User talk:RonCram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, RonCram, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda - name change vote

Hello, there is a proposal to rename Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. The voting is here: Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#poll on changing the name of this_page. I would appreciate it if you could vote. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 05:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda

Please see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Disputes over content should be worked out on the talk page of an article, not by revert warring in the article itself. Thank you. --Scimitar parley 17:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Now, I've only had time to take a relatively quick look at the article's talk page, and your edit in particular, but it seems to me that a) The Weekly Standard is a particularly biased source, b) the alleged link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda has always been controversial (and I know this because I've read several books and newspaper articles published prior to 9/11 on the subject of Middle-Eastern based terrorism- Hussein is certainly not a friend to religious extremist Muslims, as he's a secular dictator, not a religious fundamentalist) and c) I'm afraid that your information probably would be better suited to other articles, like the ones on Atta and the 9/11 commisison- I tend to agree with the opinion of others that it isn't terribly connected to Hussein, just because the only source that I saw you reference was a speculative piece in the Standard. If you have a better reference than that, that's another matter. That said, I'm an interested amateur, not an expert, on the subject, and my interest right now is in making it clear that edit-warring is harmful. If you cant talk it out, I suggest seeing Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.--Scimitar parley 14:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I warned you about 3RR. Don't break the rules. I've blocked you for an hour just to show you that there are consequences for violating policy. If you continue, you won't just be hearing from me- you'll be potentially facing an RfC or the Arbitration Committee. Now, if you have a problem with article content, go the proper route. Don't break 3RR. --Scimitar parley 14:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] spreading disinformation

Please do not use wikipedia to spread disinformation that has been refuted by investigations. You seem to be trying to make it into a soapbox for your conspiracy theory. We have hashed out the arguments on the proper page and you seem to have given up discussing it there. I thought it was because you had come to your senses and realized that your edits were incorrect. Now I see you seem to be trying to slip this disinformation in "under the radar" on other pages. Adding newspaper quotes from 1998 that have since proven to be false is really poor conduct in terms of Wikipedia etiquette. Especially when we have already had a debate on another talk page about those very quotes. So please do not continue to conduct yourself in this manner. Put edits on the proper page and let us discuss them there instead of avoiding the debate on the issues. Thank you. --csloat 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

csloat, none of the information in my edits have been refuted by anyone. I am surprised at your accusations. You are the one who has asked me to add information to other pages, such as the Able Danger page and the 9/11 Commission article. None of the newspaper quotes have been proven false and the information remains on the original page. All of my edits added value, context and information readers will find interesting and informative. RonCram 01:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ron, the connection between Able Danger and the Saddam/AQ connection has been refuted over and over by me. Stop playing dumb. I asked you to put it only on pages where it was relevant, not to add it maliciously to pages where it has no relevance so you can keep your conspiracy theory alive. Your edits add nothing of substance to those other pages except to mislead people that this conspiracy theory has credibility.--csloat 01:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CfD

There is a vote going on at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thank you. nobs 02:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings!

Introducing myself. I am Evensong. And I'm a Plame-aholic. Seen you on the Plame Affair discussion board. Here is a link you may be interested in. You may already have it. The Best Plamegate Coverage AnywhereEvensong 23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Help

I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just lauched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct.[1] I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem and you haven't already done so, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the article talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks! --Mr j galt 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)-

[edit] Plamegate Dispute

Ron, I thought I would chip in my 2 cents. There are days when I find cstoat maddening, (ryanf actually much less so), but cstoat and ryanf are both willing to work in the talk pages, and I think that the debate between people who disagree is important for wikipedia to be fair and complete.

