User talk:TDC/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 16:28, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources TDC, but could you post them (not in an edit summary) on the talk page or as "references" on that page? The best 1 or 2 will do. Thanks. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:50, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Once again, you keep talking about "documentation"....why is it not possible for you just to mention one of these documents by name? It would be a great relief to me if we could document this, especially as experienced editors are expressing doubts that the articles you've focused on are NPOV. Thanks Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You were asking how you date stamp your posts: just sign with 4 tildes (~~~~).

Mini-14

I am glad you found my points on the Marx talk page reasonable. Given that three different people have objected to the accusation of anti-semitism, this is clearly a contentious issue. Of course there is a place for such issues at Wikipedia -- my only point is that they must be handled carefully, and well. I thus have some advice: if you envision a very short discussion of Marx and anti-Semitism, propose it on the Talk page of the article first, and encourage some discussion -- this will preempt any reversions. But if you envision a longer discussion, with quotes not only from Marx but from various biographers, historians, and other scholars, and a discussion of the context in which Marx wrote these passages, you might want to consider a new, separate article on Marx and anti-Semitism -- then you can put a link to that article at the bottom of the Marx page. Slrubenstein

On sources regarding Communism in addition to the sources I mention in Talk:Communist Party USA I suggest The Black Book of Communism Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674076087 Of the sources I mention on the talk page I especially recommend The Sword and the Shield ISBN 0465003109 Fred Bauder 14:47, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a new series of articles History of Soviet espionage Fred Bauder 13:43, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Fascism and Christianity

From a speech made by Hitler on April 12, 1922:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

"Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.

"And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.

"When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."


The following is an excerpt of a speech by Mike Budak, Croatian Minister of Religion, made on July 22, 1941, three months after the Croats won their independence from Yugoslavia by joining the Axis cause during World War II. (From Spy in the Vatican):

"The Ustashi movement is based on the Catholic Religion. For the minorities, Serbs, Jews and Gypsies, we have three million bullets. A part of these minorities has already been eliminated and many are waiting to be killed. Some will be sent to Serbia and the rest will be forced to change their religion to Catholicism. Our new Croatia will therefore be free of all heretics, becoming purely Catholic for the future years."

At this point over 300,000 Serbs, Gypsies and Jews had been murdered by the Croatian fascists known as the Ustashi. A grand total of 700,000 human beings, mostly Serbian Orthodox Christians, were to fall victim to the Ustashi gangsters who did their killing in the name of Holy Mother Church.

Bokun quoted a Roman Catholic priest as having made the following remarks on June 13, 1941:

"Brethren, up to now we have worked for the Holy Roman Apostolic Church with the cross and the missal. Now the moment has come to work with a knife in one hand and a gun in the other. The more Serbs and Jews you succeed in eliminating, the more you will be raised in esteem in the heart of the Roman Catholic Church."

[edit] More on Fascism and Christianity

The cat sat on the mat


Italy

Italy gave the world both the word ‘fascist’ (after the Latin ‘fasces’: the bundle of sticks and projecting axe that was a symbol of the authority of the Roman consul) and the first fascist movement. Although Italian fascism was initially anti-clerical, Mussolini quickly appreciated the need to find an accommodation with the Church and the Church was happy to reciprocate. In the Lateran Pacts of 1929, the Church endorsed the Italian state in return for the state accepting the autonomy of the Vatican City, the right of the Church to teach Catholic doctrine in the state schools, and the Church’s moral authority. Many senior clergy actively supported Mussolini and played a prominent part in devising elaborate civic liturgies for the fascists. The Church also approved Mussolini’s conquest of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) and his help for Franco in the Spanish civil war. And the views of ordinary Italian Catholics are clear from the popular support Mussolini enjoyed until the Axis powers began to lose the war.


Germany

The attitude of German Catholics to Nazism is less easy to discern. That Germany had had representative politics for longer than Italy meant that German Catholics were already well organized into parties and organizations with which the Nazi party competed. Catholics were initially more reluctant than Lutherans to support the Nazis but that probably has more to do with loyalty to existing right-wing Catholic organizations than to ideological distaste.

