User talk:Libertas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell Libertas What You Think of Her - Keep It Fair & Balanced!

Welcome! to my talk page.

We thank our country for protecting our right to free speech on this Talk page and defending the liberties of oppressed people around the world. God Bless America. User:Libertas

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

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Sockpuppet? 2 Singleton quote 3 In regards to L. Paul Bremer 4 Soviet Union 5 Trolling and disingenous comments 6 Personal attacks 7 3 Revert Rule 8 UPI 9 Totalitarianism 10 Soviet Union 11 AOL Users editing User:Evercat and Soviet Union 12 A Socialist, not a Marxist? 13 Page Protection and 172's Activities 14 Soviet Union 15 Saud Abdul Aziz Algosaibi 16 No 17 Deal? 18 Disruptive behavior 19 Image copyright issues 20 festive leftist 21 User:President George W. Bush 22 Your Talk Page 23 Andrew Villeneuve 24 test 25 Radicalsubversiv RFC 26 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrew Villeneuve 27 A suggestion, if I may. 28 Arbitration 29 Arbitration Committee injunction 30 Deleted article 31 ArbCom final ruling 31.1 Remedies 31.1.1 Ban for disruptive behaviour 31.1.2 Revert limitation 31.1.3 Sockpuppet accounting 31.1.4 Identity of user 32 Post-Soviet States 33 Hello 34 Image:Revmoongorby.gif listed for deletion 35 what gives you the right? 36 FairTax 37 Image Tagging Image:ACC.jpg 38 flags / Burma / Myanmar 39 Image Tagging Image:Aziz.jpg 40 Image Tagging Image:Bca.gif 41 Image:Ty Warner.jpg 42 Non-free use disputed for Image:Dietrich otto.jpeg 43 Non-free use disputed for Image:Stirlitz.jpg

[edit] Sockpuppet?

The "contributions" of this user strongly suggest that he is a sockpuppet of User:Chuck F, a chronic libertarian POV pusher whose actions are currently under review at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Chuck F. He's just begin reverting Ron Paul and Libertarian Party (United States), Chuck's only targets that aren't currently protected as a result of his edit warring. Please take this into account if he pleads ignorance to the three-revert rule. RadicalSubversiv E 08:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not Chuck and I am not involved in any revert wars. Libertas

Now I'm not so sure, mostly because you've made some reasonable contributions with correct spelling, though something fishy is definitely going on. Are we supposed to believe it's a coincidence you're editing almost exclusively the same articles Chuck has been starting edit wars over? Libertarian Party (United States), Ron Paul, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, McJob. Reithy, perhaps? RadicalSubversiv E 21:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ARGH! I am not Chuck! I am not Reithy! I am not anyone except Libertas. Libertas

For myself it has no matter if you are Chuck or any other. Comrade Libertas, I don't want to talk with you on any topics, so, please, don't pollute my talk page with your labels any more :) User:Cmapm 20:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Singleton quote

My apologies, I missesd the attribution to Singleton. (Seems Paul really has trouble keeping his staff in line.) I don't think it belongs in the lead, though, so let's try to find a better place for it in the article. RadicalSubversiv E 21:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to L. Paul Bremer

Libertas,

In regards to L. Paul Bremer, you and a few others seem to believe that his service to the United States are for reasons other than a sense of patriotic duty. If you have evidence to back your claim, I'm certain there are those who would be interested to read all about it. Please DO include external links and published articles to substantiate your claim.

Paradigmbuff 17:26, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union

I have added some further considerations of you 11 specific proposals for the Soviet Union article on the talk page. If you respond in good faith, I have confidence that we can work together in clarifying the discussion of collectivization and Soviet Union in terms of the famine in Ukraine and estimates of the causality toll. I am confident that we all can work together to get the page unlocked eventually. I have also pointed to excerpts from the article demonstrating that most of your points were already addressed in the framework of the current structure of the article. 172 07:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not been making allegations. I have expressed an interest in finding out whether or not some speculation by other users can be investigated. This is not to put you on the defensive but rather to give me a better idea on what I should expect from you. For now, nothing has been confirmed, so I will continue to respond to you based on the assumptions of good faith on your part and that you have nothing to do with Chuck or Reithy. 172 07:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never said that you were Chuck or Reithy. I implied that I was interested in finding out if this were the case. At any rate, this doesn't matter. I will assume for now that you are not. This discussion isn't going to accomplish anything constructive. Let's try to focus our conversations on the edits and the proposals, not the personalities. 172 08:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I said that. You've been confrontational from the start. Yet, I am still spending a considerable amount of time trying to work with you and respond to your comments. 172 08:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I would like to formally complain about you discussing my location with others. How do I do this.

