Talk:John Kerry/Archive 11

message: :Neutrality, I am asking you nicely again: Please dialog 1st before immediately attacking my edits. About these Patrols, you have not supplied enough information to support your insertion of the word "aggressively". Without more support for that word, it is plainly POV - merely your opinion. Please desist from attacking my edits. This is the same pattern you have engaged in for weeks and I find it very troubling Rex071404 00:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never attacked your edits. You have only attacked mine. Neutrality 00:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made changes which I have explained. You quickly reverted and changed my edits without discussion. By not dialoging, you are not making any efforts towards building consensus. I object to your behavior. Rex071404 00:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality just reversed me again on the same section - this time after only three minutes 

message: I am at a loss. I simply cannot understand why Neutrality will not dialog befor attacking my edits. Rex071404 00:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality just reversed me again - this time in only 2 minutes 

message: Rather than dialoging, Neutrality simply asserts the cirmcumferential statement of "The mission of the boats was to DRAW ENEMY FIRE -- it's quite clear". Indeed, our Wiki states that "the mission" (singular - even though each patrol is a separate mission) was to "draw enemy fire". However, lest he forget, it was me who put that phrase in the replace the patently misleading term "smoke out". Undoubtedly, there was no official mission goal of "smoking out". In fact, there is not even any proof that "draw enemy fire" was indeed the main objective of all the missions. That phrase was left in there by me earlier, simply because the "smoke out" language was so sloppy. Also, even if "draw enemy fire" was the objective of all the patrols (and there is no source cited which shows that), patrols that "draw fire" and not necessarily "aggressive". Aggressive refers to the response, not the movement. If it were the movement, it needs to say "sail in an aggressive manner". Military troops have carefully constructed orders, Chief among them, is how forcefully they can respond when challenged by the enemy, Without a verifies source that the Patrol craft were under orders to deal "aggressively" with suspected enemy units, it is simply bald-faced speculation to insert that word. I strenuously object to Neutrality leaping to insert his own personal suppositions about this. Rex071404 01:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neutrality changed my same edit three times. Does that count? BTW: I stopped defending it at two times Rex071404 01:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everything will go smoothly if you can relax, and not expect anything in particular from Neutrality. The key thing is that we discuss the issues, not the personalities. Sam [Spade] 06:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To show that I'm not totally biased against Rex personally, I'll side with him against blankfaze on the spelling question.  The shortened form dialog is acceptable, indeed more common, in American English, even though Commonwealth English would recognize only dialogue.  See American and British English differences#... -gue / -g.  JamesMLane 06:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The odd sound of it is not the spelling of dialog but its use as a verb. VV 20:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition: "Usage Note: In recent years the verb sense of dialogue meaning 'to engage in an informal exchange of views' has been revived, particularly with reference to communication between parties in institutional or political contexts. Although Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Carlyle used it, this usage today is widely regarded as jargon or bureaucratese. Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence Critics have charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with representatives of the community before hiring the new officers." neatnate 21:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text:  Can we not spend item over analyzing the comments on the talk page please? We are having enough difficulty agreeing on text that can go onto the subject page. There is no need to point out what is arguably minutiae regarding a persons commentary skills on this page. If you don't like my subject matter edits, that's one thing, but getting hung up on this page is in my view conter-productive. Rex071404 19:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality just reversed me for the 3rd time tonight over single word - this time in six minutes 

message: was that actually what this swift boat was doing? Because that’s not aggressive, that’s... not far from suicidal! Excuse me please if its already been addressed, but is there consensus that the entire purpose of this particular mission was to get shot at? Because if that’s the case, I'm a whole lot more impressed w John Kerry and his "purple hearts" than I ever was before. Incidentally, did everybody see http://www.jibjab.com/ yet? Excuse the pop ups, but that’s one funny political video. Sam [Spade] 06:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence in dispute refers to the mandate of the entire SEALORD mission which was much more encompassing than the sub-set of the total SEALORD patrols that Kerry himself was on. Also, there is not consensus that the purpose of Kerry's patrols was to "get shot at". Indeed, I have explained this at length above and have just now clarified the text which desribes the broad mission of the Swift boat patrols. FYI: There was just a History Channel episode on this and it was interesting - even mentioned Kerry and showed his photos, but from that and the other things I've read, there was much more to the total patrol duties of Swift boats than only "aggresively" patrolling to "get shot" at. And once again, if you are going to suggest that patrolling "agressively" was in fact Kerry's orders - we'll need some proof of that. Until then, generic blather must suffice. We must not assert particular and narrow specifics without more proof. Rex071404 07:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing enemy fire 

