User talk:TDC/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Depleted uranium dispute resolution

As agreed, I had the DU article unlocked and replaced it with the /basic verson with links to the Health effects and Gulf War syndrome pages, bringing this round to an end. I think the fact that we managed to hammer this out by ourselves is a feather in our caps and an example to all who are in conflicts on the 'pedia. I thank you all. --DV8 2XL 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hip Hip! DTC 02:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI...if that edit war starts again and I see you post to AN/3RR, I'll block him. I think you request was overlooked due to unsympathetic admins and I just now noticed it,,,he/she appears to have moved ona bit though.--MONGO 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we're at it again. I tried to help. I have left obvious problems with anti-DU arguments alone up till now in hopes of maintaining the peace. Lets get admins involved sooner rather than later. Dr U 19:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering with U03! I will help when the dispute is over. I will try to follow the discussion, but I am away for a week.Stone 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDC or DTC?

Why did you change your sig to read DTC? Any reason in particular, or just felt like it? Just curious. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I was feeling frisky. DTC, ''T''en ''D''ead ''C''hickens 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier case. Raul654 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi TDC, I hope you can give up your edit warring. I imagin every editor you've tangled with is saying to themselves about now:
hmmm... how can I provoke TDC, shouldn't take much more to get him banned from the whole project.
Don't take the bait :) For what its worth I think the resolution was a good one. --Duk 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I say forget about that article, I am done with it! Time to take it off my watch list and move onto someone else. All I ever wanted to do was to bring the anon to the table and force him to play on a level playing field and play by the rules like anyone else would have to (as I myself have been forced to), and now that I have accomplished that, I will never respond to him again. I would say the ruling was good one as well. There is no way I can honestly say that I did not act inappropriately from time to time, because I did, no way to deny it. But I have learned from my mistakes, and have been able to compromise with many disparate users on many different articles. This whole process has been a drain of epic proportions, and I am dancing with glee about the fact that other editors who have given up on the WSI article can finally get back to it without being molested to the point of a mental explosion by what can only be described as the most deceptive and malicious user I have ever run across. The resolution was good, and if it takes sacrificing my ability to edit in order to deal with Rob the Earthlink Anon, then so be it.
But I want to say thanks for all the advice, I still owe you some GT pictures, don’t I? Ten Dead Chickens 23:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Help

I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just lauched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct.[1] I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the article talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks! --Mr j galt 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)-

[edit] A New Ruy Lopez sock?

[2]. The contributions link goes nowhere (Was it blanked?). CJK 23:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Who knows, it might be a Lopez sock. Its not like he is going to leave permanently. Funny story though, I had a garage fire the other day, total loss of all contents including my 62 Continental (but luckily it was contained to only the garage) and the inspector asked me if anyone had any vendettas against me because there appeared to be no visible source. I dont know why, but I though of all the people on Wikipedia I have pissed off over the years! Oh well :) Ten Dead Chickens 14:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] TDC Edits Lack Nuance and Appear Purely Ideological in Viewpoint

I intended to and will comment on your talk page. Words like this on your user page describe your activities as self-appointed PC Police and Bully: "banned from too many chat rooms to mention ..."A tireless defender of Western Civilization and capitalism"

Thanks for letting us see how you describe yourself. And then you say: "Sometimes when I feel like killing someone, I do a little trick to calm myself down. I'll go over to the person's house and ring the doorbell. When the person comes to the door, I'm gone, but you know what I've left on the porch? A jack-o-lantern with a knife stuck in the side of its head with a note that says 'You'. After that I usually feel a lot better, and no harm done."

Is that supposed to scare people? The effect is to reinforce a Bully. Your edits lack nuance. Do you edit merely to see that articles conform with your ideological point of view? skywriter 19:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont know, Are you scared? Sounds like you are.
I edit articles so they do not appear to have been written by some McChomsky or McZinn franchise. Ten Dead Chickens 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits lacking non-neutral viewpoint. Edits do not properly depend on agreement with Ten Dead Chickens viewpoint to be valid. Wikipedia practices free speech, and is not restricted to Ten Dead Chickens speech. Please stop following me around reversing my edits. skywriter 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

TDC, please discontinue your biased and incivil edits, and understand that following another user around is considered Wikistalking, and will not be tollerated. I believe the use of the templates {{Test}} and {{Verror}} were used by mistake, and I thank you for assuming good faith, but further incivility and edit warring will result in a block. Thank you, Mysekurity 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Your userpage contains numerous offensive references, and I strongly recommend you change the wording. Thanks. -Mysekurity 03:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: A few things

I was absolutely positively NOT stalking anyone. I could understand why skywriter believes I was, as well as why others might be inclined to think that as well. But the fact of the matter is that all three articles where skywriter and I were involved yesterday have been on my watch list for quite some time, and I have made frequent edits to both of them for a while now, two years on the Robeson article, about two months on the “People’s History” article, and I have been observing the Ludlow article for several months now. I feel all my edits are more than justified, and these were not blind reverts. Ten Dead Chickens 15:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

