User talk:Mytwocents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Mytwocents, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you contribute to our articles here...we need all the people we can get :D. Some guidelines that may help you are:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Chooserr

[edit] Devastator ammo IS real, eh?

Well, your sources for the ammunition assertion in the Reagan assassination attempt article seem to be pretty good. I consider myself a firearms aficionado , and was unfamiliar with these rounds--thanks for the lesson! Cheers, Dick Clark 16:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Kennedy assassination

When we protect a page, we are not choosing sides. We don't even look at which "version" we are protecting. It's part of being neutral. Besides, I highly doubt it'll be protected long enough to hurt it's FA status. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Broadcasting Network mediation

Greetings, I am the mediator working on the BBN disagreement. Please join us at the talk page where we will get together and talk our way to solution. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JFK Assassination: Assassination Theories.

As you probably read in the talk page of the above article, I am sick of RPJ, and find him to be a dim wit. I am trying not to get blocked out of Wiki, so I am asking you to be a surrogate for me, as I fear what else I may write about that person. (The guy actually stated a Jim Garrison theory....)

He continues to add links to the Discovery channel poll and History channel poll that he feels are important. That is just stupid for two reasons: 1. These are online polls done for entertainment purposes and have no real value. To compare it to the scientific ABC poll, shows he is an idiot intent on not understanding just how stupid he is and 2. The links do not match to what he says they say. Sixty seven percent of the takes of the History Channel poll are extremely interesting the Kennedy assassination. That is not representative of the country and impeaches the poll. In addition, takers were allowed to vote more than once. I have no idea what the discovery channel poll is or was taken on. Just check the links he provides.

I sort of agree with Gamaliel that this section should not discuss or have the polls. It probably should just contain a brief summary of the conspiracy theory and then jump cite to the article discussing assassination theories.

Thanks. Ramsquire 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I used Gamaliel's paragraph as a compromise, but the page could do without the poll mention all together. As for RPJ (and his assorted sockpuppetts).... I think the tactic of working one section at a time, on the talk page, then cutting and pasting the new edit to the main page, would be a good ,long-term, NPOV tactic. I have already done this with the "the assassination" section. I haven't moved it to the main page yet... :-) I think patience, and trying for a good wikiarticle will win out in the end. Mytwocents 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mytwocents. Wiki should be big fun.

DonL 08:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Patience is a Good Example for Us All....

But if and when you run out of it. Here is a place where people are beginning to do something about the user who continues to abuse you and others User:Gamaliel/RPJ.

Ramsquire 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fat Carl 01:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

I just read your new NPOV edit of the JFK assassination article. You did a great job under very difficult circumstances. The only thing I would change would be to either delete the Hosty section or to expand it a bit by mentioning the note and Hosty recollection of the note. Also, I was thinking about adding that LHO's partial prints were on the MAnlicher-Carcano, but I don't want to start an edit war on your fine article.

Thanks for your contribution. Ramsquire 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudo's. I would encourage you to edit as you see fit, just stay aware of the 3rr rule, you don't want to accidently do more than 3 rv's in a 24hr period. Cheers.

Mytwocents 21:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PPS43.jpg

You uploaded an image image and stated it's public domain. Why is it that? // Liftarn

Ok, now you changed it into copyrighted, but free use. Why is it free to use? // Liftarn

The new picture is one I took at the Virginia War Museum on March 14th. The old image is from a foriegn web site that doesn't have an explicit copyright ( that I can tell), but it seems it doesn't fall under fair use, so I changed it to mine.

Mytwocents 19:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Security Archive

Your recent National Security Archive edits, which were made while ignoring the ongoing discussion of the topics, were made without reason. You have considered the word "independent" in describing the archive to be POV however the Archive clearly describes itself as "independent" on the main page of the website located here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ .

Please cease deleting information from Wikipedia. --Strothra 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not deleting information from wikipedia, I'm editing for NPOV, which I clearly stated in the edit summary. In the future, please discuss this issue on the articles talk page. I will see any changes there.

Mytwocents 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The topic is currently being discussed and was in the process of being discussed when you removed the information. Your process of sidestepping discussion and going ahead with the delete is vandalism. --Strothra 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bevel.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Bevel.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reagan

Please stop reverting my edits. You're a registered Republican and you're creating a heavily biased article on Reagan. You're taking truthful statements and substituting them with blatant and proveable lies. Your two cohorts in criticism Syberghost and LJensen have both busted lying. You're creating a disgraceful dishonest article.

