User talk:172

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17

---

No complex project can be expected to yield satisfactory results without a clear vision of what the goal is – and here I mean what a worthy internet encyclopedia actually looks like – and a plan to reach that goal, which will include a careful inventory of the needed skills and knowledge and some meaningful measures of progress. That vision of the goal must do something that Wikipedia and Wikipedians steadfastly decline to do today, and that is to consider seriously the user, the reader. What is the user meant to take away from the experience of consulting a Wikipedia article? The most candid defenders of the encyclopedia today confess that it cannot be trusted to impart correct information but can serve as a starting-point for research. By this they seem to mean that it supplies some links and some useful search terms to plug into Google. This is not much. It is a great shame that some excellent work – and there is some – is rendered suspect both by the ideologically required openness of the process and by association with much distinctly not excellent work that is accorded equal standing by that same ideology. One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined. And another is that talent, whether for soccer or for exposition, is not equally distributed across the population, while a robust confidence is one's own views apparently is. If there is a systemic bias in Wikipedia, it is to have ignored so far these inescapable facts. Robert McHenry taken from User talk:Adam Carr Full article

---

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, 172! Thanks for not leaving Wikipedia! . --Irpen

Happy New Year, my friend. --Neutrality^talk 07:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

Greetings 172, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, 172. I was unaware of that case but had strongh suspicions about Neto's behaviour already. Now that I am aware of it I will make sure the arbcom ruling is enforced. (I have blocked him for breaching the one-revert-per-article-per-day ruling.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hey 172, could I have your input on a dispute I am having with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters on List of Dictators? Lulu wants to imply that Cuba has had multi-party elections since 1976 just because Elections in Cuba says so[1]. However, checking the page history shows that relevant information was removed the other day by a pro-Castro vandal. I restored it, but Lulu refuses to give up and is accusing me of, what I believe is, a frivolous 3RR violation while ignoring my comments on talk and elsewhere (but having enough time to complain about my "rantings"[2]. A response would be appreciated. CJK 19:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I've opened a WP:RFA against Netoholic for two threats he made against me on my talk page and his. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Military history of the Soviet Union

I think you are more qualified than myself in deciding whether this deletion of the phrase needs to be addressed since it was you, who wrote it. I just get extra alert when pieces are deleted from FA's. Cheers, --Irpen 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, if this seems acceptable to you, I will leave it as it is. Thanks, --Irpen 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

possible request for comment

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will do, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

please consider this[4] Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

COTW

Would you be willing to support my nominee for WP:COTW. The article is Invasion which is an important term for military knowledge. The current article however isn't at the same standard as the term is in modern and historic warfare though. If you'll be willing to support, I'll be greatful. Thanks RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 00:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again!

I've just read through the topic "cold war" in your discussion list, which seem to be about a guy who uses several nicknames and IPs. But you probably remember that it's me who wrote the "extra" on the cold war article, and I can assure of that I am not in to that sort of stuff; this time - it wasn't him...

PS! Have you seen my comment on your complaint of my article? PPS! I now got my own account...

V.V.

time to put and end to comandante

I copied what I wrote to here. I've never written an RFC before so hopefully you can help me with it. Thanks--Antispammer 01:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Hi, many thanks for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. - FrancisTyers 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comandante RFC

I would be glad to contribute. Yet...

Yet, there simply has to be a better way of getting him banned. RFCs do nothing alone. It will simply lie there for days until someone takes it to ArbCom. then if the case is accepted it will sit there for months as the ArbCom takes agonizingly long amounts of time to examine evidence, propose decisions, and vote. Then when we might get a sufficient verdict, it leaves the possibility that Comandante will keep inventing new accounts. Meanwhile, countless numbers of articles will be vandalized to the inconvenience of all.

RFCs are supposed to be launched against semi-respectable people who can make a case. Comandante will not, and he is barely above the status as vandal. Take a look as this. [5] As of now, out of 720 edits, Comandante has made fifteen to talk pages since April 25, 2004, three only recently and under threat.

We are simply playing into his hands right now as he will delay and delay as long as possible. Thus, a faster means, such as reporting him in as a vandal or something else, is urgently needed. CJK 02:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Related to Fidel Castro, so I'm hopping in. I'm not saying you don't have valid points on talk, but I'm tired of it. I spent a solid day on vandalism patrol, and came across this article the same way. In spite of all that, please don't edit/strike others comments. I yelled at Ed when he did the same thing ages ago. Bitch. Moan. Report me. Rail against the prick I'm being, but please don't edit my comments. I've just reached my limit on Fidel Wikibofh_(talk) 03:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefuly, the article dosen't further degenrate into a propaganda vehicle for the Miami millionaires who wish to become the dictators of Cuba once more. El_C 03:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikibofh, this ^^^ is the type of shit you have just opened the doors to.--Antispammer 03:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean, 172? El_C 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't brought up the issue that there is no discussion in the article of the following:

Amongst the wedding presents received was a substantial gift (US$500) from Batista, who by then was both a retired President and dictator with the rank of former general in the Cuban army.

Just struck me as ironic. *sigh* Wikibofh_(talk) 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • At least we're bitching on 172's talk page instead of in article space. In the immortal words of Dennis Miller, we're going to "pick a hole". Wikibofh_(talk) 03:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, when I do this they're happy, but otherwise, "shit" and other expeltives are the order of the day. Ignoring sources, and so on. El_C 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's just because you have it in for "Ben Z". You're in the anti "Ben Z" cabal. Nice of you to finally admit it. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that addressed to me? If so, I don't know what that is. El_C 03:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it was addressed to you.  :) Look at your diff. It shows you reverting out the sentence "Ben Z. is the best."  :) Note the liberal use of smileys on this sentence. :) Wikibofh_(talk) 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Maybe he is the best, one never truly knows. Erm, I'll try to be less bitter for the moment being. ;) El_C 03:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Dennis Miller is okay, but Bill Hicks is the "shit"! El_C 03:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Taken under advisement. I will try to see if I can find some of his stuff. I'm also partial to Lewis Black and meaningless conversations on 172's page.  :) BTW: The Miller quote is a partial portion of this. I use it for indicating when decisive action is more important than what the action is. Wikibofh_(talk) 04:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm... did you think of alerting Comandante about his RfC? I didn't really see any mention of it to him. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

hopefully it sent this time

--Antispammer 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello 172. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin

On the Joeseph Stalin article, someone wants to distance Stalin from the purges [6] along with some other stuff I don't have a serious problem with (mostly). Since I don't have much knowledge of the Great Purge, perhaps you can say whether or not this is called for? CJK 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev

Please take a look. It seems there that the raging russophobia of some is the only reason of the attempts to derail the candidacy of one of the most worthy people for the job. That's of course just my opinion but I appreciate your taking a look. --Irpen 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Vote

Hi 172,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor

I read your statement at talk and saw your edits. It is an extremely difficult article. I see your point though. Some friendly criticism of politicizing of Holodomor may be found at John-Paul Himka, "War Criminality: A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora", from Significance of the Second World War for establishing of state symbols and collective cultural memory in Central-Eastern Europe, International conference, Lviv, 2003 (also available online at Spaces of Identity, Vol. 5, pp. 9-24, ISSN 1496-6778).

OTOH, Andrew Alexander edits this article from a very attached and personal POV while he tries to bring in much factual information at the same time. I kind of gave up on that article for now. With Mikka's loosing his heart in general, I would more than welcome if you join this discussion from the Western academic perspective. If you have time for that, I will try to return to the article too. Regards, --Irpen 04:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). You put a great effort into it, it was me who mixed up everything. Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby

The request for arbitration concerning this user has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#KDRGibby. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I now have a few extra tabs at the top of my Wikipedia pages. Thanks for your comments on my RfA. One needs critics as well as friends, but better still, one needs a critical friend. To that end, if I come across a sticky situation, I hope you will not mind if I ask your advice; and if you see me do something questionable, I would appreciate your letting me know. Banno 08:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, 172! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

MAUP etc.

Since this is not directly related to the article any more, let me respond here. As for Ukraine, I'm confident that you are very much aware of how complex the situation is in the country. Similarly to Russia, the way of conducting historic research is still much biased by how it's been done in the past. And I'm sure that you know that history as a discipline in the Soviet Union was very different to the Western standards. It can take years to change it, but the first changes are already happening. Still, one has to remember that the Orange Revolution happened just a year ago, and nobody knows what the coming parliamentary elections will bring. As I think I said before, level of nationalisms is often unpleasantly high in the countries that won their independence recently. Ukraine is not an exception here. Then there's a push towards market economy, which could also mean promoting private institutions, including education. Finally, the government administration also takes years to change its habits. All these and more make the MAUP problem not as straightforward as it might seem. this however should not eclipse the fact that there are more and more talented young historians in the Ukraine without neither strong Soviet nor nationalistic bias and we should keep our fingers crossed for their progress. If you have not done it before I would recommend reading the Kulchytsky's article, which puts things in a quite true perspective. And no, I'm not a leading scholar in my country and I'm not a Ukrainian either. --_Lysy^talk 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to jump in. This is mostly to respond to Lysy. His statement about the level of nationalism in Ukraine being "unpleasantly high" shows how little the writer is familiar with the particular issue. Yes, the UA nationalism is as aggressive as any nationalism but it is not at all high in Ukraine. Nationalist ideology is on the fringe there and the results of the recent presidential election, if anything else, shows it very well. The politician with proven track record and without any significant allegations (Yushchenko) won only with a rather small margin over a convicted criminal (Yanukovych) only because Yushchenko's opponents manage to paint him a Ukrainian nationalist (largely unjustly). This was enough to significantly weaken his campaign to a degree when his victory was measured in single digits only and had the pro-Kuchma block picked someone else instead of a candidate with two criminal convictions, the former prime-minister (Yushchenko) who actually paid off the pensions debts the state owed to retirees, salaries to teachers and doctors and filled the state coffers by clamping down on the economic crime would have lost the election. This, if anything, shows that it is rather unpopular in Ukrain to be a nationalist.

