User talk:SlimVirgin/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Equal Protection Clause

Hello, this is the fellow who liked your Bernard Williams article so much. May I ask a favor of you? I've been editing Equal Protection Clause recently; I submitted it to peer review, and now have nominated it for featured article status. If you have time, would you mind looking it over, and telling me what you think of it at the above-listed page? I hope this doesn't come across as an I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine kind of proposal: I'm soliciting your comments because your Bernard Williams article clearly shows you to be intelligent. Thanks, and best regards, Hydriotaphia 01:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry that you're being attacked. Alas, it only takes one tinfoil hat to ruin the experience. I just hope it won't deter you from future contributions. Hydriotaphia 01:25, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. Hydriotaphia 03:37, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wiesenthaler/SLUR/

25,000 are dead, and somebody wants to waste everybody's time talking about noses. sheesh. Anyway, it's a fine point, but was the user banned or just the username? Is PRAVDA anyone? -Willmcw 06:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Bigley, again

I posted on the talk page again. Please look at my comments. WhisperToMe 20:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] International English

Hi, Slim. I will try to help mediate with this, but I probably won't be able to deliberate on it until tonight. Maurreen 15:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis King

Dennis King, the author, has asked me to have you telephone him. If you'd like, I can pass along the number. To be honest, King was quite rude to me in email, and so I would caution you that he may be hostile. --Jimbo Wales 13:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) (it is really me, but I can't log in right now because I'm in an insecure location -- just email me if you're interested, be sure to mention wikipedia to get by my spam filters!)

[edit] re: edits to kraut juice

Seems not worth getting into, but if the change was to smooth out neutral tone, there's probably some way of rephrasing that bit of text instead of deleting. The article's pretty tiny, and this substance's most interesting property is that people seem astonished at the idea of drinking it. Auto movil 20:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nah, fine with me. I might try adding something to the article at some point, but 'kraut juice' is about as minor a topic as one can find around here. Auto movil 20:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Happy new year to you as well Slim

Thanks :-) In the words of Hugh Grant in Notting Hill - I intend to be impressively happy this year. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I'm happy now ;-) Ta bu shi da yu 01:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Happy new year! El_C 06:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Holocaust

Since it's only one user, I think the better option would be to block the IP (s/he's been given a final warning): It's best to protect articles only if there's a large volume of edits from multiple users. Reason being, if the article is protected legitimate users can't contribute to it. Cheers, -- Hadal 05:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Categories

As far as I know, you have to manually add category listings to articles. The problem with the articles I edited was that they were all peoples' names yet they linked to the category with the article title, so an article about "Andy Zebra" would get listed under the A's instead of the Z's on the category page.

I just figured that out for myself by seeing the problem and investigating the variables (correctly- and incorrectly-listed name articles). I'm not aware of any articles about category conventions, I'm still a bit new here. How did you find out that I was editing so many categories? Recent changes?

Asriel86 01:24, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Emerson

Hi SV - do you really have to insert Steven Emerson as a recommendation in all these Islamism-related pages? The guy is a jerk - he's been caught in lies and exaggerations so many times and refuses to back down. His statements are pure hyperbole and he has zero credibility regarding his claims. There are many examples - for instance, his with-hunt of Sami al-Arian of the University of Florida[1]. Do some reading around on him - he's NOT someone worth playing up, especially for someone with your commitment to truth. Graft 16:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comma query

