User talk:Seabhcan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:44, 10 November 2006

For older discussions see User talk:Seabhcan/archive01, User talk:Seabhcan/archive02 or User talk:Seabhcan/archive03

State terrorism deletion

Hi, sorry I haven't responded to your question in that AfD, I just don't really have time (I'm at work). I'll get to it; I don't you to think I'm ignoring you. If the AfDcloses and I haven't replied, you caan strike-out my vote. Karwynn (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. What ever happens with the AfD, I'd still be interested in your reply. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here you go. Karwynn (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

Why did you edit the article after it was protected? [1] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is permitted to correct errors after consultation on the talk page. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an "error", it was a content dispute, as the talk page spells out. And I do not believe it is ever acceptable for an editor involved in an article to edit the article after it has been protected. I would ask you to self revert until the discussion is concluded. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved back to article talk)Self-Described Seabhcán 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to email you, but you don't have an email active. Please let me know how I can contact you. Travb (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rootology arbitration

FYI, rootology arbitration is ongoing: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop "Hey, ~~Bob~~ User:Seabhcan, could you tell me what you think about this discussion? I think your input could help". Now for the disclaimer:

PLEASE NOTE: Users who have a problem with me messaging other users about this case. It is NOT against wikipedia policy to do such things, see: Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette. I have other cases which I can quote. Admin cases. Travb (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! thats a long article. Sorry - I won't have time to look at it till next week. Thanks for the heads up, though. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REquest for quick page delete

Hi Seabhcan, I've apparently botched a detail in a split. This page will not be missed:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the Collapse of the World Trade Center and if you can just remove it, it may avoid confusion.--Thomas Basboll 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made it a redirect to the correct title. That is probably the best solution. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute of Living

You previously started an AFD for this article, which is now orphaned. Shall I close it or do you wish to relist it? Yomangani ^talk 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No go ahead and close it. Thanks. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 15:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I am thinking about mediation of some other form of conflict resolution based on your comments at the Afd. Your thoughts are appreciated and I also left a message on the Afd of course.--MONGO 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you Mongo. I'll be away for the next week or so. I fully expect you to be up to no good while I'm away. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will wait for your return and fyi, i have several dozen editors that are deeply concerned about your efforts here on Wikipedia...ie Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (POV pushing), edit summaries, Collapse of the World Trade Center (POV pushing), awarding banned editors barnstars...it's a long list.--MONGO 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, if you're going to retreat from the field due to potential issues concerning your advocacy, surely others see this for what it is. Let me know when you return as I'll look forward to our conversations then. Happy wiki vacation.--MONGO 19:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, you know to attack the message and not the messenger...edit summaries such as the one here, are of course, unacceptable. If your argument is so weak that all you can do is attack the messanger, then maybe you shouldn't bother to edit pages related to 9/11. If this happens one more time, I'll be forced to draw up an Rfc.--MONGO 20:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did you loose your sense of humor, mongo? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You call it funny if you want, I'm asking you to stop. Your ability to argue your point is not reinforced by making attacks on individual editors.--MONGO 05:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir! Yes, Sir! I hereby promise never to use humor, Sir! Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 09:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV pushing goes both ways, MONGO, have you ever voted for a page to be kept which involves 9/11 consipracators? This is a serious question. I am just interested if you have. Travb (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism/US

You reverted the entire sections and only provided one source for one section. Please add the rest of the sources today, or if you are unable then please revert the additions of the other sections until you are ready to source them. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Give me a chance. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:OxfordBoats.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:OxfordBoats.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. —An gr 09:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA on your front page reverted

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not personal. Does it mention you? No. Bye. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont be coy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vandalise my user page. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not vandalism to remove a personal attack, and as an Admin you should know better. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you may feel your own importance is of such a degree that you embody an entire nation, but I have to inform you that this isn't the case. Chaka Khan may be every woman, you are not every american. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked how you reverted my changes to your user page, but left out some key words, is this an apology? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that you are a poor specimen of your nation, and I shouldn't fault all your people four your personal failures. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, you just don’t know when to quit, do you? And, BTW, I am a wonderful example of an American, intelligent, well educated, witty, handsome, athletic and financially comfortable, so thanks, I guess. 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Torturous Devastating Cudgel