While I must, as an administrator and member of Wikipedia, be neutral and treat each and every user fairly, your offensive userpage is bordering on incivility, and may cause others to disregard your arguments. Irregardless of what the facts had been, you specifically reverted edits done by Skywriter, on pages that had not been touched for a month or more (and on the Robeson article, the edit you made was to revert changes that would have made it more evenly balanced). I do not wish to see you become blocked from editing, but unless you start changing your behavior, this may be the outcome. Happy editing, Mysekurity 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Minor point, but “Irregardless” is not a word, the proper use is “regardless”, and I do not believe that the facts can be disregarded in this case. There are policy guidelines and issues that I believe Skywriter is not following, and that is as far as my objection goes. I attempted to explain this to him in the most polite way I know how [3] [4].Concerning my user page, I understand your objections, and they have been raised before. I assume you mean the “knife in the pumpkin” comment, and its actually a Jack Handy line. I don’t go around to people’s homes and do that because aside from it being illegal it is also not in good taste. The majority of the comments have been there for at least 18 months, without serious objection. As far as the Robeson article goes, a cursory look at the edit history as well as talk should establish that the current version has been agreed upon by several different editors including myself, and none had any serious objection to it. Ten Dead Chickens 15:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Please forgive me for my poor grammar, but I refuse to believe anyone who uses an external link to link within Wikipedia (for things that do not have to be external-linked), is in any position to claim seniority. The "guidelines" you pointed Skywriter to was merely an incorrectly linked page to the Featured Articles, from which one can glean little useful information about editing articles on Wikipedia (indeed, a very small percentage of Wikipedia articles have reached that Featured milestone, and many are merely Good Articles). I wasn't trying to disregard the "facts" per se, but rather the apparent notion that you had not made any changes to those articles in a good deal of time, and it appeared (and is most likely the case) that you followed Skywriter around and reverted her edits on sight. This may or may not be the case, and Skywriter's liberal bias is sometimes innapropriate, but I find she (yes, for the record, Skywriter is a she) often does her best to keep articles neutral, and is genuinely trying to improve the project, in stark contrast to your efforts, which seem to be inserting your beliefs wherever you feel like, and then attacking whomever tries to oppose you. As for the Jack Handy line, I think it might be best if you were to reference it, like you had done with the others. While I personally find your userpage to be quite distasteful, I respect your right to voice your own oppinion, and as it is in your own userspace (and as long as you keep the articles you work on neutral without personally attacking anyone), then I have no problem with it. Do I really need to call in the nanny for this? -Mysekurity 03:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruy Lopez case notification

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez has been merged into the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily case Raul654 17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'd just like to thank you for showing me that everyone on here isn't brainwashed by the far-left and can actually think for themselves. GreatGatsby 20:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey TDC

Thanks for your comments on my wikiuser page and courtesy. I returned to one of my old web blog haunts today and have been posting there,[5] so I am burned out with politics today.

Copyright I disagree with your characterization of how you handled the copyright situation, but I will let it drop, simply because, as you probably noticed with my comments to anon, I am burned out by the whole ordeal. If your alleged "copyright infringements" were simply "youthful indiscretions" as you now assert, then I see no contrdiction in your view on copyright. But again, I am to burned out to investigate every word said over at WSI.

I took anons latest words at face value, so I will take your words at face value too. The irony is, as you know, I don't think any of the "copyright infringements" should be actionable or condemned.

The four conflicts Anyway. I agree with all your comments about all 4 conflicts. Though, I disagree that you are not justifying the actions of Mỹ Lai Massacre and No Gun Ri.

I came up with Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history. Your argument falls firmly in Number 4 Fourth: Focus on the rival’s negative behavior, diverting the argument from the real question at issue. I won't say more than this now, because I am tired.

No Gun Ri

If I recall correctly, your comments about No Gun Ri also use justification and mischarcterization of the conflict, but I won't go into that right now.

Play the definition game

I fear we are going to get into a fight about what "is", is. This is a tactic that you attempted to use at WSI with the word "testimony", and may attempt to use with the word "justify".


Top Ten Dodge List

Tactics to employ if you're in a logical debate and logic has not sided with you (for any number of reasons), and you are nevertheless unwilling to change your argument or opinion:


Number 7

7. Play the definition game. This one is also very popular... "death" doesn't really mean death, it really means "separation from God's grace", didn't you know that? "Kill" doesn't mean kill, it really means "murder", as any fool knows. This tactic is so popular with biblical believers because of the ample protection that is offered from the confusion resulting from having the bible translated into (and from) a jangle of languages, so that every culture comes away with a different interpretation of God's absolute word. Few people know ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, and modern English. Combine this with poetry, parable, and prophecy, and you can pretty much make up whatever you like. How can you lose?

Looks like my response was longer than I expected.

Anyway, I am going to go take a nap and then study for tommorow. Yeah.

Have a great evening TDC. Travb 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no problem with "number four". Wars are not happy-happy joy-joy fun times. War brings out the best and the worst in people. As long as you're not as bad as the enemy, you're set. Should we ignore the Holocaust or Nanking because of Dresden? Hell, Chomsky's whole career is just him going "So? We've done worse!" The problem with the four points in that they were formed from a biased perspective (someone trying to defend Chomsky, and making justifications for him, ironically). I read TDC's lengthy post on your discussion page, and he does not justify My Lai (AT ALL) or Ri. In the first instance, he did discuss the disproportionate attention given to that event as opposed to the VC's atrocities. With Ri he discusses the take he believes is more valid (but I'm sure you'd see your take as the "logical" or "true" set of events). Furthermore, pointing out that the enemy has done worse is not illogical, it's a defense against painting with such a broad brush. What I hate with people like you is you pretend to use logic and reason but DON'T. You voice your own biases and then hide behind a Holy of Holies of reason. But once we lift the veil we see the empty space. GreatGatsby 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
GreatGatsby I will respond on your talk page.Travb 15:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

TDC, you once again deleted an entire contibution of a fellow Wikipedian in What's the Matter with Kansas?. I have notice that you have a bad habit of doing this.

Instead, I rewrote the section to be less POV. I suggest you do the same in the future.

I really hope that someday you could learn to be less destructive, and more creative in your edits.

