User talk:Pco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pco, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lijnema 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edits at Multiculturalism

Stop adding spurious edits to the article, and calling everyone who disagrees with the policy/ideology, racist. All it does it make you look even more of a fool to everyone.

HELp ME

Please do not insert signed (or unsigned) comments into the text of an article, as you did at Multiculturalism. Comments belong on the article's talk page. Contributions to an article are not signed. Try the help pages for editing style, see the welcome message, above.Paul111 12:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


No problem, that was an accident. Pco 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Opposing multiculturalism is racist"? Oh dear, the new speak tendencies are at play again. Thr Black Bishop of York must be racist then?

[edit] Repeated edits of an article

You've just been here a short time, and seem to be really into editing Nancy Pelosi. Please be aware of the rules about repeatedly changing an article to be the way you think it should be (specifically, WP:3RR). Also, your talk page comment, Pelosi is a hypocrite and there are plenty of sources that prove it. so relax and let someone else put the truth on the page is not constructive at all. If it's not a violation of WP:CIVIL, it certainly indicates that you have a definite point of view that you want the article to take, and that is a violation of WP:NPOV. Please assume that most of the other editors are simply trying to improve the article (see WP:AGF), and try to work constructively with them. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because I know she is a hypocrite, does not mean that I want or need to lie or advance my point of view. I can prove it with factual information and if the post is going to be unbiased, then facts which happen to show that she is a hypocrite do not constitute an NPOV. They simply let the reader make an accurate determination based on the whole truth, rather than half of the truth. Pco 02:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not "really into editing Pelosi", but there are several very important things about her that are being left out, apparently it is intentional, since everything I post has been deleted without good cause. Pco 02:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that many notable things about Nancy Pelosi have been left out. I do not understand why someone would keep deleting the fact that she said "impeachment is off the table". It is notable and amazing that someone would take it upon themselves to determine that no matter what investigations reveal about the President's crimes, she would not allow the system to impeach him? It is very telling. Pco 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The heavily-POV edits you are making to the Nancy Pelosi article violate our clear WP:NPOV policy. "Audacity" and such loaded words are not allowed. Don't make interpretations of content. Please also see WP:3RR. Violations of that policy could lead to your being blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so you can remove the sentence with audacity, but why do you keep removing the whole thing? Pco how about the content below under congressional career?
Even before the Democratic Party won a Majority of seats in the House of Representatives in November of 2006, Nancy Pelosi announced that "impeachment is off the table", [4] as if it were solely up to her. Pco 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I just removed a statement you posted for violation of WP:RS. It is unacceptable to cite a blog. If you want to cite an article that the blog shows in full, follow WP:CITE but put the URL of the blog (assuming it is the ONLY on-line source available; you really should try the original source) in the cite.
I did not cite a blog - it was originally the Washington Post, and then a more recent version was found and added later; and the information about impeachment off the table is on another wikipedia article as well - see [impeachment]. You deleted the content on Israel that was factual and cited a source that was not a blog. You are the one who is biased, not me. I simply want to see the truth on wikipedia and not just the good things about Pelosi. If anyone looks back at all the posts you deleted, they will see what I am saying. If you had a problem with a word, then delete the word, not the whole post. I never admitted to having a POV, as you said, I just know the truth and this article is not neutral if it avoids all issues of contention for her.Pco 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please also follow indentation rules for talk pages, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; it really helps others (and you) see what is going on in the discussion.

I don't know how to use this system completely yet - new user.Pco 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice - once you have a reputation as being heavily partisan, you have to do EVERYTHING right or other editors are likely to revert on sight. "Everything" includes (a) using a reliable source and (b) not violating WP:NPOV by misquoting, slanting, or otherwise misdescribing what is in the article. It's best to use one or two sentences taken directly out of the article, changing a few minor words or tenses or rearranging the sentence slightly to avoid copyright search engines. (I personally think fair use allows direct copying of a few sentences, but other editors are stricter.)
And if your goal here at wikipedia is to remove liberal (or conservative or whatever) bias from articles, I suggest going elsewhere; you're going to find that people continually cite rules at you that will get in the way of doing whatever you think is right. John Broughton | Talk 01:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no goal other than to add to a truthful information source.Pco 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


It is extremely rude to just delete someone's post and say POV when the person obviously cared enough to spend time and cite a source. You could just say "change the source/no blogs" or delete the word(s) that you find to be POV. Pco 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I suppose that mainstream media references will satisfy you???