Here, at en-wiki a very small percentage of Ukrainian editors subscribe to the nationalist ideas, which usually come together with fervent Russophobia. Andrew Alexander is rather atypical in this respect and there are only a handful of others in Wikipedia with similar views.

As for the "traditionalist bias", as 172 also said, the place to fight it is not an encyclopedia, which summarizes the scholarly work but the scholarly works themselves.

Finally, I would like to thank the editors with an extensive academic background in history for taking on this article. This includes both of you. Regards, --Irpen 07:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I did restore Holodomor. May I ask you to help with this article? So far a large part of the debate there was among Ukrainian nationalists and Stalin apologists and what the article needs really are people with a good professional background in history and free of ideological agendas, just like yourself. I consider myself also free from ideological agendas but history and politics is rather a hobby of mine since my professional background is science and engineering.

I was unpleasantly surprised to see Ultramarine to roam into the article. I've seen that fellow before as well as his arbitration. The guy is a huge pain in the neck.

Finally, I would like to add to what I wrote to you earlier about the situation in Ukraine. People in the west tend to get a wrong impression when reports about MAUP surface here. The truth is that MAUP within Ukraine itself is in total obscurity and gets to public attention only when the reports like the one you referred to make its way to the media. No one in Ukraine ever hear about MAUP no matter how much clout it boasts at its web-site, that is until they get involved in another scandal. Similarly, there was or may still be an ultranationalist member of parliament named Tiahnybok. His only clam to fame was the outrage from his statements like "Ukraine for Ukrainians" and that "1917 Revolution was a Russo-Jewish conspiracy". This received much more attention from the media that a little notice announcement that he was expelled from the parliamentary faction by Yushchenko[7], a faction leader at that time. --Irpen 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent news came out and a short analysis that the influence of radical xenophobes in Ukrainian politics should not be overestimated. Also see [8]. While the Ukrainian nationalism within Ukraine itself is rather on the fringe, the judophobia is on the fringe even within this nationalism itself. Days were all evils were considered to come from Jews and Poles are long over in Ukraine and those nationalists who have to hate someone, are happy to hate Russia and the Russians as you can easily see in Wikipedia too. Similarly, among the Polish editors it is more unusual to see much criticism of Ukraine now even on controversial UA-PL issues. Russophobia is much more in fashion among all extremists in the Eastern Europe than hatred towards any other ethnic group or country. --Irpen 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of communism

Hi! I've been working on a rewrite of that article, including material from Ultramarine as well as from my own research, over at User:Nikodemos/sandbox, but also offline. The only thing I've got left to rewrite is the economic development section (my sandbox is lagging behind my actual progress). I should be finished with it by tomorrow or the day after. So as to avoid creating parallel versions again, might I ask you to hold off any major edits until you see my rewrite? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to vote here. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

          I originally wrote an addition to describe the popular conception of Communism.

That perception is that Communism is necessarily the same as totalitarianism, which is not what all of its advocates or Marx or Lenin advocated. User:Astroceltica

Cold War

What's going on? If this turns into an edit-war I have to remove the AID-nomination. I am getting the impression there is some sockpuppeteering involved and also, there is no dispute over content, just calling each other vandals. For example, what is wrong with the content of the statement about Korea you keep removing?--Fenice 07:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Korean peninsula remains a hotspot. The states of North Korea and South Korea (and her allies) also technically remain at war because although a truce is in effect, no formal peace treaty was ever signed. As a result, tension still remains high on the Korean peninsula, especially since North Korea announced its acquisition of nuclear weapons.

According to the talk page you are only disputing the positioning of this addition. It appeared strange to me that you removed it completely because it is so much a part of common knowledge that I think it does not even need a footnote. (Inline citations are badly needed in this article.) I am sure you are unnerved by constantly having to explain the same thing until you get around to rewriting it. Still it is on the AID now and attracting even more attention. I am getting the impression that you are dealing with a new user who simply has a very essayistic style and makes additions to a text that is already to long. That is not what is typically happening on the AID typically. The text needs changes in structure and contents, not more text. This should be discussed first, I'll start a section on the talk page of Cold War.--Fenice 08:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right.Daanschr 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference: your message about AID Cold war. I will surely try to give some inputs. Regards. --Bhadani 14:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Che13.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Che13.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 09:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin

He was directly responsible for starting and enforcing waves of executions, which killed hundreds of thousands, and deportations to labor camps and labor colonies where approximately one million died from 1934-1954.

If I read this correctly, Stalin is being said to have been responsible for a vague range of 1.2-2 million deaths (not counting famine). These are not the only numbers floating around and you know this. So why are you reverting to this version? --TJive 11:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the sentence quoted above. In the context of the paragraph in which it was inserted, my understanding of the reading was not that Stalin was said to have been responsible for a "vague range of 1.2-2 million deaths" over the course of his rule. Instead, the sentence to me read as if it were referring specifically to deaths in the Gulag resulting from the Great Purges, not the famine. In the future please take concerns like the above to the relevant talk pages, not user talk pages. 172 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR

(posted to 172 and Ultramarine). Please be very careful of the 3RR on Holodomor. I'd hate to have to block either of you. -- Pakaran 07:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching the time windows, which indeed is quite a sad practice. By the way, the talk page is illuminating. Notice that the edits in question have been thoroughly discussed for a week and now all of a sudden Ultramarine is jumping in without saying a word on talk. What does one do with an editor whose idea of building consensus is forcing other editors to play games with the 3RR? 172 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-bullying petition

fyi: Silverback decided he didn't want to remove his comments about you (that he added to his signature on the anti-bullying petition), so I removed his signature entirely, along with your comments about it. If you need the diff it's here: [9] --Ben 09:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's your user page, so it's your prerogative. Still, thanks for trying to be even-handed. 172 09:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

User:Simonides seems to have broken 3RR. Should we report him? --Ghirla | talk 12:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor

I am a review debate, but except 100К your flud I do not see the constructive offers. Not it is necessary to delete coordinated versions. I have only returned source coordinated version. --Yakudza 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Woo, self-flagellation, yeah, that feels gooood! *ahem* I wish I could help, but I'm already caught up in some major pet projects on the wiki (now that I finished my overhaul of Criticisms of communism, for example, I need to defend it), as well as a bunch of real-life stuff. If the dispute isn't resolved any time soon, though (which it probably won't be), I'm sure I can come in to help eventually. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi, thought you might take a look at the discussion. 84.59.102.68 14:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

I don't have enough expertise to assess these edits. Perhaps you do. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 14:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just inquiring, are you intending to post evidence? We just need one last bit in order to make the thing complete. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RCU

I believe the guys at WP:RCU could be interested in comparing this with this. P.S. You may want to archive this page, as it takes quite some time to download. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rummel

Hi, Just saw your vote on why rummel is always right. I get very confused by this I've closely read the article and I have failed to see any strong POV in there. It seems to me like a possibly too technical description of the research happened by various authors in the field, with lots of the technical discussion of the terms as I would expect in an academic field.

Could you explain what is POV about it? --Salix alba (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, Happy new year.

I don't know if it would interest you but there is a vote to delete a template called Defban which is used to deal with vandals who post defamation on the site. Splash doesn't seem to grasp that it is not a breach of no legal threats but a template created after consultation with arbcom members to protect WP from defamation postings and to make sure those posting such stuff know they are leaving themselves legally at risk of being sued. I'd be interested to hear your opinion. It is on WP:TFD. Merci, FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for defending the truth

thak you, for sticking up for real Amercians, as few of us as there are on wikipedia

Kronstadt Uprising

Can you take a look at the recent additions? They may need NPOVing. --Ghirla | talk 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Inauguration12.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Inauguration12.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Arb.

Hi, "abe," I'm sure you remember me? (it's been a while I know)...anyway I noticed the arb-com reopened your case, and if you need a character witness or any sort of help feel free to email me (I'm going to send you my personal email address)

Also, I'd vote to re-syosp you, despite our past differences, because I feel you are a wonderful contributor to the project. --Plato 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Input on category

Hi 172: I don't necessarily want to draw you into yet another one of those endlessly hard to maintain articles :-). But I'm curious for your input on a rather narrow issue. Basically, I've taken on the informal job of keeping the article Ward Churchill sane... i.e. not letting it turn into an editorial copied from Bill O'Reilly, condemning Churchill in the most POV terms possible. Far more work than it should be, as you can probably guess. Refactoring part of the material (to conform with WP:SIZE, firstly) into Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) helped some.

Anyway, that's just background, here's the narrow question. Churchill has a somewhat ambivalent relationship to Marxism. I added Category:Marxists to the article a while back (but notably not Category:Marxist theorists). Another editor took it out, but then indicated on the talk page that s/he was not aware of Churchill's sympathetic, but not uncritical, books addressing Marxism. That stuff is on the talk page. I don't think the category inclusion is obviously correct, but I also don't think it's obviously incorrect. To my thinking, it's more a question of providing a useful category to browse thinkers in a related tradition.

Well... basically, I'd just like your input on whether the category tag should be in the article. You can comment in the section on Talk:Ward Churchill that discusses this. I don't want to add it back myself, and I'm not sure how you might opine. But if you feel inclusion is useful, I'd value your opinion (and let you add it)... or likewise, I'd value your opinion that inclusion is wrong. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

Yup. Its that time again, another msg from me about a controversy. :-) Another dispute is on which might be of interest to you. You probably have heard of the US periodical, The Nation. It is one of a number of publications that exist or have existed using that name. However some US Wikipedians have decreed that all other publications of that name must be shunted off to a disam page with the US publication given sole custody of The Nation page, even though neither it nor any other publication with that name is international nor widely known outside each state's border. The confusion this causes can be seen in the fact that people making entries to the Thailand newspaper, the British magazine, the famous 19th century Irish paper, etc usually end up innocently creating links to the US periodical page on The Nation rather than the obscure disamb page (which is only found by a link at the top of the US article). It is blatently wrong.

