User talk:Sherurcij/questions/

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Sherurcij | questions
You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Signatures

Hi Sherurcij. I'm back. It's easy to change your signature, although it's not an obvious feature. At the very top of the screen is a link to "my preferences". Click it. On the first page ("User Profile") is a nickname field. Enter your signature there. For instance, mine is

– [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup>

Hope this helps! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

testing Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzled

Why this edit?--Eloquence* 21:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Alphax τεχ 07:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khadr Family nationality

I saw you listed Omar Khadr's nationality as unknown. He is definitely a Canadian citizen. So I altered that. I saw you listed Abdullah Khadr as a Canadian born Afghani. I haven't come across any news reports that he had renounced his Canadian citizenship. Have you come across a source I missed?

I saw you removed Abdurahman Khadr from the list. I too suspect that Abdurahman is exactly what he represents himself to be, a kid who was raised by Jihadists parents who exercised his free will, and did not sympathize with their hatred of America. Even so, the list is not a list of people who are definitely al Qaeda members. It is a list of well-known al Qaeda members, and everyone who has been accused of being an al Qaeda member. So I think Abdurahman belongs on the list. -- Geo Swan 02:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


Ah, when editing that page I wasn't counting citizenship, I was counting where they seemed to be raised - there's some dispute of the Lanwackan Six (sic) whether they were born in New York, or just raised there. Abdullah, if I recall correctly, was the one who left for Afghanistan when he was 11 and spent the rest of his time there? Could be wrong, I admit I know nothing about the Khadrs and bow to your knowledge on the subject, I'm just trying to clean up the list a bit so that it's not a bunch of (most red-linked) names nobody has any context for :) Sherurcij 04:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The article "The Good Son", that I linked to on Omar Khadr's page has a pretty good account of the family history. The father, Ahmed Khadr, spent about two decades in Afghanistan. The first decade or so he was nominally working for a charity, called "Human Concern International", as their onsite manager, in Afghanistan. It is now believed that he was an active participant in the warfare there, from the very beginning. And that he was diverting resources that were supposed to have been devoted to humanitarian purposes -- widows and orphans -- to train and equip fighters -- first against the Soviets -- then to fight against other warlords. His children were all conceived on regular fund-raising trips he made back to Canada. The kids all spent their most formative years in Canada.
In 1995, or 96, there was a bombing in Pakistan, and Pakistani security officials believed he provided support to the bombers. They arrested him, and held him. It is generally believed that they tortured him.
His wife Maya moved to Pakistan while he was in Prison. She was able to buttonhole the Canadian Prime Minister when he was on a state visit to Pakistan. She poured out this tale of woe. "My poor husband is just a humanitarian worker! He is not a terrorist! It is all a mistake! Can't you ask the Pakistani Prime Minister to release him, when you see her?"
In retrospect the Pakistani security officials were probably correct that he was involved in the bombing. I would like to think that if Chretien had been properly briefed he would not have asked for his release. Transferring him to Canadian custody, to stand trial for defrauding the charity system might have been a good compromise.
But he was released. His wife and kids lived in bin Laden's compound following his release. He was fired from the charity. But he founded a competing charity of his own. So he would have continued to make trips to Canada.
Anyhow, it wasn't just Abdullah who moved to Afghanistan in 95 or 96. It was the whole family. But they remained Canadian. Khadr senior was known, throughout Afghanistan as "al Canadi". The Frontline episode "Son of al Qaeda" can be downloaded from the Frontline site. Highly recommended. -- Geo Swan 06:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chastity belts

I reverted your change to Undergarment re chastity belts. You changed it to say that chastity belts were used, just not much. Do you have any evidence for that? Every history of costume source I've read says that it's an urban legend -- possibly derived from fevered and fetishistic imaginings. I'm also putting this up on Talk:Undergarment. Zora 20:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dealt with on talk page, compromise reached Sherurcij 02:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tawnee Stone

Hi, Sherurcij. Why don't you like the descriptions in the next-to-last paragraph of the article? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel that we need a play-by-play description of each time Tawnee puts a penis in her mouth, gets cummed on, or showers in front of a camera, it's sufficient to say she's a porn star. We're an encyclopaedia, we're not meant to be sexually titillating. Sherurcij 20:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Hiya - I've added comments both to the talk page and to the incident report and would welcome your input there.Vizjim 10:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Stockwell

In refernce to your note (and thanks for the very rapid response) Doubt as you may. you can call me at 425-413-1832. you can see his personal web page at www.goodpaddle.com and note that I am the web master. You can see my personal page at www.davestockwell.com. you can reach me via email at dstockw@onebox.com. I can provide proof of the relationship AND can put you in direct contact with him, at his home, in Texas. i am simply attempting to follow the process for deletion and help my uncle with his request. David Stockwell, maple valley, WA What form of communication would work best for you?

Consider it a side-effect of insomnia, I tap away on Wikipedia ;) I admit I'm not aware of Wikipedia's policy on articles they are asked to remove by those involved - personally I can't imagine we take them down, but I'm a panopticon-kinda guy personally, so m'eh. I find it odd your uncle dislikes this however, when there are over 8000 pages online about him specifically - he seems to have been a fairly well-known guy ;) Sherurcij 07:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Well known once in a very small arena long time ago. Now he's just a retired computer support manager who wishes to paddle the rivers of Texas in peace. He's have me remove all internet references to him if I could but you know my chances on that. I'd simply like to place the del tag in the article and let the Wikiadmins take a look at it. Unless you have another suggestion. I'm fairly new at this. Stockwell 07:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
A VFD sounds fair to me, I just get irate at people who use Speedy Delete sometimes...unfair of me, I know...especially considering I can be guilty of it as well ;) FYI I also posted a reference to this discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29 near the bottom :) Ciao Sherurcij 07:56, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your time. And thanks for thinking to post at the Village Pump as well.Stockwell 08:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William L. Ensign

Sorry, it appeared to be a resume. Many anonymous people post their resumes here. --Jondel 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Vandals

24.238.88.184 is really named TJLive

[edit] Joybubbles

To an outsider, this edit would look like ordinary nonsense. Would you happen to have a link you could WP:CITE for this information? His story is quite fascinating. Hall Monitor 22:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

added an additional reference page under the External Links section...glad you found him fascinating, I must agree. :) Sherurcij 23:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on User Talk:Jimbo Wales

People have been contacting editors for ages on no source images, calls have been made to get people tagging the things.. and the fact of the matter is that people who do not understand our requirements for freedom fight the process each step of the way, so it's been going far too slowly. More agressive action was needed. Not to be rude, but if so much work was expended finding these images, then why are they not worth the work needed to label them correctly for others so that they make our encyclopedia more free rather than less? The existance of untagged images on wikipedia draws into question the freeness of our work, and it makes it useless for some applications. For as much work as there may be in finding images to borrow on the internet, there is much more work in creating this free resource. --Gmaxwell 01:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC





[edit] James Adomian

You removed the speedy delete tag on James Adomian, and made a comment about how you'll growl and I need to stop doing this... I've never speedy-tagged something before. And besides, googling "Penny Brown" brings up 10,900 hits, whereas James Adomian only gets 100, and the page on the Penny Brown hoax was speedy deleted. So don't make it out like I've speedy-tagged so many things before. I'll growl! --WikiFan04Talk 17:38, 30 Jul 2005 (CDT)

lol, wasn't about you specifically, just my catch-all phrase when I un-speedy things ;) Perhaps a VfD however? Sherurcij 02:41, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Fayez Banihammad

Just a quick copy edit. Glad to do it. By the way, I agree with many of your sentiments on the front page. Media sound bites are killing history, I'm afraid. Peace. WBardwin 22:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Johnson

Sorry, but that note you left on my talk page made it sound like I was a new user. I am not, and I was WikiFan04. I've been getting a lot of "welcome" and "you're new" notices recently, but I've made 800+ edits and have 19 months of experience. If you weren't thinking I was new, sorry about that. I won't do copyvio notices in the future, I guess. Sorry! :-) --WikiFanaticWikiFanatic 23:56, 10 Sep 2005 (CDT)

[edit] Contributions

I recently saw Adel al-Zubeidi and I went through your other contributions, many of which are great. However, in the future, please begin your articles with the article title, and make sure it's bolded. Thanks. freestylefrappe 18:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, didn't think I ever forgot the bolded part, but I admit I don't do the other...you happen to know if that's actually WP policy anywhere? Most sentences and articles in writing work better if they don't begin with the subject as the first word in the work. Sherurcij 18:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious NPOV disputes

While I admire your trying to classify NPOV disputes, it seems a little odd having no notification on the page that there is an NPOV dispute going on to warn the user to be wary of content. Until there is such a warning I don't belive you should remove the prior dispute template. gren グレン 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If we're talking about the NPOV tag being removed from the Melissa Scott section of Christian televangelist scandals, there's a reason it was put there. There is an anonymous user who seems to be using that section as his/her soapbox in criticizing Melissa Scott. I've tried re-directing the anon to the appropriate article, as he/she likes to put any and all info about her in two different places besides the correct one. I may just delete that section. --Cooleyez229 20:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion on the military commission article?

I added some info on Omar Khadr to the article on military commission. Another guy wants to merge it to military tribunal. I think it should be renamed "Guantanamo military commission". -- Geo Swan 14:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of men famous for being well endowed

Since you feel so strongly that this article should be deleted, maybe you should change you vote to Delete instead of Comment.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to your RfA

Sherurcij, just some friendly advice: It is considered poor form to reply to each and every vote on your RfA. Neutral #2 required your response, but I'm not sure you'd want to leave the others in. If you do—be sure to fix the broken links (there are two on Neutral #3). I already fixed the numbering that was broken when you added your responses, but it would look awkward if I copyedit after you... Owen× ☎ 02:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, your comments were not offensive at all. Perhaps "poor sportsmanship" was the wrong expression, which is why I changed it to "poor form" (but not quickly enough, apparently...). From watching past RfAs, it seems that any superfluous comments from the candidate just provide easy ammunition for opposers, perhaps because it may come across as argumentative. Regarding the removal of your comments—as long as no one has responded to those comments, you should be allowed to simply remove them, rather than striking them out. Owen× ☎ 02:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tongue in cheek, re: your Rfa

I meant "cute/funny/sarcastic".....also, were the 19 hijackers terrorists or were they simply hijackers?--MONGO 03:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Since 99.9% of hijackers can either be categorized as motivated for profit, motivated to gain attention for a cause, or (less often) simply to inspire fear - it seems obvious that the first option can be ruled out when discussing the hijackers since they didn't stand to profit - and both the second and third choices are considered terrorist in the way the word is commonly used. On a more original research note, it could easily be drawn out that they were no more terrorists than a kamikaze (or suicide mission) version of a WWII bomber of Berlin or London. However, WP is not really the place for such discussions, which are better left to debate clubs - here I think it is best to avoid the use of any potentially POV labels, and simply state facts about them. That way we equip both sides of the spurious debate club to argue intelligently about Satam al-Suqami's background and possible motivations. Our job is to inform and dispel ignorance, not to convince of opinion. Sherurcij 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
No doubt you're a smart guy. Without turning it into a debate, I just looked a couple of those articles over (the 19 hijackers) and didn't see the term terrorist utilized. As the planes were used as a weapon and not as a means to extort money/ransom via kidnapping I consider the hijackers to be terrorists. They weren't affliated with any country or strict military organization recognized by a country (ie: French Foreign Legion) and they used the planes to terrorize. I know that terrorist and terrorism are contested terms at times, but doesn't the vast majority of the English speaking world consider the actions of the 19 hijackers to be terroristic. This is just a conversation and I am sure you can educate me so please don't think I'm trying to stir up trouble with my asking. Whenever you get a chance as I'll be out a couple of hours.MONGO 05:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
No problems with asking, personally I'm conflicted on the issue - while they surely did it to create terror, I'm not sure that's any different than the decision to bomb Dresden. Where is the difference between Shock and Awe and Blitzkrieg? Between terrorism and demoralization? The French Resistance and the Iraqi insurgency? There is a difference in there somewhere, but it's deeply concealed and not as obvious as some like to think. When bin Laden's lieutenant says that Al Qaeda's aim is to "drive the United States to economic ruin", is that different than what 'good' countries sat back and did to Germany with war reparations for WWI? I think in the end, I accept the presidential notion that a war can exist without a formal declaration (as in Vietnam)...but that means we have to recognise that our placing of troops on what many Arabs consider sovereign holy sites, would be the equivilent of them sending Mujahadeen to occupy the Vatican or New York City...a (masked) act of war asserting dominance and superiority. I actively dislike my national leader, but just like the average Iraqi (as high as 60% of the population apparently supported attacks against coalition troops, this summer according to the British ministry of defence), it doesn't matter what my opinion of the national leader is, if a foreign army came in to try topple him and install their own system of governance (whether a monarchy, democracy, theocracy, dictatorship, governing council, whatever), I'd be picking up every weapon I could find and trying to scuttle their plans as well. In the end, they are as legitimate soldiers defending their land against a foreign imperial force, as the early American revolutionaries. But note that I am not taking sides, the Nazis were also 'legitimate soldiers' who believed in what they fought for. No, I'm not a Michael Moore supporter, in fact he displays just about everything I hate about the media, but nobody is yet able to explain to me how Iraqis holed up in mosques is 'sacrilege' and 'cowardly', yet Americans holed up in an 19th century church with muskets is 'heroic' and 'part of the national identity'. Sherurcij 07:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Wow. I agree that WWI reparations were a large part of the reason for Hitler and WWII and can see the light of us being in Iraq and they want us out. I do not think that King George and the British Empire treated the American colonies as bad as Saddam treated his own people. I don't recollect reading anywhere in which the "redcoats" performed one act of genocide. I believe that Poland and France did not deserve to have Blitzkrieg waged upon them. The shock and awe was designed to help facilitate the removal of a Hitlerish ruler in Iraq, so those points are bad comparisons. As far as the Iraqi's defending their soil, I can see that point. I'm not familiar with the equation of terrorism to demoralization. The French resistance was against Hitler's army and the Nazi's while the Iraqi insurgency fights against us of course, but we are hoping to install a democracy in Iraq which would be a darn sight better than Saddam. On a person by person count, the Irais are fighting an invading force and they may see us as the oppressors just as the minutemen saw the redcoats, but that doesn't make it true. They fight against democratic reform while the minutemen fought for it. Well, even though we seem to have almost a diametrically opposed viewpoint here I respect your commentary and the time you've spent dealing with me.--MONGO 10:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question for you on your RfA

