User talk:Cecropia/Archive 8

The Shining

The article is about the book, but you wrote a synopsis of the movie. Secondly, it is a synopsis, essentially giving away the entire story of the movie in detail.

Apologies, I'll fix that shortly.

I doubt that it is appropriate even there, since you give away so much of the movie, I believe it to be a copyvio.

That is ridiculous. I spent over an hour and a half this evening writing this section. Find me an external link that shows that I've copied the non-quote sections from somewhere else. Dysprosia 14:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

it is a good one

Thanks.

I'm saying that a complete synopsis tends to violate copywrite law because it could potentially cause someone to not buy the book/see the movie, thereby depriving the author of profits.

I have to disagree, but IANAL, according to Copyright infringement,

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it.

I don't see that a detailed synopsis does violate such rights. If you however have more information or feel strongly about it, feel free to remove the synopsis. Dysprosia 14:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've removed it all for the moment, until the copyright issue can be properly clarified and/or the appropriateness of the section can be decided on. Dysprosia 14:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am a lawyer, but, alas, I don't do intellectual-property law. The smattering that I learned for the bar exam was: "You can copyright words and pictures. You cannot copyright facts or ideas." Without having bothered to read any of the text at issue, my reaction to what I see here is to disagree with the statement that "a complete synopsis tends to violate [copyright] law". JamesMLane 15:48, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If it were my own work I would consider rewriting to point out the significance of events in the movie and I would not carry the synopsis to the very end.

The problem is that with omitting certain things loses a lot of information which I think is significant for someone who is trying to understand what is going on "behind the scenes" (so to speak) to answer possibly why and how the things in the film happened, or to explain properly the events that happen later. It might be possible to leave out Wendy's explanation of how Jack used to be an alcoholic but then it doesn't explain the appearance of Lloyd and Grady later when Jack goes to get a drink, for example. The problem shouldn't lie in revealing spoilers - it's adequately warned of such, and I think it's important to describe the movie to the end, for completeness.

Do you think it would be useful to do an RfC?

Possibly. I don't think I'd mind that much. I'm not sure. Maybe raise it on Talk first? Dysprosia 02:27, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cecropia - thanks for making me an admin. Seems to me you're the only bureaucrat doing any work lately! Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 09:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Need for support

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 02:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA formatting

Thanks. I'm trying to adjust to the wacky new formatting system. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:12, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Violence against Israelis

Do what you think is best and don't worry about trolls or sockpuppets. I don't think you need my help here as I'm sure you are able to make the right decision without letting whatever personal biases you have get in the way of that. Since the decision is to keep or merge, it doesn't require an admin anyway, so it shouldn't be too much a problem since no abuses of power are possible in the decision. Angela. 21:10, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Lord love a duck"

Wow. You are the only person aside from my father who I've heard utter this phrase! Any clue as to its origin? TimothyPilgrim 16:31, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 08:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apparent anti-American bias and bureaucrat request

I've posted a reply to your question posed on my bureaucrat request. I apologise for the delay in doing so, which originated in my desire to completely consider my response before posting it. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:28, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Accidental bureaucratting

Aloan will be doubly not a bureaucrat now since Anthere and I seem to be edit conflicting over who deals with the requests page right now. :)

1. 17:50, 11 Oct 2004 Anthere Rights for user "ALoan@enwiki" set "=sysop"
2. 17:49, 11 Oct 2004 Angela Rights for user "ALoan@enwiki" set "=sysop"
3. 17:49, 11 Oct 2004 Angela Rights for user "ALoan@enwiki" set "="
4. 17:49, 11 Oct 2004 Anthere Rights for user "ALoan@enwiki" set "="

Angela. 18:01, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Ooo - unfortunately, I had not noticed my (presumably temporary) supernatural powers :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Grunt and Ugen

I am aware of Ugen doing this. Here's the relevant discussion from #wikipedia. I don't agree with his action, but the following might help to explain why he did it. Times are UTC+1. Grunt, Ugen and Kim gave permission for the log to be published.

