User talk:172

Shapiro Frankfurt School chart

I think you probably figured the matter out, since you removed your own comment from the Frankfurt School talk page. In brief: Jeremy Shapiro made a nice chart about interrelationships among Frankfurt School thinkers (and precursers, etc). An editor on the talk page felt it was undesirable to have a little blurb about "Created by J.Shapiro" within the graphic itself. I generally concur, but more important Jeremy Shapiro also concurred. So I edited the graphic itself, and uploaded a revised version. You partially need to look at the history/comments on the chart, not on the Frankfurt School page to figure out the change.

More recently--a day or two ago--someone took the entire chart out for some reason. I think it was an anon, and no real explanation was given. So I put it back in. Maybe my comment about removing the "created by" blurb was irrelevant; I had speculated that prior discussion might have been the reason the editor removed the whole chart. But who knows, maybe the latest removal was wholly unrelated to that. In any case, the chart is useful, as I commented (I might tweak it in a couple ways if I were to spend a lot of work, but certainly it is better to have than not have). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War

Yes, I'm familiar with that user. He is in the habit of using many usernames, and has begun using many IP addresses as well. I've blocked indefinitely some of the obvious sock puppets. If you can figure out if there has been a violation of abuse of the 3RR then I'll block the IPs involved for 24 hours. -Willmcw 04:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can probably assume that any new user who you are not familiar with on Cold War is some variation of this user. Checking through this guy's edits he is more prolific, and uses more names, than I had realized. Fortunately, most of his edits are good but when they aren't his use of multiple identities becomes problematic. -Willmcw 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.. It's a general alert to the community to try to guide this prolific editor away from the dark side. -Willmcw 07:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator nomination

Thanks so much for the encouragement 172. Although I have now decided to decline the nomination, it won't affect my helping around on Wikipedia. :-D — Insta ntnood 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. :-) — Insta ntnood 20:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I may refer to your statement "Too often a lot of people who follow the admin nomination page like making a big deal out of nothing, though" from User_talk:Instantnood#Nomination here, and if I interpret it correctly, I do have to remind you that an administrator is someone entrusted to exercise powers in reflecting communicty concensus, and is not a small deal. Therefore, nominations for and votes for admins is a solemn process which is by no means a small deal either. If the process has been given its due respect from the beginning, I would think the above chain of events would not have occured. If this may be a reminder, good works accorded to wikipedia is always welcome, but as it is so in the real world, all it takes is one fault, and all shall go to waste. That is a fact of life.--Huaiwei 16:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:172/Talk block 15

Should it be moved to user talk:172/Talk block 15 instead? Talk:172 is the talk page of 172, the year in the first century. — Insta ntnood 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should. Opps! You're more on top of things than I am. 172 | Talk 20:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-D — Insta ntnood 20:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Mertz

Hi 172: Since you just wrote me (and thank you so much for the kind words), I guess I'll ask a slight favor of you. For reasons mysterious, an editor seems to have created an account just to vandalize, or at least weirdly edit, the page about me (in my non-WP identity). Given the autobiography rule, I don't want to get into a revert war over that; but could you maybe take a glance at the page (and it's talk page). Thanks.

Acually, Jeremy Shapiro definitely deserves a WP page much more than I do; you may have seen I offered to write one on his talk page, but was waiting for him to send a few references. Maybe I'll go ahead and do that anyway; obviously whatever I included wouldn't be private info. But I figured he'd have more ready pointers. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my fellow bristly editor :-)

I seem to have made some enemies at WP. I know I have a failing in being overly gruff (which perhaps you share *wink*). Anyway, for reasons I think are not well-founded, there is an AfD on my non-WP persona: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz. Certainly, I'm not so notable as our friend Jeremy Shapiro, whom I still haven't gotten around to writing about (but I did create one on my colleague Alan Soble recently). Perhaps you'd like to opine at that vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Totalitarian dictators

Admins have a fair bit of latitude in deciding when there is consensus. I would suggest waiting a bit and then renominating it, and hope that a second opinion gets a different result. - SimonP 22:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that you added the CfD tag, but did not create an entry in the CfD/Log list for today (the old vote still exists, but this should be a different one). However, I agree with SimonP that you should wait a while. Yeah, it's a terrible category; but if something stupid exists on WP for a week or two (or three), it won't kill us. After the initial vote has settled a bit, then would be a better time to renominate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I saw what was going on from your edit summaries at a bunch of different pages on my watchlist. I then took a look at the discussion. I'm not sure what is to be done, since the CfD "failed." I suppose there's no rule that says we can't keep the category empty, though. john k 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kissinger proposed changes

hey not to keep bugging you about this kinda stuff but if you have time to check out my sandbox changes on that page's talk that'd be awesome. as well as FRAPH which was a while back. if not that's cool too. thanks J. Parker Stone 23:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorists

'nuf said.

Russian Constituent Assembly

Hi 172, notcied your a bit of an expert on Russian History. Could you take at look at the article about the Russian Constituent Assembly. Its bit of a mess now (half my fault!). Me and Ultramarine are disputing each others references to the point where 2 versions of history appear below the main article! TheInquisitor

Thanks spoken :)

Thanks for your thanks!! I am glad if it worked for now. I've had the same problem but never had the guts (or brains :) to move the boxes, so Thanks to you! - Introvert ^talk 02:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Linz

Perhaps, 172, you could write the missing Juan Linz article on WP, so that we can see what this fraemework he proposes is. I confess I don't know his work, since my doctorate is in social/political philosophy rather than political science or sociology (not that I don't sometimes read outside my field, but there are a lot of books in the world). I know you've referred to Linz at several points in the discussion of that awful category, but whatever analytic precision Linz may (or may not) have, it's not available to most Wikipedians. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618)

Glad to see you back. I'd appreciate comments on this article, I think it is close to FA status (just needs a map). I'd especially appreciate your input on the 'Modern legacy' section - I expected it would stirr up a heated discussions, but even after I asked for input on Russian noticeboard nobody seemed to mind it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. You know a lot more than I do on this topic, as I'm not an expert on cultural history, 17th century history, or Poland... I'll vote to support in the next couple of days. The "modern legacy" offers a good overview of the legacy of the war in cultural history; but I'd add paragraph or two on the implications of the balance of power issues settled in the war on the modern development of Eastern Europe. I'll try to write this myself, since this is the literature on the war that touches on what I work on. 172 | Talk 07:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

Hi, I wonder if that thing is still active, or that it was just a good idea of the moment, and that it just was left ignored? I've learned it from your Arbitrator candidature(and I agree with everything you said there BTW). I had many ideas on that direction, about the standardization of the way of citing sources, the way articles should be written and partial protection of featured articles etc. Regards. Fadix 21:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration subpage

Hi. Each of the current candidates in the Arbitration Committee election now has a subpage for people to ask questions and have a discussion with the candidate. It's linked to below your statement on the candidate statements page. Hopefully, this format will be more productive and less disruptive than the "endorsements/disendorsements" approach that caused so many problems last year.

I took the liberty of copying your candidate statement unaltered to your subpage. Feel free to elaborate on it at whatever length you wish, without the concern of space restrictions as on the main candidate page. I encourage you to put your subpage on your watchlist and discuss arbitration issues with the community as part of your campaign. --Michael Snow 04:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to let you know that I left you a question on your Q and A subpage in case you haven't seen it yet. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive list on your userpage

This is a very useful series of elinks you have collected there. I think it deserves moving into mainspace. The articles on Academic publishing, List of scientific journals, List of journal search engines, Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are just some that would benefit from parts or all of this information, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sometimes use it off Wiki when I don't have access to my favorites list on my internet browser... You have a good idea. It appears that someone else has already started the work at Wikipedia:Academic resources. 172 | Talk 09:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, tnx for the comment about it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro article

Thanks for your interest in this article. Please be more careful, however, before suggesting a user may be a sockpuppet of another; if you examine the recent history of the article you will see that Saravask replaced the opening section that I and others had previously copyedited, which I then have spent time re-copyediting and wikifying. I also imagine you will find our IP addresses significantly different.

It seems there are now 'too many cooks' working on the article, so, as I have stated in Talk:Fidel Castro#Too many cooks, I will for the time being withdraw.

David Kernow 14:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen and read Talk:Fidel Castro#My edit summary and the intro and appreciate your apology.
David Kernow 14:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I look forward to your input on the Castro article and other articles when you feel ready to reenter the discussion. 172 | Talk 14:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kissinger

thanks very much, though the External Links section'll need to be worked on by someone, heh. it's just that practically every link (IIRC) was about how terrible of a person Kissinger was. we probably don't need that many links in the first place.

if you have anything in my edit you think needs to be significantly changed or improved on i'm open to discuss it on the Talk, probably tomorrow though, cuz i gotta do a 5-page paper. Dr. Trey 22:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Re your request on ANI - I have removed the material from 'speedy deletions' the space there is for requesting the deletion of userspace not articles. If I can help any more, let me know. --Doc (?) 10:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian dictators

Hi 172. Thanks for the message. I have been peripherally aware of the to-and-fro over the category; most of the relevant pages are on my watchlist. This was why I did something about it when I saw it turn up in the speedy category. Although I have some concerns about the original processology of extending a CfD and stuff, I don't feel moved to reverse my deletion, particularly as VfU is upholding it without too much trouble and there is also a perfectly decent stub now in place. It also was a speedy, given the eventualy state of the CfD. I'm still something of a new admin (about a month old), but I think I've averaged >1 deletion a week on VfU which, given the normal traffic there is quite a lot! So having another one listed is not too disturbing, especially since all the earlier ones were upheld. Thanks for the understanding, though. -Splash^talk 11:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfU

172, I've thought it right to remove my insertions of the <personal attack deleted> tags that Silverback's been complaining about. Of course I didn't put them there to bait him in the first place, but because I disapprove of silently altering things over another person's signature. And also to avoid turning some of your comments into replies to nothing. Unfortunately, with this removal, some of your comments are now replies to nothing. I apologize for not managing better, and please feel free to revert any edit of mine that you think unfair to you. Alternatively, you might consider removing some of your own words, I suppose. Please see the note I left on the VfU page. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Quoting me is fine of course. I've endorsed the basis for the dispute, which I suppose means I should also put in something about trying and failing to solve the dispute (I reckon I did try, even if only on a small scale). I see you suggested El C endorse it, but I suppose it can be more than two people? Feel free to remove my sig if it doesn't go well in that place. I find the RfC instructions pretty mysterious. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc Silverback

Do you think mediation would be a more congenial route to take? Has he further insulted you since I asked him to stop as I haven't watched all the details...--MONGO 08:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel both of you are valuable editors. I was looking over your addition to Neoconservatism in the United States and it looked fine...maybe a little left (no insult intended) but overall, better than what was there. I am not a strong advocate of RfC, ArbCom, or anything along those lines. I think that some could have filed stuff against me in the past and was ?lucky? enough to avoid it. Your case is probably strong and it appears that Silverback has not been very apologetic. I haven't seen that he has commented on the RfC yet so maybe after he does that would allow me the opportunity to see both sides of the story. I just noticed on the Admin noticeboard your comments, am familiar with Silverback and was trying to keep things from spiraling out of control. I think I may have upset you with my comments and that was not my intention. I'll probably stay out of it from here on out.--MONGO 09:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Neoconservatism in the U.S.: I just thought that the term itself isn't widely used by neocons themselves as a personal description of their politics or policies...it is by paleocons and liberals much more often...and in some cases, in a disparaging manner...but I think that is mentioned elsewhere. My main contributions to the article is to revert the repeated anti-Jewish lingo that keeps cropping up and I won't profess to be any sort of expert on the subject matter...just sort of keen to slight word play due to my bias of being a moderate conservative. My editing there will primarily be to revert vandalism and contribute to talk. As I said, your edit appeared to be much better than what was there and follows a NPOV.--MONGO 10:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool...and works for me. I appreciate your link qualifying the issue. I never doubted that the term is used by neocons themselves, just (as you also pointed out) not as frequently as it is by their political opposition.--MONGO 10:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed page histories

In the future, with pages like Lenin Peace Prize/Stalin Peace Prize, please take care to (1) preserve edit histories when moving or redirecting pages (avoid copy and paste moves), and (2) quash double-redirects. →Raul654 17:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got any info on 1010804171.jpg? (Venezuelan vote yes woman)

Hi, I think the image [1] was a great addition to Wikipedia. It has been deleted now. The deletion log seems to imply that you were the original uploader [2]. Can you give me any info about this image, or where I can find it's status with respect to copyright? Thanks. Gronky 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, the mystery has been solved. There was no copyright issue, the picture was simply no longer being used anywhere. I'll re-upload it and re-add it to the Venezuelan 2004 recall page. Thanks anyway. Gronky 01:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early Communism

I intend to rv your recent changes - (but not tonight)Linuxlad

In the future could you please post content-related concerns on the article talk page? Thanks. 172 | Talk 18:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The normal convention is (I observe!) to warn a user that there is going to be some action, and _then_ to post material points on the relevant talks page.. Eg I would have expected this (ie your) reply (but no more) to go on _my_ talk page Bob Linuxlad

Soviet history

Hi, since you wrote most of the soviet history, I think you will know what to do with a new Demokratizatsiya artice, which is a cut'n'paste from LOC country studies about Gorbachov's times. Please say something at Talk:Demokratizatsiya before people start some useless work. mikka (t) 22:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please cool it on the name calling, "Surrealism is revolution troll". Thank you.Classicjupiter2 01:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoofing by User:172 sysop status

172, I took the liberty of moving User talk:172 sysop status to User talk:172/sysop status -- because User:172 sysop status (a suspected sock puppet of User:SuperTroll was apparently exploiting the file name to escape vandalism warnings. Please feel free to move it further. --Nlu 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for your support. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Kim Jong-il - ruler or leader?

I call your attention to this poll: [3] --Bletch 01:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd^(?!?) 18:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stpete.org photos

Hi 172,

Could you point at the page stating the photos you're uploading from stpete.org are in the public domain?

Thanks - Tempshill 22:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it differs - the US federal government, by law, can't hold the copyright on anything, hence the CIA World Factbook being in the public domain. This restriction does not apply to states or municipalities, so they can go ahead and claim the copyright to all their workers' photos, if they want (and many of them do - see California's department of transportation). And worse is the paragraph you cited about the photographers:

If you are a photographer who would like to submit photos for use on the City Web site, please send them as an JPG email attachment.... Photo credit will be given if your photo is used as a picture of the day. If you would like to use a photo for your project, please include the credit line "Photo Courtesy of the city of St. Petersburg." and make "St. Petersburg" a link to the city site, www.stpete.org (if possible).

That sounds free-ish, but it's clear that the individual photographer still owns the copyright to his photo, and hasn't released it into the public domain or licensed it under the GFDL by sending it to the St. Petersburg website. Tempshill 22:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the law differs, but in practices cities often want their information to be public in order to promote commerce. That being said, it's not much of a surprise that there is no indication of a city copyright on the website. So the evidence points to the photos being public. 172 | Talk 22:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the evidence points to the photos being copyrighted. As you undoubtedly know, under U.S. law, when a photographer snaps an image, the image is immediately copyrighted to him, with no action necessary on his part (such as registering it with the U.S. Copyright Office, or even labeling it with a copyright notice). If he were to subsequently upload that image to every website in the world, this would not impugn his claim to the copyright (though it would definitely harm his ability to collect damages in court). The most that you could argue is that he's giving St. Petersburg the right to use the photo for its own promotional purposes. Now, you could probably make a fair use claim for Wikipedia to utilize the photos, based on the latter. But the photos are definitely not in the public domain. Tempshill 23:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for retagging as fair use. Now back to the more real problem, which lately has been people uploading photos from random websites and claiming they're copyrighted but free to use. Tempshill 23:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lir

It appers the troll known as user: Lir is still around here's he his website www.kapitalism.net, I figured you should see it for youself---A friend

Apologies and Award

After extensively probing your history, I hereby award you the Barnstar of Diligence. It is duly awarded for your precision contributions to Cold War-related articles, your dedication to methodological rigor, and your exceptional professionalism and level-headedness in the face of acrimonious disputes. Saravask 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After looking more deeply into your user history, I must sincerely apologize for my unsubstantiated accusations (details on the Fidel Castro talk page). I also discovered other things about your contributions, including your substantial reworking and painstakingly scrutinized buildup of the George F. Kennan article. Feel free to post the barnstar on your page or leave it here for others to see. Please, do not respond to this posting in any way (I've caused you to squander enough of your time). Warmest regards, Saravask 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 14:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again

Hi 172: I just came across your page and wanted to let you know that I am delighted to see that you are still contributing to this ever-expanding global Wikipedia encyclopedia of ours. Every bit of your input counts (no matter how "small" you may consider it to be), so keep on going strong, and again, "good to see ya". IZAK 07:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/SV

Im deeply grateful for your comments in my support at my difficult RFA. I hope all has been well with you. Sincerely, -St|eve 04:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey again

you know a while you said you could help me get that ArbCom ban possibly overturned? well i dunno how often i'll be using this site but if that's still possible, to open a contest against the results of that, any help'd be appreciated. i'm not really sure how these processes work.

oh and thanks again for helping on the Kissinger article. Dr. Trey 22:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Evidence. You may advance proposed solutions and make comments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Workshop. Fred Bauder 14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate?

Would you please elaborate here about the edit summary for your most recent edit to Kim_Jong-il? - Brian Kendig 23:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mar del Plata

ok, will help out if I can. There should be some interesting reports in the alternative media. -- Viajero | Talk 09:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

Hi. There has been a request for mediation involving you made at WP:RFM. If you are willing to take part in the mediation, please add your name there or email me at sam DOT korn AT gmail DOT com. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 17:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union

Hi there, 172! I am a bit puzzled by your recent revert of the Soviet Union article back to Yuliya's version. I partially reverted her edits where I did not see them as objective and/or NPOV. She also deleted some facts, which I restored (and which, with your recent edit, are gone again). Could you, please, explain me your reasoning? I am sure you do not deny that the repressions took place, that the occupation of Afghanistan was indeed military, and that the Soviet growth statistics were doubted by most Western analysts? Did you, perhaps, mean to only partially revert the changes? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I was the one who uploaded the original version of the text before her modifications, actually. Her edits struck me as changes in language and style, not factual content. So I did not see reason to revert them entirely at the time. 172 | Talk 00:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this for me. Do you now intend to restore the facts that had been removed?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rangerdude

There is an active arbitration case concerning user:Rangerdude at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence. I have presented evidence of Rangerdude's attacks about other editors, and I included a negative personal comment he made to you. The ArbCom is seeking greater involvement in their cases. -Willmcw 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Soviet Union

Hi, I note that you've edited some articles relating to the Soviet Union and so I was wondering if you'd like to join WikiProject Soviet Union, joining doesn't obligate you to do anything, just I'd be happy of any input I can get for improving articles relating to the USSR. Thanks - FrancisTyers 03:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

I believe the page is ok now? If not please let me know. R adiant _>|< 14:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious POV-pushers

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days. I'm dealing with a TPP who keeps trying to insert the Swift Vets' talking points into the John Kerry article, and I was asked to help out at Income tax, where a TPP keeps insisting that the article should "state the fact that the U.S. income tax is unconstitutional as applied but not in general, and state the fact that the courts have rejected the law and constitution illegally." It seems that sensible editors are having to spend more and more of their time dealing with this sort of attack. I'll try to look in on your problem but it will probably be when next I'm on. JamesMLane 09:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

favor?

