enought to repeat over and over and over and over again, i'd imagine from that that they'd consider it important enough to put in the intro of a factual, neutral, encyclopedia. I can't imagine any sane and rationale person seriously saying "oh, the reason's not important." what you got is ~~a bunch of~~one apologists following the administration's lead in trying to obfuscate history because it makes them look bad. unfortunately for them, this is an encyclopedia. Kevin Baas^talk 21:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for the second opinion. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't off-base. Zero requested mediation against me so I'll be busy with that for a while.[1] -- Mr. Tibbs 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recess Appointment

Hi, I'm going to change this statement back in the Dirty Dyke article, please see the talk page of that article if you object kthxbye

Please see WP:NPA. This one is especially egrarioius. Kevin Baas^talk 15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References on 2004 election article

Hey Kevin,

I see you've got the reference conversion bug too. :) Thanks for helping out with that. I really appreciate it... so please don't take this the wrong way. But, when you create references could you use the {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} templates? They're really easy to use.. and have places for the authors and titles of the work ready for you to plug values in. Because, when you use unstructured references like you have I'm going to have to convert them to those templates anyway, and the way I have things set up on my machine right now having unstructured references like that actually makes it harder to convert than if they were just bare links. -- noosph e re 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want, we could coordinate our reference conversion efforts so we can avoid edit conflicts. I can slap the inuse tag back on the article, and then you could take whatever sections you prefer and I can take the rest. What do you think? -- noosph e re 18:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about you go top down, and i go bottom up? Kevin Baas^talk 20:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea... Except now I see that even if we each take a section, we'll still have edit conflicts if we're editing at the same time. I though the Wikimedia software was smart enough to avoid edit conflicts if two people were editing different sections at the same time, but I was wrong. So we simply can't edit the article at the same time and avoid edit conflicts. -- noosph e re 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! I think we're pretty much done. Thanks, Kevin! -- noosph e re 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With 138 references, we've out-done the George W. Bush article. Kevin Baas^talk 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is an exceptionally well-sourced article. And the more the the Phils of the world fact tag it, the better sourced it will get. -- noosph e re 02:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder + Suggestion

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Blackwell Article

I wanted to voice my support for Blackwell for Ohio governor. How is that vandalizing? I respectfully request that you reconsider your comment on my discussion page. 65.27.137.3 17:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kevin Baas^talk 17:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any area on Wikipedia that can be used for political commentary? 65.27.137.3 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's an encyclopedia. Kevin Baas^talk 17:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the vandal warning removal. 65.27.137.3 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nomination for adminship

I've nominated myself for adminship. Anyone feel free to vote and comment here. Kevin Baas^talk 21:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on your RfA. Please do not take anything I may have said as uncivil or a personal attack. We have disagreed in the past, but seriously, you're a good contributor. But the reason I was swinging by was to encourage you not to be dissuaded by any outcome of the RfA. Adminship is no big deal, and conversely, not getting the tools is no big deal either. Just keep your chin up. See you around, my friend. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bud. :-) Kevin Baas^talk 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to write positive things in an effort to drum up a few more support "votes", but apparantly it didn't work too well. Like I said, keep your chin up. Take whatever criticism was raised and put it to good use. And keep up the good work. I'll see you around. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: at what?

Personal attack? Please provide sufficient evidence as I find no apparent evidence at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please understand what I have meant of moral support and I have never meant any attack.--Jusjih 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt mean to impy that it qualified as that. perhaps is hould be more precise: it is destrucitve criticism. theres nothing you can do with it but be condenscended. I understand that. i want to understand that without you being more specific, what you wrote is worthless to me. Kevin Baas^talk 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adminship

It is my regretful task to inform you that I have closed your request for adminship early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay (Talk * Connect) 00:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kevin, when I saw that you'd applied for adminship I procrastinated adding my vote of support, thinking there'd be no rush and the process would be going on for a few days, at least. I didn't expect it to close early. I goofed sorry. You do have my support for adminship, though. So next time you apply feel free to post directly on my talk page and you'll have my vote.

Also, I'm definitely no expert on the RfA process, but if you're serious about adminship and since so many people were against you because they viewed you as pushing a POV (in reality I think we both know that many of them were the real POV pushers) you may want to avoid editing controversial articles for a while, and make your reputation on contributing to something else you care about which just doesn't generate to much controversy. Also, getting an article or two up to featured article standard (again, preferably something non-controversial) would help. As would making more allies on Wikipedia, perhaps by collaborating on some projects. In the process, people will see that you're fair and reasonable, and have less reason to resent you for opposing their pet POV. Best of luck. -- noosph e re 02:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not very civil?

