User talk:172/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



For your extensive work on articles on Brazilian History , I, Redux, hereby award you The Barnstar of National Merit. Congratulations! Redux 23:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was impressed by the amount of information you contributed to a number of articles on Brazilian History. Without your input, the Brazilian History Series would certainly not be nearly as informative as it is now. You deserved this award, of which, incidentally, you are the very first recipient. Congratulations. Regards, Redux 23:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page. Indeed Brazil doesn't get nearly enough attention, especially in the more "complex" topics. That's why I thought you were the perfect recipient for this award, since I rekoned that, without your input, there probably wouldn't even be a series on Brazilian History (most Brazilian contributors are focused in making only small changes, correcting little details, but they seldom give significative contributions to articles on topics such as history). As a matter of fact, I'm just getting around to making some interesting contributions to the Brazilian History Series, starting with the Empire of Brazil article. What you wrote is already quite comprehensive, but I just have a few passages that I feel will make the article even more clear and complete (although I'm not a graduated Historian, I've studied quite deeply the country's history – and I can say that quite a bit of the stuff you've added aren't even in High School textbooks, so even Brazilian teenagers, who are studying that at school would have something new to learn from the article). I'm just waiting for a slower weekend (and for the website to start functioning normally again) to do it. Once it's done, I'll drop you a note. I'd certainly welcome a peer review from you. Regards, Redux 03:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also congratulate you. You truely earned it. I saw your message that you wanted to have some help on a few nations. I am sorting through the Russian stubs now, trying to add things and combine things. I just want to see what you wanted to do. Zscout370 04:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming[edit]

Need you to take a look at Global Warming there is a gang revert war going on that is removing dispute tags. Stirling Newberry 17:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Or, put another way, enough people disagree with your version that you can't keep it up there. But why should this require an admin to come in on your side?

Global Warming protected[edit]

I am not very happy about the version you protected. The new revert war in the article was started by User:Stirling Newberry at 14:30. SNs (Stirling Newberry) version was reverted by Silverback, WMC, VSmith and myself (Marco Krohn). Cortonin and SN reverted it to "their" version assisted by two new users "Munnin" and "WikiWarming".

Please check the user contributions by these two new users: "Munnin" edits are very rare and are strongly correlated with the edits of SN, meaning that Munnins edits appear always on pages SN edits too. "WikiWarming" has one(!) edit only. I find this at least highly dubious. I know that there is a possiblity by asking the developers to get a hint if two or more users were controlled by the same person. If it is possible for you please ask the developers about that since I believe that using fake accounts in this way, i.e. to circumvent 3RR, is in violation of the Wikipedia policy. For the given reasons I also ask you to protect the version by WMC and others and not the one of the first reverter SN.

Anyway thanks for stopping the revert war -- mkrohn 22:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Marco, it seems you haven't read about the wrong version. Thanks for stepping in, 172. Perhaps now that it's protected we can discuss the structuring of the article in a civilized and productive fashion, rather than simply edit warring it into oblivion. Cortonin | Talk 23:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with you that any version is the "right" version. One user started an edit war and it is likely that two sock puppets were involved in order to keep one version. In consequence this means that using multiple accounts give you an advantage in an edit war and at least a probability of 50% to enforce one version.
I cannot access the meta page you linked to at the moment, but I am sure that you are correct with what you are doing. Could you please answer my other request concerning the detection of sock puppets? Thanks, mkrohn

Please remove protection on Global warming it wasn't needed[edit]

Protection wasn't needed and you preserved version that resulted from the revert of a one edit user (possible sockpuppet).--Silverback 13:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I second this. I've listed it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for unprotection.


Hi, I don't know how busy you are at the moment, but if you have the time, could you cast your learn'd eye upon Alberto Fujimori? There are a couple of Fujimoristas, users Messhermit and HappyApple, who are attempting to whitewash various aspects of AF's presidency, notably that he didn't flee Peru but left to attend a conference (I kid you not!) as well as his role in the Japanese embassy hostage crisis. I have requested citations in support of various of Messhermit's allegations but none have been forthcoming and I feel I am being drawn into an edit war. Thanks, -- Viajero 16:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, situation under control. -- Viajero 03:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1992 L.A. Riots[edit]

Heya, 172. Just curious - what motivated you to move this article to "1992 LA uprising"? My understaning is that it was not, technically, "a popular revolt against a constituted government". Just wondering. – ClockworkSoul 05:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • 172 - This change creates a number of double redirects that aren't automatically forwarded. For now, I'm changing this back, and then we can figure whether it needs to be changed. – ClockworkSoul 05:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Works for me, I suppose. It just seemed somewhat unconventional. I'll rollback my rollbacks now. – ClockworkSoul 05:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 20:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Take another look at the page history; there were only three reverts. The last edit was a modification of the text. You seem to have been fooled by Silverback. 172 23:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think 172 should have unblocked himself. Even if the block was done in error. That was, in my opinion, very unprofessional. Samboy 02:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Global warming protect again?[edit]

Beg pardon. Could you please explain just what is going on here? The page was unlocked, and several editors were actively discussing needed modifications and possible changes. Stirling zips in and does a couple of reverts with no discussion on talk. This was resisted strenuously by those involved in the discussion and reverted with comments. Then SN pulls a fast one with an unannounced (not even a comment) revert and gets you to lock the page with his fav. version. You two would seem to be cooperating behind the scenes to the disservice of Wikipedia. Please explain. -Vsmith 03:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to draw your attention to the following, from Wikipedia:Protected page:

  • This ability is only to be used in limited circumstances.
  • Add {{protected}} (or {{vprotected}} for vandalism) to the top of the temporarily protected page and make mention of the protection in the edit summary.
  • List pages you protect on Wikipedia:Protected page

Quite aside from the matter of the remarkable timing of your page-protection, I'd be nice if you at least followed the procedure. Alai 04:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 20:47 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :-D — Instantnood 21:51 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia is increasingly a social club with no regard for professional expertise

I daresay that's a problem, but one that has been with us since the beginning. I have no comment on the legalistic side of this dispute (much less do I want to take sides), but I have understanding for your frustration (which may induce unwise courses of actions, sometimes) dab () 19:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is much worst than that. It is a pefect tool for misinformation campaigns like the creatonist one.--LexCorp 18:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What changes to wikipedia would make you a "more efficacious user"?[edit]

Evidently having sysop powers wasn't enough. If you are an expert as you say, then you don't need wikipedia to get published. Why not produce your own website so that it can be cited here like other sites with some authority are. That way you can give full reign to your authorial territorialism. If History of Russia is an example of your work, you need to come to terms with the Soviet Union's sordid past. Only mentioning the "reforms" of post-Stalin leaders without mentioning the continuing suppression, oppression and murder.--Silverback 15:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You decry a total disregard for expertise in this community. Yet you have shown exactly this attitude yourself on the GW page, where the only one with any formal expertise (at least, formally declared) is me (William M. Connolley 16:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)).
My question is that Wikipedia incourages experts, since there are some areas where certain insight is needed. If that is the case, when why do you decry it? Zscout370 16:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 16:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I would be happy if wiki encouraged experts, and I do indeed decry the "disencouragement". I've experienced it myself. But what I was trying to point out was 172's hypocrisy: he wants to be taken for an expert, but won't accept the same elsewhere. I've read, with interest, Larry Sangers stuff on this; and the responses to it. I can see the difficulties. But 172 needs to be consistent.
If that is the case, then how can someone be "declared" as an "expert" on a given topic? That could be endless talk all by itself. Zscout370 16:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 17:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) An interesting discussion, but we're trespassing on 172's page. I'll continue on your talk.