I'm sorry to interrupt, but this last post...this is one of the most embarrasing entries in Wikipedia I've ever encountered. ...If this can be explained by some kind of mental illness, it is great news, treatment is possible, then. SalvNaut 12:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have the whole 9/11 Truth squad on me. Nice! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seabhcan, can you demonstrate one edit I have done which insults your country, or any country for that matter? Your original comment clearly delineates my suspicions about your editing motives on this wiki, and the current version on your userpage, while not specific, is still insulting. If you dislike the U.S., as demonstrated by such an obvious post as linked above, then maybe you're biased by your belief of "dumb Americans" and should avoid articles related to the U.S.--MONGO 19:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you volunteer yourself a member of the category "dumb Americans who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history". I'm very sorry for you if that is the case. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't, Seabhcan...what I ask of you is to stop insulting myself and other editors who don't appreciate your anti-American editing patterns. I simply have no beef with those who live outside of the U.S. or their countries....and even if I did, I wouldn't be going around spending the vast bulk of my time working on an articles that are structured to insult other countries. I definitely agree that the U.S. is guilty of many sins, as are the governments of most countries, but I stay out of articles that are about countries that are not mine because I admit that my foreign viewpoint might lead me to be biased.--MONGO 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never added any material which is either untrue or well referenced, and I standby all my edits to articles. If you find truth to be anti-american, then I suggest you examine your self-identity and why you rely on myth for your personal satisfaction. The problem is that the articles with a tangential relationship to US policy, government and history are profoundly biased. I try to correct this bias with well referenced material.

What gets up my nose is users who delete that material for no other reason than that it conflicts with their nationalistic view point. The quality of the referencing is irrelevant to those users. I do the same for articles on my own country and history and for other countries. The problem is that Americans are uniquely defensive of what they think should be true, rather than what is true.

American editors do not own the articles on their country or history. I see no reason to stop correcting the bias on those articles simply because I am not a citizen of that country. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What myths do I rely on, I wonder? Did I not state just above that the U.S. is guilty of sin? I fully appreciate the mistakes the U.S. has made and always welcome any edits to Wiki articles that demonstrate facts based on a truly reliable source. The sources you seem to come up with have a definitive anti-American slant to them. I'll examine your comment about "Americans are uniquely defensive of what they think should be true", as I think this is absurd. The U.S. has the most open media of any land and routinely and openly criticizes sitting Presidents, the legislature and the actions of the U.S. Government.--MONGO 20:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point to any material I have added which is wrong I will remove it. As for my sources, I strongly disagree they are 'anti-American'. I try, where possible, to stick to academic and unbiased sources. As for the US's 'open media', it recently scored 53rd place in the world press freedom charts, tied with Botwana and Tongo[2]. Yet, I can see your first, reflex, action will be to label this ranking anti-American. Before you do, I should inform you that the ranking is compiled based on interviews with US journalists and their opinion of US press freedom. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, RFS ranks the U.S. at 44th (having more recently only been 17th) and may also be a CIA financed operation...[3], [4]...so right or wrong, are they reliable witnesses? I would tend to agree with their top rankings of countries in terms of press freedom...but since most news media that has a wide based platform is corporate or government controlled, bias is what most of the world's people get. The issues concerning you and me are my problem with your choice of using your userpage to attack other countries...that is the gist of this discussion.--MONGO 21:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you now use those sources to prove your point, yet criticize me above for those same 'anti-american' sources. Zmag and counterpunch? Mongo, I'm surprised you read such anti-american, McChomsky trash. Really now! you should hand in your passport! As for what I say on my personal user page, TDC put it well earlier today when he said "its my right to say it" Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Defamatory remarks removed) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, TDC was out of line. The issue (again) is not a long debate about Ganser or whether the U.S. media is a corporate puppet (which it probably is). The issue is your using your userpage to attack others. If this kind of issue isn't resloved, then I can't see anything leftto do except take this to an Rfc...something I don't like doing.--MONGO 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, those are a pain. I wanted to do one on you a few months ago but never found the time. What are you specifically objecting to on my current userpage. Lets find a compromise. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they are a big pain, but honestly, I'm inclined to delete your userpage and recreate it without the dumb Americans comment. Even so, the current statement is still insulting someone...why not simply revert it to the version you had until recently. Besides that point, how about you cease with insulting edit summaries and reconsider your editing habits...I mean, do you have anything positive to add to articles or are you here to provide only evidence of U.S. sponsored terrorisms and conspiracy theory advocacy to articles related to 9/11? It might also be nice if you not award barnstars to banned editors.--MONGO 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be quite happy to stop the edit summary thing if you consider raising a civil discussion before you remove material whole-sale as you often do. It isn't fun to spend 30min writing a balanced piece on a difficult topic, getting the references right, only to have you revert with "Baloney" as an edit summary. (although it is useful to learn a new word. I didn't know what baloney was before). I add plenty of positive material to many article, however, generally topics on America-related subjects already have the positive info in - to the exclusion of all else. I am trying to balance these articles. There are two sides to every coin. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JUst remember that when you go around possible betraying your sentiments by commenting on your userpage that you're dealing with "dumb Americans", that your edits which are from the other side of the coin, are likely to be viewed as more likely to be biased. As far as articles related to 9/11...the only information you have added that I removed was from sources that don't meet wiki policy or are simply not well supported (at all in many cases) by the known evidence and specialists such as engineers.--MONGO 22:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you have removed many sources of engineers and scientists. You do this if the engineer in question has an opinion which differs from your own. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really...oh you mean the ones that you support that have been debunked by all the other engineers? You mean the ones whose opinions are so unnotable that it would be undue weight to mention their "findings" in article space? Once again, you deliberately seek out information to support your anti-American bias...a bias that was made plainly evident when you posted "dumb Americans" on your talk page. I will try to assume good faith, but in reality, I am disappointed with the bigotry you decided to demonstrate on your userpage.--MONGO 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole concept of 'anti-Americanism' is alien to me. If someone suggested that my government had done something illegal, I wouldn't feel the idea was anti-Irish or a personal insult to me. I don't identify personally with any particular government anymore than I personally identify with my boss or any other authority. I really don't understand why Americans feel personally insulted when the actions of government types, people they've never met, are questioned. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You live in a country deeply divided by loyalties of a religious nature yet you don't understand people identifying with the different factions? --Tbeatty 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't. I'm from the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. But thats beside the point. If someone says "The government of Northern Ireland is corrupt and the cause of many problems", nobody considers that anti-northern-Irelandism. They consider it criticism of the northern Ireland government. A massive difference.

