User talk:172/archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Prometheism

I know that you have only this much time, but EE topics, as always, would benefit from your attention. While the wars at Holodomor article largely subsided, and I couldn't get to next stage of the work on the article, there is another article that could greatly benefit from the attention of a Political scientist. Prometheism, as of now, just reeks with POV IMO. If you have time and interest to get involved, please by all means. --Irpen 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you are too busy for this article, so no problem. But do you know by any chance of anyone who can clean it up from POV and megallomania. I would have tried but I am not a political scientist by profession. The subject is too specific for an amateur. Sorry of you feel pressured. That's not my intention in any way. --Irpen 05:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, will contact them. Happy Victory Day (coming). It is really big where I come from. Cheers, --Irpen 06:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Amazing ideas! And I thought of myself as a liberal leaning in politics :). --Irpen 06:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade arbitration

Hi, 172. A request for arbitration has been posted. Best, Bishonen | talk 09:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC).

Hey, 172,

How are things? You might want to look at Reza Pahlavi II. It really is a most appallingly shoddy article, but is being defended by a coterie of Iranian monarchists who think the hagiographic tone is acceptable. Even the name, given that he is not a reigning monarch, is questionable. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your voted needed

Please go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference) Merecat 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to be a mess. I'm voted to relist it, and it appears that Cyde agrees. His main concern was vote-stacking by Merecat, and he may well have a point... Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the question is (or one of the questions is): is merely calling attention, without soliciting a vote, "vote stacking". I have no idea, and I've tried to follow the arguments . . . can you elighten me? -- Sholom 16:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mao

I'd appreciate your input on Talk:Mao Zedong. I'm arguing with a guy who says Mao was alive in the last quarter of the 20th Century. CJK 22:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah

i'm just editting hip hop now, lol. i don't know, i may get back into political stuff if i feel like it (although that ban's probably still on)

i basically got into rap from my roommate, i know i'm probably gonna be listening to other stuff when i'm older, but for now it's the genre i'm into. kinda weird considering i used to be into classic/alt rock type stuff. i just hope i enjoy it for a while and it isn't just a little musical phase i go through.

mostly into it for the beats, through some MCs can rhyme impressively well too. but in terms of lyrical content -- nothin' really deep in hip hop, and the groups that do try to get deep or political i usually just think are pretentious. but as long as the beat's good or the rapper's nice at puttin' words together, i'm good. Dr. Trey 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

I won't be editing for the next two weeks while I go to conferences in Europe, so you will have to do the necessary at Cuba and related articles while I am away. Ambi is a tough-minded and helpful admin if things get sticky. Venceremos, Adam 00:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite, but as per my last arbitration, I am hesitant to become overly involved in an article which is currently the subject of an ongoing edit war. If there are any specific sub articles you think I could be of use on though, by all means let me know. I would be more than glad to help. Later. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re ration cards - I have. Curious as to whether you or Adam have ever actually lived in one of the Soviet paradises? Bridesmill 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what your parents have to do with this, or your or Bruce's American citizenship. Bridesmill 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question/Lenin

do you think it's possible to get people like Solidusspriggan and Kozlovesred banned/suspended for what they have done to the Lenin page? PMA 15:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I'll have a look

I don't know much about the subject matter you mentioned, but I'll have a look. I spend a disproportionate amount of time on articles related to the events of 9/11/01 dealing with the conspiracy theories there, so I have a fairly full plate...thanks for the invite.--MONGO 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about the block El C mentioned, but I will discuss it with Brad. Danny 13:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sgrayban

He's been making renewed legal threats as recently as this morning, so I've re-blocked him on that basis. Ambi 00:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic skills

Hi mate. Your academic skills are called for. You might want to take a look at Institute for Historical Review. The IHR is a deeply repulsive holocaust denial extreme-right wing organisation. However a group of users on the page regard it as acceptable to adopt a J'accuse tone rather than use NPOV. Instead of writing what the IHR says it is, and what its critics like the Anti-defamation League, they want to write criticism as fact. They don't seem to understand that that writing style is not encyclopaedic and fails NPOV. A few of us have been trying to point out that writing the article that way lets IHR off the hook by letting dismiss the article as hostile propaganda. As a skilled writer with plenty of WP experience and as a historian your observations would be invaluable. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein

Hi, I have reverted a deletion that User:Kauffner made to the Hussein article, but I did add a "fact" tag to the end of Saddam_Hussein#1991-2003. Do you have any sources for that paragraph (which I believe, by the way). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that link should suffice. For me, anyway, Kauffner seems bent on arguing. I asked him to take his comments to the Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think it works now

Just need the proper sequence John wesley 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DengMitterrand.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DengMitterrand.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism rewrite

Nice work. Cadr 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I liked this distinction, and also thanks for finding the Britannica quote. --Uncle Ed 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

I am taking all the Cuba articles off my watchlist. I am very pissed off at getting no support against the commies, so I will leave these articles to go down the toilet like so many other communism-related articles. Wikipedia will have to deal with this problem of communist infestation in the long-run but I can't solve it on my own. I have better things to do. Adam 11:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

172 and Rebecca, thanks for your messages, which I appreciate. I think I will nevertheless take a break from the Cuba articles, since they are taking too much of my time and I don't feel like further aggro just now. The articles Cuba, Elections in Cuba, Human rights in Cuba and Cuban legislative election, 2003 all need vigilance, apart from the specific issue of the stupid "election results" tables at the last-named of these. BruceHallman is a simple-minded communist and/or fool who ought to be banned. Zleitzen is a bit more sophisticated but just as bad in practice. On the other hand the fanatical anti-comm Cuban editors like El Jigue are well-intentioned but not very helpful. Have fun. Adam 07:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Varela Project

I'm sorry to see we've lost Adam on this battle. Bruce Hallman is going beyond his earlier borders to infuse the Varela Project article with Communist propaganda. -- FRCP11 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Rummel is always Right (again)

This article has been recreated in a different format. You discussed the deletion of a previous version; please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies; it may be that this version is less POV. Septentrionalis 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has inserted it into Democratic peace theory. Septentrionalis 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
And the "Possible" article was speedied, and is now on WP:DRV. Septentrionalis 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
and is relisted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2.

[edit] Jimbo's new pals

Despite his love for Ayn Rand, denunciation of Marxist.org's encyclopedia, nasty e-mails to Secretlondon etc., perhaps I was wrong about Jimbo. It seems he is consorting with a new cast of characters nowadays.

Case in point, here is Jimbo hanging out with Tron Øgrim:

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilde:Jimbo_i_Bergen_-_03.jpg

I guess this picture isn't as funny to someone who isn't familiar with Norwegian Maoist politics circa late 60s/early 70s. Tron Øgrim is a former CC member of Norway's Worker's Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). Here's Tron (on the left, naturally) with another one of his old friends in the 1960s:

http://www.artemisia.no/gfx/mao2.jpg

Tron went to Cambodia and hung out with Pol Pot and some of the Communist Party of Kampuchea ("Khmer Rouge") in 1978, although I don't have any pictures of Tron at that time ( just his AKP pals http://www.baksiden.net/bilder/paalsteiganogpolpot.jpg ).

-- Ruy Lopez 04:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reversions

Say 172, I generally agree with your reverts when they are made and their rationale, but when you revert saying some things would be better off in other articles, would it be better if you moved the appropriate parts yourself as you see fit? I generally think "revert to revision" should be used less often, and any modifications should used more of the edit field for specific deletions or modifications, (perhaps with two windows to copy and paste the old parts), and it also saves collateral damage for good improvements made. But that's just my philosophy. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!)

