User talk:L0b0t

Ft. ORD 3\9 MANCHU

I REMEMBER THE DAYS OF D.R.F.AND BEING UNABLE TO GO ANYWHERE THAT DID NOT HAVE A PHONE:).I CAN STILL PICTURE THE BAKYARD THERE ON PLANET ORD .AND THOSE ROAD MARCHES WERE@#**#@!!! NEVER MIND THAT:) . I THINK BACK ON MY TIME AND WHAT IT MEANS THEN I THINK ABOUT YOU GUYS THAT ARE IN NOW. NO MATTER HOW HARD IT GETS REMEMBER YOU ARE A MANCHU BE WHERE THEY DONT EXPECT DOING WHAT NO ONE ELSE CAN . KEEP UP THE FIRE !!( LET THEM CHOKE ON THE SMOKE )IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE THE HISTORY I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD WRITE IT ALL. THE 7 I.D. WAS A GREAT PLACE TO BE , BUT I GUESS YOU HAD TO BE THERE TO UNDERSTAND. WHOOAHH!! LIGHT FIGHTER

FORT ORD CA. 7th.I.D 3rd BN. 9th INF. RGT. LIGHT FIGHTER (88-92)

Conventional warfare in the Koreas

I can't believe you actually stated that the Korean War has lasted "57 years and counting" in the context of lengthy engagements of conventional warfare. The fighting stopped 2 generations ago, no matter what the official declared status. You have got to know this - why would you pretend to think the war never stopped? 76.247.106.241 20:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Up the Fire

86-90 2nd Manchus Oldwildbill (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

student lounge

student lounge has recently been rescued, you may wish to review your vote at the deletion debate as new sourcing and copy editing has taken place.Myheartinchile (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.xxx.xxx.xxx

Andy's been making quite a name for himself as an edit warrior on Barack Obama, so chances are the IP is just an Obama fan. As far as Andy, he was recently on AN/I and is undergoing a month long block because of his behavior on the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I was just trying to wade through all that. Good lord, that Obama talk page is a scary place. IMHO, a month is a little extreme but I do understand the reasoning. It's a shame that a FA like that would end up as such an emotional sinkhole. Gotta love a long election cycle. The call for more uninvolved editors was a good idea, as was a cooling off period for the warriors. Although if you really want see some hardcore edit warring, check out the Iran-Iraq War. Was the US involved and if so on whose side? It's enough to make one's head spin. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up on the CSPAN broadcast.

Canadian cable doesn't carry CSPAN. We have a similar channel that carries Parliamentary material.

The Washington Post is going to have a "live discussion" of the Supreme Court rulings starting at 11 am.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nnenna Agba

You didn't do the AFD for this right. Since there were already two previous AfDs, you're supposed to add (3rd nomination) to it, not relist the one from 2006. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion

When nominating articles for AFD, please note this in the edit summary when adding the template to the article page. This allows editors to see it in their watchlists so they can follow up and vote. Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had a spot of bother with the AfD process this morning and was so intent on getting the nomination formating correct, I forgot the summary box. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kennedy and Vieques

It is a published article that included photos of him being booked. Although I linked to Dick Russel's blog the first time this time it links to E Magazine. RichardBond (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC) I am not so certain of the quality of my reduction of the article that I would be upset if you read it and wrote a new paragraph It is possible you could do a better job RichardBond (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jockamo feeno ai na nay'

Hey, I have no idea how that AfD discussion on the Baton Rouge crewe is going to wind up, but I'm enjoying your input and observations. Please accept this as a token of my appreciation:

		The Purple Barnstar
		For standing out in your ability to bring vibrancy and style to the Wikipedia community! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When this is over, let's hit Bourbon Street (or the Baton Rouge equivalent!). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. My very first barnstar, I shall cherish it always. Last time I was in Baton Rouge was for a friend's graduation from LSU. Laura Bush was the speaker and she brought her husband, thanks to their security precautions traffic was bad and graduation was an absolute nightmare. Cops and Secret Service everywhere. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand how those guests would disrupt what should have been a memorable moment. Thanks again! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it appears the article wound up being kept, as per no consensus. Oh well, on to other points of interest... Ecoleetage (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M2SYS