I don't know. Maybe Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. However, IP addresses are more or less designed to enable internet systems to find out what network or ISP you're on, otherwise how would any system be able to send you information? Looking up someone's internet location from an IP address is trivial, ie see here. And you revealed your IP address by editing while logged out. I didn't make you do that. 82.41.35.171 23:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's my IP address, for example. It resolves to the UK ISP Blueyonder. You can even tell that I'm in Edinburgh from it. This enables other machines trying to contact mine to send data to the correct place. Isn't that neat? Evercat 23:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now I do recall that the Washington Times acquired a stake in UPI, leading to the resignation of Helen Thomas... Nevertheless, this is a rightwing newspaper and was quite hawkish in the Cold War. Do you think that they have a pro-Soviet agenda… I haven't seen evidence of significant changes in editorial policies from UPI in recent years; and their articles seem to appear as frequently in papers across the country as before. I'm no fan of the Washington Times; but I see no evidence that UPI should be generally any less reliable than (say) AP or Reuters... BTW, this is a diversion from the point of posting the link to that article. 172 07:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I stand by the accuracy of that report. I have seen similar figures reported over the years scores of times... This is my last comment on this issue. I will not let this issue divert attention from the initial purpose of posting the link to that article any longer... Also, don't bother to post anything on my talk page any longer. I will start ignoring them unless they directly pertain to articles... I have reviewed your comments and changes to the aritcles; and I have no desire to interact with you any further. Other users can now deal with you on the Soviet Union page. 172 16:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling and disingenous comments

You are quickly developing a habit of trolling and otherwise making disingenous and backhanded comments in edit summaries and on talk pages. For example, taunting 172 by writing: "suggest you check with UPI/Rev. Moon to find out" and "not sure what Rev Moon thinks" for edits totally unrelated to either the UPI or Rev. Moon. Please see Wikipedia:What is a troll and Wikipedia:Wikiquette for guidance. You've made some very useful edits -- please stick to that instead of being intentionally disruptive. RadicalSubversiv E 23:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, please do not interpret my comments as a request not to edit on Russia-related articles -- any deciison on your part not do so is your own. Secondly, NPOV policy applies to all of Wikipedia, and I (and I'm sure others) will continue to keep an eye on your editing regardless of what topics you choose to work on. RadicalSubversiv E 00:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You speak with forked tongue. You certainly don't want me editing anything relating to left-wing issues. Your actions undermine the project you spend so much time on. Libertas

[edit] Personal attacks

Please refrain from accusing me of being a Stalinist. I'm not, and I consider it a personal attack. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, while I'm not aware of a policy officially presenting, selectively removing comments from your talk page goes against community practice is not likely to be well-received. RadicalSubversiv E 05:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to vandalize my user page, at least have the honesty to do it under your main username [4]. 172 05:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert Rule

Hi, you have reverted edits to History of post-Soviet Russia threefour times in the past 1224 hours or so. Please be aware that Wikipedia has a rule, the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, against reverting an article more than 3 times in any 24 hour period.

Please also note that the community consensus (see WP:AN#Three revert rule) is that a reversion with an edit added into it (e.g. adding some text changes, or linking dates) is still a reversion, and still counts against the 3RR.

As you will see from reading the Wikipedia:Three revert rule page, violating the 3RR can get you blocked from editing. I've already had to block two people today for violating the 3RR, and I don't want to have to do it again. Thank you. Noel (talk) 05:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note that Libertas has been here for several weeks, and should be well aware of the 3RR, having participated in discussions where it's been referenced (see Talk:Ron Paul for an example). Also note that he already erased my note here about his violation. RadicalSubversiv E 05:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR appears to have been broken. Note no change here except for an attempt to disguise a reversion (not sure who removed the word, checking that now). Pakaran (ark a pan) 05:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Libertas removed the word in question (not that it matters). Libertas, please use your day off to read the 3RR policy. Pakaran (ark a pan) 05:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:United states flag 1024.jpg

[edit] UPI

The articles about UPI, Washington Times do not say that they are owned by moonies. Can you update them, as well as the ones about the reverend himself? Mikkalai 07:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes have done that. Did you know 5 dead Presidents told him he was the Messiah. That's bi-partisanship. Libertas Fair & Balanced

[edit] Totalitarianism

"Andy L yes that's fine although note the Nazi page makes no such qualification"

Feel free to go to the Nazi page and make the qualification. AndyL 23:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Libertas