Slim, I don't have a source to hand but in my view "September 11, 2001 attacks" is the correct version. I would remove the second comma without hesitation. In my view, the whole of the phrase describes attacks, and comma'ing off 2001 would tend to make 2001 a parenthesis or apposition for some reason and not part of the descriptive phrase. The comma between 11 and 2001 is conventional, I believe. You could, and some do, write the date as September 11 2001. I hope this is some help to you. If I come across a compelling source for this view (or the other), I'll let you have it. Dr Zen 22:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove my comment? You didn't even leave a note in the edit summary. Please go and put it back.Dr Zen 00:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for explaining. I'm sure it was a purely innocent outcome of a glitch. For some reason the machine interpreted you as first commenting and then removing my comment! Weird but yes, the kind of thing the software does!Dr Zen 01:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, Slim. As for good faith, let's just say that biases can be very hard to get over, and I wouldn't single you out on that score. Perhaps, though, as an exercise, you might try reading a few articles in the, let's say, Israeli sphere from the opposite POV. Imagine you support the Palestinian side and see whether you really do feel the articles are acceptable. If they are NPOV, they should be. I feel that kind of effort is really lacking on both sides (not that the other "side" is particularly numerous, now that a couple of its members have foolishly had themselves banned!).

And our disagreement over that particular set of articles doesn't in the slightest detract from my appreciation of the tons of really good work you do on a wide range of articles.Dr Zen 02:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and probably as an aside to all this, I agree with Dr. Zen's thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian articles, Slim. In the past, I have tried to steer some of the aforementioned "other side" parties away from foolishness and towards encyclopedic expositions. It's easy enough to make the (correct, I think) claim of pro-Israeli bias in these articles, but approaching these issues systemically, encylopedically, and without journalistic and propagandist spin is something, it seems, many of them did not have the patience for to begin with. Thus, the reality is that this 'systemic bias' remains relatively unchalleged, and appreciable gains on that front, for the most part remain unrealized. Unfortunate. El_C 03:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Washington, D.C., etc.

Hi, Slim. I gave details on the comma references. But I'd like to answer one of your questions here. You asked: "For example, would you write: 'A Washington, D.C. man' or 'A Washington, D.C., man'? I would write 'A Washington, D.C., man'.

I have a request. I hope this comes across the right way. The Sept. 11 article appears to have very strong support to become a featured article. If so, any objections are probably moot.

If you want to discuss the comma, I'm happy to, but it looks like it won't make any difference to the article or its status. If so, I'd prefer we just talk about it between us, to avoid agravating the situation with one or more other people. Thanks. Maurreen 06:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much.
I'm sorry the situation at International English did not work out better. I hope I did not add to your frustration.
Hope things are going well for you otherwise.
I have something from my "other life" (sounds more exotic than "real life") gnawing at me a bit.
And my cat gets in the way a bit when I try to compute. :)Maurreen 06:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing the typo on my user page. I was wondering how you stumbled across my userpage though, do I happen to know you from somewhere else on the net? :) --Che y Marijuana 08:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germaine Greer

Heya, it's great to see someone improving the Germaine Greer article, it was long overdue for some work. You'll want to license-tag the image though, and if you're claiming fair use, add the source. --fvw* 04:22, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving

'Unnecessarily rude and aggressive'? I plead not guilty. Haven't made any personal attacks on those disagreeing with me. Although where I come from honesty is valued as a higher virtue than tact. The point I want to make is that, when an article deals with a very controversial subject, it has an even higher standard of NPOV than usually, and this is all the more important if it is under consideration for featured article status. NPOV doesn't mean that the article should reflect the consensus of mainstream academic opinion - it means that the article must reflect all opinions. I hope you can tell the difference between a NPOV article and one which happens to have a POV one agrees with.

I don't think that in an article like David Irving it's enough to include POV statements and then attribute them haphazardly to "historians". I have no doubt most historians do share the analysis of Irving reported in the article - perhaps a direct quote, with cited source, could be found to substantiate the criticsms? I have cited examples of what I think is POV language in the article. I've also cited examples where the article is not complete, and one example of a statement I think has no place in the article because it seems to be based on a misunderstanding. This is in accordance with the procedure for objecting to featured article nominations. Dbiv 16:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] please don't delete red links

red links are a sign an article needs written, and it is unfortunate to delete them. We need more articles, not less! thanks, Example (talk · contribs) 20:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zain Help again :)

I think we might be heading in a little problem in anti-sentiment article. I added quranic views about jews by citing my source. Jayjg reverted my changes. Can you help some what in it? acting as a neutral party?