Comments like this "You don't have to participate if you don't want to" are not appreciated, are you going to be rude to everyone who voted against your adminship? If you want to debate the Iraq War then respond to my points, if you believe in your position at least you will be able to. --Zer0faults 18:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to argue endlessly with you on Iraq War. Once the vote is over the consensus will be enforced. -- Mr. Tibbs 19:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck I invite you to ask for a RfC after the vote since it doesnt even meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:Straw Polls in its creation. Also in case you keep forgetting, Straw Polls are not binding, they are a guideline not policy. If you feel you do not need to respond to me, then you failed here, and on the talk page. Also, well this is a message for Kevin Baas, so unless he is you? you aren't being addressed here. Good bye Mr Tibbs. I would make a sad face, but I dont think there are wikiemotes. --Zer0faults 19:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tibbs can speak for me. Kevin Baas^talk 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are stating that through Mr. Tibbs that Straw Polls are binding and policy? --Zer0faults 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Working towards consensus is policy. But consensus doesn't mean that absolutely everyone agrees perfectly - that's impossible. I was on the George W. Bush page when it was held hostage for months by one very disruptive user who reverted continuously to his prefered version, which nobody else liked. that was when the 3RR wasn't being enforced. and it was hellish. i'm not too concerned about the current situtation, though. i think we'll be able to put our heads together to come up with an intro that we all see as an improvement. Kevin Baas^talk 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Sandifer

FYI. [2], [3]. Editorializing and opinion withheld. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

holy crap! --kizzle 00:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what is going on here? I came to this page while following the talk page threads of Iraq War and reading up to see who's editing there. Is Mr. Sandifer an actual murder suspect or is this some joke? If this is a joke against Mr. Sandifer, it's not very funny. User:Phil Sandifer is a real editor and other editors should not be spreading malicious gossip. Honestly, I find this frightening and offensive. I would like to know where I can post a complaint about this. Please reply to me on my talk page. Hdtopo 08:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a little editorial comment, if you read the whole piece, it seems to be a satyrical putdown of the military rather than a glimpse into Phil's inner life.TheronJ 21:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note hdtopo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an admitted sock of Rex071404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I forsee some kind of Twilight Zone ending, where I discover, one by one, that everyone else on Wiki is a Rex sock, then in the shocking twist, realize that I myself am one, then open the window to realize I live in a zoo.TheronJ 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHA... that was the funniest shit I've seen in a long time! Going on my highlight reel. --kizzle 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The election arbcom case

Hi Kevin. I respect your decision not to involve yourself in the arbcom case. That's your perrogative if you think the outcome is pre-determined and defending yourself is futile. Still, I hope you can say something regarding their decisions and "findings of fact", for posterity, if nothing else. But, again, I fully respect your decision should you choose not to. -- noosph e re 21:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for speaking up, Kevin. I definitely appreciate it. So don't take this the wrong way, but I think only arbitrators are supposed to vote on there. Our comments are supposed to go on the talk page. I could be wrong though, since this is my first arbcom case... but that's how it seems to work to me. -- noosph e re 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess two wrongs don't make a right. But I feel kinda like I'm having an out-of-body experience here, if you know what I mean. Kevin Baas^talk 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was definitely a dramatic demonstration of your opinion on the matter. :) But the talk page will probably be more permanent.

And yeah, I know what you mean. They're definitely putting words in to your mouth. -- noosph e re 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the troll tag is helpful; it might come across as defensive. Just a friendly observation. Derex 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That anon is certainly not saying anything relevant to the arbcom case. Kevin Baas^talk 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. It's not necessarily trolling though. Personally, I don't object to the tag. But, I could see it bothering someone, because you're essentially calling the anon a troll. And that's not clearcut; seems to me he's just being tangential. Anyway, up to you obviously, but I see a potential (minor) cost and no real benefit to you placing it. Derex 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Derex. Kevin Baas^talk 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feed the world

Hehe. :) After dealing with the pathetic and kinda sad tactics of the not-so-late latest troll, I have to say you're right. Thanks for the chuckle and the goodwill. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding rigged election case

Q.E.D.