Personally, I think Stalinism was totalitarian but that's my POV. The Soviet Union *after* Stalin I'm not so sure - I've met people who left the Soviet Union when it was ruled by Brezhnev who agree the system was authoritarian but think Western characterisations of it were exaggerations. I have a very vivid memory of a young North American conservative arguing with a former Soviet dissident about what life is like in the Soviet Union and the North American was so adamant that the dissident ended up saying "it wasn't that bad"! I think the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s was authoritarian and repressive but as far as being "totalitarian" it didn't hold a candle to either the USSR under Stalin (or North Korea today) or Nazi Germany. AndyL 23:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, if I can be personal for a moment, my family lived under both fascist rule and Stalinist rule (leaving Romania in the late 1950s before I was born after having expressed their opposition to the regime) and though Stalinism was no picnic, fascism was worse. The Western conservative habit of equating fascism with Stalinism and saying one was as bad as the other is effective propaganda but I don't think it's very accurate. AndyL 23:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find comparing the attributes of authoritarian regimes a little unfulfilling. Fascism, communism, Stalinism, Sovietism were all sinister in their way. And all are capable of being spun, whether it's "the trains ran on time", "free health care" or whatever. But political prisoners are the one thing they have in common. People fleeing the regime is another. People not being trusted with important decisions is another. Genocide was another. My POV though is not relevant I just want the article to reflect reality not Soviet nostalgia, we wouldn't tolerate it on the Nazi page, and nor should we. Libertas

The thing is the Soviet Union wasn't just Stalinism, there was a long period after Stalin and a completely different period before Stalin so it's not accurate to characterise the entire Soviet era by its worst period. Nazism was far shorter lived and there was really no pre-Hitler and post-Hitler Nazi eras so it is a different ballgame. AndyL 01:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Missed this message Andy, Soviet Union wasn't just Stalinism. And Stalin wasn't the only totalitarian leader or dictator of the USSR. They all were. Most non-Marxist scholars argue this. Britannica and Encarta which are designed to summarize scholarship on such matters unambiguously and prominently declare the USSR was totalitarian and a dictatorship. But did we really need to be told? Libertas Fair & Balanced

[edit] Soviet Union

Thank you for your encouragement. I think most of the material which 172 wrote on the Soviet Union needs to be looked at. His point of view editing is subtle, but insidious. However much of what he writes is good history and political science and must be respected for what it is. Fred Bauder 00:24, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting is bad form. What is needed is decent references, so if you want to work on this start hitting the books and taking notes. One thing though, you have to understand the dream before you can figure out the nightmare. Fred Bauder 00:40, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to express my agreement with Fred that reverting is counterproductive. Especially when you revert wholesale and delete some good changes that were made afterwards. I also agree, no, I AGREE that the main article on Soviet Union should, can and must mention the repressions. The only problem is that we all (different people that we are) need to agree on how to do it best (i.e. neutrally). :)

I do agree that simply linking to Great Purges is not enough. Just like the article about Germany (not Nazi Germany) gives a summary of the Holocaust and the Third Reich, the article on Soviet Union must give a summary (but neutrally written) of repressions. Even to me, a "pro-soviet communist lover" the repressions were a horrible fact, not something I would defend or justify. BTW, the United States article currently doesn't mention (even in passing) the fact that the colonists were guilty of genocide towards the Native Americans. I wonder what you guys think about it.

Anyway, I am really glad to see that both you and Fred (the most active anti-soviet contributors in recent days) seem to be rational (when not confronted), decent and good-willing people. :) Seriously, it's very easy to demonise people you disagree with, but I hope we will all avoid it in this particular debate. And let's work constructively and respectfully on this topic. Best regards, Paranoid 01:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Paranoid, yes reverting is useless. I would much rather resolve the matter. 172 is not governed by the same principle however and the result is an article that is radically different from articles on the same subject in respected publications, like Britannica and Encarta. I don't say they are definitive but I do encourage them as a reference point when in doubt. And the diference in content and approach are startling. I have no problem with the US article mentioning the murder and mistreatment of Native Americans, or slavery or any of that. It should reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The Soviet article as it stands would make a Brezhnev proud. Libertas Fair & Balanced

(1) I don't participate in IRC. (2) We have already been making changes to make the article more "anti-Soviet" for you. Notice the following changes:[5] And if you look at the individual edits in the page history, you'll also see that **I** was the user that added the new links to kulak, Gulag, Great Purges, and collectivisation in the USSR. I was also the user that added the reference to the millions of casualties in the famine in the Ukraine under Stalin... My strategy is the way to make this article into a better resource when it comes to finding out about the crimes of the Soviet regime; this cause is not assisted by adding POV terms that do not like to specific entries concerning the USSR like murder, dictatorship, or totalitarian. (After all, you will learn more about the horrors of Stalinism in (say) the Collectivisation in the USSR article, which I added, than in (say) the murder article... Given my insistence on staying specific and sticking with the links that deal with Soviet atrocities, as opposed to broad terms, it turns out that in the end I turn out to be less guilty of "whitewashing" the USSR than you are. 172 06:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(1) My response is the same now as it was minutes ago on Talk:Soviet Union. If you are not satisfied with my comments concerning the use of the terms totalitarian and dictatorship, then I refer you to the comments made by other users on that page. (2) I have no desire to discuss my involvement on other pages with you. 172 07:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have offered to peacefully resolve these matters and you decline. That's your right but a failure to discuss the matter does not strengthen your argument. Libertas