In many predominantly Protestant German states, Catholics initially opposed Hitler but in overwhelmingly Catholic Bavaria the Catholic BVP advocated cooperating with the Nazis. Franz Von Papen, who became Hitler’s vice-chancellor in January 1933, was a conservative Catholic and leader of the Catholic Centre party. He not only provided an acceptable civilian front for Hitler; he was also active in negotiating the 1933 concordat between Hitler and the Vatican that saw the Church drop its opposition to the Nazis and dissolve its Centre party in return for the protection of Church interests. Parts of the Catholic press encouraged their readers to support the Nazi revitalization of Germany. The Church officially supported Hitler’s first international challenge (the occupation of the Saarland in 1935) and his 1938 hostile take-over of Austria. Many German lay Catholics and clergy bravely opposed Nazism and suffered the consequences. But most supported Hitler because they shared his nationalism, anti-Semitism and his antipathy for socialism and liberalism.


Spain and Portugal

On 17 July 1936 the Spanish army in Morocco rebelled against the government of the Spanish republic, which it accused of dismembering the fatherland (because it was negotiating with Basque and Catalan separatists) and of Bolshevism. With considerable assistance from Germany and Italy, Francisco Franco won the three-year war and began a dictatorship that survived until his death in 1975. The Catholic Church did not hesitate to support the rebels.

Portugal avoided a civil war but it also abandoned democracy for clerical authoritarianism. For most of the nineteenth century Portugal had enjoyed a liberal constitutional monarchy but it was overthrown by a military coup in 1926. In 1932, António de Oliveira Salazar became prime minister. In 1933 he introduced an authoritarian corporatist regime that stayed in place until 1974.


In many rural areas of Austria the Catholic Christian Social party worked closely with the right-wing Heimwehr (or ‘home guard’) militia and this support brought Dollfuss to power in 1932. In February 1934, he crushed the social democratic militias in Vienna and four months later he produced his authoritarian constitution: ‘We shall establish a state on the basis of a Christian weltanschaung’. By Christian he meant Catholic and the Pope was impressed. He described Dolfuss as a ‘Christian, giant-hearted man ... who rules Austria so well, so resolutely and in such a Christian manner. His actions are witness to Catholic visions and convictions. The Austrian people, Our beloved Austria, now has the government it deserves’.


Catholic Poland’s liberal democracy was overthrown by a military coup in 1926.


After 1918 Hungary had a brief spell as a liberal democracy before an even briefer ‘ dictatorship of the proletariat’ led by the communist Béla Kun. Finally it became a fully independent kingdom effectively ruled by Admiral Miklós Horthy. With very strong support from the Catholic hierarchy, he sustained a mildly authoritarian democracy until 1944. When the Germans invaded in 1944 they imposed a dictatorship of the fascist Arrow Cross party.


In 1941 German and Italian forces occupying Yugoslavia allowed the Croats to fulfil their ambitions of an independent state and put in power the fascist Ustaše movement. As Conway notes: ‘The new state was eager to make much of its Catholic character, nominating members of the clergy to prominent posts and passing laws against freemasonry, contraception and even blasphemy’. In the Ustaše state and in the parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina that it controlled, Orthodox Serbs and Muslims were forcibly converted to Catholicism or expelled. Orthodox priests were particularly targeted and hundreds of Orthodox churches were destroyed. Archbishop Stepinac of Zagreb initially reacted enthusiastically to Croatian independence and in April 1941 issued a pastoral letter urging clergy to follow the Poglavnic in which he wrote: ‘It is easy here to discern the hand of God’. Croat Catholic clergy fought alongside the militias and took part in forcible conversions and atrocities’.


Czechoslovakia, another state formed from the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1918, was dismembered at the start of the Second World War. Germany seized the Czech lands and established a fascist regime in Slovakia under Catholic priest Josef Tiso. As well as being head of state and head of the security forces, Tiso was the leader of the paramilitary Hlinka Guard, which wore the Catholic Episcopal cross on its armbands. ‘The new state took on … the air of a modern theocracy. The Catholic clergy and laity were prominent at all levels of the regime, which in its corporatist and educational policies explicitly based itself on the principles of papal encyclicals’.


And Lithuania. The small Baltic state had a few years of liberal democracy before the 1926 military coup brought in an authoritarian regime that lasted until the Soviet invasion of 1940.