Would you look at this [4] and comment on both Hogeye's and my points? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

Could you look out after the inflation article, I just made a huge roll back to get rid of a vast array of povcruft that had accumulated in the last month - a gold bug got loose on the page and started sermonizing about the errors of modern economic theory in not going back to gold, and there was a disorganization of the page by another editor who was writing personal essaylets. Stirling Newberry 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, U still around? I haven't seen you in ages.

You might want to take a look at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire. International usage on all major English speaking medias, as well as WP Manual of Style and NCs, suggest that that page should be at Ivory Coast. I proposed that it be moved. A lot of people insist that whatever the evidence most English speakers use Côte d'Ivoire and oppose a move tooth and nail. Given your commitment to actually using professional encyclopædic standards on WP, and your skills as a historian your opinions would be more than welcome (indeed dare I say it are sorely needed!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

You might enjoy this

The Georgian Creed
I believe in George Herbert, the father almighty

creator of American power on earth
and of wars, seen and unseen.
I believe in George Duyba, his most important son, our president.
He was conceived by the oil industry
born of the blessed Barbara
suffered under Bill Clinton
and was crucified, losing the election.
He descended unto the Supreme Court
At the inauguration he rose again
and ascended in power
where he is seated at the old desk of the Father
so that in wars he can choose
the living and the dead.
I believe in election influence of Jeb Bush,
A powerful Republican Party,
Communion with Congress
the forgiveness of voters
the resurrection of the party
and the Bush Family everlasting.

Amen.

It is based on the Apostles Creed. I wrote it in a bored moment on WP. :-) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

news requests

Hey 172, I've seen you around previously, on the George Kennan page especially, where you did a bang-up job. Looking at your userpage, I thought you might like to know about the Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service. I try to keep an eye on it, although there's not too much activity at the moment. It also occurs to me that we have somewhat overlapping interest areas here on Wikipedia. Hope to see you around. All the best. <nowiki></nowiki>—[[User:Thames|thames]] 16:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Command Economy

Hey, awesome job with the command economy article. I thought I was going to have to redo the entire article and take all of that rambling out. Your edits were really precise and clear. I really appreciate the great work you do.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I think you may be interested in this nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you might want to archive some of your talk page, it's currently 141kb long....

Human rights in Belarus

Hi, I noticed you put a NPOV tag on this article. I'm the one who created it, I noticed you know quite a bit about Russian history. If you've got a moment, would you mind telling me what's POV about it, and maybe I can change a few things in it? Thanks. :) I just want to know what it is that needs to go and I'll rewrite it, since I didn't really intend to write a non-npov article...XYaAsehShalomX 09:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 08:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Don't worry about it. Do keep me posted on what you are up to, I often can't follow everything going on here, but would like to know, Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern day dictators

Has it been considered to create List of heads of government described as totalitarian, List of heads of government who ruled by decree, List of heads of government who suspended the constitution and the like, and to have "List of dictators" link only to these lists? Gazpacho 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed spin-offs mentioned above are much worse, actually. The problem is that in all but the most obvious cases historians are always disagreeing on the nature and scope of the authority of just about any individual leaders or regime. By making any of the above proposed classifications, Wikipedia editors wind up arbitrating between professional historians who spend their entire lives specializing in the study of any of the regimes listed but disagree on these matters themselves. So, the judgment one way or other (whether or not to include one leader or another) is inherent original research. 172 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example where historians disagree about whether a leader suspended the constitution? Gazpacho 22:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Enabling Act I can see what you mean, but I still believe it is possible to have such lists where there is a clear paper trail (e.g. the enabling act quite explicitly allowed Hitler to rule by decree). Gazpacho 00:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a miserable trainwreck the AfD discussion has become. If only someone other than juicifer had raised the issue. Gazpacho 10:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your appreciative comments and for taking the time to write them. I do think of Wikipedia as one of the great experiments in the history of civilization, and, aside from the fact that I find it fascinating and pleasurable (although occasionally stressful and also sometimes conflicting with my job and various other intellectual projects) to participate, I sometimes do think of myself as having almost a kind of moral obligation to do so. I will check out the article you mentioned. Jeremy J. Shapiro 00:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case: community vs AndriyK

Hi 172, I thought you might be interested in following this ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Community_vs._User:AndriyK even if you have no intention on getting involved. Regards, --Irpen 09:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dictators

Agreed, voted to delete per POV policy. Stirling Newberry 15:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback case. Raul654 06:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

This isn't your cup of tea, but as an independent academic you might want to keep an eye on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. User:DreamGuy is assing around again deleting links he does not want to have, or rather ensuring that only his article is linked to the section on the Jack the Ripper rumours that swamped Albert Victor. A second article also discusses the topic in the context of royal myths and legends. He has been trying for months to get the other article deleted so that the only article that covers the topic is his own pet one. Every attempt he has made to get things his way has been met with silence by everyone. Even his merge attempt got a grand total of himself participating. Since all his other attempts have failed he now tries to delete any reference to the other article in the Prince Albert Victor page. Of the fun of people like DreamGuy and their agenda, eh! FearÉIREANN 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal

172 you should take a look at New Deal someone's been adding some rather dubious stuff to it over the last day or two. G-Man 21:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another humanist

Please see Talk:Vladimir Lenin (and "Lenin" history). It looks like we are about to have yet another humanist on crusade to call people "ruthless murderers" in articles. YOu have a much better eloquence than me to explain that this is not how encyclopedia is written. mikka (t) 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom'd

well no luck with Dav. dunno if i should just forget the appeal. i don't know how these things work and if you don't have much a chance for success if both parties can't agree.

i think i should be able to though since i probably wouldn't've gotten the ban i got if you hadn't been my archeditwarenemy #1 for like 5 years. in a way it seems like your input should be worth the most since we had a lotta edit wars since i first got here in summer 2004.

anyway any input'd be appreciated. i won't be bummed if i can't do this, even though i do think my work on Henry Kissinger deserves a Wiki Pulitzer. Dr. Trey 07:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of White supremacists

You might be interested to know that I've nominated List of White supremacists for deletion. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators

Hi. I just wanted to comment on something you said (after the debate was closed, for which you get a minor slap on the wrist). You said, ... minority of users getting away with voting NPOV ... on a technicality. As of now the deletes are at 60% instead of the needed 67%. This was not a vote, it was a discussion trying to achieve Consensus. This is no strict definition of what consensus is, and there is certainly no pre-defined percentage of votes which must be achieved. All that being said, if you feel that an error was made here, we've got a procedure for that. You can ask for a deletion review. --RoySmith 14:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging dictator lists

Please comment, if you would, on the proposal at Talk:List of modern day dictators to merge into List of dictators. Gazpacho 21:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list

I've started a mailing list to discuss the bias against progressives on Wikipedia, among other topics - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redfaction . If you want the e-mail address hidden to all except the moderator (me), make sure that option is checked. While I'd love it if this list took off, it will probably mostly be me sending off an e-mail once a month about the latest travesty (I still can't get over how Jimbo appointed JayJG to ArbCom).

I have been too busy with real life stuff to be too involved in Wikipedia recently. I have been researching for wiki articles, even going to libraries, but I am publishing those articles like this one[5] or this one[6] on other wikis. They usually take me over a month to write (after work). I wouldn't even say they're that good - the narrative is horrible, I just try to get all the dates and facts straight, with two or more sources for most everything. Then I try to focus more on classes than individuals. I should also add that it's rather difficult to track down some of these things, such as what year the Huks in the Philippines stopped fighting. I still don't have an answer to that, different sources give different dates, I have a feeling it just petered out instead of coming to a complete stop. Anyhow, sign up to my list to hear my monthly rant about this or that. Ruy Lopez 23:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on dictators & its afd

Hi 172, I wanted to respond to a comment you left me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, that I didn't get a chance to respond to (I've been editing rather irregularly lately). I'll reproduce it here:

No reason has been offered? Regarding whether or not the list is crucial to coverage of the topic, see Jeremmy Shapiro's comments explaining how the list probably serves more to give a misleading picture of political reality than it reveals. Further, Jtdirl, Wizzy, Colipon, John Kenney and I, along with a handful of other editors here, I have provided a plethora of examples of leaders who fall into a gray area, and thus either way their inclusion or exclusion here is on the basis of the POV judgment calls of individual Wikipedia editors. If you do not remember a reason for deletion being stated, you need to take another look at the discussion threads. On a personal note, I have come across your work on articles related to the Federalist Papers; so, I know that you are quite a bright student of political science and political thought. Given your level of sophistication, I expect that you will be able to understand some of our concerns. 172 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at Jeremy's comment and I do agree with some of his concerns. Also, looking at the disputed page itself, I see that it's a long way from where I would like: particularly, people are spending a lot of time "coming up with a definition" of dictator to govern inclusion, which seems like an obvious instance of original research. The question to ask seems not to be "does this person meet some (arbitrary) standard that Wikipedians have established" but rather "does the bulk of the academic/ scholarly/ media/ other reputable sources describe this person as a dictator." Judgment calls will of course in the end be required, but I think our general resolution mechanisms will be up to handling them, and (importantly) I think we will be able to inform these judgments largely with established research and commentary rather than the general opinions of editors. I don't see the page as hopeless, and I've been surprised in the past by pages that seemed doomed to endless controversy and managed to recover.