I will respond to you on my talk page from no on. 172 07:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased with Paranoid's post above. It turns out he has the same political orientation I have. Although that was not clear from his edits at first. The problem remains of getting even a link to totalitarianism into the Soviet Union article, but I like the points 172 makes about links to specific Soviet phenomena such as the Gulag are more useful than links to general concepts such as mass murder. Let's wait a while, see who is seriously involved in editing regarding these issues, and if discussions lead to an impasse, try negotiation a a group. I see movement from 172. I think he is trying to follow the requirements of the arbitration, but at this point a bit of patience might be needed as he adjusts. Meantime, if you could find some good references regarding the elements that made up Soviet totaliarianism, I would appreciate it. The reference I used from the BBC is a bit lame. Fred Bauder 11:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would welcome a discussion of any kind. I proposed one with 172. I am certainly happy to follow your lead on these matters as you are an experienced user who has seen these things come and go many times. Libertas

The claim that reincarnation is nonsense is a rather mild claim for userspace. You see much more extreme claims being made. An example might be the patently absurd claim that a country that invents reasons for war and then massacres one hundred-thousand innocent people in Iraq is "defending the liberties of oppressed people". Have a nice day. Evercat 20:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view, I just wish you wouldn't disparage mine or my beliefs. Can you please remove the attack on Buddhism? (Third time asking) And can you stop being creepy, intrusive and threatening by discussing my location (Fourth time asking) Libertas

One would be correct, particularly if one followed his pattern of comments on mine and others' talk pages about Rev. Moon and Stalinism. RadicalSubversiv E 21:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Radical, radical, radical. I have not even looked at the article on Stalinism, although with your encouragement I will do so. Thanks for the tip. And radical, please take your own advice and stop making personal attacks. They are not good karma. Libertas

I've already indicated the hypocrisy in having controversial stuff on your userpages while complaining about controversial stuff on mine. I'm all for your right to have controversial stuff on your page - if you want to say that America is the greatest force for good the world has ever known, that's fine; but don't come to me and complain about what I've written on my page about some minor matter of theology. Evercat 02:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AOL Users editing User:Evercat and Soviet Union

May I ask if you have been doing anonymous edits as 172.202.215.95, 172.190.40.153, and/or 172.188.39.133? I ask because you appear to have edited User:Evercat as 172.149.118.186 around the same time. I also ask because I want to be sure that you know that making anonymous edits when you have a login name is discouraged. If you did not, great. If you did, you may want to consider avoiding the practice in the future for the reasons outlined in the link. — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:08, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely deny making any anonymous edits deliberately, ever. I always try to log on, so I can keep track of what I'm doing. I am not an AOL user, I don't think AOL is available where I am and I can assure you I'm not dialling internationally to edit anything. I repeat I didn't edit any article including Evercat's talk page from any IP other than mine. Indeed I was very careful not to edit his user page and did not do so. I asked him to do so on his talk page several times. He did not do agree, I didn't think it was up to me to edit his page and did not. I will pursue arbitration on this matter eventually but I won't be editing his page just as I wouldn't expect him to edit mine. Ask Evercat what my IP is, he has posted it on WIkipedia and IRC repeatedly.

Your tone is more polite than your other left-wing friends. However it is in a pattern of constant allegation, constant personal attack by those self-identifying as leftists. I have been variously accused of being Chuck (who I've barely interacted with), Reithy (who I've never interacted with), and now five different IP numbers. If I didn't have a differing perspective to avowedly Marxist contributors to the Soviet Union article, would you be making these claims? I don't think so.

You may want to consider whether constantly accusing those with differing opinions of wrongdoing. It turns Wikipedia into a battleground not a place for producing a neutral encylopedia. Libertas

Please spare us the messiah complex. It takes (at least) two to tango, and you've been the only one trolling and making outright personal attacks. RadicalSubversiv E 19:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Undergraduate opinion while welcome should be carefully explained so as to not lose reader interest.

• I am not the Messiah. 172 cites Reverend Moon's media outlets and he claims to be the Messiah, indeed he recently claimed 5 dead US Presidents communicated with him to confirm his Messiah-hood. This makes 172's claim to great scholarship ring rather empty, even by undergraduate standards.
• I have indeed tangoed.
• I have not trolled, indeed you have trolled me, following me into articles you have never previously edited.
• Personal attacks, you mean like the "Messiah Complex" crack you just made, is that what you mean?