Heya. Categorize this as you feel necessary... Just a friendly notice...I asked you a question on your RfA (#4). TShilo12 08:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

haha, already replied by the time you posted this *dances* :D Sherurcij 09:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
oops, nope, timestamps say I was slightly off...well I replied before I *saw* this anyhow ;) Sherurcij 09:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
HaHAA! I am inVEENsibble! (-Boris, in Goldeneye) TShilo12 10:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

This is not a form of vandalism, and in fact all the content remains. George Alexander is only "notable" as symbolic media coverage, and thus the information makes more sense there. --SPUI (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Hey man, you have no chance. Editors like SlimVirgin oppose you, her cohorts will back her up. so don't worry. Just do what you think is right and live with the outcome. Try to stick always to telling the truth, fairly and neutrally. Grace Note 13:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that Grace Note has been blocked for 1 week for personal attacks, see WP:AN/I#User:Grace_Note for more details. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion policy

Thank you. Perhaps you could leave a note for one of the others and explain it to them, because I'm exhausted from trying to make them understand, and perhaps I'm not explaining it properly. I'm a she, by the way. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Alexander (US Army soldier)

Your report of my "vandalism" has already been removed. --SPUI (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

So? Sherurcij 13:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you'll realize that it's not vandalism. --SPUI (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SPUI "vandalism"

Which definition on Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism#Types of vandalism were you referring to? This isn't a redirect to an inappropriate page, this is a merge where the information is in the article in the redirect. That's a content dispute as far as I can see, not vandalism. —Cleared as filed. 13:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your "ejaculation" on Talk: Main Page.

Hello, Sherurcij. I think you mean "ejection", instead. Ejaculation and Ejaculation (grammar) are quite different. You may want to fix that "typo", instead of telling people to stop laughing. -- PFHLai 17:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ejaculation is also a fairly legitimate word, as it simply means a sudden discharge, such as semen from a penis, or a shell casing from a gun *shrugs* Sherurcij 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See talk for Foreign hostages in Iraq

See the Talk for Foreign hostages in Iraq


[edit] You've got a point

I know I haven't completely lost my mind, I know I read references to Elliot Abrams, Iran-Contra, the Contras, etc. Searching the article, I can't find them. The only I can think of is that I was reading another article and somehow ended up on the Chavez dicussion page. Better take down my post. However, I'll do you the courtesy of responding to what you wrote.

I've decided to leave the post up since you and others made comments about it. But I appended a disclaimer at the top. I've not completely lost what little's left of the gray matter.

You write...

Not fully aware of the details myself, but articles tend not to place a lot of emphasis on things that didn't happen. Also, this subject is not directly related to Chavez, so doesn't really belong in an article about him.

Then why is it in the article is my question?! Iran-Contra and the mostly imaginary "atrocities" by the Contras are irrelevant to this nutball Chavez. The Contras and the US freed the Nicarauguan (sp?) from the Soviet-backed tyranny of the Ortega brothers. As with nearly all Communist mass-murderers--unlike their Nazi counterparts--the Ortega brothers have not only not been punished for their crimes, they are still active in their country's politics!

But that is the way with Communists. Former KGB General Oleg Kalugin (sometimes seen on American TV shows as a guest "expert") organized the infamous murder of a Bulgarian dissident in London (the infamy comes from the method, the KGB created an umbrella that injected a nearly-microscopic metallic ball filled with the super-lethal poison Ricin. (Don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you are too young to remember?) In 1991 (or there abouts) Kalugin was arrested for murder in London by Scotland Yard but his release was inexplicably ordered by Britain's gov't. (Who knows what he traded for his freedom? Probably nothing. Commies get a free ride whereas Nazis, many in their late 80s and even 90s are still being hunted down.

The only major Communist leader to actually pay for his crimes was Ceaucescu, the bloodthirsty, sociopathic ruler of Romania; he, along with his vicious wife who was co-dictator, were put up against a wall and shot for their crimes; their son, Nicu, who used to prowl Bucarest night spots and have his thuggish bodyguards snatch women and young girls whom he then raped, was sent to prison (who sadly garnered US favor by annoying Moscow; but, as in WW2 when we were allies with Stalin, sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend; I find it terribly hypocritical that those on the Left denounce the US for making alliances with some unsavory characters--none of whom were even remotely as criminal as the Communists we opposed, btw!, yet the alliance with Stalin--ludicriously called "Uncle Joe" by Roosevelt and US propaganda--somehow disappears from their memories. Apparently, in the minds of the Left, is you're fighting people they hate, then anything goes, but when fighting Moscow then the convienently forgotten ethics in international relations suddenly become important.


You might find people take you more seriously if you don't refer to historical characters as 'Idiot', you'll notice articles on Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini or Josef Stalin maintain NPOV, this article is no different. (Notice also that Stalin and Mussolini are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, so this is not a case of a leftist WP or authors, rather a common rule) Sherurcij

Since I was writing on a dicussion page, I don't really see the problem. To label Hitler's suicide, to borrow from Sir John Keegan, "a bankrupt gambler's leap into the void" is simply stating the bare truth. To call Stalin a cold-blooded killer of the worst sort would also be the bare truth. To call Mao's "Great Leap Forward" "the height of economic idiocy" would also be the bare truth, esp. since 65M Chinese died because of it!

If people can't handle the truth when it's put bluntly I'm not really interested in being taken seriously by them.

William Shirer, in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich--which I'm reading right now--is filled with accurate characterizations of Hitler that would be labelled by the timid wikipedians as "POV". Nonsense. Hitler was a bum. He was a lazy sponger off his mother. He never did an honest day's work in his life. These are all characterizations of Shirers and his book is considered one THE landmark works on Nazi Germany esp. since he was a newspaper and radio correspondent there from 1934 to 1940 (when he had to flee before the Gestapo murdered him). I find it quite odd that one of the world's most esteemed historians of National Socialist Germany can quite properly label scumbags as such, yet doing so in a wikipedia article gets certain peoples' panties all in a bunch. Very stange.

