User talk:Kevin Baas/Archive2

Hello. I have posted a question about references at Talk:Fractional paradigm and Talk:Informational difference. You may wish to take a look. If so please respond on the talk pages. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 18:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've also posted a request for a reference at talk:analog computer which you may wish to consider. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 01:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With regards to the problems you are having with some other users. I am not familier enough with yourself, the others involved, or the issues involved to comment. I'll just point you to this page - Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution which sets out the steps you need to go through in order to resolve conflicts with other users. Normally a friendly word on a talk page is enough "I don't appreciate you calling me a crank, I would like you to apologise" or words to that effect should do the trick. As to the issue of consensus, I usually take 80% as consensus. Sometimes I'll delete a page with a lower ratio, if the circumstances warrent it (i.e. sockpuppets or non-genuine votes). Sometimes I'll not delete a page even if over 80% say delete. I hope this answers all your questions. theresa knott 21:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Evidently, English is not your mother tongue, so I can forgive you in misunderstanding that "Delete with prejudice" does not refer to you, but to the article. I have spent some time observing your efforts to create articles which lack the barest semblance of connection to current mathematical research, and to be extremely rude to other Wikipedians when they quite reasonably ask for reliable references and sources. What I know of your work tells me that, even if there is some sense to what you posit, it lacks any context with which to connect to contemporary mathematical thought. It therefore constitutes, at best original research, which is explicitly unacceptable here, and at worst, what I will call delusional thought. It therefore has, in my opinion, no place in Wikipedia at this time, if ever. As I said earlier, call us after the Nobel is awarded.

I would request that any further discussion you may wish to carry on be done on the appropriate talk page. I do not welcone you on my own talk page. Denni 04:39, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

As you seem unable to separate your ideas from your identity, it may have seemed like I was criticizing your identity, or "self", as we say in the business. Try as I might, I found nothing in my comments which discussed you negatively as an individual, even to an innocuous level such as not brushing your teeth (and I'm sure you do.) Throckmorton and Hilfiger, though, in a paper published by me in 1997, say that "idea" and "self" are related through fractional intellidynamical impulses which emanate first from the self to the idea, and then back to the self, thus creating a a semantological unificationality of dogmatic theses. In other words, ƒ (i,s) ‡ (Ω +> bbb>ddd) Sorry, I had to invent my own symbols to show the universal relevance of this code, and the government is still on my case about all those phonecalls to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Anyway, I inderstand =perfectly= that your ideas are beyond value to Humankind, and will rush up and down the street ensuring that each and every person I talk to =MUST= email Wikipedia this minute and let them know how it is you plan to save this universe from conquest by the aliens, or bad water or something. How about you call me in, oh, three or four weeks? Denni 23:23, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

Grow up. Kevin Baas 23:42, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My user page is not yours to edit. However, I can't stop you, so go ahead and be a troll. Have fun. As far as growing up goes, I'll just point you to a mirror, little boy, and ask how long it's gonna be before they can buy the long pants for you. I didn't ask you to engage in any conversations with me, but if you like flame wars, hey, me too, and nothing smells better than roast troll. Denni

(reply copied from User talk:Dwindrim) Talk pages are append-only. This is a talk page. Restructuring is not appending.

Don't worry about me editing your user page. I have left that alone and will continue to. That is your property. I will, however, feel free to leave you messages on your talk page.

And please stop with the immature comments. If it continues, I will request arbitration. Kevin Baas 00:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have a =swell= idea - I will criticise your articles on the proper article discussion pages, just like they do in Wiki. Then if you have an issue with what I have to say, you will reply there, just like normal Wikipedians do. You will stay out of my talk page. I will stau out of yours. Deal? Denni 00:18, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

The first I am already cooperating with. If you make a valid and impartial argument refering to specific content in an article on a talk page, I will respond to it there. If you have something to say to or about me, I will respond to it on your user talk page, as normal wikipedians do. I really don't think other wikipedians are interested in the personal matters of other people.

As to the second part regarding user talk pages, I am all about communication. Kevin Baas 00:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Something I learned a long time ago, and which is increasingly apparent is apropos here: "Never argue with a five year old." Say what you want. Revert my talk page until it's twisted into a fractional dimension. Hurl yourself against the wall of rational thought until you take the paint off the bricks. I don't care. Go away. You annoy me and you bore me. I have nothing more to say to you that would not be offensive to both of us. Denni 00:39, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

Yay, Kev!

