User talk:PainMan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I live in Southern Nevada, approxiametly 20 miles from the fabled Vegas Strip. I am completely disabled and am a full-time Dad. The upside is that I have a lot of time for my scholarly pursuits and writing. I invite discussion about all my interests, history, science fiction, paleontology, astronomy, Babylon-5, Dune, Lord of the Rings, English, French, Soviet, Roman and American history and politics (though I am NOT interested in the usual partisan bickering and venom).

PLEASE NOTE:

ALL UNSIGNED COMMENTS WILL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED. Period.

Contents 1 Signing 2 Reverting 3 IP address 4 Welcome to Wikipedia 5 Logging In 6 Discussions! 7 Talk:Rigoberta Menchu 8 Response 9 liberal-pedia 10 Your changes at Rush (band) 11 Thank You Very Much 12 Reds and Such 13 Regarding Some Very Dark Possibilities 14 Rush etc 15 Dennis Miller 16 Image use 17 Major revision to Dennis Miller 18 Up right now 19 License tagging for Image:Kate Harwood.jpg 20 On Bobby Kennedy 21 Ironic Bobby Sands comments 22 Agri Decumates 23 RE: Bobby Kennedy 24 Hello! 25 Bobby Sands

[edit] Signing

To sign your comments on Talk pages just type ~~~~ at the end of your comment and Wikipedia will automatically insert your Username and a timestamp. AlistairMcMillan 14:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting your insert your username on the article pages. Each page has a history, that is where people can identify who contributed what. Just look for the "Page History" link. AlistairMcMillan 14:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, Page history. AlistairMcMillan 14:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

Since you are new here I don't want to discourage you, but please be aware of the Three-revert rule. AlistairMcMillan 16:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP address

The IP address appears because you weren't logged in at the time you made those edits. It used to be possible to get IP address edits reassigned to your username, however that service doesn't seem to be available at the moment. Changing attribution for an edit AlistairMcMillan 16:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE help me. I very much appreciate any and all help. There's a lot to digest here. Time is valuable and I thank you for expending a little of yours on helping me. PainMan 16:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I will help anywhere I can. However please do not duplicate information that is covered more appropriately elsewhere. I'm actually going out right now, but I'll check in once I get and answer any questions you have. AlistairMcMillan 16:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Sorry if the discussion on Windows 95 is a little strong for your first time edits. Don't let that turn you off. Usually other users see new edits from new users and post a welcome message, but I don't see one here for you. That usually has some helpful information on contributing and such. I'll find one and copy it here for you.

Everyone here is still learning, believe me! If I can help you out, feel free to ask. You might try out some smaller edits to see how they go as you get a hang of it. And not everything happens in real time here. Sometimes even controversial edits on obscure topics go for days (or even never) before being noticed! SchmuckyTheCat 16:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's a starter to the community: Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset. You've done well with rule 1. See the caveat to rule 2. :) SchmuckyTheCat 16:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm reading the "Wikiquette" page as we exchange these messages. I've violated one of my own, well Voltaire's rules: "Define your terms." I'm out of my depth (on technical issues) and, as a historian, should know (d*mned dyslexia!) better than to repeat what's apparently gossip I can't (or am unwilling to) source.

So I'm feeling rather chagrined at the moment.

PainMan 16:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Having just read Wikiquette, bad article ideas, simplified ruleset, I think I'm more confused than I was. Obviously, I'm going to have to digest this material. Some of its seems paradoxical, e.g. there seems to much more ink (so to speaK) spent on what wikipedia is not rather than what it is. As this is an intial impression, I hope it changes.

But at the moment I kind of feel like I've been assinged to learn how to pilot the space shuttle by being dropped into the cockpit as its starting the landing cycle. My hair's on fire and my face is rather flushed.

Certainly not the first time I've jumped in with both feet without checking the depth.  :o)

Well, we learn by doing, not pouting. Unfortunately, pouting is much easier. I now understand the paradigm better. I'm still not sure why a short history of GUI evolution is undesirable in article on the most important GUI ever created, but, to quote a certain Tarantino character, I'm trying real hard.

PainMan 17:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

well, it's about topic. The topic of Windows 95 is neither Microsoft, anti-trust, the history of the GUI, etc. Since there is an article specific to the GUI, that's the most appropriate place to put it's history.

I read your stuff on Will Durant. I'd never heard of him before. It doesn't look bad to me - not that I'd know.