France and Belgium

Although neither France nor Belgium was taken over by extreme right-wing movements, both countries had their fascists. One instance was Action Française (AF), founded by Charles Maurras, a poet, journalist and editor of a newspaper of the same name. The movement campaigned for the return of the monarchy and for aggressive action against Jews. Although its relationships with the Catholic Church were not always easy, it was supported by 11 out of 17 cardinals and bishops and a great many priests. In Belgium the extreme right-wing movement was called Christus Rex (or Christ the King).


Protestant Cases

The Protestant side of the equation is harder to construct, largely because there were so few Protestant states in Europe. Britain had Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts but beyond orchestrating anti-Semitic violence in London, they had no political success and absolutely no religious legitimation. The only predominantly Protestant country to acquire a fascist regime was Norway and that owed almost nothing to local popularity. Vidkun Quisling had a brilliant army career and was made a general staff officer at the age of 24. In 1931 he entered politics and two years later he founded the fascist Nasjonal Samling party. It was never popular and Quisling came to power entirely through the agency of the German army. Quisling helped Hitler prepare for the invasion of Norway and was rewarded by being appointed prime minister: an office from which he was forcibly removed in 1945.


Complications

In the 1930s Romania had its own fascist movement: the Legion of the Archangel Michael, better known by the name of its paramilitary wing: the Iron Guard. The Legion was anti-Western, anti-democracy, deeply anti-Semitic and, like the Slavophile movements in nineteenth century Russia, its proposed solution to economic crisis and obvious corruption was a return to the Church. The Church reciprocated. It is estimated that a fifth of the clergy joined the Iron Guard. But – and this is the interesting complication – Romania was not Catholic. Its Church was Orthodox: part of the same Eastern tradition as the Russian and Greek churches.

And although I put Lithuania in the list of Catholic authoritarian regimes, it is worth noting that the history of the other two Baltic states -- Latvia and Estonia – was very similar. All three were fragile new democracies with electoral systems that produced lots of small parties and thus prevented effective government. They were hit badly by the world depression and they were taken over by authoritarian right-ing politicians. But only Lithuania is Catholic. The other two are mostly Lutheran Protestants.

Formeruser-83 00:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Save your agitprop and tell it to someone who gives a rats ass. TDC 01:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What agitprop? What is untrue in what I've posted? Are the quotations wrong? Were there no clergy involved in the Ustashe? Was the Belgian fascist group not called "Jesus the King" or Hungary's the "Arrow Cross"? What exactly is false?Formeruser-83 02:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Belgian fascist group may indeed have been called "Jesus the King" but the only thing the People's Liberation Army or the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam seemed was good at was liberating people from breathing. A name really means nothing first of all. Secondly, go mess up fellow apparatchiks talk pages. TDC 02:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"A name really means nothing first of all. " Weren't you arguing that the nazis are socialist because they're name is "national socialist"? And anyway, it's not *just* the name, it's the active involvement of clergy in these movements and the support of the church.Formeruser-83 02:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No tool box, I was arguing that fascist ideology was an minor alteration of Marxist dogma. That and the fact that the national socialist party's platform could be ripped right from the CPUSA's handbook. TDC 02:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actully, the fascist program could be ripped out of papal encyclicals written in the late 19th and early 20th century on class relations, condemning liberalism and democracy etc. The ideological roots of fascism in Catholicism are quite strong. Fascism rejects almost all Marxist theory ie class relations, expropriation of capital etc. What it's a minor alteration of is Catholic teachings on economics and society from the period mentioned above. Formeruser-83 03:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actully do you ever fucking read before writing something? I said the "National Socialist" party's platform. TDC 03:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The topic is "the Marxist roots of fascism" and your statement "I was arguing that fascist ideology was an minor alteration of Marxist dogma." -- if you read the papal encyclicals you'll see if there are any roots, they are Catholic. As I said "What it's a minor alteration of is Catholic teachings on economics and society from the period mentioned above." It's only a minor alteration of Marxism if you consider expropriation of the means of production and class war "minor". It's a bit like saying Athiesm is a "minor alteration" of Christianity because all it does is do away with the concept of God:) User:Formeruser-83 03:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, its not like comparing Atheism and Christianity. Its more like comparing Lutheranism to Catholicism. TDC 17:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