Go for it, old bean! I'm here to do wiki, you're here to do what? Since everything is archived properly, I am proceeding to revert my talk page, and will continue to do so until even you get tired of it. (By the way, have you noticed I've not touched your talk page, as per my offer?) Denni 21:07, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

You have noticed that I have not altered, moved, or deleted any comments on my talk page, however critical.

Please feel free to communicate with me through my talk page. You are welcome here. Kevin Baas 21:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

I am formally requesting mediation on this issue. It is suggested both parties ought to be in agreement as to the process. Please indicate on my talk page whether you are prepared to do so or not. Denni 19:36, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

If you are prepared to go to mediation, (a) what is it you wish to mediate, and (b) what outcome is it you seek?

In my case, (a) I seek a clear understanding of the degree of sanctity of a user's talk page, and (b) a clear understanding on your part that, with the exception of discussions related directly to editorial issues, I have no wish to communicate with you in any way, shape, or form.

Bad light? That is a bit overreaching...

How can my statement be a conclusion? Kevin Baas seems stuck on the idea of going straight to arbitration. My statement is qualified by the word "seems", it is a perception, not a conclusion. The evidence that was available to me at that time on Denni's talk page was your demand in there where you say: "I am now requesting arbitration". Obviously you knew something about the Wikipedia dispute resolution process; you knew there was "arbitration". I could only assume that you had read the information posted on this wiki, after all the links are there and any reasonable person could safely conclude, in my opinion, that someone who is contributing to the English language Wikipedia would seem capable of reading English. Thus, if you had found out about arbitration it seems a reasonable inference that you had taken the time to discover what kinds of processes we have here for resolving disputes between members. Perhaps I had assumed too much in your case, I can see now that I am mistaken. You obviously had not read those pages before coming to the conclusion that arbitration was what you had to "request". I do not see how that statement on my part "throws you into a bad light". It just reflects your lack of knowledge about the dispute resolution process, which you clearly have acknowledged. In any case good luck with your dispute. I hope it can be resolved. If you need help in understanding the dispute resolution process I suggest you consider requesting an advocate from the AMA help you understand it better; there are many competent advocates that can help you prepare your case or just give you some pointers about what it entails.— © Alex756 02:21, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let it be known to all that I do not appreciate these kinds of remarks, which are purely derogatory and not at all usefull or productive. Kevin Baas 21:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Alex756 (now archived)): The impression was from the statement "I am requesting arbitration". See Kevin Baas's talk page for more of my response to this comment.

Two and zero do not make four, two and two makes four. Two simply makes two. You have not demonstrated obstinance. See Minimum message length.

I am surprised that I got a response, esp. one so long. I was just making a comment, giving you some feedback. I was expecting at most something like "okay." in response. Instead I got a response that was not at all receptive, more than twice as long as my comment, and very derogatory. I have no desire to engage in such talk. Kevin Baas 21:19, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the explanation, Kevin. Perhaps you could withdraw your request for arbitration, given your realisation above that it's too early to take that step?

Thanks. :) Martin (wearing his "arbitrator" cap)

Done. Sorry for the delay. I thought this was done by the arbitrators or some established party following some established policy. Kevin Baas 16:59, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(arbitrator's hat) It can be, but if you made a mistake by submitting it in the first place, then it's easiest if you simply withdraws the request, rather than having it formally rejected.

Thanks for your help. Martin 23:46, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

adminship issue

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship our "friend" zero00000 is on line for becoming an editor.