I appeciate your contributions too, and just want to chip in. I think you'll find that if you back off on the "You're pushing your POV" and switch to "I think it's important that we say . . .", you'll find there's some common ground. Thanks, TheronJ 16:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Theron, I appreciate your trying to mediate. Unfortunately, Ryan and csloat so commonly fight over POV that ignoring their POV-pushing is not possible. I first learned the term of POV-pusher from csloat because he accused me of it when I tried to bring some balance to one of the articles he was editing. It is funny that you find Ryan less of a POV pusher. I have never seen her make a concession no matter how strongly the facts are against her. csloat will make a concession on occasion but not if he thinks the point is crucial to his POV. You can read more of my comments about their conduct on the RFC on Mr j galt. RonCram 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Brick Wall

I got your message left on my discussion page. The page changes so rapidly and the actual affair changes rapidly too. I will do what I can to bring balance to the page, but my time is for now limited. #1 on my list of changes is the Book of Honor portion of the page where it is speculated that there was damage due to the Plame leak because there is an anonymous star in the book. That is raw speculation. The assertion has zero support anywhere but for Kos and the DU. Even Kos called it unvarnished speculation. Now another page has appeared on Kos citing the wikipedia article in support of the position that harm was done. Kos supports wiki, whiki then supports Kos, with no documentation. It's the echo chamber effect. It is irresponsible editing and it must go. Evensong 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Evensong is correct here. I am still around, just taking a little wikibreak. I strongly support your efforts to restore NPOV on the Plame Affair site. Let me know if I can be of any help.--Mr j galt 10:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At least try to be NPOV, Ron!