I think what "used by law enforcement" and then "useless to law enforcement" means is that law enforcement is a user of fingerprint reader products just like anyone else (for authenticating access to their systems or facilities), but on the other hand, the products do not collect fingerprint images in a form that law enforcement could subpoena and then compare to crime databases, for example, for the purpose of profiling people, or fishing for criminals who happen to work / eat / play at an establishment. That may be unclear but it is not a contradiction. Reswobslc (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, perhaps the article should reflect that. As it is, it makes no sense. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeasement of Hitler vandal

Is there some way you can report this person? He seems intent on breaking several rules to disrupt the article, as today with four reversions. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:129.71.73.243 keep on deleting sections on Appeasement of Hitler page but refuses to discuss the reason why

I hope he can change his attitude. He seems hell bent on suppressing the facts. He refuses to engage in debate but insists on vandalism. 218.186.66.69 (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "appeasement of Hitler" page

Hey L0b0t, what is the reason for deleting that page?

Michael Parenti - The Struggle for History http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20154.htm

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasis (talk • contribs) 05:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are put forth in the AfD. The article is a mess of OR, Syn, and propaganda. It has been so for 2 years and the subject is already covered by many other articles. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, the page should be deleted as it contains errors and propaganda. I intent to start a new page on the subject, so I think it would be best to delete the current version. I hope it can be deleted as quickly as possible, so I can upload the new version. 218.186.65.144 (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against a new article on the subject. One of the problems with this article is that the subject is ALREADY well covered in other articles. We do not need another POV content fork like this one. L0b0t (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the subject requires a separate page to make it more clear. So, I hope the current page be deleted as quickly as possible, so that I can upload new version. 218.186.65.144 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would urge you to check out Munich Agreement, German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Lesson of Munich, Western betrayal, and other articles in the category Politics of WWII[1]. First see what might be added to an existing article before starting a new one on a topic that already has substantial coverage. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the "appeasement of Hitler" page to be deleted as soon as possible. How soon can it be done? 218.186.65.144 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, added in my support to delete the "appeasement of Hitler" on the deletion page. Is there a way to accelerate the process and get it deleted straight away? Cheers. 218.186.68.124 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazi

This is the accepted term in English speaking countries. Please stop trying to replace this term with your POV insertiaons. Thank you. --Cberlet (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on appeasement

Thanks for the deletion proposal, though I'm uncertain what the outcome is going to be of that. This user/anon doesn't seem to understand basic English when spoken to and just blindly reverts everything. Now he/she is doing it on Carroll Quigley (the LaRouchist source used in the appeasement article) in order to hide the fact that Quigly is a controversial, conspiratorialist author. Also, in the midst of bizarre comments about deleting the appeasement article and making another, this person has reinserted two of the same sources (the LaRouchist one and one of the Stalinist--hosted on someone's personal page on an academic website but written by some random Stalinist on the internet), while labeling them as new and credible ones. After that, the person specifically removed the OR tag from that section of the article as well. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appeasement of Hitler page immediately

L0b0t, can you delete the "appeasement of Hitler" page immediately? Thanks.

I want it removed now.

No, no I can't. Please read the articles for deletion process to see how the process works. Also please sign your commnets using 4 tildes ~~~~. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazi

I am not confused. The proper term in the United States is "neo-Nazi," not "national socialist." Not all neonazi groups in the U.S. consider themselves national socialist. I know this is confusing, but there is abundant evidence of this in the published work of several scholars.--Cberlet (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but the groups that would TODAY be labeled neo-nazi would, in 1920 be just national socialist. That is to say prior to 1947 the existance of "neo"-nazis was impossible, they were just called nazis. one can not be a new (neo) nazi while the NSDAP was extant. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say neo-nazi groups existed in the US as far back as 1920 is not just historically inaccurate but physically impossible as well. Those groups were just plain ole nazis. L0b0t (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the sources at "Appeasement of Hitler" page crap?

I don't understand. Both are historians.

Can you explain to me? Thanks.