Libertas (two post-grad degrees but who's counting)

Libertas, I assure you I'm not a Marxist. My current agenda is to defend the NPOV policy when users don't understand or are unaware of it. I have weighed in on disputes between you and other editors at the Soviet Union article and have actively participated in preventing communist/socialist bias from being clumsily inserted into the Economy of the United States and Market economy articles. If you look at the Talk pages there, you'll see I'm standing ground against a real self-avowed Marxist. As I see it, the commonality between that person (Ruy Lopez) and you is that you both react easily and seem to have difficulty participating in the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia is founded. Slinging around labels for people who are in disagreement with you doesn't look very good. Not everyone who doesn't like your edits is a Marxist. Like my own reasons for opposing those first edits at Soviet Union, I am motivated not by politics but by a desire to maintain Wikipedia policy. (Note that your most recent edits on that article have been good—you do seem to be getting better at working within the policy guidelines, and I applaud that.)

Re: You may want to consider whether constantly accusing those with differing opinions of wrongdoing. Firstly, I asked rather than accused. I was not sure you made the anonymous edits to Soviet Union, but if you did I wanted to warn you that it was a bad idea. I'm glad that my warning was unnecessary, and I do apologise that it appeared to you like an accusation. Secondly, I wish to echo your sentiment and suggest that you may want to consider whether constantly labelling and accusing of wrongdoing those with differing opinions is a good idea. It makes you sound unreasonably and alarmist. I tried to be diplomatic in asking you about the anonymous edits and I don't see how I could have been gentler. I had a legitimate concern that I felt needed to be cleared up. If I had not, someone else would have noticed the same things I did and been suspicious. Would you rather not have things like that cleared up?

Lastly (and I don't want this to sound accusatory, but it will be difficult to sound otherwise, so please try be charitable when interpreting my intentions), I feel there is still need to clear up the edit to User:Evercat. That edit is the one that roused my suspicions in the first place, as it was made anonymously and you claimed to have done it. There may be a reasonable explanation for your words, but I can't think of one by myself. So, before I come to any hasty conclusions, I would like to hear what you have to say on that matter.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:33, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you, that makes much more sense. I did indeed read the history of the talk page. However, "troll" has never counted as a personal attack in the history of the internet, so I didn't realise that your reference to "personal attack" could have been to his accusation of trolling. I am satisfied. I'm still confused as to why 172.149.118.186 was moved to make that edit [6] just when there was a dispute over that line, but I now suspect that they may have been trying to stir up trouble and you made an easy target. (That would qualify them as a very subtle troll, by the way.)

For your edification, here are some resources on the slang term "troll" so that you can familiarise yourself with its usage. See "Troll" at the Jargon File and Internet troll. For the record, I don't think that you qualify under either of those definitions. The people who have called you a troll up to now have seemed to me to be doing it out-of-hand. Most people recognise a troll by their disruptive and inflammatory writings combined with the fact that they seem to care only to make trouble and not actually for the issue at hand. You do seem to care about the issues at hand, therefore you aren't a troll. However, your writing so far has been defensive and inflammatory, which can easily get you dismissed as a troll by users who don't have the time to look for genuine concerns that are not presented clearly. If you would like to avoid being thought a troll in the future, you might consider avoiding defensive and inflammatory writing so that your meaning (which is the important part, after all, right?) doesn't get lost in the fray. You may wish to read the article Assume good faith. Sadly, few people have been doing this in these disputes.

I realise that I'm giving unsolicited advice. You are thus free, of course, to disregard it. Please though, if you disagree with my advice, just pretend that I didn't give it as I don't want to argue about it. Advice given freely is freely ignored.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Socialist, not a Marxist?

Sax, you sound like a nice guy that says mean things nicely.

And that's fine.

But your own user page confirms your status as a socialist, a doctrine invented by Marx. Now that may not make you a Marxist but it explains your perspective.

Yes, I put those points there for that very reason. As you will find if you study socialism more, Marxism is a kind of socialism, not the other way around. Know thy enemy, and all that. As for what kind of socialist I am, I'm still undecided. Marx had some interesting ideas, but I reject his evaluation of the class struggle and I abhor his avocation of violence, being a pacifist myself (ah, must add that to my list of biases, thanks). I am a socialist more in the way that Sweden is socialist: I believe (for now) that the good of the state lies in the good of the people, and that the highest human potential can be reached when we don't have to worry about the lower tiers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:30, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have Ronald Reagan on my user page so that explains mine!

Saying you have less extreme views than Ruy Lopez does not give me much comfort but you certainly have my encouragement to edit the articles neutrally, as we should all do.