Zain 00:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Munich Massacre

That's okay; I suspected an edit conflict. I believe "militant" should be used in place of "terrorist": Not only is "terrorist" one of those hot button terms best avoided (as per the Manual of Style), but nowhere else in the article are the perpetrators called "terrorists" directly. I don't have a dog in the fight otherwise; I just don't see why a potentially inflammatory term (although not to me personally) should be used when there's a neutral term that fits as well. -- Hadal 05:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slowness

Hi, I've replied on my talk page Dan100 23:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

Hi, Slim, it's good to hear from you. The only guidance I know of on red links is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Free links. It says, "An article may be considered overlinked if ... more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist."

I think there is too much blue linking, and red links should be made with discrimination. Maurreen 06:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. The same section also gives guidelines for limiting blue links. Maurreen 06:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Slim, I left a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links). Maurreen 04:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Real names of editors

In Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche you mention a rule against using the real names of editors without permission. I looked around for such a rule a while ago, in reference to another matter. Can you give me any other information about this policy? Cheers, - Willmcw 23:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Cheers,-Willmcw 23:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't found it. There's no rush, but if you come across a link to the specific page I'd appreciate seeing it. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ah, there it is. Thanks for tracking that down. I had an editor who was posting my real name while attacking my edits. It hasn't happened recently, but I'm happy to know the state of the policy should it ever be a problem again. I have to admit that I disagree with you about the user:Cberlet issue. He makes no attempt to disguise his real name, which he posts on his user page. I think that it would only be an issue if he used an non-obvious username and did not mention that he is Chip Berlet. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From H.K.

I have asked you to stop the petty harassment, including the allegations that I am weed Harper, etc. It only underscores the weakness of your arguments, and the questionable nature of your motives. --HK 01:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

Fvw, would you consider blocking User:Herschelkrustofsky for violation of 3RR at Lyndon LaRouche? He is causing chaos on the page, and has been for days, with multiple, complex reverts, using his main account and a second account that the developers have identified as likely being him too. The latest reverts are hard to follow as he uses deceptive edit summaries, but I have isolated the following paragraph for the sake of clarity. (However, this is not the only material he has reverted. He is reverting whole chunks.) A 24-block might calm things down. Otherwise, it's just going to continue tomorrow.

"What LaRouche supporters see as praising classic culture, LaRouche critics see as a bias against non -White, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities .For example, LaRouche has written: "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" (Internal memo - Lyndon H. LaRouche, NCLC 1973)."

He has reverted this five times in two hours. Here are the diffs:

  • Herschel deleted this quote at 6:45 Jan 23 [2]
  • Again at 02:01 Jan 24 [3]
  • Again at 03:07 Jan 24 [4]
  • Again at 03:26 Jan 24 [5]
  • Again at 03:35 Jan 24 [6]
  • Again at 04:05 Jan 24 [7]

He was warned he had violated 3RR at 03:56 on the talk page, but did it again anyway at 4:05. SlimVirgin 06:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's pretty bad. Blocked for 24 hours and told to use the talk page. --fvw* 06:46, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

Fvw, would you consider blocking User:Herschelkrustofsky for violation of 3RR at Lyndon LaRouche? He is causing chaos on the page, and has been for days, with multiple, complex reverts, using his main account and a second account that the developers have identified as likely being him too. The latest reverts are hard to follow as he uses deceptive edit summaries, but I have isolated the following paragraph for the sake of clarity. (However, this is not the only material he has reverted. He is reverting whole chunks.) A 24-block might calm things down. Otherwise, it's just going to continue tomorrow.

"What LaRouche supporters see as praising classic culture, LaRouche critics see as a bias against non -White, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities .For example, LaRouche has written: "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" (Internal memo - Lyndon H. LaRouche, NCLC 1973)."

