User talk:TDC

User_talk:TDC/Archive_1 User_talk:TDC/Archive_2 user_talk:TDC/Archive_3 user_talk:TDC/Archive_4 user_talk:TDC/Archive_5

Sunday August 4^th 12:17

Your revision of my content in Depleted Uranium

(→Health concerns - a letter in a magazine from an anonymous person does not conform to WP:RS and WP:V)

Actually, the vast majority of Wiki content is precisely ANONYMOUS, and the two policy pages you quote unfortunately never reference anonymity in any context. I will conclude that you misunderstood the policy, so I will just repost.

This seems like selective enforcement based on a technicality to me, because the link to the author, source and publisher was also clearly provided. In the future, it would be a lot less hassle for both of us if you just post a "source required" note (or heaven forbid write me a note) as opposed to censoring content.

Your requirement, that sources not be anonymous, is never mentioned in the Wiki policies.

wp:v-

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

The content you deleted meets this requirement. In the absence of any other justification or comments, you have left me no choice but to repost it.

UPDATE-

At the time I posted this, I was not aware it should normally be added to the bottom, but in retrospect posting at the top was probably justified anyway.

You have offered an apology for assuming my edits were from a "sockpuppet". I am hesitant to accept it because of the vindictive, opportunistic, biased and disproportionate way you acted on a little more than a suspicion, and your spectacle of personal bias in what is ostensibly a neutral information forum.

What bothers me most is that most of the valid content in the "possible health effects" section (you may rename it that if it would make you happy), has been outright censored and moved to a discussion area without even a link. There are people living with DU around them today who need and have a right to the information you deleted. I'm guessing you do not live with DU.

• You need to return all the material to the health effects section (or ask me to do it)
• Considering the way your group stalked my contributions, acknowledge that I have as much right to edit the section as any new editor, free from stalking.

I always welcome edits, debate, whatever, but trigger happy censorship is flat out wrong and will kill a Wiki. Wiki is a 'many eyes' concept, not a 'impossible to contribute' or 'censorship' concept.

I will not edit the DU section again until the deletion incident is escalated and seen by people with more authority than yourself, or you do the above. --Fieldlab 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My reason for deleting the content of the letter is quite clear and follows policy. Please read WP:RS and WP:V for more. Secondly, withouth more background on the editor James S., I could understand why you feel we over reacted, but I am sure that you will agree that our suspicions were legtitimate after you read up on this user. I also agree that the health section needs work, but dont "demand" anything from me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to get this straight. I am not referring to the letter. I am referring to loads of missing content in DU. I feel the deletion of most of the DU health effects section was not justifiable, and was against administrative policy. I'm not demanding anything. I'm offering a solution, but I'm happy to escalate it, and maybe Wiki will be better off if I do. The choice is yours. Otherwise, I'll just escalate it tomorrow.--Fieldlab 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

You need to take the info posted to the above link to ensure enforcement of the ban.--MONGO 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

You have been very helpful with the Robeson article. You seem very knowledgable on this subject. Would you care to get involved in a dispute in the Stalin entry on the death toll associated with him?--JohnFlaherty 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I've just asked Essjay for help. Should be sorted out in a couple of minutes. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikstalking

Please stop stalking my edits TDC. I really would prefer not to hear from you again if possible. I especially don't want to see your phony charges of harrassment on my talk page anymore. Feel free to delete this comment, but please leave me the fuck alone after that. Thanks, and have a nice day.--csloat 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No need for the potty mouth. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

TDC what the fuck did that conversation have to do with you? You are the one stalking. I also have his talk page on my watch list, as well as Ron's, and that conversation had to do with edits I had participated in! For fuck's sake, there is no reason I should have to explain this to you; the one thing I know for sure is that that conversation had nothing to do with you. For the last time, please stop stalking me. I do not trust you at all TDC; I have caught you lying numerous times in the past, and you have made numerous edits (such as these) whose only purpose seems to be to launch personal attacks on me. For the last time, LEAVE ME ALONE.--csloat 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I have observed that you have a nasty habit of singling out users and following them around from page to page. Some people might consider that rude and annoying, and the conversation between Ron and 172 had nothing to do with you, or me, but I never chimed into it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

TDC, I asked you to leave me alone. Now you are "warning" me on my talk page. Warning me about what? Get lost. Really. I am not interested in your personal attacks, your false charges of stalking, nor your trolling. Leave me alone!--csloat 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just got back from vacation and am a little swamped, but I will try and look in on it later in the week. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

World's Ninth Wonder

Hello, I noticed your comment on A People's History and nearly fell from the chair. This is the very first constructive, non-hostile comment I have ever seen you write. Maybe it was that vacation. Ta bueno.

re: (edit summary)

• generic intensifier [[1]

Skywriter 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I am not a pimp

I have had you tell better jokes before, you are losing your touch man.