The dispute is at Talk:The Nation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

DPT

I noticed that you were active as an editor for DPT in the past, and well I would like to request your help. It seems that the use of Rummell's research has been abused and is the primary source for the article. Any opposing viewpoint that has been interjected seems to be reverted off. I am afraid that this article has strayed from its original intent. I am requesting help due to the fact that I have some experience with DPT, however I am a beginning grad student and I am afraid that I might be ill equipped to tackle this alone. If you are not interestd in reengaging in this "conflict" any ideas on countering the prevaling Rummell arguments? I know that he's not really accepted in academia, but I can't find any way to prove this... -- Scaife 09:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember User:Paektu?

I remember you interacted with him a few times. Tell me, why did Paektu suddenly quit Wikipedia on 7-25-2003? The Block Logs showed nothing. And was he really from Pyongyang? I saw on a "Wikipedians in Korea" page a long time ago that he was from Pyongyang. If so, how do you know. I hope to hear from you soon. --Shultz 18:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, No. Don't worry. I'm telling you about another damned vote. lol. You should however take a look at the opening of George W. Bush for a laugh, specifically the opening paragraph. I've been trying to produce a reasonable encyclopaedic opening paragraph but one user knows so little about how to write an opening section that he insists on putting nonsense about Bush's period as a sports manager into the opening paragraph (!!!) while demoting the date when Bush leaves office down a couple of paragraphs. It is a garbled mess that would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. Jeez. Do they teach these people how to write in schools anymore? Or how to assess the importance of information? If people in my university submitted essays with that standard of writing the essay would be returned to them with the instruction "rewrite it properly this time." Sometimes the low standards on Wikipedia give me the creeps. OK. That's my rant for the night over. Time to go to bed I suppose. Take care. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Frog won!

Dijxtra 21:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD vote

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples) since you voted on the deletion of the same text under a different article name. Septentrionalis 18:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Nixongoldwindow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nixongoldwindow.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:DRPK_Kim_Il_Sung_and_Kim_Jong_Il.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DRPK_Kim_Il_Sung_and_Kim_Jong_Il.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ho Chi Minh.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ho Chi Minh.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

AID

-Litefantastic 17:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, and this talk page is 114 kilobytes long. I suggest another archive.

Dubai Ports World controversy

I did not realize the Bush administration scandals category had previously been added and removed. I can see how this is iffy, as it represents more of a PR blunder than a "scandal", although there certainly appears to have been lax attention paid to some rather obvious concerns that could be raised. I will not dispute your editorial judgment, but I think it could easily go either way. Cheers! BD2412 T 07:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

KGB in Nicaragua

Citing a book called The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World (by Christopher Andrew & Vasili Mitrokhin), TDC has added [10] the following assertions, among others, to the Sandinista article:

During the following three years the KGB handpicked several dozen Sandinistas training in Honduras and Costa Rica for intelligence and sabotage operation in the United States. In 1966 this KGB controlled Sandinistan sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the US/Mexican border. Their primary targets were southern NORAD facilities the oil pipeline running from El Paso Texas to Costa Mesa California. A support group, codenamed SATURN, passed as migrant farm workers to conceal themselves and smuggle in arms caches.

and

Sandinista defector Álvaro Baldizón alleged that Cuban influence in Nicaragua's Interior Ministry (MINT) was more extensive than was widely believed at the time and Cuban "advice" and "observations" were treated as though they were orders

He also inserted this unattributed POV:

In contrast to the Cuban revolution, the Sandinista government practiced political pluralism throughout its time in power although this was primaraily to appeases its external critics.

Since I don't have a copy of the above-mentioned book at hand, I can't verify this material. Do you know whether such allegations of KGB influence have been corroborated and adopted in other secondary sources? I hope you can lend a hand sorting this out. saludos cordiales, Viajero | Talk 13:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to drop you a note 172. Care to look over the edits? If you have an Amazon.com account, you can do a book search and a content search in the book if you do not have a copy or cannot find one at the library. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Lukashenko

I didn't see that your edit related to material further down in the article. I just saw parts of the first paragraph being deleted. I have no objections to the Christian Science Monitor, but it is a very bad idea no the make any references to Luka's dictatorical regime in the first paragraph. It is not accusations; it is extremely well documented, and it is the most important part of his regime. Several of my friends have just been deported from Belarus because Lukashenko wants no foreign observers to witness the rigging of the current presidential election, and Lukashenko has threatened to "wring their necks" to anyone protesting against his election. In Belarus peaceful protestors are now treated with anti-terrorism laws! That country is simply a banana republic without bananas. That fact should not be hidden. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There are references to the dictatorial regime in the first paragraph. The second sentence states, "his opponents, at home and abroad, accuse him of being dictatorial." I share your political point of view on Belarus. That being said, we have to avoid the temptation of advocacy, as Wikipedia's editorial position is supposed to be neutral. 172 | Talk 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of your edits to this page is of very good quality but I strongly disagree with you regarding the top paragraph. I've replied on my talk page. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversions reversions everywhere

Hey there,

In an attempt to expand the pages on the Belarus revolutions, I keep running into your reversions. Although I realise that some may not seem notable (such as the students), you should assume some good faith as to where this is going. I was busy making a summary of different actions elsewhere using the jeans. Just knee-jerk reverting a minute later just halts the growth of the article rather than helping it.

Furthermore, I'd like to point your attention to this particular reversion. First let me say I find your edit summary unnecessarily demeaning. It is not "POV speculation", it just something which you think shouldnt go in. Please, dont throw around heavy terms as easily as that. The paragraph was inserted because this will be the main reason why people would look up Belarus at this time, and it deserves a prominent place. I strongly disagree with your removal of it, and even more strongly to the manner in which you have done so.

Greets, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We agree with each other for the larger part. Whether the protests will be succesful remains to be seen (although when citing dwindling numbers, perhaps you would also like to cite the many reports of night-time disappearances of protesters? [11]). Nonetheless, that they have become relevant is not speculation, Belarus is/was in fact in the grip of that crisis, and that information is worth inserting in the article. The fact that you think it shouldnt go in does not mean it was POV. It wasnt. I resent the suggestion that the information was entered to further some sort of agenda. Like I said, dont throw heavy terms like that around this easily.

Secondly, if you think the word 'crisis' is too much, change it! Of course I know your version can be changed, but if you revert the whole paragraph because you find one word to be a bit overdone, then there is not much left for me to change except put it back in, is there?

We both just want to enrich the encyclopedia with information on the topic. If you think information is out of place, put it into place. If you think it is badly formulated, then formulate it better. We should be editing constructively together, rather than just reverting each others work.

Greets, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Business Plot

I meant Richard, not Robert. At any rate, a more respectful tone toward User:Rjensen is in order here, given his professional expertise on the period. 172 | Talk 14:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your right 172, thank you for pointing this out. I will be more civil to Rjesen in the future.

I think respect is very important in building wikipeida. I would appreciate you showing me respect in-kind, as a good will gesture. Please refrain from getting involved in the middle of an edit war, based solely on your opinion of one of the editors. Please move my edits to the Business Plot page, instead of deleting them on your talk page.[12]

I appreciate your hard work. Have a great day. If there is anything I can do for you, please dont hestitate to ask.Travb 15:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

CIS = the organisation of 11 former Soviet Union states

Why do you keep removing "the organisation of 11 former Soviet Union states" from the Belorusian election article? I think that CIS and even the name are not so well known (it used to be in mid 1990s, but it is not anymore). I am not discounting CIS's observation I only explain what CIS is. If organisation from Texas observerd election on Florida when Bush was elected and considered the election fair I would have to add that this organisation was from Bush's home state as the organisation might be potentialy biased (but does not have to be but any reader must be careful). But anyway, I do not writing "CIS is biased" (although I think it) but instead CIS is group of 11 former Soviet union states. It is fact not my POV. --Jan Smolik 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bush analogy has me puzzled. I'm not a believer in Bush family conspiracy theories, although I've never voted for any of them. There's nothing wrong with an organization based in Texas observing an election in Florida (my home state, btw) featuring a member of the Bush family on the ballot, if it has a good reputation... Regarding the CIS, there's little need to get bogged down in the details surrounding the organization in articles related the Belarus election. This is a wiki. If readers are unfamiliar with the CIS, they can click on the hyperlink and read the article on the Commonwealth of Independent States. 172 | Talk 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To the Bush analogy. First "if it has a good reputation" is the important part here. Reader must know on the first sight that the organization has or has not a good reputation. If that hypothetical organization from Texas has thirty years of experience with observing election it is a good source. But we must state this. Second I will always more trust to the neutral observers rather than home observers (so UN or OSCE to observers from Texas). Anyway maybe it was not that good analogy. As for inclusion of short CIS description (not details). I believe that reader must be able to understand the lead without clicking to sublinks. I am afraid that Commonwealth of ... might get misinterpretated as British commonwealth. Especialy for non native speakers who know this word only in this context. When first reading that name I thoutht it was British commonwealth. For me observers from British Commonwealth would be more trustable than observers from CIS. So actually this would be misinformation for me if I thought it was British commonwealth. --Jan Smolik 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I will always more trust to the neutral observers rather than home observers. I think that the issue has more to do with institutions than locale. Technically Belarus is a member of both the OSCE and CIS. The difference, according to officials with the OSCE's monitoring unit, is that the OSCE's methodology is more rigorous than the CIS's. I think that they are clearly correct. (BTW, a good article was published by Radio Free Europe on the topic. [13]) The nationality of the observers does not matter per se if the organization has the resources needed to be effective, if it's transparent, and if it's professional. If the CIS were a more effective inter-governmental organization, in theory it could one day play a more effective role in monitoring elections in member states... Regarding the articles in question, I don't think we need to go in detail on the debate over the varying standards of the respective monitoring units of the two organizations. That topic is more complex than one would expect at first glance, and thus best covered in the articles that one can access by clicking the hyperlinks to the related articles. 172 | Talk 19:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Of course you are right. But on the other hand country of origin will have impact on persons definion of "free expression". This differ in the US, Czech Republic (my country) and Russia (maybe this is a key to the Bush analogy -- which is not a good one on a second thought. Anyway I still have a concern about confussion of Commonwealth of Independent States and British Commonwealth (as I confused it in the first reading). --Jan Smolik 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