And, I wouldn't necessarily decline to edit articles where you aren't an expert - be bold! Maybe think twice about huge blocks of text, or propose them on the talk page of the article to see how other people take to it for large changes. SchmuckyTheCat 21:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logging In

Hi,

just looking at your entries regarding problems logging in, although I am not sure that you will check this page if you cannot log in. I'm a mac person, so can't really help you, but it might be worth posting to the Village pump. By the nature of wikipedia there is no real single webmaster.

Good luck -- postglock 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

• No problem, any time! Just bought a Mac Mini recently myself, which is well worth the price! (BTW, to sign your posts on talk pages, type ~~~~. this just makes a link back to your own page.--postglock 07:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions!

Pls feel free to email me to discuss all and sundry. Intellectuals can die of thirst in this country so I welcome all informed correspondence, whether you agree with me or not. As my grandfather used to say, you never learn anything if you only talk to people with whom you agree.

[edit] Talk:Rigoberta Menchu

Article talk pages are not the place for unrelated political discussion. Wikipedia is not a message board. It doesn't matter whether or not it is "the truth", it is irrelevant and not the purpose of those pages. Also note that personal attacks will not be tolerated. Gamaliel 22:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bogus, laughable, non-sensical and contemptuous of the truth. PainMan 12:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

While I'd have to say you're far from 'elouqent', I'll grant that perhaps I misjudged hastily (It's a sad fact that if you work on the sorts of articles I do, you see a *lot* of nutcases, both left-wing and right-wing, and the paranoia of "Oh geez, not another one..." starts to set in.

I'd disagree with the claim that Nazis are today still being hunted, compared to the free pass given to leftists criminals - the truth is, until Wiesenthal got the bulk of his media attention, through the 40s, 50s and 60s, we gave a lot of Nazis a free pass, I don't think the "turn a blind eye syndrome" is strictly limited to leftists or right-wings.

(btw, I've heard of the umbrella event, but know no details surrounding it)

I agree with your taste in books though, which is odd since we seem to come away with very different worldviews because of it - but Shirer's Third Reich is one of those exhaustive masterpieces that inspire me to go "Okay, so who history deems "Nazis" were real people, they had wives, they had careers", and what fascinates me isn't studying people's crimes, but their background. Ziad Jarrah's behaviour on September 11th isn't very interesting to my mind, what is interesting is that he had no reason/excuse to be so fuelled by hate, he was from a very wealthy family, he was married (a point of contention, but for the sake of argument, at least common-law), he kept in close contact with his family...and he was in the United States far longer than any of the others...what damn reason did he have to be aboard those planes. To finish the quote on the image on my userpage "...what lies or threats led him on this long march from home?"

My reference to Africans wasn't actually in relation to slavery (which coincidentally, I agree with you, is misrepresented as a strictly American venture), but more simply the Imperialistic attitude that has always sort of seen them as varelse to be exploited for Euro-American benefit, and the billions who have died in the past century because of malnourishment and crippling poverty that extends today. (And yes, I actually paid attention to the "current day slavery" when it was in the news a few years ago)

To current presidents, I made the Bush jab lightheartedly as I pointed out, because honestly, that's a can of worms that I prefer not to delve into - in honesty, both sides are probably greatly inflating their stories, and no matter how much I may believe a certain side, I'll certainly never convince anybody to abandon their own view, so why bother studying it to discover the truth? It's better to spend that time delving into things like Hugh Thompson, Jr. that not only do people not know their story, but half the world doesn't even know such a guy existed. (Another reason you'll notice I wrote about him, Colburne and Andreotta...but not Calley...the name Calley is indelibly marked on the public consciousness as tied to My Lai...but why isn't Thompson? Wasn't he just as central a figure in the event? Why can 80% of the population name Calley, but probably less than 1% can name Thompson?

As per Clinton, trust me, while I consider myself more leftist than right, I have no respect for Clinton and can't believe what the American public let him get away with. If Bush today replicated the Waco siege, there would be an international uproar at his suspension of civil rights, his overreaction, his dependence on the military and his fear of religious freedom. Instead Clinton got away brushing it off as "one of those really neat things that happen sometimes"

I'm vaguely curious btw, if the German movie you mention, is Der Untergang? Anyhow, enjoy ROTS, for me, it's off to studying for my law exam on Monday. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak German and its been over nearly fifteen years since I saw the German movie, so I don't know. I'd like to have it on DVD--I have the entire 6 hour version of Das Boot for example and I always watch it in German with the subtitles. Were you aware that the submarine branch of the Kreigsmarine suffered a 75% KIA rate--the highest of any branch of any military of any country in WWII. Nearly all the crews were basically boys average age of 19. Something like Vietnam. Though they were violating the laws of war, I can't help but have a large measure of empathy for them, dying in the icy, dark waters of the Atlantic for a cowardly swine of dictator. PainMan 02:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Leaving for the holidays in about 20 minutes, and still have some packing to do, so suffice to say I'm male, I agree that Right/Left is too rigidly thought-of in society, and I'll write you after Christmas Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a good time. Looking forward to continuing the conversation. The final smack down between the Jedi and Palpatine's about to go down. Gots to watch. Have a safe trip. PainMan 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] liberal-pedia

I agree wikipedia is a liberal circlejerk now. Its just the demographic that is drawn to it currently. I believe this will change as more conservatives get online. It may take years.--Capsela 05:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel your pain man. Sorry, bad pun. I've had my own run-ins with this Gamaliel person when I dared to write an article about his patron saint, Mumia. She/He is the pedantic type that will watch the PainMan page in eternity, and footnote to my comment here. The liberal persuasion orientation of Wikipedia is self-evident, but what to do about it? The liberal advocates are the most diligent of the editors here. Trying to correct their POV is mostly pointless, as there's a determined group of people with the same Marxist-Liberal POV that show up here and edit in that direction. In that respect, the self-correcting promise of Wikipedia fails, and probably will never be remedied. Indeed, Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source has been deeply bruised by recent events, and probably won't recover without significant reform. The Co-Founder of Wikipedia, whose name we "dare not speak", believes that the answer is to hire editors to sift the candidate entries, and has formed his own Wiki-like venture to pursue that aim. In the meantime, this stuff is mostly harmless, and maybe even a little fun. How we edit or don't edit these articles will not lead to the destruction of the Western World. Wikipedia is just a starting point, not the last word. Of course, that doesn't mean that we cannot give the lib-POVers a taste of their own medicine. I suggest we form a Cabal for the purpose of supporting each other in these French-cheese-eaters vs. rational world wars. Cheers brothers. Morton devonshire 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to get hold of Wiki's latest 990s to see if Soros is a funder, but I haven't been able to get hold of the most recent. The pro-Marxist persuasion seems almost too much to be explained by the natural inclination of radicals to be attracted to this sort of venture. Sandy 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your changes at Rush (band)

I've reverted them for the time being, nothing against you. I've explained why at Talk:Rush (band), and I hope you can hop into the discussion! I hope the two of us can reach a compromise on your changes there. Cheers! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent changes were reverted mostly because they read like flowery unencyclopedic fandom - Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a place for original research or your personal perceptions. Leave POV and subjectivity for amateur music review websites and the like. No offense intended at all. I invite you to participate in the discussion on the talk page so that perhaps an agreement/compromise can be reached, but unless you can tone down the POV and citationless jargon, I highly doubt any of your changes can be accepted Cheers. Wisdom89 00:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your latest changes. Please see Talk:Rush (band) for my reasoning. regards --KaptKos 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

To help us reach consensus, a sandbox version (and revert-free zone!) of the Rush article has been created at Rush (band)/Sandbox. Once we get to a version everyone agrees with, we can merge that back with the main article. Please remember not to revert any other person's edits, and stay away from the main Rush article for the time being, and we'll all be peachy. Thanks! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Peachy for whom? I'm not feeling very peachy. If we can't edit, can't add our opinion, can't make changes, then what's the bloody point? I'm just supposed to wait while you and your friends email the article back and forth and then post a version you like--and then, I suppose, the page will be locked down--SOL PM!

Sorry but I have major, major problems with this approach. I really don't think I can adhere to it.

At least not without further discussion and explanation. PainMan 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

there's power in numbers.

Lonecanine

Hi Painman. I just wanted to assure you that my actions have been in good faith and I do not wish to fall out with anybody or get into a revert war or any of that nonsense. I honestly don't like the changes you have made and would prefer if you took a more incremental approach or used the sandbox, I had expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the sb and I saw your changes before your exchange with Borg, so I had assumed you were ignoring the suggestion. I accept you thought the sb was dead. Also I was a bit tetchy after being on hold for half an hour by a call centre so I probably jumped the gun and should have waited a few minutes to give you a chance of putting something on the Talk page, which you did moments after I reverted, so I apologise for my haste. I would still have reverted but it probable wouldn't have been as frustrating for you. --KaptKos 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Painman. I couldn't help but notice your use of the term "opinion" above. Wikipedia's purpose is not to act as the pulpit for one single person's opinion, hence why we have WP:NPOV. The Rush article has conformed to FA requirments and in its current condition reflects the very best that wikipedia should be. There are about 980 or so other articles that do the same. Major rewrites that include large chunks of text and the removal of sourced information that reflect YOUR opinion is not acceptable. That's POV pushing. Have I misunderstood you? Wisdom89 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You Very Much

Actually, I'm one of the most solidly Democratic persons you will ever meet. I grew up Maryland, where Reds are an endangered species and where George W. Bush is about as welcome as a hernia. You probably assumed I was a Republican, which I think attests to the neutrality of my editing (I mean, I'm really Democratic). Simply put, an article about the First Family shouldn't inlude much about politics. It should include some, however, as the President himself is a member of the First Family. I put Watergate in there because it had a major effect on Nixon's wife and daughters: it ended their time in the White House.

All the same, I'm glad that I'm not alone. If you could leave your opinion on the talk pages, that would be great. Also, if you'd like to join in on the RfC currently going on to discuss User: Hipocrite's conduct, I would appreciate it. I just want to be able to edit like anyone else. Those pictures were beautiful, and they took them all down. It's terrible. Thanks again and I hope to see your input on the various sites.

History21 02:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)History21

[edit] Reds and Such

I'm very aware that the term used to have a different connoatation--one of the reasons that I'm so fond of the phrase, "Better dead than red" (in the modern sense, of course).

It's funny, but for years the Democrats were identified as red themselves. Back then, we had what we called the Solid South, a band of Democratic stronghold states that spanned the entire Southeast. I've actually been doing some reading on that lately, and what I've found has deeply disturbed me. In the second half of the 1800's, even the Democratic epicentres of Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama would occasionally vote Republican.

The political parties have swithced geographic regions, and today the idea that Massachusetts or Maryland would vote Republican, or that Georgia or Texas would vote Democratic, is unthinkable. We have very rarely had such rigid sectionalism in our history, and to be quite frank it scares the hell out of me.

Regarding Israel: it has a right to defend itself, but so does Palestine or Lebanon, and the wholesale bombing of civilians is unacceptable. The best thing we can do is force both sides to stop. I'm confident that our Secretary of State, a highly able woman, is doing all that she can.

You can add your opinion to the matter regarding my edits here: [1]

Please read the debate thoroughly. I know that you, at least, will be professional and won't sink to the level of my opponents.

[edit] Regarding Some Very Dark Possibilities

Let me say this: I don't think that we're there yet, but some judicious stirring of the political emotions in this country would do it. The 2006 and 2008 elections will play a huge role. We have seldom been more polarized (by region, which excludes the Vietnam War), but Democrats hold a commanding advantage in the upcoming Congressional elections. If they win, the impeachment of our President is a virtual certainty.

I understand how you feel about fighting the war on terrorism, but George W. Bush has repeatedly violated the Constitution and has been saved from removal thus far solely because his party loyalists control the legislature. No investigations have been allowed to proceed, and even cursory probing by the Democrats will unearth devastating evidence against him. The process is bound to be an emotionally agonizing one and will no doubt increase animosities between the two sides.

Following this, whichever region loses the 2008 presidential election is going to be very upset. I think that an upheaval in the Blue States is more likely than one in the Red ones; the Republicans have won the last two presidential contests, and, in the case of the first one, they had the satisfaction of knowing that they had been able to take possession of the White House despite the fact that the Democrats were able to beat them in the actual voting.

In the diehard Northeast, in states like Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, and New York, there is still the feeling that the country was stolen from them. The passion behind the 2004 drive made that loss as bad, if not worse. If the Democrats lose another close and questionable presidential election in 2008, you may see some serious developments begin.

Let's hope it doesn't go that far. If we are lucky, George W. Bush will be impeached and convicted, Dick Cheney will assume the presidency as a legitimate Commander-in-Chief, and the country (especially the Blue States) will be able to rest peacefully with the knowledge that the Republic is still ruled by law.

In many quarters, that sentiment has long gone, and that confidence doesn't exist.

As I have said, let us hope.