pg 12: "Fascism repudiates any universal embrace... (pg 13) Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history; according to which the history of human civilization can be explained siimply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production."
"And above all Fascism denies that the class war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society. These two fundamental concepts of Socialism being thus refuted, nothing is left of it but the sentimental aspiration - as old as (pg 14) humanity itself - towards a social convention in which the sorrows and sufferings of the humblest shall be alleviated. But here again Fascism repudiates the conception of "economic" happiness, to be realized by Socialism and, as it were, at a given moment in economic evolution to assure to everyone the maximum of well-being. Fascism denies the materialist conception of happiness as a possibility..."

SOURCE:"The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism" by Benito Mussolini. An authorized translation by Jane Soames published by Leonard and Virginia Woolf at the Hogarth Press, London, WC 1933. (from part 2)

For another transation see THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM (COMPLETE TEXT) BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

"No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State" -- The Doctrine of Fascism, Benito Mussolini 1932

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail." -- Benito Mussolini

"If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-Semites," Hitler

It works both ways. TDC 19:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

TDC, since we're obviously not going to be getting anywhere by talking, I've put up a vote on Talk:Fascism over the question of listing the Soviet Union as a fascist state. However the vote turns out, I will be willing to abide by it, in the interest of getting the article unprotected. Please come and express your opinion, so that we can move on. john 04:52, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC, could you please go to Talk:Fascism and say if you accept the results of the vote? ThanksAndyL 18:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A question for you:

Now, I know you Marxist types dont believe in an afterlife and the like, but if I were to hold a seance and channel Marx's spirit through you, do you think you would try and suck your own dick. TDC 04:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) For your information, this sort of remark is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 19:51, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree - a day or two ban is in order. -SV(talk) 21:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) UPDATE!: Ban will last 24 hours. Please use this free time to meditate on your behaviour, and read up on your wikicivics. -SV(talk) 21:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oil for Food Scandal

You're not a "soft-minded artsy moron." You didn't "choose a [profession], like sociology, that [has] no demand or real value in society." So why waste your potentially boundlessly productive time dealing with us parasitic, inferior academic types? If you left Wikipedia, and started writing on Wikinfo [1], a Wikipedia-like internet encyclopedia established by User:Fred Bauder, your work would be left alone, and you'd never have to deal with the likes of Slrubenstein, John Kenney, and me again. 172 03:09, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172, if that is indeed your real name, believe you me that you have met in TDC the biggest most stubborn prick on the face of planet earth, and I will not stop until your stomach churns with bile at the site of [TDC]. I dont feel that this is a waste of time, I get a great deal of satisfaction out of this.TDC 06:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bots are forbidden on Wikipedia

Don't write a script to revert pages automatically. This would contravene our policy on bots and would be grounds for an immediate block. Martin 13:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know bots are banned, I was kidding. TDC 16:33, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ahh good. Humour doesn't come across very well online. You might want to use some sort of emoticon to make these things explicit. Martin 16:47, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia:quickpolls

Sam Spade 22:15, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

Please do not revert the same article more than three times within 24 hours, doing so can result in a temporary ban; see Wikipedia:Revert.--Eloquence* 07:20, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

"I don't believe you have heard me or anyone else in our leadership talk about the presence of 1,000 bodies out there, or in fact how many have been recovered," Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the Afghanistan operation, said Monday at Bagram Air Base. "You know we don't do body counts."

[edit] Molotov-Ribbentrop

"The Soviet Union tried to create an antifascist coalition against Italy and Nazi Germany while at the same time Molotov was in negotiations with Rippentrov?" Wrong. Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet's People's Comissar of Foreign Affairs, tried to negotiate an anti-fascist coalition with Britain and France. When the Munich Pact was announced, it was evident that this attempt had failed. Litvinov was dismissed as foreign minister and replaced by Molotov who then negotiated the non agression pact with von Ribbentrop. It's quite clear that one followed the other rather than both being persued simultaneously. TDC, I suggest you actually get a basic familiarity with the facts before trying to contribute to this article or deigning to remove anything.Indeed, perhaps you should actually *read* the article before removing things you don't fully grasp. AndyL 18:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Castro and HR