I might check in and see if I can add something useful from a non Marxist, non socialist, non alternative lifestyle perspective.

I take your point about the labels but 172 for example who does not self-identify as a leftist so very clearly is, he has been involved in more ideological wars than Rush Limbaugh. And in his case, I'm sorry, labels are essential in outing his narrow, ideological input which is utterly intellectually bankrupt (to the point of citing Reverend Moon's media outlets).

Labels may be essential to that end, but you can't wage idealogical war at Wikipedia: it doesn't work and gets in the way of honest folk trying to work on the articles. The NPOV policy was put in place to make sure that we could all avoid that disruptive endeavour and work together, no matter what our individual biases. In fact, if you read the NPOV policy carefully, you will see that bias is accepted at Wikipedia and is dealt with not by eliminating it, but by counterbalancing it and using neutral wording.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:30, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

As to the anonymous edits, I have dealt with that previously but reiterate that your accusation, gentle prompting, warning, counsel or whatever is wrong. I didn't do it and will refrain from accusing anyone (yet) of doing it in an attempt to get me banned. It was not a subtle exercise and reminds me of one particular user. Libertas

See my edit above. Thanks again for helping me clear up that misperception. As for one particular user doing it, that's possible. However, there are a lot of trolls who like stirring up trouble and one might have thought it would be fun to frame you. I think that's more likely what happened.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:30, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection and 172's Activities

Response on my talk page. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union

I've read over the discussion page on the article. I don't think it would be wise for me to unprotect right now. The fact that nothing "of any use" has transpired over discussion makes me fear that fireworks will start up again as soon as it's unprotected. I'm sorry. Joyous 02:54, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saud Abdul Aziz Algosaibi

I have moved your changes to Saud Abdul Aziz Algosaibi/Temp. You can make further edits there. Please follow the instructions on the page and do not remove the notice again until the copyright violation has been evaluated and dealt with. Gamaliel 03:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

How is it a violation?--Che y Marijuana 06:55, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

• If you find it offensive, come out and say it, I'm not about to change it. This is my internet identity.--Che y Marijuana 07:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm trolling? Please place your comments in the correct place on the page, and leave me alone--Che y Marijuana 19:17, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deal?

I'll make a deal with you. I will cease to edit Soviet Union indefinitely and cease to participate in talk page discussions if you do the same indefinitely . There are more than enough qualified editors interested in editing this page without the two of us. 172 07:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive behavior

This is your last warning: stop engaging in personal attacks, trolling, and other disruptive behaviors. If you continue I will pursue dispute resolution methods up to and including arbitration. I refer specifically to your use of Talk:Soviet Union as a forum for attacking 172, rather than working to resolve disputes as to the article content (the latest example of which being this), in addition to earlier actions which I have previously brought to your attention. RadicalSubversiv E 10:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Words 172 used 8 months ago in a completely different conflict are not relevant to what should be done with Soviet Union. Moreover, you didn't refer to them, you copied them wholeesale onto the talk page for the sole purpose of attacking him. If you think that your motivations are anything but crystal clear, please think again. RadicalSubversiv E 10:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your plea for me not to block you would be a lot more meaningful if I were an administrator. I'm not, which you might've remembered if you hadn't erased a note where I mentioned that to you. That having been said, an administrator would be well within his or her authority to block you for making personal attacks. RadicalSubversiv E 10:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You asked for advice. If you're not serious about finding a compromise on Soviet Union, then give up and move on to other topics (not other articles on the same topic). If you are, remove all of your comments on that talk page which do not pertain directly to the article's content. 172's political views and editing history are not relevant to what the article should say (neither are yours or mine). Do either of those things and I'll be happy to have a dialogue with you. Otherwise I suspect we'll be seeing each other at ArbCom sooner rather than later. RadicalSubversiv E 10:46, 5 Jan

[edit] Image copyright issues

None of the images you've uploaded have the required copyright tags added to them. Please add an appropriate tag, or I will list them as potential copyvios. RadicalSubversiv E 01:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations of trolling are completely inappropriate, as is your personal attack ("I suggest you grow up"). I am following policy in politely asking you to verify the images' copyright status, something you should have done when you uploaded the image (Special:Upload specifically asks you to do this). It's a simple matter of adding {{fairuse}} to each image, although it would also be useful if you indicated where you got the image and why you consider it to be fair use. RadicalSubversiv E 01:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you truly think I'm engaging in behavior that violates policy, I suggest you pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]|dispute resolution]], which will of course involve your behavior also being scrutinized. Otherwise, please refrain from continued personal attacks. Having observed a clear pattern of POV editing and other disruptive behavior on your part, I will continue to monitor your contributions. RadicalSubversiv E 01:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] festive leftist