Logic Logical argument Rigour Causality Necessary and sufficient conditions Logical fallacy Fallacy Validity Soundness Logical consequence Psychology Sociology Political science Anthropology Groupthink False consensus effect List of cognitive biases Conformity (psychology) Herding instinct Herd behavior Collective hysteria Crowd psychology Stupidity Pack (canine) [4] Pack Psychology Argumentum ad populum Propaganda News propaganda Spin (public relations) Trolling Internet troll Troll-friendly Evolution Natural selection Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures Prometheuspan 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys are really taking it up the yazoo over there. Too bad you didn't have a good logician around earlier on. The logic is full of holes. Say, want me to go shoot something up fer ya?

I think its pretty apparent that what we have here is a case of pov warrior admins. And Republican Logic, which is always fallacious logic except for when it isn't which isn't often. The crux of the case, and the point i tried to make and which i would have thought you folks would have picked up on:

The loophole "notable group" renders the sources cited function to be citing those sources which compose the group. The essential push here is to make you unable to use any source thats not republican. You can show that the sources they want you to site are republican, and then you can show that in fact, since it is a factual article about a factual movement what is relevant is that groups factual arguments, not the illogic attempt to ban non republican sources by naming them as not notable.

Alas, too few people payed attention when i made that argument vs merecat, and now you didn't have it handy to make to defend the situation you have now. What we do have tho is the good start of an overall campaign against admin abuse. I have a lengthy report sitting on Jimbos desk, I hope you will take a look at it and think about it.

Wikipedia has become abusive, and it is now infiltrated at even the arbitrator levels with pov warriors who are gaming the system to do whatever they decide to do, neutrality be damned. Its time to make a big noise about this, both to save Wikipedia if that is possible, and to "win" in any way that has meaning. If not, maybe its time some of us wised up and started an encyclopedia not based on innocent utopian rules and thus pov warrior mob and pack psychology. Let me know whats on your mind and if you would like me to shred a page or five worth of bad logic for ya. Prometheuspan 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're too pissed off. you need to chill out. you're being reckless. Kevin Baas^talk 05:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i was pissed off two weeks ago. Now i have a good deal of calm, and so far, nobody can say i am violating any rules. I take that as a "no thanks."

Heres a copy of my exchange with ryan;

I appreciate you reaching out to help - but I think it should play out as it is (without any more attacks on anyone's views, whether Democrats or Republicans)... and let the words and actions of all involved speak for themselves. If this day does not end well, there's always tomorrow. Thanks, though. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I won't move on this without a green light from those involved, but the fact is whats really going on here is censorship. The facts do speak plainly for themselves in this case, and the elections were in fact rigged. The only way the republicans can win this debate is by finding ways to limit evidence. There are two primary means they use, the first is to attack a single source as being not notable or dependable. This is usually followed by the apeal to use mainstream sources. Thats appeal ad populum, plus excluded middle, and ad hominem. The sources they request that we use are biased as they are owned and operated by republican interests. This is information control and information warring. The idea here is to invalidate a source itself. Nevermind the facts of the information which the source brings to bear. The second method is to limit the number of cites, or the size of the articles, such that the facts again don't have the space to speak for themselves. Which goes against the policy "not paper". (Where is that?) In both cases the problem is that we have pov warriors on the arbitration committee, and i don't think thats a situation that warrants sitting around over. I think its time to get mad at the injustice and abuse of it all, and to make a big noise. Let me know if you come around to my way of seeing things. Prometheuspan 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Prometheuspan" = "The Original Trickster"? Please don't be offended but Prometheuspan, are you a sock? If so, whose? Please be honest. And frankly, I don't appreciate attacks on Republicans made in such disrespectful ways. Please be civil. Whether Dem or Rep, all are Americans and in order to do what's best for us all, we shouldn't make it about 'us and them'. Rep's want fair elections too, so the 'noise' should be about electoral reform and factual assessment of the electoral irregularities... not a noisy condemnation of a group of people on the basis of their political outlook. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur w/Ryan, except in the interpretation of Prometheus. Prometheus means forethought, and that's what the Greeks appreciated the myth for. Prometheus loved mankind. He gave them fire, art, consciousness, and since consciousness gave them the ability to see their own death, he gave them blind hope. I like prometheus. I agree mostly in the general scope of Ryan's comment: that you're being too reactive. I respect you for your good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, but I think it's time to stay cool under pressure and act deliberately and thoughtfully. That doesn't mean sitting down, and it doesn't mean making a rucuss. Kevin Baas^talk 00:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, its prometheus + Pan, that part you have right. And i did get the fire, but it wasn't from zeus or the sun, per sey. No, I am not a sock, why do you think so? In any case, I'm in things to make a ruckus, as other means have failed.