I know you can learn to be more creative, because I have seen your excellent edits, such as the excellent rewording in Richard Pipes which really made the article a better article and less POV. Is this too much too hope?

As I wrote before which I have criticized both liberals and conservatives equally about, certain wikipedians seem to only want one view in an article. They seem to fear presenting both views, equally. These people seem to have little faith in the average person weighing the information themselves and coming to a rational conclusion based on the facts presented.

With your edits, like many liberals and conservatives here alike, you seem to have no faith in people rationally weighing the facts themselves.

For example, I remember in your edits with Fidel Castro. You deleted reference to his personal life. Somehow, it seemed, you only wanted one side of Castro presented: Castro as a monster. You seem to fear that presenting Castro as a normal human being, more nuainced then your monster caracture, would somehow weaken your argument agains Castro.

I disagree, instead of helping present your POV, you are actually harming the presentation of your POV. Leaving this information in about Castro's personal life only makes the article stronger and with more deepth, it does not take away from Castro's attrocities. And in fact, it actually makes your argument better and stronger, because the article appears more balanced, and less like a biased screed written by a Miami Cuban with an axe to grind.

How does this relate to What's the Matter with Kansas? and your edits? If you would have rewrote the criticisms of Steven Malanga instead of deleting them, not only do you avoid a revert war, the article is better and deeper as a whole, and it makes the criticism section seem stronger, NOT weaker.

If people read only bad things about What's the Matter with Kansas?, they will sense that the article is biased and the person writing it has an agenda to smear Frank, and the credibility of your contribution and the entire article suffers. People will not trust the article, and will go somewhere else to find a more balanced view.

The most important point I want you to remember is:

It is in your best interest to allow criticism and differing views.

I hope someday you will come to this realization.


APOLOGY

I apologize for stating incorrectly and ignorantly that you never created anything, because, as your talk page now clearly shows, you have created many quality articles. I was wrong. Please accept my apology.Travb 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 : A few things. Apology accepted. Although I do contribute frequently some days, I have limited time here, and cannot be expected to rewrite every atrociously written contribution. The problems with criticism sections in general, is that since they are 99.9% opinion, they have to be worded as such, and I think its fair to say that the recent additions to Kansas were not worded well. I don’t care what goes in the article, just so long as its neutrally worded, relevant, and verifiable! That’s also why I created a specific criticism section, to address issues with Franks book, and a separate section gives the reader a clear delineation of fact, Franks opinion and that of his critics. As far as the Castro article goes, article on subjects like Castro have a tendency to stray, unless kept on track. They need meticulous sourcing, to avoid conflicts, and since it is a biography needs to stick as close to biographical issues as possible, not BS allegations from Press Latina that the CIA released dengue fever on the island. Ten Dead Chickens 20:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree with you on the What's the Matter with Kansas? edit. It was poorly worded, you are right, it needs to be sourced too. See the talk page for my concerns, I rewrote the section and the anon reverted it, destroying all of your footnotes too. Maybe a newb?
I always thought your Frank criticism section was top notch, and I complemented you on it here on your talk page before.
I simply don't buy that you dont have enough time to fine tune articles--you have argued this from the beginning with me, including on WSI. It just doesn't ring true, especially since you selectively delete sections which don't match your POV.
You wrote: As far as the Castro article goes, article on subjects like Castro have a tendency to stray, unless kept on track. They need meticulous sourcing, to avoid conflicts, and since it is a biography needs to stick as close to biographical issues as possible, not BS allegations from Press Latina that the CIA released dengue fever on the island.
Agreed, except for the "tendency to stray" comment. Who decides what is a "stray comment"? I was only mentioning your edits about Castro the man (which I disagree with your edits), not anything relating to Dengue fever (which I agree with you has no reason to be in the article).
I think, personally, the info on Castro the man has a solid place in the article, and does not lessen your emphasis on the attrocities of Castro. If it is reliable, why delete it?
Anyway, please help me work on What's the Matter with Kansas?, the anon seems to want a revert war, which I want to avoid.Travb 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protect

How about I just protect the page and everyone can hash it out in the discussion. I have to head out and won't be able to go into it much for about 8 hours so I could try and mediate some then and look things over better.--MONGO 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets see what James does before the article is protected. I just hope he gets the message. Ten Dead Chickens 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I will look at it agin later on tonight and see what I can do.--MONGO 23:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ten Dead Chickens 23:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RfArb

Am I to understand that you seriously wish to forgo a return to the mediation queue, and file an RfArb without exausting mediation? Why? --James S. 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe it will be of any use. Your recent actions have demonstrated to me that when you do not get your way, you are willing to destroy the negotiated settlement that was agreed upon. Talk was active, there was no reason to delete all references to Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium, after all, no one complained when your version was the protected version on the main DU article for 2 weeks. It will take me another 30 minutes or so to finish typing the RfArb entry, you have that long to undo the damage. Ten Dead Chickens 19:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As you recall, mediation produced a compromise settlement, without a mediator even getting involved. I deny that I have destroyed the negotiated settlement; on the contrary, Dr U's edits have. I will demur any arbitration request, moving to return to the mediation queue. --James S. 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Too late, its already posted. Ten Dead Chickens 20:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi TDC, why do you keep removing the statement I appended to my opening remarks? --DV8 2XL 14:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I did not look that closely at it, and thought it was James spamming your comments. Ten Dead Chickens 15:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As I suspected ArbCom is passing the buck to the mediator. So we are going to have to prepare to present our issues there. Hopefully we will get an outcome we can live with this way. --DV8 2XL 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

The mediation is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles, shortcut WP:RFM/DU: I look forward to your contributions. Physchim62 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of joinder

I have joined you to our arbitration request. --James S. 18:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact basis?