[21:55] <ugen64> whats consensus for bureaucrats
[21:55] <Angela> ugen64: there's a vote on that currently
[21:55] <ugen64> i know
[21:55] <ugen64> grunt's bureaucrat request is over
[21:55] <ugen64> do i promote him, as i'm inclined to do, or do i leave him?
[21:55] <Angela> is it still below 80?
[21:55] <ugen64> it's 75%
[21:56] <ugen64> well i thought adminship consensus was 75%
[21:56] * Grunt points out that there were two votes past the deadline?
[21:56] <Angela> no, usually adminship is +80
[21:56] <ugen64> ah, that's right
[21:56] <Grunt> Plus an apparent sockpuppet vote
[21:56] <ugen64> 79.4%
[21:57] <Grunt> well, I don't know what to call it.
[21:57] <kim_> hmm, what would one more vote do?
[21:57] <ugen64> make it 80%
[21:57] <kim_> that would be sufficient?
[21:57] <ugen64> exactly 80% :)
[21:57] <Grunt> It would not be fair to vote past the deadline
[21:57] <ugen64> yep
[21:58] <ugen64> well yeah
[21:58] <ugen64> hes right actually
[21:58] <ugen64> well it's at 79.4% right now...
[21:58] <kim_> :-/
[21:58] <kim_> oh crumbs
[21:58] <kim_> so what to do?
[21:58] <kim_> drop him then?
[21:58] <ugen64> nah
[21:59] <kim_> but I'm not allowed to vote him over the line
[21:59] <kim_> fair deal
[21:59] <anon> I was 0.4% away from getting a full scholarship into my first year of university
[21:59] <ugen64> have fun grunt
[21:59] <anon> why should Grunt be any luckier? :)
[21:59] <ugen64> lol
[21:59] <Grunt> Because I put in the extra 0.4%? ;)

Angela. 21:49, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

75-80% is consensus. It was at 79.4%, because two votes were after the deadline. Therefore, I decided to promote him. ugen64 21:51, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think the deadlines should be (and are thought of as) "soft". They indicate when to make the decision but should not cut people off. VeryVerily 22:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I really don't know what to do. I'm biased in all different directions on this since I think Grunt ought to be a bureaucrat, but I don't think he should have been made one today. If someone is going to revert Ugen, it shouldn't be me. I think a more neutral steward ought to look into it. Reverting him and leaving a non-involved bureaucrat to make the decision might be the best idea. Angela. 22:12, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

First, I must object to your wording: "If you honestly felt promotion was appropriate, you should have passed the request to another bureaucrat who has been uninvolved and more active than yourself." Had I felt promotion was "inappropriate", then I wouldn't have promoted, obviously, unless you are implying that I perform actions that I feel are inappropriate (which would be hypocrisy). Second, you stated, "The practice has been that people have continued to vote and have their votes counted before the nomination is acted upon." Then what is the point of a deadline? Is it just supposed to sit there and look pretty? Of course, you could respond "the deadline is the earliest point at which that one can be promoted," but then you have to look at the admins that have been promoted before their time ran out. You could also reply, "those deadlines are only guidelines," which is perfectly acceptable, but that would support my next argument.

The absolute minimum for promotion is 75%, while the general minimum (after which a nomination becomes almost uncontroversial) is 80%, which was not reached (79.4%). However, I feel that these promotion guidelines are just that - guidelines. As VeryVerily mentioned above, they are "soft" guidelines for consensus, in my belief.

Now, as to my actions. I firmly believe that I did the right thing to promote Grunt, but obviously that is under attack. Therefore, if you feel it is necessary, you can do an RFC (not like I could stop you anyway). If the RFC shows no consensus, or a consensus opposing me, I will immediately ask for a removal of my bureaucratic "privileges", "powers", "burdens", whatever you wish to call them. However, again, I must reiterate that I feel I did the right thing.