The eighties are not known as the Reagan eighties. Reagan held the record for corruption in the twentieth - a passing comment as to how he remained popular in spite of scandals does NOT cover it for the top bio. The paragraph I created has been altered and blatantly false information inserted. Why is lying about Reagan okay with you?

Now, stop changing my edits while we're discussing this. I notice you don't have the constitution to actually respond anything I say - you just hit and run. You haven't responded to my comparisons of other presidents. Nothing.

The article is dishonest, provably so, and heavily POV. What you're objecting to in my posts is the NPOV - what you want apparently is a dishonest and misleading article.

I'm putting the rape allegation back in per the discussion with Syberghost. If Clinton gets saddled with that in these articles, so does Reagan.

Smokingmaenad 06:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Sir

I'm well aware of Wikipedia rules and guidelines and how it works. Now more than ever am I aware of the bias viewpoints of it's editors and administrators--seeing as how I can't post an article about an important film that deals with the matter of secession as I did with The Long Island Project yet, it's up for deletion and everytime someone makes a valid point the reason for deletion changes. Yet, it's totally fine to put up an article about Kangaroo Jack and no one gives a shit. I know now that no one is welcomed to this website unless they are willing to stay quiet and conform. Good luck to you. EZZIE 17:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of people being able to make edits to the page, the idea of this is to dicuss a film and its topics and I'm open to opinon on both. This is not VANITY. Wikipedians are over-using and mis-using the word, this is an article about a film, the only film to be made that really deals with the subject of secession. If it was about VANITY I would have done a special page about the FILMMAKERS AND ACTORS AS WELL--but I didn't do that. It's about the film and the film's subject--nothing more. EZZIE 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You can promote your movie proudly, on your user page. It's part of your bio, and a big accomplishment. You're living a lot of peoples dreams. but trying to keep the The Long Island Project article on wikipedia puts you at loggerheads with wikipedias vanity page rules, at this time.

Mytwocents 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I put the article on my page in an effort to save the code for later use--I'm already in contact with the parent company of Wikipedia (Wikimedia) and are discussing the possibilities. The users of Wikipedia have abused this resource of information to control what they feel should be available to the public. Just because it's not famous and that I produced doesn't make it VAIN, you're overusing that damn word! If it were vain I would have created a biography about MYSELF and not the film I was invovled with. Stop using that damn word! EZZIE 20:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read that policy? The policy does not simply concern personal vanity. There are other forms of vanity. --Strothra 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

I see after a hiatus, our favorite user is back and this time, I am the one in his crosshairs. I see you deleted one of his attacks against me, but he put his attack on his user page, Talk:JFK assassination and my user page.

You might as well just leave it alone. Lest he say we are deleting his salient points. I find him comical now, so it doesn't bother me. Is there any word on his RfC? Ramsquire 17:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I've been working on other pages and also some stuff, away from the computer desk. I have found when I go work on other articles, it changes my perspective on the JFKA page. In short, there are a lot of RPJ's around! But the wikicommunity wheel of NPOV 'grinds slowly, but exceedingly fine'. Eventually, if there are enough contributing editors, any page will be hammered into shape. I think some people just want attention, and they misuse their braincells to nitpick and attack other people, rather than contribute and move on. That being said, I think the JFKA page looks pretty good. I suppose an English major could polish it up, but as far as the facts presented and a neutral balance, it could be a featured article.

Re his Rfc, I don't think it has changed..... If he continues to snipe with PA's from time to time, he should probably get a 72 hour block or so, but that's just MHO.

Cheers!

Mytwocents 00:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther's On the Jews and their Lies

Dear Mytwocents: I have removed the link to the full text, since it infringes the copyright of the publisher. It is a similar situation to the one discussed by Cecropia at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 2#Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies - An Outside Opinion I muffed the link in the edit summary. I'd be happy to answer questions about it. --CTSWyneken 11:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autopsy photo