Ah, well[edit]

I can't say much. I'm sorry to see you go. Loss of an editor like you contributes to a "tipping" point in Wikipedia, in which the encyclopedia's chances of becoming dependable in any contentious subject fades further from reality.

I especially can't argue with your points about the users who are interested mainly in the debates and the internecine warfare. It is especially bad when such policies as the 3RR become a nesting ground for folks watching edits so they can play Keystone Kop.

Yes, these things are part of any organization, but it's problematic when the institutions of social bureaucracy increase, but the means of improving the product decrease. This is not so different from any of a number of voluntary organizations where, whenever someone proposes a way of furthering the organization's purpose, the seconding of the motion is immediately followed by the chap who says "this is invalid because we are considering new business, and this is old business, since someone proposed a similar motion 14 months ago." Then someone else rises with a point of order, and others insist we must check the phases of the moon first to see if the Goddess smiles on the venture, but can't because it's cloudy and proposes we adjourn until a clear night. Then someone else says we can't adjourn because there is a matter of open business on the floor.

This is immediately followed by a rustling sound. It is 65 copies of Robert's Rules of Order being opened simultaneously.

I'm afraid Wikipedia is what it is. I don't think it's hopeless since it contains a lot of useful information on technical topics. But predicating one's pleasure in participation on progress toward perfection is a formula for misery. I hope you'll lurk and put in your two cents whenever the spirit moves you. Wikipedia has problems, but is not so hopeless that it can afford to lose an intelligent voice. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your decision to quit[edit]

Totally understand you. To work on political issues in English Wikipedia is the horror itself. And to be an administrator in that area is the horror in square. I've gone through this just few weeks after I joined the Wikipedia, I think you remember that case. I was forced to concentrate on other topics, to preserve my nerves. But they surprisingly turned out to be much more calm and friendly to encyclopedical-style edits. It helped me a lot. May be this may help you too? Nevertheless Wikipedia takes a lot of time. May be I'll leave it or become less-frequent here too in the future. Best wishes. Cmapm 00:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read the article on Kennan which seems to be mostly yours. As far as I can see good stuff. Sad you are leaving but guess one can get a bit fed up. As for Wikipedia I believe its like democracy - the worst there is, but the best we have.

And with time I believe there will be a more finely tuned system of adding credit to various contributors. And even though I can see the reasons for you leaving, I think the really important thing about Wikipedia is its reach (some 6 millions users and growing, 500 thousand+ pages etc...). And - best of all, we all know its not perfect - and will never be, so we are all sceptic when we read some stuff here.

Anyway - all the best to you and believe we see you back here soon...:-) Ulflarsen 18:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Abe, 172, or whatever you would prefer to be called, I can't say I always agreed with you, but I will miss much of what you had to contribute. We all make mistakes now and then (I find they get more frequent, not less frequent, with time...a sad truth about me, if not the universe in general), and I think the areas you worked in here -- highly contentious even in the calmest of times -- put you in more tough positions than most of us. I'm sorry it went that way for you -- it doesn't serve as a blanket excuse for any mistakes you made, but I think it calls attention to the real problem of making NPOV a reality in your subject area. Perhaps when you look in on us in a year or two we'll have taken steps to resolve the problem: I hope to contribute something in that area, and if we succeed, I hope you'll consider coming back, not to watchdog articles (which always leads to trouble, alas, even for the best-intentioned) but to contribute to a serious scholarly endeavor worthy of expert knowledge like yours. Enjoy your retreat into real life, and may you find success there, Jwrosenzweig 00:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Roads go ever ever on
Under cloud and under star
Yet feet that wandering have gone
Turn at last to home afar.
Eyes that fire and sword have seen
And horror in the halls of stone
Look at last on meadows green
And trees and hills they long have known."
J.R.R. Tolkein, The Hobbit

Farewell, 172. Take as much time as you need on wikibreak. I, for one, will look forward to your return. Until then, I wish you well in your endeavors in the real world. Goodbye. --Neutralitytalk 01:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

As Cmapm said, undertaking admin responsibilities multiplies one's exposure to Wikstress. I edit a lot, but I've always wimped out on being an admin, for that reason. Perhaps you should consider coming back (after a rest) just to edit. Even if you leave the political hassling to other people, there's still plenty of useful work to be done. Not everyone here is part of the problem. Also, thanks for including me in your list of people you'll miss. You've made many valuable contributions, so your praise is meaningful. JamesMLane 19:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

172, I didn't interact with you that much, but I've seen you around enough to know that you were a valid contributor to the 'Pedia, and I'm sorry to see you go. I myself have also scaled back my Wikipedia editing, but I can understand leaving the project entirely. Wikipedia is what it is. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:17, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're really gone, farewell. I shall carry on, and look to your return some day. john k 20:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I concur with what's been said above. I can understand your frustration with the 'pedia, it is certainly imperfect but I'm not sure what could be done to improve it. You are right, decisions do seem to be made on the basis of who has got the most friends, and who is part of a particular cabal.
Perhaps you should come up with some suggestions as to how it could be improved. As far as I can see you have been the victim of a politically motivated witchunt by certain users. I wish I could have been more help, but I am pretty useless at office politics.
I've seen you leave before, so perhaps you'll come back sometime?. Perhaps you could make some edits anonymously, and perhaps edit some completely uncontroversial subjects for a while, to get your blood pressure under control. Best Wishes G-Man 23:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll echo most of what's been said above -- I'm sad to see you go, and a little flattered by my inclusion in the note on your user page. Your contributions are some of the best I've seen on Wikipedia. As with all work, I'm sure they sometimes reflect your own biases, consciously or not. But that's hardly reason for much of the venom directed towards you, some of it from editors who ought to look a little closer to home when it comes to NPOV. In any case, I hope you'll consider returning if the situation improves. RadicalSubversiv E 01:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Please consider changing your mind. I enjoyed your constructive contributions in Russia related articles a lot. Besides, not only I disagreed with some of your edits, I sometimes found your reactions a bit short-tempered. However, I understand a stress of being subject to ideologically motivated attacks, so I might have been as upset if I were you. But please reconsider and return to improving the articles. Some attackers are better left ignored. If they succeded in chasing you out, it is a loss for a Wikipedia and for the commnon good. Irpen 06:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I do not really know you as I am mostly active on the Dutch wikipedia ... but from all the work of you that I have seen coming by in the past year Wikipedia and therefore I will surely miss you. Waerth 07:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't worked with you on Wikipedia but I've admired your contributions. I'm sad to see you go but understand why you're leaving. I share many of your frustrations with Wikipedia and I unfortunately view these frustrations as impossible to solve. Wikipedia is unfortunately "a social club with no regard for professional expertise," as you put it. Anyway, good luck in the future and I hope to see you back here someday. Aoi 11:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

172, thanks for your contributions, especially around africa. Wizzy 18:28, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom case opened[edit]

The case brought by Netoholic has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2. - David Gerard 15:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aargh!!! Don't leave![edit]

This is truly a sad day :( one of our best contributors has left... please, if you ever check your messages give me an email. I'm sorry that it's come to the point where you have left this project... I've been trying to setup a baseline project where a revision of an article gets chosen as the most reliable "reference point" if you will. If you're interested, email me. If you have suggestions you want to make anonymously, let me know also. I'll try to incorporate them - if you want attribution I can do it, if you don't I can make it so that you aren't mentioned at all.

Lastly: thank you for your most valuable work on Wikipedia. You'll be sorely missed around here! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

your? email about my revert[edit]

Hi 172. I got a mail (I won't cut and paste here since it is private email) which claims to be from you asking for me to revert a change I made. Please confirm that and I'll try to do what you ask. I also emailed it, but I understand you aren't reading that, so I'm putting this request here as well.

