User talk:Easter Monkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

I see nobody have welcomed you yet. Well, WELCOME to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You are doing great so I won't give you a bunch of links to get you started. I will just say: thank you and stick around. We need every had we can get ;) Renata3 13:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About-Picard law

Thanks a lot for your copyediting!

As quite some parts of the original article have been moved to Status of religious freedom in France that article could probably also profit from your English. Irmgard 13:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. I'll take a look. --Easter Monkey 15:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I edited Status of religious freedom in France while you were also editing, which led to a conflict. I think I restored your modifications. Sorry for the inconvenience. David.Monniaux 07:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Onion

Hey, it looks like somebody already redirected it to the main Onion article, which IMO is probably the best thing. It just didn't seem like it was definitely a speedy to me, and outright deletion under such circumstances is sometimes condemned by other editors as "unilateralism". I agree there was too much content for it all to be merged, but the nice thing is, with a redirect, as much or as little as desired can be merged. It's possible someone else would have decided to delete it, but I generally prefer other options in cases that may be considered questionable. Friday (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Ray Smith

The Bronze Star was awarded to him posthumously by his commanders and they nominated him for the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor nomination has to go through a much more complicated process. The action has to be reviewed by the President and Congress. The Bronze Star can be awarded by a consensus of his division's high command. At least that's how I understand it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 13:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge

Regarding the peanut gallery on Khmer Rouge, the only one I take with any seriousness is Adam Carr, who is a longtime user, and would have been an admin long ago if he wanted to be. That's not to say everything he does is correct, he has been criticized by ArbCom for certain things he tends to do.

Anyhow, I actually have more sources for the Lon Nol thing on the CPK page. As you can see, I had already posted the source on the page, but no one bothered to look (you're new to the page, they saw it before and didn't care). I repost it but they take it out anyway. They don't care, in fact, several of the peanut gallery on that page are sock puppets, and haven't tried that hard to hide that fact. No matter what proof and whatnot I post it's never good enough. They don't care how much research I do, how many sources are cited and whatnot, "they" (they in quotes due to the sock puppets) simply want to revert.

I actually have several sources for the coup, but since things are as they are, I only tend to put up stuff that is iron-clad, and Samuel Thornton is a pretty iron-clad source. Believe him or not, he is someone to be listened to. I didn't say what he said was true, I just mentioned what he said, which is of course relevant, but "they" removed it.

But back to my point, I have several sources. As I said, due to the circumstances, I only put up iron-clad stuff, if I put up what I have now it would be torn to shreds. Not that I should have to, there's no reason for Samuel Thornton to not be mentioned. In fact, if I recall correctly, I believe Adam Carr does not have a big problem with saying the US was involved with the coup.

Allusions to US involvement in the coup are made by the "official" scholars of the CPK such as Chandler and Kiernan. I believe Carr is who put them in the article, but I am not sure about that, I do know that I didn't cite them, someone else put it in. But if I recall correctly, one of them was kind of vague about it. And there are other sources about it. The problem is I have to do research for it. Which would be on top of the dozens of hours of research down the drain I've done on this. I have to do days of research and then fight weeks to months to get a milquetoast sentence in, while in the meantime a ridiculous POV paragraph, or picture with a graph of deaths (I'm accused of being an "apologist for the Khmer Rouge", but not mentioned is that the graph is an apologist for the US carpet bombing of Cambodia, as it assumes almost no one was killed by that) or whatnot. Plus I am very busy in real life. Anyhow, I will probably fight over the sentence and Thornton for a while (who is iron-clad), but I do have other sources alluding to US involvement in the coup, which I will bring forward in the coming weeks. Ruy Lopez 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I will be waiting with eager anticipation for your new sources! Not really. I'm not a peanut by the way, I'm more of an almond. (Bjorn Tipling 08:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC))
If I was announcing I had more sources, I would do it on the KR page. Samuel Thorton is an ideal source, so it's pointless going with the lesser sources I have currently. I already have a source, Samuel Thornton. Anything else I am reading is none of your business, you sock puppet. Ruy Lopez 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, Lopez believes everybody who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet. CJK 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny how you haven't been here more than six months. Bjorn made his second edit two months ago.
On the other hand, I have been editing since March 2004. Adam Carr, wjo I do not think is a sock puppet nor uses them, has been around since 2003. Ruy Lopez 03:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I can guarantee you that I'm not a sock puppet. I mean I'm using my real name for starts in my signature. It's true that I only recently started editing, but that's really just trivia. I'm no gimmick. (Bjorn Tipling 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