PS: Please stop deleting large portions of text which I added. This really gets me mad when wikiusers do this, no matter what they delete, and no matter what their POV. I was in the middle of chastizing you for this a few days ago, hit send, and realized that I had got booted, yet again.

I just told someone (see my archive 6, last message) how I feel guilty about bringing up all your 3RR's, because now I have a history that people can use against me too. It really sucks having your history dog you like that, and have other people bring it up. Sorry man.

The irony of it all, is that I was indefinetly booted, and user:Duk, the copyright police dude, who fought on your side when you used to use copyright as a weapon on WSI unbooted me. Can you believe this? He is really a forgiving guy. Travb (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I hate to say that the ends justify the means, but that is sort of my position in a way. I'll be a good boy and be sickeningly perfect now. Hope all is going good on your end! Keep up the good work.--MONGO 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The ends justifying the means ... that was the subject of a 6 hour debate while I was on my trip to Glacier. Needless to say, this time it does. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

CfD

Hope you've had a good vacation. Unless you're still swamped, I'll apprecaite your feedback on this CfD listing. [2] Thanks. 172 | Talk 03:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

National Lawyers Guild

Hi TDC, you've been reported for a 3RR violation, and a violation of your revert parole, and have been blocked for 24 hours. Note that, although the versions were different each time, you kept adding one key passage, and reverts do not have to be to the same version. When you return, please try to reach a compromise on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would protest, but would it so any good? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Thanks for the reply. The Coleman page is now stable again, along with a related dispute on Marty Meehan. I was trying to get this paragraph removed [3] (pretty irrelevant, right), and I was ultimately sucessful, which surprised me. Since trying to NPOV Conrad Burns, I hadn't been having too much luck on articles on Congressmen. 172 | Talk 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

123

I don't think you have ever been laid, that is probably why you are on this gay computer all day, every day.

could be, but I dont discuss my personal life on Wikipedia. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"plastic key"

Actually, we use keyless entry systems :)--Zereshk 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose a truce and hope we canboth stop acting like ass holes; agreed? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and well received. About the keyless entry thing, I was just trying to be funny :)--Zereshk 03:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I figured. I nominated the article for the Article improvement Drive if you want to weigh in on it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Depleted uranium

Yes, it is a violation of his ArbCom ban, and I´ve blocked him for it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but is a dynamic IP, so it wont last too long. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um- excuse me conspiracists, I hate to break the news, but that is my IP and no one else's, and certainly not the person you seem to suspect. It is a hard IP I have had for 4 years. And you certainly cannot justify blocking it based on anything I have ever done or posted at Wiki. You have banned this IP I believe because you believe me to be someone else. If you bothered to check the IP of that person, chances are he has never posted from anywhere around Olympia, Washington, USA.

You have not only blatantly violated and abused Wiki policy, which you seem to have little regard for by doing this, you also seem to be behaving in a juvenile, vindictive fashion, contrary the spirit of the Wiki.

You have left me no choice but to escalate the incident, as this type of behavior could threaten the integrity of the Wiki itself.

Simply put, this is just LAME.

Please note:

• 216.173.207.10 has very little editing overlap with Nrcprm2026
• 216.173.207.10 is a static IP in Olympia, Washington while Nrcprm2026 claimed to be in Menlo Park, California
• No checkuser was performed before this block.
• Fieldlab (talk · contribs) claims to be 216.173.207.10, and not Nrcprm2026

Please be more careful next time. SeparateIssue 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert parole violations reported

Please be advised that I have reported you for multiple violations of your revert parole. SeparateIssue 10:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you James, I will be sure to look into that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been so long that I forgot that talk comments go at the end of the page. Why would you think, after all my work on UO3 gas and chemical toxicity, that I would start expounding on the radiological dangers of solid particulate inhalation? SeparateIssue 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

James, do me a favor, two in fact: look in the mirror and repeat after me "no one cares", and please leave me alone. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. If no one cared then you wouldn't be running to accuse any newbie or IP posting about DU of being me. SeparateIssue 18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey James, file it under the "NO ONE CARES" department. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The more things change...