Just to write further - as both you and Raul654 declared in the past, bureaucrats can use discretion to rule out exceptionally illogical and unworthy votes (or whatever wording you wish, I couldn't think of better words to use). Let's take a look at two questionable oppositions: Gzornenplatz opposed solely because Grunt signed a "factually incorrect" RFC; first of all, RFCs can't be "factually incorrect" (unless, of course, I had fabricated the evidence); second, that's a rather illogical reason to oppose bureaucratic privileges. Second, Michael Krewson had less than fifty edits, and his reasoning was flawed because the page was a copyright violation (that's undisputed). Using my apparent powers as a bureaucrat to disregard illogical votes, and the soft guidelines (75-80%), I felt that a 79.4% support was enough in this case, and promoted him. ugen64 22:28, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

And to respond to Angela's point: while I won't say my actions were unwarranted, or wrong, I won't, say, start a "bureaucratic reversion war" or anything... ugen64 22:28, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

I saw you're doing RFA (and actually beat me to it, my browser cache was old).

I'm leaving neutrality alone due to some of the oppose votes, even though there's a 49/(49+14) = 77.7% consensus to promote. If you want to promote him/her, go ahead, though, it's a judgement call. Pakaran. 04:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(sorry for leaving first version on user page) Pakaran. 04:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yep, 24 hours is fine. I was going to do the other two, and leave (or *possibly* remove, but I'd be crucified) neutrality, but you beat me (I didn't reload the page, so the gmt clock didn't advance, oh well). Pakaran. 04:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heck, I need to be up at 6:30 to get ready to go to work (well, volunteer position in the public schools) anyhow :) Pakaran. 04:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA results

Thank you for your notification of the results of the vote on my admin nomination. Fire Star 14:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being awkward, but I'm not going to remove Grunt. Unsuccessful nominations do not need a bureaucrat to rule on them. All a bureaucrat does is decide when someone is to made a sysop/bureaucrat. Anyone with the ability to click "edit" can decide some is not to be made one and remove the nomination. I think it's best for people to realise this and not wait for a bureaucrat to do it. Angela. 01:46, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

RfA

I completely understand your concerns, especially with the entire "Grunt affair" going on in the backround. I don't think you need be concerned at all. I have a average support percentage and am within the target for promotion. Hopefully those opposed will come to see that their they need not have any fear/worry/concern. Once again, thank you. Warm regards, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:21, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

"(Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then.."

Please see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#The war for Palestine where User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. He also isnsists on editing-away lots of NPOV's that don't suit him, take a look at [1] please as this relates to this subject. IZAK 08:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A proposal - your comments requested

Hi Crecopia! On Wikipedia talk:Administrator Activity Proposal you had floated an idea for an alternative proposal to the Admin Activity one, involving "duty admins". I have written up a more formalized proposal that covers a similar topic, and I would like your thoughts on it. Please see User:Whosyourjudas/proposal. Thanks! Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George and John

wheeeee, I'm a bird, and stabbed with a ball-point pen by Jane Fonda.... These two had me rolling on the floor with laughter, thank you. :) func(talk) 17:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Move over, Jay Leno? :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfC re: Chuck F

Hi Cecropia, I've added the information you requested on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F. Duk 19:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

North American Man-Boy Love Association

Hi there, just saw you are online and wondered if you could help protecting this article against very dubious edits. Get-back-world-respect 01:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

After the dubious edits were made for the third time, another admin protected the page. I would appreciate if you could take a look at the discussion as you were a great help with articles related to pedophilia in the past. Get-back-world-respect 02:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you please visit the page and make that guy stop his dishonest way of dicussion? Get-back-world-respect 21:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you please sanction user:Corax who abuses Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association to fill it with propaganda about the harmlessness of child abuse, accuses me of sexual hysteria, and asks me to see a therapist. Get-back-world-respect 13:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RFC

Don't remove endorsments from an on-going discussion. You can challenge the certifiers, but changing their words or moving them is direct interference. Consider this a formal warning. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

If you move an endorsement (or a vote) without the original editors OK, you change the meaning of that endorsement. Do not break protocol, and please stop interfering with an obviously valid RFC, or you will be the subject of one yourself. -- Netoholic @ 02:16, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Look, I don't mind you challenging endorsements, but it is not acceptable to move or remove them on your opinion. Please stop. -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

User:GeneralPatton suggests that HistoryBuffer be taken to Arbitration

From User:IZAK#Opposing Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK

:Izak, from my own experience, I suggest you now take HistoryBuffEr straight to Arbitration, and demand he be banned from all articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have a great and compelling body of evidence against him. GeneralPatton 19:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users are asked to please help set this in motion.