[edit] Marxist Infestation

i've blocked two of the unreconstructed Marxists who were "controlling" the Lenin and Soviet Union page on Wikipedia - probably get in trouble for it but i believe my stand is totally justified - something has to be done about the communist infestation at some articles. PMA 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Uderstood - beware of them and their mates creating sockpuppets. PMA 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kozlovesred - the Moment of Truth has arrived. PMA 05:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: WP:NLT might have to be used. PMA 06:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

His emails over the last hour are getting nuttier and nuttier thats why i think he might do a Scott soon. PMA 06:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's your email? PMA 06:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I added you to Yahoo Messenger if you want to talk to me there. PMA 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Fascism and Communism"

User:Zeq is trying to recreate Fascism and Communism which was redirected to Anti-Communism over a year ago after a long discussion. Can you weigh in on this?Love & Hope 09:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block's been pulled :(

Geni pulled the block :( it's a bad mistake - at this point i am severely tempted to walk away from Wiki - not much point in staying if people like Kozlovesred can get away with things so easily. PMA 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kozlovesred

i notice Zleitzen helped defeat us - the same Zleitzen who has caused so much trouble and supported the politically motivated RfC against Adam Carr. PMA 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at Geni's reply to you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kozlovesred - i think i'm pretty much done here unless this can be fixed. PMA 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Get away with things? I doubt that. There are two of you at least. You could file an RFC if his behavior doesn't improve sharpish. Then of course there is WP:RFAR for removal if it comes to that.Geni 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Chavez

172, would you mind registering your comments on the talk page before reverting edits? Many editors have worked so hard towards consensus and improving the article, POV (about the "coup") has been raised several times, and reverting edits without taking them to the talk page might not be helpful towards good faith and consensus in the long run. TIA, Sandy 03:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Chavez

Thank-you. It would be very helpful if you could help out with some copy-editing. Also, do you think you could fix the "Notes" section? It only goes up to 60, while there are acutally 84(?) notes in the article. We also need to find a way to make the inline tags for the references distinct from the inline tags for the notes. Not only do they look the same, but they all end up linking to the "Notes" section. -- WGee 17:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I have to admit I don't really know how to fix the Notes section myself. I'll do my best though, and try not to muck anything up ;). -- WGee 17:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the "Notes" section, it seems. And apparantly there's nothing wrong with the "References" section. It simply uses Harvard referencing rather than inline numbered tags, something which I'm not used to on Wikipedia. -- WGee 17:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No, everything's fine. -- WGee 17:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How does one restore the small, bronze featured article star? -- WGee 18:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein

I have just read through your edits on Saddam Hussein. To be honest, I'm a little confused. At times you deleted information that was extraneous leaving the article much more readable. In other places, your deletions appear to be almost pure vandalism seemingly deleting any information that is anti-American or that speaks of Saddam's ruthlessness and his support for terrorism. At the very least, the article needs to have a link to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, which is another article that could use some cleaning up. At any rate, I would love to hear your reasoning for deleting the section on Saddam's support for terrorism. Do really believe this topic does not deserve its own section? RonCram 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice that the existing structure of the article is mostly chronological, not topical. His support for terrorism should be detailed in a concise manner, as this is only tdhe general bio article on Saddam Hussein, throughout the article in relevant sections, depending on the chronology. Thus, a specific section on "support for terrorism" is not helpful. 172 | Talk 22:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Saddam's support for terrorism and the belief he may provide WMDs to terrorists is the reason the U.S. invaded. Saddam's support for terrorism came after the Gulf War of 1991 (Saddam never felt the first Gulf War had ended) so we do have a chronological timeframe that fits. The fact of Saddam's support for terrorism has been (and is being) debated which raises the level of interest for readers and means more detail is essential, not less. RonCram 11:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ron, leave it alone. The only reason you are putting this information here is because you have consistently failed to bias the proper article in favor of your conspiracy theory. That article is quite comprehensive in terms of coverage of this issue. There is no need to duplicate this information on the Saddam Hussein biography page. This is especially true of your attempt to present a one-sided version of the issue by cherry-picking non-notable media quotes from 1998 and ignoring the conclusions of every major investigative body on the issue between 1998-2006.--csloat 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
csloat, your stalking is getting egregious. Can I not even have a conversation with someone without you butting in? RonCram 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fidel Castro

I know you have intervened on this matter before, so perhaps you can have some input. The latest insertion is that Castro has been premier since 1959. I believe that is correct, but am not sure. Is it, and do you feel that is adequate in context to an introduction? --TJive 15:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chavez upgrades

I'm sorry I haven't been able to more thoroughly upgrade the Hugo Chavez article as of late, but, as I explained to Sandy, I cannot let Wikipedia take precedence over my exams. However, there's a good chance I'll be able to contribute more on the weekend. I am also somewhat hesitant to make any further bold edits in light of recent belittling and discriminatory comments by Sandy [1], Caracas [2], and TJive [3] regarding secondary school students. While I dearly respect the academically distinguished, such comments are directly opposed to Wikipedia's founding principle of universal editing rights and only serve to alienate an entire population of Wikipedians. -- WGee 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. You made the right move in restoring the main page version. Exams also come before all else. Good luck on your exams. 172 | Talk 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, my objection is being mischaracterized. I did not object to what you call "bold" editing. I objected to not a single talk page reference or discussion of the revert beforehand, in the interest of consensus building and not alienating valuable editors (which did, in fact, seem to happen). I don't know why you consider it discriminatory or belitting to call your abilities "incredible", but I'm sorry if my comments did not come across correctly. I'm much older than you, did college-grad school-career, yet (as anyone can tell), I don't have your writing ability, so I compliment you. I hope you will consider Caracas1830's reaction in context: when six months' worth of work is reverted with no prior warning, it is actually fortunate that only one editor reacted strongly, and that edit and revert wars haven't ensued. We are both concerned about "alienating an entire population of Wikipedians", and as you may recall, the conversations ensued when you appeared to do that. [4] Please don't take it personally. Good luck with the exams! Sandy 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Are your comments addressed to WGee or me? I assume WGee. I was in undergrad in the mid-to-late '60s. 172 | Talk 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, 172, with all the complex review of references and multiple windows open, I may have lost track of whose user page I was on. My response was to WGee: I hope he will not be discouraged by one bad reaction to a major revert. Sandy 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you both for the good wishes... I don't take the comments personally; I just believe they are not in the best interest of community and disregard the positive contributions of youths. Based on my interpretation your comments took on somewhat of a sarcastic tone. But if my interpretation is flawed, you can nullify the pertaining remarks. -- WGee 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I did. Addressed to both of you: here's where I stand. You architected the revert with no consensus, in the procees, alienating several editors who could help in the reconstruction. This leaves a few editors to do a boatload of work. Three of you (WGee, 172, Flanker) comprise consensus to work on the Dec. 10 version (and I grant you that only based on the comments on Enano's talk page, even though he hasn't responded on the article talk page, and based on WGee's statements that he will help in the work as soon as his exams are over). My concern is that the three of you honestly intend to do the work, recognizing that I've been editing and correcting Flanker's English for a month now (no criticism, just a statement of fact: my written Spanish is nothing to write home about either, and I don't mind doing this work). I have started a ToDO list of work needed. I haven't tagged the article, but as it stands, it is outdated and POV. The work done so far by Flanker wasn't acceptable, since simply deleting references is never optimum. To try to maintain good will, I will begin by doing the work of going through all of his reverted edits, updating those that didn't involve deleted references or changed content. If you two leave me alone to the enormous task of tackling the To Do list, I will lash you with a wet noodle :-)) and do the same thing you've done: act against consensus for the good of the article. I'm expecting you both will help in the reconstruction of the article as soon as time allows. I am a very new editor to Wiki, not to mention that my prose is tortured on a good day. I don't write well, and there is much I still don't know about Wikipedia. If you two leave me along with the ToDo list, the article will need to be tagged again. Regards, Sandy 13:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No worries: I'll help out (in the last week of June I reckon). And thanks for the ToDo list, btw. -- WGee 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nixon-Brezhnev.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Nixon-Brezhnev.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thuresson 18:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

Despite my earlier post, I do recognize your ability. I would like you to take a look at a rewrite I did on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The older version was very POV and treated the non-official view as though it was held by believer's in the Flat Earth Society. Former Democrat Senator and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey has been convinced by recently translated documents that Saddam and al-Qaeda did work together. This proves the non-official view is tenable and deserves some respect. The rewrite attempts to do that while recognizing the official view is still held by the majority in the Intelligence Community. I also believe the rewrite greatly improves readability.RonCram 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the April 8, 2001 entry on the timeline is horrible. Unfortunately, I only attempted to rewrite the narrative before the timeline (which was almost equally horrible). I chose to accept the suggestion of csloat to move the timeline to a separate page. Now that I have done so, csloat does not want to move the timeline. Sometimes I think he gets great joy from being difficult. In rewriting the narrative, I had three goals: 1. to improve the NPOV so that the non-official version (the one Bob Kerrey just switched to) is seen as a tenable, if minority, position. 2. to improve readability so there is continuity and the article does not appear to be arguing with itself. 3. to discuss the issue of Saddam's possible involvement with 9/11 separately because it is an extreme minority view but has important historical interest (since Mylroie's book was influential in the thinking of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz).