Come on Ron - you hit a new low with your edits to the Negroponte and the Shaw articles. Your entries were entirely one-sided. In the case of Negroponte you took a source with a known bias and reputation for distortion, the Weekly Standard, and used it as your exclusive source of information even though Negroponte's own office addressed the issue and you were well aware of it. Your work creating the Shaw article was even worse -- excluding all information about the fact that this guy was a known criminal under FBI investigation and instead pretending his "October Surprise" accusations that were sheer electioneering had some kind of merit. In that case you were also well aware of what you were leaving out since you included the LATimes article from July 2004 mentioning the investigation in your references. Yet you relied exclusively on the Moonie controlled Washington Times for your information and even then only used one side of the story from that source! I know you have your biases and conspiracy theories, and you are welcome to them, but at least try to write things with NPOV in mind, and when you know of another side to a story please include some reference to it. Other editors are less likely to pounce on your edits if you are more thoughtful about them.--csloat 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is a conservative publication. That does not mean contents of the publication should be banned from public discourse. It is your extremely partisan POV that causes you to think so. If you feel information was excluded regarding Negroponte, you are welcome to include it. You know very well that I do not practice censorship in the way you do. Regarding Shaw, I included citations about the charges against Shaw as well as the charges he made, the same charges he continues to make in public. It is truly amusing to have you lecture me on writing with NPOV in mind, because that is something you never do. You never would have included citations on the charges against Shaw if you did not want readers to know that information. RonCram 16:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop distorting my claims, Ron. I never said it should be banned from public discourse; what I said was that it was blatantly POV to only include their take on something when there is information from more reliable sources that you know is available. I did include the information that you excluded. I know that you do practice censorship by leaving out important parts of the story when you can get away with it and by deleting relevant information while disguising your deletions in other edits. You have done this time and time again. In the Shaw article you only included information suggesting that Shaw was right all along. As for your accusations about me, you are flat out wrong and anyone can see that -- I often include perspectives other my own when I know of such information, and I never censor such information when it is there. As I have said over and over again, my philosophy is that the remedy for false information is to present the true information alongside it rather than delete information that is there. You are the one who presented the Shaw entry as if he was some kind of important hero rather than a criminal, so don't tell me I would have excluded information about him.--csloat 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not twisting your words csloat. Weekly Standard is a reliable source. CBS (Dan Rather), NBC (trucks rigged to blow up) and NY Times (Jayson Blair) are all less reliable than Weekly Standard, yet you would prefer any of these sources because they are measurably more liberal (see the UCLA study that measured media bias) than Weekly Standard. Your recent critcism of my deleting the date you provided for the Saddam Tapes is a rarity. I discussed the fact the date you provided is probably wrong and why. Your entry failed to provide a citation for the date as well. Regarding your censorship, you have a long history of deleting well-documented and relevant information. You make up any number of excuses (wrong page, not relevant, debunked elsewhere, etc.) that are simply not true. You also have a reputation for rallying fellow editors to your side to delete valid entries as well. I defy you to name one entry you made on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page that would support the idea of a link. In fact, when I first arrived at the page you wanted the article title to include "Conspiracy Theory" in a VERY strong attempt at POV. All this despite the fact the Senate Report on PreWar Intelligence admits Saddam trained al-Qaeda. I can show many, many valid entries you deleted repeatedly. Your sense of fair play needs an overhaul. Regarding Shaw, I do not view him as a criminal. No charges have been filed against him. Shaw lost his job but not because of any malfeasance on his part but apparently only because he exceeded his authority in disclosing the Russians helped moved the WMD out of Iraq. The official reason he left office was because a reorganization of the office cut his position. Calling Shaw a criminal only shows your POV. RonCram 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You twisted my words when you claimed that I wanted the Weekly Standard "banned from public discourse." I am not going to debate your ludicrous assertion that a weekly political rag is more reliable than daily news sources with real reporters on staff rather than "commentators." As for the Saddam tapes, please respond to my arguments where I made them if you think they are wrong; as it is you have conceded that the tapes most likely refer to 1990 and that Saddam says he warned us in 1989; you have asserted the nonsensical view that Saddam was referring to three years in the future. I have not censored things Ron and you are just making ridiculous assertions; either back these up with evidence or back off. The Saddam/AQ page is a conspiracy theory and I have put in information on both sides as you are well aware; however, the balance of evidence in nearly every case points to no cooperation between the two (as you are also well aware). The details have been debated to death on that talk page; you have had your say there, so it's disingenuous to bring up various examples out of context here to try to prove I am hurting wikipedia somehow by researching these things and insisting on accuracy. The Russians did not help Iraq move WMD anywhere as the evidence shows; read the articles yourself. Shaw is under FBI investigation for misuse of intelligence to enrich his friends with lucrative contracts - that makes him a criminal in my mind, yes (or at least a criminal suspect at this point). And I don't have a strong POV there - I had never heard of Shaw until reading the articles that you put on the bibliography! Anyway I have no interest in debating you on these points; it's pretty clear to me you have a tenuous grip on reality at best. I know I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. The point is not to convince each other but to collaborate as best as possible in creating accurate encyclopedic entries.--csloat 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you continue to attack the Weekly Standard without basis. Some of the most respected names in journalism write for that publication and your attacks against it are purely partisan. My attacks on CBS, et al had to do with the way they manufactured stories. The Saddam Tapes are thought to be from the mid-90s up to post-2000, not from 1990. You continue to make a serious error when you think I have conceded a point merely because I quit talking to you about it. It may be that work has called me away and I never got back to it or it may be that I have simply tired of talking to you. I have told you repeatedly not to assume I have conceded anything just because I have not responded to you. The truth is not established by the last man standing. Your failure to consider the evidence allows you to continue a position that has long been debunked. The assertions I have made about your deleting valid entries can be easily validated. Knowing my ability to research and back up what I say, do you really want me to support these assertions? I don't think so. Your POV does not allow you to honestly evaluate the evidence of Russians moving the WMD. The satellite images back up Shaw and so do the British. Yet you fail to give any credence or value to this evidence. It was nice of you to mention the fact I cited articles not favorable to Shaw. Given that fact, I wonder why you have attacked me for POV? Shaw has made charges against Doug Feith (you should like Shaw for that) and Feith's people have responded in kind. I do not know the full story but since none of Shaw's friends got any contracts, I doubt any criminal activity can be proven against Shaw. and whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" anyway? Why doesn't John Shaw get the benefit of the doubt? Just because he went public with the fact the Russians helped the Iraqis move their WMD? Your POV is showing. Now, I want to ask a favor of you. Stop posting on my user talk page. If you have something to say about one of my entries, say on the appropriate Talk page. RonCram 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Praise for Weekly Standard