Pathetically, HistoryBuffer is now antagonizing more people at Holocaust denial examined, see the "history" of that page and the "revert wars" and other stuff at Talk:Holocaust denial examined IZAK 02:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC):

"This article contains an unsubstantiated assertion about the use of term "Zionist" by Holocaust deniers. The Zionist extremist and Palestine denier Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to correct the false implication that anyone using the term "Zionist" is/could be a Holocaust denier, without supplying any evidence for the assertion. HistoryBuffEr 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)"

Woohoo!

I'm a sysop! Thanks for letting me know :) - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my vote change at Grunt's Bship nom

I have posted two seperate querries on Grunt's talk page reminding him, that my vote change was tentative his response to the questions I posted after his response about his nomination. Unfortunately he has not responded to me despite editing his talk, page I feel this is 'more than sufficient to assume my good faith vote change, was violated and I will strongly oppose any future nomination. I thought, given your interest in my vote change, you would like to know the outcome of my effort. I think it is unfortunate he saw fit not to respond, I really don't think he truly understands that anti-Americanism and criticisms of the America are not the same thing. Alsio, in not taking the issue seriously even after having ample opprotunity to prove other wise, he has decided to ignore my questions. In my opinion this is not only evidence that he does not take anti-Americanism seriously but also that his bias, or at least his defense of it, does have an effect on his work at wikipedia. -JCarriker 00:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

International Humanitarian Law

Done. (left him a thought on the civilian shipping war supplies in war time as well) Philip Baird Shearer

You might like to have a look at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page seems that our comments weren't engough! Philip Baird Shearer

Welcome to the machine...

I laughed at your typewriter-font note the other day welcoming me to the, er, bureaucracy. Not sure I feel too comfortable with that, sort of reminds me of the first few times I introduced the love of my life as Mrs. Uninvited. Do I get some rubber stamps or perhaps one of those embossed seal things? I trust that the size of my office and the color of my desk have been specified by the furnishings committee....

Thanks

uc 23:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comments about a week ago and sorry for my late response... I don't know what I can say, though; I'm on verge of giving up Wiki after this goes through... I have little hope that Wiki can one day emerge as a highly regarded academic source. Increasingly, Wiki seems to be falling under the control of an increasingly legalistic, bureaucratic cabal easily manipulated by cranks and fanatics... The Arbitration Committee, for example, has only acted to drive away 168..., Wik, Adam Carr, RK, and me. Meanwhile it coddles the users really acting in bad faith, as they are the ones usually more deft when it comes to subverting the process. 172 16:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

For the good news about my adminship and the welcome note. I greatly appreciate it. ffirehorse 00:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re:Admin

Hi Cecropia,

Thanks for the great news. I just realized it. -spencer195 05:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page Protection

Howdy, Cecropia. I don't mind the page protection, but could you please protect the non-vandalised version of the article? The vandal has refused all attempts to have him discuss his proposed changes. I can't wait for this election season to end. Thanks. Ref: Vietnam Veterans Against the War -Rob

I can't tell which is the "vandalised" version, if either is. I see a series of anonymous IPs against one logged-in user. As I said in article talk, describe there why you think your edits are the appropriate ones. All the anon IP addresses I've looked at show first edits today or the last day or two, leading me to suspect that you don't wish to ID yourself. There is nothing wrong in this, as such, but it affects my evaluation of what's going on. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for ID'ing myself: Hi. I'm -Rob. You will find any comments of mine (regardless of IP address) signed this way. You'll find extensive comments of mine in the Talk pages of articles currently being vandalised by TDC. As for "what's going on," you will please note my constant attempt to get the vandal to discuss his changes. He will not. As for which edits are the appropriate ones - take the recent additional content to the "Operation RAW" sub-section. Where are they? Can you tell me why the addition of simple names and dates would not be appropriate? Thanks for your attention to this matter... -Rob