glad to see you back

Just stopped by to say that. Hopefully, you will have at least some to for E. European topics. --Irpen 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Hello. I noticed you were a historian, and I thought it might be beneficial to have your input on a topic that you may be more knowledgable with compared to the general public. The current discussion can be found here. The main points of contention arise with edits such as this, and this. There is also a question of the relevance of the Leo Frank incident. This whole issue is important because it is spilling into other articles, such as the History of the United States (1918–1945) article with edits such as this, which describes the KKK as "The second KKK was a social organization active in all states in the 1920s. It demanded enforcement of prohibition and attacked sin, sexuality and foreign influences. It crashed when its own scandals revealed the hollowness of its efforts to purify society.". I am hoping you are either knowledgeable enough on the topic to comment on the issues or have access to good sources which speak on the topic. Thank you in advance. - Dozenist talk 05:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Just so you know, when you want to redirect a page (when you want something to a "see such and such") instead of keeping two articles the syntax #REDIRECT [[page name here]] is the accepted syntax. You got the bot auto warning because the redirect didn't match the pattern, I know its good faith and I've fixed it for you. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a message :) -- Tawker 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC) -- Tawker 17:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually you fixed it first and I just used my template :) -- Tawker 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Cold War box

I see your rationale for removing the box. However, I would still like to restore the image that I made on the Cold War section. How's that? -- Regards, Clevelander 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Privatization

Let's work together on this. I understand you are trying to enforce Arbcom, but this is not a case for deletion of material. Its a perfectly good edit. If you want to rework the material, lets do it with HK in good faith. --Northmeister 00:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded HK's entry to address your concerns. I am interested in your comments. Thanks. --Northmeister 01:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

Hey, can we talk about the revisions you want to make at Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Intro (and 172's additions)? Thanks, Rory096 01:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubai Ports World controversy redux

The category "George W. Bush administration scandals" has been deprecated in favor of Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. Would you object to including this new category in the DPW article? Seems fairly, ahem, noncontroversial to refer to it as a controversy (as opposed to a scandal). Cheers! BD2412 T 20:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Synarchism

Hi 172, I've left a note on User talk:Herschelkrustofsky about his edits to Synarchism. [14] Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Herschel got User:BirdsOfFire to revert to his version at Synarchism, and a user check confirmed they both edit from within the same two IP ranges, so HK has been blocked for three days and BirdsOfFire indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Herschelkrustofsky. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Herschelkrustofsky made it seem as if you might be looking for three admins to agree. If you think this is a case which meets the criteria, then perhaps we should propose a remedy and see how many admins we can get to agree to it. -Will Beback 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year."[15]

I think that's a fairly standard probation provision. I'm not quite sure how "the opinion of any three administrators" is determined. The probation page gives some details. It's actually a bit cumbersome. Probably the way to start is to add a subsection to the existing HK section on AN/I, with a proposed enforcement along with a place for admins to endorse it. As far as I can tell, he has been editing disruptively on several pages recently. We can propose that, for a specified period, he either be generally banned or be banned from editing specified subject areas. Since the LaRouche topics are so scattered a general ban may be more apporpriate. Though bans of up to a year are authorized, a much shorter period may be appropriate. -Will Beback 05:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice on arbitration

I'd like to talk to you privately about some arb-related issues, but your wiki-email is not working. Could you email me back? It's not extremly urgent, but from users I know and respect, you are the most involved with arb.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, another matter I'd ask you to look into: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Molobo_..._again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Endorphin buzz

I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate the countless hours of work you've put into helping to improve the project. Thank you.

I'd give you a barnstar, but I always feel awkward about that. DS 21:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User:195.229.241.187's request

This particular user sent me an email saying that he was banned for linkspamming. He pleads ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, and would like to continue as an editor. Is there any scope? (and btw, I think its time for you to archive this discussion page, lol!) --Andy123(talk) 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! --Andy123(talk) 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

thank you, 172

for the the civilized discussion and your kind words Bublick439 19:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Stalin

Note that PACE held Soviet union leaders responsible for at least 20 million, and only Holodomor probably killed more people than Holocaust. And many authors regard stalin as primary man behind WW2, not to mention that most well-informed authors now regard him as at least one of the primary men responsible for the outbreak of war. Thus, if we are to attribute dead bodies of WW2 to hitler, one should attribute those to stalin as well.--Constanz - Talk 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

and the traditional argument that Hitler's alliance with Japan provided incentives for Japanese aggression in the Pacific -- but Stalin's alliance with hitler from august 23 1939 on? the outbreak of war was a direct consequence of the pact. And Stalin's support (oil, raw materials) for Germany 1939/40 that helped germany to survive allied blockade? --Constanz - Talk 08:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

From Chancemill

Thank you :) Great to see veterans like you still doing a great job around here! Chancemill 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Tens of Millions

Bublick439 has deleted the phrase from the intro. Would you please honor our compromise, and put it back into the article? Drogo Underburrow 11:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your name

Is your name the same code the american police uses for murder, death, kill reports?

And if so, did you get it from there?

Just want to know ;)

(Deng 12:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Not that I know of. I choose the number based on an IP address. 172 | Talk 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh sorry the number is 187, so sorry to disturb you

187 would have been a nice name :D

(Deng 14:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Cuba

I think the statement that Cuba is the only state in the Americas which is not a democracy is correct - Chavez has not yet succeeded in making himself a dictator, and Haiti has just held reasonably free elections and is at least making an effort. However I am not prepared to have a big fight with the fidelistas over that phrase. But I am willing to take them on over the history, government and politics sections, which were a total disgrace before I began to edit this article, and still are to some extent. Where do you stand on this? Are you willing to take on the fidelistas and have a big edit war to clean this article up? Adam 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Congress and Wikipedia

You may be interested in discussing things in Talk:Norm Coleman#Section on Wikipedia. — TheKMan^talk 03:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Marx and anti-Semitism

Please keep an eye on this [16] as it plays out, and make such interventions as you feel appropriate, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you now look at the bottom third of this section Zur Judenfrage) anon. user 85 has laid out three options for revising it - could you review and comment on them? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

No problem. I've been trying to get away from some of the Cuba stuff, but seeing "some believe Cuba is the best democracy" made me unable to resist temptation. CJK 20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba mediation

Hi 172 -- can you please give me a firm yes or no as to whether or not you wish to participate in the mediation? Let me know either here, on my talk page, or on the Cuba article discussion page. Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Thanks for your input - you're a good person - sometimes i wonder why i put up with people like that - been abused in email too. PMA 19:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean coming from me it means a lot? PMA 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• blushes* thanks - that's really nice of you. PMA 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a really good person - do you have MSN or Yahoo Messenger? PMA 10:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

I think you nominated the Saddam Hussein as a Featured Article a couple of years ago. I just read it cold and found it to be a terrific article. I've placed a Peer Review tag on the Talk page and would like your feedback about givng it another go as a Featured Article. Cheers! — J M Rice 11:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember nominating it. But what I remember and what I did are increasingly two different matters as I age. I'll try to take a look. Regards 172 | Talk 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Lenin

Look at the bottom - i tried to call the Marxists for their behaviour and i got attacked. PMA 17:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry it's just depressing - i try to do the right thing against both right and left extremists - even Adam says i mean well - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999

PMA, I am sorry if I said that you didn't mean well. I recognize that you have good intentions. BruceHallman 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

---

For what its worth this is what one of my accusers left on another Lenin editors talk page - hardly someone committed to NPOV i think: Looks like the right wing army is again descending on the Lenin article. Help a brotha out, Solid! Kozlovesred 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Adam said he couldn't get involved - but obvious ideologs like Kozlovesred should be dealt with - shouldn't they? PMA 18:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Could you do it for me please my friend - you could explain it better than i could. PMA 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Look at their latest bleat - i dont think i can dent their armour of Marxism and ignorance. PMA 13:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Carr

Will do the best i can my friend. PMA 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

expertise question

I noticed your mention of academics in the Carr RFC. Is there a list somewhere of professors or otherwise qualified experts in various fields? Such a list might be a useful way to harness the expertise here, so amateurs could have ready access to professional advice. I myself am a professor of economics, though I tend not to edit in that area because it feels like more teaching. I'd be glad to answer questions though; acting as sort of a reference desk. Right now, I know of only perhaps 15 frequent editors with advanced degrees, though I suspect there are at least several hundred.