I was looking through some of your edits, as I do time to time, especailly after you deleted a large section of a page I had worked on before, to see what large sections of text you have deleted which does not fit your POV, and I noticed this. I guess,you can report me for wikistalking if you wish...

When are POV warriors like yourself going to realize that the article is actually strengthened by having two sides? I just don't get it TDC, as we have gone our seperate ways, you haven't changed a bit since WSI except for maybe less 3RRs. I still see the large deletions which don't meet your POV, the large fights, etc. I would like to think that I have become a much more sophisticated POV warrior myself, and actually a dipomat in a few disputes, but I still see the same troubling behavior from you. Anyway, my two cents worth. Travb (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you come here to bug me, because had you taken the time to read my explanation of the edit you might have come to the same determination that I did, namely that that particular statement could not be verified, and worse yet, after a quick Google search, it turned out to be complete bull [4].

You still don’t understand my objections at WSI, do you? It should be apparent to you now what they were, since you have been chastised for so much copy vio in the past several months, but I see that the point is still lost on you.

If an article is written with cut and paste material from a handful of biased sources, how can the article be NPOV?

Take the article you wrote on the Kerry Committee report. Every line and every word was taken verbatim from the sources below. Each of those sources has its own agenda, and when all the material is combined it will present whatever view those authors (Kornbluh, Cockburn, etcetera) want to projects. No relevant information that disputes their POV will be included in their writings, and since the article is drawn solely from these writings and redacted excepts from the report, the final article will also contain no such information.

Don’t you see a problem with that? Would you find it all right to write an article on the No Child Left Behind act and use reference, verbatim, nothing but white house press releases on the subject?

I have tried to explain this to you 100 times, and it’s a shame you dont get itTorturous Devastating Cudgel 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey TDC, Thanks for your comments.

Did you come here to bug me Nope, just to express some concerns.

Like I said, I occasionally look over your edits. I find it troubling how much you delete--large, large portions of text which don't meet your own POV. As I mentioned above: an article is actually strengthened by having two sides. I hope someday you will see this. Take for example, Philippine-American War, which has stayed pretty much static for months. I met CJK for the first time on this article, when he was arguing that Philippine attrocities should be added to the article. This was several months ago, and I brisled at the suggestion, using similar POV language that you used before, and still contine to use. Calling CJK a jingoist, apologist, etc. But I added the suggestion, Philippine-american_war#Filipino_atrocities and CJK left happy. I just see you spending so much time in edit wars which could be avoided with a little diplomacy. Talking with CJK for weeks and weeks and being in other aruguments like Norm Coleman and No Gun Ri, have made me realize how much easier it is to allow both sides, and how much less energy I am expounding by simply tempering my words. My edits are staying static not for hours, like many of yours, but for months. Many are not even questioned.

RE: namely that that particular statement could not be verified, and worse yet, after a quick Google search, it turned out to be complete bull [5]. My apologies, I was wrong. I know little about this character. Thank you for editing that out.

RE: You still don’t understand my objections at WSI, do you? It should be apparent to you now what they were, since you have been chastised for so much copy vio in the past several months, but I see that the point is still lost on you.

Guilty as charged. I guess it is only fair for you to bring up my wonderful recent block log history since I used yours so much against you before. Now that I am in your shoes, I actually feel guilty about that now, and I am sorry.

Like I have mentioned again and again. At WSI Copyright violation was used as one of many weapons at your disposal to push your own POV.

I must say that I am impressed that you have become more well read in wikipolicy, and use wikipolicy in your arguments, as I have.

As Isaac Asimov stated about creationists, "Creationists don't want equal time...they want all the time there is." Your edits and behavior show there is truly only one opinion which should be on wikipedia: your own.

RE: Take the article you wrote on the Kerry Committee report. Every line and every word was taken verbatim from the sources below.

You are welcome to edit any of my work TDC, but I am familar with your tactics, and won't allow you to delete large portions of text which don't fit your own POV. When I say edit, I mean adding an opposing view, which I will gladly and warmly embrace, not delete large sections which doesn't meet your own view of the world. I really enjoyed your edits to What's the Matter with Kansas. I wish more of your work was adding information, not deleting it.

RE: Each of those sources has its own agenda, and when all the material is combined it will present whatever view those authors (Kornbluh, Cockburn, etcetera) want to projects.

