*sigh* this is rediculous. For the record, Fred and I disagreed strongly on
the issue of [[Communist state]]. However I sought to compromise
1. by creating a special link page for the stuff he tried to to add to
Communist state. Most academics on reading what he was writing would have
binned it or given it an 'f' grade. I didn't. I created a special page
whereby his ideas could be explored, worked on and re-written by wikipedia
users, INCLUDING FRED.
2. I went further and told him, as he had a 'problem' with me, that I would
not edit the page but leave it to others. My only role on that page was to
reinstate it when another user kept deleting it and moving its text
elsewhere.
3. When I saw that a goggle page contained a statement I thought unfair to
Fred, out of professional courtesy and a desire to ensure that his
professional reputation was not tarnished by the that statement (which was
written by another user over THEIR experience of his behaviour) I CONTACTED
HIM, told him of the page, suggested ways by which that link could be
broken, etc. (And suggested that he should remove my comments from his page
with my backing just in case a google search ever threw up a another link to
the issue, my attempt to inform him of the original link, which was now on
his talk page.)
For all of this, I have enduring character assassination - I have been
compared by a Holocaust denier, accused of being a communist, accused of
bullying, and in the last case, accused of writing a 'nasty comment' on his
page. Tannin and 172 have been similarly slandered and smeared.
For the record: I have disagreed strongly with Stevertigo over a page, yet
we have worked together subsequently and I welcomed him back when he
reappeared lately. I disagreed with Taku over the renamining of Japanese
emperors. Nevertheless, when he began a process of sorting out the situation
I wished him all the best and we both effectively agree on a solution to the
problem. Our current disagreement now involved subtle nuances on the
solution, not fundamental points and I have supported his proposed solution.
I have regularly expressed my respect for Mav yet we have disagreed on
issues. Yet I continue to work with him, seek his advice, ask him to look at
pages I have worked on. I did on one occasion disagree with Zoe and agree
with Susan Mason. I disagreed with Mintguy over soccer, yet work well with
him and he has asked me to look at particular pages, as I have asked him.
And contrary to the impression Fred has, I have disagreed with 172 on a
number of pages, notably [[Robert Mugabe]].
Put simply, I have not hidden my disagreement but never EVER waged a
campaign against anyone, with the exception of repeatedly banned trolls. I
have disagreed with people on a Monday, worked closely with them on a
Tuesday, etc. (I even told Dietary Fiber that I did not care that they were
Adam/Lir and I would work with them if they didn't slip back to the
Adamesque standard of behaviour. But unfortunately they did!) Even after
Fred made comments than in Ireland would have allowed me to sue him for
defamation, I have tried and tried and tried to be constructive with him. In
response all I have got is more slander, more wild accusations and more
ludicrous claims. I will continue to try to work with Fred, even if
establishing a working relationship with him seems like trying to climb
Mount Everest backward in the nude. :-) But it would be nice if once, Fred
showed the same spirit of comradeship and stopped engaging in patently
absurd levels of abuse.
I will work on anyone on wiki. It would be nice for once Fred showed even
the slightest willingness to work with me, rather than stooping to personal
abuse, slander and defamation. And if for one he actually apologised for
something like that mentioned below that he got so patently, absurdly and
obviously wrong.
JD
Fred Bauder wrote:
OK, as to that point. I do admit to fear. However, for whatever reason
Tannin, 172, have more or less creased the behavior I complained of. I
doubt
they are "cured", but I think enough attention has been directed to the
matter.
Fred
I wrote
For the record:
1. I left no nasty comment on Fred's page. When checking out how wiki
list
references show up on google, I came upon on
rather nasty link that
exists
regarded Fred Bauder. I left a message on his
page telling him of the
link
because I thought as a colleague that he should
know it existed. I told
him
that though we had disagreements I thought that
particular link was
wrong
and unfair to him. I suggested that if we blocked
list pages from google
searches, that link might disappear. It was something that I had written
on
the list about, and I thought then and believe
now that that unfair link
to
Fred's name highlighted the dangers of direct
links to the list. I made
other suggestions as to how we could avoid anyone else being wronged in
the
way Fred was being in that google search. Finally
I suggested that, in
case
a new link connected to that message from me on
his wiki page and so
gave
another source to the reference to 'Fred
Bauder and academic
dishonesty', he
should feel free to delete my message. How is
that nasty?
2. My name is FearÉireann, which meaning in gaelic ''Man of Ireland'',
the
gaelic version of my previous english language
usernic, ÉIREman. I
thought
it fitting to use my national language in my
usernic.
3. Lol was intended to mean, as it does and is used by many wiki users,
'Lots of love', ie, an expression of goodwill.
I fail to see where Fred's paranoia about my message came from. All I
did
was tell a colleague that I had come across an
unfair google link to
them
and made it clear just how unfair I thought it
was, as well as making a
suggestion about how that link could be broken. I cannot understand how
an
act of professional courtesy and concern for the
reputation of a
colleague
> could be seen as a 'nasty comment'.
>
> JT
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail