User talk:Ruy Lopez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] you may perhaps want to have a look

Hi Ruy, you may perhaps want to have a look at Iraqi insurgency. Adam Carr and Reddi try to deny the very fact that the country is occupied. NoPuzzleStranger 17:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] coqsportif

See coqsportif (talk • contribs). Another "new" user who is suprisingly familiar with this site. On his fifth edit he "discovers" VfD? I don't think so... Viajero | Talk 11:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hi Ruy, I have repeatedly asked you to talk about the changes you want to make to the Page about Elizabeth Bentley. So far you've gone ahead and just made the changes without reasoning them on the page. I put the whole section you wanted to insert on the talk page as a possiblity to discuss it, and I would ask you to take advantage of the discussion page. --Ebralph 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been using the discussion page, although you are correct that I have not made a post yet in the Veracity sub-section. I will post there regarding this.
Looking at the Veracity sub-section, Nobs01 has not posted any specific objections to anything said. As you can see in the section you put there from the main page, I said the New York papers had headlines about Remington's lawyer being unable to serve her with a subpoena (and Remington is not the only person she played the disappearing act with). I also point out some inconsistencies in her testimony which were brought up at the time. Nobs01 does not address her inconsistencies or her dodging of subpoenas. He posts six sources where we supposedly can find the answers for why these things should be removed from the page. I have looked through most of these sources (although not all of it - for example I have not read all three of Haynes's books), and do not see a reason to remove these things. You ask - what is the objection to this material? Nobs responds: read these three books (and five other sources), the answer is there. I have read much of this stuff and the answer is not clear to me. Why doesn't he just answer on the page? Ruy Lopez 18:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't see your post on the Talk page by the time I reverted the change, so please don't take it as a try from my side to suppress anything. I stated on the talk page what is important to me for the passage 'Veracity'. Along the same vein, I noticed you inserted "claim" in several passages of the text. I would ask you to discuss the sentences you find POV and I'm sure we will find a formulation together. Maybe say what specificly disturbs you and we can find a wording together. --Ebralph 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note of Thanks

I wanna thank you for your persistent vandalism; as a result, instead of reviewing each name on a case by case basis before insertion into Wikipedia, it was necessary to insert the NSA/FBI lists in whole before reviewing each file and checking for secondary published sources. Basically, working backwards. So now we have roughly 308 - 311 names of confirmed, witting spies in Wikipedia according to the NSA/FBI's 38 year investigation. This has delayed biographical material for three weeks, but put us about 6 to 8 months ahead of schedule as far getting the complete lists in. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. nobs 04:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Message

If you don't want to root for the team, you should leave the stadium. Being a negative nancy about crap is just pointless, as well as your existence. 67.18.109.218 18:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of events you go to, but when I go to stadiums, there are two teams to root for, not one. And I am pretty positive that my team is going to win. Ruy Lopez 19:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slope

"Let's call them NLF instead of slant-eyed gook VC, OK?" ROFL -St|eve 20:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr

I have filed a request for Arbitration against Ultramarine. Septentrionalis 17:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brother can you?

Brother, can you spare me a dime? I'm broke due to the socialist system in my home country taxing me too much. Ray Lopez 16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magdoff

Sorry to bother. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. Endless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome.--Cberlet 10:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our Lady of Fatima

Thanks for fixing the "the children said she appeared" in the first paragraph. I have been trying to go through and fix all those. "allegedly," "according to Lucia," etc. Matter of fact, I thought I had done that one a couple days ago, but must have forgotten to save it. That was about when I had a crash and lost a bunch of stuff I was working on. --Bluejay Young 01:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge

I have unprotected this article. The next revert you or Adam Carr or any other long-term edit warrior perform on this article, you will be blocked for 48 hours because of your long history of disruptive edits. Find a more productive way to edit. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I am curious about your reaction to my version. I tried to keep what I thought was best from each, some being clearly superior in each version, and have tried to defend what I believe would be your position in talk, while CJK has basically accepted it, but thinks you won't, while I hopefully disagree. I thought you might not have realized the changes toward your version when the tag was readded. (I have no problem with its presence personally, but would not insist on it either.) I just hope that this would be a step towards more productive edit-warring rather than just a dead back and forth, and might be an acceptable compromise while things cool off. Your insistence on only the tag is a welcome sign, but I hope you can point to more specific issues, in line with policy, and I think and will suggest to Adam that he should wait rather longer than a day or so before taking it off, for the sake of Wikiquette.John Z 07:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
At some point I decided the best course of action would be not to rewrite the entire article to one I thought was good, but to make a concession and change the article a little at a time, making reasonable changes. Adam Carr reverts almost every edit I make though, so this is kind of "pissing in the wind" anyhow.
The edit war has been over a certain question. In the early 1970s, a political coalition existed which had a political coalition, a government and an army (FUNK, GRUNK and CPNLAF). From 1979 on, a similar coalition existed, with the same people (Pol Pot, Sihanouk etc.) - which the US government supported. Adam Carr calls the political coalition, the government and the army all "Khmer Rouge" in the early 1970s instead of FUNK, GRUNK and CPNLAF respectively. Then when the US government starts supporting the Pol Pot/Sihanouk etc. coalition in 1979, then its denied that the Khmer Rouge is supported, they say the US is supporting the coalition, not the Khmer Rouge. It really takes a lot of work for people like Adam Carr to believe this nonsense. I should note that this stuff about FUNK, GRUNK and CPNLAF are mentioned in all of the major scholarship on Cambodia (including scholarship more slanted against the Khmer Rouge than the norm), it's not "original research" like some new kibbitzer on Tony Sidaway's talk page said, much of it is cited in the discussion page, and I can cite more if needed. So that has been the major dispute since May.
This edit war went on from May until July. Then CJK, who has exhibited all the behavior of a sock puppet (his first edit was of his user page, his second edit was a revert of an edit of mine using the expression "rv" in the edit summary - a strangely experienced first edit in article space for a "new user". 4 days later he was edit warring on the Khmer Rouge page). So then CJK adds fuel to the fire by making contentious new edits with this two-month edit war ongoing, I discuss this here Talk:Khmer_Rouge/Archive_6#CJK.27s_edits. So then we went from one to two issues - the issue being fought over since May, and CJK's new edits.
I see most of Wikipedia going to a biased hell, but on this one page I have taken a stand for a long time. I have been conciliatory, have done everything I can to compromise and so forth, and my edits are not extremist as claimed, but the FUNK/GRUNK issue has been documented on the major scholarship with Cambodia. Adam Carr's version is ridiculous on several levels - calling the army, the political coalition and government all the name of one political party, which isn't even the name of the political party is silly. It would be like calling the US armed forces, the US government and a political coalition (like the Conservative and Republican parties both supporting the same candidate) all the "Republican Party". It makes no sense to call the US army the "Republican party" just because the executive and legislature are majority Republican. In the case of Cambodia, Sihanouk was the executive, which makes calling everything the Khmer Rouge even more ridiculous. To anyone who has studied the scholarship I think this article looks fairly ridiculous.
I think this article has a lot of work needed, and with Adam Carr reverting virtually every edit I have made for the last year, little has been done. Now I'm told if I edit the page I will be arbitrarily blocked by an admin. Anyhow, right now the issue is whether to call everything Khmer Rouge, or whether to mention GRUNK, FUNK and the CPNLAF. Since CJK the sock puppet wanted to throw fuel on the fire with this unresolved, I suppose his edits are a point of debate as well. As long as no one else is coming in to throw fuel on the fire, we can tackle these two issues and then proceed to the other issues. The other issues are not a secret, some of them I mentioned up to a year ago, but in the interest of working out a solution I narrowed this to the most reasonable one first. But since Adam Carr wouldn't even accept an NPOV tag (before intervention anyhow), how is anything else possible? They're even talking about tossing out the NPOV tag. Adam Carr used to have another friend come in and revert my edits, but that user got banned by ArbCom, and he is probably a sock puppet like CJK now. Ruy Lopez 03:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been following the article a little for a while, so the history is not new to me, and I knew a little long ago about the issues, most of which I have been happy to forget. I do not think you are right about CJK being a sockpuppet, and I do not think it is a good idea to make accusations, even if you think you are right. They have expressed differing opinions in the article recently, and Adam Carr's spelling is rather better. The best way to make sure your viewpoints are treated fairly is to scrupulously, to a fault, adhere to Wikipedia policy and etiquette; if you think you have the evidence to make formal accusations, and if you think it will do any good if you do - and I would think and think again about that, then make one, otherwise forget it, and don't use words like ridiculous for other people's edits even when they are. There is a lot on Wikipedia which is ridiculous; the way is to slowly point by point improve it.
On the funky grunky particulars, I think that a sensible course would be to basically yield on such names when the KR were just a rebel force, and insist on their inclusion somewhere for accuracy's sake when the KR was a government, but not be too insistent on what appear to you to be abuses of language in other places in the article (e.g. picture captions, which should be short and understandable), as scholarship on the period often enough does make these elisions, especially when summarizing for general audiences. (I think you are increasingly wrong, sadly, on about how ridiculous it would be to call the US a "Republican" regime, etc too. Still silly, but not so silly any more.)
Some of your edits in your version I discarded because they were simply wrong - e.g. stating that the US recognized the KR government - this has a specific legal meaning, (I wrote most of the Wiki article on recognition) and did not happen, and the other version was correct. If you want to be technical and picky on some issues, you should allow others to do the same. Sure, if you only had 2 choices, yes or no, it is truer that the US, with bold hypocrisy, supported the KR in the 80's than the reverse, but one is not reduced to only two choices. As often, the US and others took pains to keep a distance and keep up a pretense, but they of course knew what they were doing and the effects. There's even a fairly well known statement of one of the Reaganauts, can't recall who at the moment, saying this. Just present the facts, cite them correctly and rely on the readers' intelligence and common sense. On the Lon Nol coup issue, the quotes you presented in talk are certainly good enough for inclusion in the article; I don't see how anyone could rationally object. John Z 22:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


kibbitzer? Good, now I know what to think of you. Another immature user. Fadix 05:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the tect written by Nobs on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks.--Cberlet 12:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bentley's "lost" libel suit

You still keep making the claim, on various article Talk: pages, that Bentley "lost" the libel case against Remington, and you seem to keep ignoring the refutations which I post to this piece of mendacious propoganda. So, here's a personal copy for you, right on your own talk: page.

This claim is nonsense - and you ought to know it, since you seem to have access to a copy of Clever Girl, which explains the outcome very clearly and precisely (and if you do indeed have access to a copy of this book, your disingenousness in making this claim is shocking and abhorrent).

So let's see what the very book you cite gives as the real story:

"It would cost more to win the case than it would to settle it, and the insurance company cared about the bottom line, not about Elizabeth Bentley's credibility. The NBC lawyers moved to settle. ... 'Meet the Press' producer Lawrence Spivak wrote a long and vehement letter to NBC's insurance company begging them not to settle. Spivak told the press that he did not believe a libel had been comitted on his show.. ... ..a retraction was expressly not part of the settlement." (Clever Girl, pp. 201-202, emphasis in the original)

So much for "lost". You're being extra-ordinarily disingenous and slippery in citing Clever Girl, but not stating what that book says plainly - that she didn't lose the case, her co-defendant settled.

It's also worth noting that Remington was later convicted of perjury, and jailed, for his testimony on precisely the issue on which she was sued - whether or not he had been an active Communist.

If you persist on making this bogus claim, I will persist in i) pasting that lengthy quotation from the very book you cite, which makes the truth - and your misrepresentation thereof - abundantly clear, into the talk: page in question, and ii) pointing out that I have repeatedly brought this to your attention, and you keep ignoring it and repeating this mendacious propoganda. Any further damage to your credibility is your own lookout. Noel (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Massacre is POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katy%C5%84_massacre#Massacre_is_POV

I didn't mention your name (although anyone can search my contribution history)

Excellent point on your talk page!


Plus I cut and paste it here, along with some other points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_Gun_Ri_incident#Name Travb 08:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] How to deal with beligerent jingoists

Hey Ruy, I notice your fight over at Talk:Khmer Rouge have you considered arbitration? I just submited someone to arbitration recently, it takes a month or two, but I think it will get real results, based on past rulings I have read. Your jingoist seems much more beligerent than mine. You said that "[he] has stated he will revert any edit I make, *ANY* edit I make on sight." and "refused a request for the mediation committee to come in a while back, he said he would not abide by their decision." Sounds like you have an Excellent case for arbitration.Travb 08:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be true, if he wasn't making stuff up. CJK 02:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...how to respond

I agree with what you said:

"Eventually, you'll just get worn down in attrition. I have more important things to do."

Sounds like you have been burned more than once, expecially by JayJG (who I don't know from Adam).

I am a newbie to wikipedia. I also don't know you from Adam, but if you have the time, I would be genuinely interested why you feel:

"[Wales] recently appointed JayJG to ArbCom, which more or less shows how "neutral" ArbCom is meant to be."
"I'm not really high on the idea of arbitration or of anything on Wikipedia coming out OK. The one constant I've seen on Wikipedia is not a move towards political-based arguments coming closer to being resolved, but the opposite, it is probably worse now then it was six months ago. It was worse six months than a year ago, worse a year ago than two years ago and so forth. I have no faith in the admins, the arbitrators, "Wikipedia process" and so forth."

Thanks for your time Mr Lopez -- Travb 00:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your buddy nob01

Your buddy nob01, who you argued with at Elizabeth Bentley was just approved for arbitration[1]. You seem discouraged, and maybe you have a good reason to be, I don't know, but here is your chance to let your peers hear your grievances. It seems like you are an artuclate guy, maybe by participating in this arbitration, it will help you have faith again in a imperfect system.

Here is the info on the request for arbitration.


Hope in the face of conflict, overwhelming odds, and almost universal distain --- Travb 00:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of modern day dictators

Hmmm... I certainly don't disagree that there was a bit of excess in the names listed. Still, I tend to think they mostly merit annotations rather than removals. Apart from that, however, I really cannot discern any pattern in those you removed vs. those you left. Did you have something in mind?

I guess I'm particularly unhappy—well, a bit unhappy—with removing Kim Jong Il after Imade an effort to add a pretty specific annotation about his exact legal authority. For better or worse, you left Khomeini, whom I also annotated. If anything, Kim has a better fit with the list than Khomeini does. And it's odd to remove Hoxha or Amin, while keeping, say, Kenyatta or Nasser (though I think Honecker and Castro should pretty clearly go).

I'm not sure if you voted on the AfD, but I guess that doesn't really matter. But it would be appropriate to make some comment on the talk page about the rationale for your particular changes. And annotations along the lines of the two I added would be much better than outright deletion, in most cases. If any moderately credible source has called someone a dictator, let's present the logic of their claim, even if we don't endorse it in some absolute way. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ruy. You may want to move your vote (inserted here) above the heading labelled "vote." It'll probably get lost there, since it's just a discussion thread started by an editor who was asking a question about the AfD process. 172 07:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Next, they'll tell us that all the dictatorship of the bourgeois wants is to be the planet's friend. Wait, that is what they're telling us. El_C 07:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I. F. Stone

Could you please explain (at Talk:I. F. Stone) your major recent removal of content: [2]. It was done virtually without comment and removed a bunch of content. This is not usually a good thing. You are an experienced contributor, so I assume you were up to something more than picking a fight with TDC. Unless you give an explanation, I'm half inclined to revert you myself: this sort of edit merits an explanation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The transcripts are of someone the Soviets had code-named "BLIN". Nobs01 is putting BLIN's activities in the article as if he was IF Stone. Yet I do not accept that BLIN was IF Stone. This code name to person attachment is not particular to this article, Nobs01 has equated code names with real names throughout Wikipedia, with little proof that this is the case. The argument over this as far as Stone goes, goes back to July.
As far as the start of the Korean War, I do not agree with what Nobs01 says about the Korean war, for one thing, Stalin did not want a war to start in Korea. But more importantly, I don't think this article should definitively state who started the Korean war.
Nobs01 is in arbitration right now for this sort of nonsense. I am not participating in the arbitration process, since I have little faith in Wikipedia's ability to follow a process that will promote the values it claims to have - NPOV, cite sources etc. I have even less so with ArbCom slots regressing from elections back to Jimbo appointing them - especially when he appoints people like JayJG. I think, aside from the arbitration against him, anyone who visits Nobs01's home page can see that he is not playign with all 52 cards in the deck. Anyhow, if [you want to join him and TDC in reverting to their versions on the IF Stone page, or any other page, be my guest, the trend of Wikipedia has been going in their direction for a while. Ruy Lopez 17:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Please see this document [3] translated by Army Signals Intelligence; it does not read "probably I.F. Stone". It is a positive idnetification of BLIN as I.F. Stone, which was corroborated by subsequent investigations of the successor agency NSA, and FBI field investigators. This investigation spanned 38 years. This is not (a) a statement by Nobs01; this is (b) the conclusions of Army Signals Intelligence, NSA, and FBI. nobs 18:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Umm, this is a transmission that talks about PANCAKE. US intelligence then notes on it that they think PANCAKE is BLIN and that BLIN is IF Stone. BLIN isn't even mentioned in the transmission, just in brackets and footnotes written by US intelligence. Even if for the sake of argument I accepted that BLIN was Stone, this is not about BLIN it is about PANCAKE, and even if BLIN was "positively identified" as IF Stone, there is no proof PANCAKE is BLIN. A cable says PANCAKE, which people think is BLIN, which people think is IF Stone, and in Nobs01's mind, this becomes enough to say without qualification, *without qualification*, that PANCAKE is IF Stone. Ruy Lopez 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Let me add, an allegation Nobs01 made any insertions regarding references to Stone & the Korean War are definetely in error, and cannot be supported by a review of the I.F. Stone edit histories; this seems to be typical of the flawed research methods & sweeping unsupported claims User:Ruy Lopez is deveolping a repution for. nobs 18:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
For Ruy Lopez review: please, find one, one insertion Nob01 made [4] regarding the Korean War in the I.F. Stone article. nobs 18:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The "conclusions" of government agencies are not findings of fact in a court of law. FCYTravis 02:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

The Khmer Rouge article is on my watchlist, and every edit you have made to it over the past year has been RV's on site by over a dozen other editors. The two RV's you have made today on Leonard Peltier and Rigoberta Menchú were an attempt to harass me. Please stop stalking me. TDC 22:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic fascism

There is an ongoing attempt to define state intervention in the economy as inherently fascist through the creation of an article entitled economic fascism. I have started an AfD on that article based on the argument that "economic fascism" is (a) too vague to ever be properly defined and (b) an inherently POV term of abuse which will cause eternal edit wars, and the observation that the subject of economic policy in fascist regimes is already covered in a multitude of other articles, including fascism itself and corporatism. Please consider voting or commenting on the AfD. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

If you continue to insert personal attacks in the guise of questions, you're likely to be blocked from editing without further warning. If you have a legitimate question, by all means ask it respectfully, but if you're out to cause trouble, please give it up. Apart from anything else, you probably actually help the candidate, because no one supports the kind of behavior you're engaged in, except other troublemakers. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please reword your question so that it's more civil and less of a personal attack. Please do not re-add FuelWagon's question. Carbonite | Talk 00:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop your malicious behavior on the Khmer Rouge Page

Many of the editors of that page are upset with your edits, and many have reverted all of your contributions and everyone one of your edits. Please stop now. (Bjorn Tipling 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] KR stuff

Thanks for the note. Like I said, I'm not interested in fighting with anybody, just getting the article right. Ultimately I am planning to mostly stay out of it, I have enough "real-world" nemeses (nemesises?) without making some here as well. Plus admittedly I don't know enough about it, I've only ever read the first chapter or so of Chandler's A History of Cambodia so I will still be mostly hands off when it comes to the disputed areas of the article. However, that being said, as a lay person who is not as educated and as well read on such things I would think someone would do well to answer the questions that I posed on the talk page. Also, I would be interested to hear what you say your other sources are. thanks. --Easter Monkey 08:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I've sent you a rather important email, and I just wanted to let you know. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. My piece of garbage free ail provider is down right now. I never really check that account that much. Who knows if my account is still open or not. I'll see if it goes back up. I will send you an e-mail. Ruy Lopez 00:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I received it, and send you another email to the active address you gave me. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 03:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of vandalism

Please watch your edits. In your "reversion of vandalism" on Celtic F.C., you added some back. This has been reverted. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This message is regarding the page Duncan Ferguson. Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Demiurge 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The ArbCom etc.

Hi, Ruy. I have noted your comments on the Nobs01 et al workshop page, and the talk pages of the upcoming ArbCom appointments/coronations. I would tend to agree with your critique of Fred Bauder and Jayjg, but I'm puzzled by some of the other stuff. We might agree that Nobs is living in a time warp where it is always 1950, but I don't know why you would come to Berlet's defense. At least with a right-winger, you know where you stand -- the ones that I would ask you to beware of are agent types, who style themselves as "progressives," but are the first to jump on any critics of the present global, neocolonial financial system and call them "extremists" and ten different kinds of politically incorrect. The types, for example, that accept funding from the Ford Foundation.

I am appending here my comments from the Arbcom Workshop page:

I don't think that it were possible to prove some sort of personal collusion between Jayjg or Fred Bauder and Cberlet. I think that the crux of the matter, which is ultimately of greater significance for Wikipedia, is a strong shared POV. The corrupting influence of this shared POV is written all over the proposed decision, which promulgates an unmistakable double standard, in the way that similar offenses are sanctioned either harshly or leniently, based on the POV of the offender. Similarly, the very idea that LaRouche 2 should be modified based on any of the evidence introduced into this proceeding, simply reinforces the impression that the ArbCom has abandoned its mission of regulating user conduct, and has taken on a new mission of rewarding or punishing user POV. --HK 13:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Due to the above comments, Fred Bauder has now proposed that I be put on indefinite probation. I'd like to suggest that anyone who cares about Wikipedia carefully scrutinize the precendents being set at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision and related talk and workshop pages. --HK 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
In terms of Nobs01 and Chip Berlet fighting, I am on Chip Berlet's side.
In terms of the Lyndon LaRouche stuff, I haven't followed Chip Berlet's involvement in tgar much. I remember a bit back, I thought editors were jumping the gun a bit too quick on certain editors. Someone would say "He reads Lyndon LaRouche's newspaper" and that would be almost enough to get them banned and whatnot. I stepped in and said people who have a positive opinion of Lyndon LaRouche should only be punished if they break Wikipedia rules, not because of their opinions. Then people started giving me grief about it and I backed off a little bit.
One problem is a lot of editors are driven off and the bad ones stay. Perhaps that's inevitable, perhaps this wiki is inhospitable outside of certain categories and people should go elsewhere. But anyhow, I only know about Chip's argument with Nobs01, where I agree with Chip. As far as Chip's arguments with others, I don't know much, I haven't followed it much. Ruy Lopez 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge

Please stop reverting if you can't answer the simple questions as laid out on the talk page. CJK 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

God damnit. You reverted the article again. If you can't answer the simple question of what exactly the guy did, have the common decency to apologize and admit that you are wrong. CJK 00:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And you did it again! So now from now on I'll count this as vandalism as well.

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. CJK 02:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from heated exclamations such as "God damnit," CJK, as they are in violation of Wikipedia civility policy. Thanks. El_C 02:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not in violation of wikipedia's civility policy. There is no civility policy (but there needs to be one), it doesn't seem as you if you've read a lot of RFC's or RFA's. (Bjorn Tipling 03:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC))
There such a policy. Again, please refer to Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks. El_C 03:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Your interpretation of it civility policy, on the other hand, is suspect. "Goddamnit" is an interjection, not an adjective, noun, or imperative aimed at an individual, so no, it's not a violation of Wikipedia civility policy. Thanks.
Hi again. You're, of course, entitled to think that it is suspect. But note that I do not simply account for words in isolation. El_C 04:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be in the minority here EL C, and like I said, if you check RFC's and RFA's, you'll see that those things amount to nothing at all and will never lead to any kind of adminstrative action. I'm not saying that you're wrong to critize CJK, but your threats are unwarranted. (Bjorn Tipling 02:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

Hi, can you explain why you removed several paragraphs from the intro of Khmer Rouge in this edit? Thanks. Rd232 talk 23:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The CP ran Cambodia from 1976 on, not 1975 on
  • Describing the 1979- government as pro-Soviet as opposed to pro-Vietnamese makes little sense.
  • What the Vietnamese thought of the merits of the Kampuchean CP does is not worthy of being in the first paragraph
  • As far as blaming the CPK for deaths, this has been discussed in the talk pages for a year.
  • The third paragraph does not belong in a summary up top. And if it did, a dozen more paragraphs would belong in a summary up top. Ruy Lopez 23:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Respond

Hey, I've been trying to work something out with you on the Khmer Rouge article, but you haven't responded, though you have continued to edit. What's the deal, are you trying to create a good article or are you trying to be a pain in the butt? Let's discuss. (Bjorn Tipling 03:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))


From WP:3RR:

Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action. Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day.
If you're running true to form, a few minutes past 21:58 UTC will see another fresh revert by you. How about instead you, you know, justify your edits? --Calton | Talk 03:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
You removed the NPOV tag from the page, which was put on by Tony Sidaway weeks ago. I think YOU are the one who needs to justify this. Ruy Lopez 21:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of the NPOV tag is to direct readers to the talk page where the dispute is supposedly being worked out. In this case, nothing is being seriously discussed. CJK 22:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

He won't do it bacause he can't. And he's getting away with it, which is worse. CJK 15:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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. Skillfully manipulating edits so breaches of 3RR just fall outside the timespan over and over is simply a cynical attempt to game the system and breaches the whole spirit behind the 3RR rule. That is particularly the case when so many reverts are carried out. That behaviour is unacceptable. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

When you have a moment, would you be so kind as to have a look at Talk:Anti-Defamation League? Thanks, HK 15:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily/Evidence. Fred Bauder 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Luce

Ruy Lopez, although there may be other Don Luces, the one that has the page is by far the most notable for two reasons: a) he actually has a page, and b) he is the only one that has stuff linking to it. If someone writes the article for this translator fellow, great, but he is not as notable, so put in the little thingy at the top of the page that says "This article is about Don Luce the Hockey player. For others uses see, Don Luce (disambiguation)" etc... but don't go moving the article around like that, cuz it causes more problems than it solves. Croat Canuck 01:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lookout

What is this and that about? --James S. 00:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll find out soon enough. CJK 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derry/Londonderry

A consensus was reached on this issue at Talk:Derry; it was decided to call the city "Derry" and the county "Londonderry". If you do not agree with this, please reopen the discussion on Talk:Derry rather than unilaterally changing articles such as Template:Counties of Ireland. Thank you. Demiurge 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:No_Gun_Ri_incident#Requested_move_to_.22massacre.22

FYI, since your comment on the user page inspired me to start this debate.Travb 03:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The neocon cabal

Heads up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJK#RFA_Ruy_Lopez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TDC#Ruy_Lopez

They may be right in their allegations, I don't know you from adam, but I thought I would give you a heads up.

Guess you already probably know about this (I originally posted this on the Talk:Ruy_Lopez).... Travb 03:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I'm here to inform you that arbitration will be requested against you. CJK 17:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm here to thank you for your kind message

Thank you for your kind comments. KM was in large part a satirical handle. I'm a socialist-capitalist these days. Check my userboxes for the details.

I have not seen Control Room, but now I really want to.

I look forward to cooperating with you in your fight against propaganda. More to follow. I am not convinced that the flaws you've observed over the past two years will remain in the next two. --James S. 20:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential solution

Visviva had a potential solution to solve this revert war at No Gun Ri incident/No Gun Ri massacre--change the name back to No Gun Ri. If you and your dear friend TJive agree to this, we can end this debate today.Travb 14:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] suggestions for arbitration

Ruy, hello again.

I just read over the arbitration [5]

I just wanted to make some suggestions:

First, your comments are way to long, which makes your argument weaker.

Which is obvious. CJK 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Glad we agree on something.Travb 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Second, you do not source any of your allegations.

Because they're untrue. CJK 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Third, although I have little contact with CJK (Other than getting banned for 3 days for an irresposible and rude comments to him) I have had a rich history with TDC. What is so striking about both of these users is how little actual research they do, this mirror attitude is what leads me to speculate about them being sock puppets. Although CJK seems more moderate than TDC.

This lack of contributing is something that could be mentioned and emphasized in the arbitration. You already mentioned that CJK seems to know nothing about the topic, which has been my experience with my limited contact with him.

As if he has actually contributed anything. CJK 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so, I don't know Ruy Lopez, I am only familar with you and TDC's behavior.Travb 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

TDC has a rich history of stepping on people's toes which I have exhastively documented[6] (including an unresolved arbitration[7]) You can cite some of this research if you wish. User:Tony Sidaway is as familar, or more familar with TDC's behavior as I am. He could add some valuable insight. User:Tony Sidaway comment seems almost prophetic: (To paraphrase) TDC will lay low until the past storm passes and then he will start causing the same disruptive behavior.

Fourth, As mentioned in three, I have always suspected (with absolutly no proof) that the three lettered trio: CJK, TDC, and 172 may be sock puppets. At the least, if they don't share the same body, they seem to share the same brain. If you want to pursue http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:CheckUser, citing the arbitration as a reason, that is an option.

Check away and be mystified that TDC in in Illinois, 172 in Florida, and CJK in Ohio, clearly different people. CJK 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You are probably correct. Just a baseless hunch. Travb 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fifth, I dont know if this matters, but many of the people listed on the arbitration "Ruy Lopez, CJK, TDC, A2kafir, TJive, Rangek, Adam Carr, and Btipling" have no comments in the arbitration.

Which he listed himself. CJK 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Ruy Lopez has never once responded to my messages here, so if this is a habit, I can see why you may get annoyed at him on talk pages.Travb 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Usually you're pointing at a page. When you mentioned the No gun Ri move, I voiced my approval on that talk page instead of this one. Ruy Lopez 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
My apologies Ruy, I think one of my strengths (which is a weakness/achilles heel for most web bloggers/wikipedians) is admiting when I am wrong: I was wrong.Travb 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What everyone is saying about you may be true, or it may not be. I don't know, and I don't want to invest the large amounts of time into all the various allegations to find out. One arbitration in a lifetime is more than enough for me. I just wanted to let you know my own past experiences with these two "POV warriors" (to use a phrase describing TDC). Travb 09:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I think you bring a lot of good things to Wikipedia, and I don't think that you have bad intentions. Your edits really led me to think about things, and that can't be a bad thing. I guess the biggest complaints that other editors have against you is your unwillingess to compromise and discuss. You may believe that you are right and that truth is skewed by powerful participants in what must seem to you to be a corrupting economic system, and maybe it is. Nevertheless, I believe, truth is arrived at through compromise, it's not something written in stone, and the compromising is not always distributed equitably. It's not worth getting yourself silenced over, I think you have a lot to contribute. (Bjorn Tipling 07:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

I agree with Bjorn, it's a hard pill to swallow sometimes, but short of having a time machine to go back and figure out what the "truth" is, we have to rely on different sources. Your sources obviously conflict with the sources that others use, but that's the nature of the business. Truth is relative. Should it be? Who knows? Who cares? You start arguing that point and you'll just wind up with a headache. So what's the alternative? I would suggest that instead of "giving up" that you try to figure out a better way to get your version of the truth incorporated into the KR article. It's become painfully obvious that your current tactics won't work. Anyway, please take a look at what I just put on the talk page of the KR article and let me (us) know what you think. Don't let the bastards get you down... --Easter Monkey 03:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sad that you are giving up

I just read your revised comments on the arbitration.

I don't understand the entire situation, but I don't think you should give up. I don't know you, and have only had passing contact with you, but I strongly agree with Bjorn Tipling, "Your edits really led me to think about things". You words were my inspiration in fighting the no gun ri massacre fight.

I have only had prolonged contact with the neocons who initiated this arbitration, and althought I don't know your behavior, I can say with certainy, I don't care for the neoncon's POV pushing.

My comments above were meant as encouragement and suggestions, not as criticism. I am sorry you may have seen it this way.

Your first long comments on the arbitration were good, but had the weakness of being long and unsourced. I suggest that at the very least you could revert your argument on the arbitration to your first long comments, so you have a fighting chance at the arbitration.

When I get down and feel marginalized I think of some inspiring words about Hope in the face of conflict, overwhelming odds, and almost universal distain. Hopefully these words will encourage you also to continue fighting.Travb 22:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, great link. (Bjorn Tipling 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giving up is the wrong thing to do

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez

First, I appreciate your comments on my talk page.

Type in "Khmer Rouge" in google. Guess what the number 2 hit is? Wikipedia and the article that you are giving up on.

This is the incredible power of wikipedia, and this is why you NEED TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT. Anyone in the world, including American apologists, who type "Khmer Rouge" will come upon your work on wikipedia. You can't get that audience on dKosopedia, Red Wiki, Demopedia, Anarchopedia, Sourcewatch.

Where does "Khmer Rouge" on those vague sites you are escaping too "dKosopedia, Red Wiki, Demopedia, Anarchopedia, Sourcewatch" appear on google, are they even in the top 100, the top 1000 when a user types "Khmer Rouge"?

I think that both of us agree that everywhere around us, the media, the education system (except for some portions of higher education), or politicans, are all apologists, they spout a version of American history, a Disney version of history.

Some of the wikipedians who brought this action against you have made it their mission to become defenders of this apologist history. That should be expected, it appears like your views of America, like my own, are the majority in the world, but the minority in America. We should expect this kind of friction on wikipedia. We are in the minority here after all, and should be used to our views being marginalized and sometimes vicisouly attacked.

The internet is the exception to this Disney version of history, and Wikipedia is the best vehicle to let other people know that their is a lot about American history that is not "Disney", there is a lot that Americans need to be aware of so they can be a positive force in change.

One user I have been fighting with for some time, who also brought this action against you is going to probably going to be banned for a year from editing the disputed article in arbitration. The leftist anon is also going to be banned.

I don't know if you deserve to be banned from "Khmer Rouge", but based on this users past and current behavior who brought this action against you, I bet the committee, if you would just get off your ass and stop feeling sorry for yourself, would come to the same conclusion with this user again.