Also, part of my reason for keeping the page is the shabby treatment at dictatorship and dictator of the subject. Proper coverage of the concept seems to require the analysis of a fair number of actual cases. Right now the best coverage along those lines seems to be provided by the list, which at least links to many elucidating examples. Improvement of the main pages could perhaps obviate this benefit of the list, but for now I don't think we are in that state. (On another note, those two pages should perhaps be merged.) I apologize for commenting that no reason for deletion had been offered; what I meant to say was that no reason had been offered that I found compelling. While it was argued by a number of people that the article was inherently POV, it seems to me that the article's problems are not irreparable and that eventually this material could form a valuable part of Wikipedia. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic fascism

There is an ongoing attempt to define state intervention in the economy as inherently fascist through the creation of an article entitled economic fascism. I have started an AfD on that article based on the argument that "economic fascism" is (a) too vague to ever be properly defined and (b) an inherently POV term of abuse which will cause eternal edit wars, and the observation that the subject of economic policy in fascist regimes is already covered in a multitude of other articles, including fascism itself and corporatism. Please consider voting or commenting on the AfD. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern dictators

Sorry, the AfD had been closed by the time I had a chance to look at it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F-bomb about the AFD vote. Perhaps when there's more evidence of the retarded and intractable edit wars that will no doubt ensue on that page it can be brought up for AFD again. All the best. —thames 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya 172. It might not be up your street but (literally!) lol but the St. John Lateran is located at the Italian version of its name, thanks to a four person vote in April, even though English speakers worldwide (except in the US) don't use the Italian version of the name. I've proposed a vote to move the page back to its original location. It is at Talk:Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano. Please drop in and vote. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Plínio Salgado.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Plínio Salgado.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Pak21 13:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoeconomics

I felt it bad form to add the first reference, but once it existed I had no trouble adding the beginnings of an article. Stirling Newberry 16:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2

DO NOT edit a closed AFD, my notes where to clarify my thoughts when closing the AFD and should not be edited just as you would not edit a user's statement on a talk page. If you continue you may be blocked as editing a closed AFD page can qualify as vandalism. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you would not mind please respond on my talk page why you felt it was appropriate to both modify a closed AFD as well as modifying another user's (in this case the closing administrator's) comments. I am at the moment assuming that this was some sort of misunderstanding and am assuming good faith however any clarification on this would be nice. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

172, also if you would like the article to be redirected attempt to get a consensus on the talk page to do so. I like all people support being bold in certain situations but doing so without a consensus is against policy and is going to just lead to an edit war which should be avoided if at all possible. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo

I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this case. I am afraid Ghirlandajo is trying to create a rift between Polish and Russian editors, and if he is unchecked, it may damage all of the good will that we have been able to work out through our previous collaborations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that despite my reiterated requests to the contrary, Piotrus continues to recruit supporters for his anti-Ghirlandajo crusade. 172, thanks for calling me a "potential asset" to the Wikipedia after I have made more edits in my 9 months of editing than Halibutt has done in 2 years of his. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that your assumption that Piotrus and Halibutt are "exceedingly tolerent toward users with other perspectives, and consistently polite and friendly" is wrong. Calling me a "vodka pisser" and racist, as practiced by Halibutt, is neither polite nor friendly. If my comments were not always exmplary, I brought my good-willed apologies to Mr Halibutt on *three* occasions, the last time just five days ago (see his talk page), and every time he bit the hand that I extended towards him, openly presuming my bad faith and preaching me in a judgmental tone: "You can call it some sort of personal probation if you please". After that, not only did he maintain a confrontational tone, but advised me to reconsider my membership in this wikipedia. What is particularly sad, he refuses not only to apologize but even to acknowledge numerous insults and personal attacks directed to me: "No, Ghirlandajo, we were not both bad tempered. You were. Accusing me of insults when there were none will not change that". Having said that, the only person who refuses to co-operate there is Mr Halibutt, and I have nothing to learn from him, contrary to your advises. --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for your comment. You can see above what we have to deal with. Ghirlandajo has now accussed me of spamming (again). :/ In other news: Could you consider adding the Wikipedia:Babel template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patria Y Libertad

Do you have any insight on this AfD? Gazpacho 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for moderating the Edit war on Communism

Hi, the recent edit war in Communism has been very draining. I would like your support in an effort to moderate that war. I made a proposal for moderating the edit war in a section by that name in the discussion page of Communism. I'm hoping that you will add your name to it. (BostonMA 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Your comments would be welcome at Prime Minister. One user, without even bothering to go through the proper procedures, wants to rename the article Prime minister and keeps moving it to push that version!!! While there is an article for all uppercasing or all lowercasing, half-casing (which is all WP allows, as all lowercasing is not possible in article titles) would produce a semi-literate mess that would make WP a laughing stock. A student who writes the title that way in an essay earns an instant fail because it is seen as such a monumental clanger. With all the attacks WP is under right now, the last thing WP needs is to make it look as though it does not know how to write the title of the office of premier correctly. What next? Lord mayor? United states? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration against User:RJII

I opened a RFAr against RJII for POV pushing, incivility, and refusal to take the RFC process seriously. If you would like to join it, feel free to do so. Firebug 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is of interest to you, but on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion there is a vote to delete a template called behave. It is designed to deal with kiddie vandalism and works excellently, but by the usual WP mob are trying to delete it. (I'm all in favour of deletions of unencyclopædic content but the scale of deletions on WP is out of control. I'm on the brink of quitting WP at this stage I am so fed up of it. WP has gone to the dogs IMHO.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Partitions of Poland

Would you take a look at talk:Partitions of Poland#Discussion. We are discussing a possible change of the name of the article there and I believe that a view from non-Polish perspective would be helpful. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 21:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya 172

Good to see you around again! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ADL and LaRouchies

As an Australian I don't know much about the American ADL (I've had a fair bit to do with the local affiliate), but I will support any effort to get rid of Herschelkrustofsky and other LaRouchy wreckers.

While I'm here I feel I should warn you that someone has been impersonating you at various articles relating to North Korea, inserting gross pro-Communist POV and preventing any critical comment on the grotesque Kim dynasty. This doppel-172 does not seem to have been active lately but you ought to be watchful in case he comes back - as I am being. Adam 09:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a statesmanlike view to take. If only everyone conceded at once that "it is increasingly clear that your point of view was correct all along", Wikipedia would be a much happier place. I shall have this noble sentiment framed and mounted. Adam 11:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (PS please archive your Talk page)[reply]

ADL

Hey, thanks for helping out on the Saddam article.

Taking a look, it seems that all of the links provided that mention the spying on the ANC come from sites with a strong anti-ADL bias. That said, if anyone can find a more moderate source, I don't see why it can't be mentioned, as it does give both sides of the issue. I'm sure you would not want to censor (properly referenced) US ties with nasty rightist dictators, am I wrong? CJK 16:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If its properly cited, I don't see why it can't be mentioned briefly. Of course, if we were talking about a photo that showed the ADL and South African government individuals collaborating (in an article about Apartheid) it would be a play on emotions and uncalled for. But right now, it doesn't seem terribly out of place or POV. CJK 00:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for your support back there, that guy was really getting annoying. CJK 22:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think its interesting that all I had to do to provoke his "outrage" about my "denial" was to change exactly one word on Philippine-American War. There was no other current content dispute. Thanks for helping there too, BTW CJK 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

history bug

Just about the history thing, I've experienced it myself before. In fact, I submitted a bug report to BugZilla about it - the other time it was concerning vandalism with Tookie (which is now a redirect), and I was prevented from reverting that article for a long while, until someone else reverted it. -- Natalinasmpf 06:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr against KDRGibby

Following his rejection of mediation (twice), I have decided that I will file an arbitration request. I am busy formalising the list of parties involved. Do you wish to involve yourself as a complaining party? -- Natalinasmpf 07:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

It may not be up your alley, but very few people have came through RfC I posted about History of the World, and there is a slow but pointless revert war there (see Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll), so I am now down to asking fellow Wikipedians to take a look if you have time and will.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate,

Your assistance is required again. (sorry!) You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I am so utterly frustrated with the farce that is the WP:TFD mess. It is so obvious that 90%+ of nominations are based on ignorance of the template, and those who vote rarely have an idea what they are voting on. I have always been in favour of some deletions on WP but that this stage the scale of deletions of good stuff is breathtaking. It has led me to seriously question whether I want to stay on WP. I have spent so long trying to fix things, as have others, only to find our fixes, even though they may have an overwhelming consensus behind them, get wrecked or deleted by a small minority of deletion police who clearly don't know what they are doing. WP is in danger of destroying its own credibility through low standards of contribution and through the attacking of those who try to bring it up to professional encyclopædic standards. I don't know how long more I will have the stomach for defending professional standards against attack from those who don't think standards matter, just their own game playing. It is obvious that the lack of professional control and proper procedure is doing untold damage to WP. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered that the guy making the nominations, not content with nominating templates, had been sneaking through others deleting them. Outrageous! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, 172! Thanks for not leaving Wikipedia! . --Irpen

Happy New Year, my friend. --Neutrality^talk 07:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Greetings 172,
I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, 172. I was unaware of that case but had strongh suspicions about Neto's behaviour already. Now that I am aware of it I will make sure the arbcom ruling is enforced. (I have blocked him for breaching the one-revert-per-article-per-day ruling.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey 172, could I have your input on a dispute I am having with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters on List of Dictators? Lulu wants to imply that Cuba has had multi-party elections since 1976 just because Elections in Cuba says so[7]. However, checking the page history shows that relevant information was removed the other day by a pro-Castro vandal. I restored it, but Lulu refuses to give up and is accusing me of, what I believe is, a frivolous 3RR violation while ignoring my comments on talk and elsewhere (but having enough time to complain about my "rantings"[8]. A response would be appreciated. CJK 19:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've opened a WP:RFA against Netoholic for two threats he made against me on my talk page and his. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of the Soviet Union

I think you are more qualified than myself in deciding whether this deletion of the phrase needs to be addressed since it was you, who wrote it. I just get extra alert when pieces are deleted from FA's. Cheers, --Irpen 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if this seems acceptable to you, I will leave it as it is. Thanks, --Irpen 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

possible request for comment

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [9] Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please consider this[10] Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW

Would you be willing to support my nominee for WP:COTW. The article is Invasion which is an important term for military knowledge. The current article however isn't at the same standard as the term is in modern and historic warfare though. If you'll be willing to support, I'll be greatful. Thanks RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 00:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

I've just read through the topic "cold war" in your discussion list, which seem to be about a guy who uses several nicknames and IPs. But you probably remember that it's me who wrote the "extra" on the cold war article, and I can assure of that I am not in to that sort of stuff; this time - it wasn't him...