"The preeminent political journal in America." —Slate.com

"The oracle of American politics" —CNN's Wolf Blitzer

"...The Weekly Standard has become a forceful presence in the world of political opinion...It is the most intelligent, aggressive and well-written publication out there." —National Journal

"Has The Weekly Standard become the most powerful magazine, Mara?" "Brit, it certainly has." —exchange between anchorman Brit Hume and reporter Mara Liasson, Fox News Channel

"The Standard's editors have inaugurated one of the most interesting Beltway debates in years." —The New Republic

"DC's opinion makers are reading The Weekly Standard." —PRWEEK

"[The Weekly Standard] is the magazine I get most grumpy about when it's not delivered." —Abe Rosenthal, former editor, The New York Times

"I don't think you can do without it if you want to know what's going on in Washington." —Robert Novak

"Widespread reaction to the editorial proved that of the roughly 65,000 people who read the Standard each week, many are what you might call important." —GQ Magazine

"The Weekly Standard is required reading up here. You have to see it to be a part of the conversation." —John Kasich, former House Budget Committee Chair

"[One of] Washington's better read political magazines" —The Economist

"The Weekly Standard is a must-read for people in Washington." —Jack Nelson, The Los Angeles Times

"The Weekly Standard [has] the advantage of possessing...editors whose insights and arguments are uncommonly provocative...[They] know Washington, know politics and have demonstrated over the years a rare capacity for civil and unusually sensible argument and analysis." —David Broder, The Washington Post

"...you speak in two very influential pulpits. You're on television a lot of the time...and you're the editor of an influential magazine." —Peter Jennings, ABC News [live interview with William Kristol]

"The Weekly Standard is a 'must read' for anyone interested in American politics and American life." —William J. Bennett

[edit] Wikipedia policy on NPOV

Wikipedia describes NPOV as "absolute and non-negotiable." For more information on how to comply with this policy, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. To summarize, NPOV does not seek to exclude all POV. Rather, the goal is to allow POV from both sides. Weekly Standard is a persuasive conservative publication that powerfully affects mainstream political thought. It is the magazine's unusually intelligent analysis that makes it so persuasive and required reading. Because Weekly Standard is one of the few conservative publications, it is all the more important that its analysis is included in articles in order to achieve NPOV. For these reasons, the Weekly Standard should be sought out, not shunned, by wikipedia editors. RonCram 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption of Wikipedia

Ron I must again implore you to stop disrupting wikipedia. You keep hurling personal insults -- that I am censoring you or stalking you -- meanwhile you are censoring valid information about the only real study of the OIF Documents in existence. You also made it clear in your requests that other people "come and join the fun" bashing me and Ryan that you consider all of this a sort of pissing contest. It is not. This is an encyclopedia. I realize you don't agree with the things I have to say here but my goal is to keep wikipedia accurate and well sourced. My goal is not to play games with you or anyone else. I ask that you treat wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not as a playground.--csloat 18:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you might look in the mirror when alleging that people are in violation of WP:C. As far as your self proclaimed "goal", two words come to mind: Wayne Madsen. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block on Operation_Iraqi_Freedom_Documents

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry C. Johnson article

I'm sorry that you have had to deal with POV pushers alone and it resulted in a block. I should have been there to help you. csloat and RyanFreisling have been clearly gaming the 3RR rule by working in tandem to revert your edits. I will begin watching that page now and, although I am very busy with school, I will try help out where I can. Could you also take a look at the Larry C. Johnson article? Johnson is a bit player in the Plame Affair. The article is yet another where political blog writer csloat relentlessly reverts and attempts to bully anyone who tries to restore POV. --Mr j galt 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Talk:Michael Scheuer

See my comments at that page. Merecat 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary O. McCarthy

This page is worth a look-see. Evensong 05:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC alert

See this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Mr j galt. Merecat 17:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Scheuer

