User talk:Hcheney/Archive 1
From Academic Kids
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~
snoyes 16:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Rob Barton
Hi. My comments about Rob Barton VfD were sarcasm. I'm strongly opposed to all of the nonsense that's on Wikipedia, including an article on every school that ever existed. RickK 03:53, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I figured so much. Just in case, I was sarcastic right back. Hcheney 04:14, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
response to acting gov
It's true that John Bennett and Richard Codey were acting governors for a few days (72 hours for bennett) before mcgreevey was sworn in... however i do believe this is important and bennett did accomplish things in those 72 hours such as i believe he made a state of the state address and they both were individually sworn in formally... while they may not count to people as actual governors of new jersey i still think it's important for people to know this information. If you want you can put a note of some kind saying they were only governors for a short time or put them on a different type of list.
- I moved our discussion to Talk:List of Governors of New Jersey --Hcheney 16:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
172 POV
I've never had much luck discussing anything with 172, don't have any helpful advice on that. WP is supposed to be a secondary source based on quoting from authority, so it's always good to have a scholarly text from which to quote verbatim. 172 tends to focus on only a very small number of articles ("History of"s for US, SU, Brazil, Germany, Cold War, and dictator bios) and is borderline-obsessed with protecting every word of his additions, so in practice I just avoid those and work on other things. They're usually too long anyway, so few if any readers will ever get all the way to the end, doesn't really matter what they say. Oddly enough, 172 seems unaware of the hundreds of other articles whose content is completely at odds with the claims in the few that he concentrates on, so if you wanted to present other interpretations, there are lots of available "venues". Another strategy, if you really are keen to write the US history article, is to compose another from scratch as a temp page, then call (via the village pump) for a vote on which to prefer. Stan 00:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
One more thought - beware of burnout. If the arguing is not enjoyable, then strictly limit the amount of time you spend on it. We've lost a lot of good people because they got too wrapped up in one article or even just one sentence in one article. Always make sure that you're having a good time. Stan 00:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I got your note re 172, and see there's an ongoing discussion. I don't see much hope for dealing constructively with him. As Stan notes, he protects every word he has written, and will not tolerate any changes, not understanding perhaps the nature of this project. He insists his interpretations are the only right ones and none other are possible or relevant. He is also intervening on other articles, using admin powers in what strikes me as an inappropriate way. Of course, some of this is being talked about on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/172, where I briefly related my experiences (and received an unusually uncivil reply). Stan may be right about avoiding this small number of articles, although others who tried to dominate individual articles were dealt with otherwise (such as the 2002 Gujarat violence brouhaha). But, as I mentioned, of late he seems to have branched out some. Perhaps in the end persistence will pay off, as other users will see it as an edit war in need of mediation and compromise (with one side unmistakably stubborn). -- VV 09:56, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, so what? I'm not here to win Miss Congeniality. I'm not infallible, but the vast majority of the time, users are just picking on me with their rhetoric or word choice issues. Hardly ever is it an issue of substance. And maybe Stan is right that I overlook scores of others articles. But sooner or later, I'll get to all the BS claims about Allende's Chile being a Soviet "puppet state," LBJ's Great Society being a "socialistic program" (the BS claim of all time from VV), etc.; the grab bag essays on non-subjects (e.g., "Soviet collectivism"); and, finally, the common tendency to conflate the official, constitutional government-type with theoretical typologies. I work well with users who provide counter-arguments with some data. I'm often terse, however, when I'm confronted with little more than rhetoric.
- Please cite where I made this "BS claim of all time". I believe I did not. -- VV 06:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
BTW, do you know what issue almost caused me to lose admin status a while back? I was whitewashing the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church - not Stalin's genocide.
Anyway, a new user wanted to insert a factually inaccurate, poorly written, anti-Catholic rant on the sex abuse scandal. I was arguing that it was not only out of place in the Catholicism entry (which was a misnomer, as it was only addressing Roman Catholicism at the time), but unsalvageable in any article on any subject.