Don't go[edit]

I too am sorry to hear that you have stopped contributing although I can understand why you, like many other good editors, have chosen to do so. Good luck in your future endeavours and I hope that you will find it worthwhile to rejoin the project at some time in the future. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, what the fuck is this? Get your lazy commie ass back here! As your capitalist overlord, I demand it of you!.

Seriously though, come back soon. TDC 04:37, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, take some time off and recalibrate. Honestly, the whole reason I came here, around a year ago, was because I have been kicked off or hard banned from nearly every board on earth. Yahoo, MikeMalloy, DU, Indymedia (and most of its affiliates), Alternet, MotherJones, CheCafe (the list oges on and on) but after coming to Wiki, I find myself in an environment I truly enjoy. No longer are my talents (if you consider provocation and torment a talent) going to waste. I feel that my contributions are no longer just a way for me to delight in my more sadistic pleasure but a way for me to tell the world everything I know about a circulating fluidized bed boiler. This really is a remarkable experiment, and for the life of me, I don’t ever see myself leaving. There are very few places on the web as dynamic and engaging as this. Sure, there have been times where I have been inactive or just way too busy, but like anything else you have developed a particular taste for, you always come back to it some day.

I sincerely hope you do as well. TDC 04:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

172, I just wanted to say how greatly I value the truly mind-boggling amount of high-quality work you have provided the encyclopedia with. Like many have stated above, I wish this was evident to more editors (I think it is, though, at least for those who contribute substantive content as the comments above clearly illustrate). Very best wishes, El_C 21:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Bye, 172. As you already know, I came to similar conclusions about Wikipedia a while ago. Of course, Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of everything, there are green shoots amidst the ashes. I have more to say about that on my user page, which I hope you visit. Ruy Lopez 00:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have to come back[edit]

D*mn you, people! Look what you did! You made one of our best leave Wikipedia for good... 172, whenever you feel right, come back. I don't know you personally, but I know you good enough from your articles on Russia. We just can't afford to let you go. Try to ignore those people who did you wrong and continue to contribute. KNewman 12:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


And just when I was starting to learn why you acted the way you do. I didn't always agree with what you did, but hmph, you were always very tenacious. What a bother that you're going. :-( Kim Bruning 14:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 14:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


172, we didn't always get along, but I must congratulate you on your article on George F. Kennan. It is brilliant, and I hope that you consider returning, so that you might bestow on wikipedia more articles of that caliber. Respectfully, Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just read the Kennan article you wrote. I'm envious. Well done! thames 01:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Naturally, I'm enticed. Will read it soon! El_C 01:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:TrangBang.jpg Added to IFD[edit]

I added Image:TrangBang.jpg to IFD again. --Wgfinley 22:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are the best Wikipedia contributor, in my view[edit]

Well (ironical smile :-)). Although, the reason is rather in myself, now I'm quiting. However, I'll not come back, due to that reason :-( Just wanted to let you know, that from the very first my login you were the most valuable Wikipedia's contributor for myself. My best wishes. Cmapm 23:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I've decided to let you do as you please with the Kennan article. Originally, I was going to add this new Gaddis article to it but I decided that you're more qualified to do it than I am. If The New Republic requires a subscription for you to view the article, you can email me and I'll send you the full text.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your time at Wikipedia and/or your retirement from it.

Dave (talk) 20:48, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

PS Should I add the relevant stuff from the Gaddis article to containment, or would you like to do it yourself?


Of course I know what I'm doing. —Seselwa 05:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go to Anarchopedia or Infoshop's Open Wiki[edit]

If you're through with Wikipedia, you can contribute articles to Anarchopedia or Infoshop's OpenWiki. Even Demopedia or dKosopedia.

One thing that would bring people I think is if the Great Soviet Encyclopedia was translated and put up on those sites. A translation with an open copyright. Too bad I don't know Russian! Ruy Lopez 06:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye from Piotrus[edit]

I am sorry to read you are dissapointed with Wiki. I still see this project as having great potential, and producing fairly NPOVed articles. I hope you will get over your dissapointment and come back - while we might have differed in opionions sometimes, I believe that in the end we always worked out a compromise that made our articles - like the PSWar - much better then in the beginning. In any cases - good luck in whatever you do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision[edit]

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to you. You are requested to clarify this issue by stating whether you wish to continue as an admin of Wikipedia. If you do, then this case will be reopened and the evidence on both sides fully assessed. If you do not, then - as you previously requested - your admin abilities will be removed until such a time as you decide to return in that capacity. If you do not wish to reply to this question, then it will be assumed that you have chosen to leave the project and do not wish to keep your admin abilities. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 23:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with remaining an admin, though it still does not seem any more likely that I will return as anything more than a very occasional editor, at least at the present stage of Wikipedia's development (without a formal system of review). If that means the case will be reopened, you guys are free to waste your own time on those dubious "charges." My own take on the process is that that my admin abilities should not be taken away; the case brought against me was total bullshit, and letting malicious users use arbitration to drive off legitimate contributors does not at all help the encyclopedia's progress. 172 13:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm pleased with your decision, 172, and welcome back! Indeed, let them reopen it, you and I both know you have nothing to hide. El_C 13:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not returning. I'm just trying to get things settled on a couple of articles. Once that's done, it'll probably a while before I make another edit, though I'm considering writing a new Cold War article. 172 20:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

historians working on digital projects[edit]

I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University ( and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. We thought your lengthy experience working on so many varied articles on Wikipedia would be particularly interesting. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thank you for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy jfragasz at

Trey Stone and Davenbelle[edit]

Hi! Trey Stone has Requested Arbitration with me:

One of my earlier encounters on Wikipedia has sought arbitration with me; thought you'd like a note. Hope you come back!

Sincerely, Davenbelle 01:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back — at whatever level of involvement. — Davenbelle 18:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome Back[edit]

Just saw you revert the Cold War article, I figured I come by here and say hello.

As for the article itself, what parts of the article was deemed to be original research? What are some of the main objections of the article? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you editing, 172. ;-) I hope you're staying. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not. I just happened to stop by a few days ago, and I'll leave again once I can get things settled on a couple of articles. 172 19:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC etc[edit]

Hi, just noticed your restorations to Efraín Ríos Montt. Indeed, trey Stone is an enormous problem. I opened an RfC for him several weeks ago:

He initiated an arbitration case shortly thereafter to which I have contributed evidence:

The ArbCom is currently voting on the matter:

See also the dicussion on the talk page, where some important issues are being raised about sources and sanctions:

I think this case is important because it will indicate whether Wikipedia will tolerate the sloppy, ill-informed scholarship of POV-driven editors.

-- Viajero | Talk 13:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. The least I can do for you is try to keep Ríos Montt from "redevolving", if you know what I mean. ;) -- Viajero | Talk 13:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration - what happens next[edit]

Thank you for the reply above. As I'm sure you are aware, your admin abilities have already been removed because of your lack of response to the decision. As we stated in the decision, this was assumed to mean that you did not wish to retain your admin abilities. If you have now decided to return as an admin, then "I'm fine with remaining an admin" is not enough.

