User talk:RichardWeiss/new archve

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

File:Boxito.jpg

Box

File:Esqueak.jpg

Squeak

Good call re: Honduras

Thanks for changing the title of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis back to something more NPOV. Whether or not what transpired is a coup is a legal question, and the legal scholarship necessary to resolve it hasn't been done. The last time I checked, neither the NYT nor the Washington Post were reliable sources of legal scholarship. Bkalafut (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the genuine welcome, and the helpful hints.

I am presuming, perhaps incorrectly, the existence of two pet companions named Squeak and Box. I have two Shi-Tzus named Zoe and Cade but prefer a long-standing moniker in VaChiliman for which I am frequently known on-line, though mostly I engage in Sports conversation (equally volatile as politics, but less important (with a few notable exceptions, few wars are tied to sports). But, I digress.

As I have asserted elsewhere (in discussion/talk), I am not a new user of Wikipedia, but I am new in the sense of registering an ID (rather than logging random IP addresses), and comparatively new at even joining in discussion about pages. I would not presume "editorship", but as a frequent user, I am deeply concerned about the usefulness of Wikipedia when it becomes a propoganda tool. The lastest crisis in Honduras, and my recent engagement on one topic's discussion, have been an interesting learning process. It remains to be seen whether I can sustain interest long enough to grow as a contributor, or just go back to being a picky end-user.

Anyway, I appreciate your reaching out to be of help.

Yes, I do make Chili, and I reside in Virginia full-time, travel to Honduras once or twice each year. My Chili recipe isn't hot, has been attacked on-line by some Teaxan who claims Chili with beans is not chili at all, but I think it is somewhat cool that it has spread among family and friends in five states, and is served on ocassion at a resort in Saint Marten.VaChiliman (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran constitutional crisi

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manuel Zelaya. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mfield (Oi!) 19:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why you asre sending me a template as if I did not know the rule, if you had bothered to look you would see the 3rd time I was changing the text. Removing large amounts of ref'd material without initially even bothering to explain why is not acceptable and should be treated as vandalism. Please don't template experienced in future and do bother to look at these case by case. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of a lot of edit warring over the past few days amid very little dialog and it really doesn't need experienced editors continuing it. Edit summary comments like "your silly deletion" don't point towards constructive dialog. The fact that you changed the text slightly on the third revision doesn't magically make the rest of the reverts go away. The point of 3RR is to stop continued editing and disruption by a string of reverts and ensure discussion takes place FIRST. The fact that the information was cited doesn't make it any less of a content dispute given that reasons were given for both removing and re-adding it. Sorry if the template was faster than composing an individual message but it didn't appear that either of you would have stopped without your attention being grabbed and at the time the small talkpage discussion was heading in the direction of sarcasm faster than it was heading towards productive discussion. It was nothing more than a heads up, I templated the other user too and as an admin they should certainly know better than to end up at the brink of 3RR with another experienced editor. Mfield (Oi!) 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Be assured i would not have reverted again; having been blocked in the past but not for 18 months is something I dont intend to change; if I hadn't been rushed I would have attempted to change the text further and was planning on doing so in a tranquil way when the other editor reverted me again. He has some meritorious points and hence the genuine attempt to change the text and answer his points; it was not an attempt to avoid 3rr. I am both neutral and very stressed about the real life events occurring right now in Honduras. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your bot

It was a script that runs regularly to make sure {{moveheader}} is removed after a move discussion ends. It was only supposed to remove a single template and nothing else. Nothing about my regex or what was on the talk page could account for that. Regardless, I added some things to the code which may or may not fix things. I also manually removed the template so that that particular script has no reason to visit the page again (unless you add the moveheader template back on). —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Child Pornography