I've removed the paragraph since you've seen TALK but haven't responded to a request to provide a source for your numbers and since the numbers contradict what even David Horowitz has said. AndyL 18:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't have the page number. All I can say is that it is towards the end of the article that these statements are said. The copy from the Internet says a Fascist publication from l935 titled Fascism Doctrine and Institutions page 7-42. But this sounds like it is not the Enciclopedia Italiana. It is near the word "De Maistre" and to look for many mentions of the word "seculo" which means century. Maybe a librarian can help him.WHEELER 00:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive reversions

Excuse me, but yesterday you reverted the same article 4 times. [2] [3] [4] [5] This exceeds the daily limit of 3 reverts.

If you need help, please contact an admin (like me, for example) rather than taking matters into your own hands.

Thanks. --Uncle Ed 12:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] OBL

What's so surprising? The common element is hatred of America. --Uncle Ed 11:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think bin Laden's speeches, if you read them in full, are surprising if you are only used to the snippets the media relays (the "rivers of blood" bits basically). His horrible actions, however, set him apart from the names above much more distinctly. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it goes to show just how much these people have in common. Strip away all of the Islam ranting, and the two groups are, at least publicly, indistinguishable. And while although the one group does not personally use violence themselves as a way to advocate beliefs, they do endorse it when used towards a ends they approve of. TDC 13:51, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have a reference from an book saying that the founding fathers are reactionary. I bet if I was at a University library, I can find twenty more quotes just like that. Andy reverts with no quotes. I have another book that says the original party of monarchists in France was called the "Reactionary" Party. But Andy reverts that also. Why isn't this guy reigned in. See, if things don't pass Andy's POV and inspection he revert it out AND NEEDS NO QUOTES OR SOURCES TO DO SO. NO thanks. I see Andy had free reign here. If he reverts, He must provide quotes and sources. SITE YOUR SOURCES is WIKIPEDIAN POLICY but that is not happening. WHEELER 14:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One of the issues here, is supect, are the admins. 172 proudly wears his Stalinist biases on his sleeve (if you need proof of this see his contributions to History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953). Now I know as a contributor, he is very POV and does not hold his contributions up to the same scrutiny that he holds others up to. I have never had any delaing with him on an admin basis, only on a fellow contributor basis, but I wonder just how fair an impartial an admin most of them are. TDC 14:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

You know what my problem is: I never spent any amount of time in the American colleges and Universities who are filled with socialist, liberal and communist professors intent on propagandizing. I was never educated that way. That is why I am different. Mortimer Adler, Thomas Sowell, and Ayn Rand have all heavily critized American higher education as practically worthless. Is this why I am having a hard time here?WHEELER 14:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Partially, I would imagine. When I was at Purdue, I minored in history. One of my history professors was, and I shit you not, a member of the PLP, he would hand out PLP literature on a daily basis, and we were required to read its newspaper Challenge. Keith Windshuttle wrote an excelent book on the rise and causes of revisionism. Give it a read some time.
Higher education isn't all bad. Technical classes are completely devoid of anything not having to do with the coursework, (my experience at any rate). And I would rank the education and competency of any engineer coming out college in the US, equal to or better than any other higher education system in the world.TDC 14:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks TDC. I saw that you nominated me for adminship. I would respectfully decline. I just want to contribute and write and fight the bias here. I work from a library computer and so don't have much time. Besides my temper gets the best of me and I don't think so yet. Thanks.WHEELER 00:44, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Live Chat

This would be a nice feature to hash out disputes, or just to talk in real time. TDC 22:58, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

see m:IRC channels -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please make feature requests via wikipedia:feature requests. But IRC works well for most of us. Martin 15:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Oil for food

Hello -- I've made a proposal for trying to make some progress on Oil for food. The proposal is here: Talk:Oil_for_food#A_proposal_and_some_suggestions_for_moving_forward.