Anyway, if you do know of a list of qualified experts, I'd add my name (under my real name if necessary). If you don't know of one, what are your thoughts on the utility of one? Derex 19:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I put together a short list from my own knowledge, and some help from Google. If you care to, feel free to add to it. Derex 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your opinion

I would appreciate your opinion User talk:172 in re to:User_talk:Travb#Jew I have a lot of questions, which maybe you can answer.Travb 22:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page:

The template does not belong in the article. Wolfowitz is notable as a U.S. and now World Bank policymaker, not as a major figure in Jewish history. The fact that he is a Jew is only relevant in the part of the article discussing his personal background (e.g., the part of the article that mentions the fact that his father was a Polish Jew who fled from persecution in Europe). 172 | Talk 22:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a big deal? I don't care one way or another whether Wolfowitz's religion is in the article. I am just confused why this is a big deal, the underlying reason why some Jews don't want Wolfowitz's religion listed in the article?

In contrast, I used to be mormon and the mormons are always actively making lists of who is mormon. They are very proud of Mitt Romney (Republican Governor of Vermont who has Statewide universal health care) for example.

Why are those of the Jewish faith different? Why do Jews downplay their religion? I am honesty perplexed.

Also I asked why some Jewish authors seem to downplay other genocides. Is this your observation, or is this incorrect and ignorant on my part?Travb 22:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your intuitive and thoughful comments.Travb 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba again

I reverted like you had and then they tried again. I am tired of ideleogs from both stripes - i've protected the Cuba page to allow a truce betweeen the two sides and discussion but this will be probably be my last involvement - i am taking others advice of the past and plan to concentrate on non-controversial topics and maybe i might end up a Missing Wikipedian. For what its worth my chronic health problems have flared up again so if the below attempt to censure me or do an RfC works can you arrange a defence team? take care my friend. PMA 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=49975036

I believe your "sock puppet" is most likely this guy, 172 [17] who has just registered after requests from PMA. Can you remove your additional comments please? --Zleitzen 01:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Have just done so. PMA 02:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thomas M. Davis

Hey there. I was wondering if you might take a look at Thomas M. Davis (particularly Talk:Thomas M. Davis). Lemme know what you think? -- Sholom 14:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your well wishes - it's rough having to live with and the discomfort when it flares up prevents me from being at the computer as much as id like. PMA 21:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Could you email me please? PMA 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Weird users

Where is this Chico whatever guy coming from? [18]. And is NWOG the Mystork guy? [19] This is all very confusing. CJK 22:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Marty Meehan

I totally agree with you on the Marty Meehan situation. I wouldn't be shocked if some of those members who insist on keeping it in are in the KKK. 75.3.4.54 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Davis page

Thank you for looking at the Davis page. I was hoping to keep more information on voting history, especially b/c the page as I found it made statements that he "supports federal workers" and was responsible for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and increasing DC autonomy, and I saw no support for that. In response, another user added some some support, and as such it is important to include other information as balance to that where another position exists. I have no objection to removal or editing of unsupported, untrue, or even unnecessary information. However, in the editing, what is left now seems again unsupported and unbalanced. I wanted the benefit of what is clearly your extensive experience.

For example, the mention of the Contract with America is removed on the grounds that Davis was not in Congress at the time. Few of the CONTRACT signers were in Congress. It was a platform for candidates for the Congressional seat and it included a pledge to support term limits not to exceed 12 years. According to Issues2000.org, "Tom Davis signed the Contract with America." That included the pledge. I see DTfromDC said it is a pledge "that Davis signed as a political stunt" so no mention is necessary. I disagree that before it's mentioned we must read Davis's mind on whether it was a stunt or not. It is worthy of mention when he continues to run, especially when he conducts an interview on additional long-term political aspirations.

Also the discussion of the Committee is relevant. With almost no changes in composition, the Committee under Davis has gone from issuing thousands of subpeonas yearly to 3 in six years.

I am interested in your response. Acham 05:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• When you found it, it didn't say he "supports federal workers", rather it said, "His positions are generally favorable for federal workers, even if they are opposed to general GOP sentiment, enabling him to win a high degree of popularity in his district."
• It didn'st say "was responsible for the WW Bridge", it said he "secured Federal funding for the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge" (he certainly played a large part, including sponsoring legislation)
• As for the Contract with America, I have nothing to do with those edits, but one must draw a distinction between those who support terms limits with those who promised that they themselves would serve no longer than 12 years -- if you want to be accurate.
• FWIW, I am using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_M._Davis&oldid=45739235 as a reference to "how you found this".

--Sholom 14:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

'Communist state' has been moved to 'Communist Party state'

Hello 172,

The 'Communist state' has been moved to 'Communist Party state' by a new user, without discussion. They seem to have also manually moved the talk page [20]. I think it should be moved back, but I don't know how to revert a page move. I'm asking you because we've productively discussed that article before, so I know you are interested. I'm happy if you tell me what to do, point me to a help page, or do it yourself, whichever is most convenient. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations and article stuffing by User:Dhwani1989

Please help. This user appears to be a sock or political operative. A review of Dhwani1989's edits makes clear a pattern of CopyVio issues. See User:Dhwani1989 talk page history - deleting warnings left and right. what can be done? Merecat 20:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheism

I know that you have only this much time, but EE topics, as always, would benefit from your attention. While the wars at Holodomor article largely subsided, and I couldn't get to next stage of the work on the article, there is another article that could greatly benefit from the attention of a Political scientist. Prometheism, as of now, just reeks with POV IMO. If you have time and interest to get involved, please by all means. --Irpen 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you are too busy for this article, so no problem. But do you know by any chance of anyone who can clean it up from POV and megallomania. I would have tried but I am not a political scientist by profession. The subject is too specific for an amateur. Sorry of you feel pressured. That's not my intention in any way. --Irpen 05:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will contact them. Happy Victory Day (coming). It is really big where I come from. Cheers, --Irpen 06:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Amazing ideas! And I thought of myself as a liberal leaning in politics :). --Irpen 06:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade arbitration

Hi, 172. A request for arbitration has been posted. Best, Bishonen | talk 09:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC).

Hey, 172,

How are things? You might want to look at Reza Pahlavi II. It really is a most appallingly shoddy article, but is being defended by a coterie of Iranian monarchists who think the hagiographic tone is acceptable. Even the name, given that he is not a reigning monarch, is questionable. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

your voted needed

Please go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference) Merecat 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

*** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to be a mess. I'm voted to relist it, and it appears that Cyde agrees. His main concern was vote-stacking by Merecat, and he may well have a point... Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the question is (or one of the questions is): is merely calling attention, without soliciting a vote, "vote stacking". I have no idea, and I've tried to follow the arguments . . . can you elighten me? -- Sholom 16:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mao

I'd appreciate your input on Talk:Mao Zedong. I'm arguing with a guy who says Mao was alive in the last quarter of the 20th Century. CJK 22:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah

i'm just editting hip hop now, lol. i don't know, i may get back into political stuff if i feel like it (although that ban's probably still on)

i basically got into rap from my roommate, i know i'm probably gonna be listening to other stuff when i'm older, but for now it's the genre i'm into. kinda weird considering i used to be into classic/alt rock type stuff. i just hope i enjoy it for a while and it isn't just a little musical phase i go through.

mostly into it for the beats, through some MCs can rhyme impressively well too. but in terms of lyrical content -- nothin' really deep in hip hop, and the groups that do try to get deep or political i usually just think are pretentious. but as long as the beat's good or the rapper's nice at puttin' words together, i'm good. Dr. Trey 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

I won't be editing for the next two weeks while I go to conferences in Europe, so you will have to do the necessary at Cuba and related articles while I am away. Ambi is a tough-minded and helpful admin if things get sticky. Venceremos, Adam 00:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite, but as per my last arbitration, I am hesitant to become overly involved in an article which is currently the subject of an ongoing edit war. If there are any specific sub articles you think I could be of use on though, by all means let me know. I would be more than glad to help. Later. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re ration cards - I have. Curious as to whether you or Adam have ever actually lived in one of the Soviet paradises? Bridesmill 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what your parents have to do with this, or your or Bruce's American citizenship. Bridesmill 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Question/Lenin

do you think it's possible to get people like Solidusspriggan and Kozlovesred banned/suspended for what they have done to the Lenin page? PMA 15:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look

I don't know much about the subject matter you mentioned, but I'll have a look. I spend a disproportionate amount of time on articles related to the events of 9/11/01 dealing with the conspiracy theories there, so I have a fairly full plate...thanks for the invite.--MONGO 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about the block El C mentioned, but I will discuss it with Brad. Danny 13:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sgrayban

He's been making renewed legal threats as recently as this morning, so I've re-blocked him on that basis. Ambi 00:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Academic skills

Hi mate. Your academic skills are called for. You might want to take a look at Institute for Historical Review. The IHR is a deeply repulsive holocaust denial extreme-right wing organisation. However a group of users on the page regard it as acceptable to adopt a J'accuse tone rather than use NPOV. Instead of writing what the IHR says it is, and what its critics like the Anti-defamation League, they want to write criticism as fact. They don't seem to understand that that writing style is not encyclopaedic and fails NPOV. A few of us have been trying to point out that writing the article that way lets IHR off the hook by letting dismiss the article as hostile propaganda. As a skilled writer with plenty of WP experience and as a historian your observations would be invaluable. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

Hi, I have reverted a deletion that User:Kauffner made to the Hussein article, but I did add a "fact" tag to the end of Saddam_Hussein#1991-2003. Do you have any sources for that paragraph (which I believe, by the way). User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that link should suffice. For me, anyway, Kauffner seems bent on arguing. I asked him to take his comments to the Talk page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Think it works now

Just need the proper sequence John wesley 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DengMitterrand.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DengMitterrand.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Socialism rewrite

Nice work. Cadr 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I liked this distinction, and also thanks for finding the Britannica quote. --Uncle Ed 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

I am taking all the Cuba articles off my watchlist. I am very pissed off at getting no support against the commies, so I will leave these articles to go down the toilet like so many other communism-related articles. Wikipedia will have to deal with this problem of communist infestation in the long-run but I can't solve it on my own. I have better things to do. Adam 11:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

172 and Rebecca, thanks for your messages, which I appreciate. I think I will nevertheless take a break from the Cuba articles, since they are taking too much of my time and I don't feel like further aggro just now. The articles Cuba, Elections in Cuba, Human rights in Cuba and Cuban legislative election, 2003 all need vigilance, apart from the specific issue of the stupid "election results" tables at the last-named of these. BruceHallman is a simple-minded communist and/or fool who ought to be banned. Zleitzen is a bit more sophisticated but just as bad in practice. On the other hand the fanatical anti-comm Cuban editors like El Jigue are well-intentioned but not very helpful. Have fun. Adam 07:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Varela Project

I'm sorry to see we've lost Adam on this battle. Bruce Hallman is going beyond his earlier borders to infuse the Varela Project article with Communist propaganda. -- FRCP11 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Rummel is always Right (again)

This article has been recreated in a different format. You discussed the deletion of a previous version; please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies; it may be that this version is less POV. Septentrionalis 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has inserted it into Democratic peace theory. Septentrionalis 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And the "Possible" article was speedied, and is now on WP:DRV. Septentrionalis 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

and is relisted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2.