its funny, i called in charles matthews (which i how i assume you got turned on to the disccussion on permutation). And charles disagrees with my opposition to zero00000's adminship. i think you have the same feeling as i do. even if not. your vote on the page above is appreciated. Hfastedge 07:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Hello. You requested mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Do you have any prefernece as to mediator? There is a list of current mediators at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. I'm sorry for any delay in responding to your request. Regards -- sannse (talk) 15:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Preference for mediation between me and charles: This is a user dispute, not an article dispute, thus specialized knowledge is irrelevant. I want someone who will judge the situation on the basis of behavior, for this is the issue. I am, as is Charles, against Ed Poor as mediator. I would prefer Angela. If that is not possible, I would prefer a female mediator. I generally find females more apt at understanding and dealing with interpersonal conflicts. Kevin Baas 18:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Is your preference the same for your dispute with User:Dwindrim? Would you prefer the same mediator for both discussions? -- sannse (talk) 18:48, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see that he prefers Angela. That is okay with me. (tangential:) I've been researching Stevertigo. I don't understand what Charles would have against her, and personally I would be happy with her as mediator. So I guess these cancel out? (Or does a negative vote supercede a positive vote?) Charles, can you answer this? It helps to know your mediators, and I would like to here what you have to say in this regard. Kevin Baas 19:04, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A negative vote would generally over-rule a positive vote. It's important that participants are happy with the choice of mediator. After all, mediation is voluntary so no one can be forced to discuss things with a mediator they are unhappy with. The reasons for not choosing a particular mediator are unimportant really - it might just be a feeling or a minor past interaction. Stevertigo is male actually - so perhaps would not be your first choice anyway. I will get back to you shortly on the next stage -- sannse (talk) 19:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems there is general agreement on Angela as a possible mediator. I will talk to her and hopefully she will contact you shortly. -- sannse (talk) 20:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've been assigned as the mediator between you, Charles and Denni. Do you have any preference as to how the mediation takes place? I would prefer it be done by email, but you also have the option of using a page on Wikipedia, a page on meta:, the mediation boards or the #mediation.wikipedia IRC channel. The request for mediation has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 6. Before the mediation starts, please can you let me know that you agree to abide by the conditions laid out in Wikipedia:Confidentiality during mediation. Thanks. Angela . 01:08, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

By email is fine. Just to forewarn: I have a homemade spam filter w/counter-spam, so it might get bounced with an email saying stop spamming if it has anything like the words "click here" on it. Don't be offended or put off in the unlikely case that this happens. Kevin Baas 17:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I have read the confidentiality agreement and I consent to it. Kevin Baas 18:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have sent you an email regarding your aims for the mediation. Angela . 18:43, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

"All People Dislike About the US"

If you are going to make a broad assertion that Bush personifies all people dislike about the U.S., you should really say what those things are. It would also help to give some citation for the assertion and particulars. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

RE: broad assertion I didn't make this assertion. I simply don't see legitimate reason for its removal. It's an accurate statement. Read the foreign news. Opposition to Bush outside the U.S. in industrialized countries is pretty strong and consistent. I agree that the statement would benefit from elaboration, and there is much to elaborate on, many sources to cite, etc. However, I do not think that, lacking this elaboration, the statement should be removed. It is still factually correct, interesting, and important. Kevin Baas 22:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC) (copied) Kevin Baas 17:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the statement, IIRC, I moved it to talk for elaboration. Someone else tried to remove it. My complaint isn't whether it's true or not, it's just too general. If I were to say, "Schroeder personifies all Americans don't like about Germany," wouldn't you want to know: "such as"? I can guess that Bush feeds certain concepts about Americans: cowboys, arrogrant, trigger-happy, eats big pieces of fire roasted cows, etc. (actually I do all those things before breakfast) but an encyclopedia is not supposed to leave it to the reader's imagination, IMO. BTW, no problem about putting this on my User Page--I assumed it was accidental. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 21:08, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Learning project

Kevin, I just saw that I have not yet harrassed you with this project of mine. Since you are into computers maybe you could help? It is about learning, mainly vocabulary, and described and discussed on my user page. Please let me know there what you think about it. Get-back-world-respect 01:48, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

International law discussion in George W. Bush article

Hello, I just wrote an explanation of why treaties are subject to the U.S. Constitution under U.S. law, not equal to it. I think it resolves the point pretty well, but let me know if you have any further questions. --Postdlf 21:27 12 June 2004 (UTC)

The Case

From what I make of the case, the fact is that Newdow is seeking unnecessary publicity. If Newman was so interested in Athesim, he should call for the entire removal of God in the Constitution as well as "God save America" and also call for the removal of American national holidays such as Christmas and Thanksgiving.

Secularism means that a State does not have official religion, but it does not mean that it does not believe in GOD. A secular state means that the state may believe in God, but can also refer to it in different forms. Anyways, most countries are soverign nation and a ruling in one country does not mean that is should have a precedance in another country. It cannot be argued that just because someone appealed to a Supreme Court, the same applies to our (not necessarily mine) country too. Also, not everyone will suscribe to the fact that religious issues should overrule sports articles. Nichalp 20:26, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

(copied from nichalp by Kevin baas:)

I don't see anything in the current event spot to suggest that Newman was interested in atheism. The word "god" is not used even once in the Constitution, nor is their any implicit reference to anything of a religious character, except for in the bill of rights ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof."). If god was mentioned in the constitution, the constitution would invalidate itself, being it, then, a law respecting an establishement of religion. I've never heard the expression "God save America" before. Christmas is not an American national holiday. Thanksgiving is not a religious celebration.