Why are you so convinced the JFK autopsy photo is not public domain? Who else could have taken it but a doctor at Bethsda Naval Hospital? Photos taken by employees of the U.S. Government in the course of their official duties are in the public domain. See also the discussion at WP:AN#Image copyright status. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a notorious image that was boosted by an author from an archive, some years back (I don't recall the details, offhand). Granted, it's all over the web, but it's basicly a stolen picture, not public domain, and doesn't fall under fair use. The jfk page used to link to this picture, but even that link was deleted for the same non-PD reasons. Mytwocents 14:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard linked to above, it was removed because an older version had a web address on it (www.celebritymorgue.com), and that website has a copyright statement on it, which made one admin skeptical as to its PD credentials. But as User:dbenbenn points out, celebritymorgue.com didn't take the picture, so they don't have the copyright to it. Rather, according to User:Kmf164, the source is given as "'taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital on November 22, 1963.' I think it's safe to assume they were taken by government employees there" and are therefore in the public domain. Even if the photo was stolen from a government archive, that doesn't change the fact that U.S. Government photos are public domain. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot that could be said about the history of the JFK autopsy photos, but suffice to say, if there is doubt about the legality of hosting a photo on wikipedia, we don't do it. This is a notorius picture that has been deleted before, but because it is on the web, and well known, it pops up here a lot.

Mytwocents 21:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Old windy bear

I'll leave him a note as I don't want my name invoked here. I'm not really involved nor do I want to be. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I know you have a lot on your plate already, not to mention an outside life. I just needed to vent a little, anyway. If you want to delete my note, from your talk page, feel free to do so. Thanks

Mytwocents 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I come here only to note I have gone to the mediation page and defended you, and asked that the complaint be dropped. I feel both of us put our personal feelings aside, and argued issues, and the complaint against you is unfounded. I hope this will allow you to see me perhaps in a different light - I am not, as you said, an ass-over-whatever nut, or I would not have gone to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation and defended you as I have. old windy bear 12:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther

Hi Mytwocents, nice to meet you. You wrote: "Luther's later writings on the Jews displayed a special contempt, they were later used, in the twentieth century, by the Nazis to justify the Final Solution". However, Dr. Paul Halsall states, Luther's hatred of Jews, was not some affectation of old age, but was present very early on [[1]]. Doright 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, your change has started a new discussion. Please drop by the talk page and join in. --CTSWyneken 00:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Doright, who knows better, has provided you a link to a copyright infringing version of Luther's treastise. --CTSWyneken 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope the informal vote I proposed can help us reach consensus.

Mytwocents 03:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The debate is engaged again. --CTSWyneken 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on two current issues at Martin Luther is requested. --CTSWyneken 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I took out the sentence in the first paragraph about the F.B.I,cause thats not what happened. Kaltenborn 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie & Clyde

Thanks for the note, Mytwocents, it's clear that we're both working on some of the same issues. If you check the B&C talk page, you'll see that you made the very edit I was about to make at the end of the Clyde section--I went to the edit window and found the lines were already gone. I'm of two minds about the Fowler quote--on the one hand it's a good quote to summarize the section, on the other hand it's a little like a historical article on for instance the Italo-Ethiopian War sporting a quote from Roger Ebert. I guess if it was a really outstanding quote it would be fine-- so I'm neutral on whether to take this one out or not. You've done much to clean up the article over the last couple months and I hope we'll all end up with a feature-quality article Ewulp 07:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you have your hands full with this article. Good luck! Don't let other editors discourage you from being bold. --Strothra 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging word, Strothra. Mytwocents 05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys forgot to put in the part about clyde being a homo. i will add it later Kaltenborn 09:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kaltenborn Actually, most historians believe Clyde was raped in prison, (supposedly his first killing was the man who did it, according to Ralph Fults, a jailhouse rapist named "Big Ed" and a lifer willingly took the prison charge for the stabbing) and the rumors of homosexuality afterwards are just that, rumors. Mytwocents Just a hello. You were right that Kate was driven off by really vicious personal attacks. I wanted to come here and apologize again for any personal tone I have ever taken. It was wrong. I am sickened by what happened to Kate, and won't ever let my own writing get personal again. I hope you are well. old windy bear 10:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] firm but fair

I have moved Firm but Fair personal user award to User:Mytwocents/Firm but fair. It certainly did not belong in the (Main} namespace and judging by similar awards, it should be in user space rather than template space. -- RHaworth 12:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:108046.jpg