What is the factual basis (citation/reference?) for your addition of this: Zinn's belief that the conflict with the Japanese during the Second World War was instigated by the United States is also discounted by most historians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States

Please identify the references that support your claim that Zinn 'believes' or has ever expressed that idea or that "most historians" have taken issue with him over it. Tx.

skywriter 17:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Reference Material?

Hi. Please explain your basis for deleting this reference material from the People's History page?

a possible counter-argument could be that many of the founding fathers were also slave owners, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. For example, Paul Finkelman, legal historian and editor of the 18-volume encyclopedia called Articles on American Slavery established in his book Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson that Jefferson owned more than 500 slaves during his lifetime.

When deleting reference material that represents viewpoints that differ from those you are proffering, it should always be explained/discussed on the article Talk page.

Thanks. skywriter 18:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruy Lopez socks

Probably, maybe another sock check is in order. CJK 01:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi TDC, arguments are underway, please come and join the fray at your earliest convenience. It's vintage James and shouldn't be missed. --DV8 2XL 03:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually James is doing a pretty good job of hanging himself at the moment, some of his Proposed remedies were real howlers. --DV8 2XL 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That's it for me. I can't stomach dealing with a person I would have had thrown out of my plant by security in real-life. These enough there to hang him if ArbCom has any guts, but I suspect he will come out of it with a light slap and I will probably draw a token punishment of some sort too, 'for balance'. Its just not worth it anymore I edit here for fun - and this isn't fun. --DV8 2XL 02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Question

Are you Carol Valentine? Because that would explain alot. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is Carol Valentine? and what does a lot refer to?

By the way, do you have a link or complete citation for that Novak/Evans column you summarized in the Letelier article?

Thanks.

skywriter 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come join the fun!

Take a look at Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents and Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Ryan and csloat do not want wikipedia readers to know about these documents and how they are changing people's minds about the ties between Saddam and Osama. RonCram 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Too busy right now, but soon enough. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Stoll / Peasant land ownership

You added to the David Stoll article that "Vicente Menchú had in fact been quite prosperous.... He had owned a 2,753 hectares parcel of land." Unless this was poisoned waste land it would have made him more than a "quite prosperous" peasant, it would have made him a major upper-class landowner. 2,753 hectares is about 7,000 acres or more than ten square miles. Was this a mistake? 2.753 hectares seems more likely for the plot of a "quite prosperous" peasant. It has since been converted to "27.53 suare km" but I'm going to replace it with something non-specific. Could you perhaps find the time to double check the source? And of course it is possible that the source is wrong. If 2,753 hectares is right, the whole of the article is hard to understand. I know Stoll was arguing they weren't that poor, but landownership on that scale would surely make the conflict referred to one between two landowning factions rather than a peasant revolt. Bhoeble 14:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Scheuer page

Recent edits show a certain editor is practicing censorship. Please take a look and see if you can mediate the situation. RonCram 13:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you were really looking for "mediation," you would ask someone likely to be a neutral force. It's clear from this and your previous note on this page that you're really looking for a partner to beat up on "a certain editor." Oddly, it's over an edit that was discussed months ago. Some things don't change much.--csloat 18:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad Burns

Hello again. I need to find people who are interested in NPOVing articles on American politics. Could you take a look at the article on Sen. Burns? It's obvious that some editors have an axe to grind against him. Thanks. 172 | Talk 07:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Too busy with work now, but with any luck I should be back ti editing in the next week or two. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize that you just violated 3RR on Conrad Burns? My intent was not to provoke you into over-reverting, so I suggest you revert your fourth R. And while I suppose you think I'm out to get Burns (whom I had never heard of until I read about him in Time last week) by loading his article with crap, I do feel these are notable incidents judging by the amount of press coverage they have gotten. Time called him "The Shock Jock" and the Almanac of American Politics refers to these incidents as well. Gamaliel 19:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I only see 3 reverts. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
15:21, 28 April 2006
15:09, 28 April 2006
14:26, 28 April 2006
06:55, 28 April 2006
The times are EST. Gamaliel 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
14:26, 28 April 2006 is not a Revert, but if you feel it is, then post it to the board. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
How is that edit removing the CS section any different from the other three edits removing the CS section? Gamaliel 19:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never been called out on it before, and it does not appear to be a literal violation of the policy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlikely temporary allies?

I would like to ask a favor, sir.

I would like your comments, someone put my article up for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR

A lot of people want to delete this article simply because I added Ronald Reagan to the list. There is a heated debate about Reagan predicting the fall here: Talk:Ronald Reagan#RE: Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR.

I have an unlikely ally with User:Rjensen a hard core conservative, the best conservative debater on wikipedia I have ever gone up agaist...

Please vote, and if this is something important to you, CJK, please ask your conservative friends to vote, thank you. Travb 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no time, mabey later. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
don't worry, thanks anyway. I had a nice chat with your friend CJK. I need to stick up for Reagan more often, it makes me unlikely friends.Travb 09:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] greetings

I'm new here so I thought I'd introduce myself to some of the people here--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Abuses by the FSLN?