Escaping

In addition, I find it troubling that you want to escape to "safe" wiki's such as dKosopedia, Red Wiki, Demopedia, Anarchopedia, Sourcewatch. This indicates to me that you maybe as big as ideologue as those who brought this action against you.

I have been booted from several leftist web blogs, including democracy underground because the people on the administrators on this site are no better than the people on freeper and frontpagemag: narrow minded ideologues who only want to hear their version of history and current events. If anyone questions their pet ideologies, they lash out at these individuals, without ever bothering to question their own pet ideologies. Where is the personal and intellecutal growth in this?

These apologists on Wikipedia make you defend your assertions, they make you question your beliefs. Granted, some of there tactics are dirty and low handed, but sometimes they can really make you learn and grow. I don't see you growing intellectually much on these "safe" obscure wikis.

But hey, maybe you are happy with you set ideologies and refuse to question them.

Some of the same ideologues, both left and right, will be aruing on some of the web blogs I abandonded for wikipedia years even decades after I have left. Maybe you are like that.


A great case

Based on my past experience with these users, I think, if your behavior wasn't just as bad, you probably have a great case against them. I already laid out my case against one of the wikipedians above, with the link I provided. Most of the work is already done for you.

Based on some of the comments above, you seem very stubborn. I hope that you are not to stubborn to reflect and think about my words.

You have less than a week to let your case be known, before the arbitrators decide.Travb 16:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One More Thing

"War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable, Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 30 to 40 years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The western world will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There shall be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist." [Dimitry Manuilski, Lenin School of Political Warfare, Moscow, 1930

Yes, indeed communism is a peaceful movement that the workers of the world want to unite and rejoice under. Conradrock 15:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruy Lopez case notification

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez has been merged into the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily case Raul654 17:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated template substitution

[edit] Hello Ruy

I know your last message was Feb 13, so you still check your wikipage. Do you have a e-mail, web blog or can you tell me your user name on these leftist sites? I had a run in with one of Jimbo Wales newest policies, I am troubled the way that wikipedia is going, but probably in other ways, and would like your views.Travb 05:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the "email user" link, I may email you later. I am glad that the checkuser check by User:TDC cleared your name--this makes your case stronger. Travb 16:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily

This arbitration case has closed. The one-revert per page per day remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, and its associated enforcement, are vacated with respect to VeryVerily. However, the other still applicable remedy, namely that pertaining to discussion of reverts, and its associated enforcement, remain in force. Ruy Lopez is banned from using sockpuppets, and is placed on probation. VeryVerily may appeal to have the remaining remedy lifted in four months. The remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on CJK's talk page

User_talk:CJK#Wall_of_fame_or_wall_of_shame.3F I wish you would come back man. But that doesnt excuse you justifying the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. Travb (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that there never was an organization called the Khmer Rouge? To this day, I have absolutely no idea what the Khmer Rouge is - is it an army? A political party? A government? I have no idea. If you knew anything about Cambodia, you would know your question shows you know nothing about Cambodia. If not, please explain to me what the Khmer Rouge is (army? party? government? country?) because you will have been the first person I ever ran across who knows. And if you don't know, then getting indignant about some act of faith is just as silly as someone getting indignant about someone saying Jesus did not rise from the dead. There is a fantasy popular in the US that the Vietnamese are still holding US POWs for some reason. All post offices are required to raise a flag several times a year that shows a US POW held behind Vietnamese prison wire. Do you buy into all of the bizarro ideas the US has about Indochina post-Vietnam defeat or just the "Khmer Rouge" one, whoever they are? By the way, in 1979 the press in the US stopped claiming there was a genocide in Cambodia and began urging Carter and then Reagan to team up with the Cambodian communists, which they quickly did, fighting to keep them in the UN, arming them and so forth. Isn't it odd that the main people screaming about a genocide one minute suddenly begin arming the people they were just accusing of being genocidal butchers? Or must all logical and rationality go out the window?
I edited this article precisely because it shows Wikipedia for what it is - all logic and rationality must go out the window and a hysteria takes over. The article, the edit history and discussion page are a testimony to how Wikipedia does not work. Ruy Lopez 17:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ruy, I don't know jack about the Khmer Rouge.
I am happy you come here occasionally. I was going to visit you in the "cemetary" and write a long message to your "gravestone" (this user page)--explaining how I was sorry if i didn't explain how I felt, and I am sorry if I backstabbed you as CJK accused me of doing, but then you came back from the dead, and I got booted, again. So this response is late in coming.
If you downplay the deaths of any regieme, then I have think that is terrible, and you are no better than those who downplay the deaths at No Gun Ri. I often use your memory as an example of those who deny the Cambodian holocaust on the left, to those on the right who do the same thing.
My latest boot was related to fair use, but the reason given was incivility. So I probably need to watch how I say things.
These people may be able to help you, in the future:
You could also find an advocate:
The advocate of the last one unbooted me.
I really can relate with you on most issues, strongly disagree on a few others. Signed:Travb (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Please stop adding the original research claims to this page. They have been discussed at length on the page's Talk, and you are welcome to initiate further discussion there. TewfikTalk 06:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A cited newspaper report (this was reported in newspapers around the world) is not "original research". Ruy Lopez 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. TewfikTalk 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Welcome back Ruy. Travb (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippies, Vietnam and "San Francisco" in Eastern Europe

Dear Ruy,

I realize that the connection here may seem tenuous, so please let me explain. This is a section on "Politics," and for many people there is a lot of politics associated with hippies, especially with regard to Vietnam and the Cold War battle between the Western democracies and Soviet communism.