Pelosi plans to continue funding the Iraq War. ref: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16057734

Pelosi tells the country that "impeachment is off the table". http://ori.msnbc.msn.com/id/15638502/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16116357/ Pco 02:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history. You are obviously not the vandal. Geesh, someone is really defensive. As I said on the talk page, examine the situation before making baseless accusations. Gdo01 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Okay, sorry, but I am having a hard time following what is going on. All I can see is that the thing I posted is deleted and that the comment afterward said vandalism. I will give up now. If you can be so kind as to add my post when you rae done dealing with the vandalism, I would appreciate it. Pco 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PCO

Hi. Are you the webmaster for politicalcooperative.org? Your writing styles seem similar. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page postings

Pco - I just spent about 30 minutes reorganizing the Talk:Nancy Pelosi page. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, when an editor wants to start a new topic, as opposed to responding to a previous post, the editor is supposed to start a new section. And the new section is supposed to be at the bottom of the talk page. I'd really appreciate it if you would follow those two rules, as well as (re)reading the guidelines, so that everyone can focus on improving the article, not trying to figure out when and where an editor just said something new that should be responded to.

Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am trying to follow protocol, and will take care to follow the rules you mentioned.

Pco 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. (Please also work on indenting; that's important too.) And in return, I'll see what I can do about at least posting a response to your talk page questions and concerns, if not actually getting your content inserted into the article. John Broughton | Talk
I get a bit confused about where to post a comment when someone disputes my edit. Should I comment on the article's talk page, my talk page or their talk page? Thanks Pco 21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Use the article talk page to talk about issues with the article; use the editor's talk page for more general issues (not related to specific edits on specific articles). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

Hi Pco, please don't add material like this [1] again to articles, and particularly not to lead sections, which have to be clear, well-sourced, and well-written. Your additions were poorly written, demonstrably false, and not supported by the source you provided. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I modified the text to read: Modern Zionists such as Haim Druckman encouraged the Israeli Parliament to pass separatist laws that will deny Arabs the right to live on State land. [2] BBC World News. Pco

Don't add your own opinions to articles or to talk pages. No one cares what Wikipedia editors believe. We report only what reliable sources have said, and we report it carefully and accurately, without editorializing or making deductions. Please review our content policies before editing any further, particularly WP:NOR and WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop deleting my comments!

Please stop deleting my comments! Insert your own comments if you must, but stop deleting, or even moving around, my comments. Jayjg (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


I was not deleting your comments. I think we were writing at the same time and had an edit conflict. all i did was reload and submit when it told me there was a conflict. I have no desire to delete your comments and when I move my comment to reply to yours it is only so that one will be able to follow the Q/A.

[edit] Reminder of 3 revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I am not the one who keeps reverting content. No matter what I add to Zionism, jay or one of his friends deletes it. I added different things in different places in order to appease him, and he reverts everything as if he owns the page. Pco 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Pco

Well, welcome to the wrong side. You may have noticed a slight pro-Israeli bias on certain articles on the wikipedia; I have seem to have gotten my head stuck in the honeypot of trying to keep things even. Though having been at it for months, and always outnumbered, it can at times be a little disheartening. I'll try figure out what's going on in the Zionism article. -- Kendrick7talk 09:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

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.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


I am not the one reverting see the history and you will see that I was just trying to appease Jay, SlimVirgin and others who revert everything added to Zionism

Either someone used my ip or else, someone did not look at who is doing the reverting. They (3 or 4 regulars on zionism) are reverting my various insertions - I did not delete other people's entries. I was working on the talk page, not the zionism article page last night. Jay and his buddies reverted my commments on the talk page after we came to a decision that a "modern zionism" section should be added. I wasn't even on the zionism article page - I was only in discussion. They are trying to prevent anything new from being put up and only want repetitive history of zionism on the page. I was trying to help, because I care about the truth; but if this is the attitude of wikipedia admins, then you don't want the truth.

Darrow

Hi Darrow. I don't see a clear WP:3RR violation either, so I've asked PinchasC for comment. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
See the diffs provided in the report of the violation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Pco_reported_by_User:Jayjg_.28Result:24h.29. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per independent review by Chairboy, Jdforrester and myself, we did not find that you had technically violated the Three-revert rule.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will review the instructions again for unblocking, but I don't think I know how to get it to unblock on my end.