Michael Scheuer's credibility is important to csloat. That's why he is attempting to minimize Scheuer's inconsistent comments. I suggest that you remove the bullet point section entirely, and focus on the criticism section. Also, cite the book corresponding to quotes. As it stands now, the page cited in the article are unclear as to what book they reference. Csloat is trying to beat you with a structure argument, (e.g. repitition, redendancy, etc.) Remind him that you are citing facts and that it is up to the reader to decide the implication of those facts. Evensong 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Scheuer's credibility is not important to me; accuracy is. I am not attempting to minimize anything; I am simply insisting that the article reflect the notability of Scheuer's comments accurately. Please don't put words or intentions into my mouth, Mr. song.--csloat 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Get a grip on the issue, Csloat. Scheuer made repeated statements on the issue. RonCam gets to bring those repeated statements out to make his point. All of which are based on fact. Your deleting them claiming that it is RonCam, not Scheuer, that repeats himself just will not cut it. Evensong 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Evensong. I guess Wikipedia should simply reprint every word of Scheuer's book. Or are you just suggesting that the one chapter where he makes these repetitive comments should be duplicated here word for word? You're the one who needs a "grip." Here's a thought - why don't you actually read the book yourself, and then tell us what you think it is about? Anyway, let's take future comments on this to the Scheuer page; I don't think it belongs on Ron's user page.--csloat 23:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I responded Re this subject on my talk page.--CSTAR 00:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

If you haven't done so yet, please go to: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat right away and add your perspective. Merecat 17:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your voted needed

Please go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference) Merecat 08:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

Hi,

I am sending this message to editors I know who have done work on articles related to communism.

Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.

Best regards. 172 | Talk 05:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein

Notice that the existing structure of the article is mostly chronological, not topical. His support for terrorism should be detailed in a concise manner, as this is only the general bio article on Saddam Hussein, throughout the article in relevant sections, depending on the chronology. Thus, a specific section on "support for terrorism" is not helpful. 172 | Talk 22:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