If you want your admin abilities back, then you need to make a clear statement of that and apply to the committee for the case to be reopened. Reopening the case will only be considered if you have responded fully to the allegations made on the evidence page of the last case. Your admin abilities will be restored at the closing of the case, unless the committee's decision includes their removal. We will do our best to hear the case as quickly as possible. -- sannse (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Dont you lot have anything better to do with your life. Such as, let me see, writing an encyclopedia perhaps?. Or even better, stop driving out sensible contributors with an anal retentive obsession with petty rules and self serving politically motivated "committees". And let the sensible people write an encylopedia, which is after all what we are surposed to be here for. How does that sound? G-Man 20:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Well said G-Man. Luckily writing an encyclopaedia does not depend on a bunch of wannabe lawyers - the rest of us are just getting on with the tasks at hand :) Dan100 11:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Heh. You're making up the rules as you go, I can tell. And it'll work. I'm not going to waste so much time on that bullshit case to get you to review it, even though you and the other members ought to, if you care anything about serving legitimate contributors. 172 19:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


The detective agency? Boys and their toys.

Please check one thing before you go: slight discrepancy over 2003 election in Guatemala. Did Supreme Court first approve, later reject candidacy of RM? Inconsistency b/w text that was in intro and that in in final paragraphs. See my last edit. Pls correct if necessary. TIA. -- Viajero | Talk 20:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. (I think its time for me to get a new prescription for my glasses.) No, there was a reversal because there is a separate Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. He was registered as a presidential candidate in mid-July by the FRG-packed Constitutional Court. In late July the Supreme Court challenged this decision. The Constitutional Court then promptly overturned the Supreme Court decision, and he was allowed to run. 172 21:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Everything is clear now. Let's hope that this version stands for awhile. Take care, -- Viajero | Talk 22:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi. Do you know what happened in this edit? OvenFresh² 22:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Montt Ríos[edit]

I have just archived the talk page and pressed upon SqueakBox to take a business-like attitude to any remaining differences. FWIW, I have not had any conflicts with this user before, but he is quite definitely an Einzelganger. I hope we can wrap this up without too much further fuss. -- Viajero | Talk 11:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Pigs on the wing is not Lir[edit]

There is no way that POTW is Lir. There is overwhelming evidence from their contribution areas that POTW is British whereas Lir is known to be American. FWIW, my own experience with POTW is that he is more argumentative than the average Wikipedian. Pcb21| Pete 12:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I think I've fixed all the British- American conversions, sorry about that I had the spell check on the wrong variety of english :) --nixie 01:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

other wiki's[edit]

I see you've been de-opped in other move one would expect somewhere like Wikipedia. As I've said many times, I think you should consider helping build up a wiki like Anarchopedia or dKosopedia or Demopedia or even Infoshop's OpenWiki (when it is up). It's natural at this point of time for Wikipedia to be the main site, but specialist competitors like Sourcewatch are already superior in their own niches. Wikipedia may always have the best quantum mechanics articles, but specialist niche wiki's are sure to overshadow it. For myself, I write the article I want and post it to Anarchopedia, Infoshop's OpenWiki (when it's up), and sometimes Demopedia or dKosopedia depending on the topic. I also save a copy on my local computer. Wikipedia is a place where I'm usually fighting, but that's OK, since my real content is going elsewhere, I find the sisyphean efforts to get a page like Khmer Rouge normal less frustrating (the page has been in a revert war since 2003 and is currently locked). Anyhow, shoot me an e-mail or something. Many seem to come down with this syndrome of becoming frustrated with Wikipedia, not listening to others who say Wikipedia is hopeless and that they should concentrate positive, creative effort on other wiki's and fighting for here, and eventually swear off wiki's altogether. I'm confident an alternative wiki will come to pass, but it needs to reach critical mass, and I seem to be the only one trying to do that (although there are liberals doing a watered-down version of what I'm proposing, but I wouldn't post half my articles on Demopedia and dKosopedia - although many of yours would be acceptable in that land of liberal/soc-dem'ery). Anyhow send me an e-mail. Ruy Lopez 00:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I didn't know you were back? Welcome back  =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fidel Castro[edit]

As any President of any republic, I belive that Castro deserves a infobox that can show its political position in Cuba. Also, Castro's political influence in cuban politics has nothing to do with the introduccion of an Info-box in his article. I don't understand a real motive to prevent one from being created. Please, feel free to write at my talk page. Messhermit 22:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You are right in that part: Castro's power comes from the Communist Party of Cuba. The position of President (and as the one of Prime Minister before) lack a real, democratic support. But even in Presidents with only ceremonial power, an info-box is placed. I will revert it, and if you want I can state that his real power derives from the Communist Party. Thanks for stating that part, any help or advice is welcome. Messhermit 22:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm currently doing those info-boxes for the presidents of Pakistan and Peru, since I realices that the presidents of other countries have this type of organization. Another one for Irak would't hurt no one I guess :P. Thanks for the Info, and I will put much more info in Castro's box, putting his position of General Secretary of the CCP. Messhermit 22:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm not interested in his RfC. He will be banned in good time but will return under a new user name. It's the behaviour that is problematic, not the username. RfCs are an utter waste of time; RfArs ditto. I think you've done good work in discussing his problems with him and that's marginally less of a waste of time, because at least the calm discussion discourages other trolls from thinking that the articles in question are going to be easy marks. The way action against him will progress is exactly that: those who oppose him stay polite as far as they can, show that his stance is biased and allow him to step outside the norms of WP. In my way that is what I've done. I've explained that he must defend his placement of the tag with sources, and not just his own personal insistence that the article is biased (it's not perfect but it's hardly worth tagging as not neutral). For your purposes, reverting it once more will serve to provide you with more grist for your mill: if he reverts again he breaches the 3RR and will have one more offence on his very long jacket. If he does not revert, he must present material on the talkpage. Finally, he will tire of the process. Grace Note 05:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On 21:29, 14 Jun 2005 Neutrality blocked "User:Trey Stone" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandalism, trolling.) I'm not too familliar with this Trey Stone person, largely because I tend to avoid these sort articles (for very obvious reasons) and, for reasons which go beyond the scope of this, I don't place much faith on them to end up even remotely adhering to (in this case, what is) their greatest enemy's intelligencia, U.S. academia, which I obviously also take issues with (both when comapred to academias of other Western countries, as well as critically beyond). But it appears Trey was acting like a provocateur, creating all this tension which put everybody on edge. I think Kapil is willing to contribute his knowledge, learn from others, and collaborate professionally, if the atmosphere is calm so everyone can relax. In a sense, though, there will be others users like Trey Stone, like Kapil, like you, like myself, etc., and much of these sort of events will be repeated. The key is to able to draw some lessons from it, so that it dosen't prove to be a waste of time (and lest we forget, there –are– some out there who wish for it to be just that). Yours, El_C 00:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


you leaving wiki doesnt make any difference. as we both know wikipedia does not depend on you in anyway, as you leave another douzen experts or what not join the ranks. even if you have written many good articles there are countless other good articles written by a whole bunch of people. --GregLoutsenko 12:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice...[edit]

...that you came back recently and did some editing and writing...well good for they say...absence makes the heart grow fonder. Be well and do try to ENJOY yourself here. Don't let the mob get to you! Best wishes, IZAK 08:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think he is, IZAK. I also think he likes the excitment. ;) Speaking of which, have a look here, 172. Heh. El_C 08:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are responsible for this[edit]

As always Trey Stone is attacking the very same articles, making reverts, presenting the same circular arguments on talk, and declaring that while he has time to revert and POV articles, he does not have time to do any actual reading on these subjects. [1] 172 02:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article you cite says:

i don't have time to read your personally-selected books on this subject, no. i am getting ready to go to college and am looking to do things with my friends before i leave over the summer -- wikipedia is not high on my priorities. and my arguments have been far more substantive than your condescending "well this is the reality" attitude. J. Parker Stone 02:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He isn't being very nice, it's on the fringe of a personal attack. Is that your problem? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

oh come off it. being less than genteel to an editor who continually refers to my edits as "POV vandalism" is not "on the fringe" of flaming. J. Parker Stone 08:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection reigns supreme, four articles and counting. With more sought? Who do we thank, 172? -- ElC 04:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note:Regarding the images you have removed .Please note he following-even if you dislike certain peson or his/her contribution to wikipdia it does not mean you should immedeatelly delete the content. Some other people have other opinion. Please consider the talk pages first. Gabrichidze 12 : 12 June 21, UTC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Poland (1945-1989)[edit]