Jimbo's new pals

Despite his love for Ayn Rand, denunciation of Marxist.org's encyclopedia, nasty e-mails to Secretlondon etc., perhaps I was wrong about Jimbo. It seems he is consorting with a new cast of characters nowadays.

Case in point, here is Jimbo hanging out with Tron Øgrim:

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilde:Jimbo_i_Bergen_-_03.jpg

I guess this picture isn't as funny to someone who isn't familiar with Norwegian Maoist politics circa late 60s/early 70s. Tron Øgrim is a former CC member of Norway's Worker's Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). Here's Tron (on the left, naturally) with another one of his old friends in the 1960s:

http://www.artemisia.no/gfx/mao2.jpg

Tron went to Cambodia and hung out with Pol Pot and some of the Communist Party of Kampuchea ("Khmer Rouge") in 1978, although I don't have any pictures of Tron at that time ( just his AKP pals http://www.baksiden.net/bilder/paalsteiganogpolpot.jpg ).

-- Ruy Lopez 04:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

reversions

Say 172, I generally agree with your reverts when they are made and their rationale, but when you revert saying some things would be better off in other articles, would it be better if you moved the appropriate parts yourself as you see fit? I generally think "revert to revision" should be used less often, and any modifications should used more of the edit field for specific deletions or modifications, (perhaps with two windows to copy and paste the old parts), and it also saves collateral damage for good improvements made. But that's just my philosophy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!)

Marxist Infestation

i've blocked two of the unreconstructed Marxists who were "controlling" the Lenin and Soviet Union page on Wikipedia - probably get in trouble for it but i believe my stand is totally justified - something has to be done about the communist infestation at some articles. PMA 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Uderstood - beware of them and their mates creating sockpuppets. PMA 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kozlovesred - the Moment of Truth has arrived. PMA 05:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: WP:NLT might have to be used. PMA 06:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

His emails over the last hour are getting nuttier and nuttier thats why i think he might do a Scott soon. PMA 06:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's your email? PMA 06:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I added you to Yahoo Messenger if you want to talk to me there. PMA 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fascism and Communism"

User:Zeq is trying to recreate Fascism and Communism which was redirected to Anti-Communism over a year ago after a long discussion. Can you weigh in on this?Love & Hope 09:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Block's been pulled :(

Geni pulled the block :( it's a bad mistake - at this point i am severely tempted to walk away from Wiki - not much point in staying if people like Kozlovesred can get away with things so easily. PMA 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kozlovesred

---

i notice Zleitzen helped defeat us - the same Zleitzen who has caused so much trouble and supported the politically motivated RfC against Adam Carr. PMA 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Look at Geni's reply to you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kozlovesred - i think i'm pretty much done here unless this can be fixed. PMA 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

"Get away with things? I doubt that. There are two of you at least. You could file an RFC if his behavior doesn't improve sharpish. Then of course there is WP:RFAR for removal if it comes to that.Geni 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)"

Chavez

172, would you mind registering your comments on the talk page before reverting edits? Many editors have worked so hard towards consensus and improving the article, POV (about the "coup") has been raised several times, and reverting edits without taking them to the talk page might not be helpful towards good faith and consensus in the long run. TIA, Sandy 03:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Chavez

Thank-you. It would be very helpful if you could help out with some copy-editing. Also, do you think you could fix the "Notes" section? It only goes up to 60, while there are acutally 84(?) notes in the article. We also need to find a way to make the inline tags for the references distinct from the inline tags for the notes. Not only do they look the same, but they all end up linking to the "Notes" section. -- WGee 17:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I have to admit I don't really know how to fix the Notes section myself. I'll do my best though, and try not to muck anything up ;). -- WGee 17:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the "Notes" section, it seems. And apparantly there's nothing wrong with the "References" section. It simply uses Harvard referencing rather than inline numbered tags, something which I'm not used to on Wikipedia. -- WGee 17:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, everything's fine. -- WGee 17:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How does one restore the small, bronze featured article star? -- WGee 18:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

I have just read through your edits on Saddam Hussein. To be honest, I'm a little confused. At times you deleted information that was extraneous leaving the article much more readable. In other places, your deletions appear to be almost pure vandalism seemingly deleting any information that is anti-American or that speaks of Saddam's ruthlessness and his support for terrorism. At the very least, the article needs to have a link to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, which is another article that could use some cleaning up. At any rate, I would love to hear your reasoning for deleting the section on Saddam's support for terrorism. Do really believe this topic does not deserve its own section? RonCram 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice that the existing structure of the article is mostly chronological, not topical. His support for terrorism should be detailed in a concise manner, as this is only tdhe general bio article on Saddam Hussein, throughout the article in relevant sections, depending on the chronology. Thus, a specific section on "support for terrorism" is not helpful. 172 | Talk 22:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Saddam's support for terrorism and the belief he may provide WMDs to terrorists is the reason the U.S. invaded. Saddam's support for terrorism came after the Gulf War of 1991 (Saddam never felt the first Gulf War had ended) so we do have a chronological timeframe that fits. The fact of Saddam's support for terrorism has been (and is being) debated which raises the level of interest for readers and means more detail is essential, not less. RonCram 11:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, leave it alone. The only reason you are putting this information here is because you have consistently failed to bias the proper article in favor of your conspiracy theory. That article is quite comprehensive in terms of coverage of this issue. There is no need to duplicate this information on the Saddam Hussein biography page. This is especially true of your attempt to present a one-sided version of the issue by cherry-picking non-notable media quotes from 1998 and ignoring the conclusions of every major investigative body on the issue between 1998-2006.--csloat 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, your stalking is getting egregious. Can I not even have a conversation with someone without you butting in? RonCram 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

I know you have intervened on this matter before, so perhaps you can have some input. The latest insertion is that Castro has been premier since 1959. I believe that is correct, but am not sure. Is it, and do you feel that is adequate in context to an introduction? --TJive 15:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Chavez upgrades

I'm sorry I haven't been able to more thoroughly upgrade the Hugo Chavez article as of late, but, as I explained to Sandy, I cannot let Wikipedia take precedence over my exams. However, there's a good chance I'll be able to contribute more on the weekend. I am also somewhat hesitant to make any further bold edits in light of recent belittling and discriminatory comments by Sandy [21], Caracas [22], and TJive [23] regarding secondary school students. While I dearly respect the academically distinguished, such comments are directly opposed to Wikipedia's founding principle of universal editing rights and only serve to alienate an entire population of Wikipedians. -- WGee 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. You made the right move in restoring the main page version. Exams also come before all else. Good luck on your exams. 172 | Talk 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, my objection is being mischaracterized. I did not object to what you call "bold" editing. I objected to not a single talk page reference or discussion of the revert beforehand, in the interest of consensus building and not alienating valuable editors (which did, in fact, seem to happen). I don't know why you consider it discriminatory or belitting to call your abilities "incredible", but I'm sorry if my comments did not come across correctly. I'm much older than you, did college-grad school-career, yet (as anyone can tell), I don't have your writing ability, so I compliment you. I hope you will consider Caracas1830's reaction in context: when six months' worth of work is reverted with no prior warning, it is actually fortunate that only one editor reacted strongly, and that edit and revert wars haven't ensued. We are both concerned about "alienating an entire population of Wikipedians", and as you may recall, the conversations ensued when you appeared to do that. [24] Please don't take it personally. Good luck with the exams! Sandy 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Are your comments addressed to WGee or me? I assume WGee. I was in undergrad in the mid-to-late '60s. 172 | Talk 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, 172, with all the complex review of references and multiple windows open, I may have lost track of whose user page I was on. My response was to WGee: I hope he will not be discouraged by one bad reaction to a major revert. Sandy 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you both for the good wishes... I don't take the comments personally; I just believe they are not in the best interest of community and disregard the positive contributions of youths. Based on my interpretation your comments took on somewhat of a sarcastic tone. But if my interpretation is flawed, you can nullify the pertaining remarks. -- WGee 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. Addressed to both of you: here's where I stand. You architected the revert with no consensus, in the procees, alienating several editors who could help in the reconstruction. This leaves a few editors to do a boatload of work. Three of you (WGee, 172, Flanker) comprise consensus to work on the Dec. 10 version (and I grant you that only based on the comments on Enano's talk page, even though he hasn't responded on the article talk page, and based on WGee's statements that he will help in the work as soon as his exams are over). My concern is that the three of you honestly intend to do the work, recognizing that I've been editing and correcting Flanker's English for a month now (no criticism, just a statement of fact: my written Spanish is nothing to write home about either, and I don't mind doing this work). I have started a ToDO list of work needed. I haven't tagged the article, but as it stands, it is outdated and POV. The work done so far by Flanker wasn't acceptable, since simply deleting references is never optimum. To try to maintain good will, I will begin by doing the work of going through all of his reverted edits, updating those that didn't involve deleted references or changed content. If you two leave me alone to the enormous task of tackling the To Do list, I will lash you with a wet noodle :-)) and do the same thing you've done: act against consensus for the good of the article. I'm expecting you both will help in the reconstruction of the article as soon as time allows. I am a very new editor to Wiki, not to mention that my prose is tortured on a good day. I don't write well, and there is much I still don't know about Wikipedia. If you two leave me along with the ToDo list, the article will need to be tagged again. Regards, Sandy 13:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries: I'll help out (in the last week of June I reckon). And thanks for the ToDo list, btw. -- WGee 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nixon-Brezhnev.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Nixon-Brezhnev.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thuresson 18:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