I have never stalked you Ron. Please remove your comment about that on 172's talk page. As you are well aware, I had started that conversation on the Talk:Saddam Hussein page. When 172 participated on the page, you took your complaint to his talk page (which I was well aware of, since both are on my watchlist). There was no stalking involved. If you want a private conversation with someone, send them an email. Don't feign offense just because known troll User:TDC jumped down my throat about it. That conversation was about edits to the Saddam Hussein page, not about some private matter. It is your decision if you want to be a follower instead of a leader, Ron, but if that's the choice you wish to make, I'd advise you not to follow known trolls.--csloat 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you constantly show up on almost any page I edit. Why would you have a User Talk page on your watch list? Why would you feel you need to comment in a conversation between 172 and myself? Do you think 172 cannot hold up his end of a conversation? Your harassment is going too far. TDC may have been the first to talk about your stalking but I noticed it long before he mentioned it. At first I chalked it up to our both being interested in the same subjects. When you followed me to subjects farther afield, it made me uncomfortable. But when you follow me to a User Talk page, that is truly over the line. I would advise you to take some time off from wikipedia.RonCram 09:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have every user talk page that I have edited on my talk list, as do you. Don't play dumb. I commented because it dealt with edits to the Saddam Hussein page. I had engaged you in talk on that page but you refused to support your arguments there, as you are well aware. I never stalked you, as you are well aware. If you are confused, you might look at Wikipedia:Harassment. Specifically note the following: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." In fact I did not even do those things; I simply responded on topic to a discussion about the Saddam Hussein article, specifically about passages in that article that we both had been editing. You are simply wikilawyering, raising phony harrassment charges as a red herring rather than actually debate the issues, since you know you are wrong about the issues and will lose the debate. If it makes you uncomfortable to lose debates, Ron, then stop advocating indefensible positions in them. I would advise you not to tell me what to do.--csloat 09:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. I do not have every User Talk page I have edited on my watchlist. My own Talk page is on my watchlist and that is all. What "error" of mine did you think was possible or pertinent on 172's Talk page? Why would you feel it necessary for you to insert yourself into our conversation? This is bad behavior, csloat. I would advise you to drop the issue and never do it again. Making a big deal out of this only makes it worse for you. I am willing to debate the issues as I have time. I actually have to spend some time working. And you know full well that when I am not editing for days or weeks that it is because I am working on a time consuming project not because I have lost an argument. RonCram 10:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well perhaps you don't have the pages you edit on your watchlist, but I do. The error of yours is in continuing to defend your intellectually bankrupt position on Saddam and al-Qaeda. You lost the argument on that page, so you try to stick your conspiracy theories on the Saddam page. Then when you are losing the debate on the Saddam page, you take it to 172's talk page. I don't understand what is "bad behavior" about responding to arguments relevant to the discussion that I was a participant in. I am not the one making a big deal out of it; you brought it up; you pretended to have your feelings hurt; you disingenuously accused me of stalking. I did nothing but participate in a discussion about Saddam. You may be working on a project but that has nothing to do with the fact that you have lost this argument over and over Ron. It is ok to lose arguments; I suggest you just move on. If you have interesting theories about Saddam and al-Qaeda, start a blog. But please stop trying to impose your theories on an encyclopedia when they are not backed up by evidence in the real world. Thanks.--csloat 10:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have not lost the argument. I will be returning to the Saddam and al-Qaeda page. You know as well as I do that the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents are adding new evidence to the discussion and changing people's minds, including 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey. Returning to the subject of your bad behavior: I was not speaking to you. I was talking to 172. To insert yourself into a conversation you were not a part of is rude and uncalled for. If you do not understand that, I do not know how to help you. If I had wanted you to be a part of our conversation, I would have asked 172 the question on the article Talk page. Oh, and I think you misunderstood me earlier. I did not say I never lose arguments. I did say that I do not run and hide if I lose one. I know that is one of your fantasies but it simply is not true. This is the end of this discussion. Anything else you post on my Talk page I will delete to save you from any further embarassment. RonCram 10:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, your repeated claims that you have never stalked anyone does not hold up under scrutiny. I have (as well as Ron and a number of other users to be sure) on far to many occasions that after an edit war or content dispute with you on an article, you immediately show up editing another completely unrelated article that we have been working on. I can only suspect that after you “won” a particular debate you feel emboldened enough and dig though our contributions for another victory lap. This has to stop sloat; it completely flies in the face of civility, and harassment.

Consider this your last warning.

The sad thing is that you see this as some kind of battle of wills and wits with other users instead of what it should be: a collaboration to write well informed article that abide by Wikipedia’s guidelines.

And before you begin pointing fingers at me, you brought my name into this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It will take some time for me to peruse the complaint, but I did a "once over" on it. It only scratches the tip of the iceberg. Evensong 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc (bis)

csloat left a note on my page about your RfC to which I responded. Please have a look and feel free to make any comments on my page. Thanks --CSTAR 01:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

Thanks for the note. While I have some knowledge of the political history of modern Iraq, I'm no intelligence analyst. I'm also pretty over-streched on Wiki at the moment. (Right now, I've already promised to help weed the problematic references to propaganda sites like ZNet and Venezuelanalysis.com out of the Hugo Chavez article, cleanse the "libertarian socialism" article of loads of nonsense, and rewrite "types of socialism." I'm getting behind on all of these projects!) If I have time, I'll take a look at the article and try to do my best. If I don't make it to the article, I recommend getting users like TDC, MONGO, and ChrisO (a professional intelligence analyst, I believe), who've done competent work on similar subjects, to take a look. 172 | Talk 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

From a quick glance, the article strikes me as dramatically easier to read and much more logically organized after your rewrite. (I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to read the April 8, 2001 timeline entry in the old article, for example.) But my glance was too brief to make an informed evaluation of the content. The most I can say is that your version seems to be a better basis for improvement than the old article. 172 | Talk 02:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of RfC