Forgive me, but, like, why did you remove the freaking deletion tag, and before at least notifying me? It is hard for one to sympthathize with those who support the existence of such articles so fiercely, for their reasons are their own. Sparaca12 (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, you haven't read the tag. I disagree with your deletion as it is valid as a subject; to claim that those who support having an informative article are supporting child pornography is a dangerous path to go down; I strongly suggest you don't. And of course people need to read the article and not your rant. You can always afd the article, see where that gets you. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked this obvious single purpose account for the extremely out of line accusations made. Chillum 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2009 Honduran coup. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Its been resolved, to my satisfaction at least. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Infinitely mirroring computer.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Infinitely mirroring computer.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 20:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops that was my computer giving me troubles, I have now fixed the licence and removed your tag but thanks a lot for telling me as I had not noticed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Hi there. Someone has mentioned your name as in a dispute at this page and I have volunteered to mediate the case as part of the Mediation Cabal. Please read the "mediator notes" section of the case page for further instructions. Thank you, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Marc Emery

Hello, I am a random guy with no account who lives in BC and I was interested in one of your arguments. On the Marc Emery article you spoke about how if prohibition ended the argument everyone would grow their own doesn't hold weight with you. I do not grow coffee or brew my own beer but the reasons for this are different from the reasons why I would or would not cultivate marijhuana if it was legal. I personaly would grow marijhuana for several reasons which are different for why I do not grow coffee or brew beer. First marijhuana is extremely expensive and the quality is not always steller (unlike commerical coffee which is way better than anything I could hope to grow myself). So we have quality and price issues, quality of mine would be comparible to the market and the price would be much less unlike coffee and beer. Coffee and beer are regulated industries unlike marijhuana. Therefore, I would question "well does me brewing this beer save that much cash? and how does my beer compare to commercial beer?". The other issue is moral. I do not like giving money to organized crime whereas I do not mind giving money to coffee corporations (although I'm sure I should). Anyways these were just my rantings but I hope you try to chew this idea over and I strongly suggest checking out the documentary called The Union (there is an article on wiki about it) if your interested in the 7 Billions dollar a year marijhuana industry in BC Canada.

Paying $100 for an ounce of a herb that should only cost $1 is crazy. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but what about paying $100 for a couple eighths? That's how bad it is now. —Whig (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt know about that, or indeed where you are, or what kind of quality you get for that price, what I do know is that its much cheaper in many third world countries, even in the cities, more like a couple of dollars for an eighth of average green where I am, but this is still overpriced compared to say the price of parsley. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RichardWeiss. You have new messages at Griffinofwales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Griffinofwales (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduras

Manuel Zelaya is obviously not the president of Honduras, he is not in charge of the country and does not have any power. it's been 1 month now since the presidential succession in Honduras and obviously this situation is not going to change, so Roberto Micheletti is the Interim President of Honduras. 190.53.244.15 (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

He is the de facto President; we need to not take sides but remain neutral when dealing with this dispute on wikipedia; you are better focussing on addding content to support your argument in the relevant articles rather than edit warring over the Honduras info box. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

i live in tegucigalpa, honduras and i saw everything that happened before june 28 directly, the honduran people know way better than everyone else how a liar and criminal manuel zelaya is. 190.53.244.15 (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I dont live in Teguc but I have lived half a dozen years in Honduras and I know that many Hondurans are outraged by what has happened to Mel; whatever wrongs he did do not justify his removal from power in his pyjamas. IMO the Honduran people need to understand the country is not in a bubble and what the international community thinks matters; Mel and Micheletti need to sit down and talk. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User  190.53.244.15

Just FYI, I have reported this user on the 3RR notice board after warning them. Rsheptak (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That ip's temp blocked now. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Question

My first statement would be to not immediately react to my words without reading them carefully. Thank you.

Hello, Squeakbox. I am just somewhat curious, as to why you, um, deleted the tag for child pornography. You do know that even Wikipedia has a template for controversial topics, do you, indicating it acknowledges that some topics, though perhaps doubtless of use to certain people, are indeed debated heavily. I am a bit curious, at to why you and the sysop acted so quickly to block the user in question and remove the tag. Please, do not take any offense, but I am indeed shaken by Wikipedia's willingness to accept such articles, censored or not. It might as well straight out invite pedophiles here. It's...I really don't know; I'm sorry, and I know you're pissed at me, but why? Do you seriously think I'm doing something "wrong" by saying this to you? Please, Squeakbox, I don't mean anything at all and I mean you no offense, but such pages are indeed questionable. I'm sorry, but...Please reply on my talk, if you wish. ArnoldHash (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this has been brought up on User talk:Jimbo Wales as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The user was specifically blocked for implying those who disagreed with his prod might have an unhealthy interest in the subject. A prod should be used when there are genuine reasons for deleting an article (such as the subject matter being unnotable) and the prod should concisely state the reasons for doing so. Remembering that wikipedia is not censored I hope you are not seriously suggesting we should delete the article; on that basis we should also delete the article on the holocaust. And this user was using the prod in order to rant about the subject. Our readers when they go to that article, want to read encyclopedic information, they do not want to read someone ranting about the subject, such material is rightly treated as vandalism and using the prod does not make it any less so. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Fair enough LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Recent death}}

Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Pico Bonito.JPG

File:Pico Bonito.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Pico Bonito, La Ceiba.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Pico Bonito, La Ceiba.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Thanks for the warning, but I was just being consistent with the reference "UViolencia contra LA PRENSA". La Prensa. 2009-06-30. Retrieved 2009-06-30. with is from the same source, and also tagged with {{Verify credibility}}. Would you considere a {{weasel}}, {{weasel-inline}} or {{peacock}} warning to be more consistent? My worry is specifically the charged expression "terrorizing the population"...

ZackTheJack (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob Marley GAR notification

Bob Marley has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Hello SqueakBox, 74.98.43.217 (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

José Ángel Saavedra

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: José Ángel Saavedra. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet

Wondered if you would voice an an opinion on the intro and use of dictator?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Felicito Ávila

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Felicito Ávila. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope you are

staying safe during the unfortuante unrest. --Die4Dixie (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I am. Defied the day curfew once but it was early in the morning and way outside Tegucigalpa and others were doing so as well; to get my laptop to work from home that day; I had forgotten it in the panic of having to close the office and get home within half an hour the previous afternoon, and cycling home that afternoon was an eery experience. But otherwise everything is fine, still living and working as normal, internet always working etc. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dnkrumah

Yes I have apologized to him. That was completely inadvertant the product of too much multitasking. Da'oud Nkrumah 03:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

El Frente

Please see Talk:El_Frente_Nacional_de_la_Resistencia. It's very likely that you know a lot more about the topic than i do, but you do need to provide references. Thanks. Boud (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

Comments? [1] Sumbuddi (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial request for comment about co-founder/sole founder dispute

Co-founder/sole founder dispute rumbles Wikipedia

• 04:51, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) List of Auburn University people ‎ (→Alumni: nothing to do with co founder dispute which it was removed last year)
• 04:50, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Huntsville, Alabama ‎ (→Notable residents and famous natives: nothing to do with the dispute)
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) 1966 ‎ (Undid revision 292265427 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Dopplr ‎ (Undid revision 292265970 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Birla Institute of Technology and Science ‎ (Undid revision 292266526 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Kelley School of Business ‎ (Undid revision 292272282 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2006) ‎ (Undid revision 292320956 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:47, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) American School in Japan ‎ (→Misc. Info: article has no relation to co-founder dispute)
• 04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Society for Technical Communication ‎ (Undid revision 292369674 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Criticism of Microsoft ‎ (Undid revision 292369754 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) PR-e-Sense ‎ (Undid revision 292369952 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Diplopedia ‎ (Undid revision 292370091 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:45, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) June 1, 2005 ‎ (Undid revision 292370239 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:45, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Poduniversal ‎ (Undid revision 292370021 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:44, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Hot Press ‎ (nothing to do with the co-founder dispute come on QG you know better Undid revision 292369868 by QuackGuru (talk))

• 05:13, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Hot Press ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:13, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Poduniversal ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:13, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) June 1, 2005 ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful) (top)
• 05:12, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Society for Technical Communication ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:12, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Criticism of Microsoft ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:09, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) American School in Japan ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:08, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) List of Auburn University people ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:08, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Dopplr ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:08, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) 1966 ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:07, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2006) ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:07, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Birla Institute of Technology and Science ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:06, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Kelley School of Business ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)

After the content dispute was over an editor went back to several articles and rewrote history (revisionism). The editor previously acknowledged Jimmy Wales is historically cosidered the co-founder of Wikipedia.