Hi. I am a user of the spanish Wiki. The FSLN article in there is extremely biased in favor of the Sandinistas. In the FSLN discussion you say you have researched the human rights abuses by the FSLN, I see that there is an elglish page to that effect but that was not written by you. I am trying to bring some balance to the spanish FSLN page. One problem I have is the the crator of this page is very quick to erase oposing view points and I do not have enough experience using Wiki to know what is the best course of action in this case. Also, can you point me to some sources I can use to back up my claims? Thanks for any assistance you may provide.--R6rome 16:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Feith Article

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Abe Froman 17:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

They are not valid links, as they vilate VP:V guidelines. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That's it, no explanation? You can do better than that. What specific section of WP:V is violated? Abe Froman 18:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Rawstory meets WP:V. From WP:V: "Verifiability, not truth" is its standard. Rawstory's information also has been "published by reputable publishers," because Rawstory's news stories have been carried in the "New York Times, The Guardian, L.A. Weekly, the New York Post, the Toronto Star, The Hill, Roll Call, The Advocate." [6] Furthermore, the passages Rawstory is cited in are introduced as being from Rawstory. Not only is there zero violation of WP:V, but this is a textbook case of how to follow WP:V correctly. Abe Froman 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

This arbitration case has closed. James S. is banned from depleted uranium, placed on probation, and placed on general probation. Those opposing editors who have made personal attacks on James S. are reminded of the policies regarding courtesy and personal attacks. TDC is placed on revert parole. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

Hi,

I am sending this message to editors I know who have done work on articles related to communism.

Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.

Best regards. 172 | Talk 05:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tungsten Tubing

Best bet is to deal with an outfit called Tube Methods. They deal in specialty tubing an have the capablity of fabricating what you need. It you don't have the skills to work with tungsten in-house (and few do) this is probably your best route. Good luck, --DV8 2XL 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello TDC

Hey TDC, long time no talk. I assume you are making the world safe for freedom and democracy as America's spokeperson. I read a exerpt of a book today. I have to write a paper for my international affairs conflict resolution class about America's history of exporting democracy, if it has succeeded, and what policy recommedations would I consider. Since you are a big fan of demonizing Castro (for good reason) and I have never seen you write about any of the US sponsored death sqauds throughout the Cold War, I thought you may be intersted in this, particularly because this author (who will remain nameless) write on Cuba and compares Cuba's human rights record with the rest of our backyard. Please tell me what you think, and I may incorporate some of your ideas in my paper:

It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an to any political office or in connection with any primary election...Title 2, United States Code Amended (USCA),Section 441e(a)

Thus the legal basis, if not the political, for the indignation expressed by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress at revelations that the Chinese may have tried to use covert campaign donations to influence American policy. Washington policymakers, however, have long reserved the unrestrained right to pour large amounts of money into elections of other countries (including those which also prohibit foreign contributions) and taint the electoral system in numerous other ways, as we shall see below. Elections and this thing called democracy.

During the Clinton administration, the sentiment has been proclaimed on so many occasions by the president and other political leaders, and dutifully reiterated by the media, that the thesis: "Cuba is the only non-democracy in the Western Hemisphere" is now nothing short of received wisdom in the United States. Let us examine this thesis carefully for it has a highly interesting implication.

Throughout the period of the Cuban revolution, 1959 to the present, Latin American has witness a terrible parade of human rights violation--systematic, routine torture; legions of "disappeared" people; government-supported death squads picking off selected individuals; massacres en masse of peasants, students and other groups, shot down in cold blood. The worst perpetrators of these acts during all or part of this period have been the military associated paramilitary squads of El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, Haiti and Honduras.

Not even Cuba's worst enemies have charged the Castro government with any of these violations, and if one further considers education and health care--each guaranteed by the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"---"both of which," said President Clinton, "work better [in Cuba] than most other countries," then it would appear that during the more-than-40 years of its revolution, Cuba has enjoyed one of the best human-rights records in all of Latin America.

If, despite this record, the United States can insist that Cuba is the only "non-democracy" in the Western Hemisphere, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that this thing called "democracy", as seen from the White House, may have little or nothing to do with many of our most cherished human rights. Indeed, numerous pronouncements emanating from Washington officialdom over the years make plain that "democracy", at best, or at most, is equated solely with elections and civil liberties. Not even jobs, food and shelter are part of the equation. Thus, a nation with hordes of hungry, homeless, untended sick, barely literate, unemployed and/or tortured people, whose loved ones are being disappeared and/or murdered with state connivance, can be said to be living in a "democracy"-its literal Greek meaning of "rule of the people" implying that this is the kind of life the people actually want-provided that every two years or four years they have the right to go to a designated place and put an X next to the name of one or another individual who promise to relieve their miserable condition, but who will, typically, do virtually nothing of the kind; and provided further that in this society there is at least a certain minimum of freedom--how much being in large measure a function of one's wealth--for one to express one's view about the powers-that-be and the workings of the society, without undue fear of punishment, regardless of whether expressing these views has any influence whatsoever over the way things are.

It is not by chance that the United States has defined democracy in this narrow manner. Throughout the Cold War, the absence of "free and fair" multiparty election and adequate civil liberties were what marked the Soviet foe and its satellites. There nations, however, provided their citizens with a relatively decent standard of living insofar as employment, food, health care, education, etc., without omnipresent Brazilian torture or Guatemalan death squads. At the same time, many of America's Third World allies in the Cold War--members of what Washington liked to refer to as "The Free World"--were human-rights disaster areas, who could boast of little other than the 60 second democracy of the polling booth and a tolerance for dissenting opinion so long as it didn't cut to close to the bone or threaten to turn into a movement.

Naturally, the only way to win Cold War propaganda points with team lineups like these, was to extol your team's brand of virtue and damn the enemy's lack of it, designating the former "democracy" and the latter "totalitarianism."

Thus it is, that Americans are raised to fervently believe that no progress can be made in any society in the absence of elections. They are taught to equate elections with democracy, and democracy with elections. And no matter how cynical they've grown about electoral politics at home, few of them harbor any doubt that the promotion of free and fair elections has long been a basic and sincere tenant of American foreign policy.

In light of this, let us examine the actual historical record....