You should be OK now. There was an outstanding autoblock on your IP address that had to be lifted. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Third opinion

Hi, I saw the dispute you listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I find that I agree with the other users involved in this dispute in as far as that you must cite your sources. If you cannot provide sources then the material should not be included in the article. I am sorry it took so long to provide a third opinion. Another user, Luna Santin, tried to silence you by removing your dispute from WP:3O [3]. KazakhPol 19:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments on talkpages, such as Talk:Zionism, with four tildes (~). This allows other users to see whom they are talking to by displaying your signature like this: KazakhPol 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (Thanks)

Thanks for your input. I have no problem with adding citations to support what I am writing. Pco 20:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your sources, but I must caution you to refrain from adding that section to the article until there is consensus among the editors involved that it should be included. Thanks, KazakhPol 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Technically you can re-add the content right away, but other users are likely to revert it. One policy to keep in mind, just in case, is WP:3RR. I suggest contacting the users who disagreed with you on the content on their talkpages and see if you can reach a compromise. If you need any further assistance, or if I have inadequately explained anything, please feel free to contact me on my talkpage at User talk:KazakhPol. Regards, KazakhPol 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled

Right -- accusing people of conspiracy is always the best way to get a reasonable response! In any case, you'll probably find this conversation helpful: Kazakh posts to my talk, I reply, he replies, I reply again, and then he blanks the section from his talk page. Luna Santin 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your personal attacks

I see you have now called Jpgordon a liar and have accused him of sockpuppetry. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia, you are going to have to learn how to behave and edit within our policies. You have made serious personal attacks on a number of respected and experienced editors. You've created a vanity article about a non-notable group you say you've founded. You've created another one-sentence article based on a neologism and backed up by no sources. You've repeatedly added poorly written and inappropriately sourced original research to another article. You repeatedly revert against multiple editors. You engage in complex, partial reverts in order to get round 3RR. You refuse to read or understand the content policies.

It's therefore only a matter of time before you're reported for administrative action and blocked indefinitely. If you want to avoid this, I strongly urge you to read the content policies very carefully — WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR — and make sure all your edits comply with them from now. Do not make any further personal attacks. Do not violate 3RR again, and read the policy to make sure you understand it: WP:3RR.

Just about all the editors on the pages you edit (people who may or may not otherwise agree with one another) have lost patience with you, so please let that tell you something. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You've now called me "some kind of freak" [4] and accused me of having reverted an article four times in three hours [5] when I edited it once and reverted twice in 16 hours. [6] [7] [8] Now I know you're a disruptive editor who can't be taken seriously. And do not remove anyone's post from a talk page again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well someone has reverted the page 4 times and your name is certainly on the top of the list, so it look like yoiu to me. I dont' understand how all this works, but I know there are a lot of strange things going on. Are you saying that you didn't delete the content at Pooitical Cooperative. Okay then I will put it back up again. Pco 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

whoever posted this entry at Jayjg talk page was not me. (cur) (last) 04:42, 17 December 2006 Pco (Talk | contribs) (→Suspected sockpuppet account of banned user BhaiSaab -

It says it was a banned user account, so who knows what is going on here if banned users can sign in with my user name. Pco 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Look at your edit. You edited by clicking the edit link next to the title, "Suspected sockpuppet...", and you didn't bother to change the edit comment. That's what's going on -- no mystery. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deep breath time...

I've been watching this develop from the edges, and thought I might step in and comment.

When I first started editing on Wikipedia, I was like you are acting now...proprietary, angry, passionate, not seeing the views of others. I still find myself falling into those traps.

Here are a few of the phrases & links I have on my user page to keep me in balance that I thought might apply to your situation. Maybe they can help you as well:

Lastly, let me say that your passion, which now seems like your enemy, can be re-focused and become your friend. I hope that happens. Read what SlimVirgin has written and take it to heart. They know much about what they speak. -- weirdoactor t|c 00:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your conflict of interest

Please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and stay away from Political Cooperative, although you may continue to make suggestions on the talk page. The guideline says:

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:
  1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  2. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How can anyone vote on the Article if you deleted it? Pco 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed unsourced material, and anyone can check the history; experienced editors know to do that at an AfD. Please allow others to worry about that. The important thing is that you must stay away from it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources in the article, you deleted the whole thing. Pco 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change

If you want to change the world, you must first change yourself. I feel that you have a good heart, but your actions are misguided, perhaps out of spite or anger, I don't know. Good luck to you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting.WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


That's what you say, but the reality is that if I ask for comments or votes and 3 or 4 people who monitor a page regularly, just want to delete my text in the talk page and make no comment and revert the article 2 times each, then there is nothing I can do about it. I asked for comments or votes or whatever, but no one had any reasonable debate, ( I assume you are talking about the Zionism article) so they just delete it because they happen to dislike the truth - which is and will always be that religious ideology is incompatible with democracy. It is incompatible with democracy in Iraq and it is incompatible with democracy in Israel and that is why we have or are legally supposed to have separation of church and state. As soon as you mix the two, democracy is dead. If people don't want to accept the truth and prefer to spread lies, just as history books have done for generations, then that is what will happen. I am not going to ask people I know to waste their time to join in to this war edit with me, just so a bunch of people who spend their days making sure that the truth doesn't get out in wikipedia can delete it tomorrow. It should be easy enough for wikipedia to lock content that has been confirmed by a reasonable and unbiased person to be valid, but as it is, you could spend a month on an article and then it's wiped out the next day that you are not looking.