message: As further evidence that I am trying to work things out collegially, I cite my Request for Mediation which I asked for today and which is titled "Rex071404 requests Mediation with Neutrality". My apologies, but I do not know how to find the specific URL for this section and cannot link to it. It can be found on the request for mediation page.  Rex071404 16:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex's request is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Rex071404 requests Mediation with Neutrality.  There was a prior request for mediation iniitated by Gamaliel -- see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 9#User:Rex071404 and User:Gamaliel.  Rex's response included the statement, "I object to 'mediation' as being not ripe at this point."  In the absence of consent to mediation from both sides, the Mediation Committee took no action.  The current Request for Mediation by Rex does not change my support for the pending Request for Arbitration.  In particular, I still favor a temporary injunction. JamesMLane 17:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  JamesMLane, please be advised that I invite you to dialog with me, at length if you need to, on my personal Talk Page. I am open to and am interested in addressing and satisfying your concerns so to as to enable you to desist from pressing for my expulsion from the pool of editors on the John Kerry page. Rex071404 19:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Neutrality / John Kerry 

message: Please, could someone add a mention of the work Kerry and McCain did regarding Vietman MIAs? Kingturtle 00:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info 

message: Pro-Bush website opinion on this article
Sam [Spade] 07:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This was cited on the mailing list too, and a few other places.  This may mean no more than our article is complete, so people from either side could cite favorable facts from it. VV 07:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I take it as a compliment to the wiki in general, and this article in particular. Sam [Spade] 16:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important link 

message: According to Boston Globe , former Kerry crewmate Steve Gardner does not support him. I have read this in many other places on the Internet as well. I am changing the article to reflect this. Rex071404 14:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all of Kerry's crewmates support him 

message: Re: John Kerry 
The "duplicates" of which you speak, are TOC name duplicates only. They actually are differing sections. The second set, is the "criticism" section which keeps merging with the bio section due to edits of others who keep reverting me and removing the "line"  which separates sections
Rex071404 21:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so. I'm not going to wade through 50 edits to find out who did what.  Fix it before you hit save and I won't revert. Use the "show preview" button.  You should employ it more often in any case; maybe it will stop you from making a dozen edits at a time. Gamaliel 22:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] please read this 08.12.04 

message: I've been trying to stay out of the Kerry dispute in the last few days. I prefer to help resolve disputes, rather than being involved in them. And you seemed to have cut back on the most egregarious POV material, which was why I became involved here at all. I've been pretty close to taking the article and the arbitration request off my watchlist and being done with it. But I see that you're still making edits which are completely not neutral.   
 
With your last edit, you deleted a fact simply because it favours Kerry, on the accusation that it was "POV". It was simply a two line description of a fact, although if you consider that it could have been worded more neutrally, go ahead. However, there was no grounds to remove it. If you feel that it isn't relevant (which you didn't state), then make a case for that. Otherwise, don't remove material just because it doesn't support your case. In addition, you might want to watch your own reverts, as you've violated the three-revert rule yourself more than once. Ambi 02:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what can be said to be POV about that. He's a Senator. He's a Republican. He's a conservative. He's said he'll vote for Kerry. What exactly about that do you dispute? Ambi 02:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  1st read the links - he did not say "vote". 2nd, please put these comments on the Kerry talk page. 3rd, it's a cross party endorsement being highlighted during a close race - that makes it POV. 4th, I am copying this to Kerry talk Rex071404 02:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) Well, support then. 2) Fine. 3) That does not make something POV. It's a statement of fact. Zell Miller has endorsed Bush, and if that isn't in the Bush article, then it probably should be. And same in this case. Ambi 06:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Senator's endorsement