Nor was I going to salvage the rant. I was urging users to take out all the content related to the recent sex abuse scandal, given its irrelevance in the entry. An encyclopedic entry on Roman Catholicism discusses the doctrinal basis of the Church, the structure of the Church, Canon Law, beliefs and faith, tradition, worship, and activities - not current events or countless scandals throughout history. The scandals belong in related entries.
Not that encyclopedic standards mattered, though. Another sysop, who was a personal friend of the user who kept reinserting the anti-Catholic rant, then proceeded to gripe about my meanness. Thus, my admin powers were suspended until the issue died down after User:Jtdirl came to my defense.
Again, it was also an issue of proper placement when I removed content on human rights absues in the North Korea entry. The content was restored soon afterwards. But later, User:Jiang, whose anti-Communist credentials are undoubted, removed the same content for being out of place. Like Jiang, I was concerned with relevance, not with whether or not the article was sufficiently pro- or anti- North Korea enough for me.
Of course, genocide, pedophilia, and human experimentation are going to stir the emotions! All the more reason to watch out for NPOV on controversial subjects!
All in all, I've just been struggling to keep emotion and rhetoric out of articles (even if I agree with it or if most users agree with it) for the sake of encyclopedic standards. This is the fundamental reason behind the vast majority of charges against me. However, you can believe what you want. Next time, note that I'm not only an apologist for Stalin, but also for the Roman Catholic Church.
Do I make mistakes of my own? Certainly. But my disputes with users are mostly over word choice. And I did compromise with you, Stan, and VV on all the valid word choice issues that the three of you raised on 1980-present. 172 11:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Some Advice
- I'm afraid that once he has been started, there is no way to settle it calmly. No matter how you try to justify your claim...he'll find something else wrong. My word of advice is to either stay away, or find a way to put in an edit that cannot in good sense be reverted. Ilyanep 13:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What's going on? A couple of days ago you were up in arms over that sentence mentioning Allende. But since then, the 1980-present page has been quiet. Without a response, I can only infer that you understood my last set of responses and were satisfied. Does this mean that the dispute heading on the article is now irrelevant? Why is the neutrality dispute even up now?
For all I know, the only thing that was bothering you about the article was the fact that a Chilean president ousted three decades ago - mentioned only fleetingly - wasn't tagged with a certain descriptor. Now, do you understand that this term hardly means anything - unless you look at the specific context - and hardly in and of itself self explains why this Chilean president was vulnerable to a coup? Now, can we move on and start filling in the gaps? 172 23:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- 172, (in regards to History of the United States (1980-present))
- I have decided not to respond to your latest remarks because I feel as though my time would be better spent rewriting the article instead of arguing with a person who by their own admission does not seek to be congenial. Please feel free to make this edition as POV as you wish, because I am in the process of writing a new article covering the 1980-1989 time span that is NPOV and includes references and citations - something you seem to demand of others, but cannot provide yourself.
- Please do not remove the neutrality dispute. I do not feel this article is neutral in it's present form. --Hcheney 01:18, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Your attempts to play the victim are disingenuous. I have bent over backwards to respond to your concerns at each step. I have made repeated pleas that you explain your concerns. While I have pointed out flaws in some of your changes, the criticism has always been entirely constructive.
- I'd love to be cooperative and helpful. (When I said that I'm not going to be "Miss Congeniality," I merely meant that I wasn't going to be a pushover.) But how can I address your concerns if I don't even know what they are?
- First, if you want references, it's just a matter of requesting them. I will take care of the footnoting as I work on a section giving an overview of the historiography. I made this clear a while ago.
- For now, however, the neutrality dispute takes precedence over completing the article. In the mean time, if you request references for anything that I've posted on any page (this article, this talk page, any article, or any talk page), I'll provide them as soon as I see your requests. If you want them, just ask.
- Second, I admitted that I may come across as terse, but I have been as cooperative as possible without compromising the quality of the article. You, VV, and Stan raised a number of valid word choice issues, and I have been receptive. At times, I have even taken the initiative to address these stylistic matters on my own. Compare the present version of the article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1980-present)) to the 13:14, 7 Feb 2004 version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_the_United_States_(1980-present)&oldid=2331244) (the version posted when you first announced the neutrality disptute). The edit summary provides irrefutable proof that I am willing to cooperate with you both.