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:SaddamandCuellar.jpg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SaddamandCuellar.jpg.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Castro

I'd like a professional opinion on the latest controversy in the Castro saga. CJK 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page spamming

Please do not spam talk pages of other editors. Spamming in this case is defined as the addition of the same text to multiple user talk pages in a short amount of time. If you have concerns about an article, please discuss it on the article's talk page, the talk page of the editor(s) involved, or if it may require an administrator's intervention, leave a note on the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks, Naconkantari 03:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your note on my page is surprising. I was contacting only a relatively small group of users for a specific set of reasons, not "spamming." I was contacting only the following: (1) users who have established solid reputations in the community for long-time, quality contibutions to articles on history and politics (2) long-time users who know me well and whom I know, giving me an idea that they may be interested in the subject (3) users who are currently active (4) and finally users I have contacted in the past regarding similar requests who tend to respond to my talk page posts. Again, I was not "spamming" anyone but seeking feedback from some of Wikipedia's top editors; this is a prime example of the kind of peer editing process on which Wikipedia is based. 172 | Talk 03:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The only notices I have seen left by 172 were civil, non-confrontational, and seemed to be made in good faith. It appears to me that he is not self-promoting, but rather seeking additional opinions from other editors who miht be interested in the subject matter. Naconkantari, the WP:SPAM definition of spam that you cite on your own userpage clearly doesn't include such encyclopedia-building activities such as these messages that you are concerned about. Now, as it happens, I think I disagree with 172 about the Norm Coleman "trivia" deletion issue. Nonetheless, he appears to be seeking community input as every editor in a contentious situation should do. Dick Clark 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Naconkantari's is really surpising. Contacting other users is one of the msot established ways Wikipedia editors have been establishing consensus on articles over the course of the three years I've been on this site. 172 | Talk 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It isn't actually that surprising. He tends to have a very technical way of quoting policy and reading the riot act. I am fine with your actions by the way. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Stressed for Sure

That you are not even sure which comments you made, which one I referenced, which ones still stand, and how you are reacting, shows that you are not at your best right now. The edit I referenced still exists. I really don't know at this point what you should do. I'm sorry I've added to your stress. Shenme 04:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not really important. We don't have to keep really close track of who says what to which Wikipedia editors and when. Wikipeida is about the articles, not the editors. 172 | Talk 04:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting (this has nothing to do with Norm_Coleman)

In regards to your very recent note on CJK's talk page about User_talk:CJK#Norm_Coleman, do you and CJK share a different POV? I have noticed you have asked for CJK's help/opinion more than once (if I recall correctly). I remember how you (arguably) mocked me for even suggesting that you were part of the "neocon cabal". Maybe you are a Joe Lieberman democrat? It really doesn't matter one way or the other, I was just curious. I don't want to spend time going through your edits, figuring out your personal POV, so I would rather ask you myself.

Signed:Travb (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: your comments
thanks for surprising me. I like when people surprise me, because it is so terribly rare. I was expecting a strong admonishon/warning not to call CJK "immoral" again. But instead you answered my question in a straightforward and courteous manner. Thanks for proving me wrong and surprising me. :)
The more I get to know my ideological opposites, such as CJK, the more I respect them as people, despite their views (Albiet I will continue to be brutally honest about how repulsed I am about those opposing views). Maybe some day we will feel the same way about each other, stranger things have happened.
Have a good night.
Sign: Travb (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Iv'e already responded on my talk page, but I'm a bit confused as to why you title mention of the Wikipedia controversy as "trash". I'm off to check the talk page for clues. Briefly glancing, I see a *gasp poll. Not a good sign! Regards, El_C 07:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
One might mistake your note as having something to do with Norm_Coleman, whoever the f*** that is due to the #Norm_Coleman wikilink you've placed above. Sorry, but I didn't actually read closely your above polemic, possibly I won't. El_C 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Please notice my disclaimer to clarify things. Sorry to be confused by your comments. My mistake in not being clear enough. Seems like we were all confused :). I now realize that your comments "Iv'e already responded on my talk page, but I'm a bit confused as to why..." were directed at me, not at 172.
I like the word "discussion", an adjective of "polemic" better, but it doesn't have the same negative conentation that you were trying to convey does it?
Best wishes in you meaningless wikipage war. Maybe we will be allies (or advsaries) in another meaningless wikipage war someday soon. Until then, good luck in your fight. Travb (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That's an incorrect assumption, polemic has no negative connotations for me, please try to assume goodfaith. I'm not sure what "you [sic.] meaningless wikipage war" refers to precisely. My comment was not directed to you, it was directed at 172. I simply mistook the section's topic to be about Norm Coleman. That is all, User:Travb. El_C 10:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the moral high road and reminding me of good faith policy. I apologize, as my assumption was clearly wrong.
Sorry for assuming the Norman page was a wikipage war. I know this is not assuming good faith, or maybe I am not following the avoid personal attacks rule, or maybe some other wikipolicy. Let me apologize in advance for breaking that policy. If this is an incorrect assumption, I apologize about this too, in advance.
Thank you for reminding me and clarifying that your comments were not directed at myself but at 172.
I apprecaite you encouraging me to read more about Norm Coleman I read up on him, and voted in the RfC. Best wishes, hope to see you soon. Thank you for keeping a level headed tone.Travb (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You're mostly not following the facts here. I did not offer you encouragment (or lack thereof) re: Norm Coleman — I've only made one minor edit to the article, which I have yet to entirely read and was only informed of today. This has something to do with the tone of edit summaries. Don't worry about apologizing and/or parodizing an apology about breaking the rules, just try not to whichever the f*** they are them. Glad to see you've done so with the section title. El_C 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That's an incorrect assumption I was not parodizing an apology please try to assume goodfaith.
I have voted on the RfC, looks like we are in agreement. I will argue this RfC in the next few minutes. I will let you have the last word, as this is 172's user page.Travb (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
And/or now who is parodizing the rules? Just drop it, already. Yes, good job on the lexis-nexis hits. El_C 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defending a friend of Karl Rove?

172, you are defending a staunch Republican and friend of Karl Rove? Hardly the atypical actions of a "further-left-than-Joe Lieberman-democrat". That is what I like about wikipedia: the users are complex. I will have to follow your edits more closely in the future so I can attach a label to you.Travb (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He is moderate left (read: moderate right), meaning he sides more often with the right. ;) El_C 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. Is that true 172? Travb (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No maybe, it's true. Although he's sure argue otherwise. Now that's a polemic. :) El_C 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the staunchest conservatives praise 172's edits:

TDC (172 is right, controversial statements is nothing more than a transparent attempt to poision the well, quotes belong in wikiquote)[5]

Signed:Travb (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Norman Coleman

172, Please confine your specific comments about the Norman Coleman RfC to the talk page. Any comments on my talk page, other than personal questions about my political beleifs (as I have asked you here), will be moved to the Talk:Norman Coleman page. Thank you in advance.Travb (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, so far no Norman Coleman-related discussions on your talk page. El_C 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Too late! El_C 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Coleman

Iv'e already responded on my talk page, but I'm a bit confused as to why you title mention of the Wikipedia controversy as "trash". I'm off to check the talk page for clues. Briefly glancing, I see a *gasp* poll. Not a good sign! Regards, El_C 07:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

By your talk page you're much better employed at other tasks. Your knack for guideline application is humiliating.Yeago 09:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeago Hi are you addressing me, or 172? Travb (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The latter. Although it seems rather inexplicable to me. El_C 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, meant Yeago. We already established that above. What is inexplicable? Do you mean clear? Travb (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeago was addressing 172, in a way I found rather inexplicable. El_C 12:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courteousy

I mentioned your name here: User talk:Shenme. Travb (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fidel Castro

I was absent for the charade that apparently took place around March and April in Cuba-related topics, so I don't know your feeling on personally intervening in such matters at this point. The latest war over the introduction is over the treatment of the CPC, which finally is getting a mention, and whether it should be referred to, as I put it, "legally-enshrined" or "at the vanguard" (with the communist state reference excised). BruceHallman seems intent on using the Cuban constitution as the final word in all disputes over the nature of Cuba's political system, adopting its very language for this encyclopedia. There have been objections over the word "enshrined" as having a religious touch but as far as I am aware it is a common and neutral reference to codifying something into law. What are your thoughts?

It also doesn't help that there is a somewhat strange character modifying the talk format at will, which practically everyone has objected to. --TJive 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also been reinserting another paragraph into the intro. which I noticed that you referred to as "gobledigook". The material makes sense but I find it redundant and overly colorful; his latest revert now touts this as "compromise". I'm not quite sure what to say. --TJive 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hey, do you have an email? I'd like to have a chat with you in private, please? -- infinity0 10:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, nice work on the capitalism article. :) But Criticisms of capitalism is even more crap, could you have a look at it?

I have enabled email -- I thought it was checked. You don't seem to have email enabled, though. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbearably ugly pseudo-footnotes

Please don't change the Harvard references I've added in Capitalism into those awful, awful pseudo-footnotes. I'd like to help you out with the article: you can see my defense of your changes on the talk page, against Ultramarine's rather silly complaints. But just as formatting, there's almost nothing uglier that I can imagine than having a "footnote" link that isn't really to a footnote, but just to a Harvard reference to a bibliography that occurs elsewhere. This makes reading flow almost impossible.

I guess if you want, we could move all the bibliographic details to footnotes, and use named references (i.e. multiple notes to same reference where applicable). But frankly, Harvard referencing is about a million times easier to read than that style also. LotLE×talk 17:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me

I appreciate your kind words of support. I intend to cool it but the truth is, it's hard to have a content dispute when their content consists of information gleemed from private websites that have been neither peer reviewed or allow open editing as is done here. Those websites can post whatever they want of course. Thanks again, and I'm trying to help out on some of the articles you have brought to my attention.--MONGO 07:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arb

Dunno if you're busy right now but I was wondering if you had any idea how to appeal an Arb decision (or if that's even relevant or possible now that it's been almost a year for me.) I'd like to make some political edits before I go back to school but since the case was closed on August 11 of last year I don't think I'm allowed to do so yet. Any help/advice on this'd be appreciated. Dr. Trey 09:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism protected

I temporarily protected the capitalism article to prevent edit wars. Lulu posted at 3RR that Ultramarine had violated 3RR...Ultramarine has posted evidence which seems to indicate that Lulu has as well, and claims that you may have also...I am not going to go through all the diffs, but simply asking that you to not make any edits to the article for 24 hours to allow it some time to breathe. I also asked the same of Ultramarine and Lulu...so let's keep it all on the talk page for now. Best wishes.--MONGO 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] intro to Capitalism

Again, bravo. Now, can you comment on this: [6]? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I share your concern. But can you do me a favor with the proposed introduction? Even Ultramarine accepts it. Infinity0 has objections though - and he has worked on the article a lot and I think it would be unwise to alienate him. Can you, personally, work with him, specifically, to rewrite my proposed introduction into something both of you accept? Then we can make it the intro with little fear of reversion. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I only put in the sentence about: Capitalism, during the last century, has often been contrasted with planned economies. in the hope of placating C-Liberal's much longer and more disruptive versions of the basic contrast. Please be willing to keep fighting that fight, since I'm sure s/he will come up with more, longer, and more disruptive rants about how capitalism is defined by the complete absence of government regulation (as per numerous prior edits). I actually think my sentence is pretty harmless, and true enough... though obviously not necessary in a world that lacked these disruptive POV-mongers. LotLE×talk 06:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism

I suggest to you to revert this edit [7] since you are breaking 3RR. Here I explained my objection to it. -- Vision Thing -- 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't it's not a total reversion of your previous edit. Still, I'll revert it because it isn't important enough to the article for me to waste my energy in arguing about the matter. 172 | Talk 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it's nice to achieve a compromise. -- Vision Thing -- 22:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crap

Might you take a gander here? I am shocked that absolutely nothing has been done about this trash in almost a year now, except for a couple users giving arguments over the Iraq war. All of the "allegations" are from far left rags. This material isn't even notable, much less encyclopedic, but a user who did some work on Bush and the Iraq war is upset over my redirecting. --TJive 11:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Derrida.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Derrida.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input requested

Hey, could you have a look at my Talk:Capitalism#Proposed intro and see what you think? Thanks :) -- infinity0 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit at Fidel Castro

Hello 172, could you please drop in an participate in the discussion regarding the paragraph you recently deleted in the Fidel Castro article? This matter should be discussed and negotiated, and not simply deleted. BruceHallman 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

I received your spam, and looking at your contribution history I notice that this is something you've done more than once in the recent past. Please don't do this any more. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting other users for feedback is the sprit of peer editing that makes Wikipedia work, not "spamming." I have been contacting various users for specific reasons: they tend to participate in matters like TfD discussions, they have lots of experience, and they are familiar with my work to enough of an extent that they won't be surprised about receiving a message from me. (I am definitely not contacting users whom I know will vote a certain way. I have had editorial disagreements with just about all the users I've contacted-- you included. At times these disputes have occurred on deletion pages.)
In addition, just about all the contributors I've contacted have responded positively about similar requests for feedback on my part in the past. You were the exception, but I thought I'd give you a try, given your experience and knowledge of policy. I respect that you don't appear to be willing to collaborate with me. I understand that wish; there are editors with whom I rather not collaborate as well. So I will no longer contact you. 172 | Talk 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents on this issue. I am more than happy to receive neutrally worded requests for my input on issues, whether specific articles or specific administrative procedures. I find it very considerate that editors believe my input is relevant to issues. I am most certainly not going to march lock-step with whatever opinion the requester might hold—as often as not, I wind up taking a position contrary to that of the requesting editor (though I hope, in all cases, to express the reasons for my position clearly... it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with some specific person). Moreover, if someone requests my input on something, and I am either uninformed or uninterested in that topic/issue, it is no great burden to ignore the request. None of this is "spamming"; it's "conversation" and "collaboration". LotLE×talk 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreed on that, and really don't give a damn if it's neutral either. Too little trust in the intelligence of fellow editors. --TJive 04:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat related, what is your opinion on the political repression category? I think it could be valuable if better sorted, but nationality is limited to the Soviet Union at present, which is still useful. --TJive 08:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You are correct in your interpretation of political abuse, though I don't think this is a discredit to the concept as a whole. I have in mind particularly Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union which is somewhat muddled when the sub-organization of the nearby Category:Soviet repressions is taken into account, but nonetheless there is value in correlating all this material for readers only familiar with parts of it. I undertook to do something similar for the PROC and was hoping for some more informed comment on it; I've mostly gotten a few reversions from a well-known CCP fan. --TJive 06:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The ideal would be to have subcategories with literature, personalities, etc. but there seems to be a very limited number of articles which deal with the subject, so instead I left them in one. Perhaps you know more?
I agree with your criticism, so I removed the individuals from the list and instead placed the relevant categories, Category:Chinese dissidents and Category:Cultural Revolution, as subcategories, so that there isn't unnecessary repetition and that users interested in the subject can readily find them on this related page. I'm having a bit of a problem with User:RevolverOcelotX (the person I alluded to earlier) reverting a number of the related organizations though. --TJive 12:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-because TfD

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thank you

Thank you!

Thank you, 172, for your support in my RfA. I appreciate your trust and support, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CPW homepage

I have looked at this and can't see anything immediately objectionable in either its existence or what is written there, although some mention of the fact that Communism collapsed in disgrace after murdering several hundred million people might possibly merit a mention. Communism was, after all, one of the major forces shaping 20thC history and deserves due attention. No doubt many of the articles are riddled with CPW POV, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to pursue them unless my attention is drawn to particularly egregious examples, as happened with Cuba (to my cost). Untimately a substantial group of established editors will have to undertake a major anti-Communist offensive across Wikipedia, but until there is a recognition of this, it will remain an uphill struggle. Adam 05:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal links

Why have you removed the portal links from the templates? Where does it says that portal links cannnot be in the articles? There are lots of articles with portal links, including FA's. And every politics template has a link to the politics portal, for example, Template:Politics, Template:Politics of the United States, Template:Politics of Portugal and several others. If there is a good reason and I just don't know it, please tell me, thanks! Afonso Silva 09:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In talk pages nobody will find them and they are not made to the editors, they are made to the readers. They are entry-points to the content related to a subject, just like the templates you edited, but they are even broader. They are formatted like the main page because the objective behind them is working as a hub, just like the main page. I think they should be included in the templates. Afonso Silva 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soapbox articles

Thought you might be interested in these two AfDs based on your comments on the user's earlier insertions at Hugo Chávez. --TJive 13:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your skill is required on British Isles where some users are intent on POV-pushing and downplaying the fact that many people find the term offensive. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Got your message

I got your message. I voted to delete the article on Jewish communists. On that I wrote "It is impossible to imagine that this will ever turn into an academic, reliable encyclopedia article, especially on any kind of Wiki." By "hard to imagine", I mean "impossible in our spacetime continuum."  ;-) RK 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possibly unfree Image:421828 exchange booth150.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:421828 exchange booth150.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Alr 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I know. Its unbelievable, isn't it. They demanded citations. Citations were provided. Then they reverted the citations. lol. Its madness. There are some sound people people, and a few nutcases. I'm sure from your experience on the page you can guess who belongs in which category!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone Appeal

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone Appeal has been accepted. You may place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone Appeal/Evidence and make proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone Appeal/Workshop. Fred Bauder 13:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

[edit] Advice on Political philosophy

This is a narrow and specific issue; perhaps it's more trouble even asking than it's worth. But I've started at it. On Political philosophy, there is a section on "Influential political philosophers". I didn't create the section, but I've mainly been the editor watching it against odd changes. The thing is, I don't want the list to grow unboundedly: there is a List of political philosophers (that I created) that has room to be much larger. I want to keep it down to a "top twenty" sort of thing (albeit, it is at 27 names, none obviously out of place).

From time to time, someone adds a "good faith" name that I nonetheless think shouldn't be there. Y'know, a genuine political philosopher of some signifcance who nonetheless did not do anything as central as initiating a school or line of thought. Actually, a lot of the names I've removed are some of the folks I'm personally most sympathetic to (e.g. Foucault or Deleuze). Others like Popper are important in other areas of philosophy, but peripheral to political philosophy specifically. Anyway, I understand that those types of judgements need to be discussed on the talk page, and weighed with some delicacy.

There is also this weird semi-vandalism that has been going on for months and months. It's not horribly frequent, and the person or persons who do it don't edit war over it. But it's always from anon addresses, but different IPs each time. Someone keeps adding this name "Jose Moreno". This Moreno isn't significant enough to actually have his own Wikipedia article; a bit of background search by me suggests he really is a political philosophy doctorate, whose most notable achievment seems to have been being a lobbyist for Phillip Morris (I guess he's also held a minor teaching position or two, and been in some institute). So the guy isn't an outright hoax, but he's clearly not in anybody's top-20 (or top-500) "greats of political philosophy". At first the name was added bare, but lately it's added with a mushy blurb that sort of has the form of claiming significance without actually saying anything specific.

Anyway, I just revert out the name whenever I see the edit. If it were a consistent IP address, I might seek a block, but it isn't. Do you think there is anything to be done other than just roll my eyes every week or two, and revert the silly edit? LotLE×talk 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

They are at it again at British Isles. *sigh* FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

I have yet to wade through the enormous discussion at that page, but let me warn you ahead of time that I am quite unsympathetic to the idea that large portions of the article need to be devoted to the idea that Irish people find the term offensive, and if I actually involve myself in the discussion, it will likely not be on the side of the issue advocating that we do so. But let me read through the whole thing first. john k 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - that was unfair and ungenerous, and I've removed the comment. john k 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Come Lately

Hey did you still want me to look at Norm Coleman? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have actualy been going over a number of problems in the congressional articles and the issues seem so entrenched that it would be difficult to fix them. Perhaps a group of us from various prespectives would have an easier time getting the job done ... I dont know. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Email

When I activated the Wiki e-mail feature one time a while ago, I received some 50 e-mails in my inbox saying that my password had been changed; accordingly, I'd prefer to use my regular e-mail client instead. So I sent an e-mail to the address you gave me, but omitting the space (which I assume is a typo?). -- WGee 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated subject, I'm looking to subscribe to either Foreign Policy or Foreign Affairs. Any recommendation on which publication I should choose (or maybe you have another one in mind)? And what are the notable differences, if any, between the two publications? Just thought you'd know. Thanks. -- WGee 22:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'll get Foreign Affairs. A friend of the family always boasts about the journal, but I thought I'd acquire a second opinion. Thanks for the advice.
And those editors were right when they said the space prevents spambots. I wasn't thinking of that, but it's certainly a handy trick.
--WGee 23:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, well thanks. I'm beginning my summer break and looking for something to read that will supplement my interest in political economy, comparative government, and international relations. Foreign Affairs looks like it will do just that. -- WGee 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new userbox you might like

Hi 172,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

 Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP: Policies & guidelines
This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”.



[edit] Regarding your personal comments on Talk:Hugo Chávez

As a courtesy, I am letting you know of my response to WGee regarding personal comments you made on the Chavez article. On a related note, please correct the references you deleted from the article. Sandy 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirla

Saw your note at Ghirla's talk. I just want to point you to an observation I made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Hasty_Blocking_by_Some_Administrators. --Irpen 06:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Anarcho-capitalism as featured article

I have posted the anarcho-capitalism article to undergo a major review due to my belief that it is not up to the standards of being the best wikipedia has to offer. If you are interested in participating in the process please do. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 11:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

for appealing the arbitration. i know the evidence page is up and i'll get to it as soon as i can, i've had a good amount of work lately. Dr. Trey 07:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deir Yassin massacre

Hi there 172. Since you are apparently an historian, I thought I would just canvas your views on this subject. There has been a rather nasty edit war going on at the "Deir Yassin massacre" page after somebody changed the title to "Battle of Deir Yassin". In spite of the fact that the user who initiated the move has been banned from editing the article, there is now a group of editors who are resisting the move back to "Deir Yassin massacre" on the basis that its status as a massacre is under dispute.

Now, I've certainly read about this incident and was under the impression that its status as a massacre is broadly accepted amongst historians. However, I'm not really well read enough on the matter to be sure. Since you're a historian, I'm wondering if perhaps you'd be a little better informed about this incident than some of the rest of us? If so, what is your opinion? Thanks, Gatoclass 11:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We've pretty much resolved this issue now. All the same, I'd still be interested in your opinion if you have one. Gatoclass 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible wars between liberal democracies

Hi! I would like your input on: User:Salix_alba/History_of_conflict_between_democracies. Is there anything wrong or something missing? The theory has rather large importance now in foreign policy. For example, at least part of the leadership in Israel consider the theory important for the long-term future of Israel.[8] So I think Wikipedia should have a good article on this. Any suggestions would be welcome.Ultramarine 20:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support in my recent RfA!

Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations!
To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well!
♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] POV-because TfD

Somehow, this article needs to be closed as soon as possible. Every day that closure is delayed, is an unjust bonus to those who want to keep it: the template is used, usually abused of course, more and more. And even a clearly wrong use of the template as at Martin Luther (the person who originally put it up, has now put up the normal POV template) leads to two keep votes and one delete vote. Of course, there is also the one convert who has seen the light and changed his vote (I am not going to check his contributions to find the article which offended him, we have enough offending articles now). Note that the mention that it is up for deletion now is getting deleted "because it is now two weeks". What should happen now?--Pan Gerwazy 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone Appeal

This case has been closed without a decision because the restrictions on Trey Stone expire in a few weeks. For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism

Well, how is that article going...I stepped back as of late so just curious if you think it is better now or worse. --MONGO 04:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear...I'll probably do a read through later ans see how it looks. I was also asked to help with the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda article but have also stepped back from that lately as well. You might be interested in scanning over that article. Until reently, it was at 187kb's and I simply couldn't work on an article that was that huge, especially jumping into it at a late stage. Tom Harrison moved the timeline section to a separate page just the other day, greatly reducing the length of the core article, which may make it easier to work on. However, some of the core issues in the timeline should slowly be reintegrated into the main article again.--MONGO 05:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptions by Lingeron (talk · contribs)

Hello 172. I'm experiencing immense difficulty with this editor and, since you are both an administrator and a reputable, competent editor, I am here to ask your counsel and assistance. Her recent contributions (and her contribtions in general, I imagine) have been extremely disruptive and uncivil, to say the least. As evidenced by her recent contributions to the discussion pages of anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (just skim through the latest posts), she persistently uses discussion pages to advocate her political beliefs and to incite political debate. I've told her four times that her conduct is unacceptable at Wikipedia—twice on her user talk page [9][10], once at the anarcho-capitalism article, and once at the anarchism article—but she implictly refuses to change her ways, even going so far as to delete my civil yet firm notice from her discussion page, denouncing it as "assinine" [11] and "harrasing" [12]. She has even personally attacked me, calling me "a non-admin airhead" [13] and "delusional" [14]. Look at her recent contributions to my talk page, as well, if you could, to catch a glimpse of her outrageous behaviour.