We propose you change back founder to co-founder per consensus and that Wales is historically cited as co-founder. We can't rewrite history. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The only revisionism being done is being done so by the supporters of Sanger. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you admitted Jimmy Wales is historically considered the co-founder of Wikipedia. Anything else is revisionism or rewriting history. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when hewas considered a co-founder but that is no longer the case. Developing events change history of living people; you want to condemn Jimbo as co-founder for ever merely because he was for a time. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, sources that specifically discuss the co-founder/sole founder issue say Jimmy Wales is the co-founder.

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". MSNBC. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)

QuackGuru (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all old history; nowadays Wales is known as the founder and Sanger isnt known at all; and Sanger clearly has an investment in being remembered as co-founder as his claim to fame. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What did Wales do in the early years at Wikipedia to allege he is the sole founder? QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess he financed it, making him Sanger's bossand presumably directed Sanger, though I have no idea how closely he supervised Sanger as opposed to giving him creative freedom. I have never said we should do what Wales wanted which is to call him the sole founder; my argument has always been that founder could imply either co or sole or neither sole or co; its a more generic term and therefore highly suitable for wikipedia where our duty as editors is neutrality (and I feel I have plenty of experience at dealing with the challeneges of writing articles in a neutral way). Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, there were two other partners at Bomis who also invested time and money. Using a generic term such as "founder" which means singular founder is misleading. "Co-" is a designation that means more than one founder. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from an article in The Guardian "From Wikipedia – the half-baked, crazy idea of Jimmy Wales (and others) launched in January 2001" I think the point is to try and move away from this focus on the F word. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You were not trying to move away from the F word. You added "founder" to numerous articles and you claim co-founder is a false statement according to your edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that this is a way to move forward right now. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove "co-founder" from numeruos articles but I do see a reason to change founder to co-founder. Founder is original reasearch because it is rewritng old history. When no serious disagreement exists among reliable sources we assert co-founder, not remove it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well its hard to see a solution when you and certain others such as Lara won't make any compromise but insist on putting Sanger's view as the truth and Wales' doesn't get a look-in. Clearly a violation of POV and simply wouldnt happen in any other bio (we know, I think, why it happens here. As for your claim that reliable sources assert Sanger's viewpoint, the simple answer is, no they don't. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, sources that specifically discuss the co-founder/sole founder issue say Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales as co-founder.

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". MSNBC. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)

This is supported by primary sources, secondary sources, and historical references. No specific reason has been given to compromise. Anyhow, removing "co-founder" from numerous articles is not a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean no reason has been given for not having co-founder? How can you say this? Many reasons have been given over many years! We compromise for 2 reasons; one is that not all wikipedia editors are happy with co-founder; two is that co-founder is Sanger's POV and this needs to be balanced with Wales's POV; as ever what I see is you (and others such as Lara) refusing to make any compromise and making ridiculous and offensive accusations of revisionism in order to prmote a particular POV that simply would not stand in any other article and seems to have only one end; the promotion of Larry Sanger. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wales did not dispute the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles, and several media coverage articles, all describing Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never publicly objected to being called the co-founder until at least late 2004 or early 2005. For example, the WF page clearly states that Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia. It was not disputed until an IP changed it in 2005 after Sanger left the project. The same IP made an edit to the Jimmy Wales page. Then a minute later Jimmy Wales edited the Jimmy Wales page but did not revert the change the IP made to his birthdate. Another editor reverted the change. But then Jimmy Wales reverted back to the edit made by the IP. Wales had previously used the IP. Sanger became critical of Wikipedia after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia. According to Jimmy Wales the owner/entrepreneur was the founder. That means according to Jimmy Wales he was not the founder because Wales had two partners who were owners/entrepreneurs. When Wales claims the owner/entrepreneur should be a founder then the other two partners are the co-founders of Wikipedia. Wales did not dispute the co-foundership of Wikipedia until Sanger left the project. What did Wales actually do at Wikipedia in the early years. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to run Nupedia. When Wikipedia got started, Wales (along with two other patners) mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Wikipedia. Wales provided the "financial backing" while Sanger "led the project". Jimmy Wales had a minor role in the early development of Wikipedia in terms of building the project. Sanger named the project, thought of using wiki software, conceived of Wikipedia, was an early community leader, and established Wikipedia's most basic policies including Ignore all rules and NPOV.