A secular government is where religious institutions are completely separated from state institutions; i.e. neither has any power to affect, interfere with, or in any way "be in" the other's business. The first and most commonly used meaning of the word secular is "Worldy rather than spiritual." A state cannot believe in god, regardless of whether or not it is secular. A state is an abstract idea. In a perfectly secular government, the offficers of government would not let religion influence their decisions. If religion influenced their decision such that they would not have decided that way had it not, then the result of that decision, de facto, respects an establishment of religion. In effect, when a politician in a so-called secular government is playing the role of statesman, they should not be religious. Kevin Baas 00:09, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

"From what I make of the case, the fact is" is a contradiction in terms. of it is your 'making of the case', then ipso facto it is not a 'fact'. A fact is something that is indisputable and is directly evidenced. I am not aware of any attempts to get publicity by Newdow, nor of any resource suggestive of this. Kevin Baas 00:18, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

And regarding "subscribing to". Subscription is besides the point. People subscribe to all sorts of f*cked up things. Kevin Baas 00:21, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court ruling hasn't touched the issue of secular vs God. The US Supreme Court has side stepped the extremely thorny issue for the moment by decreeing, and I quote from Wikipedia: On June 14, 2004, without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit in a unanimous ruling, asserting that Newdow, as a noncustodial parent, had no standing to act as his daughter's legal representative. Until the case on the Pledge of Allegiance is resolved, it would be wise that it shouldn't be on the front page "In the News". If the Supreme Court ruled on the Pledge of Allegiance, that would be the issue to be placed on top, not the June 14 ruling. Nichalp 20:21, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I responded to Talk:Main page.

Ok you got me there on the Fact part. If Christmas is not a holiday, celebrating the birth of Christ, then what is it? Thanksgiving was originally started of by giving Thanks to God after a harvest. I used "God Save America" figuratively. (PS Unless your {I'm not referring to u Kevin} an atheist who do you give thanks to anyways). Secularism means that the state is detached from religion - True, I agree with that point, but its not always the case. Then isn't the US national motto - "In God we trust" something of a paradox? Nichalp 20:21, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I did not say that christmas was not a religious holiday (and btw, christ was not born on christmas - that was just rhetoric used to convert the pagans. christmas was originally a pagan holiday celebrating the equinox.), I said that christmas is not a national holiday. Some people celebrate hannakuh or other such things during this holiday. That why tehre are such expressions as "seasons greetings" and "happy holidays". Thanksgiving was originally started by giving thanks to the indians for all that they had given to the settlers ("pilgrims"), and all of their support. You give thanks to the indians.

secularism. The question is not whether it is always the case or not. The question is the clinical and legal meaning of the term. Re: "in god we trust": I would say that "paradox" is the wrong word. Perhaps a more nuetral and objective statement would be: "Under the circumstances, it is inappropriate." Thou I would not consider it a national motto simply because it's written on coins. (which is pretty random, come to think about it: what does religion have to do with barter, especially in a so-called "free-market" economy? Might as well put an advertisement on it, like "dallas cowboys" - this would be just as relevant. (speaking of religion and sports!) )

BTW, I'm responding on my talk now simply because i'm always kind of confused about how to carry out a single dialogue over a dual-medium (two talk pages). What is your experience with this? Kevin Baas 20:56, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

Grad

Sorry about the common name on my picture. I was trying to upload my graduation pictures for my pictures page and I didn't realize there was already pictures under that name for gradients. Apologies! TheCustomOfLife 21:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From bod

I can't tell you how many bits of text I typed out and then deleted with the GWB thing. To be honest I have a very strong POV on GWB ;o) But I try hard not to let it get in the way. --bodnotbod 22:26, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Imminent threat