Please read it over and indicate if you feel that you can accept it as a way of making some progress. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:09, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there -- I think it would help if you could refrain from editing Talk:Oil for food while the mediation process is happening. This is just a suggestion and a request, though -- not a demand. Thanks BCorr|Брайен 15:26, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

NP TDC 15:33, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WHEELER's encyclopedia reference

If your brother wants to find and scan the page in question and send it to WHEELER it can be found in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, volume XIV, page 850.AndyL 23:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wheeler, he will be able to do it sometime later this week. TDC 21:40, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Admin removal

How do I nominate someone to have their admin status suspended or revoked?TDC 18:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you work through the dispute resolution process first. You could start by discussing it with the admin concerned and if that doesn't help, seek other comments on requests for comment. If after this, you still feel their actions need to be reviewed, you can ask for that at Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions. There is no such thing as "nominating someone to have their admin status suspended" though. All you can do is ask that others review the situation. Angela. 19:07, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
This is not so much about one incident, but a repeated history by a specific admin abusing admin privileges. Perhaps the Admin Nomination page might work? TDC 19:13, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't be a suitable place for it. The links at the end of that page will just direct you to Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions. De-adminship is a very rare occurrence, so it would be best if you tried to work out your dispute with the admin concerned in an alternative way. Angela. 19:27, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union

Yes, I noticed the goings-on on this article. Good luck dealing with 172, and may you fare better than I have. I'll be impressed if he's not just having you waste time and energy on an alternate version he'll never let see the light of day. Most of the changes you make are simply obvious improvements and fixes, but if he feels he "owns" an article such are generally not tolerated. -- VV 15:06, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay, well, I hope I'm wrong. All this to-do shouldn't be necessary for clear improvements, and 172 has never held himself to such standards, but congrats on willing to put the effort into it. Hopefully it'll work out. -- VV 15:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
While I have your attention, I'd also like to say that while contributors such as yourself who have the diligence, patience, and knowledge to work towards improving some of the enormously lacking and biased writing, in particular the heavily leftist slant that permates the political articles here, and counter some of its most aggressive purveyors are a valuable asset to the project, your use of personal attacks (such as the recent "crybaby"), vulgar language, and other such impoliteness and antics are I think more damaging than they are useful or even satisfying. You are likely in the long run to simply earn disdain from a community which is already sick to death of problematic contributors and which, contrary to some appearance, does have something of a "professional" attitude. This may in the end thwart your efforts. From experience I can say the deck is stacked against you from the start anyway, but that by (usually) keeping my head and shunning inappropriate tactics I feel I have gradually caused awareness to grow about what is happening here. IMHO, crazy antics are more likely to crowd your message than promote it. Well, just my two cents. And good work on a lot of the articles I've seen your edits on. -- VV 17:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Listen, I completely understand where your going, and I realize some of my statements are very destructive to my credibility. I have worked over the past several weeks to tone down my more inflammatory rhetoric, and have found that it works with many users. But some, whose identities shall remain nameless, show no reciprocation.TDC 18:04, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
True, for better or for worse, Wikipedia's memory is infinite, so ForgiveAndForget need not apply; words you wrote a month ago will be used against you two years from now. Still, having them be two years old can't hurt. And, I'd say don't worry too much about reciprocation; I have survived never returning insults against several users. I have no idea what happened between you and Get-back-world-respect, but in my limited experience though agenda-oriented he is still more reasonable than many others, so a better rapport with him might not be impossible. So, I would urge dropping the crybaby. Just MHO. Keep up the fight. -- VV 21:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] four fingers point at you

Hi TDC, do you agree that when you try to insult someone it says more about you than about the person you want to offend? Do you think your user page shows you have understood how wikipedia should work, e.g. "do not get personal"? Get-back-world-respect 21:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

My user page? Listen chooch, I am not the one who is here to Get back world respect

Seriously now, shut up. Or you might be up for furhter nomination.


