Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 22

message: Mongo just rv'ed yesterday's work on the first paragraph. Numerous editors contributed to it, Mong apparently didn't like it, so he reverted. MONGO - will you please either edit constructively or not at all? You are not the arbiter of what is and isn't 'correct'. If your revert attempt fails, will you arbitrarily return the TotallyDisputed tag, because you're unhappy? -- RyanFreisling @ 15:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to an earlier edition...that's all. It was my opinion that the current edition was POV. I stated when I removed the NPOV tag that I agreed that the edition at that time was the most neutral version yet. The introduction then changed and I decided to revert it. I have just as much right to edit this page as you do. That we are disagreeing is the reason we have a discussion page...eh.--MONGO 00:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right to edit isn't what I took issue with. I will welcome the first non-destructive edit that you make with great fanfare. Until then, you haven't demonstrated any actual editing at all. Reverting is easy. Thinking is hard. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoted from an earlier statement you made: 
"By the way, I am not an editor of noteworthy major contributions to this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that you take your own advice - don't look to pick a fight. What few contributions I have made have been contributions to clarity, readability and POV of passages I found wanting, not deletion of facts I found inconvenient. Which is what I described your actions as - deletion based on personal POV. I did not mean to pick a fight with you, but is that what I have achieved? If so, I apologize. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Apology accepted.--MONGO 06:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I have edited fairly and have added neutral content and have been doing so for months now...don't pick a fight here for no reason.--MONGO 05:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I have reverted the second paragraph to a version that has stood for some time. Specifically, the paragraph is from the version of 03:39, 15 Apr 2005 by User:RyanFreisling. The edit and revert wars are getting a bit old. This paragraph is an introduction and this version conveys the necessary information. Details should be included in other section and articles. Carbonite | Talk 15:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The is some merit in mentioning that the popular vote was not gained but that the election was won nonetheless. Many users come from countries where the president is elected by popular vote only, and such informations might not come intuitively to their minds. The very same piece of information is extremely valuable on the article about Abraham Lincoln, for instance. Rama 15:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We must mention this information in the article, for all the reasons you mentioned and more. However, the introduction is not the place for details. The introduction has been refined by dozens of editors over many months (since the 2004 election). It's finally reached what I consider to be a "stable" state. There really should be strong consensus for any changes to the introduction since edit and revert wars inevitably ensue. Carbonite | Talk 15:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely agreed. This article is probably a good example of those which would be better off with preliminary discussions on the talk page. Rama 20:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - or at least, parallel discussions... -- RyanFreisling @ 20:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MONGO's old tricks

message: Is his skin supposed to be green, or is Firefox (Linux ver) rendering it improperly?  It's very weird, I see no hint of this on the image's own History page.  --69.234.185.170 06:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HAHAHA holy @#*! you are right!!  I copied the URL in Firefox, and pasted it in Konqueror, and the image showed up just fine.  That's one of the funniest easter eggs (or whatever) I've seen yet. --69.234.185.170 02:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: ...nevermind. In Firefox I was viewing a cached page from this morning.  --69.234.185.170 02:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  his skin is rather green... 

message: :This is currently too short
:Criticisms in the above sections should go here
*Public perception and assessments
::Domestic
::Outside the United States
*Scandals
:*WMDs never found evidence of WMDs never found (Kevin Baastalk: new 05:53, 2005 May 1 (UTC))
:*CBS Memogate (not sure about CBS memogate, unless you mean Military service controversy --kizzle 17:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC))
:*Paying commentators to influence opinion / creating "fake news" films
:*Insider trading allegations (James, is this scandals section for his whole life, or only during presidency? --kizzle 17:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC))
:*Whisper campaign against John McCain--kizzle 17:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
:*Drug/Alcohol abuse--kizzle 17:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
*Criticisms
:*Criticisms of Our President must, of course, be buried a minimum of 12 pages deep-- he is The World's President as well, haven't you heard? Criticizing any or all of his actions, thoughts, or alleged minor misdeeds is objectively pro-terrorist and punishable by extraordinary rendition.
Don't even think it. He's the greatest President(tm) of all time, hands down, bar none, quite probably the greatest world leader (nay human) our flawed planet has ever, could ever produce.
This article reflects these unassailable facts wonderfully.
Remember, the Neutral Point Of View restricts political hate speech (thoughts, acts, or deeds in any way critical of this shining, shimmering demigod or running contrary to the current plans of God's Republican Party)
Electronic voting is safe,
Brodo 22:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Attention - Your National ID Card has been recorded and you will be escorted to a re-education facility.  Your assigned re-education facility is the 3rd Regional Ronald Reagan Memorial NewThink Training Center.  (For your convenience soda machines only accept Ronald Reagan dimes.)  Big Brother is your friend. - RegioSupeVser, Tεxτurε 22:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 3: Criticisms and Scandal (20-30% of the article)