I noticed you're interested in the topic imminent threat - it's an article now, and currently a stub. Feel free to contribute to it or watch it. Kevin Baas 16:16, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Good idea. You may want to expand a bit on who the creator of the term is you are referring to. I currently perceive an imminent threat of "childlovers"' links (List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, NAMBLA, Wikipedia talk:External links) and abuse of requests of comments on user conduct at wikipedia. Could you check that please? Get-back-world-respect 22:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Is there any reason for your attack on me in the edit summaries in GWB? I find your revert completely unacceptable and unreasonable. Neutrality 04:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As my intention was not to offend, I apologized for my imprudent tone on the edit summary. I reiterate this apology. I reverted because the disputed paragraph is being dealt with democratically on the talk page, and to have someone unilaterally bypass that process frustrates the cooperative efforts of those involved in the discussion. It was nothing personal - I actually liked your edits. I would like to see them suggested as an alternative on the talk page. I brought it to the talk page because it has proved unstable. Kevin Baas 09:21, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC) (copied from User_talk:Neutrality)

George W. Bush protection

Well the sooner you and User:VeryVerily sort out your differences on Talk:George W. Bush, the sooner the page protection can be removed: protecting pages damages them because new fresh information can't be added. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image license

Hi Kevin,

I assume that your image Image:Grad1.jpg is GFDL, is this correct? Please clarify this on the image description page, or drop me a note.

Best regards, --zeno 10:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response.

I drew this myself, actually, and I hereby release all rights. I don't know what statement i'm supposed to make on the page, though. Kevin Baas | talk 00:16, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

You can choose the corresponding copyright tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

Bye, --zeno 02:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My favorite is cc-sa (share and share alike) - it seems espicially appropriate to combinations or enhancements of public domain images. Note that no credit follows, however, but if anyone uses or derives an image from it they have to share it likewise. Leonard G. 01:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry Re; Ollie North

The "perjury" you restored was originally put in by me, then edited out by others. I did not rv, as I am unsure of the exact criminal charge which he was convicted of, had overturned on appeal and was later pardoned for. The exact charge may not have been "perjury" Rex071404 16:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PNAC

Thanks for your note. I'm sorry, but given your history I am not presently assuming good faith but rather that you have an agenda and seek to manipulate Wikipedia policies to further it. I think you know how your version of the intro reads and the impression it gives as opposed to the non-charged version which TDC and I have been restoring. Hegemony is a fairly loaded word, and as for "strongly interventionist policies", the section under Content explains the views in proper detail (although with an anti-PNAC bias which could be corrected). Neoconservative is a disputed term, as many reject the label (note this in Neoconservatism (United States)). Perhaps striking the word conservative entirely from the intro would be suitable, however. In any case, it is not proper to use the 'pedia as a forum for shocking the reader with heavy rhetoric. V V 02:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:VeryVerily) Let me assure you that I understand and take into account the falliblity of my own mind as much as that of others. Respecting this, I develop and implement strategies to avoid seeping my own bias into material, and likewise to avoid any seeping bias from social manifestations. This is why I prefer academic terminology - because it is more stable; because it is less affected by the sentimental circumstances of the times - it is balanced out by every event throughout history which resides under it's scope, and has a body of knowledge associated with such events,and interpertations, from past and present, of those events. This is how we "learn from history" - because this allows us to stand back from the present emotionally-situated (and thus distorted) context, and see it in a fuller surrounding and causual chain, provided that we can rely upon the general persistence of human psychology and consequent behavior throughout history. Again, in order to overcome the inevitable bias of out present condition, we must stand back from our emotions, and have faith in the legitimacy of recorded history and knowledge. This is why I insist on using academic terminology. I feel that the separating of current events from the continuity of history is a dangerous rejection of the prudence that the passing down of knowledge provides. In sun, academic terminolgy is, because of such accumulated dialogue, more reliable and objective than our imagination. This is again, why I insist that we accept the prudence of generations with good faith, regardless of local sentiment. Kevin Baas | talk 04:43, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

New Bush vote now under way - please vote

Here [1]