Despite my earlier post, I do recognize your ability. I would like you to take a look at a rewrite I did on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The older version was very POV and treated the non-official view as though it was held by believer's in the Flat Earth Society. Former Democrat Senator and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey has been convinced by recently translated documents that Saddam and al-Qaeda did work together. This proves the non-official view is tenable and deserves some respect. The rewrite attempts to do that while recognizing the official view is still held by the majority in the Intelligence Community. I also believe the rewrite greatly improves readability.RonCram 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the April 8, 2001 entry on the timeline is horrible. Unfortunately, I only attempted to rewrite the narrative before the timeline (which was almost equally horrible). I chose to accept the suggestion of csloat to move the timeline to a separate page. Now that I have done so, csloat does not want to move the timeline. Sometimes I think he gets great joy from being difficult. In rewriting the narrative, I had three goals: 1. to improve the NPOV so that the non-official version (the one Bob Kerrey just switched to) is seen as a tenable, if minority, position. 2. to improve readability so there is continuity and the article does not appear to be arguing with itself. 3. to discuss the issue of Saddam's possible involvement with 9/11 separately because it is an extreme minority view but has important historical interest (since Mylroie's book was influential in the thinking of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz).

Image copyright problem with Image:SaddamandCuellar.jpg.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:SaddamandCuellar.jpg.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

More Castro

I'd like a professional opinion on the latest controversy in the Castro saga. CJK 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page spamming

Please do not spam talk pages of other editors. Spamming in this case is defined as the addition of the same text to multiple user talk pages in a short amount of time. If you have concerns about an article, please discuss it on the article's talk page, the talk page of the editor(s) involved, or if it may require an administrator's intervention, leave a note on the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks, Naconkantari 03:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your note on my page is surprising. I was contacting only a relatively small group of users for a specific set of reasons, not "spamming." I was contacting only the following: (1) users who have established solid reputations in the community for long-time, quality contibutions to articles on history and politics (2) long-time users who know me well and whom I know, giving me an idea that they may be interested in the subject (3) users who are currently active (4) and finally users I have contacted in the past regarding similar requests who tend to respond to my talk page posts. Again, I was not "spamming" anyone but seeking feedback from some of Wikipedia's top editors; this is a prime example of the kind of peer editing process on which Wikipedia is based. 172 | Talk 03:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The only notices I have seen left by 172 were civil, non-confrontational, and seemed to be made in good faith. It appears to me that he is not self-promoting, but rather seeking additional opinions from other editors who miht be interested in the subject matter. Naconkantari, the WP:SPAM definition of spam that you cite on your own userpage clearly doesn't include such encyclopedia-building activities such as these messages that you are concerned about. Now, as it happens, I think I disagree with 172 about the Norm Coleman "trivia" deletion issue. Nonetheless, he appears to be seeking community input as every editor in a contentious situation should do. Dick Clark 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Naconkantari's is really surpising. Contacting other users is one of the msot established ways Wikipedia editors have been establishing consensus on articles over the course of the three years I've been on this site. 172 | Talk 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't actually that surprising. He tends to have a very technical way of quoting policy and reading the riot act. I am fine with your actions by the way. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Stressed for Sure

That you are not even sure which comments you made, which one I referenced, which ones still stand, and how you are reacting, shows that you are not at your best right now. The edit I referenced still exists. I really don't know at this point what you should do. I'm sorry I've added to your stress. Shenme 04:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not really important. We don't have to keep really close track of who says what to which Wikipedia editors and when. Wikipeida is about the articles, not the editors. 172 | Talk 04:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting (this has nothing to do with Norm_Coleman)

In regards to your very recent note on CJK's talk page about User_talk:CJK#Norm_Coleman, do you and CJK share a different POV? I have noticed you have asked for CJK's help/opinion more than once (if I recall correctly). I remember how you (arguably) mocked me for even suggesting that you were part of the "neocon cabal". Maybe you are a Joe Lieberman democrat? It really doesn't matter one way or the other, I was just curious. I don't want to spend time going through your edits, figuring out your personal POV, so I would rather ask you myself.

Signed:Travb (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: your comments

thanks for surprising me. I like when people surprise me, because it is so terribly rare. I was expecting a strong admonishon/warning not to call CJK "immoral" again. But instead you answered my question in a straightforward and courteous manner. Thanks for proving me wrong and surprising me. :)

The more I get to know my ideological opposites, such as CJK, the more I respect them as people, despite their views (Albiet I will continue to be brutally honest about how repulsed I am about those opposing views). Maybe some day we will feel the same way about each other, stranger things have happened.

Have a good night.

Sign: Travb (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Iv'e already responded on my talk page, but I'm a bit confused as to why you title mention of the Wikipedia controversy as "trash". I'm off to check the talk page for clues. Briefly glancing, I see a ^*gasp poll. Not a good sign! Regards, El_C 07:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One might mistake your note as having something to do with Norm_Coleman, whoever the f*** that is due to the #Norm_Coleman wikilink you've placed above. Sorry, but I didn't actually read closely your above polemic, possibly I won't. El_C 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please notice my disclaimer to clarify things. Sorry to be confused by your comments. My mistake in not being clear enough. Seems like we were all confused :). I now realize that your comments "Iv'e already responded on my talk page, but I'm a bit confused as to why..." were directed at me, not at 172.

I like the word "discussion", an adjective of "polemic" better, but it doesn't have the same negative conentation that you were trying to convey does it?

Best wishes in you meaningless wikipage war. Maybe we will be allies (or advsaries) in another meaningless wikipage war someday soon. Until then, good luck in your fight. Travb (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an incorrect assumption, polemic has no negative connotations for me, please try to assume goodfaith. I'm not sure what "you [sic.] meaningless wikipage war" refers to precisely. My comment was not directed to you, it was directed at 172. I simply mistook the section's topic to be about Norm Coleman. That is all, User:Travb. El_C 10:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the moral high road and reminding me of good faith policy. I apologize, as my assumption was clearly wrong.

Sorry for assuming the Norman page was a wikipage war. I know this is not assuming good faith, or maybe I am not following the avoid personal attacks rule, or maybe some other wikipolicy. Let me apologize in advance for breaking that policy. If this is an incorrect assumption, I apologize about this too, in advance.

Thank you for reminding me and clarifying that your comments were not directed at myself but at 172.

I apprecaite you encouraging me to read more about Norm Coleman I read up on him, and voted in the RfC. Best wishes, hope to see you soon. Thank you for keeping a level headed tone.Travb (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're mostly not following the facts here. I did not offer you encouragment (or lack thereof) re: Norm Coleman — I've only made one minor edit to the article, which I have yet to entirely read and was only informed of today. This has something to do with the tone of edit summaries. Don't worry about apologizing and/or parodizing an apology about breaking the rules, just try not to whichever the f*** they are them. Glad to see you've done so with the section title. El_C 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an incorrect assumption I was not parodizing an apology please try to assume goodfaith.

I have voted on the RfC, looks like we are in agreement. I will argue this RfC in the next few minutes. I will let you have the last word, as this is 172's user page.Travb (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And/or now who is parodizing the rules? Just drop it, already. Yes, good job on the lexis-nexis hits. El_C 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Defending a friend of Karl Rove?

172, you are defending a staunch Republican and friend of Karl Rove? Hardly the atypical actions of a "further-left-than-Joe Lieberman-democrat". That is what I like about wikipedia: the users are complex. I will have to follow your edits more closely in the future so I can attach a label to you.Travb (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He is moderate left (read: moderate right), meaning he sides more often with the right. ;) El_C 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Is that true 172? Travb (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No maybe, it's true. Although he's sure argue otherwise. Now that's a polemic. :) El_C 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the staunchest conservatives praise 172's edits:

TDC (172 is right, controversial statements is nothing more than a transparent attempt to poision the well, quotes belong in wikiquote)[25]

Signed:Travb (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Norman Coleman

172, Please confine your specific comments about the Norman Coleman RfC to the talk page. Any comments on my talk page, other than personal questions about my political beleifs (as I have asked you here), will be moved to the Talk:Norman Coleman page. Thank you in advance.Travb (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, so far no Norman Coleman-related discussions on your talk page. El_C 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Too late! El_C 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Norman Coleman

Iv'e already responded on my talk page, but I'm a bit confused as to why you title mention of the Wikipedia controversy as "trash". I'm off to check the talk page for clues. Briefly glancing, I see a ^*gasp* poll. Not a good sign! Regards, El_C 07:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

By your talk page you're much better employed at other tasks. Your knack for guideline application is humiliating.Yeago 09:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeago Hi are you addressing me, or 172? Travb (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The latter. Although it seems rather inexplicable to me. El_C 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, meant Yeago. We already established that above. What is inexplicable? Do you mean clear? Travb (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeago was addressing 172, in a way I found rather inexplicable. El_C 12:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Courteousy

I mentioned your name here: User talk:Shenme. Travb (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

I was absent for the charade that apparently took place around March and April in Cuba-related topics, so I don't know your feeling on personally intervening in such matters at this point. The latest war over the introduction is over the treatment of the CPC, which finally is getting a mention, and whether it should be referred to, as I put it, "legally-enshrined" or "at the vanguard" (with the communist state reference excised). BruceHallman seems intent on using the Cuban constitution as the final word in all disputes over the nature of Cuba's political system, adopting its very language for this encyclopedia. There have been objections over the word "enshrined" as having a religious touch but as far as I am aware it is a common and neutral reference to codifying something into law. What are your thoughts?