Hi Libertas -- stumbling on your Talk page, I beg to respectfully take issue with your characterisation of WP, and your collection of accusations against you. In my personal experience, WP is endowed with people from all corners of the political spectrum, including, granted, 'festive leftists', I suppose. I would just like to point out that your collection looks vindictive, while most of the comments you list are of course out of context, and it is impossible to say whether they were justified or not (excepting the few cases of obvious 'ad hominem' comments of course, which are unjustifiable). This is of course not to ask you to change it, you are free to do what you like, it's just that it may have a different effect on the reader than you intended. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:President George W. Bush

Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_User_Name_Review it seems that advising you to create a RfC at WP:RFC#Choice_of_username would have been the appropriate response. Please feel free to contact me should your RfC find favor and you need an administrator to block the user. Fred Bauder 12:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Talk Page

Ha, Ha, Libertas. I believe you've incorporated my comments about your style on your list - "Vandal" and "Biased". Frankly, I don't believe you are who you say you are. You've defended Buddhism and you read from Al Jazeera. One more comment, you have falsely assumed my political stance swings to the left; which in reality doesn't swing at all - Left or Right. My guess is, when you intrude upon someone else's work, and then delete it, that generated an alert from me to you. I have my own rule of thumb, "do not undermine someone else's hard work". In my mind, you are neither correct or incorrect. BR. Paradigmbuff 17:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Can't remember, but chances are you are up on the List of Shame. I don't want to individually identify culprits because that seems petty and nasty and cruel. I just want to shine a mirror on all the young testosterone driven leftist bully-boys here and ask them whether they like what they see.

I don't know or care about your views, as long as you leave them out of articles. I'm not familiar with your writing but I assume you do unless proven otherwise.

Your last point is absolutely critical. I could not agree with you more. I think pretty hard about what I write, I am very pleased to be able to delete left and right wing bias from articles. The point is that there are many leftists editing political subjects on Wikipedia which is leading to real balance issues. So when being mercilessly attacked for neutralizing those articles, I have definitely felt that my hard work was being undermined. It happens a hell of a lot. I am certainly willing to have my work reviewed, but when some users follow every edit you do and revert it or undermine it, it is discouraging. I cite Radicalsubversiv as the most odious example, he to use his own words "monitors" every edit of mine and frequently swoops in and changes everything. Why? It's a scheme to get rid of me. Do you think he'll realize eventually that only a helicopter gunship will achieve his objective. LOL. Anwyway thanks for your message, I agree with you. Libertas

My reference to Al Jazeera: From what I've read, which is very little (intentionally on my part), I sense the reporting style is anti-American therefore, not "fair and balanced". As for Buddhism - My views: Prince Siddhartha Gautama was on a noble cause and created an interesting philosophy woven into many Asian cultures. As my religious view differ from yours, I will not argue my point here. That's all I have to say. El Fin. Paradigmbuff 02:29, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Villeneuve

I guess he's somewhat "on the horizon" of notability. The article seems to indicate that his significance is mostly (?) as an opponent of Tim Emys (who's mentioned several times). As such, I don't think an article on him is very useful. Generally, I don't think politicians or activists are notable until they've entered a significant, regional (or major metropolitan) public office or lead a similarly influential political movement. I agree this guy may be getting close to encyclopedic notability. Do you think the article is being voted against because he's so clearly left-wing? (That's a sincere question, not ironic bait). Wyss 21:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tangent: I'd guess the Republican party in the US has forked off on a destructive and naive agenda, with the Democrats offering fuzzy alternatives with more problems than solutions. For me, although I disagree with many things he said (and my friends are often shocked when I say it) Reagan was one of the best US presidents... far more intellectual and tolerant than most people realized, not to mention his above average personal integrity and the charisma so necessary for leaderhip.

I mention this as sort of a disclaimer. I don't think my disdain for politics, combined with a deep distrust of socialists (although I agree with the cooperative ideal behind socialist thought), influences my opinion that Villeneuve is not yet notable enough for an article. However, I'll take your word for it that at least one delete vote has been offered for political rather than encyclopedic reasons, and to cancel that, I'll change my vote to keep. Wyss 00:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] test

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --fvw* 05:20, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Don't create test articles here, use the sandbox or http://test.wikipedia.org. --fvw* 05:25, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Placeholders aren't useful. If you want to create a page, create it with the content you want to put on it. --fvw* 05:37, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

I didn't put the placeholder there, it's an error. Your intervention is quite wrong. Libertas

[edit] Radicalsubversiv RFC

Aside from the merits of the case (which has a vast body of evidence going back a long time), I am having technical difficulties creating the the comment page. Can you let me know how I go about doing this. Libertas

Radicalsubversiv RFC seems to be ok. What is your concern about it?