Any form of mutal dispute resolution, including mediation, seems to be out of the question, as Lingeron (aka Shannon) has said, on my talk page, that "I really don't much give a @#!& what you think." She has also stated on my talk page: "You are not welcome on my page. Please don't make comments there again." This makes it all the more difficult for me to personally deal with this editor.

Are there any punitive measures that you can carry out immediately? Would I have to go through an annoying bureaucratic process (i.e. WP:RFAr) to accomplish anything long-lasting and impressive? And do you have any advice about how I should conduct myself in situations like this? Thanks in advance.

(P.S. I first encountered this editor only a few days ago!)

-- WGee 04:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind: she has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of the infamous Thewolfstar. You know, I was not so much outraged by the editor's disruptions as I was by Wikipedia's inability to prevent them. Thus, would you mind if I borrowed the quote at the top of this page? -- WGee 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totalitarianism

Thanks for leaving a message. It's really not much, but I just wonder why you keep on deleting added info on Arendt, and small details added in the intro (such as "personality cult" which had been overviewed, Gentile's statolatry, etc.). Lapaz 12:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of charismatic leaders

I think the article will survive article for deletion, so we have to live with it. I would appreciate your help in improving it. Andries 21:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going to Wikimania?

Heya 172, are you going to Wikimania? If so, I'm hoping to get together some people to grab curry some evening. Let me know. --Improv 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you notice my edits?

In your revert at SU you reverted my NPOVing, too. Was that your intent?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tnx for the reply, I thought it was an accident. Btw, at Wikimania we talked a little bit about you: we missed you both there and generally at Wiki. The sooner you are back, the happier we all will be... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recommendation

The July 13 issue of The New York Review of Books has a review, Hot COld and Imperial, by Robert Sidelsky, on books by Charles Maier and Gregor Dallas, that I think you would really enjoy or find thoughtful. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double vote in Ambuj.Saxena's RfA

Hi there, 172. You "voted" twice in Ambuj.Saxena's RfA, once to support (#33) and once to oppose (#36). Could you please choose one and withdraw the other? If you meant to change your support to oppose (since the latter is the more recent of the two), you can just strike out the support with a note "changed to oppose". Thanks, Redux 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it was just a formatting error that caused the earlier support not to be stricken. Taxman has fixed it. Cheers, Redux 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Types of socialism/Problems with the text dump

I put this orphan article up for deletion using the "prod" process. If you want to salvage it, I suggest copying it to your own user space. Intangible 01:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Russia

I am contacting you, as the main author of this article at some point to let you know that it may urgently need your attention in connection withthis. It would be a pity to have so much of your effort invested in the article wasted. Also, I wrote you a brief email message. Cheers, --Irpen 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi 172, I have an interesting question for you. I've seen you around on Wikipedia quite a bit, and respect your opinion. As such, I'd like to know what you think about the following diffs: [15], [16], [17] and [18] from the same FAC, and [19]. I'm asking because you opposed User:Ambuj.Saxena's RfA for issues that to me appear very similar to what I have been doing constantly to scores of FACs for over a year. Thus, my question is: if I were to stand for adminship today, after seeing this evidence and knowing that I fully stand behind these edits, would you support? I have no desire to continue as an admin if you or others who I respect feel that I should not hold the position. Thanks for your help. --Spangineeres (háblame) 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meehan

http://www.lowellsun.com/front/ci_4140753

So, do we get our own articles now?Yeago 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein "picture overload"

I don't get why this is branded as a picture overload. The article looks barren without the pictures. IMO, we can do without some of them, but the Cuellar pic is not in the Gulf War section anymore, so the two Gulf War pics should stay. WhisperToMe 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the two Gulf War pictures are relevant; they show the image Saddam gained in the United States - the beret-wearing Iraqi "strongman" with a gun. Speaking of photos, what happened to the Cuellar image? WhisperToMe 05:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Americans view Saddam's own propaganda images (some of which were aimed at Iraqis, and some of which were aimed at the West) and formed their images of Saddam based on those images. After all, several American textbooks show images of Saddam's picture on walls of Iraqi buildings. Those images were clearly created for Iraqis, but Americans also see them (through photographs) and use them to form the classic Saddam image. What we could do is show them now, but make a plea on the talk page and/or a comment with the images (using <!-- --> to hide them) so that new pictures can come. WhisperToMe 05:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of dictators to date

Please stop deleting my work. I dont go around deleting your work. Thanks.--Antispammer 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing personal; it's just that your entry is unencylopedic and cannot stand. Please be understanding. 172 | Talk 04:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how its unencyclopedic. It is simply a sorted list of list of dictators. Please use the talk page if you disagree with any particular person on the list.--Antispammer 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
C'mon leave my work alone. I dont think its a POV fork, because I am not changing the pov. --Antispammer 14:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
not everyone agrees that all the countries you marked in red are dictatorships If you don't agree then please use the list of dictators talk page, which is where im getting the information from.--Antispammer 01:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:China, Mao (2).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:China, Mao (2).jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. John Smith's 16:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork?

Please see Talk:List of dictators currently in power

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Soviet_Union,_Lenin_(55).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soviet_Union,_Lenin_(55).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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:October1993crisis.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:October1993crisis.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 16:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Fair use of several images you uploaded is under dispute. Please check this user contribution page [20], 23 Aug 2006 from 00:18 to 00:52 UTC. Thanks JRSP 11:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discretion blocks by admins

Hi 172, since you commented to my earlier post at WP:AN that the hasty blocks of valuable content editors in general is an important matter deserving serious consideration, I thought you might want to take a look at the RfC I started on a related matter: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Discretion blocks by admins. Feel free to write an outside opinion on the matter and/or cosign others' statements. Regards, --Irpen 23:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hiya,

I haven't seen you around for a while! Anyway, as a professional historian you will just love this. A classic example of Wikipedia ignorance. Prime Minister has been moved to Prime minister!!! An RM is taking place here but a bunch of constitutional illiterates are championing the illiterate form and don't seem to believe that writing the office that way would make Wikipedia an academic laughing stock. *sigh*. Sometimes when we deal with such people we end up wondering 'why do I bother?". Anyway, feel free to contribute. A professional historian's viewpoint would be useful.

To be honest, How any credible encyclopaedia could make such an elementary mistake is beyond me. I would have to seriously consider my position on WP if such an ignorant renaming remained on WP. I would be ashamed to be associated with with something purporting to be an encyclopaedia displaying such ignorance.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totalitarianism

Hello! I know you are probably busy, and I am also at least until next week. However, Jmabel's proposals seemed like a sound way to proceed. If you can explain your reasons for reverting (publicly or privately, I don't care although I don't know why instead of reverting you don't improve the text since it doesn't seems controversial to me) we would be very grateful. Thanks, Lapaz 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Additions to resources

Hello. Found you list of resouces very helpful; however, thought the [Cold War International History Project] should be added. I understand that it is very subject specific, however given your contributions to that broad area I believe it would be appropriate to add. Regards, Inane Imp

[edit] Economy of Russia copyright violation tag.

Hello. Your edits to the Economy of Russia article was recently setted as violating copyright. But you notted that text is in PD. Can you please clarify the situation. Please follow [21] or [22] (depend on how quick this discussion will be moved to usual page) to clarify the situation. Elk Salmon 15:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First I would ask you to be civil, a possible copyright violation can never be nonsense. Why I tagged it as a possible violation was becasue I coudln't find any copyright information about the country studies, and becasue I found that page that stated that the studies was sponsored by the US Navy, I was afraid that it could be a violation becasue at WP:PDR it's stated "Works produced by contractors and grantees for the federal government are generally protected by copyright.". →AzaToth 04:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totalitarianism

It is fully a week since I made my remarks at Talk:Totalitarianism. You have yet to respond to any of them. I don't want to edit (or remove the disupted tag) without hearing from you. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobs is back

Despite Nobs being banned until December 23, 2006[23], an IP user has been editing pages to where I am almost totally positive it is Nobs.