I am not a current editor on the articles you are warring with TDC on, and I am not going to take a position on content--I can only note who appears to be doing what and seeing a long line of anonymous edits vs. one or two logged-in users. Using an IP address masks your ID, so we don't know who we're really responding too, and also masks how many reverts you are actually making. As I said before, take this to the appropriate talk pages. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have taken this to Talk pages. Now what? (I see you have elected to protect another vandalised version of a Wiki-article, Winter Soldier Investigation) May I request that you please take a moment to review and compare the two versions (of both articles now), so you can at least protect the NPOV and accurate versions? Thank you -Rob

Discuss the substance of your changes (or post them there) and why they are appropriate. If yours is the original version (which it doesn't seem to be, but I could be wrong), demonstrate this and show why TDC's or SEWilco's changes are wrong. Seek a vote and/or RfC on the competing versions. It would help a lot if one side of the issue were not covered by a series of anon IPs. As to my reviewing the articles, I have not followed these, so don't want to make this judgment, esp. after I've protected them. I think you and the other editors can hash out your arguments, and present them to a wider audience. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for "anon IPs," I don't consider 123.45.67.890 to be any more anonymous than "Cecropia" and I disagree that letters instead of numbers would "help a lot" with this issue. Rest assured that I am following the relevant conversations on the appropriate Discussion pages. Now please explain to me exactly how I am to properly get your inappropriate Page Protections lifted when I can not even get the holder of opposing viewpoints into a discussion? You *DID* see his multiple refusals to discuss the issues, did you not? As for SEWilco - Scot and I have held sometimes heated, but always productive discussions on the content of these two articles - that is a non-issue. TDC is the issue here, and he has deleted nearly a full page of my content additions without cause, and without explanation. Again, I ask you - how am I to proceed? -Rob

As I said on (one of?) your IP address talk pages, if you can't engage the other users on the appropriate talk pages, you can apply to any other admin to review my action and lift protection. There are some 300 plus out there. As to being anonymous, you may not be able to attach "Cecropia" to a specific person's given name (which could also be a pseudonymn), but I was Cecropia last week and last month and will be Cecropia next week and next month, so you can recognize me and follow my edits. You can't do that with changing IP addresses, even if you sign yourself "Rob." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be best if you confine your communications to the relevant Discussion pages (i.e.; Your page, the Winter Soldier Investigation talk page or the Vietnam Veterans Against the War talk page) if you wish me to see it. I don't check my personal Discussion pages (numeric IP or otherwise) very often. FYI - I was -Rob last week, and the month before, and I'll be -Rob next week as well. Having cleared that up, let's move on to the issue at hand. You have locked 2 articles into a vandalized state. You then offer as a suggestion that I seek to resolve disputes by discussion with a person that (and he brags about this) will not enter discussions. When I point this out to you, and politely ask you to remedy the situation, you suggest that I seek the assistance of another Admin. Wonderful. Would you mind lifting the protections on the vandalised pages? Any help would be appreciated... -Rob

Well, Rob, you make it impossible for me to follow your work on Wikipedia when you have nothing but a series of anonymous IPs. You may not like TDC but I can get a picture of the user from his/her history. Can't do that with you. I've already told you that I will lift protection in 24 hours if there is no progress and no other admin has done so. Is there some reason you won't appeal to any other admin if you don't agree with my opinion? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who's to say I haven't appealed to other Admins? Who's to say I haven't also submitted a complaint under "Vandalism in Progress?" That doesn't mean that I will also cease discussions with the person (you) that is most directly responsible for the current situation. You say it is impossible to follow my work? Every comment I've made in the Discussion pages is clearly signed by me. As for my edits, just take a look at the last vandalism to see everything that has been deleted without so much as a comment. Tell me, please, where is the additional content to the "Operation RAW" section of Vietnam Veterans Against the War that I added, and why, exactly, is it now gone? (This is just one of several dozen unexplained deletions, but I have to start somewhere...) -Rob

All right, Rob. Since you and TDC don't seem to be engaging on this, and I don't want to get embroiled in these articles, I'll lift protection for now, but I don't see what point will be served if you guys just go back to a revert war. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind the protection, if it is on the most current, unvandalized version. I also don't mind at all entertaining rational objections to anything in that version. But reverting an article to a revision that is several days (and many edit additions) old without discussion, and furthermore with refusal to discuss -- well, that just seems to me to be against the nature Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions as to what the most productive step would be to take if TDC resumes his repetitive reverts without discussion? -Rob