What does ANY of this have to do with my QED? Perfect logic route, well ordered path, high level use of wikipedias own articles strung together to communicate...and all you can do is wonder if i am a sock and tell me to chill? arg. Prometheuspan 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're trying to convince editors to break the rules (WP:POINT). That behavior at this point in the RfAr would only create a worse outcome. You should be persuasive with the strength of your argument on it's own without provoking a 'ruckus'. Don't provoke people to break the rules. Provoke them to think. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the characterization that i am trying to convince anybody to break any rules is an inherantly false one. If I was such a rule breaker, I woulda been banned or blocked on sumthin other than trumped up and false charges. I have been trying to provoke people to think. Apparently, they can't grasp something as straightforeward as a simple set of links to wikipedia articles and

the obvious implications when stacked in such order. Whats the problem here? Zero stir you up? rex? Why don't you look at what I am actually saying and quit putting things into my mouth? Prometheuspan 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are now trolling. No offense, but I will no longer feed your increasingly pointed attack. Your mention of other trolls does little to quell my concern. I won't respond to you any longer so please don't continue to communicate with me again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now my allies think I'm a troll. Okay then Ryan, I'll refrain from bothering you.

What about you kevin? You think I'm a troll?

I'm trying to HELP you folks. If i am a troll, I'm the most sophisticated troll you are ever going to meet. A few thoughts on that. My goal is to improve and help Wikipedia.

I have expert knowledge in multiple Science backgrounds. I understand via science the problems that Wikipedia faces, in particular, the problem described by QED. I'd like to see that adressed. So, I am not a troll, I am not operating against the rules, and i am only advocating justice and what is ethical and right.

Prometheuspan 18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're a troll, and I think that troll and sockpuppet crap from Ryan was kinda harsh and, well, uncalled for - he's experienced a lot of trolls and actual socks lately, so it's fresh on his mind and it seems more plausible to him right now, but i think it was inappropriate.

I know what you're saying and I believed it before you said it. You just need to be more tactful. lawyers research the sh&t out of a single case, on a team and carefully and meticulously construct every detail of their case and anticipate the strategy and counter-strategy of their opponents, and even with all that, justice doesn't always prevail. and sometimes you've gotta scream without raising your voice. (that's a line i stole from a song by U2) Kevin Baas^talk 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, theres that. I'm a transparent person, not a plotter.

I'm sword of truth guy riding a leviathan, I can't help the minor drama. At the end of the day, so far, most days, It seems like a few things get resolved by some people somewhere when i bother to make the effort, and, on a good day its easy to see when I'm definitely doing the collective a service. On a bad day its unfortunately the wrath of god vs mere human over a society malfunction. I didn't come here to your talk pages as ryan seems to think with a set plan to go do something in particular. Some days my interactions with people seem to amount to IQ tests. Now that you have shown yourself to have an IQ at least above 130, What do you think the path of right action is? Because i happen to think that letting an arbiter operate from pov bias so openly, brazenly, and obviously reflects badly on Wikipedia at a cursory glance and bodes poorly for the general state of Justice around here. Thats not the only problem. This place is riddled with assorted and assorted problems.

QED doesn't just complain, IT IS THE ANSWER. 
What this place needs is actual logic

behind those judgements, including the right to challenge judgements of arbiters on the grounds provided by formal logic.

Formal logic raises the bar of meritocracy high enough that
propaganda withers up and wilts away. ONLY formal logic of all
systems has ever been shown to be able to do this competently.

Evolution and natural selection means that after a few years, the Trolls have adapted, and the new tactic is the same one they use to control the media and campaigns; inside moles. Wikipedias biggest enemy is pov warriors operating as admins in any capacity. As that happens, credibility drops, quality drops, truth ratio drops, and social entropy increases. If Wikipedia is to succeed, it has to face this simple understanding. I'm not here to tell anybody what to do. I am here to provide the answers. You tell me what to do next, I'll be right behind ya. Prometheuspan 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't opposing strategy and transparency. I was saying that deliberation combined with transparency is stronger and more transparent than transparency alone. Language is not a clear medium. Different emotions and states of mind interpret things differently, and this has to be taken into account to communicate things clearly. That's what i meant.