Rex071404 20:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I find your interpretation of events on GWB both creative and inventive, but not factual. There was a reason to protect it in the short term, and the basis for that protection was apparently a dispute over something silly; which will probably continue to be the case in the near future. Revert wars destroy a page history, and cause bad wikikarma - sysops are obligated to step in and stop the destruction, not to mediate and sort things out. For you to characterise an opposing POV as a non-opinion by saying 'there is no dispute' is rather suspect. But I appreciate the work you are doing to sort out disputes, and though I neither have the time nor the interest to read through all the talk, it seems clear that you're at least trying to be a moderator, and that is commendable. Keep in mind that many disputes arise due to poor wording; use your skills to better write what needs to be said - I like some of what you wrote there, but keep general discussions to general contexts, and leave the talk pages to specifics. -S V 05:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Stevertigo) I think you misinterpreted me. What I meant was that consensus had been reached on article content, and that that consensus is not in dispute. Clearly, the article page is not staying on consensus. But that does not necessarily constitute a dispute, for example, it may constitute vandalism. A dispute involves a verbal engagement wherein people exchange information with the goal of reaching a resolution that takes all of the information into account. This is not happening. The article content in question is not being disputed, or even discussed, on the article talk page. I do not mean to say that there are not people who would have the article a different way. There are probably quite a few such people who have quibbles with the content, differences in opinion and the like, but most of them tolerate their differences out of respect for other users and the rational understanding that they can't get everything that they want. These differences do not necessarily constitute a dispute of article content. Since it is clear what the article content in question is ultimately going to be, and nobody is throwing this into question, i.e. there is nothing of questionable legitimacy in the article, there is no article content dispute. However, I do understand that VV tacitly, though not verbally, disputes the content of the page, and that therefore there is a dispute of some sort. But this is his own personal dispute, and does not exist on the talk page, nor do the other users recognize anything disputable about what has been agreed upon, or the process which has led to that agreement. I.e. there is nothing in the article of questionable legitimacy. There is a dispute, but the legitimacy of the page's content is not in question. Consensus on the article content has been legitimately established. This is what I meant. But regardless, my purpose was simply to inform you of the atypical nature of the events surrounding the article (hence "FWIW"), which your response indicates that you are aware of. So, 'nough said. BTW, thanks for your feedback. :) Kevin Baas | talk 22:45, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

disenfranchisement

On an ex-post facto basis, this was done in USA only one time to a class of people officially: Ex-Confederate officers were barred from voting after Civil War.

Felons who lose the vote have that done to them as an individual sanction, not as a class.

Black who were hampered in their voting in 20's-60's South, did not get "disenfranchised". Rather, their rights were infringed upon, not voided.

One can argue for their having been "virtually" disenfranchised, but though pernicious, that is not quite the same thing.

Using the word "disenfranchisement" is simply too misleading to describe a Palm Beach AK (Alter Kocker), Nebbish, Nyudnick or Schnook, who with the Meshugass of the Butterfly Ballot, couldn't vote right. The people who put that ballot together were all Kerry supporters. They did not have intent to mess up Kerry or cheat the voters. Disenfranchisement requires intent. So the Dems were ready to Plotz when they found out they lost the FL and USA election in Palm Beach dues to too many accidental votes for Pat Buchannon? Oh well, next time don't put a Shmendrik in charge of ballot design. Those supposed lost votes were not intended and they are not Bush's fault. There was no "disenfranchisement". It's the wrong word. Rex071404 05:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see the definition of disenfranchised (disfranchised). [2] Kevin Baas | talk 20:33, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

The operative word there is "deprive" see definition for that [3] and of course, "deprive" depends on the word "take" - see link here. [4] No voters in FL in 2000 had anything "taken" from them by anyone. But if there is blame to go around, it rests on the shoulders of the Democrat voting boards in Palm Beach and Miami - they created the SNAFU with crappy voting infrastructure Rex071404 23:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the operative word is "deprive". However, I do not agree that "take" is the operative word in the definition of "deprive" and certainly not the past tense "deprived" or the infinitive form "to be deprived of". (You'll notice, BTW, that there are actually multiple definitions of the word.) To be deprived of something means "To not have it any more" or "To be dispossessed of it." Certainly, they did not have a vote. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives one vote to every person. Each person (not legally disenfranchised) has a legal right to vote. Some people were dispossessed of that right. The means by which they were is completely and utterly irrelevant. The fact is that they did not have a vote; they did not have a part of a franchise that they had a legal right to: the franchise of the U.S. Governemnt - a government founded on the Lockean principle that "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed". "dis-" [5] is a prefix from latin which "denotes separation, a parting from, as in distribute, disconnect;" Put the two together, and you get a separation or parting from having a vote that you have a legal right to. The definition is that simple.