You have never given a reason to compromise. When some editors are not happy about the wording it is not a reason to compromise. It is not Sanger's POV. It is the reliable sources including primary, secondary, and historical references that say co-founder. When no reason has been given to compromise there is no point to compromising. We write text according to the reliable sources, not how editors feel. After we assert both as co-founders (when no serious disagreement exists among reliable sources we assert it per ASF) then we can explain both sides of the story in the body of the article such as Wales disputes it. If a person disputes it, it does not make any different. A person is not a reliable source. We don't change the facts because Wales is not happy about it. It has to be disputed among reliable sources that specifically discuss the co-founder issue. See WP:ASF. It is not an accusation of revisionism, it is clearly revisionism. Of course Larry Sanger is a co-founder of Wikipedia, this fact was trumpeted during the early years of Wikipedia. No amount of whitewashing or revisionism is going to change that. It is startling to me to see the rewriting of history when it is a well known fact that Larry Sanger has long been cited as Wikipedia's co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given a reason to compromise; Wales' POV. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Substituting Wales' POV as fact is a violation of WP:ASF especially when no serious disagreement exists among reliable sources that cover the co-founder topic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said we should make Wales' the only POV, nor do I think so; NPOV demands all main viewpoints are incorporated in a neutral manner; how is promoting Sangers' viewpoint this? We all know Sanger wants to be seen as co-founder of the "great" wikipedia because it'll raise his profile; if the sources that discuss the issue of co-founder can, as you claim, be generally considered to support Sanger's viewpoint we can incorporate that into the text of the relevant section of the Wales article; but to say in the opening of his article let alone in articles that have nothing to do with the co-founder dispute is not within policy, is not a good use of reliable sources and seems to have but one end in purpose; the promotion of the profile of Larry Sanger; calling Wales founder neither negates Sanger's profile but nor does it promote his profile. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing text according to the source is NPOV. The sources say co-founder. Wales' POV is quoting him about disputing the co- designation. Wales' POV should not change the "co-founder" in numerous articles because there is no serious disagreement among reliable sources per ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No serious disagreement exists among reliable sources. So why are you disputing "co-founder" in violation of WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we dont use reliable sources in the correct place which is in a paragraph half way down Wales' article; this whole issue is so unnotable to not be worthy of mention in the opening of the Wales article (founder will do or some other expression that doesn't use the word founder) and most certainly not worthy of inclusion in other articles. There may be reliable sources for your assertion but what has this to do with Huntsville, Alabama or Hot Press. Unless you can find a reliable source that relates the co-founder issue to say Criticism of Microsoft it simply should have no place in the Criticism of Microsoft article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Founder will not do. Co-founder is okay. You added founder too many articles without a reliable source. According to you there should be assertion on various articles if a reliable source is produced specific to those articles but for most of those articles there was no reliable source and you added founder when you know Wales is historically cited as co-founder and you have never given an explanation why old history should be written. It is not a reason to rewrite history because Wales disputes it. In accordance with ASF when no serious disagreement exists among reliable sources we assert it without weasel wording or unneceassry attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Co-founder is completely unacceptable except when dealing with the dispute; the proof of the pointiness of this has been sticking refs about the co-founder dispute into other articles; this is spamming the co-founder argument anywhere it can be spammed and is completely unacceptable and I am amazed you should defend it; I am not in favour of reffing co-founder anywhere except where we deal specifically with the issue which is relevant to articles on Sanger, Wales and wikipedia, maybe Citizendium and Bomis etc but absolutely not in articles about Alabama, Microsoft etc. If as a reader I go to find out about criticisms of Microsoft I am going to wonder why I have been given a ref that Sanger co-founded wikiipedia; as I say this is spamming a viewpoint and is worse than merely violating POV on the relevant articles. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If a ref is not available to a specific article it is unacceptable to claim Jimmy Wales is the founder. The refs for an article must be specific to that article. We agree on that point. I don't think we should have one article saying co-founder and then another article saying something that contradicts another article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We must think of our readers; and when they are reading articles not directly related to Sanger, Wales or Wikipedia we can assume they are not interested in the founder dispute; refs are simply inappropriate and if this means we cannot call wales founder in these articles then so be it. We cannot use co-founder in these articles either so we need a neutral alternative that does not require reffing. i view any attempts to spam-promote Sanger in Wikipedia very dimly. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume editors previously wanted to remove co-founder from the lead of the Jimmy Wales because they could not get founder in the article and the references were against asserted Wales as founder. You added "founder" to numerous articles but not a neutral alternative. I suggested a compromise but it was rejected by you and other editors. Do you have another suggestion. QuackGuru (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not right now but I will work on creating one, it is an important issue. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not really a need to compromise when no serious dispute exists. QuackGuru (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so; not only is there clearly a dispute, the one we are discussing, but there are also clearly BLP issues due to Wales own stated views on the subject on the Wales talk page; you cannot just sweep these views under the carpet. Hey I just tried a compromise on a new article, David Shankbone, this is a good example of where the co-founder dispute has no place; someone notable for his work on the wikimedia and where there are no refs relating Shankbone to the co-founder dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 01:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes so; there is no evidence a serious disagreement exists among reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating that this is your belief does not give you the right to say I am right and nobody can disagree with me, that is not the wikipedia way; I don't agree. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't change the facts or rewrite history because you disagree with reliable sources, including primary, secondary, and historical references. You have been given many chances to provide evidence of a serious disagreement among reliable sources. You have not. I am given every right to say it especially when the only thing you have done is state your opinion while I have provided evidence when the co-founder issue is discussed in detail by reliable sources they say Jimmy Wales as co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes and that is absolutely fine; in the relevant sections of the Wikipedia, Sanger and Wales articles; but extend it any further and you are spamming wikipedia with Sanger's viewpoint, and that is way unacceptable; also do remember that reliable sources do not trump NPOV, nothing does, its the basis of our approach, and one you would do well to remember in this context. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We edit according to reliable sources which is NPOV. Rewriting history is not NPOV. You have never given a reason why we should compromise or say Wales is the "founder" against Wikipedia's WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