Travb 20:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, are you going to simply quote William Blum, or do you have an original thought here, because I really had to stop reading after “Cuba has enjoyed one of the best human-rights records in all of Latin America”? I mean, come on now.
Blum analyzes every event in the cold war in a vacuum, and we know much better now. Independent actions were rarely seen during the cold war, the West and the Soviets had their hand in nearly every major and most minor event around the globe. The Soviets advancing an agenda of slavery and the west advancing an agenda of freedom. Think that’s bullshit do ya? Ask yourself where you would rather have grown up: North Korea or South Korea, East German or West Germany; the Philippines or Laos.
Blum uses sources only sympathetic to his POV, and will not acknowledge anything contrary, despite thousands of contradictory sources (i.e there is no good evidence that Libya was behind Pan Am 103 even though they have very publicly taken responsibility for it).
In order for Blum and his kind to advance their argument, they need to portray every event of the Cold War in terms of the US stomping on happy go lucky, peace loving non aligned movements (not like there was ever such a thing) and they have to portray every Soviet action as a reaction to Western aggression. Then, after briefly criticizing the Soviets, they then have to convince us that all the liberties we think we have, all the freedoms we believe we can exercise are just an illusion and we are as much of slaves as any worker on any agricultural commune in the Soviet Sphere. Not an easy task, but I believe this was the main point of “Manufacturing Consent”; i.e. socialism is not bad we have been led to believe it is bad.
So, do you have a specific question here? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I just wanted to field you comments. Which, sad to say, provided no insight at all. But I am glad for the experience, because by posting my comments here, User:Zleitzen provided me with some excellent information here: User:Zleitzen/Cuba is not a democracy issue. You said yourself that you stopped reading after “Cuba has enjoyed one of the best human-rights records in all of Latin America” which shows, once again, that you are not really open to new ideas.
I am not surprised that you quickly found the source of this article--I was expecting it-- as you were so apt at weeding out potential copyright violations.
I argue, as I have argue with the copyright violations and the attack on Ruy, that you are a hypocrite to say:
In order for Blum and his kind to advance their argument, they need to portray every event of the Cold War in terms of the US stomping on happy go lucky, peace loving non aligned movements (not like there was ever such a thing) and they have to portray every Soviet action as a reaction to Western aggression.
I could write the same:
In order for TDC and his kind to advance their argument, they need to portray every event of the Cold War in terms of the USSR stomping on happy go lucky, peace loving non aligned movements (not like there was ever such a thing) and they have to portray every US action as a reaction to Soviet aggression.
Can you see how your statment is exactly the same? Probably not.
I hope that maybe you can refine your argument a little bit without the sweeping rationalizations. Your argument reminds me of naive notions which most Americans, including myself often have:
  • That Africa is a country with extreme poverty and corrupt leaders.
  • That European history is a histroy of wars against each other. etc.
Yes, these simplistic statments are true, just as your statment:
  • they need to portray every event of the Cold War in terms of the USSR stomping on happy go lucky, peace loving non aligned movements (not like there was ever such a thing) and they have to portray every US action as a reaction to Western aggression.
Is true. But by saying such things, they ignore so much, and show that the person, by making broad statments really has no depth of understanding of the issue at all.
And for the record, I AGREE WITH YOU--I do think Blum is just as bad as Chomsky--he does "analyzes every event in the cold war in a vacuum" he does lessen and downplay the inheriet evil of the Soviet systems. I have to take Chomsky and Blum with a grain of salt and exhastively research everything they say. I just did a paper on Colombia, and Chomsky and Stokes (who Chomsky had an introduction in his book) ignore or downplay the entire history of Colombia. Colombia is not a disaster simply because of American agression in Colombia. Yes, American policy in Colombia plays a part, and makes the situation much worse, but by understanding Colombia's history, a person would understand that Colombia would probably be a disaster even without American intervention, and that US intervention is probably less important than Colombia's history for the cause of the violence and chaos. A casual reader who only read Stokes book, would never realize this.
But I argue that like Chomsky and Blum, you are just the same, you downplay and lessen the inheriet evil in the Capatilist system.
Please, please spend as much time reading the passage I sent you as finding the source of the passage. You read about 1/2 of the passage by your own acknoledgement. The author raises some excellent points, which I invite you to explore: i.e. the history of American intervention in the Western Hempisphere. As US Ambassador to Panama Ambler Moss stated in 1980:
What we see in Central America today would not be much different if Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union did not exist.
Why would the ambassador say that? What is Americas human right record in Central America like? What is Americas history and track record of exporting democracy?
The Soviets advancing an agenda of slavery and the west advancing an agenda of freedom. Think that’s bullshit do ya? Ask yourself where you would rather have grown up: North Korea or South Korea, East German or West Germany; the Philippines or Laos.
Sigh, a common, way to common argument:
See The first common technique many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history: Confusing American’s domestic wealth with America’s foreign policy.
I would much rather have grown up in East Germany than Chile after the overthrow of Allende, I would much rather have grown up in Checkoslovakia than in Hondorus in the 1980's, I would much rather have grown up in Romania then in Guatemala. Which revolutionary suppressions were bloodier? American or Soviet? I am not talking about what communists did to their own people--which is horrifying--and should be condemned. I am talking about USSR and US interventions within their sphere of influence. Which was bloodier? You ignore our own Western Iron curtain, just as Blum and Chomsky ignore the attrocities of the Soviet Iron Curtain.
I wanted your comments about the section of the article, not a broad generalization about Blum and his ilk. I could get that anywhere, from any conservative. I was hoping that you would provide some extra insight that I have not thought about before I start writing this paper. Unforunatly, as I figured you probably would do, you seemed to have spent more time researching who wrote what I posted here as what was posted here.
User talk:Zleitzen asked me for a source, and I wrote this to him:
"I have learned that certain people arouse certain feelings, and a person will automatically dismiss the words of this author if they knew who wrote it. For example:
  1. if I said that Capatilism will build the rope that it would hang itself with, if you are like most Americans, you would dismiss this if you knew that Stalin said this.
  2. If I provided an excellent history of the Pinkerton Detective Agengy and you were a conservative and learned that this was from Ward Churchill, you would dimiss it.Churchill, Ward (Spring 2004). "From the Pinkertons to the PATRIOT Act: The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870 to the Present". The New Centennial Review 4 (1): 1-72. 
I want to debate ideas, not personalities, so I will forgoe saying who the author is until we have debated away the ideas."
I am interested in your thoughts about what Blum said, not your broad opinion on who Blum is and what Blum stands for. That is why I did not include his name.