TDC 23:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind way of apologizing with a threat. Get-back-world-respect 00:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and shut the fuck up. TDC 00:35, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Please do me a favour and work on your language. Get-back-world-respect 00:47, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
You just dont know when to quit do you dildo?TDC 00:52, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
"Dildo" is as unacceptable as calling others Nazis as you do on your user page. Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight. In extreme cases, users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Specific types of slur covered by this include but are not limited to the following: * Political affiliation attacks (often, calling someone a Nazi) Get-back-world-respect 01:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I owe you a belated complement. However aggressive you can be in edit wars, you consistently maintain your honor and dignity. You handled the aftermath of this poll very well. Right now, I am dealing with a user who isn't doing the same with respect to a similar poll. Continue calling people "dildo" and "Marxists who laugh at their victims." That's better than going behind people's backs and manipulating them. 172 15:22, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I'm serious- I swear. 172 15:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Plot Thickens

Mussolini recalled and destroyed all available copies of the Doctrine of Fascism in April l940 after he had second thoughts about certain phrases in it. This from in Fascsim by Noel O'Sullivan, l983 pg 138 who references, Mussolini's Roman Empire, by Mack Smith Penguin, ed., l979, first published in l976, pg 247.

Questions abound

What are <<>> in the text? Is this proper to the original text? Did Mussolini publish an edited version? Can we get some help from the people at Encyclopadia Italiana? Are the copies of the l932 Enciclopadia Italiana originals, reprints with the new revised doctrine in it. Are there TWO doctrines of Fascism out there and can theses documents be put side by side and a comparison made?WHEELER 18:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have also added a number of pages to wikipedia that you will find most important. Nazi 25-point program (and read the discussion page of this) and Early National Socialism/draft. you will like them both. WHEELER 16:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Picture for your user page

Here's a picture that'll go well on your user page. I also added it to the Reagan article. Image:ReaganBerlinWall.jpg 172 07:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm surprised that it's taken so long for someone to upload it on the Reagan page. 172 04:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Conduct

Please do not engage in reverts in violation of the reversion policy, or engage in personal attacks. Thank you. Snowspinner 23:56, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

I second this request, especially concerning personal attacks. While I have also had disagreements with User:Get-back-world-respect, I have never felt the need to call him a "monkey," nor does he deserve such treatment. I strongly suggest you treat other Wikipedians as collaborators, not enemies. Isomorphic 04:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Good info for you

For the upcoming battles on the Fascism and especially the Nazism article, I plan to remove the word "reactionary" from the article. All my facts are placed here for your reading enjoyment--Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary WHEELER 16:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Civil War

I've edited that paragraph, based on your sources. Let me know if you have a problem with what I ended up with. Clearly, the flow of the article now requires that we also put numbers on the German and Italian contributions to the other side. -- Jmabel 20:52, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Did you say "Nice try." because you though that IP was me? If so, let me assure you that IP was not me, and inform you that I resent that assumption. Kevin Baas | talk 21:42, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

No, it was an anon who has made several edits today. I was not insinuating that it was you. Toodles TDC 22:10, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Aight. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers. :) Kevin Baas | talk 00:33, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

[edit] Help on PNAC

If you have the time, I could use assistance at PNAC. I am simply being overwhelmed responding to all these people who want the "POV" that RAD says something it in plain English does not say to be prominently covered (GBWR, but mostly some new guy CK). Now an admin with little knowledge of the subject is opposing me on the basis of the form rather than the content of the writing. I am fending them off in Talk best I can but another voice of sanity would help. (The article itself is protected.) VV 00:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There isn't anything I can think of that needs to be private; just the same old, same old with a new user thrown in. (Only this time the pressure's heavier, with arbitration requests being thrown at me.) But if you want to chat in E-mail, you can reach me at veryverily -at- gmail.com. VV 07:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice article. I'll put it on my watchlist. VV 07:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] They won't find the image

If someone wants to use the image of Hussein and Chavez, they probably won't find it because you have spelled Saddam's surname as Hussien. I'd change it, but am not quite sure how to. Cheers. Moriori 21:13, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Yes, he has indeed violated the three reversion limit; however, you have 4 reversions to his 3; it is suggested to use the version that more closely complies with that limit (see Wikipedia's protection policy). I am not involved in the conflict at hand, and hence my interference in the matter is justified. I agree his link does not address his points adequately, and there is certainly still room for debate on the matter. I haven't examined the case very thoroughly and hold no strong opinion over the matter as of now. I have merely chosen to restore the alternate version as Wikipedia's protection guidelines recommend. If you feel this was not a fair decision, please feel free to discuss it with another admin. Sarge Baldy 19:33, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)