Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 7

message: This was already covered--Clarke's claim to be a Republican is used to bolster the concept that he is criticizing "one of his own," thereby strengthening the impact of his charges. Evidence that his loyalties are elsewhere speak to his credibility. If that evidence comes out, the claim must come out. Removing this material on the claim "this is about Bush" is ingenuous, at least. Cecropia 21:46, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I essentially agree with that point. In fact, I'm not sure Clarke's charges should even be in a Bush bio instead of an article about his administration. However, an earlier user said Clarke's claim to be a Republican is relevent to the credibility of the charge, so either the GOP claim should stay with the qualifier, or it should all go. Any consensus on which? Cecropia 22:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bush Administration is a redirect to this article so as long as that is the case, I think the info needs to stay here. Mdchachi 14:29, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John that it is irrelevant to discuss whether Clarke is a Republican and with Mdachi that the info about Clarke's claims needs to stay here. Get-back-world-respect 15:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Also agree. The fact that he held the same position in both the Clinton and Bush administrations demonstrates his party affiliation is a non-issue. - Hephaestos|§ 15:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Republican" Clarke 

message: Hey guys, what ever happened to the "three-revert" rule? Can we cool down and discuss it here? Cecropia 05:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your question, it's usual POV/style stuff.  The ABM treaty is called "a bedrock of U.S.-Russian nuclear stability for three decades" (my emphasis), clearly one person's opinion; it's hard to believe it was a "bedrock" in 2001.  In fact, a whole spin is put in to make Bush look bad; in this case it was helped by splitting up paragraphs with explanatory material from the initial criticism.  Also, there's pure nonsense, such as "The Kyoto protocol was signed by President Bill Clinton either." (?)  I could have picked through and tried to straighten it all up, but 172 would have just reverted me either way, so I didn't bother. -- VV 05:59, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: You are an active editor on this article, and you had no right to to pick sides and then protect your favored version. If you don't remove the protection and the notice, then I will do so myself. 172 05:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I dare you. Both of you have axes to grind and that's obvious. 172 05:48, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, everyone else is the devil. -- VV 05:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for backing me. I removed protection to lookup policy. If you think appropriate, maybe you'll consider restoring it. Cecropia 05:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: 172 just unprotected and reverted to his version.  You've probably noticed by now. -- VV 05:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: You fucking coward. You didn't have the balls after all. 172 05:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: In Wikipedia:Protection log, it says he did. -- VV 06:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there was some sort of race condition; RickK tried to protect after Cecropia's unprotection, but 172 unprotected immediately after that in response to Cecropia's protection. -- VV 06:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: And Rick blocked me for a couple of minutes, perhaps to put up and protect his little bitch's version in the meantime. 172 06:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: It was unprotected the last I saw, so I protected it. I'm such a neutral party :-) I only looked at one diff - was disappointed to see that uncontroversial grammar fixes were being reverted along with the more difficult claims. Not up on who is whose "bitch" though, is there a special page for tracking that? Stan 06:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VeryVerily probably didn't even look through the changes. This was just an attempt for him to assert ownership over the article and prevent me from editing the article. 172 06:27, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure, but I think I'm the "little bitch" (or is it Cecropia?).  Maybe we should have a Wikipedia:Bitches to clarify this matter.  (And the reason I didn't bother reinstating the grammar fixes is that it was too likely 172 would just insta-revert no matter what.) -- VV 06:23, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was calling you RickK's bitch. 172 06:27, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer if sysops only acted on articles they feel neutral about. In this case, I remember 172 openly makes anti-, and Cecropia makes anti-Bush-critics edits. So would it not be wiser to ask someone else? Furthermore, "You fucking coward. You didn't have the balls after all. 172" and  "Well, let the war begin.  I've just blocked him.  Rick" are unacceptable. Get-back-world-respect 22:36, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, GBWR, but look at the edit history. It was an ongoing and rapid edit war, and I happened to be the admin on the spot. I looked it up and it was not against policy for me to protect the page as I was not part of the edit war--still, I stopped the war and asked the parties to talk it out here, which you can see above. Since 172 is an admin, I was quite aware he could unprotect it if he chose. As it is the temporary protect (which I removed earlier today) worked, at least for the time being. Cecropia 22:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: You can just request it to be protected, someone neutral will take care of it fast. And if the edit war goes on for some minutes, how many people will read the article in the meantime? Probably only wikaddicts, no one will suffer from misinformation. Get-back-world-respect 21:48, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  172 - VV edit war protected 

message: There is nothing here about the Bush administration's ties to the oil business and Enron or the job statistics during the presidency. Why? Get-back-world-respect 14:51, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Enron, the oil business and jobs