If you really want to do something to help - and my primary concern here is that you'll be too verbose and vitrolic and that will hurt more than help - the arbitrators want to vote on my beliefs - and they have them completely wrong. I'd say write on the talk page for proposed decisions, but i don't think the arbitrators read that. So a very polite and very civil, compassionate, professional message, simply stated: hey, this is how i read the statement at issue - logically. and an issue i haven't addressed - how what they claim i said is logically related to what i actually did say. the conclusion they draw from sentence they are focusing on may follow but it doesn't neccessarily. they might argue it is implied, but, by the logical definition of implication, it's not. as a computer programmer, when i write, such logic is intentional. so maybe if you showed this, nicely and concisely, that their logic isn't valid.

Take all possible emotional reactions into account in every sentence and every word and every tone. Kevin Baas^talk 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you have broken rules, such as 3RR, don't lie. that, and lying, concerns me. i don't like it. you're logical. rules are there to enforce consistency - the rules are the best gaurauntee of NPOV. so don't be a hypocrite. Kevin Baas^talk 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QED (2)

No, I haven't even been involved in an edit war. The only thing i have ever done that might be construed as 3rr is putting something i wrote back on a talk page after it was deleted without cause. However, nobody ever called that 3rr, so where 3rr is coming from, i have no idea. The most i have ever done is on the psychonaut article,

where i hit the article one time with a long outline. It sounds like you have a pretty clear head about what is going on, and QED gives you the logic tools to make a cogent argument. I'm going to leave things alone for a while and see if you guys can get it together on your own- including geting a real sense of what i actually have and haven't done on wikipedia.

I have been very careful in this not to get involved in any "top" page conflicts directly because thats where wikipedia feels its soft points. Any honest review of my participation here will show that in fact, compared to almost anybody else i have been enormously self restrained and have yet to factually break any rules.

I have been involved a bit with the cesar case regarding the biopsychiatry article, I think my work there shows that in fact i am very neutral. The Nescio and Merecat case involving rationales to impeach is another example. A lot of this seems to be going around. Who are you? Yourself or whats convenient as a characterization to pov warrior arbiters? Who am i? A troll and a rule breaker or a genius IQ with a clear claim on higher objective perspective ground?

The biggest mysteries often seem to be the ones that people create for themselves. Prometheuspan 01:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, my mistake - it was personal attacks that you've been formally accused of. That's equivocable to 3RR in regards conduciveness to article improvement. And turns out to be more relevant to my general criticism.

I'm a logical thinker myself, and am aware of that logical aspect of the situation. I'm more concerned with psychological/social issues right now. -- though i admit that i'm kinda shocked right now and consequently probably not doing the best job of dealing with them. Kevin Baas^talk 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this: [5] is damaging. I don't subscribe to your methods or POV. Kevin Baas^talk 21:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay, you don't subscribe to my methods or pov. In the meantime, you are getting rolled over by a steamroller of a pov warrior whos got himself promoted to arbiter. I am a logical thinker

also, and sometimes its a good thing to say the obvious and true facts rather then keep everything couched in egg shell walking terms. Somebody oughta, something to think about; If people keep using you as a straw man, its habit forming if you DON'T STAND UP FOR YOURSELF AND MAKE THEM KNOW AND PAY FOR THE ABUSE. Thats the funny thing about bullies of all stripes. You keep being a sucker for punishment, and you will keep being abused until you stand up to it. >I< don't subscribe to that method or pov. 'nuff said. Prometheuspan 22:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is not as easy to discern as you claim to be. I have argued with many people, and the one of the only conclusions I have come to is that anyone who claims they are purely a "logical thinker" compensates a void of such thinking with bravado. Kevin uses "egg-shell walking terms" because he recognizes that while facts are obvious, the "truth" is most definetely not and must be approached knowing that we are all biased to begin with in some form. --kizzle 22:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking his name was a combo of 'Prometheus' and 'Pan'. Except Prommy stole that fire - and wound up getting his liver eaten out by an eagle each night after a difficult RfAr brought by Zeus. Yowie. And it took Hercules to rescue him, which is kind of embarrassing for a Titan to admit to his friends at the weekly Poker game. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if we only played poker, that would be one thing, but since its Tarot, on the table of mortal circumstance, and an infinite zero sum game, thats something else allthogether. Prometheus has nothing to be emberassed about; he is the sole surviving Titan after

the war in heaven kills off everybody else. Which just goes to show how tuff he is; you can eat his heart out for millenia, but when all is said and done, he is still around whilst the other titans are serious history. Foreknowledge and truth are like that; wisdom is a primary force of nature. Prometheuspan 01:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Democratic Party" article