But there is something here that I cannot comprehend: Why are you arguing on the side of injustice? Do you understand how that comes off? Do you understand that the jurisprudence of that is, at best, questionable. Would you rather err on the side of injustice than on the side of justice? Or do you really believe that it is okay - nay, prudent - for a good citizen to be dispossessed of a political voice? I am beginning to form the impression that you are not only okay with this, but rather pleased by it. Forgive me if I am getting the wrong impression, but I can find no other motive to explain why you would be so adamnantly defending the unethical side of such a non-partisian issue. Or perhaps you are just ill-informed? Check out the talk page on the 2000 election. Or, if you want, you can do your own research on the central voting file and the issues surrounding the florida election, using key words of your choice, on google. Admittedly, I am getting upset. I value the rights of others very highly, and take it somewhat personally when people disrepect, or appear to disrespect those rights. (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.) You shouldn't be all that surprised by this. I am sure that you value your rights, so you are not altogether unfamiliar with valuing rights. Rest assured that I would protect your rights as I would anyone else's. Ya, it's personal to me, but it is not partisan. And I will not disrespect any contributor or the policies, guidelines, or ettiquete of wikipedia, including NPOV, civility, and respect for consensus, for the same reason that I will not tolerate the dispossesion of a person's right.

I'm sorry if my tone is overly harsh. I want to make it perfectly clear where I stand on this issue and why. At the same time, I hope that others will forgive me for being so reticent. Kevin Baas | talk 01:21, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

FL 2000 - Re: "disenfranchisement"

I am not "arguing on the side of injustice". Rather, what I am trying to do is add a sense of proportion to the terminology being used to describe Bush and FL 2000.

The term "disenfranchise" plain and simply has a more profound meaning that merely missing a vote for one reason or another. Rather, a "disenfranchised" person is barred from all votes, now and in the future.

It is simply too extreme of a charge to lay upon Bush and/or the Florida 2000 fiasco to say that people were "disenfranchised". Think of it this way, if you are shot by a rifle in battle and are not killed, you are wounded. However, if the wound is fatal, you are killed.

In this analogy, "disenfranchisement" is equivalent to death. But what happened to complaining voters in FL was a wound - they are still free to vote again. Also, if they don't like Palm Beach butterfly ballots, they are free to move to whatever location they decide has a ballot they like. On the other had, a truly "disenfranchised" person is not allowed to vote regardless of the ballot type or where they live.

It is sloppy English, plain and simple to use that word ("disenfranchise") to describe the SNAFUs of FL 2000.

Also, such word usage to describe SNAFUs, flies in the face of the Law_of_large_numbers by suggesting that an election with millions of votes being cast, must not have any votes that are miscounted or voided in error.

And, unless you are claiming bad intent by a controlling party the Law_of_large_numbers will see to it that such errors and miscounts are evenly distributed among both major party candidates in a close election.

What this means is that both Gore and Bush voters missed out at roughly the same rate. This also means that Gore and Bush had a roughly equal number of miscounts and non-counts.

At the same time, this still does not constitute "disenfranchisement". Rather, what you must keep in mind is that even a precise process will, on a large scale have some error. And this is what happened in FL 2000.

Whether you believe Bush won or Gore won there is moot so far as the vote count error rate goes. That election was so-close, that for all intents and purposes all of the potentially different types of recounts would have still fallen within the margin of vote count error.

That being the case, the SCOTUS was perfectly just in making FL stop counting and stick with the rules which were in place on the date of the election. Those rules did not allow for Gore to keep counting again and again in hand picked areas. Regardless of what Gore was hoping for, it is true that GWB did win the tally (albeit, very closely) that was added up based on the rules which were in place on the day of the election. And in fact FL 2000 proves the value of rules of that type.

Prior to invoking a large election, the tally method must be agreed upon in advance. If not, for any election which is so close that it the tally falls within the margin of error, the outcome will change if you change the tally method.

This is why Gore voters still feel cheated - they assert that under some tally methods, Gore would have won. The only problem is that the tally methods they point to were not provided for under FL law at the time, but were instead being sought by Gore in court after the fact.

If such an approach is allowed, well then Bush could then come right back and say "use my method" while pointing to one that put him ahead. And back and forth we go.

It is this ex-post-facto re-jiggering of the tally methods that SCOTUS put a stop to, not any actually vote counting. The votes had already been counted.

On the other hand, what Gore was asking for was not provided for under FL law and in any case, SCOTUS agreed that in giving the green-light to Gore's extra-legislative request for a special tally, the FL Supremes violated the principle of equal protection.

You see, once the tally began being re-done under a statutorily unfounded court-ordered system, the only trumping law left is US Constitution.

The simple fact is that when judges re-write law from the bench, the only remaining defense is an appeal to constitutional principles, which is what Bush did. By the way, there were two rulings by SCOTUS in this case, one was 5-4, but the other was 7-2.