History21 05:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)History21

[edit] Rush etc

Thanks for the note Painman. I was just thinking a few days ago its been pretty quite around here ;) Keep fighting the good fight. Regards --KaptKos 16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Miller

Thanks for all your efforts on the Dennis Miller page. It's nice to have someone who knows what he's doing and who does it well (especially with some of the yahoos who have tried to do editing on there). Beatdown 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image use

I dunno, it's pretty confusing: Copyright images used for fair use with no free alternative available seem to be okay, even if the copyright hasn't lapsed (for example the VC execution I've used on the Steve Irwin talk page) but when I put up a friggin' free-use-for-educational-purposes picture of a barb, I get a huge warning saying THIS WILL BE DELETED. Man, whatever. Wikipedia sucks sometimes. Professor Ninja 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I never noticed the left-wing cabal myself. Most of the time I notice right-wingers trying to inject their POV into an article and getting caught very fast. I'm sure we lefties do it too, but I'm rather ruthless for the truth. I try to fact check everything. I find one of three things invariably happens: 1) Smooth talking liberal injects velvety POV phrase that needs to be re-written because its bordering on half-truth. 2) Abrasive conservative injects caustic POV writing that needs to be re-written because even if it's true its stated with as much "N"POV subtelty as a club across the head. 3) The reasonable liberals and conservatives get together, quell the flaming on the talk page, and decide the only way to make an article NPOV is to inject equal amounts of pre-approved POV statements to create a "balance" (this one's my favourite because this is the one I find people doing the most. Tu quoque is the greatest logical fallacy ever!)

And as for the image cliques, I know exactly what you're talking about. I tend to dive into the hotbutton topics (such as Terri Schiavo) and try to keep them relatively sane. In that one there was a massive amount of contention as to what image to use, with two image cliques forming -- the ones who supported the persistent vegetative state camp and the ones who supported the recovarable illness camp, each vying to upload a particular picture, one being Terri pre-collapse, vibrant and very alive, and the other being Terri post-collapse, basically slack, gaunt, and staring at the ceiling. Me and a couple others suggested that a before and after picture would probably be best in any event since the article concerned her life both before and after her cardiac arrest, one of us even made the picture, but we were shot down (including by admins supporting either "camp"). (That article was also a wonderful example of the velvet-talking liberals and the brash conservatives, though we did get the occasional silver-tongued con and bilious lib in there too... because hell, why not mix it up a little? I don't think I have a migraine on the left side of my head yet.) Nothing here is easy. Professor Ninja 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision to Dennis Miller

Hi. I just noticed that a few days ago you totally gutted the Dennis Miller article without any discussion on the talk page. I reverted it back to its state just prior to your edit. I believe changes in articles of that magnitude are deserving of a consensus, hopefully established through a discussion on the talk page which I would more than happily participate in. Lawyer2b 04:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the text of our discussion so far to Talk:Dennis Miller and posted a reply to the message you left on my talk page there. I hope you will participate in a dialog there as I believe this discussion should involve the community. Lawyer2b 04:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your last message. I did revert an edit of yours, but only the ones that you made on September 4th; the only reason I reverted them is they removed huge amounts of material from the article with any discussion. Regarding your question on my "sudden concern with quasi-democracy", I've always tried to follow wikipolicies and believe they should be followed by all. If I see them violated, I will usually say something. I haven't gone back over all the recent edits to the Dennis Miller article, but your major change (without discussion) stuck out. If other major changes (to any article) are being done without some sort of discussion and consensus, please point them out. I would object to them as well. Lawyer2b 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Up right now

See GabrielF/911TMCruft for a complete list of conspiracy theory articles up for deletion right now. Morton devonshire 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Kate Harwood.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kate Harwood.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Bobby Kennedy

You forgot to mention that he was a horse-toothed jackass who was directly resposible for the death of Marylin Monroe. He would have made a lame President randazzo56

There's no creditable evidence that Bobby killed Marilyn. It is a fact that he was having an affair with her (as his Jack had and god knows how many other men), but the Kennedy boys are notorious for their libertinism. Since their followers never seem to have cared about this, I hardly see how the affair becoming public knowledge before the '68 election would have matter; thus it wouldn't have been motive for murdering her.

Just as when Monroe sank "Happy Birthday" to Jackie boy--so smashed out of her mind on Seconal--if you didn't get a clue they were more than just "friends" you had your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

PainMan 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

their followers may not have cared or noticed but thier political opponents amd other detractors would have. If this information would have been comfirmed prior to the '68 elections Nixon would have used it to his advantage. Kennedys motive seems clear in that Marylin planned a press conference that would have ruined Kennedy politicaly, he allready had enough enemys. randazzo56

[edit] Ironic Bobby Sands comments

Because the person who wrote this did not sign it I am removing it. All anonymous comments on my talk pages will be immediately removed!