[edit] Greetings

Mytwocents We had not spoken in some time, and I thought I would say hello. I am still in shock over Kate's leaving, and I did email her as you suggested. I hope you are well, and still plugging away fighting the good fight. old windy bear 18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, old windy bear, I've been doing pretty good. I've been taking a wikibreak for the past couple of months, but dipped my toe into a couple pages lately. Added a couple of pics and such. Keeping it low key. Hope you are doing well. This 100° heat is something else. I trust your AC is working ok? --Mytwocents 05:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mytwocents - thanks for asking on the AC, with my age and health, loss of it would be a disaster. I was lucky I guess, we had saved money, and this spring, when the repairman came to check it, he said it might fail this summer, (it was 17 years old!), so my wife insisted it be replaced while we could get a major discount. Looks like she made a smart decision! As to wikimatters, I have tried to adopt a whole new attitude. I like to think some of my old belligerance was health related - I was on chemo 3 times in the last several years, with the last round lasting till March of this year - but the truth isn;t that simple, I am afraid. I tried to learn from what we went through. You are a good guy, and try hard to generate good articles. Just because we didn't agree on every detail, you didn't deserve the nastiness which was generated. I am truly sorry. I have tried since we last spoke to really keep my word, and avoid any sembalance of nastiness. I also hope you and I can sometime work on an article, and am glad you are back on wikipedia. You are an asset here. Take care of yourself, and say hello sometime. old windy bear 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment:Clay Shaw

I'm asking for an Rfc [2] on the Clay Shaw page regarding the Max Holland article. Please comment.

Long time since we've spoke. I know you have edited in this area in some time, but any comments you may have may be helpful. Ramsquire 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Arm260.gif

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Welrod4.jpg

[edit] Comair 5191

The rest of us can read the history just like you can. If you think the other editors have committed some sort of violation, then take it up with someone new. I've tried to be restrained and civil about this, but your continued behavior makes it very difficult for me to continue to assume good faith about your intentions. Your two cents aren't worth any more than mine or anyone else's. VxSote 04:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My intention is to give everyone a chance to add content to the Comair 5191 article. Mytwocents 16:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering of comments

Just a note that in straw polls and the like that take place on talk pages, it certainly is the practice to order "votes" by type; however, on AfD pages, it is usually done sequentially. This also helps people to see trends in voting; such as if someone modifies the page, and then all the votes afterward change to Keep, then it is obvious that even though there may be more delete than keep votes, than Keep is actually the prevailing opinion. Peyna 14:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks Peyna. Mytwocents 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Al-ZararPakistannews.gif listed for deletion

[edit] Comair accident and chrislawson

Hello Mytwocents, After the hysteria of chris lawson over the Comair article, I decided to quit the page. However, I was amused to find the following [[3]] and thought it might give you a grin or two. Paul venter 14:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yeah, that's why I left the article some time ago. Too much deleting and bully tactics. I worked on other articles to take my mind of of the Comair content fiasco. Here's a link you might like, Wiki Major Changes. It looks like you carried the water for those of us who wanted to include more statements backed up by news articles, and got burned for it. I came close to 3RR myself and shouted at the screen more than once! Calling in William M. Connolley as an informal mediator seems to have calmed things down. Now that the worst is over, you should archive, refactor, or delete the postings on your talk page and consider it a "learning experience". Mytwocents 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I also stumbled across this [4] - nice to know chrislawson isn't unique..... Paul venter 19:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Sn-42b.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sn-42b.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've initiated an RfC on RPJ. Please feel free to add comment. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I appreciate your attempt to enforce civility on the talk page of the Oswald article, but you probably know by now that as long as RPJ edits articles, these disputes and personal attacks will not stop. I'm thinking about taking him to mediation. Would you be interested in participating? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would. Mediation is sorely needed. I noticed, after I deleted the offending section, that others have tried to reign in RPJ's PA's by replacing other statements with a 'removed offending text' tag. That's probably a better solution for handling any trolling on the talk page. RPJ is mounting a full court press to add a conspiracy slant because of the upcoming anniversary of the JFK-A. His 'calling out' of other editors is clearly uncivil, and intimidating, and it needs to stop. Mytwocents 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Mediation is currently having a severe backlog, I took the case to the Mediation Cabal.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on RPJ

Hi. I'm advocating a case on behalf of a user who is experiencing numerous problems with RPJ. I can see from RPJ's talk page that you have interacted with him in the past. If you have a moment, would you be so kind as to head over to the RfC page and leave any guidance that might help in resolving this dispute. Thanks so much, and have a great day! →Bobby← 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration concerning RPJ. Feel free to add any comments you feel are necessary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes on George Allen (U.S. politician)

Please leave the footnotes in the infobox. That has been the only successful way to prevent edit wars between people that want Jim Webb to be in the succeeded line, versus the ones that think that he shouldn't because he is not in office yet. Thanks. Stealthound 05:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Didn't mean to nix the footnotes. Mytwocents 05:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem Stealthound 06:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)