Signed:Travb 01:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Interested in what Blum said, hmm, ok, it’s a bunch of po-mo bullshit. The only way to back a ridiculous claim like “Cuba is a wonderful democracy” he has to, and has, re-defined what the term “democracy” means. Any debate can be won if one redefines the lexicon midstream; i.e. a nation that has homeless and poor could never be as much of a democracy (as Blum describes it) as a nation that guarantees basic needs for all its citizens. Being open minded to new ideas does not mean that you have to give serious weight to complete horseshit. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents while I happen to be here:

Travb and Blum are comparing apples to oranges. The circumstances in Eastern Europe and Latin America are vastly different just like the circumstances of Western Europe and Communist Asia. Saying "I would rather live in Czechoslovakia than Honduras" is like saying "I would rather live in Great Britain than Vietnam". And yeah, the U.S. ambassador said that beacause Fidel and the Soviets really had no bearing on the regimes in Central America (minus Nicaragua). Of course, this discussion is silly once we take into account the fact that Cuba as of TODAY is the only non-democracy and the "death squads" we supposedly supported have ceased to exist. Not like Fidel. He just stays around forever, to the great detriment of the Cuban people. CJK 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not like Fidel. He just stays around forever, to the great detriment of the Cuban people. Well, I am glad we can agree on something :) So much for the temprary alliance, that lasted, oh about a week, wouldn't you say? signedTravb 03:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandinistas

The new section about the 1984 elections in the FSLN article is really awkward. I don't know if you can help NPOV it, for instance adding the source to your Daniel Ortega quote, which is already in the article but near the top, (and some verification if neccessary). Just if you have time. CJK 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

St Louis, (actually West Alton), see above. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDC is a Vandal; I propose (a) Ban and (b) Probation for TDC; see Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency), Barry Seal, Theodore Shackley, Plame affair, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, etc.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. . TDC is engaged in Blanking Vandalism on both these pages, deleting entire sections and archival documents without cause, seemingly because they challenge his political views. He has not responded in any meaningful way on the Talk pages. See discussion and discussion pages. Please note that on 6 May 2006 TDC was placed on revert parole, and "limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year." (The vote was 6-0). On the Felix Rodriguez and Barry Seal pages he has already violated these conditions. Therefore, I suggest that TDC be (a) banned indefinitely from Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency) and Barry Seal, and (b) be placed on Probation and -- as adjudicated in Depleted uranium -- he be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Note that TDC has been repeatedly banned from editing many other articles, e.g.: Winter Soldier, Conrad Burns, Depleted Uranium, Douglas Feith, etc. He has engaged in Wikistalking. He does not make use of the Discussion page to resolve disputes and move articles forward. In short, he regularly violates the spirit of Wikipedia. I suggest keeping an eye on TDC with a possible eye toward general probation. 141.161.48.111 06:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note similar recent Blanking Vandalism by TDC on Porter Goss page. [7]
Tell it to someone who cares. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. Other Admins, please also notice biased behavior by Admin MONGO, three times now jumping in on TDC's behalf when he starts reverts wars with an overt POV bias.
Note similar comlaints about TDC in (a) discussion of Theodore Shackley, (b) in Plame affair (where he used the pseudonym "Ten Dead Chickens"), in (c) Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (where in Archives 4-5+ TDC is commonly referred to as a "troll"), etc. See also complaints about Admin Mongo, who consistently backs up TDC. Please add additional examples of TDC's behavior here. Thank you.

[edit] Thanks for being a voice of Reason on Che

I cannot believe the Commies who want to make Che some sort of folk hero....along with all the angry rich white kids who wear Che t-shirts.

[edit] Eric Wrobbel

The spam you removed from Crystal radio receiver was placed there by User:Ewrobbel who has preferred charges against me at ArbCom for doing the same. Careful or you might get named there too by him ;) --DV8 2XL 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, 3 is my lucky number. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The charges brought against DV8 2XL were NOT for "doing the same." The charges have nothing to do with the link. The charges are for abusive, threatening, and uncivil conduct.--Ewrobbel 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever ... I dont care. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fonseca and KGB

Frankly I think you care very little about Carlos Fonseca, the history of Nicaragua, or the struggle of the Nicaraguan people to liberate themselves from the Somoza dictatorship. Thats the reason i refuse to get into an argument about it. I realize the reason you have been adding information about the KGB to the Fonseca and other entries IS to start arguments. Also, I assume it is part of some lame vendetta in which you and other conservatives find it necessary to attack ANYONE, dead or alive, who doesnt share your twisted values. That game gets old, really fast. Plus, its just childish.