With respect to that I think a better thing to do would be to apologize to some of these folks and take seriously what they are saying rather than fighting and fighting. Fred Bauder 12:44, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrew Villeneuve

I reviewed it again. I don't see how this person is notable outside the context of the organization or initiative. I still support the deletion of this article. -- Cleduc | talk 04:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion, if I may.

I've noticed some of the contributions to Wikipedia. I've found many of your contributions respectable. However, if I may, I'd like to suggest that on high traffic pages such as the Republican Party's page that instead of editing the page, please make suggestions of your proposed changes on the talk page, perhaps referencing to a user subpage, prior to doing any major editing to the page. Iron out the details and work with other users to create a page that everyone can be happy with. This will save much conflict later. Thank you very much. Aoi 11:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have just requested arbitration to deal with your behavior and those of your various sockpuppets (Salazar and Ollieplatt are named specifically). You are free to respond at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. RadicalSubversiv E 09:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes please respond and explain you are not me. I don't know what you've done, but I'm getting the blame. Please. Ollieplatt 18:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee injunction

Pending a final decision on the case aganst you, you and numerous alleged sockpuppet accounts are prohibited from editing any pages except for those that relate to your case, your user pages, and your user talk. If this is violated, any or all of the accounts in question may be blocked for up to 24 hours at the discretion of the administrators. Please see the injunction for details. -- Grunt   ҈  16:15, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted article

Your temp article on the Republican Party has been deleted from the main article space, but I've placed a copy in your userspace, at User:Libertas/Republican Party (Temp). Joyous 17:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom final ruling

[edit] Remedies

[edit] Ban for disruptive behaviour

1) User:Libertas, Salazar, Ollieplatt, Razalah, Jennypratt, Suna, Dean12, Viewvista, Fylc, Billclinton, Anilingus, and Nutrosnutros (hereafter called Libertas and associated sockpuppets) are banned for one year from editing Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert limitation

2) Libertas and associated sockpuppets are limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period; should this be violated they will be banned for up to twenty-four hours.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet accounting

3.1) Libertas is prohibited from having any sockpuppet accounts. Prior to this ban taking effect Libertas or any of the above sockpuppets may choose one and only one account to be declared a "primary account"; the rest will be considered sockpuppet accounts and will be infinitely blocked. If such a declaration is not made within 24 hours after the case closes, the primary account shall be assumed to be Ollieplatt. A violation of this prohibition will result in a month-long ban per violation, to run consecutively, that may be imposed by any administrator.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Identity of user

4) These remedies are phrased in terms of User:Libertas, but apply to all the accounts of the user behind the listed accounts. For example, should Libertas never edit again (or prove to be a different user) these remedies continue to apply to the accounts as a group and they should pick a principal account to edit with, where, for example, a list of accounts would be maintained.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas for findings of fact and principles. An admin will implement the block shortly.

[edit] Post-Soviet States

A new article called "Post-Soviet States" is up for vote in "Collaboration of the Week." That means we Soviet Union buffs would, in Soviet Communist tradition, pool our resources to develop a new article detailing the contrasts and similarities the various republics faced on their respective roads to democracy. Anyway, we need 4 more votes by March 15, 2005 and your vote would be appreciated. Use this url:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week#Post-Soviet_states_.28March_15.29

Juppiter 18:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Dear Libertas, Can you please tell Radicalsubversive that I am not you and you are not me. I don't know why he has reached that conclusion but I hope you can set him straight. Perhaps we could use messenger or something and discuss it with him. Lagavulin 23:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Revmoongorby.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Revmoongorby.gif, 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what gives you the right?

What gives you the right to delete my comments about NPOV in the discussion page regarding the John Ashcroft article?

[edit] FairTax

At Talk:Ron_Paul#Income_tax you said

It's just positioning really, I don't think the Congressman is seriously expecting the abolition of the IRS or taxes.

I think he is; you should read about the FairTax.  :) SFT 03:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:ACC.jpg

This image may be deleted.

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

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{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 images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] flags / Burma / Myanmar

Hiya there. The links to the US flag which you had at the top of both of your pages were duff so I've changed them - I presume this is what you were trying to show (would seem somewhat in keeping with the overall theme). Apologies if you wanted something different. Also, on your list "where tyranny reigns" you have both Burma and Myanmar which are the same place. Not sure if this is just a typo or what so thought I'd point it out to you. Iancaddy 02:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Aziz.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Aziz.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified 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 media 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 12:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Bca.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bca.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified 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 media 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 12:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ty Warner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ty Warner.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Chowbok ☠ 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Dietrich otto.jpeg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dietrich otto.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Stirlitz.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Stirlitz.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)