Based on what seems to be WP policy, I have proposed deleting the RfC and will soon do so. This doesn't mean your I think your complaints have no merit, although I think the stalking one doesn't have merit. As I mentioned, if you want private conversations with other users, use Email ( I regularly read email that comes from WP -- it's not much but I read it). However, you would be better off trying an informal mediation process. If you like I would be willing to help. --CSTAR 01:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. --CSTAR 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I'll look over Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda later this weekend...I am only able to check the links provded and determine if the text is supported by them. My knowledge of the subject matter is not strong but will assist as I can.--MONGO 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

i haven't had a chance to thoroughly review your proposed rewrite of Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, but i can tell that reaching any consensus on that page will be a difficult task. i appreciate you taking notice to my additions. i think the fox news translation is significant as well. i'd enjoy the opportunity to collaborate with you on the article. it seems lately all i do is debate and defend myself. it would be a nice change of pace to work with someone. i'm not sure where the article is headed, as i don't believe the entire story has been told yet, and i personally haven't reached any conclusions either way. do you think you could provide links to articles you find most informative on the topic on my discussion page, or should i just read your rewrite? as far as setting up an email, i'm not sure how to do that but it may not be necessary. thanks. Anthonymendoza 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as setting up an email, just click on the link to the left that says "Email this user" and wikipedia will walk you through the process of setting up an email. Email is an excellent opportunity to move the discussion forward without being disrupted by others. One of Sloat's tactics is to keep the football (meaning that he always has to reply to every statement one makes). If you do not reply, then he claims you implicitly agreed with his POV. Regarding the story not being told yet, I have to agree. However, we can accurately tell what has happened so far. My suggestion is you read through the rewrite the first time without looking at the sources just to check it for readability. Then read it through again checking the sources to make certain I am not overstating the case at all. I know it is a long process, but it is well worth it. I am open to any suggestions you may have to make it better. Once you have email set up, we can talk more. RonCram 11:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming and related topics

Hi Ron! While we typically disagree on these topics, it's rather refreshing to have an opponent who actually is capable of changing his opinion at least in the small. May I suggest that you do try to read a couple of the reports we are talking about (e.g. the IPCC WG1 report and the recent NAS report)? At least the summary sections are usually quite accessible,and it would help us to at least have a basic common understanding of the state of the art. Many second and third hand sources on either side of the debate are quite unreliable. Have fun! --Stephan Schulz 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Here is a barnstar for your absolutely brilliant rewrite of "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda". Huysman 00:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. BhaiSaab talk 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Muhammad (pbuh) have existed since the beginning of Islam. It's nothing new or significant. BhaiSaab talk 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether criticisms are valid since the founding of Islam are not for us to judge. If you intend on adding that again, please provide a source that states that her criticism and condition are the most significant criticisms to Islam in its history. BhaiSaab talk 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The content of the criticism, i.e., what it says about the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), is significant, yes - but can you prove that the criticism made by this women is significant itself? Personally, I think criticisms made by the likes of ibn Warraq are more significant than that of Wafa Sultans. BhaiSaab talk 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of being sexist. We can continue this on the Talk:Islam page. BhaiSaab talk 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be trolling. Try to avoid this sort of needless rhetorics, keep cool and polite and assume good faith. Happy editing, dab (ᛏ) 12:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your comments in Talk:islam

ugh...... I just read one of the comments youmade on me. no I don't think you should be killed, but I do think you need therapy. violence was not taught by muhammed, but it was taught by wahabbi, some nutzo 18th century scholar who more or less founded terrorism. he was a loon yes, but don't mix his teachings up with muhammed's. he was chased and pursecuted by total barbarians, and his followers were in dire peril. what would YOU do if you were in a "with you or against you" situation? totally reasonable to ask people to defend themselves. do christians cut off their hands every time they masturbate? Zazaban 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper sources