Funny how you haven't been here more than six months. Bjorn made his second edit two months ago. And that proves... nothing. CJK 20:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Hello, I've been lurking here on Wikipedia for a long time now. I've made some annonymous minor edits to many pages, suggested some changes and new articles and a few months ago decided that, for as much time as I spend here, I should take the plunge and create an account. So although, I may appear as a "newbie", I would like to, with Easter Monkey's indulgence (this is HIS talk page), weigh in on Ruy Lopez and the Khmer Rouge article. First of all, like Easter Monkey, I am intimate with the Culture and People of Cambodia, both in Cambodia and those in exile in Boston, MA and here where I now live in California. In addition, I have done much study on South East Asia and the VietNam War in general and the politics of Cambodia in particular.

I feel I must preface this by saying that Ruy Lopez and people like him almost make me long for the "good-ole-days" of the McCarthy Hearings. While I personally believe Ruy's claim that the US played a part (albeit minor) in overthrowing Sihanouk has some merit, that is still no justification for his blatant POV pro-Khmer Rouge, Anti-American ranting and raving. My wife's brother was killed by the Khmer Rouge for not working hard enough, her mother was seperated from her children and sent by the Khmer Rouge to work in a rock quarry, breaking massive rocks sun-up to sun-down with a small hammer and nothing to eat but one small rationed bowl of watery rice. My best friend's father was killed because he wasn't pure Khmer, his grandfather was Cham. Monks, village chiefs, and educated professionals were tortured and killed in full view of the public, with children given front-row seats to the spectacle. I could go on and on with first-hand accounts but this isn't the place.

It's widely known that the French-installed Sihanouk spent all his time on wine, womem and his own movie production company and had little personal interest in suppressing the communist insurgency led by the French/Algerian educated Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and others. Although there are no legitimate sources to prove it, most scholars and practically every Cambodian believe that while the coup was largely concieved by Lon Nol and his supporters, the US helped indirectly by advising and providing intelligence because they recognized he would be better for Cambodia and a better ally against the communists. While all of this MAY be true, it is UNDISPUTED FACT that the Khmer Rouge leaders were evil personified, comparable to Hitler, Stalin, Mousilinni and the like. The possible US involvement in the coup in no way excuses these paranoid megalomaniacs bent on domination and power who wrapped their ambitions in a Utopian Philosophy to brainwash their disillusioned followers. Ruy you are a sad, sad man whose POV is dangerous to the world and to the America I will leave to my children and I will fight people like you whenever and wherever I find them. That's my POV. WilliamThweatt 03:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the experiences of your family (if you're not lying - who knows, it's the Internet), but whatever they be while you have a right to an opinion, please remember that Ruy Lopez has his rights too. You're being far too dramatic, Ruy Lopez is not a 'danger.' I would say attitudes that would like to curtail the free speech of people are more dangerous than advocates of other perspectives. Yes, I believe that your attitude is far more harmful to American than that of Ruy's. I appreciate Ruy's presence, as it has led me to think more about things I wouldn't have otherwise, and it has let me to seek information. I was surprised to find out about America's bombing of Cambodia, of which I had known very little of before (Although I knew of Dresden and other Japanese cities). I disagree with some aspects of what Ruy wants to achieve (and the means he uses to achieve his goals), I'm glad he's around. You're entitled to your opinion, but please remember to keep it out of the articles. (Bjorn Tipling 15:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC))
I think that this is the most important thing of all: no matter what emotions might underly people's motivations for editing an article, one must not be blinded by them when looking for what actually happened. History is notoriously hard to right, exactly because of the emotions involved, but by keeping a level-head, not introducing original research, citing sources, etc. we can get close...I certainly won't dispute that it was unmitigated evil that led the KR to kill, I've been to Toul Sleng, Choeung Ek, believe me, if you want to see what people will do at their worst, spend some time at Toul Sleng. The Nazis had a program, they were evil, but they were a focused evil. What the KR did was unfocused, random, pure evil, if there were harsher adjectives in our language I would use them. BUT, no matter what you, I, or whoever else thinks, my emotions and yours don't belong anywhere near the wikipedia article documenting the facts. As far as U.S. involvement in a coup, I believe that the U.S. probably did have a hand in it. But we need to have the sources saying as much before we can move forward on Ruy's disputed sections. He says that Thornton is good enough, I think that he is, to a certain point...in that he attested to involvement (according to Hersh, a pulitzer prize winning journalist) by the U.S. on some level, maybe not handing out bullets, but during planning stages etc. No big deal, I think that if it's true it belongs in the article. What Thornton doesn't say though is what I just mentioned, that the U.S. was the main motivator, i.e. U.S. green berets or whoever were driving Lon Nol's trucks. In any case, let the debate continue....--Easter Monkey 11:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translations

