User talk:JonDePlume

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Espionage Act of 1917[edit]

RE: "During the Cold War, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan stated that the Act helped to create a national "culture of secrecy"." Did Moynihan make this statement during the Cold War, or did he say that the Act had certain effects during the Cold War? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this phrase was used in the 103rd United States Congress, which would place it between 1993 and 1995, then later in his book Secrecy: The American Experience, which was published in December 1999. The book deplores the excessive use of security by the federal government, and cites examples of how excessive secrecy is used to justify hawkish policies and prevent their examination by the general public. Moynihan was very anti-Soviet, but came to mistrust the Reagan administration over its "Red Scare" style Latin American policies. Because I'm not 100% sure of the dates, and because some might say that Latin American policies extend beyond the limits of the Cold War, I've re-written this section so that it just reflects the Senator's overall misgivings with how information ends up being classified as "secret". JonDePlume (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Just FYI, wikipedia uses 1991 as the end of the Cold War. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback -- greatly appreciated! JonDePlume (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello!

Thank you for contributions. I have realized that you have edited a Star Wars related article. If you wish there is a Star Wars WikiProject which you can join and help us edit Wikipedia’s Star Wars articles. Wikipedia also has the following Star Wars related projects:

If you have any questions just ask at the Star Wars WikiProject.

Again, Thank you for your help! − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Zehe[edit]

I've added an entry for Alfred Zehe. I wish I had a citation that explicitly stated that he was charged under the Espionage Act instead of just "charged as a spy." Perhaps you have something. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link to the decision that does this explicitly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the link from the Espionage to Zehe. I moved it. Zehe is now mentioned in the article. It's not a "See also". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Manning[edit]

Jon, I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Please note I've tagged the article WP:RECENT. With that tag in mind, I hope editors can resist the temptation to add/repeat sensational repeats of headline grabbing politicians who themselves as nothing to the debate. Indeed, their remarks are not much better than the vandalism we've seen lately.--S. Rich (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Bradley Manning appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Specifically, Supermax analogy. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manning and my Talk page[edit]

Hey, Jon, I'm sure you duplicated your comments on my Talk page (in addition to the Manning Talk page) with the best of intentions, probably to make sure I understand what was going on, but it was unnecessary. We can keep our discussion on the Manning Talk page. As I'm sure you'll see, I've commented there. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Manning discussion page[edit]

Hi, would you have a look at B. Manning discussion page ? Trente7cinq (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for having replied . If I were to choose just one point to be discussed , it would be this one : "To be perfectly clear : the article SHOULD mention that the chatlogs were just published in excerpts (25% of them according to Wired). That point engages the neutrality of the WHOLE article".I really can't understand why such a simple thing can't be done !!!! It is ABC ! What do you think about that ?Trente7cinq (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inappropriate if the article took on the flavor of advocacy for Bradley Manning, or a lampoon of the case being made against him; Wikipedia's guidelines are very clear on this. However, I think it's perfectly fine to mention that the context & authenticity of the chat logs has been called into question by Manning's friends and prominent public advocates (e.g.: David House, Glenn Greenwald, etc.) -- assuming you accompany that with decent citations. JonDePlume (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utility templates and uncategorized templates[edit]

Hi Jon, as you've recently been creating pages in category:Utility templates, you might have some idea what use the parent category is, in which case please help out at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 17#Category:Uncategorized redirect templates. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Utility templates[edit]

Category:Utility templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited December 25, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tamuz and 0 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple[edit]

Because we should avoid placing undue emphasis on an extremist minority veiwpoint. (And as a heterosexual cisgender married Christian man, I utterly and with deep loathing reject the pretense of the so-called MRA to speak for me or other decent men like me; "misogyny" is an extremely polite word for what they stand for.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]