User talk:Skaraoke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Re: Burntapple 2 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Purple dragon book a.jpg) 3 3RR at Allegations of Israeli apartheid 4 Regarding my revert of your wwp edits 5 Allegations of Israeli apartheid and an ongoing ArbCom case 6 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Purple dragon book b.jpg

[edit] Re: Burntapple

Concerning the warning that you posted on Burntapple's talk page: You probably want to look-over the Grazon box, posted on Burntapple's user page and elsewhere. Grazon (aka “Burntapple”, aka “Cravenmored”, aka “Devilmaycares”, aka “Doolittl”) is likely to attack the article under some new alias later. —SlamDiego_←T 05:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Purple dragon book a.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Purple dragon book a.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR at Allegations of Israeli apartheid

You are currently in violation of the 3RR at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Please self-revert now. CJCurrie 23:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Skaraoke 23:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I am not blocking you now for violating the three-revert rule is because CJCurrie, who reported you, suggested leniency and a warning. I am watchlisting the article, and if you revert again before this becomes stale, I will be blocking you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than using your power as an administrator to fight against the good guys, why don't you use it to fight against the bad guys by deleting this obnoxious article that has been the subject of the dispute? - Skaraoke 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only delete articles by consensus. I don't like that one, either, but I can't just delete it because of that. Meanwhile, I the issue here is not the content of the article, it is your edit warring, which is completely contrary to the principles on which Wikipedia is founded. That is why you are being warned of a block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule favors the status quo, and it seems to be invoked most often by people who are trying to preserve the dominance of their own POV in an article. This is a serious hindrance for people trying to improve articles that are full of blatant bias. Many of the articles about political groups and issues seem to be patrolled by mafia hit-squards who have summarily declared their fringe POVs to be "neutral" and anyone else's to be "vandalism." (For example, see Workers World Party.) I am one of the good guys, and I don't accept the legitimacy of even this warning. Why not make an effort to break up these POV-preserving hit-squads that undermine the integrity of Wikipedia by turning its political articles into partisan blogs? After that you can warn me for violating the Three Revert Rule. I believe that "neutrality" becomes "naiveté" and/or "nihilism" when we refuse to take a stand against insane, malicious people in the name of "balance." - Skaraoke 22:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of "consensus," many articles about political movements are patrolled disproportionately by people who have a political axe to grind, often because few people outside of these groups have even heard of them (e.g. the Mexica Movement). In this case, the idea that Israel is an "Apartheid state" originated within a domestic political fringe whose agenda is to destroy Israel. It is not surprising that there is a "consensus" among people who hate Israel that this article should be kept. It's time to take a stand this propaganda, or at least not cause trouble for the people who are. - Skaraoke 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my revert of your wwp edits