All of the edits have been coming from the IP range 4.240.x.x, some from 4.240.123.x, some from 4.240.186.x. I've also seen a few from other 4.240.x.x ranges that look like him

Probable Nobs IP's:[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

I guess I should investigate more and so forth. Ruy Lopez 03:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Che Guevara article

Hello User:172. I am writing to you because I believe you may have been the original editor of a few sentences in the Che Guevara article about which the question has been raised as to whether any sources are available. The text in question is:

Even liberal elements that had felt little sympathy with Guevara's communist ideals during his lifetime expressed admiration for his spirit of self-sacrifice. He is singled out from other revolutionaries by many young people in the West because he rejected a comfortable bourgeois background to fight for those who were deprived of political power and economic stability. And when he gained power in Cuba, he gave up all the trappings of high government office in order to return to the revolutionary battlefield and, ultimately, to die.

An editor has suggested that these sentences be removed from the article because inter alia they have no source notes attached, but I suggested we first attempt to contact their original author to ascertain whether he would like to provide sources for them, in which case they could be retained. [31] If I made a mistake and you are not the original author, or if you do not wish to address this matter, please accept my apologies for having left you this message. -- Polaris999 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia

Hi, Saying that Georgia is an unitary, liberal democratic nation state is not a nationalist pov. It is a totally valid statement ad any political science textbook or source can testify it. As far as the usage of the term nation-state, it has nothing to do with the ideology of nationalism. Sosomk 17:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rose Revoltion was not a coup d'etat. Shevardnadze resigned by himself. Ok, was watergate scandal a coup? Sosomk 00:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rafael Correa

You are reverting useful content from a very relevant article on the probably future president of Ecuador. Just because he does not fit your political pov, does not mean he should not have his beliefs and campaign platform on wikipedia. I urge you to please stop. "allied" does not need to be specificed. The article I cited in text said it itself.--Thomas.macmillan 14:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Building-apartment.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mirrorlake.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mirrorlake.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ben-bella.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ben-bella.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979Talk to me 06:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity

My recent FAC has been described by some as 'Polish propaganda' and an 'unnecessary POV fork'. I'd appreciate your comments - as an expert in EE history and an experienced editor.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Second the request. Also, while at it please check an inetersing discussion at Talk:Karol Świerczewski#Poland was independent ?. Some users think that they are allowed to use the phrasing "When Poland regained its independence in 1989" while others say that such referenced opinion is notable in hypothetical Polish statehood article but not in articles where this is not a main issue. --Irpen 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Adminship

If I could quote WP:RFDA for a minute:

172 left Wikipedia in March 2005 while an arbitration case was underway. Although the case was characterized as a "spurious arbitration on relatively flimsly evidence" in a preliminary review, the Arbitration Committee decided that his admin status would be removed unless he returned to address the case against him. 172 returned to editing later in the year, but the case had been closed due to inactivity.

The part I bolded is why you are on the section I put you under. ArbCom did in fact make the ruling that if you didn't respond within a given amount of time, which you didn't, they would remove your admin status. If I remember correctly, a post on your talk page was sent to you right after this occured explaining this same thing. Despite there being "flimsy evidence", you were desysopped by ArbCom. No more reverting on that page please.

And on another note, I don't appriciate you reverting my good-faith edits on WP:LA and the former admins page, and it was very rude of you to assume bad-faith when it was suggested on the talk page that these changes should be made. — Moe 14:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My e-mail is moe_epsilon@yahoo.com
I would also appriciate it if you stopped calling me "confused", it's not going to help either one of us prove a point more valid. You must understand I am well-intentioned user, as you are which I never doubted. If you want, please contact someone from ArbCom that handled your case so they can clarify or e-mail like you said. semper fi — Moe 04:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the email. I mean nothing disrespectful in referring to 'confusion.' I am sure your comments reflect a misunderstanding. We all misunderstand things from time to time. That's just part of being human. 172 | Talk 04:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. semper fi — Moe 04:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep for right now. Whenever I get the e-mail, I'll take a look at it (sometimes my computer and yahoo can be slow when getting incoming mail). Until then, semper fi — Moe 04:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of PRC

Hey, that bastard keeps modifying the History of the PRC page. We need some way to stop this edit war. Colipon+(T) 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi. I sent you an email to the old address you used last year (the only one I know). Did you receive it? -- Nikodemos 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. But my first email was sent to the same address... If this still doesn't work (and if you use an instant messaging program), please send me an email with your contact information for that program. Live chat can be very useful. -- Nikodemos 04:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Editor Review

Hi, I just started an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil and am trying to get feedback on my edits. Feel free to leave a review or comment. Thanks and bye.--Jersey Devil 02:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia: A Liberal Democracy?

Basically, a user is insisting that Georgia is a liberal democracy and that that "fact" should be enshrined in the lead. Although it's rather obvious that it's not a liberal democracy (in Ontario, students learn the definition of liberal democracy in Grade 10 Civics class), I even provided several sources to support this assertion. He nevertheless refuses to remove the statement from the lead and instead has decided to ignite a revert war. If you're interested in helping to resolve this dispute, check out the latest thread on the talk page. -- WGee 02:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In Georgia high school student also learn the definito od liberal democracy and democracy takes different course in different cultures. Just becaause the 16 years old Canadian high school student think that Georgia is not democratic enough does not mean that we should change it. I am also free to quetion the validity of any democracy in the world, but I have to keep my bias off wikipedia. Georgia is a liberal democracy according to Georgian Constitution and please be respectful. SosoMK 04:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me ask you a question. What do you think Canada and the UK are? Are they liberal democracies?SosoMK 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have to have that Xenofobic attitudes towards E European countries, who fought for their the freedom through democratic means and inpired people in the Western Hempsphere?SosoMK 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, make sure that this guy will stop POV pushing before I lose patience and get blocked. SosoMK 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you just don't understand what liberal democracy means. A state's constitution alone, no matter how ideal, does not determine whether or not it is a liberal democracy. Apart from a legal framework guaranteeing fundamental human rights, liberal democracy also necessitates several specific, real circumstances, including judicial independence (which Georgia surely lacks). And, honest to goodness, whence came this accusation of xenophobia? You're really getting too excited about your country and the article. -- WGee 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein photo

I noticed you restored the older photo of Saddam in his article. Please be advised that this is a fair use photo and likely can't be used anymore because it fails the first fair use criterion (it is a photo of a living person that can be replaced by a free alternative). Since we must always use a free-use photo if it is available, I'm going to put back the other image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a source for that claim is necessary. Iraq copyright law of 1971 states that images are protected 50 years from their date of creation and 25 years after the death of the author. Just because it was created by a regime that is no longer in power doesn't mean that all copyrights have been released and everything is in the public domain. I'm not sure why you feel it is a free-use image, and, unless you can provide a source, I'm not sure that is an accurate statement. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism & chart

I suggest that you use talk page instead of slow motion edit warring. -- Vision Thing -- 11:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are just reverting and declining any discussion, that makes your edits disruptive. -- Vision Thing -- 19:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian Socialism and Mutualism

What are you talking about? Both terms date back to the time of Proudhon, Joseph Déjacque was the first person to call himself a libertarian and Proudhon theorised mutualism. They pre-date Marxism in all its forms, so are, in no way, neologisms. Donnacha 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I direct you to the post by Libertatia about the so-called "neo-logism", which is beside the point. Even if it was so, that's no reason not to use a commonly accepted term. This is an encyclopedia, not a history book. Finally, I find it very rich that you complain about me not using the talk page when you keep reverting changes without any discussion at all. You do not own these articles and do not get to dictate terminology or what should or should not be included based on your own opinions. If you wish, I'm happy to go for the Mediation option. Just stop reverting changes other people have no problem with. Donnacha 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question Unrelated to Wikipedia

Hey 172, I have a friend who's trying to collect information on the 1967 Bernstein/Israeli Philharmonic performance of Mahler on Mount Scopus, in particular the effect on the Israeli public, soldiers, and political relations with Arabs. If you so happen to know of any scholarly material on the topic, I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me pointers. Thanks for any help you might be able to provide. Take care. --Improv 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

Hi 172: Care to comment? Please see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa. Thank you. IZAK 12:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