message: I'd just like to say well done JamesMLane on a fair and factual section about Bush's alcohol. I am pretty neutral about Bush - he's good sometimes, human others - and can say from a centrist's opinion this is very well compiled. Great job citing all those references too - makes it harder for anyone to add their political two-cents to the section.
To MONGO and others, please don't go and revert this new edit just because you're unhappy about fact. If you have issues, discuss them, but otherwise just skip over this section when you're reading and go on with your lives. Thanks.
 08:15, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
:The article is found when a yahoo search of George Bush is queried withing 5 links...with the increase in internet traffic and the need for some to research itmes such as this article, it is not okay to continue to allow unencyclopedic opinions by known antiBush sources to pepper this article with their propaganda. There may be a fact that van Wormer and another have this opinion....but based on an medical/therapeutic condition not even recognized by their respective medical fields and have they rendered their opinion outside of the conventional manner in which the opinion or diagnosis is normally reached, which in addition, is discussed without the consent of the "patient" (Bush) which is unethical....ow in the heck can you say that this is fact...it is fact they stated the opinions...but the opinions are worthless in light of my abovementioned reasons and are therefore unencyclopedic.--MONGO 11:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I dug up a few of those references, but most of them were found by other editors.  My edit merely restored a section that had been worked over in considerable detail by many people. JamesMLane 08:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol section 

message: To revert the vandalism. It seemed like a really bad idea to have "George W Bush is a total dick" on a protected version of a page. Sorry if I stepped on any toes doing this. Nohat 18:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I don't think it's protected. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 18:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was when I edited it. Nohat 22:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't.  It was, and is, protected against page moves, but not against editing. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well I didn't check that—I just saw that the "unprotect" tab was active so I figured it was protected. I forgot that the tab is also active if it's just protected against page moves. Nohat 23:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Page-move protection is new in 1.4b4, and doesn't seem to be as widely publicised as maybe it should be.  I've long believed the admin "you're editing a protected page" thing is insufficiently strident. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe there should be a Template:Moveprotect. – ugen64 22:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmm....when I protected it, i thought that it was protected from edits. what happened? Kingturtle 00:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you accidentally check both boxes (which would only protect it from moves)? – ugen64 01:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Something odd happened. I first put the protected notice atop the article. Then I was going to click on "Protect this page" (on the left column), but it said "Remove protection" - so i thought that it had become automated, and I didn't actually go through the process of protecting it. i do suffer from dyslexia, so maybe it didn't really say that - but i swear it did. Kingturtle 01:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I edited a protected page 

message: I've removed the statement that Spain's withdrawal of its troops occurred "following an Islamic terror bombing on a Spanish train".  While the sequence is correct, stating it here implies a causal relationship.  It would also be correct to say that Spain withdrew its troops "following a free and fair election in which the governing party, which had supported Bush's policies, was   turned out of office by the Spanish people".  Given that this article is about Bush and not about Spain, though, I think any of these side excursions into Spanish politics are just clutter. JamesMLane 08:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain in Iraq

message: So are you going to discuss anything or just keep putting sections back that there is opinion here to remove??  They're gone again, reverting without discussion is editing in bad faith so why don't you explain?  --Wgfinley 06:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a deep desire to remove it. I stated previously that the items in which you have edited the drug and alcohol section down to is all the reader needs. The article doesn't need the additional jargon because Bush essentially admits to using both...perhaps not in words, but there is little room to think otherwise. The rest of the garbage is just the attempts by  those opposed to the subject matter an opportunity to utilize this medium to push their point of view....in this manner, the article looks less like an encyclopedic venture and more like a political blog where all everyone does is argue. I think some are angry Bush was reelected, dislike his politics, his actions and other issues about him and his presidency and use this medium as a way to vent this frustration. Furthermore, many of those that wish to continue to support the outlandish innuendos in the article have a definitive bias against the subject matter, which in all liklihood, makes them poor choices for neutral editing in this case. It is interesting that many consider me ultra conservative....but if this was true, I would be POV pushing in places like the John Kerry article or the one on Noam Chomsky or Hillary Clinton...but I don't.--MONGO 06:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ground Control to James 

message: Some recent edit warring seems to have caused the longstanding Van Wormer and Justin Frank paragraphs to be deleted in whole from this article at least twice. Please stop doing this. Arbcom has reacted with severity to people who repeatedly engage in removing relevant information from articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to take issue on the false claim that these paragraphs have not been discussed.  They are both, in their current form, well sourced and encyclopedic, and have been discussed repeatedly.  Please stop removing them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, there have been several others contributors here over the last few days that do not agree that these items are encyclopedic and they have all engaged in discussion here as well. Protecting passages that violate the neutrality or concensus issues of Wikipedia can also result in action by Arbcom. It appears that you are stating that you'll file a complaint if this doesn't stop, which can only be construed as a threat...this is also a violation of the policies of this medium.--MONGO 03:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Fine, leave them in there, counter-point to the source now provided.  --Wgfinley 03:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated wholesale removal of Van Wormer and Justin Frank paragraphs

message: And now someone has gone and deleted the section on Hatfield.  How did this happen?   --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hatfield