User talk:Ruy Lopez

Old talk: User talk:Ruy Lopez/archive 1

Notification

You are hereby notified any edits to the various espionage related articles dealing with identified subjects in the Venona transcripts is hereby considered vandalism and will be reported at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. nobs 18:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

If that was considered vandalism, there would be nothing to report since none of the people whose pages I have edited are "identified subjects in the Venona transcripts", just identified subjects in Nobs01's mind. Ruy Lopez 18:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

IRA

I've just reverted your last revert to Provisional Irish Republican Army because any balanced representation of the IRA must include their victims.

The IRA doesn't have victims, it has casualties, just like any other army. Here you're speaking as if I removed this, when of course I didn't, but you go into that next.

That is a totally ridiculous assertion. I appreciate the hypocrisy of the logic (in certain cases) that says that State-committed violence is justified and that non-State violence is terrorism, but to try to water down events such as the bombings of Enniskillen or Omagh or the countless "disappearings", beatings and killings as "casualties" is absolutely insane. Would you be so charitable towards the loyalist UVF or Red Hand Commandos?

Maybe if you favour moving this information to another part of the article, that should be discussed on the talk page instead of this method which is now looking like an edit war.

But of course I have[1], whereas I see no objections from any "Cormaggio", or any postings at all by a Cormaggio on the talk page.[2]

That's fair enough, but I came here directly instead

You simply can't reasonably compare the IRA with the British army - the IRA is not sanctioned by the government or the people of Ireland, as you suggest, and most Irish people would feel hurt at this assertion.

The IRA was sanctioned by the last government that all of Ireland voted for. You talk about a "government...of Ireland" - which for a county such as Kerry I guess would be the southern statelet in your view. And for a county Derry - well, that would be a different government, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in your view. You talk about the "government...of Ireland", but in your worldview there is no one "government of Ireland", there are governments of Ireland. Whereas I see only one government of Ireland.

This is an extreme POV and should be included in whatever article extreme nationalist beliefs are explained. The IRA that you mention being sanctioned - around the time of WW1 - was a totally different organisation. My great-grandfather was a member of that IRA (and the first Irish Senate), but I can guarantee that he would not support or recognise its current namesake. You're right in pointing out my terminology was loose - I meant the Government of the Republic of Ireland, where I'm from. For what it's worth, I actually recognise the Northern Ireland Assembly as being a more legitimate governing body of Northern Ireland.

I don't think there's any point in trying to balance out articles by this removal of information - if you want to you could allude to the British Army's shortcomings in the North further in articles like The Troubles, Bloody Sunday (1972), British Army or The Parachute Regiment - they all need work it seems. By the way, why did you blank your talk page? Cormaggio 19:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There was of course no removal of information but perhaps if you keep repeating that lie someone reading this who isn't double-checking everything will believe that, yes? Then you throw out that old canard to not edit this article but go edit another article. Whatever. Ruy Lopez 07:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ach, but you did remove an entire paragraph and didn't replace it anywhere else, unless you can show me a diff. I'm not telling you not to edit the PIRA article, I'm saying that the information/ideology you want to address should be spread out, in a neutral fashion, among those other articles as well. Cormaggio 09:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Before you respond to the above final comment, I apologise for not reading that diff I reverted properly - you did simply move the information, I'm sorry. However, my other comments above still stand and I'd still recommend that info to remain where it was before you reverted. We should probably move back to the talk:PIRA page though. Cormaggio 11:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi Ruy, you may perhaps want to have a look at Iraqi insurgency. Adam Carr and Reddi try to deny the very fact that the country is occupied. NoPuzzleStranger 17:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

---

See coqsportif (talk · contribs). Another "new" user who is suprisingly familiar with this site. On his fifth edit he "discovers" VfD? I don't think so... Viajero | Talk 11:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Ruy, I have repeatedly asked you to talk about the changes you want to make to the Page about Elizabeth Bentley. So far you've gone ahead and just made the changes without reasoning them on the page. I put the whole section you wanted to insert on the talk page as a possiblity to discuss it, and I would ask you to take advantage of the discussion page. --Ebralph 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been using the discussion page, although you are correct that I have not made a post yet in the Veracity sub-section. I will post there regarding this.

Looking at the Veracity sub-section, Nobs01 has not posted any specific objections to anything said. As you can see in the section you put there from the main page, I said the New York papers had headlines about Remington's lawyer being unable to serve her with a subpoena (and Remington is not the only person she played the disappearing act with). I also point out some inconsistencies in her testimony which were brought up at the time. Nobs01 does not address her inconsistencies or her dodging of subpoenas. He posts six sources where we supposedly can find the answers for why these things should be removed from the page. I have looked through most of these sources (although not all of it - for example I have not read all three of Haynes's books), and do not see a reason to remove these things. You ask - what is the objection to this material? Nobs responds: read these three books (and five other sources), the answer is there. I have read much of this stuff and the answer is not clear to me. Why doesn't he just answer on the page? Ruy Lopez 18:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see your post on the Talk page by the time I reverted the change, so please don't take it as a try from my side to suppress anything. I stated on the talk page what is important to me for the passage 'Veracity'. Along the same vein, I noticed you inserted "claim" in several passages of the text. I would ask you to discuss the sentences you find POV and I'm sure we will find a formulation together. Maybe say what specificly disturbs you and we can find a wording together. --Ebralph 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Note of Thanks

I wanna thank you for your persistent vandalism; as a result, instead of reviewing each name on a case by case basis before insertion into Wikipedia, it was necessary to insert the NSA/FBI lists in whole before reviewing each file and checking for secondary published sources. Basically, working backwards. So now we have roughly 308 - 311 names of confirmed, witting spies in Wikipedia according to the NSA/FBI's 38 year investigation. This has delayed biographical material for three weeks, but put us about 6 to 8 months ahead of schedule as far getting the complete lists in. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. nobs 04:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal Message

If you don't want to root for the team, you should leave the stadium. Being a negative nancy about crap is just pointless, as well as your existence. 67.18.109.218 18:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)