Anyway, in regards to all the vote SNAFUs issues themselves: errors on felon voter list, chads in Miami, Butterfly Ballot in Pam Beach, Military votes being DQ'd because military mail lacked a postmark, the news media falsely declaring the polls closed one hour before the FL panhandle (which is on Central Time) was actually done voting, were not under the control of any single person(s) or group(s), so there is certainly no way the say that all those who mis-voted or missed voting were "disenfranchised".

Certain voters and votes were adversely affected, yes. But this does not rise to the level of "disenfranchisement". The usage of that term is wrong and leaves a false impression.

Remember: precise thought requires precise word usage.

It is through the loopholes of imprecise language that race-baiters have long slipped on this issue. There are numbers of people out there who still try to suggest that there was a master plan (tied to Bush somehow of course) to "disenfranchise" black FL voters and thereby give Bush the win. Such racial based demagoguery is disgusting and offensive on the face. And in order to put a stop to it, people who write on the subject must give the facts in a rigorously clear manner.

I am trying to do that and it's why I oppose the use of the term "disenfranchised". It's not true. It misleads. And in the hands of certain race-baiters (such as Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.) it fans the flames of racial discord.

Rex071404 04:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alright rex, it doesn't look like this conversation is going anywhere. I have said nothing that can be construed to be the least bit controversial, and I stand by it unperturbed. I have done my best to communicate with you. There is nothing more that can be said. The facts are as they are. So be it. Kevin Baas | talk 06:32, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your posting on my Talk page b/c of the RfAr. I'll put responses there. V V 22:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Email

Thanks for letting me know. Angela . 22:35, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Who is User:chocolateboy

And why does he remove my edits concerning the delterious effects of Phosphoric acid - no matter how toned down? Does he work for Coke? He won't even allow a section "Controversies concerning the Coca Cola product". You seem to know what's going on better than I do, can you explain? Thanks - I'll watch here. Leonard G. 23:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how he's employed. There was a discussion earlier that i involved myself in a little, where someone wanted to charachterize coke as a junk food. I don't know why he wants to defend it so, i really don't see why it matters. It's just a soft-drink, we don't need an hyper-academic discussion on it for an encyclopedia article, which he seems to be purporting - i think there is more overall benefit in putting useful information in the article. Then again, if there was an academic discussion on it in the article, I'm sure it would go into the controversies. But he argues under the pretext of having a "quality encyclopedia article" - while seeming to take a very conservative view of what that means. He doesn't seem to realize the great disparity between a history book written by a government and a history book written by it's people, and that, given the medium, we should expect a similiar disparity in the wikipedia from the old encyclopedias written by elites under the auspicies of the prevaling institutions. I don't think he recognizes the natural bias that results from the differences in the channels through which the information flows before aggregating into a document. I'm not sure it would be at all effective to discuss such matters with him. Perhaps you should try to codify your reasoning so that it appears more legitimate to his hermuenetic. Woa, I hope that last part wasn't too wordy. I hope this helps you two to work together more effectively. Kevin Baas | talk 23:53, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

LG: I doubt that it will, so I will put in the most inoccious bit of fluff to see what happens. Leonard G. 01:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Well, The Devil made me do it! - I waved the red flag again, but this time put a challenge for him to defend any deletion in a comment, specificically addressed to him. How are these things resolved? (I am new to WP, but think that I have made some significant contributions.) Leonard G. 02:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the talk page for the article primarily. Discuss discuss discuss. If you really want to make a big deal about a dispute, then you'd got thru the "dispute resolution process" which you can check out on the community portal (on the left menu bar). It's very difficult to elevate through the steps. But I don't think this calls for such measures. It helps to have multiple people discussing things on the talk page of the article. At most, you can do an article request for comment. It is a good idea to, as you did, solicit him to discuss it and defend his logic. I usually make specific arguments, counterarguments, address each individual argument and make sure mine are addressed individually. etc. But yeah, primarily discuss. Don't sound aggressive. Kevin Baas | talk 03:33, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

SBVT

Please see what's going on over here I am trying to be collegial as on GWB, but user Wolfman is trying to make a fight. Rex071404 02:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfC on Axis of evil / Asses of evil filed

See RfC here regarding this:

Axis of evil Should "AssesOfEvil.png" (see image on this page) be included in the article under guise of "parody"?

File:AssesOfEvil.png

Your comments are appreciated.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 05:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)