I'd be very interested in your sources for that number, since they invariably involve "millions of Soviets died during a famine" as 'murder' - whereas nobody claims that Capitalism has killed billions of Africans over its history. "They died of poverty" tends not to be considered murder, except in the eyes of people unable to otherwise fabricate statistics about communism being a great evil killing hundreds of millions. Sherurcij

First: there have never been "billions" of Africans for anyone to "kill" let alone mytical capitalists. The slave trade is one of the lowest points of human history--but its still going on! Africans were enslaving each other long before the first pale face showed up! And they're still doing it long after the slave trade was ended in the 19th century. Furthermore, the Arabs took far more slaves than the Europeans and the Arab trade in black slaves began before the European and continued after it. If one needs numbers, they break down like this: roughly 8 to 10 million Africans were taken as slaves--the vast majority purchased from other Africans--of whom approxiametly 2 million died on the trip from Africa to the colonies in N. and S. America. Fifteen million Africans were taken by the Arabs (who are still doing it today in the Sudan, Mali and other countries; a couple of years back, two French reporters actually bought two African Christian boys in S. Sudan just to prove the existence of the Sudanese gov't sanctioned slavery. They helped the boys find their families.

As for the sources for those killed by Socialists, check The Great Terror and Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest (acknowledged by Russians as the expert on Stalin's crimes, tho' he's a Brit. Also, the The Black Book of Communism ed. by S. Courtois and written by a number of former French commies and hard lefties. It reiterates and stupedfying details the crimes of every communist regime and "insurgency" around the world. While its estimate of the numbers of Soviets killed by Lenin/Stalin are far too low, the book is still very useful.


I'm not sure how you draw the comparison, since Chavez appears to rule by the consent of his electorate, and statistics seem to back up that Chavez has actually improved the living standards of the poor in his country. Do you have other statistics to back up your claim, rather than an angry tirade of ranting? Sherurcij

Check the article itself for back up of my statements. Chavez has been accused of both massive election fraud and human rights violations.

And one man (or woman's) tirade is another's impassioned eloquence.


Excuse a slightly pov jab here, but should I look at Bush's service record in the Air Guard during the Vietnam War? ;) Sherurcij

Come on, Sheru! That's such balderdash. It's been completely disproven. He served 18 months on active duty. Not everyone in the military fought in Vietnam. My former father-in-law was engineer in the Air Force. He never got near combat. Henry Hill--the famous former mobster whose life is the basis for Goodfellas served three years in the 101st Airborne (67-71 if memory serves) and never left the States. I worked with a guy who was enlisted in the USAF from 67-69 and spent his entire tour in Germany.

President Bush's former commander has publicly affirmed--as have many of the officers he served with--that his service was honorable and the ridiculous charges aired by the media accomplices of the Democratic Party were totally baseless. The fact that Dan Rather stooped to using documents he knew were faked shows how desperate and vile the Bush haters are. When conservatives criticized Clinton for actual crimes (a Federal judge Clinton appointed called him a perjurer and fined him for contempt!) we were called all kinds of terrible names. And we had PROOF of Clinton's guilt. There is ZERO proof that the Prez did anything but serve his country honorably during his service in the Guard.

You seem to open to facts and not addicted to bending them to suit whatever your ideology maybe and I admire that. My grandmother always says, "Don't have such an open mind your brain falls out." So I was a little shocked that you'd bring up the long-ago discredited phony stories about the President's national guard service. PainMan 07:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

For 22 you've acquired an amazing amount of facts. How you use them, is, of course, more important than simply knowing them. Something you'll come to appreciate as you age. :0)

Knowing the names of all 20 of the 9/11 highjackers (I admit I can name Attah and Mousaoui, sp?) is irrelevant. They were nobody scumbags. As a newspaper editor wrote after the hanging of the Lincoln assassination conspirators, "[I] want to hear their names no more." After all, notoriety is one of the thinks they craved. Anonymity is one of the only ways we can punish them since they are beyond the reach of all but divine justice.

I can number a lot of Nazis (Hans Frank, Roland Freisler, Stuckart, Robert Ley, Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenburg, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Joseph Goebbels, Gregor and Otto Strasser...I could go on and on...).

I highly recommend an HBO movie called Conspiracy about the Wannsee Conference. I saw a German movie about it years ago, but I can't remember the title. The HBO movie is excellent. Kenneth Branagh's performance as Heydrich is absolutely chilling. IMO, he's certainly one of the most underrated actors of his generation.

I wonder, though, how many (I'm watching Revenge of the Sith and Windu just got dumped out the window by the Emperor...now back on point...) Soviet criminals you can name beyond Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khruschev, Brezhnev and "Smilin' Mike."

I wonder, can you tell me, without looking them up, who Vyshinksy, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Tukhachevsky, Beria, Kossior, Suslov were?

And I note, interestingly enough, that you left out, in your section on My Lai, Lt. William Calley. Or the disgraceful fact that he was sentenced to only 8 years and served (I believe) only two. Granted that the pressures of war create a different pressures and so must be treated differently, surely a sentence of twenty years at Leavenworth would have been more appropriate. Did you know that Calley actually went on a speaking tour after his release? And was actually saluted by some Americans? Revolting, I know. Slaughtering Communist Party Commissars is one thing, but innocent villagers?

Gotta go, Anakin's heading into the Jedi temple to destroy the Jedi. I have to admit, even though it's fiction, his murder of the Younglings affected me far more than any evil deed of Sauron or his minions (and I've been reading Lord of the Rings since before you were born! God, I'm getting old. Only 35--middle age is just around the corner. Eeeek!!!

PainMan 07:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] User categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater page. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians by alma mater for instructions. --Cooksey 22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hello Sherucij. I really do think you should deal with a response like this [1]. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sherurcij. I agree with the above. Thanks for your support regarding the Anders Fogh Rasmussen page, it is appreciated. I don't want to see it being used in somebody's crusade or whatever. --Valentinian 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's obvious he's a (rather bigoted) troll, and every edit he makes in that vein will be quickly reverted Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 21:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely. --Valentinian 21:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Asbent

Hi again.

Sorry to bother you, but I've removed User:Asbent's edit to Anders Fogh Rasmussen twice yesterday, and I've no intention of breaking WP:3RR. He does, however, seem to be insistant on adding it again. Hmm, as you might have expected, I'm starting to get somewhat annoyed with him. Support would be appreciated (see Talk:Anders Fogh Rasmussen). My regards. --Valentinian 14:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. --Valentinian 14:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism wikiproject

Sounds great. I'm in. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, nice work on {{911hijack}}! Looks great. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion!

Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life. Dwain 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of rhetoric to pack into two sentences. (Sorry to butt in, I saw this after leaving my comment above.) · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh, what he doesn't tell you is that both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice categories are up for deletion ;) Apparently only one side of the debate has zealots trying to censor the other side :Þ Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Deaths

I have boldly reverted your bold list of executions, as I do not agree with change (and I know that, contentious as the topic is, I am not alone.) Notable doesn't mean admirable. We would list Saddam Hussein at RD if he died today -- listing is not indicative of accomplishment, only fame, and the evil have been famous forever. If you insist on reopening the debate, I suggest an RFC. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the point is that random prisoners executed in the US are not notable to anybody except perhaps Americans - I live a few miles from your border, and I never hear anything about them, so you can imagine how unfair it is to people in Saudi Arabia to have to slog through a list of "famous people who have died...and american convicts" Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 20:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
See my comment at the talk page of RD. Every executed USian recieves press here, and the death penalty is notably and publicly controversial here, so they are notable. I don't know many Europeans listed from all walks of life, but I don't suggest we sub-divide the list by region. Notability in the US is quite enough to be listed. Xoloz 20:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll add -- that list is "notable deaths." Executed convicts are notable here. That they don't reach whatever part of Canada or Mexico you're from is little surprise, and unimportant. The RD list aims to be international, and this equally means that people notable to the US aren't stricken just for being notable in the US only. Xoloz 20:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories about the July 2005 London bombings

I've listed this article you created at WP:AfD since it is original research, and wild speculation. I note that you only created it to move from the main July 2005 bombings page, so hopefully you'll not mind! Astrotrain 14:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Clockmaker hypothesis RM

You may be interested in this, seeing as you set the ball rolling: Clockmaker hypothesis#Watchmaker instead of clockmaker?. Just in case you don't have it watchlisted. Blackcap (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Hi Sherurcij, one of your comments to User:Nosharia indicated that you know who he was before he opened this account. I'd be interested to know if you're willing to say. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Sherurcij. I'll go and look at your report. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding OceanSplash, would you mind commenting here? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category

We list categories for deletion at a different page. I've copied your request and message to the appropriate page. Yuber(talk) 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for writing back...

Ironically, I have RotS DVD on the HDTV/Surround Sound as I write this (Surround Sound! Accept no substitute, :o).

Thanks for the considered reply.

Speaking of Shirer, I'm about half-way through RaFotTR. I just ordered a used copy of his similarly massive tome on the collapse of the Third Republic in France under the 1940 Nazi assault. The French just pussed out and, exccepting the Third Army which fought the Germans so hard and effectively that when they surrundered, the Germans rendered them the "honors of war"--which used to mean that officers were allowed to keep their swords, I don't know what it meant in 1940 or if has any meaning now. Basically, the German soldiers treated their gallant enemies with honor because unlike 90% of the French army & gov't, they didn't just run away.

The French almost destroyed themselves and suffered the brunt of deaths and damage in the Great War. Their defeat of the Germans at the Battle of the Marne in 1914 is one of the most inspiring examples in the horrid history of war. Barbara Tuchman's account in "The Guns of August" is as stirring and thrilling as a novel.

I hope you don't mind my asking but are you male or female? By your style, I'd guess male. But one never knows.

AS I said before your erudition is quite impressive. If I wish I'd been HALF as educated as you are at the same age. Though I was more educated than the average--sadly not saying much--back then (1988 was when I graduated hs), its taken me a long time to acquire as much knowledge as I have.

As for My Lai, if 80% of Americans can id Calley, I'll eat my sound card. Perhaps 80% of Americans over 50. But under 30? Like I said, perhaps I'll find out how tasty silicon is, but I doubt it. :o)

We seem to be closer in weltanschauung (trivia note: this was one of Hitler's favorite words!) than the typical Lib/Con divide would suggest.

But I've always felt the distinctions are too rigid. F'r instance: I totally oppose the war on drugs. I say legalize weed and medicalize the hard stuff. All the war on drugs is doing is turning Mexican thugs in billionaires, destabilizing Columbia to the point where the commie rebels could actually defeat the government (we may well have to intervene, something I do NOT want and hope to avoid). Furthermore, the war on drugs is corrupting US law enforcement at every level. In Indiana, for example, state cops start @19K USD a year. If a 22 yr old trooper pulls over a dope dealer and the guy offers him a suitcase with $100,000 in it a lot of them are simply going to take the case, say a prayer the guy isn't an internal affairs plant, and let him go. I grew up in San Diego. The Customs officials were so corrupt it was an open joke. I had a friend whose brother was a major coke dealer. He had corrupted a number of customs agents. They would tell him what lanes they were working and he would go through their lane and get waved through. They never busted him for coke. The got him on money laundering. Apparently he neglected to bribe the FBI guys.

Both Clinton's, imo, are criminals. And it's not just my opinion. One of the Watergate prosecutors (Jawarski I think, sp?) declared when BC was still in office that, in his opinion, both Clintons were felons. A Federal judge declared him a perjurer and fined him $800K for contempt. Yet most Liberals STILL claim, "it was just about sex." They deliberately ignore the crimes in the cover up. I don't care who a president is screwing as long as he or she does the job and implements the policies I support. I mean, they should stick to consenting adults, obviously (we don't want any prez banging sixteen year old boys like the page scandal figure Rep. Gary Studds). Roosevelt moved his mistress, Lucy Rutherford into the White House! As disastrous as so many New Deal policies have been he did give the country something it desperately needed, something Hoover seemed incapable of doing: he gave people hope. He completely failed to end the Depression (unemployment was 17% in 1939). Only one thing stopped the Depression: rearmament for WWII (the same thing that ended it in Nazi Germany).

So many things to talk about with you!

Is there a way to do private msgs? I'll have to check. I'd like to correspond with you in a more private forum but I don't want to put my email address out in public. If you're game, let's exchange email addresses.

Getting back to the Lib/Con divide. I am pro-life but I believe it should be left to the people. Roe v Wade is bad law as many pro-abort lawyers admit. It should be returned to the states. Several states (CA, NY and some others) had already legalized abortion on demand. Ironically enough it was Reagan who signed the bill that legalized abortion on demand in Cali as governor in 1968. The Dem legislature tricked him. The law said that abortions would be permitted to protect the "life, health and mental health of the woman as certified by a doctor." That's paraphrasis of course. But the law was immediately used by abortionists to get around the restrictions. A gynocologist would simply declare that woman Joan X is "mentally unfit to bear this child" and, bingo, the abortion was legal. It was a swindle. Reagan signed in good faith--which was abused.

I support most gay rights. For example, I voted to end discrimination against gays--I've had many gay friends--in housing, employment, loans, adoption, etc. I do oppose gay "marriage." And I really resent being labelled as homophobic because of that. I have no problem with companies giving gays health insurance if they wish to--as a private decision. I don't really like but don't oppose these "domestic partnership" laws. You can already do almost everything these laws do anyway, so I suppose its no real stretch to bundle them into a package so people don't have to spend a lot of money on a lawyer for medical power of attorneys, inheritance, adoptions, etc. However, I do NOT support extending this to men and women just living together. If you want to benefits of marriage, as man and wife, then get married.

Thus the image the Left-Liberal media wishes to paint of Conservatives as monolithic bible-thumping theocrats is just ridiculous. Similarly, many Liberals sincerely believe in the welfare state out of a genuine desire to help people. Yet the kook base has so much power in their party now--its nowhere near the same as the power of religiously inclined conservatives--the idea of a Religiious Right is simple propaganda. Who's the leader of this "Religious Right"? Where is its HQ? What's its website? It's all so much hokum.