[edit] WP:3RR

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.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


There are numerous incidents of other people making anti-semetic posts that display my user name. You better figure out how to delete everything with my user name or I am going to sue wikipedia for slander and defamation. I have never made any anti-semetic comments to anyone, much less printed them online. This is not funny and your little group of editors who attacked me just because they prefer to preserve a false history of reality are not going to be the ones to take the blame - Wikipedia is. If you cannot secure your system so that people are unable to defame others using someone else's user name, then you need to shut this thing down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pco (talk • contribs)

  • (a) Please provide specific examples of such comments made by someone else and signed with your name. (b) I suggest you withdraw the legal threat -- our no legal threats policy is very strict, and you'll be blocked (by someone else) if the threats remain. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The first one is here: # (cur) (last) 02:38, 11 December 2006 Gdo01 (Talk | contribs) m (rv vandalism)
  1. (cur) (last) 02:37, 11 December 2006 Pco (Talk | contribs) (→Democratic nomination for Speaker of the House - new citations for Pelosi's views on war and impeachment.)

I never wrote anything about nazi gold and it seems pretty ridiculous since the woman is Italian. Pco 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd one was posted yesterday, wherein someone had posted a comment that described Jay as a "sock puppet" and in the comment it even said "this appears to be from a banned user". I have not been able to locate that this morning, but I had posted it on a talk page in response to someone accusing me of calling him a sock puppet. Again, I never wrote any such thing. Pco 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can remove these entries that contain my user name, or otherwise explain to me how this happens and how it can be remedied, then I would rescind my threat of legal action. I am a professional and I thought this was an educational forum with reasonable people. A group of long time users harrassed me and there was no access to reasonable and balanced administrative assistance when several people simply want to block others from adding content and control a page. I tried to have reasonable conversations and requested discussion, and all they did was revert with ridiculous coments like "soapbox". Pco 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only did they revert the article for Zionism, but they also reverted my requests for comment on that talk page. This shows that they are the ones who were attacking me, not the opposite.
Here is the 2nd instance of fraud with my user name. It was posted onthis page above.

whoever posted this entry at Jayjg talk page was not me. (cur) (last) 04:42, 17 December 2006 Pco (Talk | contribs) (→Suspected sockpuppet account of banned user BhaiSaab -

It says it was a banned user account, so who knows what is going on here if banned users can sign in with my user name. Pco 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pco 17:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You continue to be mistaken as to the meanings of those log entries. The first one represents this edit, in which User:Gdo01 has removed the vandalism introduced by this edit, which occurred immediately prior to your non-vandalistic edit. Gdo01 explained this to you already. The offending edit was not made under your name. And, as I already explained to you above, you yourself caused the second one to happen, obviously accidentally, by hitting the "edit" link for the section "Suspected sockpuppet account" -- that automatically left edit summary you see, but has nothing to do with the content of your edit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pco, I invite you to read What Wikipedia is not, so that you may understand the reasons for the refactoring of comments and personal essays from talk pages. Note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum (we do not discuss the subject of articles, rather, we discuss the article itself, how to improve it, etc.). Wikipedia is also not a place for undiscriminated free speech, a soapbox to express our views or a battleground of ideas. After you read that policy, please let me know if you have any further questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I understand how to add a statement to an article and the proper way to inform someone of why it is not relevant or proper and why it should be deleted. If you reviewed the history of zionism you would know what really happened. I invite you to review all of yesterday's history on that talk page and in the article, so you will know what it is you are talking about, and let me know if you have any questions.
I just noticed on zionist talk, that the gang over there first deleted all my links to citations on the talk page, so they could then say today, that I did not have the citation for this. But the citations were there, i.e. this one.