He has reverted this five times in two hours. Here are the diffs:

  • Herschel deleted this quote at 6:45 Jan 23 [8]
  • Again at 02:01 Jan 24 [9]
  • Again at 03:07 Jan 24 [10]
  • Again at 03:26 Jan 24 [11]
  • Again at 03:35 Jan 24 [12]
  • Again at 04:05 Jan 24 [13]

He was warned he had violated 3RR at 03:56 on the talk page, but did it again anyway at 4:05. SlimVirgin 06:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's pretty bad. Blocked for 24 hours and told to use the talk page. --fvw* 06:46, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
Yeah, feel free to archive this. --fvw* 15:47, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee injunction

Pending a final decision on the case concerning you, you re also prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter, though you may continue to work in the present sandbox articles Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. Violation of this injunction will result in a block of up to twenty-four hours. Pages relating to the case are not included. Please see the injunction order for details. -- Grunt   ҈  04:03, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

[edit] Jew

Hi Fvw, I'm wondering what you feel is wrong with the external link that you deleted at Jew. I had a look at it, and it seems to be a footnoted column in a reputable publication written by a doctor of law, who did his M.A. in Middle East studies; and so, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with it, it seems (to me) to be an acceptable Wikipedia source. Did you feel otherwise? SlimVirgin 01:22, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look at the site and you're right, it is a proper external link. I'm not sure whether Jew is the best place for it, but I'll leave that to the people involved with the page to decide. I just saw an external link being inserted at the top of the list with an incorrect header and the word editorial in the title; usually that adds up to random rant by POV-pusher, but it appears I was too hasty this time; I've restored it and fixed up, thanks for keeping an eye out! --fvw* 01:30, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

[edit] Why Wikipedia is slow

Read why Wiki is slow. PS cute dog :) Dan100 14:33, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Those ISBN numbers?

You seem like you know the procedure for inserting ISBN info. Is there a help page? Where do you find them? What's up with the Book coding I have seen? Help appreciated, I am still a newbie.--Cberlet 18:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WT:3RR

Hi, I did eventually see your comments at WT:3RR#Edits_and_reversions, and did craft a response; not sure if you saw it. (Executive summary: I agree with a lot of what you say.) Noel (talk) 22:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

[edit] A humble thank you.

I probably want my head examined but I have commenced a discussion on the Solomon's Temple talk page about nunc pro tunc with particular regards to something that is bugging me but which is so sensitive that I am not certain that I can get a proper discussion going. I tried it once before on a controversial topic and that was a mistake. So I figured that I would try it on a non-controversial topic to see if I can have a sensible discussion. Have a look. I am very, very big fan of "1984" and Orwell's ideology. I found that his works and Alan Watts and a few others like them helped to put this world of temporary anger in its place. We are all so puny as the landing on the moon Titan has further revealed only today. MPLX/MH 00:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I told you that I should have my head examined! By the way, I like your pooch - looks very friendly! On that other subject I was plodding away on another topic when woosh in came IZAK and swept away the disambiguation page I was creating to show that many people had many views and IZAK was lumping all other views in the Nazi trash bin which is neither open minded nor encyclopedic. Just before typing this I was working on the Alan Freed bio which I have been doing quite a bit of work on. Freed was a pioneer in both rock and rock and early race relations who was dumped upon to further the careers of people like Dick Clark. I always fight for underdogs it seems. I fully understand what you are complaining about and in the 1980s I was making various broadcasts trying to explain how the bane of the Western World was General Electric which played all sides (including the Nazi side) against the middle to further its own ends. The idiots on talk radio (for example) are the people you are referring to and I am total agreement with you. I suppose I am a utopian who believes in indivualism and equality in the terms defined by the US Declaration which does support the right wing rabble rousers but attibutes everything to "Nature" and "Nature's God"! Go figure that one. Another peeve: The idiot who redesigned the US House of Representatives in the 1950s. Next time you watch CSPAN look left and right of the Speaker's Chair. You will see two large US flags and the symbol that Mussolini used to create his fascist state! The curator got very upset at me when I once described the decor as portraying the "Fascist House of Representatives". I said if you stuck a cross, a crescent moon, a Star of David, a swastika or something similar up there everyone would know exactly what you meant. But in this case it goes to Eisenhower's last speech and warning about the "military-industrial-complex." By the way I last got run off a Wikipedia topic when I managed to get the antisemitic part of Magna Carta included and went on to show that this is what lead to the attitudes of the Holocaust! Believe me, the Anglophiles did not like that and I was born in England! MPLX/MH 01:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From HK