PS! Have you seen my comment on your complaint of my article? PPS! I now got my own account...

V.V.

time to put and end to comandante

I copied what I wrote to here. I've never written an RFC before so hopefully you can help me with it. Thanks--Antispammer 01:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Hi, many thanks for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. - FrancisTyers 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comandante RFC

I would be glad to contribute. Yet...

Yet, there simply has to be a better way of getting him banned. RFCs do nothing alone. It will simply lie there for days until someone takes it to ArbCom. then if the case is accepted it will sit there for months as the ArbCom takes agonizingly long amounts of time to examine evidence, propose decisions, and vote. Then when we might get a sufficient verdict, it leaves the possibility that Comandante will keep inventing new accounts. Meanwhile, countless numbers of articles will be vandalized to the inconvenience of all.

RFCs are supposed to be launched against semi-respectable people who can make a case. Comandante will not, and he is barely above the status as vandal. Take a look as this. [11] As of now, out of 720 edits, Comandante has made fifteen to talk pages since April 25, 2004, three only recently and under threat.

We are simply playing into his hands right now as he will delay and delay as long as possible. Thus, a faster means, such as reporting him in as a vandal or something else, is urgently needed. CJK 02:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related to Fidel Castro, so I'm hopping in. I'm not saying you don't have valid points on talk, but I'm tired of it. I spent a solid day on vandalism patrol, and came across this article the same way. In spite of all that, please don't edit/strike others comments. I yelled at Ed when he did the same thing ages ago. Bitch. Moan. Report me. Rail against the prick I'm being, but please don't edit my comments. I've just reached my limit on Fidel Wikibofh_(talk) 03:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefuly, the article dosen't further degenrate into a propaganda vehicle for the Miami millionaires who wish to become the dictators of Cuba once more. El_C 03:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wikibofh, this ^^^ is the type of shit you have just opened the doors to.--Antispammer 03:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean, 172? El_C 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't brought up the issue that there is no discussion in the article of the following:

Amongst the wedding presents received was a substantial gift (US$500) from Batista, who by then was both a retired President and dictator with the rank of former general in the Cuban army.

Just struck me as ironic. *sigh* Wikibofh_(talk) 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- At least we're bitching on 172's talk page instead of in article space. In the immortal words of Dennis Miller, we're going to "pick a hole". Wikibofh_(talk) 03:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when I do this they're happy, but otherwise, "shit" and other expeltives are the order of the day. Ignoring sources, and so on. El_C 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just because you have it in for "Ben Z". You're in the anti "Ben Z" cabal. Nice of you to finally admit it. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that addressed to me? If so, I don't know what that is. El_C 03:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was addressed to you. :) Look at your diff. It shows you reverting out the sentence "Ben Z. is the best." :) Note the liberal use of smileys on this sentence. :) Wikibofh_(talk) 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Maybe he is the best, one never truly knows. Erm, I'll try to be less bitter for the moment being. ;) El_C 03:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Dennis Miller is okay, but Bill Hicks is the "shit"! El_C 03:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken under advisement. I will try to see if I can find some of his stuff. I'm also partial to Lewis Black and meaningless conversations on 172's page. :) BTW: The Miller quote is a partial portion of this. I use it for indicating when decisive action is more important than what the action is. Wikibofh_(talk) 04:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... did you think of alerting Comandante about his RfC? I didn't really see any mention of it to him. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully it sent this time

--Antispammer 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello 172. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

On the Joeseph Stalin article, someone wants to distance Stalin from the purges [12] along with some other stuff I don't have a serious problem with (mostly). Since I don't have much knowledge of the Great Purge, perhaps you can say whether or not this is called for? CJK 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev

Please take a look. It seems there that the raging russophobia of some is the only reason of the attempts to derail the candidacy of one of the most worthy people for the job. That's of course just my opinion but I appreciate your taking a look. --Irpen 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Vote

Hi 172,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor

I read your statement at talk and saw your edits. It is an extremely difficult article. I see your point though. Some friendly criticism of politicizing of Holodomor may be found at John-Paul Himka, "War Criminality: A Blank Spot in the Collective Memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora", from Significance of the Second World War for establishing of state symbols and collective cultural memory in Central-Eastern Europe, International conference, Lviv, 2003 (also available online at Spaces of Identity, Vol. 5, pp. 9-24, ISSN 1496-6778).

OTOH, Andrew Alexander edits this article from a very attached and personal POV while he tries to bring in much factual information at the same time. I kind of gave up on that article for now. With Mikka's loosing his heart in general, I would more than welcome if you join this discussion from the Western academic perspective. If you have time for that, I will try to return to the article too. Regards, --Irpen 04:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). You put a great effort into it, it was me who mixed up everything. Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDRGibby

The request for arbitration concerning this user has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#KDRGibby. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

I now have a few extra tabs at the top of my Wikipedia pages. Thanks for your comments on my RfA. One needs critics as well as friends, but better still, one needs a critical friend. To that end, if I come across a sticky situation, I hope you will not mind if I ask your advice; and if you see me do something questionable, I would appreciate your letting me know. Banno 08:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting me on my Rfa, 172! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAUP etc.

Since this is not directly related to the article any more, let me respond here. As for Ukraine, I'm confident that you are very much aware of how complex the situation is in the country. Similarly to Russia, the way of conducting historic research is still much biased by how it's been done in the past. And I'm sure that you know that history as a discipline in the Soviet Union was very different to the Western standards. It can take years to change it, but the first changes are already happening. Still, one has to remember that the Orange Revolution happened just a year ago, and nobody knows what the coming parliamentary elections will bring. As I think I said before, level of nationalisms is often unpleasantly high in the countries that won their independence recently. Ukraine is not an exception here. Then there's a push towards market economy, which could also mean promoting private institutions, including education. Finally, the government administration also takes years to change its habits. All these and more make the MAUP problem not as straightforward as it might seem. this however should not eclipse the fact that there are more and more talented young historians in the Ukraine without neither strong Soviet nor nationalistic bias and we should keep our fingers crossed for their progress. If you have not done it before I would recommend reading the Kulchytsky's article, which puts things in a quite true perspective. And no, I'm not a leading scholar in my country and I'm not a Ukrainian either. --_Lysy^talk 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to jump in. This is mostly to respond to Lysy. His statement about the level of nationalism in Ukraine being "unpleasantly high" shows how little the writer is familiar with the particular issue. Yes, the UA nationalism is as aggressive as any nationalism but it is not at all high in Ukraine. Nationalist ideology is on the fringe there and the results of the recent presidential election, if anything else, shows it very well. The politician with proven track record and without any significant allegations (Yushchenko) won only with a rather small margin over a convicted criminal (Yanukovych) only because Yushchenko's opponents manage to paint him a Ukrainian nationalist (largely unjustly). This was enough to significantly weaken his campaign to a degree when his victory was measured in single digits only and had the pro-Kuchma block picked someone else instead of a candidate with two criminal convictions, the former prime-minister (Yushchenko) who actually paid off the pensions debts the state owed to retirees, salaries to teachers and doctors and filled the state coffers by clamping down on the economic crime would have lost the election. This, if anything, shows that it is rather unpopular in Ukrain to be a nationalist.

Here, at en-wiki a very small percentage of Ukrainian editors subscribe to the nationalist ideas, which usually come together with fervent Russophobia. Andrew Alexander is rather atypical in this respect and there are only a handful of others in Wikipedia with similar views.

As for the "traditionalist bias", as 172 also said, the place to fight it is not an encyclopedia, which summarizes the scholarly work but the scholarly works themselves.

Finally, I would like to thank the editors with an extensive academic background in history for taking on this article. This includes both of you. Regards, --Irpen 07:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I did restore Holodomor. May I ask you to help with this article? So far a large part of the debate there was among Ukrainian nationalists and Stalin apologists and what the article needs really are people with a good professional background in history and free of ideological agendas, just like yourself. I consider myself also free from ideological agendas but history and politics is rather a hobby of mine since my professional background is science and engineering.

I was unpleasantly surprised to see Ultramarine to roam into the article. I've seen that fellow before as well as his arbitration. The guy is a huge pain in the neck.