I wouldn't expect to win this one Skaraoke ;) I see you have also been tampering with the Israeli Apartheid article. I know right-wing thuggery is the norm offline so you may be depressed to find that many on wikipedia watch articles for just your sort of nonsense. Humbabba 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:And of course your political orientation isn't the least bit transparent from your edit history... Try to lay off the personal attacks, comrade, and you shouldn't be accusing other people of "thuggery." Oh, wait, I forgot...human-rights abuses ostensibly done in the name of achieving "social justice" and a "class-free" society are acceptable. I guess it's nice for a dictator to have an ideology that lets him summarily declare any person, group, or ethnic minority that he wants to get rid of to be "class enemies." And it's even nicer to have so many of what your hero Lenin called "useful idiots" to provide cover for those human-rights abuses in the media. (For example: people who edit Wikipedia articles about bloodthirsty, nihilistic groups like the Workers World Party to make them seem indistinguishable from the party that I'm registered to vote for.) Maybe the Hollywood actors who like Fidel Castro so much should visit the gay men who he put in concentration camps. When Stalinists like the WWP try to masquerade as liberals, it just helps Ann Coulter sell books and gets Creationists elected to Congress. I hope that they're proud of themselves... - Skaraoke 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article LGBT rights in Cuba has some interesting things to say about that particular issue. I agree that the position taken by some groups in Cuba around lgbtq issues in the past have been unacceptable. Many left groups in the United States (and certainly the two dominate parties) also held similarly bad positions on these issues. It is good these things are changing for the better! If we are to talk about Fidel specifically his recanting of his formerly bad position on lgbtq issues is well known. Humbabba 00:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:What is your objection to my latest edit of Workers World Party? - Skaraoke 08:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit contributed nothing substantive to the article. If you really want to talk bad about them, why not utilize the "controversy" section? You would have to reference an outside source complaining about Hungary, of course, but I'm sure somebody has something like that floating around. Out of curiosity, what got you on their case in the first place? Humbabba 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, there already is such a source cited in the article. Anyway, I first learned about WWP when I found out that A.N.S.W.E.R. was one of their front groups. I already knew how vile A.N.S.W.E.R. itself was (e.g. I have seen video from an A.N.S.W.E.R. rally in which a Muslim keynote speaker denies the genocide in Darfur and calls the issue a Zionist conspiracy), so it seemed natural that any group that was trying to "clean up" its reputation by working through A.N.S.W.E.R. must be even more dangerous. The members of WWP have every right to be what they are, but they need to be honest about their beliefs and their agenda. They won't, of course, because they know that most decent people would be appalled if they knew what WWP stood for. Wikipedia should not be complicit in the cover-up, and it should not validate the Left's nihilistic blind spot regarding the depravities of every group that has claimed to be "Marxist" in nature. IMHO, the "neutrality" policy of Wikipedia often works like a Trojan Horse, allowing a POV mob who has taken control of an article to summarily declare their POV to be "neutral" and "self-evident" to the point of not needing proof and everyone else's POV to be "beyond the pale" and subject to an impossibly high standard of proof. The mob then uses the selective enforcement of rules of "etiquette" as a tool to to suppress dissent, and they justify it under the pretext of "keeping the peace." Ironically, this is exactly the kind of tactic that Leftists/progressives would deplore if "The Man" used it against them in real life. I've learned a lot from the articles about math and other hard subjects (except when vandals change the values of important constants), but I've become extremely frustrated with the situation with the political subjects. Am I crazy for seeing things this way? - Skaraoke 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Skaraoke, you might be interested to learn that ANSWER is no longer a front group, as you say, of the WWP. in 2004 WWP split into two groups, one of them being Party for Socialism and Liberation. For all practical purposes PSL "took" ANSWER (the people who left had the keys to the office etc.) Since that time ANSWER has grown into a rather large coalition, participants coming from all of the spectrum of the left. The degree to which PSL "controls" ANSWER is disputable. Everybody knows that communists are behind most anti-war coalitions. It's not a sinister conspiracy or anything like that, it's a way for the communists to advance their anti-imperialist agenda. (if you don't believe that imperialism is the driving force behind American foreign policy then I suggest you look into the behavior of the U.S. government in relation to Colombia.) If you really believe that American Marxists are "depraved" then I think you should do some research into what it is exactly that these groups have DONE. WWP has a website where they show to the public what they stand for. Also it is not hard to come across a copy of Workers World newspaper. Anyway, I am having a hard time understanding how you believe that there is a "cover-up" of the evils of the left. In high schools across America, and even, dare I say it, in the Universities, one can scarcely get through a day without hearing some grandiose denouncement of Stalin or the Great Leap Forward or something of that nature. There is no cover-up. The anti-communism of America's past is rather ingrained. Many folks refuse to study it and see what it is really about. Many folks are blind to U.S. domestic problems but have no problem citing some famine that may or may not have been exaggerated by paid-off "historians." I understand why you might become frustrated with wikipedia's discussion of political subjects. As wikipedia is edited by anyone who wishes it you can't expect it to continue to be a mouthpiece for the corporate press or network news. There's no money in wikipedia and we don't have to please the advertisers. Unlike the for-profit corporate media there is no inherent slant on wikipedia against Marxist thought. I understand this might be frustrating to you if you have not thought much about the "depravity" found in our own system. Humbabba 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli apartheid and an ongoing ArbCom case

There is an ongoing case at ArbCom here about the whole Allegations of apartheid mess. There was a consensus to undelete and blank those articles that had been deleted for the purposes of gathering evidence for the case. The discussion can be found here. Because of the ongoing case, I am suspending/closing the AfD, without prejudice for keeping or deleting the article in question. If you wish to renominate it, please do so again after the ArbCom case closes. Thanks. --Hemlock Martinis 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Purple dragon book b.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Purple dragon book b.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 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)