Please note response by MyRedDice/Martin [14]. --HK 14:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slim, the facts are these: the so-called "Herschelkrustofsky list" of objections to the Adam and Andy versions of the Lyndon LaRouche article appeared numerous times on the talk page of that article during the summer of 2004, until MyRedDice, a member of the arbcom committee, intervened to consolidate it and move it to two seperate pages. At his suggestion, as each objection was resolved, it was moved, by me, to a seperate archive of "closed issues." Around October 10, 2004, all remaining disputes were resolved, and I moved what was left on those pages to the "closed issues" page. If you think that I misplaced some material, which I doubt, you can find it by going over the edit histories of those pages. I am unwilling to do it for you, as I am somewhat overtaxed responding to POV edits on the LaRouche pages from the new team of Chip Berlet and yourself. If you continue to post notices on all the talk pages which imply that I was "deleting archive material," I shall consider it a malicious personal attack. --HK 17:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That would be Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/The_Herschelkrustofsky_List/archive1, the sole archive for the list. --HK 18:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hey

rubenste then the "at" sign then ohiou dot edu, Slrubenstein 01:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done, except I wrote ohio without the u, which I hope was right. SlimVirgin 01:30, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you do need the u, Slim. El_C 02:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)

About the intro examples, I didn't mean to imply you had removed them. Maurreen 05:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not interested

Revert wars are not interesting to me. I'm dropping the article from my watchlist. -Willmcw 00:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Cite sources

Great work overall, but I've mostly responded at my talk page for continuity. - Taxman 15:56, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Hi, Slim. I support citing sources, but I need to review the page before I commit myself. Also, you're not suggesting that pages without references be blanked or deleted, are you? Maurreen 15:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. Sorry I have taken a while to get back to you, and that my answer will be less than you'd like. I have been cutting back on Wikipedia to use that time in other areas of my life, such as it is.
I think broad enforcement of a requirement to cite sources would be a fundamental change. It would discourage a lot of people, including myself, from adding material.
Writing without citing sources might be nonstandard, but it is the Wikipedia way. Most of my additions are fairly casual. They are information unlikely to be disputed by anyone who has knowledge of the subject.
In my opinion, broad enforcement of a requirement to cite sources would make adding to Wikipedia too much work for many people.
It's a different issue if the statements are disputed.Maurreen 21:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the pages

I misunderstood how things worked.--Cberlet 04:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität

An apparently disinterested editor has added a Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität stubpage, asking for translation of the article in the German wikispace. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BüSo Based on trying to read it in computer translation it appears to be pretty good. There are also short articles on other LaRouche topics. I know you've got your hands full, but if you ever have any free time it might be interesting to take a look at those articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Williams

Your work on Williams is quite good, indeed, exceptionally so. I have long admired him, and it is nice to see someone at Wik give his philosophy the attention it deserves. icut4u 01:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would be delighted to review Gellner when you are finished. I see we have some similar interests. Gellner, too, is remarkable, especially for his rejection of ideology and systems (whose practitioners are in great abundance at Wikipedia!), a view with which I have great sympathy. He and I also share a favorite philosopher, Russell, who, as you no doubt know, wrote an intro to Words and Things. Good luck! icut4u