Finally, I would like to add to what I wrote to you earlier about the situation in Ukraine. People in the west tend to get a wrong impression when reports about MAUP surface here. The truth is that MAUP within Ukraine itself is in total obscurity and gets to public attention only when the reports like the one you referred to make its way to the media. No one in Ukraine ever hear about MAUP no matter how much clout it boasts at its web-site, that is until they get involved in another scandal. Similarly, there was or may still be an ultranationalist member of parliament named Tiahnybok. His only clam to fame was the outrage from his statements like "Ukraine for Ukrainians" and that "1917 Revolution was a Russo-Jewish conspiracy". This received much more attention from the media that a little notice announcement that he was expelled from the parliamentary faction by Yushchenko[13], a faction leader at that time. --Irpen 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news came out and a short analysis that the influence of radical xenophobes in Ukrainian politics should not be overestimated. Also see [14]. While the Ukrainian nationalism within Ukraine itself is rather on the fringe, the judophobia is on the fringe even within this nationalism itself. Days were all evils were considered to come from Jews and Poles are long over in Ukraine and those nationalists who have to hate someone, are happy to hate Russia and the Russians as you can easily see in Wikipedia too. Similarly, among the Polish editors it is more unusual to see much criticism of Ukraine now even on controversial UA-PL issues. Russophobia is much more in fashion among all extremists in the Eastern Europe than hatred towards any other ethnic group or country. --Irpen 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of communism

Hi! I've been working on a rewrite of that article, including material from Ultramarine as well as from my own research, over at User:Nikodemos/sandbox, but also offline. The only thing I've got left to rewrite is the economic development section (my sandbox is lagging behind my actual progress). I should be finished with it by tomorrow or the day after. So as to avoid creating parallel versions again, might I ask you to hold off any major edits until you see my rewrite? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You might want to vote here. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War

What's going on? If this turns into an edit-war I have to remove the AID-nomination. I am getting the impression there is some sockpuppeteering involved and also, there is no dispute over content, just calling each other vandals. For example, what is wrong with the content of the statement about Korea you keep removing?--Fenice 07:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean peninsula remains a hotspot. The states of North Korea and South Korea (and her allies) also technically remain at war because although a truce is in effect, no formal peace treaty was ever signed. As a result, tension still remains high on the Korean peninsula, especially since North Korea announced its acquisition of nuclear weapons.

According to the talk page you are only disputing the positioning of this addition. It appeared strange to me that you removed it completely because it is so much a part of common knowledge that I think it does not even need a footnote. (Inline citations are badly needed in this article.) I am sure you are unnerved by constantly having to explain the same thing until you get around to rewriting it. Still it is on the AID now and attracting even more attention. I am getting the impression that you are dealing with a new user who simply has a very essayistic style and makes additions to a text that is already to long. That is not what is typically happening on the AID typically. The text needs changes in structure and contents, not more text. This should be discussed first, I'll start a section on the talk page of Cold War.--Fenice 08:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right.Daanschr 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: your message about AID Cold war. I will surely try to give some inputs. Regards. --Bhadani 14:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Che13.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Che13.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 09:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

He was directly responsible for starting and enforcing waves of executions, which killed hundreds of thousands, and deportations to labor camps and labor colonies where approximately one million died from 1934-1954.

If I read this correctly, Stalin is being said to have been responsible for a vague range of 1.2-2 million deaths (not counting famine). These are not the only numbers floating around and you know this. So why are you reverting to this version? --TJive 11:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the sentence quoted above. In the context of the paragraph in which it was inserted, my understanding of the reading was not that Stalin was said to have been responsible for a "vague range of 1.2-2 million deaths" over the course of his rule. Instead, the sentence to me read as if it were referring specifically to deaths in the Gulag resulting from the Great Purges, not the famine. In the future please take concerns like the above to the relevant talk pages, not user talk pages. 172 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

(posted to 172 and Ultramarine). Please be very careful of the 3RR on Holodomor. I'd hate to have to block either of you. -- Pak aran 07:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching the time windows, which indeed is quite a sad practice. By the way, the talk page is illuminating. Notice that the edits in question have been thoroughly discussed for a week and now all of a sudden Ultramarine is jumping in without saying a word on talk. What does one do with an editor whose idea of building consensus is forcing other editors to play games with the 3RR? 172 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-bullying petition

fyi: Silverback decided he didn't want to remove his comments about you (that he added to his signature on the anti-bullying petition), so I removed his signature entirely, along with your comments about it. If you need the diff it's here: [15] --Ben 09:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It's your user page, so it's your prerogative. Still, thanks for trying to be even-handed. 172 09:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid deflection strategies won!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Asteroid deflection strategies was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Joseph Stalin

User:Simonides seems to have broken 3RR. Should we report him? --Ghirla | talk 12:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor

I am a review debate, but except 100К your flud I do not see the constructive offers. Not it is necessary to delete coordinated versions. I have only returned source coordinated version. --Yakudza 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, self-flagellation, yeah, that feels gooood! *ahem* I wish I could help, but I'm already caught up in some major pet projects on the wiki (now that I finished my overhaul of Criticisms of communism, for example, I need to defend it), as well as a bunch of real-life stuff. If the dispute isn't resolved any time soon, though (which it probably won't be), I'm sure I can come in to help eventually. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi, thought you might take a look at the discussion. 84.59.102.68 14:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I don't have enough expertise to assess these edits. Perhaps you do. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 14:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just inquiring, are you intending to post evidence? We just need one last bit in order to make the thing complete. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ...	and silver linings	Thank you for your support on my RfA.
		Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

WP:RCU

I believe the guys at WP:RCU could be interested in comparing this with this. P.S. You may want to archive this page, as it takes quite some time to download. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rummel

Hi, Just saw your vote on why rummel is always right. I get very confused by this I've closely read the article and I have failed to see any strong POV in there. It seems to me like a possibly too technical description of the research happened by various authors in the field, with lots of the technical discussion of the terms as I would expect in an academic field.

Could you explain what is POV about it? --Salix alba (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Happy new year.

I don't know if it would interest you but there is a vote to delete a template called Defban which is used to deal with vandals who post defamation on the site. Splash doesn't seem to grasp that it is not a breach of no legal threats but a template created after consultation with arbcom members to protect WP from defamation postings and to make sure those posting such stuff know they are leaving themselves legally at risk of being sued. I'd be interested to hear your opinion. It is on WP:TFD. Merci, FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for defending the truth

thak you, for sticking up for real Amercians, as few of us as there are on wikipedia — thak you, for sticking up for **real** Amercians, as few of us as there are on wikipedia

Category:Real Americans

Architecture of Africa - new AID collaboration

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Architecture of Africa was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Kronstadt Uprising

Can you take a look at the recent additions? They may need NPOVing. --Ghirla | talk 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Inauguration12.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Inauguration12.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Arb.

Hi, "abe," I'm sure you remember me? (it's been a while I know)...anyway I noticed the arb-com reopened your case, and if you need a character witness or any sort of help feel free to email me (I'm going to send you my personal email address)

Also, I'd vote to re-syosp you, despite our past differences, because I feel you are a wonderful contributor to the project. --Plato 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia won!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Sofia was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Input on category

Hi 172: I don't necessarily want to draw you into yet another one of those endlessly hard to maintain articles :-). But I'm curious for your input on a rather narrow issue. Basically, I've taken on the informal job of keeping the article Ward Churchill sane... i.e. not letting it turn into an editorial copied from Bill O'Reilly, condemning Churchill in the most POV terms possible. Far more work than it should be, as you can probably guess. Refactoring part of the material (to conform with WP:SIZE, firstly) into Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) helped some.

Anyway, that's just background, here's the narrow question. Churchill has a somewhat ambivalent relationship to Marxism. I added Category:Marxists to the article a while back (but notably not Category:Marxist theorists). Another editor took it out, but then indicated on the talk page that s/he was not aware of Churchill's sympathetic, but not uncritical, books addressing Marxism. That stuff is on the talk page. I don't think the category inclusion is obviously correct, but I also don't think it's obviously incorrect. To my thinking, it's more a question of providing a useful category to browse thinkers in a related tradition.

Well... basically, I'd just like your input on whether the category tag should be in the article. You can comment in the section on Talk:Ward Churchill that discusses this. I don't want to add it back myself, and I'm not sure how you might opine. But if you feel inclusion is useful, I'd value your opinion (and let you add it)... or likewise, I'd value your opinion that inclusion is wrong. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Yup. Its that time again, another msg from me about a controversy. :-) Another dispute is on which might be of interest to you. You probably have heard of the US periodical, The Nation. It is one of a number of publications that exist or have existed using that name. However some US Wikipedians have decreed that all other publications of that name must be shunted off to a disam page with the US publication given sole custody of The Nation page, even though neither it nor any other publication with that name is international nor widely known outside each state's border. The confusion this causes can be seen in the fact that people making entries to the Thailand newspaper, the British magazine, the famous 19th century Irish paper, etc usually end up innocently creating links to the US periodical page on The Nation rather than the obscure disamb page (which is only found by a link at the top of the US article). It is blatently wrong.

The dispute is at Talk:The Nation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DPT

I noticed that you were active as an editor for DPT in the past, and well I would like to request your help. It seems that the use of Rummell's research has been abused and is the primary source for the article. Any opposing viewpoint that has been interjected seems to be reverted off. I am afraid that this article has strayed from its original intent. I am requesting help due to the fact that I have some experience with DPT, however I am a beginning grad student and I am afraid that I might be ill equipped to tackle this alone. If you are not interestd in reengaging in this "conflict" any ideas on countering the prevaling Rummell arguments? I know that he's not really accepted in academia, but I can't find any way to prove this... -- Scaife 09:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember User:Paektu?