I'd appreciate your comments on this article. I did my best to make it NPOV, but as you well know, there is a limit one person can NPOV such a topic - your view would be most welcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the comments. Perhaps you could vote on renomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Poland (1945-1989). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

I like your changes. But one question: is satellite state you removed incorrect? Puppet state is perhaps to POVed, but satellite seems NPOV and correct to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 6 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
About the elections: Halibutt provided some sources in talk, I will try to look for more (and English) soon. For now, I translated the Polish Wiki on 46 referendum, which I also linked from History... article (it was very important, shame I forgot about it till now). See Polish people's referenda, 1946. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 8 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

Some very interesting comments were added at FAC by User:Fifelfoo. Now this is what I call 'constructive critisism'. I tried to address some of his remarks, but I'd appreciate your help in this. He does make a lot of good points, but I feel my knowledge is simply not enogugh to adress all of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

new alterna-wiki[edit]

Check out Red Wiki, the newest addition to the crowd, a red alternative to the anarchist Anarchopedia, and liberal/socdem Demopedia and dKosopedia. Ruy Lopez 01:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Puppet state[edit]

I'm in the process of converting the list into text form so that we have more specific information that's easier to verify (such as constantly stating "the communist bloc claimed South Vietnam was a US puppet state", "North Korea to this day claims that South Korea is a US puppet state", etc. etc.) Is this an acceptable compromise to you? If so, then I implore you to not remove the list quite yet. — Phil Welch 06:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I realize I'm probably the last person you want to hear from at the moment, but as a show of good faith, I want to apologize for before, and tell you that I've recently removed just about all of the content in the article I couldn't directly verify. I encourage you to inspect the article and, if it is to your approval, to remove or revise the dispute tag yourself. I've also taken the liberty of going back to the talk page and striking out some of the more catty remarks I made since I'd like to take them back (and maybe if this cools down we can agree to Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks entirely).

To reiterate, I am very sorry things turned the way they did, and I hope we can move on productively. — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 12:28 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 08:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked. Only three reverts by my count. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi. I don't know if or when you might read this. I've nominated the article Empire of Brazil for peer review and intend to nominate it for Featured article status. So far people seem to feel that the article is very good, but that it lacks indications of sources and references. I've argued that you might not have included them because you could have written the bulk of the article from memory. I'm assuming this, of course. As the main contributor (by far) to that article, would you consider adding some of the references you might have consulted? Or, if I'm right, would you mind dropping a note to let the community know that the source for the article was indeed your own memory? Thanks. Regards, Redux 03:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! This will go a long way to getting the article featured. Regards, Redux 1 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you for your support for my adminship. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:35, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

more on alterna-wiki's[edit]

You said that because of the popularity of Wikipedia, it should be concentrated on as opposed to alterna-wiki's. I don't see this as a Manichaean thing, I can work in both. I waste time making changes here, then I actually write articles elsewhere.

To me the Khmer Rouge page is symptomatic of the problem. There has been a battle over it since 2003, yet it is more or less the same. It is completely Sisyphean. Adam Carr is the main culprit, but CJK, A2Kafir, Rangek, Husnock, RickK and even Trey Stone have all decided to rewrite history so Sihanouk's role in 1975 is written out of history. I should note that I considered this a very minor change, but even this is not possible - I have seven (or more) people against me, and who is on my side?

As far as Google searches, Google will find any wiki and people will be driven to it. For example, I created an article[2] on Sourcewatch in 2004 that got over 10,000 hits. It is #5 on Google for Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. Wikipedia is #2, but it took Wikipedia some time to catch up, Sourcewatch used to be higher up. One problem is Sourcewatch changed it's name from Disinfopedia, which I'm sure hurt it's rankings. The point is Google is more concerned with the content, not where it is. Wikipedia just happens to have a lot of content.

Going back to the Manichaean thing, I don't see why one has to work on one or the other. If one works on an article for days, uploading it to a wiki other than Wikipedia takes about a minute (unless there are new pictures). And on the other wikis "reformed Maoists" like Adam Carr, the Trey Stone's when they're not banned and so forth won't set upon the article to destroy it.

You said alterna-wiki's have potential. They do, but if no one contributes to them, they won't. They have to be built up. If you spend days writing an article on George Kennan - upload it to another wiki! I usually leave radical topics to radical wikis, but that one could have even gone on Dkosopedia or Demopedia, which are liberal/soc-dem wikis. If no one is contributing material, the potential will never go anywhere.

You should give it a try. Fights over the Fidel Castro page, or the fight over the Khmer Rouge page going back to 2003 are wastes of time, I think. I would have thought the pulling of your admin status would have an effect on you. It seems inevitable to me that a viable leftish wiki encyclopedia pops up, hopefully it will have the base of Dkosopedia and Demopedia, but the militancy of Anarchopedia, Infoshop's Openwiki and Red Wiki. Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

I have recently found out about those 'other' Wikis, and I consider them a waste of time. One: they are inheritantly POVed, each of them is designed to support one or another ideology. I wouldn't trust them as much as any political party or 'true believer'. Two: they are smaller, have fewer contributors and are generally less comprehensive. Three: each minute of time spent editing them is a minute spend on doing something that will be seen by fewer people then on Wiki, thus does less good and is a minute wasted. Fourth: The truth points to itself. Wiki is NPOV. If I can FA controversial articles like the Polish-Soviet War, Polish September Campaign, History of Poland (1945-1989) and History of Jews in Poland (soon, I hope), or see FAs on subject like Swastika, then I feel pretty certain there is hope for Wiki. Don't let small quarrels and exceptions turn you away. Me and 172 had our own little fight on PSWar, but in the end, I think it resulted in the article being much better and NPOVed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 6 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
The other Wikis are inheritantly POVed, but I don't think that they purport to be guided by NPOV. Their mission, it seems to me, is to offer an alternative perspective, which can be interesting if they attract good writers. 172 6 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed and I don't want to change my vote. It needs much more NPOVing than has been done. Everyking 7 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Your protégé[edit]

Your "protégé" seems to need more "mentoring." [3] I doubt that couching him on how to harass users like El C is part of the training under your "mentorship." I know that you disagree with El C and Ruy Lopez's POV-- so do I-- but I hope that you understand how this crosses the line. 172 7 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

I dunno. I always had the impression that my political views are far closer, as a far left Brit, to El_C's and Ruy Lopez's than to Trey's--he seems to be some species of extreme right winger, politically. Nevertheless you're perfectly correct, he shouldn't be harassing people. Looking at the diff you cited, it looks like he's arguing that he isn't trolling. He calls El_C Che, though. Do I take it that El_C finds that offensive? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry that I was mistaken about your views. (BTW, I'd always assumed that you were also American too.) The Che comment is utterly inappropriate, as Trey Stone is certainly using it as a term of derision. The comments on how El C and Ruy Lopez also have "their own language" are also insulting and condescending. 172 7 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)

You're right. I'll tell him to stop being nasty. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
coupla things. first, i am not an extreme rightwinger, at least not in the U.S. (center-right) -- maybe i'd be considered that in Britain, i don't know. secondly, no 172 the "Che" was not derision -- since his name is "El C" and he has Che's picture on his page, i thought his name was short for "El Che." and lastlyyyy... i've never seen Marxist terminology used so heavily in an argument before (to essentially insult Adam's comments as "tabloid propaganda.") that's all i'll say on that subject. i got Sidaway's email on this. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)
Once again,I was speaking of his worldview and methodology and the overgeneralizations posed by his argument, you and him can disagree all you want. Please cease trolling me, personally, unless the Arbitration Committee give you license to do so. And we are not on first name basis regardless of what you think I am called, User:Trey Stone. That is all. El_C 7 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

hey, friend[edit]

Hey mate,

I didn't realise you were back. Long time no see. I suppose because I focus on my watchlist rather than on recent changes I hadn't seen your edits. Great to see you around. It is so good to see professional historians on Wikipedia. I'm only back myself lately after a long wikiretirement. Slán.

FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 7 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I was quite pleasantly surprised to see this when I returned from a briefer hiatus. Our watchlists diverge someone, but hopefully we'll cross paths more in recent weeks. 172 21:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I also focus on my watchlist (which is far too sizable), I should really visit the main page more often. :( El_C 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Glad to see you are back[edit]

Stirling Newberry 17:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, congratulations on the promotion to chief economist at Langner and Company! 172 21:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
We go before the investors in two days time. So I am hoping my numbers work. Stirling Newberry`


if you have time, could you look at my recent edits on Iran-Contra Affair and add your input. i'm mainly asking this because i'm fearing another wholesale reversion by Davenbelle or someone else based on our past history, where you might be able to bolster my credibility a bit with your comments (assuming you agree with the edits.) thanks. J. Parker Stone 04:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

oh, and could you check your email next time you get the chance. maybe you already saw this one and didn't respond, but i'd appreciate it. thanks J. Parker Stone 00:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"Race" and "intelligence"[edit]

I'm grateful to have some support there. I hope it will produce some improvement, but since most of the editors apparently have bought the notion that a scientific consensus already exists, I wonder how open-minded they're willing to be. None of them seems to have made any effort to look up Kamin, in spite of my pointer, or some others who have been quite critical of the basic assumptions behind this entire line of research.

I didn't realize until afterward that the article was recently nominated on VfD. That's probably not the right solution either, but I'm not particularly hopeful for the immediate future on this one. With a title like that, obviously the article will always attract particular agendas. --Michael Snow 04:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I read the article, it is filled with cryptoracist POV. A very long slog to get back to NPOV. I've been avoiding it because it is a nasty gang edit revert war waiting to happen. Perhaps there needs to be an RFC on it and broadening of the number of editors before there can be a serious attempt at reaching an NPOV consensus.

And yes, I'd be happy to participate.

Stirling Newberry 14:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not my field of expertise either. I did dig up the titles of works by a few of the critics who are being omitted here, and put them on the talk page in case anyone wants a place to start in making the article more balanced. The response so far is not encouraging; they're questioning whether alternative views are even "relevant". --Michael Snow 16:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone[edit]

The temporary ban on Trey Stone editing political articles pending the resolution of his arbitration has received the needed four votes (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle/Proposed_decision#Temporary_ban). Ruy Lopez 16:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin[edit]

I have removed some entries under the "evidence of disputed behaviour" that had been inserted by another editor that went beyond the original intent of the RFC. I have ammended the summary of the RFC to list its two specific goals: that SlimVirgin's edit contains too many errors to be reinserted into the article and that she has held herself above any criticism of her edit. There seemed to be a misunderstanding of the scope of the RFC. Hopefully this clarifies. FuelWagon 18:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

your tax dollars at work[edit]

Some IP user is trying to whitewash the No Gun Ri massacre which is just one of the many incidents where the US army slaughtered civilians in Korea. Anyhow, for some reason I became a little curious...who is this user anyway? So being a little Internet savvy I tracked down where the user is coming from - they're coming from the United States Central Command's Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq. The US Army isn't happy with Wikipedia using their studies as the basis of historical articles, now my tax dollars are paying for some bureaucrat working down in the bowels of the Ministry of Truth to try and rewrite the massacres of the Korean war, presumably so they can continue to carry out massacres in Iraq (or send arms to help massacres like the recent one in Turkey). I've got to apply for dual citizenship so I can get the hell out of this crazy country when it goes off the deep end. Ruy Lopez 22:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


I will try — because I care about the topic and respect your contributions. But please understand that I am currently over-committed at work and for the moment have no free time. I will check in when I can. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff article[edit]

Have you seen this: Harry Magdoff? ¡Ay, caramba! Where to begin?... -- Viajero | Talk 10:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Much, much better! -- Viajero | Talk 12:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

more $[edit]

Alas, it looks like the Guardian[4] is joining the ranks of the subscription-only sites. This is really unfortunate. :( -- Viajero | Talk 19:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it was just down for a few minutes, and is now back up again, SqueakBox 19:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


172: Perhaps yourself and myself should open a dialogue to better understand one another. I can't say I am familiar with any of your work, or if you have an interest in historical materials or not. You will notice in my writings I have distinctly never used terms such as treason, or traitor, which is commonly available using google search on any of the subjects in question. I have distinctly avoided this term or reference and will continue to do, because bascially I'm not sure it applies, and it doesnt really matter anyway for the writing I am doing. Also, I really don't particulalry like the term spy either, because it is too vague and doesn't really describe much of the work many of these subjects were engaged in. I am making a simple request to you, my friend, to simply state the objections you have. Perhaps a dialogue can be constructive and educational to both of us. Thank you very much. Nobs01 19:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir: In good faith, I would request that we begin a dialogue to discuss the overall ramifications of the work we both appear to be doing, seeing we appear to be travelling down the same tracks. Perhaps a starting point may be the bipartisan Commission on Government Secrecy, [5] chaired by the Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan which delivered its recommendations to the President in 1997. Having read that document (at least the Chairmans Forward, [6] and relevent sections on Communism, [7] World War II, [8] and the Cold War, [9] and brief referneces to previous Congressional Commissions [10]), we may arrive at a mutual starting point. Also the Loyalty issue is discussed there, and I intend to reread that in coming days. This may assist both of us if we can find what conclusions and recommendations of the Commission we agree with, and which ones we disagree with. Respectfully, nobs 15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Let me add that is magnimonious and gracious of you, you are to be commended. Please accept an assurance, there is no intent to do a wholesale hatchet job, and I am trying to do a well rounded presentation of a persons contributions and accomplishments (Harry Dexter White, for example, played a big role in hunting down stolen assets by the Nazi's, and this is scarecly written about anywhere, I hope to bring this evidence to light). Is there an objection to removing any of the disputed tags. Thank you again. nobs 01:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine again[edit]