Hello Kevin. Our old friend rjensen is up to his old tricks and has written an article called "Democrat Party" that dignifies this term. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Griot 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the message you left on my talk page about an ongoing VfD advocated a position. Advocating a position when soliciting a vote goes against my principles, and therefore I will abstain from voting. Kevin Baas^talk 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Griot deleted this message from his talk page.[6]

Proposed findings of fact

Position of Noosphere

1.) Noosphere has stated, in opposition to practical sense, that the sky is green. This belief guides his defense of Radical color theory and related absurdities.

Kevin Baas^talk 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

How do you know that it's a minority viewpoint that there were irregularities in the election? I had certainly heard of it. Now, I imagine that it's a minority viewpoint that it changed the outcome. But didn't Kerry push that view recently? That's certainly not fringe; that's downright explosive (if I remember that right). The existence of irregularities, at least in Ohio, was certainly widely reported at the time. At any rate, my point is that there's a lot of talk about "minority viewpoints", without any evidence presented as to what the public believes or knows or has seen. Don't blindly buy into that premise, unless it's true. Is there any polling data? Haven't read the article; maybe it's in there. There's all kinds of issues out there where conventional wisdom of the pundits ends up being flatly contradicted by the polls. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, say, 35% of the public thinks there were significant irregularities in 2004. I'd be a little surprised if that many thought it reversed the outcome, but who knows without evidence.

If coverage in the news is the standard, per arbcom, well surely there are stories from the time about Ohio in all the major newspapers. Derex 23:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that among the general populace, it is less than 50% viewpoint that the irregularities and controversy were significant, but that's only because the vast majority of the population doesn't have a viewpoint. of those who have a fair knowledge of the irregularities and the controversy, the viewpoint that the irregularities and controversy were significant is held by the overwhelming majority. Kevin Baas^talk 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page redirect

I removed the redirect of your user page to a mainspace article as inappropriate. May I suggest you redirect it here to your talk page instead. NoSeptember 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to you after the arbitrators vote on how I feel about that. Kevin Baas^talk 22:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're bummed out as I am

But don't WP:POINT. Don't give in to it. Sending you peace and patience. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you're refering to the user page redirect to Straw man? Thanks for checking me. I'm somewhat ~~condoled~~^{what is the word i'm loolking for?} by the fact that Kevin baas has his own user page. Kevin Baas^talk 23:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Conduct RfC against Commodore Sloat

Hi, I'm contacting you to ask that you take a look at the conduct RfC brought against me by TDC (talk · contribs). I'm contacting you because the RfC involves some pages that you have edited on in the past. I value whatever contribution you may make to the RfC page, if you are so inclined. Thanks.--csloat 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin

There is an interesting TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_30#Template:POV-because. It is over a "POV-because" article tag. Kevin Baas^talk 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Ken Blackwell

Your recent edit to Ken Blackwell (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the page was cut off in my edit, apparently due to a browser/software error. The BOT acted correctly. Kevin Baas^talk 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and trolling tags

While the POV tag is not really insulting to anyone, the trolling tag is, so that is why I removed it. I have no problem with both tags being off those pages for now. I have been following the events there and it looks like I have to again archive that discussion page, which is over 400kb's long! Geez...it's tough to keep tabs on an article like that when I am also doing work elsewhere...but just so you know, I am a completely neutral party simply trying to keep the flames down. Best wishes.--MONGO 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag baiting

Kevin - lunchtime and I've got just a suggestion. Anon-reversion of tags, etc. seems motivated more by the desire to bait the editors into 'counter-productive' editing. While there's a strong case to be made that revert-tagging an article without specific examples, edit attempts or engagment on 'talk' is clearly unproductive, reverting them back with a peremptory response (despite the history of prior discussions and repeated consensus reached) creates for some the appearance of counter-productivity, and aids those who seek our silence.

So, don't fall for the bait. Some editors need to keep the discussion 'meta' and about tags, conduct, etc., because they have no concrete recommendations for editing, and no desire to follow the Wikipedia process. Don't let 'em drag you down. Other editors may have valid complaints but haven't articulated them with specifics. As MONGO mentioned above, an NPOV tag insults no-one, so let these folks bring their old arguments out again, and we'll patiently work to improve the articles by finding and discussing any new, valid suggestions (and acting on them in good faith) within the sea of blank and meritless condemnation.