I remember you interacted with him a few times. Tell me, why did Paektu suddenly quit Wikipedia on 7-25-2003? The Block Logs showed nothing. And was he really from Pyongyang? I saw on a "Wikipedians in Korea" page a long time ago that he was from Pyongyang. If so, how do you know. I hope to hear from you soon. --Shultz 18:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, No. Don't worry. I'm telling you about another damned vote. lol. You should however take a look at the opening of George W. Bush for a laugh, specifically the opening paragraph. I've been trying to produce a reasonable encyclopaedic opening paragraph but one user knows so little about how to write an opening section that he insists on putting nonsense about Bush's period as a sports manager into the opening paragraph (!!!) while demoting the date when Bush leaves office down a couple of paragraphs. It is a garbled mess that would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. Jeez. Do they teach these people how to write in schools anymore? Or how to assess the importance of information? If people in my university submitted essays with that standard of writing the essay would be returned to them with the instruction "rewrite it properly this time." Sometimes the low standards on Wikipedia give me the creeps. OK. That's my rant for the night over. Time to go to bed I suppose. Take care. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frog won!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Frog was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Dijxtra 21:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD vote

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples) since you voted on the deletion of the same text under a different article name. Septentrionalis 18:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Nixongoldwindow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nixongoldwindow.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then 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 want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AID

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Contact lens was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Image Tagging for Image:DRPK_Kim_Il_Sung_and_Kim_Jong_Il.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DRPK_Kim_Il_Sung_and_Kim_Jong_Il.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then 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 want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roma people won!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Roma people was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Image Tagging Image:Ho Chi Minh.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ho Chi Minh.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AID

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Great Leap Forward and Decline of the Roman Empire were selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

-Litefantastic 17:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, and this talk page is 114 kilobytes long. I suggest another archive. [reply]

Dubai Ports World controversy

I did not realize the Bush administration scandals category had previously been added and removed. I can see how this is iffy, as it represents more of a PR blunder than a "scandal", although there certainly appears to have been lax attention paid to some rather obvious concerns that could be raised. I will not dispute your editorial judgment, but I think it could easily go either way. Cheers! BDAbramson T 07:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KGB in Nicaragua

Citing a book called The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World (by Christopher Andrew & Vasili Mitrokhin), TDC has added [16] the following assertions, among others, to the Sandinista article:

During the following three years the KGB handpicked several dozen Sandinistas training in Honduras and Costa Rica for intelligence and sabotage operation in the United States. In 1966 this KGB controlled Sandinistan sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the US/Mexican border. Their primary targets were southern NORAD facilities the oil pipeline running from El Paso Texas to Costa Mesa California. A support group, codenamed SATURN, passed as migrant farm workers to conceal themselves and smuggle in arms caches.

and

Sandinista defector Álvaro Baldizón alleged that Cuban influence in Nicaragua's Interior Ministry (MINT) was more extensive than was widely believed at the time and Cuban "advice" and "observations" were treated as though they were orders

He also inserted this unattributed POV:

In contrast to the Cuban revolution, the Sandinista government practiced political pluralism throughout its time in power although this was primaraily to appeases its external critics.

Since I don't have a copy of the above-mentioned book at hand, I can't verify this material. Do you know whether such allegations of KGB influence have been corroborated and adopted in other secondary sources? I hope you can lend a hand sorting this out. saludos cordiales, Viajero | Talk 13:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to drop you a note 172. Care to look over the edits? If you have an Amazon.com account, you can do a book search and a content search in the book if you do not have a copy or cannot find one at the library. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukashenko

I didn't see that your edit related to material further down in the article. I just saw parts of the first paragraph being deleted. I have no objections to the Christian Science Monitor, but it is a very bad idea no the make any references to Luka's dictatorical regime in the first paragraph. It is not accusations; it is extremely well documented, and it is the most important part of his regime. Several of my friends have just been deported from Belarus because Lukashenko wants no foreign observers to witness the rigging of the current presidential election, and Lukashenko has threatened to "wring their necks" to anyone protesting against his election. In Belarus peaceful protestors are now treated with anti-terrorism laws! That country is simply a banana republic without bananas. That fact should not be hidden. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are references to the dictatorial regime in the first paragraph. The second sentence states, "his opponents, at home and abroad, accuse him of being dictatorial." I share your political point of view on Belarus. That being said, we have to avoid the temptation of advocacy, as Wikipedia's editorial position is supposed to be neutral. 172 | Talk 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits to this page is of very good quality but I strongly disagree with you regarding the top paragraph. I've replied on my talk page. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions reversions everywhere

Hey there,

In an attempt to expand the pages on the Belarus revolutions, I keep running into your reversions. Although I realise that some may not seem notable (such as the students), you should assume some good faith as to where this is going. I was busy making a summary of different actions elsewhere using the jeans. Just knee-jerk reverting a minute later just halts the growth of the article rather than helping it.

Furthermore, I'd like to point your attention to this particular reversion. First let me say I find your edit summary unnecessarily demeaning. It is not "POV speculation", it just something which you think shouldnt go in. Please, dont throw around heavy terms as easily as that. The paragraph was inserted because this will be the main reason why people would look up Belarus at this time, and it deserves a prominent place. I strongly disagree with your removal of it, and even more strongly to the manner in which you have done so.

Greets, The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 08:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We agree with each other for the larger part. Whether the protests will be succesful remains to be seen (although when citing dwindling numbers, perhaps you would also like to cite the many reports of night-time disappearances of protesters? [17]). Nonetheless, that they have become relevant is not speculation, Belarus is/was in fact in the grip of that crisis, and that information is worth inserting in the article. The fact that you think it shouldnt go in does not mean it was POV. It wasnt. I resent the suggestion that the information was entered to further some sort of agenda. Like I said, dont throw heavy terms like that around this easily.

Secondly, if you think the word 'crisis' is too much, change it! Of course I know your version can be changed, but if you revert the whole paragraph because you find one word to be a bit overdone, then there is not much left for me to change except put it back in, is there?

We both just want to enrich the encyclopedia with information on the topic. If you think information is out of place, put it into place. If you think it is badly formulated, then formulate it better. We should be editing constructively together, rather than just reverting each others work.

Greets, The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Business Plot

I meant Richard, not Robert. At any rate, a more respectful tone toward User:Rjensen is in order here, given his professional expertise on the period. 172 | Talk 14:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your right 172, thank you for pointing this out. I will be more civil to Rjesen in the future.

I think respect is very important in building wikipeida. I would appreciate you showing me respect in-kind, as a good will gesture. Please refrain from getting involved in the middle of an edit war, based solely on your opinion of one of the editors. Please move my edits to the Business Plot page, instead of deleting them on your talk page.[18]

I appreciate your hard work. Have a great day. If there is anything I can do for you, please dont hestitate to ask.Travb 15:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIS = the organisation of 11 former Soviet Union states

Why do you keep removing "the organisation of 11 former Soviet Union states" from the Belorusian election article? I think that CIS and even the name are not so well known (it used to be in mid 1990s, but it is not anymore). I am not discounting CIS's observation I only explain what CIS is. If organisation from Texas observerd election on Florida when Bush was elected and considered the election fair I would have to add that this organisation was from Bush's home state as the organisation might be potentialy biased (but does not have to be but any reader must be careful). But anyway, I do not writing "CIS is biased" (although I think it) but instead CIS is group of 11 former Soviet union states. It is fact not my POV. --Jan Smolik 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bush analogy has me puzzled. I'm not a believer in Bush family conspiracy theories, although I've never voted for any of them. There's nothing wrong with an organization based in Texas observing an election in Florida (my home state, btw) featuring a member of the Bush family on the ballot, if it has a good reputation... Regarding the CIS, there's little need to get bogged down in the details surrounding the organization in articles related the Belarus election. This is a wiki. If readers are unfamiliar with the CIS, they can click on the hyperlink and read the article on the Commonwealth of Independent States. 172 | Talk 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the Bush analogy. First "if it has a good reputation" is the important part here. Reader must know on the first sight that the organization has or has not a good reputation. If that hypothetical organization from Texas has thirty years of experience with observing election it is a good source. But we must state this. Second I will always more trust to the neutral observers rather than home observers (so UN or OSCE to observers from Texas). Anyway maybe it was not that good analogy. As for inclusion of short CIS description (not details). I believe that reader must be able to understand the lead without clicking to sublinks. I am afraid that Commonwealth of ... might get misinterpretated as British commonwealth. Especialy for non native speakers who know this word only in this context. When first reading that name I thoutht it was British commonwealth. For me observers from British Commonwealth would be more trustable than observers from CIS. So actually this would be misinformation for me if I thought it was British commonwealth. --Jan Smolik 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will always more trust to the neutral observers rather than home observers. I think that the issue has more to do with institutions than locale. Technically Belarus is a member of both the OSCE and CIS. The difference, according to officials with the OSCE's monitoring unit, is that the OSCE's methodology is more rigorous than the CIS's. I think that they are clearly correct. (BTW, a good article was published by Radio Free Europe on the topic. [19]) The nationality of the observers does not matter per se if the organization has the resources needed to be effective, if it's transparent, and if it's professional. If the CIS were a more effective inter-governmental organization, in theory it could one day play a more effective role in monitoring elections in member states... Regarding the articles in question, I don't think we need to go in detail on the debate over the varying standards of the respective monitoring units of the two organizations. That topic is more complex than one would expect at first glance, and thus best covered in the articles that one can access by clicking the hyperlinks to the related articles. 172 | Talk 19:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Of course you are right. But on the other hand country of origin will have impact on persons definion of "free expression". This differ in the US, Czech Republic (my country) and Russia (maybe this is a key to the Bush analogy -- which is not a good one on a second thought. Anyway I still have a concern about confussion of Commonwealth of Independent States and British Commonwealth (as I confused it in the first reading). --Jan Smolik 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

glad to see you back

Just stopped by to say that. Hopefully, you will have at least some to for E. European topics. --Irpen 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan

Hello. I noticed you were a historian, and I thought it might be beneficial to have your input on a topic that you may be more knowledgable with compared to the general public. The current discussion can be found here. The main points of contention arise with edits such as this, and this. There is also a question of the relevance of the Leo Frank incident. This whole issue is important because it is spilling into other articles, such as the History of the United States (1918–1945) article with edits such as this, which describes the KKK as "The second KKK was a social organization active in all states in the 1920s. It demanded enforcement of prohibition and attacked sin, sexuality and foreign influences. It crashed when its own scandals revealed the hollowness of its efforts to purify society.". I am hoping you are either knowledgeable enough on the topic to comment on the issues or have access to good sources which speak on the topic. Thank you in advance. - Dozenist talk 05:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Just so you know, when you want to redirect a page (when you want something to a "see such and such") instead of keeping two articles the syntax #REDIRECT [[page name here]] is the accepted syntax. You got the bot auto warning because the redirect didn't match the pattern, I know its good faith and I've fixed it for you. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a message :) -- Tawker 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC) -- Tawker 17:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you fixed it first and I just used my template :) -- Tawker 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War box

I see your rationale for removing the box. However, I would still like to restore the image that I made on the Cold War section. How's that? -- Regards, Clevelander 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privatization

Let's work together on this. I understand you are trying to enforce Arbcom, but this is not a case for deletion of material. Its a perfectly good edit. If you want to rework the material, lets do it with HK in good faith. --Northmeister 00:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded HK's entry to address your concerns. I am interested in your comments. Thanks. --Northmeister 01:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis (drug)

Hey, can we talk about the revisions you want to make at Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Intro (and 172's additions)? Thanks, Rory096 01:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Ports World controversy redux

The category "George W. Bush administration scandals" has been deprecated in favor of Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. Would you object to including this new category in the DPW article? Seems fairly, ahem, noncontroversial to refer to it as a controversy (as opposed to a scandal). Cheers! BDAbramson T 20:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synarchism

Hi 172, I've left a note on User talk:Herschelkrustofsky about his edits to Synarchism. [20] Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Herschel got User:BirdsOfFire to revert to his version at Synarchism, and a user check confirmed they both edit from within the same two IP ranges, so HK has been blocked for three days and BirdsOfFire indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Herschelkrustofsky. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Herschelkrustofsky made it seem as if you might be looking for three admins to agree. If you think this is a case which meets the criteria, then perhaps we should propose a remedy and see how many admins we can get to agree to it. -Will Beback 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year."[21]

I think that's a fairly standard probation provision. I'm not quite sure how "the opinion of any three administrators" is determined. The probation page gives some details. It's actually a bit cumbersome. Probably the way to start is to add a subsection to the existing HK section on AN/I, with a proposed enforcement along with a place for admins to endorse it. As far as I can tell, he has been editing disruptively on several pages recently. We can propose that, for a specified period, he either be generally banned or be banned from editing specified subject areas. Since the LaRouche topics are so scattered a general ban may be more apporpriate. Though bans of up to a year are authorized, a much shorter period may be appropriate. -Will Beback 05:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on arbitration

I'd like to talk to you privately about some arb-related issues, but your wiki-email is not working. Could you email me back? It's not extremly urgent, but from users I know and respect, you are the most involved with arb.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another matter I'd ask you to look into: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Molobo_..._again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorphin buzz

I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate the countless hours of work you've put into helping to improve the project. Thank you.

I'd give you a barnstar, but I always feel awkward about that. DS 21:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:195.229.241.187's request

This particular user sent me an email saying that he was banned for linkspamming. He pleads ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, and would like to continue as an editor. Is there any scope? (and btw, I think its time for you to archive this discussion page, lol!) --Andy123(talk) 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time! --Andy123(talk) 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, 172

for the the civilized discussion and your kind words Bublick439 19:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439[reply]

Stalin

Note that PACE held Soviet union leaders responsible for at least 20 million, and only Holodomor probably killed more people than Holocaust. And many authors regard stalin as primary man behind WW2, not to mention that most well-informed authors now regard him as at least one of the primary men responsible for the outbreak of war. Thus, if we are to attribute dead bodies of WW2 to hitler, one should attribute those to stalin as well.--Constanz - Talk 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and the traditional argument that Hitler's alliance with Japan provided incentives for Japanese aggression in the Pacific -- but Stalin's alliance with hitler from august 23 1939 on? the outbreak of war was a direct consequence of the pact. And Stalin's support (oil, raw materials) for Germany 1939/40 that helped germany to survive allied blockade? --Constanz - Talk 08:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Chancemill

Thank you :) Great to see veterans like you still doing a great job around here! Chancemill 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tens of Millions

Bublick439 has deleted the phrase from the intro. Would you please honor our compromise, and put it back into the article? Drogo Underburrow 11:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your name

Is your name the same code the american police uses for murder, death, kill reports?

And if so, did you get it from there?

Just want to know ;)

(Deng 12:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Not that I know of. I choose the number based on an IP address. 172 | Talk 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh sorry the number is 187, so sorry to disturb you

187 would have been a nice name :D

(Deng 14:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Cuba

I think the statement that Cuba is the only state in the Americas which is not a democracy is correct - Chavez has not yet succeeded in making himself a dictator, and Haiti has just held reasonably free elections and is at least making an effort. However I am not prepared to have a big fight with the fidelistas over that phrase. But I am willing to take them on over the history, government and politics sections, which were a total disgrace before I began to edit this article, and still are to some extent. Where do you stand on this? Are you willing to take on the fidelistas and have a big edit war to clean this article up? Adam 10:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congress and Wikipedia

You may be interested in discussing things in Talk:Norm Coleman#Section on Wikipedia. — TheKMan^talk 03:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx and anti-Semitism

Please keep an eye on this [22] as it plays out, and make such interventions as you feel appropriate, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you now look at the bottom third of this section Zur Judenfrage) anon. user 85 has laid out three options for revising it - could you review and comment on them? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba

No problem. I've been trying to get away from some of the Cuba stuff, but seeing "some believe Cuba is the best democracy" made me unable to resist temptation. CJK 20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba mediation

Hi 172 -- can you please give me a firm yes or no as to whether or not you wish to participate in the mediation? Let me know either here, on my talk page, or on the Cuba article discussion page. Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba

Thanks for your input - you're a good person - sometimes i wonder why i put up with people like that - been abused in email too. PMA 19:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean coming from me it means a lot? PMA 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blushes* thanks - that's really nice of you. PMA 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a really good person - do you have MSN or Yahoo Messenger? PMA 10:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein

I think you nominated the Saddam Hussein as a Featured Article a couple of years ago. I just read it cold and found it to be a terrific article. I've placed a Peer Review tag on the Talk page and would like your feedback about givng it another go as a Featured Article. Cheers! — J M Rice 11:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember nominating it. But what I remember and what I did are increasingly two different matters as I age. I'll try to take a look. Regards 172 | Talk 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Vladimir Lenin

Look at the bottom - i tried to call the Marxists for their behaviour and i got attacked. PMA 17:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's just depressing - i try to do the right thing against both right and left extremists - even Adam says i mean well - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999

PMA, I am sorry if I said that you didn't mean well. I recognize that you have good intentions. BruceHallman 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth this is what one of my accusers left on another Lenin editors talk page - hardly someone committed to NPOV i think: Looks like the right wing army is again descending on the Lenin article. Help a brotha out, Solid! Kozlovesred 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam said he couldn't get involved - but obvious ideologs like Kozlovesred should be dealt with - shouldn't they? PMA 18:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do it for me please my friend - you could explain it better than i could. PMA 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at their latest bleat - i dont think i can dent their armour of Marxism and ignorance. PMA 13:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Carr

Will do the best i can my friend. PMA 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

expertise question

I noticed your mention of academics in the Carr RFC. Is there a list somewhere of professors or otherwise qualified experts in various fields? Such a list might be a useful way to harness the expertise here, so amateurs could have ready access to professional advice. I myself am a professor of economics, though I tend not to edit in that area because it feels like more teaching. I'd be glad to answer questions though; acting as sort of a reference desk. Right now, I know of only perhaps 15 frequent editors with advanced degrees, though I suspect there are at least several hundred.

Anyway, if you do know of a list of qualified experts, I'd add my name (under my real name if necessary). If you don't know of one, what are your thoughts on the utility of one? Derex 19:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your opinion

I would appreciate your opinion User talk:172 in re to:User_talk:Travb#Jew I have a lot of questions, which maybe you can answer.Travb 22:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my talk page:

The template does not belong in the article. Wolfowitz is notable as a U.S. and now World Bank policymaker, not as a major figure in Jewish history. The fact that he is a Jew is only relevant in the part of the article discussing his personal background (e.g., the part of the article that mentions the fact that his father was a Polish Jew who fled from persecution in Europe). 172 | Talk 22:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a big deal? I don't care one way or another whether Wolfowitz's religion is in the article. I am just confused why this is a big deal, the underlying reason why some Jews don't want Wolfowitz's religion listed in the article?

In contrast, I used to be mormon and the mormons are always actively making lists of who is mormon. They are very proud of Mitt Romney (Republican Governor of Vermont who has Statewide universal health care) for example.

Why are those of the Jewish faith different? Why do Jews downplay their religion? I am honesty perplexed.

Also I asked why some Jewish authors seem to downplay other genocides. Is this your observation, or is this incorrect and ignorant on my part?Travb 22:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your intuitive and thoughful comments.Travb 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]