[edit] Glitches

Re: glitches. I remember someone else having the same problem. IIRC, he was using a Macintosh and that was significant. (Another editor was using a library computer with superpowered nanny-blocker. Apparently it would blank out certain words (death, nazi, etc) from articles that he was editing, entirely without his knowledge.) -Willmcw 07:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krusty and Weed

I thought so. Adam 11:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seems that HK has been blocked for violating the 3R rule. I don't see anything in Snowspinner's presentation that would result in you or Chip being barred from editing LaRouche articles. I think you should wait until someone suggests it before objecting. AndyL 05:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed Harper has been tempbanned too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist AndyL 05:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I really don't want to get involved in this. My long-stated view is that Herschel and all LaRouchites should be banned on sight from Wikipedia, since they only come here to wreck articles and promote their disgusting ideology. But I know that is not a view I am going to get support for. I don't think they should be banned on silly pretexts such violating the 3R rule. It's an absurd rule and I break it myself all the time. Adam 10:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If they are two different people, the likelihood is that they are both fulltime operatives of the LaRouche cult, and that they edit from a LaRouche office somewhere. It makes no difference anyway since all committed LaRouchies are programmed into the cult and think and talk identically. Adam 02:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Playing in the sandboxes

I'm done with my turn in the LaRouche sandboxes. I've tried to describe, at least generaly, what my edits were in the summaries. I've torn the LaRouche bio apart and tried to make it as chronological as possible. I tried to move most of the material into the relevent places and I think the story of LaRouche can be more easily followed that way. For example, the Train Salon takes on a different look when preceded by years of negative press reporting and lawsuits. And I've been equally merciless on the Political Views article, trying to make that more thematic and less biographical. In any case, I'll now leave the sandbox so the next editor can have their turn. Feel free to undo/redo/overdo anything you like. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. (You know you really can be honest with me when you don't like something (-:). I've made a new sandbox, Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/organization sandbox, take a look. It's just a sketch, and I'm not entirely sure if it can be filled out in a useful way. Let me know if you have any thoughts about whether such an article, under some title, would be worth pursuing. It could potentially handle some topics that are hard to fit in the existing series. -Willmcw 10:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I spent a bunch of time moving stuff around on the Political Views sandbox page to make the outline work better in terms of the flow of ideas. I only added a few things. I saved a version after each section of work so you can compare the changes step-by-step. Overall, I very nuch like the rearrangement of the pages that Will did, and did not move anything between the pages he created.
I like the idea of an Organization page!--Cberlet 15:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Posted image files for the "Ghetto Mother" quote - found typo in it!!!) (OK it was only the word "more"). [15] --Cberlet 02:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] La Rouche arbitration

The La Rouche arbitration part two has been accepted; temporary injunctions have been proposed which would affect your editing of La Rouche related articles; please made any comments at the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_Part_Deux/Proposed_decision#Proposed_temporary_injunctions. Fred Bauder 15:49, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DrZen's user page

Aloha. I don't think that was a typo. In leet, it's spelled "T3H" for "the". See teh. I'm pretty sure DrZen used it on purpose. --Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's ok, I already reverted. The thing is, when I originally thought he was being vandalized, I reverted. But, he contacted me on my talk page and told me to revert to his version without mentioning the typo. FWIW, he's used leet quite a lot on Usenet, so I'm 99% sure he intended to use it on his user page. See:[16] --Viriditas | Talk 00:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's ok. There was another problem that needed fixing - accents. Sorry that it looks like you and Chip will be banned from editing the LaRouche articles until the Arbcomm renders a decision. I think it's a silly principle. AndyL 04:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee

Hi. Glad the confusion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard got sorted out. I was just confused about the ArbCom ruling. The comments were only for my understanding, certainly not a push to get someone blocked. Hope this did not come across the wrong way. Happy editing! -- Chris 73 Talk 10:18, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee ruling

The case involving you has closed. The Arbitration Committee officially cautions you not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. Please also note that the temporary injunction against you has expired. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt   ҈  01:16, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)