Sending you best wishes on a lovely Friday. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [7]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio 2004 presidential election results

Hi, I reverted your edits about suspected irregularities in Ohio. It doesn't belong to the intro as it has not been proven officialy there were irregularites in this election. We can add something like "many Democrats and liberals claim that Republicans stoled Kerry victory by undergoing massive irregularties". However, we can not let people think, as your did before, that fraud claims have been proved true. Once again, sorry for my grammar, I'm not not a native speaker in English --Revas 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this message now as it was posted on my user page and not my talk page. I don't know what you're talking about. I think instead of being partisan, we should simply present the evidence and let people judge for themselves. I think that would be most encyclopedic. anycase, I'll take a look at your changes. thanks for the note. Kevin Baas^talk 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News

Thank you for your comment. I'll admit I may be being hard-headed in (what I believe) is a defense of WP:NPOV, but I've been subjected to numerous personal attacks and accusations ever since the other editors declared that consensus had been reached. Cbuhl79 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FNC / Comments

Kevin, I agree that my tone in the last few comments may appear particularly caustic. I encourage you to read them in context -- It appears you failed to read the original RfC discussions that occured, which may assist in understanding why I felt such diction was necessary. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 20:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was thinks like "passive approval" and "unilateral edit" that bothered me. What's the difference between "active" and "passive" approval? To approve one must perform an act, so i don't see really how "passive approval" is possible. And I don't see how one can make a bilateral or mutli-lateral edit. Only one person can edit at a time. So I don't understand why "unilateral" was used if not for under-handed rhetorical purposes. Kevin Baas^talk 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was passive because if I read carefully, you were fine with the non-Greenwald version, thought about it some more, and said you didn't care much about the issue, but you didn't have a problem with Cbuhl's version. That the passive part. I didn't mean it as some sort of attack. But in the sense that your original participation appeared lukewarm at best. Of course, now you're in the middle of a big hub-bub. As the great philosopher Homer Simpson once said, "Never Help". ;-). Ramsquire 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Request for Arbitration

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration[8]. You are either an editor with which I am in direct dispute, or an editor who has been involved in the discussion—Preceding unsigned comment added by cbuhl79 (talk • contribs)

Image copyright problem with Image:Feb14 boxer roses.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Feb14 boxer roses.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Barbara Boxer herself posted that image to DailyKos: "P.S. I've attached a couple photos from this afternoon. This is what 4,500 roses looks like!" Does that satisfy the 'fair use' requirement (the author posted the image to a public site as a 'gift' to her supporters)? Just tryin' to help. Worse comes to worse, we can contact Boxer's office. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I found this image on boxer's .gov website (making it PD?). Maybe use that one instead? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture was taken by an employee of the federal government in performance of their duties, then yes, it is in the public domain... but not just because it is hosted at a .gov site. I doubt that we could claim Wikipedia:Fair use on the image, and we would need to have proper authorship and copyright information for such a claim anyway. So the thing to do is to get in touch with Boxer's office and clarify the authorship of these photographs. Given the circumstances, even if the photographer wasn't a federal employee, they may well be willing to freely license them. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission for some standard letters asking for that. Jkelly 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Congress Derex 12:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Approval horiz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Approval horiz.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbcom election

Hey Kevin. You probably already know, but just in case you don't, there's an arbcom election happening. Don't miss it! :) -- noosph e re 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm

I wonder if your breaking wikipedia rules will affect anything :confused: BonniePrinceCharlie 23:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't know, never tried. i think you need to familiarize yourself with them better. Kevin Baas^talk 20:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, your violations are my fault. Whoops. BonniePrinceCharlie 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't troll my talk page with careless malevolence. Kevin Baas^talk 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't break wikipedia rules, please. Please? Do I have to beg now? BonniePrinceCharlie 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you again, and then I'm going to stop talking to you. Stop harassing me. Kevin Baas^talk 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BonniePrinceCharlie, stop harassing Kevin now. See my comment on your talk page. Yuser31415 19:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Boxer

Hi Kevin -- I stumbled across the image image:Feb14 boxer roses.jpg today, and I was wondering if you ever obtained further information regarding use of this image. I like it a great deal, and would hate to see it removed because of questionable fair-use status. ~CS 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! ~CS 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]