The only place I know, besides the US, where people behaved like that, was the Soviet Union. Take whatever point you like from that.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I said "splitting from the U.K. was a huge mistake and the south Irish were dumb for continuing it and that's why their country sucks so bad" you wouldn't take offense even though it's criticism of a political decision? --Tbeatty 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. No I won't because its silly. But that isn't the kind of thing I'm saying about America. I'm not saying "America sucks because it split from the UK" (which it also did). I'm saying things like "The US policy towards Nicaragua during the 1980's have been described as state terrorism by X". And this is to balance some previous statement written by some other user which says something like "The US never had any involvement with Nicaragua, and even if it did, nothing bad happened and Nicaragua was a threat to the US in the first place." Somehow, one is considered 'consensus' and the other 'anti-americanism'. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you realize that to Americans your statements about America might sound just as silly as my statement about Ireland sounded to you? And that if repeated often enough might get kind of offensive? Tbeatty 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't accept that. I realise that there are different views of history and people believe different things. Many politicians in Northern Ireland say things like above. I personally disagree, but I don't think those statement should be deleted from wikipedia. But equally, I don't think that they, or any opinion or fact, should stand alone, if there are other notable opinions out there. Search wikipedia - i bet you'll find plenty of facts negative to my country and government. I don't want you to delete any of it.

American editors seem to think that no fact or opinion which conflicts with their personal view of their country should be allowed in wikipedia. This kind of fanatical nationalism is extremely damaging to the project. Its censorship and I see no merit in it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some American editors, not all, and probably not even the majority. Badgerpatrol 02:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh absolutely. A very small minority. However, it does seem to be something peculiar to Americans. I have edited pages about many different countries and in a few different languages. This is really a problem of a few American editors on the English language wikipedia who see it as their job to 'defend' their country's honour against history. I have noticed it once or twice with UK editors too, but much less extreme and, importantly, they don't back each other up and form possies of deletionists.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to take a break after all, you could spend some time bringing up to snuff our coverage of central Europe. Or maybe Cyprus and the eastern mediterranean. I hear there is a lot of interesting historical trivia there to be put in order. Certainly Greece, Turkey, and some of the neighboring countries would benefit from any conributions you might feel able to make. It's up to you of course. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seabhcan, maybe there are few "dumb Americans" (as you put it), who don't appreciate when someone not of the U.S. goes around adding negativisms in U.S. related articles and uses radical sources to achieve this. Maybe a few Americans don't appreciate it when an administrator who is not American refers to them as dumb. What kind of response would you expect I would recieve if I went and put up "dumb Irishmen" on my userpage? Do you think this is the kind of behavior that would make me look like an appropriate example of an administrator of this website? Luckily, I don't feel the way you do either about the residents of my country, of Ireland or anywhere else.--MONGO 07:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, I have lost track of the number of times you have called me stupid, so don't go crying home to mamma when the other kids refuse to play with you. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 09:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You simply don't get it I suppose. I guess there's only one thing left to do.--MONGO 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Gosh, Mongo, Your scaring me now! Don't do it, I promise I'll be good. I promise I'll stop thinking and I won't mention reality again! Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, its a pleasure working with you and I always look forward to it.--MONGO 11:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could work together. Get back to me some day if you find a way to overcome your own intellectual dishonesty. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that when you find a way to let go of your overt bias against my country which interferes with your ability to apply occums razor and make sound editorial chioces based on a preponderance of the evidence and not evidence that supports your bigotry.--MONGO 12:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I again add my 3 words here (as you could suspect that I'm listening): Mongo, please read your words again carefully "...and even if I did, I wouldn't be going around spending the vast bulk of my time working on an articles that are structured to insult other countries.". I am willing to say that this statement clearly shows where the problem is. Where is your WP:FAITH? I find here something utterly opposite. Why would you think that anything is done in bad faith? I, and Seabhcan for sure, we stand for truth and what I see I'm doing here is helping your country, which is great in many ways (I always thought USA is "the best ever" when I was a kid). If we are doing something wrong, please correct us, but don't just dismiss our work because it does not fit in a worldview of yours. Then look again at your words: "I admit that my foreign viewpoint might lead me to be biased.". Well, if this is the case, isn't it very reasonable to say that your domestic viewpoint might lead you to be biased, too?