It also doesn't help that there is a somewhat strange character modifying the talk format at will, which practically everyone has objected to. --TJive 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also been reinserting another paragraph into the intro. which I noticed that you referred to as "gobledigook". The material makes sense but I find it redundant and overly colorful; his latest revert now touts this as "compromise". I'm not quite sure what to say. --TJive 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hey, do you have an email? I'd like to have a chat with you in private, please? -- infinity0 10:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, nice work on the capitalism article. :) But Criticisms of capitalism is even more crap, could you have a look at it?

I have enabled email -- I thought it was checked. You don't seem to have email enabled, though. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbearably ugly pseudo-footnotes

Please don't change the Harvard references I've added in Capitalism into those awful, awful pseudo-footnotes. I'd like to help you out with the article: you can see my defense of your changes on the talk page, against Ultramarine's rather silly complaints. But just as formatting, there's almost nothing uglier that I can imagine than having a "footnote" link that isn't really to a footnote, but just to a Harvard reference to a bibliography that occurs elsewhere. This makes reading flow almost impossible.

I guess if you want, we could move all the bibliographic details to footnotes, and use named references (i.e. multiple notes to same reference where applicable). But frankly, Harvard referencing is about a million times easier to read than that style also. LotLE×talk 17:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Me

I appreciate your kind words of support. I intend to cool it but the truth is, it's hard to have a content dispute when their content consists of information gleemed from private websites that have been neither peer reviewed or allow open editing as is done here. Those websites can post whatever they want of course. Thanks again, and I'm trying to help out on some of the articles you have brought to my attention.--MONGO 07:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Arb

Dunno if you're busy right now but I was wondering if you had any idea how to appeal an Arb decision (or if that's even relevant or possible now that it's been almost a year for me.) I'd like to make some political edits before I go back to school but since the case was closed on August 11 of last year I don't think I'm allowed to do so yet. Any help/advice on this'd be appreciated. Dr. Trey 09:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism protected

I temporarily protected the capitalism article to prevent edit wars. Lulu posted at 3RR that Ultramarine had violated 3RR...Ultramarine has posted evidence which seems to indicate that Lulu has as well, and claims that you may have also...I am not going to go through all the diffs, but simply asking that you to not make any edits to the article for 24 hours to allow it some time to breathe. I also asked the same of Ultramarine and Lulu...so let's keep it all on the talk page for now. Best wishes.--MONGO 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

intro to Capitalism

Again, bravo. Now, can you comment on this: [26]? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I share your concern. But can you do me a favor with the proposed introduction? Even Ultramarine accepts it. Infinity0 has objections though - and he has worked on the article a lot and I think it would be unwise to alienate him. Can you, personally, work with him, specifically, to rewrite my proposed introduction into something both of you accept? Then we can make it the intro with little fear of reversion. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I only put in the sentence about: Capitalism, during the last century, has often been contrasted with planned economies. in the hope of placating C-Liberal's much longer and more disruptive versions of the basic contrast. Please be willing to keep fighting that fight, since I'm sure s/he will come up with more, longer, and more disruptive rants about how capitalism is defined by the complete absence of government regulation (as per numerous prior edits). I actually think my sentence is pretty harmless, and true enough... though obviously not necessary in a world that lacked these disruptive POV-mongers. LotLE×talk 06:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism

I suggest to you to revert this edit [27] since you are breaking 3RR. Here I explained my objection to it. -- Vision Thing -- 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't it's not a total reversion of your previous edit. Still, I'll revert it because it isn't important enough to the article for me to waste my energy in arguing about the matter. 172 | Talk 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to achieve a compromise. -- Vision Thing -- 22:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Crap

Might you take a gander here? I am shocked that absolutely nothing has been done about this trash in almost a year now, except for a couple users giving arguments over the Iraq war. All of the "allegations" are from far left rags. This material isn't even notable, much less encyclopedic, but a user who did some work on Bush and the Iraq war is upset over my redirecting. --TJive 11:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Derrida.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Derrida.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your input requested

Hey, could you have a look at my Talk:Capitalism#Proposed intro and see what you think? Thanks :) -- infinity0 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Fidel Castro

Hello 172, could you please drop in an participate in the discussion regarding the paragraph you recently deleted in the Fidel Castro article? This matter should be discussed and negotiated, and not simply deleted. BruceHallman 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Spamming

I received your spam, and looking at your contribution history I notice that this is something you've done more than once in the recent past. Please don't do this any more. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting other users for feedback is the sprit of peer editing that makes Wikipedia work, not "spamming." I have been contacting various users for specific reasons: they tend to participate in matters like TfD discussions, they have lots of experience, and they are familiar with my work to enough of an extent that they won't be surprised about receiving a message from me. (I am definitely not contacting users whom I know will vote a certain way. I have had editorial disagreements with just about all the users I've contacted-- you included. At times these disputes have occurred on deletion pages.)

In addition, just about all the contributors I've contacted have responded positively about similar requests for feedback on my part in the past. You were the exception, but I thought I'd give you a try, given your experience and knowledge of policy. I respect that you don't appear to be willing to collaborate with me. I understand that wish; there are editors with whom I rather not collaborate as well. So I will no longer contact you. 172 | Talk 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents on this issue. I am more than happy to receive neutrally worded requests for my input on issues, whether specific articles or specific administrative procedures. I find it very considerate that editors believe my input is relevant to issues. I am most certainly not going to march lock-step with whatever opinion the requester might hold—as often as not, I wind up taking a position contrary to that of the requesting editor (though I hope, in all cases, to express the reasons for my position clearly... it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with some specific person). Moreover, if someone requests my input on something, and I am either uninformed or uninterested in that topic/issue, it is no great burden to ignore the request. None of this is "spamming"; it's "conversation" and "collaboration". LotLE×talk 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreed on that, and really don't give a damn if it's neutral either. Too little trust in the intelligence of fellow editors. --TJive 04:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat related, what is your opinion on the political repression category? I think it could be valuable if better sorted, but nationality is limited to the Soviet Union at present, which is still useful. --TJive 08:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in your interpretation of political abuse, though I don't think this is a discredit to the concept as a whole. I have in mind particularly Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union which is somewhat muddled when the sub-organization of the nearby Category:Soviet repressions is taken into account, but nonetheless there is value in correlating all this material for readers only familiar with parts of it. I undertook to do something similar for the PROC and was hoping for some more informed comment on it; I've mostly gotten a few reversions from a well-known CCP fan. --TJive 06:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The ideal would be to have subcategories with literature, personalities, etc. but there seems to be a very limited number of articles which deal with the subject, so instead I left them in one. Perhaps you know more?

I agree with your criticism, so I removed the individuals from the list and instead placed the relevant categories, Category:Chinese dissidents and Category:Cultural Revolution, as subcategories, so that there isn't unnecessary repetition and that users interested in the subject can readily find them on this related page. I'm having a bit of a problem with User:RevolverOcelotX (the person I alluded to earlier) reverting a number of the related organizations though. --TJive 12:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

POV-because TfD

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thank you

Thank you! Thank you, 172, for your support in my RfA. I appreciate your trust and support, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

CPW homepage

I have looked at this and can't see anything immediately objectionable in either its existence or what is written there, although some mention of the fact that Communism collapsed in disgrace after murdering several hundred million people might possibly merit a mention. Communism was, after all, one of the major forces shaping 20thC history and deserves due attention. No doubt many of the articles are riddled with CPW POV, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to pursue them unless my attention is drawn to particularly egregious examples, as happened with Cuba (to my cost). Untimately a substantial group of established editors will have to undertake a major anti-Communist offensive across Wikipedia, but until there is a recognition of this, it will remain an uphill struggle. Adam 05:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal links

Why have you removed the portal links from the templates? Where does it says that portal links cannnot be in the articles? There are lots of articles with portal links, including FA's. And every politics template has a link to the politics portal, for example, Template:Politics, Template:Politics of the United States, Template:Politics of Portugal and several others. If there is a good reason and I just don't know it, please tell me, thanks! Afonso Silva 09:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In talk pages nobody will find them and they are not made to the editors, they are made to the readers. They are entry-points to the content related to a subject, just like the templates you edited, but they are even broader. They are formatted like the main page because the objective behind them is working as a hub, just like the main page. I think they should be included in the templates. Afonso Silva 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox articles

Thought you might be interested in these two AfDs based on your comments on the user's earlier insertions at Hugo Chávez. --TJive 13:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your skill is required on British Isles where some users are intent on POV-pushing and downplaying the fact that many people find the term offensive. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:421828 exchange booth150.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:421828 exchange booth150.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Alr 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

British Isles article

172, I don't really appreciate your accusations of vandalism on the British Isles article. I was attempting to implement the consensus solution reached to move forward from an edit war. The content you reverted to has been carefully moved to the British Isles (terminology) article, leaving British Isles article to discuss geography and history of the islands in a neutral way. The name "British Isles" is only used in the article title and opening sentance, and the initial disclaimer explains why this title is necessary under wikipedia article naming conventions, but nonetheless contentious.