Thanks very much for translating German articles! Punkmorten 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, if you don't mind, here's a load of prominent names I copied from 80's championships: de:Jürgen Hingsen de:Siegfried Wentz de:Werner Schildhauer de:Hansjörg Kunze de:Detlef Michel de:Boris Henry de:Udo Beyer de:Ines Müller de:Helga Radtke de:Ronald Weigel de:Torsten Voss de:Christine Wachtel de:Cornelia Oschkenat de:Kirsten Emmelmann de:Petra Felke de:Martina Hellmann de:Kathrin Neimke de:Diana Gansky de:Steffi Nerius de:Claudia Losch and also de:Tamara Press and de:Tamara Bykowa (must be Tamara Bykova).

Of course you don't have to do this, but you did ask for it :) Thank you and happy editing, Punkmorten 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I saw the new articles you posted on the Portal Germany and just wanted to stop by to let you know of a couple of things that you're probably not aware of. One is the {{de}} template. If you put it at the bottom of your articles just above the enwikis readers will know this is a translation. The other thing I'd like to ask you is to add all your translations to the bottom of the proofreading section on the Wikipedia:German-English translation requests page. This is where we keep track of all translations done and where others can go to pick them for proofreading. And finally, I'm not sure whether you did or not, but to be on the safe side, please make sure you add the interwikis to all pages (i.e., the German page you translated and all pages linked by interwikis to them). Thanks for helping with the project. Happy wiki-ing. --Mmounties (Talk) 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that you removed the reference to the fact that Sanssouci was translated from the German article. There actually is a difference between that reference and the interwiki because not all articles that exist in both the English and

the German Wikipedias are based on translations of each other. Therefore, when we translate an article we should always note that (a) it was a translation and (b) where it was translated from. This has the result of people not needing to check facts again, because they were already checked in the source wiki. I've put the "translation" note back into the article for that reason. --Mmounties (Talk) 14:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I had checked before but didn't see it at the very end. Our guideline (Wikipedia talk:German-English translation requests) still prefers it under the "References" section because the German article is indeed a reference for the English one. But I agree on your removing the direct link from the reference. That tends to be a matter of personal preference anyway. Some people do, some don't. --Mmounties (Talk) 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The Rosetta Barnstar
For your efforts I award you the The Rosetta Barnstar. Punkmorten 05:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for doing all the translations!

If you want to translate more, there are always Stephan Freigang, Karen Forkel, Lutz Dombrowski, Evelin Jahl, Siegfried Stark, Uwe Hohn, Sabine Busch, Ilona Slupianek, Melanie Paschke, Heinz Weis, Hildegard Falck, Heide Rosendahl, Sabine John, Ellen Fiedler, Gloria Siebert, Kerstin Behrendt, Beate Anders, Peter Frenkel, Dieter Lindner, Hans-Georg Reimann, Roland Wieser, Hartwig Gauder, Bernd Kannenberg, Gerd Wessig and also Jüri Tarmak, Ernesto Canto and Daniel Bautista. But if you want I can post the translation request elsewhere :) Regards, Punkmorten 05:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loung Ung