One should have the stones to sign one's comments. My comments were made on the Talk/Discussion Page and not within the article where a neutral point of view should be applied (and isn't).

[edit] Agri Decumates

I noticed that you started the article Agri Decumates. Without checking whether there was an article of the same name, I started an article Agri decumates a couple of days ago. Obviously they have to be merged. But which one will it be? Decumates with or without capital d. What's your opinion? -- Ekki01 18:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi PainMan, the spelling whith or without capital 'd' is somewhat arbitrary. I have checked Michael Grant and you are indeed correct. However, In some of the works I've got (mostly German and Dutch) it is spelled with a small 'd', the reason why I used it. I reckon we should merge the two, combining your information with the more recent article I wrote together with Jvhertum [2]. I am a newbie myself (2 months) and don't have any experience on how to merge two articles either. I checked the Help pages and come across some advice. I have no problem in using your version (with the capital'd') as the final version. On the subject of "proprietary", I completely understand what you mean. After "finishing" my first article, I felt the same and got really irked when people started fiddling with it. But that passes and one gets used to it. Cheers -- Ekki01 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You can find the article I created together with user Jvhertum here: [3]. I suggest to put a merge tag on Agri decumates to propose a move to Agri Decumates (your article or "baby" :-) ). This because a) yours is the older article (so you would always be recorded as the originator), and b) since it is a title, i.e. name, it should be written with capital letters.

BTW, even though I grew up in what used to be the Agri Decumates, I wouldn't call myself that familiar with Roman history. I did a degree in Medieval history and medieval English language and literature and also some postgrad work on Anglo-Saxon history but left academia some time ago coz I didn't like it at all. However, curiosity and the will to learn has never left me.

Anyway, let me know what you think about the merging and I shall put a tag on Agri decumates. I will put the points we have been discussing there and then see what reactions we get. -- Ekki01 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I put a merger-tag on Agri decumates. I also rewrote the whole article, using your bits and mine. You can find it here: [4] Let me know what you think. If you agree, then after the official time for discussion lapsed we can merge the two articles. Ekki01 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put in the bits you asked for. Regarding the Michael Garnt bit, I don't have that dictionary, could you please add the exact reference? Otherwise, I know that someone will put a tag on it, claiming that the article is not properly referenced. I also merged the two pages. Have a look and feel free to comment. Ekki01 18:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add that I merged the articles. Ekki01 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Bobby Kennedy

If votes could be stolen as they were in the Kennedy election, they can be minipulated today as well. This might exlplain how that war criminal made it to the White House. Richard Nixon, where are you now that we need you? Nixon was the best President in my lifetime. The problem was that he was targeted by the mass media for his push for law and order where the media was pushing for anarchy, both directly and indirectly, especially on college campuses. Consider this: Nixon was brought down in disgrace for attempting to cover for himself and his stooges and cought in several lies, yet he ended a war. (albiet five years later than he could have, under the same conditions). Bush is placed in office through rigged elections (throught the work of Fox News), orchestrates a useless war for the financial benefit of certain major corporations and that of his family, and is then re elected. Do you really think your vote means a damned thing? And why is the prime minister of Isreal (the Country with three Capitals, Tel-Aviv, New York and Washington D.C.) running around making statements about "who really controls the United States"? 64.12.117.5-Randazzo56.

Try not to laugh, but I based my opinion on the film "Farenhiet 911". Actually, Ive never heard anyone refute his (Moorers') claims head to head. Perhaps I didnt look very well.I found the film shocking and it all but destroyed my faith in the American Political system. I would appreciate your opinion, not to argue or attempt to discredit your point of view. One thing I found disturbing was Moores film "Bowling for Columbine". Moorers' dislike for the National Rifle Association culminates with his interveiwing Charlton Heston. Interestingly enough, one wonders weather or not Moorer would have chosen to interview Heston had this all taken place twenty years earlier, when Heston would have slam-danced Moorer out of his house for being as disrespecfull. As for the Isreal issue, I have a score of Jewish business associates as well as Jewish freinds and nieghbors who share the same point of view. Where do you think I got it? randazzo56 00:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Just had an important question--I am new to this Wiki page and want to ask for your help to post something really important. can you email me? mailg4@gmail.com Thanks!

[edit] Bobby Sands

Good work on tackling the bias of the Bobby Sands article. I think many people steer clear of such articles because their editors tend to be dominated by Irish Republicans. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so will try and find out a way of getting the article reviewed for neutrality, but I'd be willing to wade into the war zone if you are there too! Logica 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)