Probably the most telling difference between the parties is on abortion. Pro-abort Repubs speak at the conventions, many have great power in the party, they are fully part of the party. The only thing that a pro-abort such as Giuliana can't attain is the presidential nomination. But I have other issues with Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Powell besides abortion. Gun control's a big issue for me. They support it. I detest it. I can't see myself supporting a candidate who supports it. I'd vote for Giuliani before Hillary Clinton, of course, but I'd not be terribly happy about. Giuliani would continue a strong war on the Islamofascists and that would be good. But domestically he so liberal he'd do a lot of damage in the party if he tried to push pro-abort, anti-gun policies. Which is exactly what the Dems want.

Contrast Dem conventions. Fmr PA gov Robert Casey is very pro-life. Pro-lifers are forbidden from speaking at Dem conventions. No one can capture the Dem nomination unless the subscribe to the whole kook/Moveon.Org/Al Franken agenda. As we saw with Kerry that's not possible.

Sorry to have gone on so long. Take care. Good luck with the exams. Happy holidays (simpler than Happy Xmas/Chanukah/Ramadan/Kwanza et al). PainMan 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AKEL

Last month you visited the web site of my political party AKEL and you commented a phrase in the text; is a communist party in Cyprus, taking into account current international political and economic developments.. Personally I am the person who wrote this phrase and i copied pasted this phrase from the official web site of Cypriot Government. With this phrase i want to mention the differences with some other communist parties. AKEL may believe in communist but sometimes does its own isolations if something is not realistic to happen in Cyprus. I will tell you some examples.

First of all, the party supported the join of Cyprus in European Union. We believe that economically it will have more bad effects on Cyprus, however it can be helpfull in the solution of Cyprus problem. In the European Union, we realize that some laws have to be in Cyprus but on the other hand we give our own fight in the parliament for a more Humanist Europe.

Our party may rejected the Annan Plan for Cyprus, however we are accepting it as a base for negotiation. It is a bad plan for us, which satisfies the interest of imperialism, but instead of nothing, with some improvements we can accept it.

Also at the elections of 2003, we supported Tassos Papadopoulos, a central-rightist politician-who was member of nationalist EOKA- for being a president of Cyprus. We did this because no leftist was realistic to be elected president and instead of having a concervatist president, we prefered a politician of the centre. Cyprus could not have a concervatist president for other 5 years and also Annan Plan would have been accepted as it is. Also we are part of the government since we coaliate, and we play our role in the government.

Any suggestion of how i can change that phrase (if must be) is appreciated. >User_talk:KRBN(talk)

[edit] Regarding the Mil-antarctica template

Hi Sherurcij,

Yes, I agree that it would be better if the table was a bit more narrow. My idea was to use references that people recognise, i.e. the popular names of the expeditions, rather than their official names (as most people probably wouldn't associate "The Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition" with Shackleton's Endurance expedition, for instance) and also to show that some expeditions took several years. However, that inevitably means long lines in many cases. One solution would be to only use the expedition leader's name and then number his expeditions if he did more than one, i.e. Scott's first expedition (1901-04), Scott's second expedition (1910-13) etc. Things like "Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition" could easily be shortened by removing the middle (Trans-Antarctic), and the German expeditions could get more popular names ("Drygalski's expedition", "Filchner's expedition" and "New Swabia expedition"). What do you think?

Another thing I would like to do, is to move the privately financed expeditions under respective country. Scott's expeditions were partly privately financed; Shackleton received contributions from both New Zealand and the British government for the Nimrod expedition (albeit retroactively); and I would be surprised if Charcot didn't get any support from the French government as well. The finanancing is rather irrelevant in the table anyway. Do you agree?

Part of the problem is, of course, than the table started as a military operations table, but was later expanded to include all the civilian expeditions (and there are loads more of those to add, not the least Amundsen's), which was just as well, as the only purely military expedition was Operation Tabarin. The three US operations may have been run by the Navy, but can hardly be seen as true military operations. And the New Swabia expedition was national, but not military (unless we believe the moonbase crackpots, of course).

Perhaps we should also change the headline to "Activities in Antarctica During the 20th Century"? Sounds a bit better, I think. Best regards! Thomas Blomberg 02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, now it's done. Have a look! I think it works much better and also serves as a good starting point for adding more articles abourt explorations. In some cases, like Amundsen, I've temporarily linked to the article about the person, but intend to add proper articles about the expeditions.Thomas Blomberg 12:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to merge pages?

Hi, I'm the guy who worked on the Jaddi Singh page... at the moment there are seperate pages for SPHR and solidarity for human rights even though these are identical organizations... can you teach me how to merge pages? Thanks djheart 05:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nosharia

Hi Sherurcij! Please take a look at this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nosharia Vs Wikipedia:Username and other possible infringements. Cheers -- Szvest 17:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

[edit] My reversion, your cleanup

I have responded on the talk page. I also reverted Cam's last edit, which was bizarre, to your last edit - maybe he is trying to quote the news outlet, but he is wrong. KI 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

We have already taken many photographs. I will start to upload them as soon as I am back here in the US. Wikizach 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy new year

Hi Sherurcij, it's your partner-in-crime for writing Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings; I saw you're on-line so I decided to stop by and say Happy New Year. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] wikiproject

Thanks for the invite.

Sorry, I should have replied to your earlier... I had a guy who was following me around, and nominating articles I started for deletion. It felt almost like he was stalking me. He accused me, a number of times, or having a "posse", who reversed his edits. I probably shouldn't have paid any attention to him. -- Geo Swan 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 1n4dl01d81c212547

I deleted the article as non-notable - the content seems to be about a lost car, and since it had been saved I assumed it was essentially ready as an article. Lost cars are clearly non-notable unless some reason is given for them being otherwise. Your comment on my talk page mentioned terrorism, and looking at the date and the fact that the article appears to be US-based, I assume that it's something to do with the 11 September attacks, but nothing in the article actually says that.