A lot of hippie identity centered around their opposition to the Vietnam War, which offended large segments of the American population. And the song, "San Francisco," is essentially a hippie anthem. Quite a few people objected to anything positive being said about "San Francisco," or hippies for that matter, especially veterans who lost friends in Vietnam and who hold hippies at least partially responsible for the inability of the United States to prosecute, and win, the war in Vietnam.

This section evolved over a period of weeks as a compromise. Llyod Marcus' song, in particular, was added as a counterpoint to "San Francisco" as representing the "offended veterans" viewpoint on hippies. And the global political context of "San Francisco"--which really did travel worldwide as a "freedom song," not only to the Eastern European countries, but also to Latin America--is relevant because hippies are often portrayed as unpatriotic "communist dupes" rather than as loyal, freedom-loving Americans. The various viewpoints represented in this section are an attempt to create, overall, a neutral point of view.

It would be preferable if you would simply raise the question, rather than deleting an entire section. That way we could share some of the history of the section.

Also, among many Wiki editors, deleting an entire section is viewed as a form of vandalism, though I realize that was not your intent.

I've restored the section. I think it belongs in the article.

Thanks for listening. Founders4 19:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. After re-reading the "Politics" section, I realized that reorganizing it, in conjunction with some minor editing, could make the connections noted above more visible. So instead of just reverting, I went ahead and did an edit. Your comments are appreciated--usually when one person finds something objectionable, this signals a weakness in the article that needs to be corrected.Founders4 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobs

Keep me posted if you see any recent edits you think are him. Fred Bauder 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are Back

Nice to see you back, but setting the way back machine to last February, the only reason that Arbcom did not proceed with its case against you was because you claimed that you were leaving Wikipedia for good. I have noticed some of your more aggressive edits in the past few days, and I would advise you to moderate them, or the case will go forwards. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

TDC's understanding of your status is incorrect; the case was merged into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily and you were placed on probation and required to use just one account. You are free to edit any article responsibly. Fred Bauder 21:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Fred Bauder is correct. Actually according to ArbCom I was placed on probation because I and another account, Mr Know It All voted on the same VFD/AFDs, and our IP addresses are identical, or at least similar. They wanted to ban me and I was following the rules, so David Gerard had to make something up. He isn't that clever though, as I pointed out that a simple comparison of two pages would show that we never voted on the same VFDs/AFDs. But since they wanted me to talk about Soviet "show trials" any more, they put me on my own show trial, and didn't even acknowledge that I ever made a defense. Doesn't matter much, as I spend more time now on other wiki encyclopedias. But back to the point, yes, my RFA was not put on hiatus, it was decided, so I guess you're "shit out of luck" as they say. Ruy Lopez 06:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You?

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ruy_Lopez. Is that actually you? Fred Bauder 21:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That user left their phone number on Stirling Newberry's page, why not call them and ask if they're me? Ruy Lopez 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned from History of Soviet espionage in the United States

Under the terms of your arbitration probation, I am banning you from editing History of Soviet espionage in the United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for 5 days for disruptive editing. You may continue to discuss the article on the talk page. I will discuss this in more detail at the talk page of the article. Thatcher131 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:White truck driver Reginald Denny.gif

Just curious. Why was this image deleted after User:Dhartung added a fair use rationale? AlistairMcMillan 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello from yourself

Hi, Ruy; You don't know me, but at least three people have accused me of being you. [8] and [9] are two. I find this kind of amusing, though I'm wondering if I should be insulted that people seem to consider me a sockpuppet of you rather than vice-versa. :-) I'd chat some more, but I don't want people to think I spend a lot of time talking to myself. Cheers! -- KarlBunker 14:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, scary stuff re. you and User:Mr. Know-It-All. It's something for me to keep in mind, lest I become too attached to my "career" as a WP editor. KarlBunker 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Apparently, some users have accused us of being the same person. Of course, I have a "Mr." in front of my name because "Ray" and "Ruy" look so similar. Mr. Ray Lopez 20:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, Ruy

I enjoyed your writeup on NPOV_and_categories, your insights about J Wales, etc.

Would you please drop me a line at aelewis at provide dot net ?

Cheers!

-- Alan2012 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay

I removed them to begin with because I felt they were entirely uncalled for. But then I changed my mind and let people see your opinions as that page is not going to be archived any time soon. Have a good [insert time period].—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solzhenitsyn

Ruy- See my response re:Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. Staecker 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for 48 hours for this [10] - and looking at you edits it isn't the first of its kind. And don't bother moaning to 'wikipedia review' that you are a martyr for free speech. I'm blocking you for being an incivil little .... person, who seems incapable of proper debate. If you can find one administrator who disagrees with that analysis, you can be unblocked. But, personally I doubt it.--Docg 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits regarding Jayjg

I read your edits regarding Jayjg. You said "I see JayJG has been leaving messages on your page, with his false concern about the rules and supposed reasonableness". Has Jayjg ever done something like this before? What is your reason behind suspecting Jayjg of such things? I'm not doubting your concerns, but would like to get a better picture of the circumstances. I'm truly confused by the current situation and don't know what to make out of it. You can respond on my talk page, or e-mail me (bless_sins@yahoo.ca). Hope to hear back from you.Bless sins 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility warning

Whilst commenting on other users actions is sometimes unavoidable, your recent comments on jayjg breach civility, good faith and may be construed as personal attacks. There are means of dealing with disputes between users - name-calling is not one of them. You have form here for incivility, but I'm giving you fair warning that I will not hesitate to block you again. (And, to reassure you that there is no conspiracy here, I assure you I have no personal interest in any of the matters/articles you cite.) Just knock it off.--Docg 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi Ruy Lopez, I have blocked you for one week for making this personal attack. I hope you take the time off to review our rules, and decide on your future conduct here. If you persist making attacks, you will be blocked for progressively longer periods of time, or possibly banned permanently. Please consider your options carefully; I hope you make the right choice. Thank you, Crum375 20:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/y/User_talk%7ERuy_Lopez_b981.html"