I know I said I wouldn't get involved in hot issues yet, but it seems I got caught up in one against my will. There is an ongoing dispute between me and User:Ultramarine over this section of the Democracy article. A comparison of our two preferred versions can be found here: [11] Knowing Ultramarine, I don't think anything more needs to be said... I'd greatly appreciate your help. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Would it be asking too much for you to observe Democratic peace theory; on which Ultramarine has long been engaged in similar tactics? Septentrionalis 16:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree about Ultramarine and RfC. In fact I found your page because I had said much the same to Mihnea Tudoreanu; I mention DPT as evidence for your admin that he does the same thing everywhere. Septentrionalis 17:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've never been involved in an RfC, and suggested Mihnea take the lead, although I will be happy to second (or make the motion if she really prefers). I have not been Wikipedian for very long (months), and my only plan were to invite comments from those who have seen DPT (all of whom have deprecated U's edits for clarity or POV.) Septentrionalis 17:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I sent Mihnea a private e-mail on the subject; because among Ultramarine's other charming habits, he has followed either my edits or links to DPT around. I'll go plan an RfC statement. Keep me posted. Septentrionalis 17:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I've been around for quite some time, I was never involved in a RfC before, so I have no more experience than you. I am more than willing to start a RfC or support one, though. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Please also take a look at Useful idiot, where Ultramarine insists on posting a supposed "Lenin quote" that does not appear in any of Lenin's works, on the grounds that the author of a 1997 book claimed Lenin said it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Check your inbox - you have mail. :) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I think we should concentrate on the RfC now... How soon do you think you can post it? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I've put Cold War (1953-1962) on my watchlist. Now, ummm, shouldn't we get to that RfC...? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So what's the situation? I sent you e-mail Septentrionalis 23:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Have a look over Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Will you certify? You have seen Communism. Septentrionalis 23:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I must go eat. Should my comments be converted into formal specifications? Septentrionalis 00:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I am new to editing Wikipedia, and have never been involved in an RfC before. Is it really appropriate to add comments to the Response section? Or should I have expanded "Outside View?" The last thing I want to do is violate etiquette while trying (perhaps vainly) to get UM to see that he is only hurting his own cause. Robert A West 21:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)



Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 15:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Hey, given your abilities as a historian I'd welcome your observations on Irish Republican Army on its talk page. Slán FearÉIREANNCoat of arms of Ireland.svg\(caint) 22:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Efraín Ríos Montt[edit]

hey I made an edit to this a couple days ago that i thought was fair and am open to discuss on talk. unfortunately it was reverted by Ruy shortly after. i can't directly contribute right now but i'd be happy to work out a compromise when you have time. J. Parker Stone 00:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR report[edit]

Hi 172, I've blocked Ultramarine for 24 hours for the 3RR violation at Communist State. Sorry it took so long to get to it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Spies abound[edit]

Check it out: Category:Soviet spies. Nobs01 has been hard at work. I wonder how many "Harry Magdoffs" are among them... -- Viajero | Talk 17:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


I don't have any capability to check on sockpuppetry, and I'm not sure who does at the moment. I also doubt that logs are kept long enough to check against Libertas's IP address(es). Let me knwo if there's anything I can do to help -- I think your RFC makes a pretty good case. RadicalSubversiv E 01:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Crackpot conspiracy theories[edit]

I am exasperated as to how to approach you. In all three cases where we have conflicted over an article, I have attempted as civilly as I could to state my purposes, compromise over changes, address your concerns, and respond to comments. In return you have insulted me on the user page of someone who is vandalizing edits of my own while he accuses me of being a[n effectively] banned user. If you would notice, all the points of Lopez are refuted in detail on the talk page of Magdoff's and so have your objections. In response I (and we, Nobs and Jnc) received nothing but political epithets and childish tirades from you both. It is one thing to go off the handle in anger (as I have done myself), it is another to carry it over an extended period of time while you are editing. I find it rather pointless and most unprofessional. --TJive 07:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

172, while I appreciate you apologizing for your tone, it is not just that. At no point did you indicate on the Magdoff page whether you were willing to specifically address evidence that was put out. Instead, you openly called to reverting arms and hurled epithets at those who were putting forth references as well as I, when I so far have not indicated any particularly strong opinions as to the content of this article. Instead, Nobs and I have been discussing the matter privately as we were sure you were not going to positively contribute and that attack poodle Lopez would see to more and more reverts with no substantive discussion. I'm sure you have seen some of Nobs' other content, posted and not. In this case I am attempting to address issues I personally find with the article and plan on posting the content when we find consensus on the matter. On that note I agree that as a category "Soviet spies" is breaching NPOV at least in the more controversial cases of White, Hiss, and Currie. However, there has been a substantial amount of research into the general question of Soviet espionage in the U.S. which was sparked by the declassification of VENONA and the ability of historians to gain access to Soviet archives. This, unfortunately, confirms the assertions of many that there was indeed a substantial Soviet intelligence operation extending to the period prior to the Cold War in which many Americans participated. Rational people may differ as to who these individuals were, what they did and why, but it was and remains fundamentally dishonest of you to characterize the matter in the way you did without reflecting the slightest bit as to where the information was coming from. It was not, pardon the phrase, from Nobs's ass, and I am nearly as familiar with the thrust of the material as he, though he is better versed in and more readily available with specific documents than I am capable of producing.
I look forward to having a more constructive engagement on the question in the future, and hopefully I will not regret this optimism. On another note, I would encourage you to reevaluate your lenient opinion of Ruy Lopez. He has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he is not interested in compromising or contributing neutral content but solely in promoting his political views. In a case like Soviet espionage they coincide with yours, but I would hope this does not suggest a general failure to see problems with him. --TJive 08:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your notice. Should you find time in the future, I look forward to constructive criticisms in regards to the content of these articles which I and others may work on. --TJive 22:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

something i figured you might know[edit]

does my injunction prevent me from using political-related sandboxes? J. Parker Stone 06:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

alright. do i just copy the style you did for making Talk:History of the United States (1988-present)/CKJ sandbox or is there some special page i gotta go to to create it. J. Parker Stone 06:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

oh, and i sent you another email. know you're not on just leaving this for later. J. Parker Stone 11:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of communism[edit]

I have proposed a plan to merge the two versions of the article, in what seems to me the spirit intended by the template. It was supported 2-1 and Ultramarine went along at first, but now he's being contumacious. Please come and join the strawpoll. Septentrionalis 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


If you have a moment, could you take a look at National Endowment for Democracy? A fairly new user, TJive (talk · contribs), has just removed what seems like some important information [12], but it is material which may need to be sourced better. Any thoughts? -- Viajero | Talk 12:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What TJive did was keep the material but condense it significantly so that the article was not "Everything critics have to say about the NED." I'll check talk tomorrow if anything develops J. Parker Stone 13:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


I don't know if my other mail works send me e-mail at

An IfD you might want to vote on[edit]

I've listed for deletion the unencyclopedic and POV image that Ultramarine keeps trying to add to Criticisms of communism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

More Ultramarine[edit]

Just wanted to inform you that, following my and Pmanderson's defense of Criticisms of communism, Ultramarine has taken to copying & pasting his POV material from there into other articles, such as Vladimir Lenin. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


To be honest, I'm not even sure. I think I just wanted to comic relief in the history.

I thought I knew what your politics were on such things but now I'm not sure, and I could have had you confused with someone else, I don't even know anymore. Please don't take offense. --Golbez 00:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


"Surprised"?  :) Well, I suppose if you meant in light of said comments. However, I am sadly familiar with spurious 3RR reports, which disrupt Wikipedia almost as much as all of the reversions. I just hope no one protects the Stalin page. --TJive 04:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


I sent the reply by email. 172 | Talk 04:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