I now accept that the article may be significant, but the context should have been made clearer.

jimfbleak 09:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] IfD Noms

I was cleaning up some of the images you had listed for deletion [2]. Only two were deleted as they went through with no objections, the others were all Commons images and you would have to list for deletion there (some already were). Click on the description links for more info. --Wgfinley 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SWC

Hello there. We have a mutual acquaintance, as you already known. --Matthew A. Lockhart 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an Picture Vote

You have expressed your views in the discussion of the Qur'an picture. However, you still have not voted in the straw poll. Please vote in the straw poll to make your position official. Thanks. joturner 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October Surprise

Your recent edit inadvertently deleted this text and made the page a redirect to October surprise. It has been reverted. No damage done. --Wetman 15:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criminals

Just one (very, very) minor correction. The category I'm mostly cleaning is Category:Criminals. My goal is to get most, if not all, of the specific people out of that category. A lot of them are already in subcats. The ones that are not already in subcats, the easiest subcats to put them in are generally the ones down Criminals by nationality, thus that's where they are ending up. As I do it, especially the actions where I'm dropping the more general cats, I've developed a number of other cateories besides Criminals that can also be dropped if the article is already in certain subcats. For example, if an article is in Fooian murderers, then Criminals, Murderers, and Fooian criminals can all go. So I am ending up cleaning up more than just the one cat. But, for now, the main Criminals cat is where I'm woking out of. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Trade Center bombing

Hello again, Sherurcij. I'm having a disagreement with someone at World Trade Center bombing -- see the page history and the talk page -- and I was wondering if you could come over and offer your opinion. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Currituck.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Currituck.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:001_mohammed_awad_binladen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:001_mohammed_awad_binladen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Bernardo-Kristen.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What you want to know

I've got what you want to know. If you wish to find out, follow me to my user talk. El Bender 20:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kent State shootings

I'm keeping an eye on it. You're right that he's being pointlessly stubborn, and I think your reversions are appropriate, and I'll support them. But if I can offer some constructive criticism, there are things you're doing that are probably making the situation worse. He's being exasperating, but you're letting him get to you. By leaving edit summaries that are aggressive, you're probably egging him on. Many of your comments on the talk page have seemed to attack Bagdani. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it; I'm saying it's not helpful. If you keep cool, simply stick to the facts, and refuse to take the bait, it'll help the situation. As it is, he probably enjoys getting a rise out of you as much as anything.

Anyway, I'm keeping an eye on it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Every time I see Kent State shootings on my watchlist, you've made the most recent change. If you wait for me to do the revert, it'll look less like a 1-on-1 thing. And you won't risk a 3RR block. Patience, my friend. It's not important to revert the changes within 5-minutes; it's important to outlast him. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voter turnout

I'd like to ask you to reconsider you switching of the images on this article. Please see the talk page. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hey

Drop me an email when you get a sec. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Quotes on the Longest Day page

Why did you delete all the quotes? Drogo Underburrow 07:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Guantanamo detainees

Yes, it would be good for democracy if the USA was more forthcoming about the names, allegations and medical records of the detainees. It would be even better if they stopped breaching the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of them.

I won't hold my breath that they will obey the court's ruling however. -- Geo Swan 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bremer images...

User:Ariele uploaded most of the Paul Bremer images. She had been intermittently mounting personal attacks against me for about a year now. Their existing sockpuppets were all put on indefinite block yesterday.

I have been extremely patient with Ariele. Unlike most vandals she felt justified, and she didn't understand that she was committing vandalism. But this week's rampage got to me. I knew she had been abusing the image liscencing rules. But I had let it slide, because she already imagined I was picking on her. This week she returned to making bizarre, insulting baseless accusations. So I decided not to wait for someone else to notice her breach of faith in uploading images with bogus liscences. So I tagged all the questionable ones.

I put the unverified tags on the images they uploaded where she didn't give a source. I uploaded the image of Bremer signing the handover document, which is PD because it is from a .mil site. I don't think Ariele's images fulfill one of the requirements of "fair use" -- namely that there are no alternative images available under free liscences. I don't think they should be tagged as "fair use". A google search for "Paul Bremer" site:.gov gives 65 hits. And "Paul Bremer" site:.mil give 42 hits.

Ariele showed reckless disregard for the niceties of liscensing. on several occasions changing tags, adding legitimate looking tags, to spoof the system... -- Geo Swan 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalinke

There is a german homepage of fans of hogans heroes, www.stalag13.de. Click on "Helden ABC" and then on K for Kalinke. And then you will read the following text:

"Kalinke: Wirtschafterin von Oberst Klink, putzt meistens nur nachts (und nackt!), tritt nie selbst in Erscheinung, da es Sie nicht im englischen Orginal gibt. Wird von Oberst Klink auch nur als "meene Schlampe, de Kalinke" bezeichnet. "

In english, this means: "Kalinke: Housekeeper of Oberst Klink, is cleaning mostly in the night (and naked!), is never appearing, because she is not in the english original. Oberst Klink always calls her "my little bitch, the Kalinke" ". Now you have three sources: wikipedia.de, stalag13.de and myself. Is that official enough? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:UMW

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Erich Kempka, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 06:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC) --Mmounties (Talk) 13:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the Happy Birthday.

It occured between 23:59PM and 24:00PM last night. Due to the nature of leap year I'm just 4 years old!

PJB 12:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiproject:Terrorism

Hi,

Say, what should I be doing to tell the rest of the participants on the wikiproject about the work I am doing?

I have been slowing going through Associated Press library of Guantanamo Bay detainee dossiers, slowly adding a summary of each .pdf, and an article about each detainee.

I have also been adding articles about the lawyers defending, prosecuting and overseeing the legal battles of the Guantanamo detainees. I expanded Guantanamo military commissions to include tables describing the lawyers involved. I am thinking of creating a list of the lawyers of all the Guantanamo detainees, not just those of the detainees who have been charged. I started one on Thomas Wilner today.

I am planning on starting an article on the Denbeaux study. Have you heard about it? Mark Denbeaux is professor of law, who has two Guantanamo detainees as his clients. He lead his students to do an exhaustive study of the public documents about the Guantanamo detainees.

I recently unredirected Taguba Report, thinking it merited an article separate from Bagram torture and prisoner abuse. I started articles about Donald Ryder, and the Ryder Report, yet another study of the abuse of prisoners in GWOT.

I have been working on Charities accused of ties to terrorism, and the charities listed there.

I added an article about Nadja Dizdarevic, one of the wives of one of the Algerian Six. I may add articles about other wives.

So, as a participant on the project, should I add notes about all these things to the project page? This is my first project. Thanks. -- Geo Swan 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goebbels family on bunkermap

Your message:

Awesome images, I merely had a question whether the second room you mark as "Goebbels Family" represents Magda's quarters, or whether that's the (spurious?) third bunkbed? There were six children, yet Traudl Junge's interviews indicate there were only two bunkbeds in their room. Hoped you might be able to clear this up for me, thanks! Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My answer: (Regarding image: Vorbunker)

Hi Sherurcij, and thanks for your message! I would guess that the second room marked as "Goebbels' Family" (the one which is below the first and with only one bed) is Magda's quarters, and I would guess so simply because (1) the number of beds and (2) it would be most logical that the childrens' room is "behind" the mother's. My map is based directly on the hand-drawn sketch by Tom Posch (who visited the bunker in 1988), which I mention in my description on the image page, and on this sketch there are two beds in the "upper" room and one in the "lower". I can not directly from memory recall any specific details on the bunkbeds, but perhaps it might be so simple that the bunkbeds had three separate beds each, thus making room for six children? I don't know.

Anyway, if you are very interested in this subject I recommend that you try to get hold of the magazine with the article, photographs and sketch: "After The Battle, No.61, Special Edition (Editor Winston G. Ramsey and researcher Tom Posch.)" The magazine is subtitled "The Reichs Chancellery" and "The Berlin Bunker Then And Now".