But nobody is rewriting history, indeed I advise you to stop making rash accusations that anybody is rewriting history, its plain uncivil as well as being complete rubbish. I have not only given reasons for compromise but made plain that spamming this conflict into any part5 of the encyclopedia where it isn't relevant is trying to promote Sanger at the expense of the encyclopedia. Your argument that all the refs agree with you is unproven, and that thus our duty is to only put Sanger's and ignore Wales viewpoint is pure wishful thinking from someone who has tried to spam this viewpoint into Jimbo Wales userpage. If you wish to pursue this argument on Wikipedia just stop telling people they are guilty of revisionism and rewriting history; it just makes you seem like a crank. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this reference you are indeed rewriting history (revisionism.) It is very civil and polite to cite references and explain the facts. Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". MSNBC. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)

A content dispute does not equal a serious dispute among reliable sources. Wales' position does not equal a serious dispute among reliable sources. Wales' view does not override Wikipedia's core policies including WP:ASF and WP:NPOV. I provided references that confirm co-founder while you continue to ignore the references presented.

You have no argument when you are unable to given even a single reason why we should change co-founder to founder or remove co-founder based on Wikipedia policy. Revisionism is original research and against Wikipedia's core policies. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

National Resistance Front renaming proposal

hi SqueakBox, please see Talk:El_Frente_Nacional_de_la_Resistencia, and the article itself. i've cleaned up the referencing regarding the name, internally to the article, but the wikipedia naming conventions seem to suggest a different name to either of those that you and i had chosen. i've proposed two names. Please say if you prefer one or the other, or have no objections to either, or if something is wrong with my analysis on the talk page. Boud (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Word of notice

Hi, SqueakBox. A comment of yours here has been changed and copied to an ongoing discussion here. Your comment of support has been changed to a vote of deletion by another editor. You probably won't mind, but I thought it appropriate that you should be notified anyway. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, cant see any problems here myself. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)