In this kind of case, whether "your" version or another version is live when protection is placed, protection is not going to be of much help. At the moment, all I can think of is to set out a discussion on talk between the competing points-of-view and ask for an RfC. Your various IPs and TDC seem to be neck-and-neck on the reverts, so I don't see any other way. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Satisfied in the knowledge that his wholesale deletions have been locked in place by a page Protection, TDC appears to have turned in for the night. I have reverted the two pages to the most current versions. I fully expect TDC to resume his antics tomorrow evening, and I intend to engage him in reasonable discourse. I'll also, simultaneously, ask for an RfC per your suggestion, since I don't expect him to enter into civil discourse. By the way, I didn't mean to come off as snippity regarding my "anon" status. To be blunt, I am presently anon for the sole reason that it cuts down on stalking. I've found that some of the articles that interest me are also high-visibility articles during this campaign season, and thus prone to these chaotic edit skirmishes. Even TDC here has traced my edits via IP address and messed with them for reasons that can only be described as harassment. I expect there to be a lot less activity of this sort after November 2. Thank you for assistance this evening. -Rob

The anon user currently engaged with myself in the edit war in Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the Winter Soldier Investigation is most certainly not making edits in good faith. He has been engaged in a long running edit war with SEWilco on the same topics for about a month. He is inserting copy written material from the VVAW website, and object to it being labeled as such. He is constantly removing POV headers, as well as removing factual information that he simply does not want as part of the article. One example of this is his constant insertion of Al Hubbard in the List of Vietnam Veterans [2] and the subsequent removal of R Lee Ermey and Dennis Franz. Hubbard is phoney, who never served in Vietnam while Franz and Ermey did serve in Vietnam. There is also the curious removal of information from the Oliver North article [3].

This user is not here to contribute, but is here to mangle articles to conform with his POV. TDC 17:26, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

The edits are certainly in good faith. SEWilco and I have collaborated for several months on both articles, with contributions from both of us included in the present versions. The discussion pages reflect this. There is currently no copyrighted material in either article, and you would know this if you've followed the discussion pages. If you feel this is in error, please cite the material in question and the source of the copyright, and let's review it. As for POV headers, they have remained on the document for days while we hammered out the wording on questionable issues in the discussion pages. Many issues have been resolved this way, and the articles are better for it. If you have additional POV issues to raise, please do so -- but wholesale deletions without comments are unproductive. As for Al Hubbard being a Vietnam Veteran, I do not see the issue here. I do see that I added him to a list last night (for the first time, as I had just discovered this list) and you immediately followed me there and edited my contribution in List of Vietnam Veterans. You refer to Hubbard as a "phoney, who never served in Vietnam" yet you don't cite a source. I followed the link from the [[Vietnam Veteran] page, and Al Hubbard certainly qualifies.

Please raise any remaining issues on the appropriate article discussion pages, and let's see if we can resolve them. The repeated reverts going on now are not solving anything. -Rob

I protected Winter Soldier Investigation, arbitrarily keeping it at TDC's version. Please look into this; I'm totally swamped this weekend and can't monitor the page.

Happy Halloween! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Once again, TDC has a page locked in to a POV and vandalised state. Uncle Ed suggests leaving it that way for the next several days, despite the article being quite relevant to ongoing U.S. political campaign issues for the next 4 days. Uncle Ed blindly suggests that we take the disagreements to the Discussion page, without bothering to note that I had already done just that -- and TDC refuses to respond. (See Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation last entry.) TDC even threatens to continue revert wars, while refusing to cite just what it is he disagrees with. (See Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War last entry.) Since Uncle Ed seems to have dropped this back into your lap, I'd appreciate any help you can afford in this matter. Thanks... -Rob

Addendum: I noticed your comments on Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War and I responded. It would appear that Uncle Ed passed the buck to you, and as of your recent comments, you are passing the buck to another Admin. (As frustrating as this is to me, I must acknowledge that at some level... I can't really blame you.) I've contacted Michael Snow in an attempt to get the Winter Soldier Investigation POV version unprotected, or at the very least reverted to the most recent version developed by SEWilco and I before re-protecting it. -Rob