If you would take a look beyond whether or not Fonseca was a KGB member or not (and frankly I dont care either way) you would see the history of the Nicarguan struggle and of similar struggles around the world is a very beautiful and inspiring thing.--Something 19:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course you dont care one way or the other, its just something you say to help you make sense of troubling information. Just because one can hope for a revolution to free a people from tyrany does not mean that the revolutionaries will do so, because as was the case with almost every "revolution" during the 20th century the individuals behind it just replaced one autocratic regime with another, like Nicaragua. Face it, the only revolution to date which has last positive impacts for freedom and liberty tool place in 1776. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny how "the only revolution to date which has last positive impacts for freedom and liberty..." (your words) resulted in a regime that built slavery INTO the newly formed American society. A society which, clearly, was built from the ashes of indigenous societies who saw their people murdered, raped, and enslaved.

I dont think Fonseca, Che, or any other "revolutionary" was/is perfect. I can accept that they were human beings with faults, but who nonetheless struggled in the name of a more just world. Fonseca's membership in the KGB, if he was indeed an agent, is not suprising given the nature of the Cold War. It works both ways - how many US presidents sided with facists like Pinochet? how many engaged in imperial wars to "stop communism"?

Im not interested in engaging in ideological battles here. its boring, time consuming, and neither of us give a shit about changing each others minds, so why bother? --Something 19:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if thats the way you want to sum up the only revolution that gave this world its longest lasting model of democracy, that tells me more about you than anything else you could write. What is bad about America and its history is not unique to the American experiment: slavery, warfare against "indigenous" (didn't the FSLN try that one with the Miskitos by the way), yada yada yada; every society on earth both ancient and contemporary had these things, but none of them could replicate the success of the United States in both providing the most free, most diverse, and most prosperious society man has ever seen.
Far from bieng minorly flawed, Che and the rest of his merry brigade were just as ruthless just and autocratic and just as murderous as anything they replaced; in short they were no better than the alternative. Except that the alternative has shown a track record of improving over time through internal changes, something "revolutionary" societies have yet to demonstrate. As I asked another contributor before, where would have rather grown up: West Germany or East Germany, South Korea or North Korea, Hong Kong or the PRC? Each of the latter had truly "revolutionary" movements overtake headed by real "revolutionaries". I am sure that what Pinochet did, he also did beleiving it was neccesary to prevent Chile from sliding into communims, after all it looks like Allende was also on the KGB's bankroll. But Pinochet did reliquish his authority and returned Chile to its prior state of a democratic country, you think Castro ever would?
The Cold War was a bitch, but I am glad we won. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV removal?

I am mystified how you see the reversion of my previous edit (my edit diff:[8]) on Cuban Five as POV removal, as your reversion reinstates a number of factual inaccuracies. Please state your reasons. Jens Nielsen 14:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism and Communism

User:Zeq is attempting to recreate the POV fork Fascism and Communism that was redirected to Anti-Communism some years ago. You might want to take a look and intervene. Love & Hope 09:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

You removed the adjective "honorably" from the description of Pete Seeger's war service, saying, in your edit summary, that "honorably" was POV. Surely honorably can be applied to any GI who received an honorable discharge? Do you have reason to believe that Seeger's discharge was an other than honorable discharge? -- Geo Swan 12:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personaly. I think people like Seeger are nothing but tools, and would have just as soon turned thier guns on thier fellow countrymen if thats what his overlords in Moscow told him to do. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watch out

User:PatCheng is on a rampage of summary reverts again, hitting articles it appears you have been working on too. See: Cuban Five. 72.65.77.79 02:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit hamstrung by my recent Arbcom hearing, but I can sit back and smile knowing that if Mr Cheng was behaving this way where he comes from, as opposed to evil AmeriKKKa, he would be in the gobi desert sewing together Nikes.

[edit] Ted Kennedy

Aren't you on revert parole? Gamaliel 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So block me for a day, you know I am. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you really want to get blocked? What's the point of this? Gamaliel 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, have it your way. Gamaliel 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well sourced, well documented articles

I just happened upon a comment of yours from a few months ago.

The article is far from a lynching, it is a well sourced, well documented encyclopedia article. We could only hope that every user was as much of a stickler for writing a good article as Nobs was.

Granted, I regret what happened with Nobs, though I was not active during the period where he was banned for whatever he was banned for, but I must interject that I did a great deal of the writing and compilation for this particular article, before the POV forking and all the rest, while Nobs did the leg work in gathering all the sources. Notice who uploaded the pictures? I also put a not insignificant amount of effort into No Gun Ri way back when, which is now under assault as you are aware. I regret that I have not had much time for such work at the moment, particularly with my PRC troubles. --TJive 07:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to treat you like a fat broad back there, but "Chip" kept yammering on about hat a tool Nobs was. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Paul Robeson article! Anything else you find or know that can help would be very appreciated.--JohnFlaherty 15:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo War

If you have the time, your help would be greatly appreciated by cleaning up the Kosovo War article. CJK 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt even know where to begin. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. Neither do I. Can I just get your take on whether or not the article has POV issues, then? I think so but I might be over-reacting. CJK 20:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Its Wikipedia, every artilce has POV issues LOL!. I will take a look, but I really dont know too much about it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein

Hi, I've reverted your changes to his name. Please see Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I saw your comment on my archive page (I moved it to talk so nobody gets confused on what is what). Can you activate an email address, at least for a moment? Thanks. --TJive 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I should have one active. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you have the ability to receive email turned off. I get an error. If that's not the case you could send an email to me and I will respond to it, and you verify it here. Thanks. --TJive 02:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Already did. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you get my email? --TJive 03:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I received an email but I'm being super-cautious and awaiting the response to my own. I looked through my archives and discovered an old email from you with a different address, so I can't be too careful. --TJive 12:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I got it, I have alot of spam accounts. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)