Your edits of "Loung Ung" are not acceptable to me. If you care to argue, I will gladly take the argument to arbitration. --RogerK 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A better footing is certainly desirable, but whatever common ground might have existed between us has been lost. In my view, your adamant stance in reverting my contributions without comment to me, your self-assumed status as censor of what may or may not be included in this article, your skewed view of NPOV, and your indifference to the feelings of Wikipedians who contribute in good faith, has left me with no desire to pursue collaboration with you. In terms of NPOV, unless the violation of the policy is blatant, such a determination as to what is or is not POV should be reached by a consensus in a peer review, not by you. I defended my views in my comments to the re-introductions of my edits, and informed you on your talk page; had I not done so, I would not have heard from you.
There is no footing. --RogerK 05:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the spelling, it was a mistake. As I said I wrote it rather quickly, just to get something up. I didn't purposefully use the UK English. It's ironic because I've been trying to keep up with User:Hintha's constant attempts to change all the spellings in the Cambodia article (and others as well) to British English.--WilliamThweatt 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanssouci FAC

Hi, you've been interested in Sanssouci in the past. The page has now been much altered, and the FAC page is again back in business. Perhaps you would now like to review the page. This is not meant to be a soliciting spam, I'm just contacting those few who have already shown an interest, as I'm just concerned that people may not realise, the FAC is back and running. Thanks. Giano | talk 16:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Thanks for fixing my userpage. :-) Agathoclea 12:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adelle Davis

Hi EM :). I've put this article up for peer review, and would very much like your opinion; I enjoy working with you. Thanks in advance, my friend --RogerK 04:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loung Ung

Placed it in peer review. I know you have something worthwhile to say. Would appreciate it. --RogerK 06:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic article for deletion

As you speak Arabic, I'd like to ask if you could comment on this deletion request for an Arabic article - nobody knows what it is about. Kusma (討論) 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! As the classic reward for good work on the Wiki is more work, I will now remember your Arabic skills and ask you again if we get an Arabic article at pages needing translation and don't know what to do with it - I usually prefer to settle these matters without an AFD. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 13:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Civil War, Lincoln, and American History

Hi Easter! I, too, am very interested in these subjects. Thanks for your kind reply. Let me try to make some sensible explanation of myself.

  • I’ll take the U.S., warts and all. I'm with you on that one, at least for the time being. Yet I do feel there were some changes in the way people perceived America after the Civil War. One particular change which has been slowly developing over a long period of time is the growth in power of the Executive branch over the Legislative. Lincoln was one of the first and it's gotten worse since. The original intent, as far as I can tell, was that the President be a sort of "national manager", making sure everything the legislature decided on was running smoothly. Today, the White House, which is a massive bureaucracy that did not exist in the early days, formulates and disseminates policy to the rank and file of its members of Congress. The President still cannot technically write laws, but there's little doubt they're being written, partially or more, by members of the Executive branch. Greater and greater Presidential excesses are being allowed, and I'm not singling Bush out for this. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The act of Congress giving the President the ability to engage in - what do they euphemize it as? a police action? - for a limited time without a formal declaration of war. I don't have much more than a gut feeling about this, though. All I know is that I deeply distrust the increasing power of the Executive and the associated risks of cults of personality, etc.
  • As to the South, I feel that if they had been allowed to secede, the resultant economic hardship would have either brought them back, or would have created a system something like America and Mexico today: one rich nation and its poor hanger-on. Slavery de jure was economically infeasible and was on its way out. A crackdown was not required to end it. I don't care how many people rant and call me names for saying it, either. The Civil War was not needed to "free" anyone. The Emancipation Proclamation "freed" only those slaves within territories where Lincoln knew quite well he could exert no power (the states still in rebellion). As is always the case, the reality followed the pompous claims at a humble distance. In my opinion, slavery in America did not end until 1964. The previous century was merely a time in which most Americans cooperatively fantasized that the blacks were not really de facto slaves.
  • Regarding "till death do us part", I have to disagree. For a social compact, such as a nation, to mean anything, it must be voluntary. For it to be voluntary, people must have the right to leave it. For people to have a meaningful right to leave it, they must not be constrained by unjust limits on what property they can take with them. Land is property. Therefore enough people, deciding of their own free will to leave a nation, should be allowed to take with them the land they jointly own. And frankly, if someone does not want to be part of the same nation as me any more, I don't want them to stay. I want all my fellow citizens to be here by choice because there is no other way I can trust them to observe the laws of the land. I especially don't want to force them to stay. Over a century of sulky resentment and lawbreaking was the result in the South. Therefore it is in my best interest that a secessionist be allowed to secede. In my opinion, the Civil War was the first truly and unequivocally anti-democratic act performed by the United States. Its great success has only served to encourage further anti-democratic acts.
  • Well, when I say "whitewashed", I was referring to "popular history". By this I mean the hideously inaccurate pablum fed to those trapped in the grim prisons known as "high schools" in this land. Perhaps it is different today; hopefully so! If you went to a school where you were taught valid, multifaceted history with a fair and even-handed take on important historical figures, then all I can say is you were luckier than I. At the pathetic excuse for an institution of learning which I attended, practically nothing I was taught in "history" class was devoid of bias so thick it could have been slathered on with a trowel. Negative facts about the United States' various actions were glossed over or not covered. My private reading in history at that age was already advanced enough that I was aware my textbooks were not telling the truth about my country. There can be no legitimate reason for this. I suppose the writers kid themselves that they are protecting young minds from unpleasant details. The truth is that generation after generation are growing up without historical perspective.