Hi, 172. I saw the thread "User:172" on ANI, and wanted to respond since I've hade some contacts with both you and User :Donnachadelong, but the thread had been archived before I got to it. Instead, I've posted a note on User talk:Donnachadelong, in case you want to take a look. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 23:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Block and unblock

div class="user-block"> Image:Octagon-warning.svg|left|30px|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./div!-- Template:3RR5 --> font color="orange"Rama's arrow/font

The 3RR report was utterly dishonest. The bulk of the edits in the report were not reverts, or "partial reverts." In the edits disingenously reported as "partial reverts," I was working toward a compromise in which most of the content in Donnachadelong's new section could be preserved, but in a summarized fashion. My offers of compromise on the talk page keep getting disregarded over and over again because I am outnumbered by a group of editors united by a common POV (most self-identify as "anarchists" on thieir userpages). Your block of my account is not helpful. Blocking my account just encourages these users to keep gaming the system instead of engaging in a serious discussion of article content.
See the talk page discussion. Notice the differences in the summaries I have been posting. I am attempting to reach common ground with these users. But they keep reverting me. I cannot begin to stress how upset I am about this situation. I have been dedicating so much time on Wikipedia for the past four years. I am dedicated to keeping that article encyclopedic. And I am doing so within the framework of the rules. Again, I was not making "partial reverts," but attempts to find some middle ground with new content. Take another look. It doesn't really matter that I cannot edit for 24 hours, but this is a major slap in the face after spending so much time making sure a controversial article-- a magnet for POV-pushers-- stays consistent with other encyclopedias and useful to readers.


To any one interested in figuring out why my edits were not a 3RR violation, please see Bishonen's explanation to Rama's arrow at [32]. She said it better than I could have said it myself. It is amazingly frustrating when well-attention admins make these mistakes at the expense of competent contributors. The quality of our articles is what suffers in the end. 172 | Talk 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. KillerChihuahua?!? 08:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh and would you please archive your talk page? Thanks much. KillerChihuahua?!? 08:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry if the page too so long to upload! I'm archiving the stuff from before May. 172 | Talk 08:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Opps, my IP address is still blocked. Thanks in advance if this can be changed. 172 | Talk 08:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

172, I believed I cleared the autoblock. Try to edit once more. If you are still blocked contact me with the exact message on the screen Alex Bakharev 10:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, I went to bed and missed this. 172, is all well? It looks like Alex got it to me - KillerChihuahua?!? 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Communism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Archive

Hi. You should probably archive your page again, as it is getting ridiculously long. You might even want to use Werdnabot. He can archive your page for you. Thanks.--TomI edit my userpage too much, 00:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flattered

Thanks...[33]...I'm flattered.--MONGO 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:339313 belgrade300.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:339313 belgrade300.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PMA

Just letting you know i have resigned my adminship in the face of an RFC - thank you for being a friend so long ago. PMA 14:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Communism.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Putin

I am sympathetic of your position in the dispute but unfortunately I am not interested in politics. I asked the guys from Portal:Russia to keep an eye on the article. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lapsus calami

You may want to clarify your vote on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Zocky | picture popups 12:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps for the Caucasus nations

Hello. I've been wondering if a user with some "seniority" on this site could take a look at what seems, to me, to be a problem with a few articles, and given your interests I thought you might be able to help. The maps in the infoboxes for Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia do not follow the standard used in roughly 98% of the other articles for sovereign nation-states. You'll notice that, in fact, all three use a map of Europe (even listed as such in the filenames), centered on Europe, with the relevant nation highlighted not far from the map's bottom-right edge.

Given the ambiguity of that region's geographical status as European or Asian and some of the controversial geopolitical tensions lingering there which we see even in extremely recent news headlines, I'm deeply suspicious of these maps. A look back confirmed to me that there were some political motives at work, as at one point, there were identically-framed maps that had a "Greater Europe" (which included all of what is traditionally known as Europe, including Russia west of the Urals, but also Anatolia and all three Caucasus nations) highlighted in light orange, with individual nation-states marked in a darker orange. I wasn't here for it, but apparently this raised some controversy and those maps were revamped a little.

However, by now, it looks like all of these Europe-centered maps have been scrapped, except for the articles on Bulgaria and Romania (which retain something similar but not as flagrant as the original shading of Europe) and the three Caucasus nation-states. A quick glance showed me that other European nation-states (random ones I checked: Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, Greece) are back to using the standard map which nearly all such Wikipeda articles use (with the relevant nation roughly in the center, highlighted, zoomed in within its region unless it is geographically so large as to warrant an image of the entire world with the nation-state highlighted).

When I raised these concerns and attempted to change back to the standard images for Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, my edits were immediately reverted and a user attacked me as a "troll" and "sock," even though I hadn't been near those articles before and certainly have engaged in no inappropriate behavior. I feel that as a relatively new user with few edits, my concerns are not being taken seriously, and I was hoping a fair-minded user with more clout and experience could possibly fix what I see as a problem.

Thank you! Adlerschloß 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't see any reaon why should we not favor the status quo. Georgia is an European nation and trying to disprove this self-evident fact is a disrespect of history and meaningless POV-pushing. If you believe that Georgia shold be clasified as transcontinental nation due to the UN's placement of the country in Asia, Georgia still has majority of her terriory in Europe and has more cultural ties to Europe rather than to Asian countries. So, please keep the current map.
In addition, I don't see why wikipdia should follow the UN format? The United Nations is an IGO and I would argue that their geographic data is not totally correct. The geographic website [34] placs the entire region in Europe, which is more accurate geographic interpretation. Why do we have to argue about the term European, which is a exremely broad term and can never be defined correctly. Thanks, SosoMK 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
But why should the three Caucasus nation-states have this special map centered on Europe when 98% of the other nation-states in the world (including almost all those actually situated in Europe) have maps centered on the relevant country itself? A long, meandering discussion of what exactly is "European" isn't really what I was trying to accomplish other than to show just how ambiguous the term really is and how it obvious is not "self-evident" that Georgia is "(a) European nation" given all the vague nature of the history of the term European. Having this special Eurocentered map for the three Caucasus nations is, again, to me quite bewildering, and the arguments you're making confirm to me that there are political motives at work. Regardless of what we think about the cultural ties between this region and other parts of the world, I see no reason at all why the three nation-states situated there should have this special, unique map that even European nations do not have. I'm in favor of one standard map format for all nation-state articles that prevents these sort of political disagreements from happening in the first place. Adlerschloß 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War

Hello. I found the language on Britain and the Greek Civil War somewhat confusing, and I traced it back to this edit: [35]. It seems to me that a phrase got lost somewhere in there. I have revised the language; you may want to look at it to see if that is what was meant. Thank you. Kablammo 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

Why did you revert the Ronald Reagan page to its current out-dated version? Your edit summary dosent describe the reason for returning information that had been placed on other pages for organization purposes.Rougher07 09:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinochet

Please note that although it may appear at first glance that "US-backed" is no longer in the intro, I have moved the reference down to the sentence about human rights abuses under Pinochet. Gazpacho 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Frenchindochina.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Frenchindochina.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbs up

Thumbs up for moving the marriage and family section of Saddam Hussein to where it belongs. John Hyams 06:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

172, someone deleted "Execution of political opponents", "Self-image promotion", "Family dictatorship" and more, was it you?... John Hyams 08:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. While I'm open to changing the headings, I really think changes should be in the direction of making them more chronological. Over my time on Wikipedia, I've noticed that biographies and history entries tend to become messy, at least when not constantly watched by a stable circle of dedicated editors, when they are organized topically as opposed to a way keeping the article focused on the timeline. For instance, they often lead to disputes when editors find themselves disagreeing on criteria for deciding whether particular topics are suitably relevant for headings. 172 | Talk 08:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Messy or not, deleting these important facts indicate on a biased approach (positive approach towards Saddam?). This is part of history, you cannot simply delete this. I strongly oppose this type of deletion. If you think it's messy, clean it up, edit, but don't delete. And, it wasn't messy at all, that's only your opnion. I have no time to deal with it now, but expect this info to be returned into the article. 172, the article without these deleted facts is about to become disputed again (with the dispute tag). Please, avoid that. John Hyams 09:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, you did not indicate in your edit summary what you've done. Your major edits were summarized differently on the edit summary line. John Hyams 09:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2004 habermas.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2004 habermas.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)