President Olmert recently said that he wishes to "dilute" the meaning of zionism so that it will appeal to jewish citizens of both left and right wings [9]. Similar to George Bush's statement "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists", Olmert was quoted as saying "Whoever believes in the right of the Jewish People to have a sovereign Jewish state in any part of the Land of Israel is a Zionist." http://www.jnewswire.com/article/1182

Is someone going to reply about how to remove the fraudulent and defamatory posts that were made under my user name by other people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pco (talk • contribs) 17:37, December 18, 2006

  • Sure, we'll be happy to do that if there are any such posts. You've not provided any; the two instances you've provided so far are not that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You are saying that the two posts I mentioned above that I did not write are not fraudulent?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pco (talk • contribs)


Pco, I invite you, again, to read What Wikipedia is not. Please do so. It will make it much easier for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I have already read it, but I read it again, and this seems to apply to the statement and citation that I tried to insert: "Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete."

So I guess you don't think that Olmert's saying that Zionism's definition needs to be diluted is historically significant? I did, and that is why I tried to put it in there. It could be on the Zionism page or the Olmert page, but the point is, it IS significant and no one ever objected to it as insignificant, they just deleted it (see bold text above).

[edit] Block extended

I have extended the block on this account to indefinite, per Wikipedia:No legal threats. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59 18 December 2006 (GMT).

I have no objection to unblocking by other admins, if they deem it right. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07 18 December 2006 (GMT).


Is someone going to reply about how to remove the fraudulent and defamatory posts that were made under my user name by other people?


Okay, now I see the explanation posted way up there about why those edits were not what they appeared to me to be. Since someone yesterday accused me of the sockpuppet comment, that I knew I had never written, I was wondering what kind of security this CMS has. I looked again and realized that the nazi comment had been posted before my post, and had just not yet been removed until after my post. I understand now, so I rescind my defamation and slander accusation. Pco 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting a response to the indefinite block because I misunderstood the edits that I saw at my user name.

I am removing the indefblock, but keeping the previous block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am placing some pointers for you below ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am happy that the indef block has been removed. I have looked briefly at some of the history, and am fairly sure that, with patience, this can be worked out. Good luck. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26 18 December 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Talk page blanking

Please don't do this --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to delete comments from you talk page, but please, leave all administrator's warnings and notices. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal Attack Against You

Hi, I see you haven't contributed here in a few days, so I imagine you haven't run accross GHcool's talk page, where he effectively accuses you of supporting Holocaust denial. I looked it up, because this didn't seem consistent with anything I'd seen you say, and found that it was a complete misquotation. I told him this, but he strangely insists that his quote is accurate, and that you should complain yourself if you want. You can see our discussion on his and my talk pages (although you'll have to go to the history of his user page to see my original response). Best, Mackan79 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] text of deletd article at Political Cooperative

[edit] Text of Article

The Political Cooperative (PCO) was founded in January of 2006 as a political think tank and an alternative to the main two political parties dominating U.S. politics. The goal of the Cooperative is to merge members of democratic, peace, independent, green and progressive parties to form a majority of voters in future U.S. elections. The candidates for office in the Political Cooperative are scholars, activists and social justice professionals. The PCO's candidates for 2008 incloude Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, John Perkins, Michael Franti, David Swanson and Cynthia McKinney. [10]

In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest in D.C. which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media and particularly the right wing media, began requesting interviews and calling the event a plan for a violent coupe de tat.

ref: [11] World News Daily [12] The Indepundit [13] Michelle Malkin, Fox News [14] News Max [15] Mens News Daily [16] Conservative Dialysis

The PCO's founder, Darrow Boggiano was interviewed by numerous media outlets and appeared for a lengthy interview on Clear Channel's WISN-AM Radio in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where she was asked to describe the organization and the event on the radio's Early Spin Program with Anchor Dan Deibert.

After hearing the radio interview, Michael Moore endorsed the PCO's March protest event on his website [17]-The Conservative Voice. The event was never cancelled, but some bloggers insisted that it was cancelled, simply because the United for Peace and Justice website removed it from their list of upcoming activist events, due to the controversial nature of the event title.

Several activists were arrested at the March 20th event, including members of the anti-war movement A.N.S.W.E.R. and afsc.org The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance. The U.S. Government was found to have been conducting surveillance of all emails related to the protests planned for that week in Washington D.C. [18] AFSC News

The PCO works closely with numerous organizations such as http://globalcalliraq.org/en/signers and AfterDowningStreet.org and has license to distribute media from DemocracyNow! and many other independent news sources in order to expose more people to news that is not right wing propaganda, but factual accounts of many of the latest crimes of the U.S. government.

External Link - http://www.PoliticalCooperative.Org

Why is this here? If to invite comments, why did you delete the comments? If for some other purpose, what is it? -- Hoary 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CitySites

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article CitySites, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Vossanova o< 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)