Hmm. Reading over this I can see that I've rambled on for a good deal more than I should. I always overwrite this late at night; my apologies. All the best, Kasreyn 08:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By the way,

I enjoyed your "words to live by". I'm very fond of collecting quotes myself. I have been putting a few of my favorites online at my user page: tell me what you think.  :) Kasreyn 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Futureal

Another page in Arabic, could you have a look? You might want to check this version instead of the current one. Please comment at WP:PNT#Futureal. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vonegut template

hey, I've made a few changes to the vonnegut template (template:vonnegut), as well as a few comments on its talk page. I see that you've been a frequent editor (perhaps creator) of the the page, so I thought I'd notify you. JianLi 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Little Willy Willy honey, you keep deleting my text, this has only led me to believe that what I asked you has hit a nerve. I will say it again while I am still allowed before the NAzi's delete what freedom people have. I BELIEVE THAT LITTLE WILLY HERE AKA WILLIAMTHWEATT. IS FALSIFYING INFORMATION. I HAVE ASKED HIM ABOUT THE SUBJECT, AND ALSO WHERE I SHOULD ASK HIM ABOUT IT SO AS NOT TO BREAK WIKI RULES. NOT ONLY IS MY QUESTION CENSORED, BUT NO ANSWER FORTHCOMING. I BELIEVE THAT THIS USER IS ABUSING THE SITUATION. I AM NOT AN EXPERIENCED WIKIPEDIA USER AND BELIEVE THAT HE IS USING THIS TO HIS BENEFIT. I AM COPYING AND PASTING THIS TEXT IN AS MANY USER PAGES AS I CAN. PLEASE DO NOT INTERPRET THIS AS VANDALISM, I AM ONLY TRYING TO ROOT OUT HOSE WHO SEEK TO SUPRESS THE TRUTH. I AM NOTHING BUT WITH THE POWER OF INFORMATION WE WILL SUCCEED. PLEASE ASK WILL THE QUESTION ABOUT HIS CLAIMS OF KHMER LANGUAGE ABILITY, THEN YOU WILL SEE THE SMALLEST LIE ON THE PATH TO INJUSTICE AND CORRUPTION. PLEASE RELEASE THE TRUTH AND STOP WIKI-CORRUPTION. Theonlyzarni 01:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] WW2

How could I be offended with you? Quite the opposite. I think you make a lot of sense. I never get offended with anyone. As far as I am concerned, people can say whatever they like. As my wife says "you can do anything, as long as it doesn't frighten the animals". I sometimes have heavy debates with people, as they sometimes have to unlearn what they were taught at school. I had to learn the hard way at university. I was told not to give my opinions in essays, but to say what happened without the commentary of why I think it happened, ie, without editorial bias. As they say, the facts usually speak for themselves. Wallie 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Would you also be able to support us on the wording of the introduction. The vote is tied 3/3 at the moment, and the other side has already reverted back. Have a look at the discussion page on the WW2 article and you will see what I mean. Thank you. Wallie 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/a/s/User_talk%7EEaster_Monkey_c28b.html"