Please don't try to pass off POV pushing websites as reliable sources. Direct headline from cnsnews: Iran, Syria Relieved That Democrats Won. Come on, man... this is an encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See my response on your user page. By the way, you should not be surprised that Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda were all relieved by the Democrats victory. If you had been reading, you would know what they have been saying for a long time. [2] RonCram 12:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
RonCram:
  1. Criminal offenses are indictable, which is done by the government in response to crimes against the state ("the people").
  2. Civil torts (lawsuits) are brought by individuals for remediation from a personal wrong.
  3. Slander and libel are damaging ("defamatory statements") to an individual. As such, relief from libel would come in the form of a civil action initiated against you by the defamed party. In no way has anyone accused you of an indictable criminal defense -- your claim seems like bluster with little understanding of what you're talking about.
  4. Personal attacks are ones in which a post deals with the editor instead of the content. The source refers to Conservative News Service (the source you quoted), and is unreliable. Your accusations refers to you insisting that the Senator committed treason (the only criminal offense outlined in the Constitution; punishable by death). Libelous means a written defamatory statement. Where exactly are you discussed in my post at all? False claims of personal attacks revoke the good faith we assume, and destroys any credibility you might have had.
  5. The bias of the New York Times has no relevance here. We're discussing the reliability of your source, CNS News.
  6. WP:BLP is very clear about the additional rigor to which negative information about living persons must be subjected.
Now, you're trying to insert an accusation of treason against a sitting U.S. Senator using a source that admittedly has a bias against the Senator. Doesn't that seem a little egregious to you? Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
   
User talk:RonCram
 Jimmy Wales considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity
   
User talk:RonCram
 
— WP:BLP
   
User talk:RonCram
 Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
   
User talk:RonCram
 
— Jimbo Wales

[edit] Response to Blaxthos

Blaxthos, civil libel actions are more common than criminal libel, but libel is a crime and can be prosecuted by the state. Check out this article on "Libel and the Law." [3] I complained about your attack against me because any reader of your statement would believe I was the source of an accusation against Senator Kennedy. You wrote "Your source is unreliable and your accusation libelous." It is not my accusation. I only seek to have the published and verified reporting on the issue included in this article on Kennedy. It is against wikipedia policy to prevent the inclusion of information on POV grounds. Read carefully this excerpt from the guidelines for biographies of living persons.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

I want to make certain you read my response on the Kennedy Talk page, so here it is again.

[edit] No controversy on Kennedy-KGB link

It was nice to see Seraphimblade agree that the source for the CNS News and Washington Times op-ed piece is solid. (As an aside Seraphimblade, your conclusion that the Washington Times piece "is an editorial and therefore inherently unreliable" is not exactly accurate. Any reader is free to disagree with the conclusions of an op-ed piece, however, the facts presented in the piece have to reach the same level of accuracy and verifiability as any reporting. When reading op-eds, you have to be able to separate the reporting from the opinion. It is common practice for op-ed pieces to be linked on wikipedia.) It is wrong to say a controversy exists on the issue because neither Senator Kennedy nor John Tunney have denied the story. The story is based on far more than the recently released book by Paul Kengor. Kengor's research has certainly moved the story along by providing fresh details, but the story is based on several recovered KGB documents. Former KGB agent Vasiliy Mitrokhin published a paper in February 2002 based on document(s) he found. You can read that paper on pdf here. [4] An op-ed piece by Herbert Romerstein gives some additional facts. One of the KGB documents "was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992." The first document was "discovered in the Soviet archives by London Times reporter Tim Sebastian and a report on it was published in that newspaper in February 1992." [5] According to the London Times, businessman John Tunney (he was already a former senator by this time) admitted going to the Soviet Union on 15 occasions during the late 1970s and early 1980s to represent Kennedy and other senators. There is certainly more to the story and more of it will come out. However, we cannot say the story is "too new" for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The story has been verified repeatedly and has never been denied by Senator Kennedy or John Tunney. RonCram 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Closed, Ted Kennedy

RfC regarding the material you tried to insert into the Ted Kennedy article is now closed. The result was unanimous reject. /Blaxthos 00:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/n/User_talk%7ERonCram_d339.html"