I add one more thing, as it seems from what you've written, that you would preffer non-Americans to stay out from certain articles about USA. Being American or not, has nothing to do. I tend to think, that USA, being the most developed country in the world should be looked onto with the most care. In many aspects your country represents humanity, so it is a disaster for humanity when USA fails as a country. You see, USA is an important part of the world, but it's not the other way round.

US open media - please take a look at the book "Into the buzzsaw"[5] in which 18 firsthand accounts by authors and print and television producers and reporters who challenged the media structure, often with devastating results to their careers, are presented (most are top journalists, often awarded). This book might be worth looking into, too. SalvNaut 20:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire McChomksy franchise that has sprung up in the past 40 years has dedicated itself not to reasoned rational criticism of US foreign policy, but of irrational half truths and downright fabrications, ala 30-31B. Unfortunately this finds a welcoming audience in the mainstream press, but Ganser is so far out in both his conclusions as well as his primary sources that his reliability is an issue wherever he is used as a reference. Ganser’s inspiration for his “research” into Gladio was done on the advice of William Blum, that in itself speaks volumes, but when coupled with his involvement in the “9/11 Half-Truth” squad, completely invalidates him as a credible reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talk • contribs) (well it was only timestamped)

Involvement in 9/11 Truth shouldn't have any impact on validity of his claims. Do you have sources that show him wrong? Do not use ad-hominem argument. Present sources. SalvNaut 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to credibility of the source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seabhcán, the remark on your user page is being understood as saying many US editors who disagree with you are dumb propagandists, even if you do not intend that. Whether it is an insult or an expression of your frustration, I do not see how it helps us write the encyclopedia. I wish you would take it down. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I hope you enjoy your break. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Wikibreak is an excellent idea for everyone. When it comes to issues like this, opinions are so entrenched that no useful purpose can be achieved through further discussion. Not everyone can be reasoned with effectively, and sometimes it's better not to try. Badgerpatrol 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting Edit Summaries

Please refrain from making edit summaries like this one: "Thats laughable. Its not a hoax. There are 43 references. Please learn something about European history before you edit." Your comments are insulting and assume a lot. I hesitate to reveal much here, but I will say that I worked for the US government in Europe for 3 years, have Bachelor and Graduate degrees, including several years of studies in the Humanities, and studied at the Haus-Rissen International Institute for Politics and Economics in Hamburg. No, I’m not an expert, but yes, I know a little something about European history, culture and politics. Morton Devonshire^Yo 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 :Thanks; I hope you enjoy your break. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 ::I think a Wikibreak is an excellent idea for everyone. When it comes to issues like this, opinions are so entrenched that no useful purpose can be achieved through further discussion. Not everyone can be reasoned with effectively, and sometimes it's better not to try. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
+==Insulting Edit Summaries==
+Please refrain from making edit summaries like this one: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gladio&diff=86984102&oldid=86980472 "Thats laughable. Its not a hoax. There are 43 references. Please learn something about European history before you edit."]   Your comments are insulting and assume a lot.  I hesitate to reveal much here, but I will say that I worked for the US government in Europe for 3 years, have Bachelor and Graduate degrees, including several years of studies in the Humanities, and studied at the Haus-Rissen International Institute for Politics and Economics in Hamburg.  No, I’m not an expert, but yes, I know a little something about European history, culture and politics.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]<font size=2><font color="Blue">[[User:Morton_devonshire|'''Morton Devonshire''']]</font></font>[[User talk:Morton_devonshire|<i><sup><font color="Red">Yo</font></sup></i>]] 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)