- On that note, I challenge you to dig a single instance in which I did not go to painstaking effort to explain why I reverted or partially reverted changes.
- In the mean time, there is no neutrality dispute unless you can tell me what is wrong with my last response and/or the article. 172 03:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks so much for removing those horrible tracts found by a search engine from your user sub-page. I was pessimistic about your willingness to do so, figuring that it was just a tactic for undermining my credibility, and nothing else.
Then again, the current version of the page still leaves me feeling uncomfortable. It's a horribly one-sided, rehashing long-resolved issues, such as the protection of Catholicism (or the "172 sysop issue"). Second, the comments I made on the "don't bite the newbies" page are misinterpreted. It's really a description of the rude awakening that I got as a new user in late 2002. I pointed out that it was a learning process for me.
Please ask another admin or me to remove the page. BTW, if you do want to figure out where I'm coming from, do you want me to cite some of my principal influences? 172 13:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I am very eager to hear about where you are coming from and your principal influences.
- However, I do not feel comfortable removing the page at the present time. I use it for reference, and have never linked it from any other page - in fact, it would have been an orphan if you did not link it. I am concerned by your unilateralism, choice of words in certain articles, and manner of debate. I assure you, once my concerns disappear, the page will be blanked. --Hcheney 23:35, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Jaguar Cars
If you are interested in the subject, your help would be welcomed at WikiProject:Automobiles. As a starting point, someone who knows more than me about the Jaguar E-type could have a field day sorting this new article out. Thanks! akaDruid 09:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invitation to WikiProject Automobiles, I'll get on the E-type this afternoon as soon as I check my facts. --Hcheney 11:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hum, good question. Unfortunately, I haven't been following the pages on gun control closely. I'm somewhat skeptical of gun control legislation myself, but I don't have strong opinions either way.
However, my guess is that anti-gun bias is a problem. Given Wiki's more internationalized perspective, I'd imagine that normative anti-gun biases could slip through in articles on US gun control, despite the fact that articles on gun control legislation ought to focus on whether or not the legislation works in the United States, not people's moral attitudes toward guns.
For now, the only user who comes to mind is site owner Jimbo Wales. You'd probably have a great deal in common with Jimbo, who also has a civil libertarian take on things. While he doesn't edit articles on his own, perhaps he could refer you to users who can deal with NPOVing the subject. In the mean time, I'll try to think of other users. 172 17:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I noticed your "a paranoid and incompetent government" in the North Korea article violates the NPOV policy. I believe the North Korean government is extremely competent as an oppressive, genocidal, quasi-Stalinistic, over-militarized dictatorship. If North Korea was incompetent, why do other nations fear North Korea? --Hcheney 19:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Their completely collapsed economy is one example of why I chose to call them incompetent. There is mass starvation in North Korea. True, some of this is engineered, but the starvation is widespread enough to actually be a problem for the government - hungry soldiers and citizens are dangerous. North Korea has the resources to keep it's population fed much better than it currently does.
For an example of a competent, over-militarized, oppressive dicatorship, I'd point you to Saddam's pre-war Iraq. The government wasn't quite as oppressive or extreme as North Korea's, but it was at least reasonably competent and Iraq was not totally dependent on food handouts.
Cheers,
Bagel
additive: Also consider where they get their leaders, and the personal priorities of the leaders. Kim Jong Il is not known to be a competent economist. Unlike Saddam and other competent but brutal dictators, he was not even strong enough to seize power - it was given to him by birth.
Please see my reponse on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. You seemed to be under the impression that I was advocating something that I wasn't, probably because I didn't explain it well enough. 172 15:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Henry?