It was published by

  • Battle of Britain International Ltd., Church House, Church Street, London E15 3JA, England

and distributed by

  • Lakeside Publishing Service Ltd, Unit 1D, Tideway Industrial Estate, Kirtling Street, London SW8 5BP, England


It might be tricky to get hold of it since it was published in 1988, but it can be done - I got mine only two years ago.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 13:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Just for your information: It's generally much better to upload images to Wikimedia Commons (unless they are very language specific) instead of uploading to the English wikipedia. Media in commons are made available to all other Wikipedias in other languages. Don't worry about the cut-out map, I've taken care of it, but I thought you should now this for your future uploads. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 23:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erwin König

Hi there. You might be interested in the following discussions: [3] and [4].– Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August Heissmeyer article

You're welcome, but you should know that it was partly due to a rather blockheaded mistake on my part. The August Heißmeyer link at the List of Nazi Party leaders and officials article was red, and so I assumed that there was no article about him. So, I translated the German article under the title "August Heißmeyer", with the "ß". It was only when I went to create a redirect that I discovered the August Heissmeyer article, with a picture of his family, yet. I then merged the two in as coherent a manner as possible. That "ß" causes no end of problems.

The German article doesn't mention his connection with Coca-Cola at all.

Anyway, I'm glad you approve. I shall likely be translating a few more Nazi-official articles. Kelisi 20:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kulayevs

Nurpashi was Basayev's former bodyguard - before he was caputured by Russians and tortured until he got his hand amputated from gangrene infection. He was then bribed out of prison, and he took his younger brother with him (who was a shephard).

[edit] John Stockwell

I saw your recent interaction with him on the talk page for his article. I bought a copy of his book -- before the CIA started to seize the proceeds from it. I heard him speak twice, about five years apart, at the University of Waterloo, and the University of Toronto. He is a good speaker. And he was very kind.

Frankly, I was worried about his mental state following the second lecture, which would have been the fall of 1991. By that time he had spent fifteen years writing and speaking about human rights and justice issues, and it sounded like it must have been enormously depressing for him. He told a story about driving somewhere, with his wife and teenage son. They were discussing politics, when his son said to him. "Can't I ever be a normal child, who only worries about normal teenage concerns, like my high-school football team."

You probably saw that his nephew tried to get the article blanked, to help his uncle live a quiet life. Of course we can't do that, because he is a public figure. But I told his nephew how much I admired his uncle, and that I would keep an eye on the article, and try to make sure any insults or vandalism got reverted quickly.

Stockwell must be a senior citizen now. Without stretching wiki policies and procedures too far, I would like to see us extend every courtesy to him. -- Geo Swan 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Eugene Corder

Hello Sherurcij : ) Could you add sources for the article Frank Eugene Corder? Thanks, --FloNight 05:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

David Mahonski, too. --FloNight 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this a sign I need to stop surveying articles and go to sleep? Category:White House intruders (diff; hist) Sherurcij (Talk) (rvt, how can a category cite sources?) Thanks for catching it. --FloNight 05:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shawshank

Can you specify what you think needs to be done to The Shawshank Redemption on its talk page? Thanks! --Flex 15:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi pictures (again!)

Hi there, I noticed that you tagged a number of the Thirch Reich-related pictures that you had uploaded as something like "Source: Third Reich material". This isn't a real source, one would hope to see the name of the photographer or the place of first publication, because, as a rule, the images are still under copyright, and to claim fair use proper citation is essential.

I also noticed that you restored the copyrighted image Image:Prien-hitler-schmidt.jpg in the article on Günther Prien and claimed fair use. Per WP:FUC we can't claim fair use when a free image (here Image:121k.jpg) is available. Sure, this picture is "less nice", but it is free, and we are not above the law. Pilatus 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:911hijack

Nice template I must say, and very informative. I do however wonder what would be necessary to not classify the people as "alleged" hijackers?

If I see a claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was the alleged assassin of JFK, I can agree with the "alleged" bit. In that case there are significant amounts of "sane" people who hold that there is reasonable doubt that Oswald shot Kennedy, and it's not like he has been convicted by any court of law. But in the case of 9/11 the only claims I've seen that these 19 people were innocent comes from some pretty idiosyncratic people. Do you think it would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV to remove the word "alleged" from this template? —Gabbe 14:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Helga-Goebbels.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Helga-Goebbels.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

[edit] German Gov

Hi there, you recently uploaded an image under the {{GermanGov}} licence. This tag is invalid, and all images so tagged are now at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#All_images_in_Category:German_government_images. Please re-tag as appropiate. Pilatus 03:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic transliterations

Yeah, Arabic transliterations are indeed weird. The thing is, there's no reason that I can see to prefer "Alshehri" or "al-Shehri". Either one is an accurate transliteration of the Arabic, and many English speakers don't know this. I've seen him refered to as "Shehri", and some people may be looking for him under that name. For some people, like Muammar al-Qaddafi, there are too many transliterations to count! I just tend to make a ton of redirects. As to which ones should be included in articles, I'm not really sure. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melchoir not interested.

- Even if Melchoir won't, give me an IM. Yes I'm 15, and I'm a writer and a good student. So don't get all "Dumb kids" on me (Darktrix666@hotmail.com) MagneticUnderlay 13:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really in the habit of giving my eMail address out to people who I have to sit and argue with whether their "brand new religion" belongs in an encyclopaedia. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 13:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand, honestly. I had a lot of coffee tonight, with a bunch of friends and got a bit stupid. At least do me the courtesy of looking at my DevArt page. Much of that reflects the person i really am. When i'm not high on Coffee & Atmosphere.MagneticUnderlay 13:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Out of random interest, since neither you nor your friends had any previous edits on Wikipedia...why stick that stuff here? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 13:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Something of a test, i guess, we've talked about it before. I'v edited once or twice before, but legitimate ones. and just as my IP address. And really, just send me a message, it's not like i'm always like this. Or just contact me on DevArt. Don't be so violently abhorrant. MagneticUnderlay 14:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Not at all violent, just not in the habit of talking to complete strangers with whom I have nothing in common, no offence meant of course Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

-Suit yourself, i suppose. Certainly I'd like to talk to Melchoir, but he ignored me completely. For what it's worth. I sincerely apologise for any distress i may have caused. And really, i appreciate your role on Wiki. One last time, I'd really like to 'chat' with you. I think you'll find we have more in common than nothing, at the very least. MagneticUnderlay 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitman

Hey, not a problem. And I'll be sure to be there for any stylistic debates that come up...I unfortunately can't help too much on research and the like, except for an occasional interent search. --jfg284 you were saying? 20:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goebbels kids

You know, I'm sure I've read in more than one source that Magda told them something along the lines of (but not meant as a verbatim quote) "These are some shots to protect you from a sickness that's been going around..." and that the morphine was definitely administered by syringe. Wyss 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way I've never seen the photos before. Spookily, they're exactly as I've always imagined from the sundry descriptions... and horrifying. Wyss 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/e/User_talk%7ESherurcij_questions__80d9.html"