I find the people who scream POV the loudest are usually the biggest POV warriors. You are the poster child for this. I am curious with all of your POV fights across wikipedia, you talk a lot about certain sources being POV, but what do you consider as NPOV? What is a source which is NPOV to you?

RE: No relevant information that disputes their POV will be included in their writings, and since the article is drawn solely from these writings and redacted excepts from the report, the final article will also contain no such information.

This is the stark difference from the two of us, I welcome "relevant information" which contradicts my POV, because I feel that the article benefits. Please, edit this article with NPOV sources. I will be very amused and interested to know who those NPOV sources you quote actually are. I spend most of my time adding content to wikipedia, whereas you spend a good amoount of time deleting it. That is our biggest difference. Other than fights about copyright violation, my edits have become less and less controversial, my tone less and less confrontational. Sure, I sometime digress, but overall, my tone is much different than before. End result: My edits stay on wikipedia unopposed for months and months.

Whereas you are still in the POV warrior mode, deleting large portions of text which don't meet you own POV. You seem more civil on chat boards, but the tactics are the same. So you spend a lot of time focusing on one article pushing your POV, arguing back and forth, getting into minor edit wars. Whereas at the same time, I am adding information, unopposed to 10 articles, with 90% less emotional work and mental labor. Take for example CIA, I have completly rewritten large portions of this page, with little or no opposition.

RE: Don’t you see a problem with that? Would you find it all right to write an article on the No Child Left Behind act and use reference, verbatim, nothing but white house press releases on the subject?

I would welcome other editors to come along and not delete the white house press releases, as you are apt to do, but to add their own POV. that is the difference between the two of us.

Anyway, if you find sometime to add information to Kerry Committee report, I welcome it.

I apoligize for being 100% wrong about Leonard_Peltier Please accept my apology. Thanks for your comments. I reverted the edit. [6]

Best wishes. Travb (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Courteousy

Out of courteousy I wanted to let you know that both myself and csloan mentioned your user name on our talk pages. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to stop edit wars

WP:AMA and

Contact this third party wikipedian, who helped me with the most sophisticated conservative on wikipedia: User:Tyrenius#Disputes

Signed: Travb (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is skywriter the anon from WSI?

Is skyriter and the anon at WSI one and the same? Skywriter seems to have the same behavior as the anon. i.e. the exact same behavior as you do, except he is on the other side politically. See: Talk:Orlando_Letelier#down_the_memory_hole

By the way, EECEE on WSI is probably the anon, he disabled his account when I started asking questions, but it looks like he is back to editing WSI again.Travb (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Skywrtier is not "The Anon" just editing anonymously. I dont know or care about EECEE. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks TDC, have a great week. Travb (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda model

What exactly on Talk:Propaganda model do you claim supports this blanking? Publicola 04:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it, and I do agree, somewhat. I am replying there. Publicola 07:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on Felix Rodriguez

You Wrote this concerning the article on Felix Rodriguez:

I dispute the nuetrality of this. What is this about "most of his family being disappeared?" No one has ever been disappeared in Cuba. Anyone arrested or executed were tried before the people before hand. Why is there no mention of this?

Is this a joke? Cause it aint funny. TDC 19:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC) Those pro-Castro types need to work on their spelling and syntax, Right Camilo! Right Camilo! Right Camilo! Does anybody know where Camilo Cienfuegos is... El Jigüey 1-3-06

I'm seeking sources for the claim often made that Rodriguez' father and two brothers were executed by the Castro regime soon after it came to power. Rodriguez doesn't mention this in his book, which seems odd--it would rather seem to explain his obsession with getting rid of Castro...yet he doesn't mention it.

Does anyone have a source or sources for this allegation?
Thank you.

I wanted to tell you my Mother is a close friend and former colleague of Felix and his Father lived to a ripe old age and only recently died. He had no brothers, Felix was an only child. Obviously the claims of their executions are false.

Clarification on Felix Rodriguez cont.

If you have any questions I can be reached at batrickpeale@yahoo.com

Chilean coup of 1973

If you can please weigh in on whether or not WP:SS is being violated in this article by certain users insisting on "two articles in one"--that is having an article called U.S. intervention in Chile and having the exact same 10 paragraphs or so on Chilean coup of 1973. CJK 21:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America

Hi TDC. You may wish to browse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America. Your input, if you feel inclined to share it, would be appreciated. Give Peace A Chance 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)