Am I being paranoid, or is User:Henry Cheney the troll who was bothering you earlier? Let me know if there's trouble I can help with. Jwrosenzweig 19:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If he vandalizes an article or personally attacks someone, we boot him. If he's determined to play the silly game "but my name is Henry Cheney", we wait until he gets bored since no one objects to his username, at which point he either leaves or does the vandal/personal attack thing. Let me know if you notice anything. Another thing to watch for is him pretending to be you (on a page like RfA or VfD), at which point I'll boot him for that. We just keep a close eye, is all. Good luck. :) Jwrosenzweig 19:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, it's the troll. But if we ignore him, all he's doing is posting comments about "himself" -- going nuts about it will "feed the troll", I believe. If we wait a day or two and he disappears, I'll blank the user page and that will be that. Are you all right with that? I don't want you to have to keep suffering from this fellow, but I've got an idea that ignoring the troll may let him go away. If he wants a fight, I'll block him a hundred times, but if he wants to sit in a corner and say things that _might_ be offensive if we assume he's aiming them at you, well, I say let him sit and get bored. If you disagree and want me to confront him, I will, but I think this course of action is best. Jwrosenzweig 19:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wiking names
Could you please explain why you reverted my edit on John Edwards? --Hcheney 21:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I think names should be wikied. Anthony DiPierro 02:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dan Quayle
Uhhuh. As soon as Dan Quayle got unprotected, Anthony DiPierro reverted it. RickK | Talk 01:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
List of current Disneyland attractions
Thanks for reverting that change for me. Not only was what the person said POV, it wasn't even accurate. There aren't any demons on Mr. Toad. -Branddobbe 07:47, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
nomination for admin
I have nominated you for Administrator status for the time and effort you put into making edits and helping purge POV from wikipedia. Please accept the nomination on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship
page.
I suggest any supporters of yours show support for you on that page.
GrazingshipIV 05:09, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Your nomination is getting hot. I suggest you contact any supporters you have it is currently at 4/3/2. --GrazingshipIV 21:00, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Just noticed you on RC. Hope you get that adminship--it looks like you need it! Yours, Meelar 22:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Your situation is improving by the hour current tally 6/3/2 it is good to AIM high.-GrazingshipIV 23:04, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
- You're funny - you'd make a great campaign manager! -Hcheney 23:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sockpuppet?
How can I prove I am not your sockpuppet? This is ridiculous. GrazingshipIV 00:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good lets do it.GrazingshipIV 00:48, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about Wik. This is the kind of behavior that makes me wish frequently he'd been given a short-term ban -- I don't think a warning sufficiently sobered him up to make him realize how his hostility affects the work we do here. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. Jwrosenzweig 00:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
I hope you don't think that anything I said on RfA was anything personal, it really isn't. RickK | Talk 03:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- One should never take comments through a computer screen personally. May I asked what you mean by seasoning? I am very open to objective criticism.
- The entire RfA process has completely disillusioned me; edit wars, subjective criteria, accusations of sockpuppeteering, & c. Despite that fact that "This should be no big deal," it apparantly is. And, even if it was a big deal, the standards are not being applied equally, Lupo arrived at wikipedia 8 days before I did and has not received a single vote of opposition on those grounds. --Hcheney 04:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
By "seasoning", I just meant being here longer. RickK | Talk 04:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hcheney, I hope you won't go. I promise you, many many people here take you very seriously, and even those who are opposing your adminship seem to fall almost completely into either the "even 3 months and 1000 edits ain't enough" camp (so it's not personal, though I admit I wish they were more consistent about when they placed such votes, and I think their standards are ludicrously high) or the "this is weird....let's wait until the weirdness has gone away" camp, which is unfair to you, but I honestly don't think they believe the allegations. They'd just prefer a happier, less contentious adminship process. And the vast majority of people are supporting you. Grazingship seems like a troll (thank you for making clear what his aims are), or at least someone desperate to win admin status for himself -- you are wise to make clear the separation between you. In short, you already have the trust of many here, and honestly it looks to me as though only one or two users suspect you and Grazingship are the same. This is still unfortunate, but it is my belief and hope that it's not enough to drive you off. You make excellent contributions here and I ask you to stay: I know we need people like you here, contributing to the project. I hope you'll consider my advice. :-) Thanks so much for your work here, even if you do leave -- you've contributed meaningfully. Jwrosenzweig 17:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