172, do you know whether the sentence you deleted in the fourth edit/revert had been deleted before, by you or anyone else? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I was the first to delete it, but it was close to a revert, as it was a rewrite of the content removed in the 2nd and 3rd edits/reverts. However, out of the 4, it's the 1st edit/revert that was unrelated, and more or less resolved by the time the "millions of deaths" dispute with Ultramarine came up... There were 4 reverts according to the '3RR per page' interpretation, with which I am totally unfamiliar. 172 | Talk 04:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Carbonite gave a diff showing the first edit/revert was a revert to a previous version. It's the fourth I'm less certain of. I'll look again. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I'll post here instead of emailing so you don't have to go back and forth. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. The first was, but unrelated to the next three. So it was a 3RR according to the four reverts to four entirely different previous versions interpretation, which is indeed bizarre. That's never how it's applied in practice... I don't see why such an extreme literal interpretation should be applied to me, not Agiantman, who has been reverting multiple editors and making disgusting personal attacks on Mikka and me on the talk page for the past two days. I'm still a bit upset with Carbonite. 172 | Talk 04:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
According to the way I interpret 3RR, this sentence "His regime is estimated to have caused the deaths of 8-60 million people. [13] was a new one, and you deleted it for the first time. But Carbonite's interpreting things differently, and is taking into account the previous reverts regarding the number of dead, even though the sentences were expressed differently and not all your edits were about that issue. However, I don't like to unblock in borderline cases unless the blocking admin agrees and he doesn't seem willing to take another look. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The 4th edit/revert was a sentence added for the first time, but it was an attempted rewrite of another sentence removed earlier, so it may or may not be 3rd in a string of reverts... It's the first one in Carbonite's list that I'd disregard, as it's unrelated to the subsequent string of reverts, if I were the admin. (I always went by 3RR per content, not page.) 172 | Talk 05:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
When did this policy officially go into effect? It's ridiculous that such a readily-applied rule is not even completely agreed upon in substance among its enforcers. FWIW I basically said as much as 172 just did on the 3RR page; that's how I understood the policy as well. --TJive 05:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, would it be possible to take a look at Agiantman's edits as well, along with his personal attacks on Agiantman? If the vandal were also blocked, I wouldn't be nearly as upset about the whole idea of continuing to edit on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 05:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll definitely take a look at it tomorrow, 172, any reverting and personal attacks. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Reading his posts on the talk page should be enlightening. He's also online now, up to the same kind of nonsense. 172 | Talk 05:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


I have sent you apologies by e-mail, with some further comments. I am sorry, and will edit: I was thinking only of the actual tactics on the Stalin page itself, not the rudeness on the talk page. Even so, I was not going into every bad part of Agiantman's conduct; that's for an RfC. Septentrionalis 21:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please reconsider your comments on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. However true, leaving them there will IMHO do Agiantman more good than harm; because they are off topic on that page. I could be wrong. Septentrionalis 21:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's easy to skim abuse that isn't aimed at me ;->. Besides that, I expect foulmouthed polemic from those who Know the Truth; it comes with the territory.Septentrionalis 22:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi. I wanted to thank you for your emphatic support to my RfA. It meant a lot to me! I will not let you down. Thank you again. Redux 01:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01 strikes again[edit]

Old version:

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, a publication which has itself had two correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:

Nobs01 version[14]:

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, which has been referred to as a "Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece" evidenced by having two of its own correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:

Please see insertion here [15] excerpted in confereence with Cberlet:

If you insist on a path like this, then expect "Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece" directed at your "skeptics". As the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy says of Hiss, the issue "seems" settled, so does the ONCIX "confirm" the "accuracy" of Elizabeth Bentley.

nobs 18:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirections of War on terrorism to War on Terrorism[edit]

Hi 172, The article War on terrorism was redirected and I think maybe actually cut/past "moved" to War on Terrorism capital "T." Would you please take a look at it? It seems the article has been given an incorrect name, it should be, as it was War on terror with some useful redirects like from "Global war on terror" "Global war on terrorism" and the like. I'm not sure what is going on. I tried to correct it and think I may have made it worse... I don't fully understand how redirection works, but something is wrong here. Useing "War on Terror" seems like some kind of POV push. Thanks. Calicocat 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


I just looked over (and made a few corrections to) your rewrite of this article. I really think the previous version was much, much better. Why did you rewrite it in the first place...? IMO, we should put back some of the info from the old version. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

On the surface the older version looked more informative, but there were way too many unsourced claims and conflations of concepts that were not necessarily coextensive. These problems meant that it was much easier to start from start from scratch with an article that laid out just the essential information than to fix the existing article. I could go through the old version line by line explaining some of these problems if you are interested. 172 | Talk 20:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
List of Dictators has been resurrected. Just thought you should know. Wizzy 21:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


check it when you get the chance. J. Parker Stone 21:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Your rewrite of state[edit]

I just stumbled upon what I assume is your working draft. It's fantastic, drawing on all of the relevant theoretical literature -- exactly what a good Wikipedia article should be! Glad to see you're back with us, at least on a semi-regular basis, and I look forward to reading more of your work in the future. RadicalSubversiv E 07:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi there, 172! You probably know about this already, but anyway... Come check out the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Russia, where users (mostly Russian-speaking) contribute articles on Russian and Soviet history on a daily basis. Follow this link Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Russia/New article announcements if you want to announce a newly created article on Russian/Soviet history or draw the Russian crowd's attention to some discussion that deals with Russian/Soviet history. Hope to see you soon! KNewman 03:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cold War Map[edit]

I uploaded an image of the Cold War a while back and you erased it. I see why it shouldn't have been at the top now, but I don't think it hurts in the historical section. I hope you don't mind. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) California state flag.png 21:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article[edit]

Congratulations on George Kennan making featured article. Ruy Lopez 05:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ...and thanks. --Irpen 05:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, by all means; it's a good article. Septentrionalis 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


I have filed an RfAr. It's there if you're interested. Septentrionalis 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin has been unprotected. Septentrionalis 16:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

a suggestion of yours[edit]

From a Kuro5hin comment I read your recommendation of a "Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards." That's one of the greatest ideas I've ever heard. User:Xmnemonic


hey if you ever get the patience to review and possibly implement my (somewhat rough but i'm burnt out right now) proposed rewrite of the Henry Kissinger article i would appreciate it very much. J. Parker Stone 07:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Marshall Plan[edit]

I've been working on the Marshall Plan article recently, with the hope of eventually bringing it up to FA quality. I have thus listed in on peer review for comments. You have done a great deal of work on closely related articles, and any suggestions you might have would be much appreciated. - SimonP 13:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine Arbitration[edit]

has started, here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence he mentions you at some length. You may want to have a look; apparently you are the Arch-conspirator against Liberal Democracy, manipulating my strings behind the scenes. Septentrionalis 19:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I should be flattered for that he thinks that I'm some sort of charismatic guru with a huge contingent of proteges. However, is any reasonable person going to buy into this? I mean, a look at my edit history shows that I've hardly been doing anything on Wikipedia for the past couple of months, and hardly keeping in touch with my fellow editors... Do you think any problem would arise if I continue to ignore him? 172 | Talk 02:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Depopulating dictators[edit]

I have somewhat mixed feelings on your depopulation of Category:Totalitarian dictators. I took out Lenin on exactly the same grounds (Lenin is absurd to include; though I myself added Stalin). But I also added in many of those you took out, where the case seemed at least plausible (certainly not undisputed in any case; that's the whole problem with the cat). The original cat creators clearly have an anti-Communist schtick to push, so adding some pro-American dictators like Somoza and Papa Doc sort of fleshed out what the category would amount to if retained. It's hard not to think of them as totalitarian dictators.

Now I confess that my silliness with George w Bush was just as I commented: in parallel with the anti-Communist gaming of Fidel castro (misspelling), to see how long a misspelling would survive. But on the "plausible" memberships, I do think it's slightly improper to remove "good faith" additions while the CfD is in process. Then again, "good faith" by one person might still seem flatly false by another; letting a POV "commentary by cat" stand just because a CfD is open isn't good faith either (i.e. the obviously insincere Bush/Castro misspellings).

I tend to think the compromise is to let the editors who actually regularly work on the respective pages do the uncats though. If you haven't worked on those political figures concretely, it's just an outside intervention in the cat issue (and maybe WP:POINT). Not that my changes weren't somewhat similar, I confess.

Anyway, please be sure to vote in the CfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


It's in fact against policy to depopulate categories under CfD. It's also not acceptable to remove a category (twice so far) with no explanation on the Talk page of the article, and only the edit summary:"addition of this category in any article is inherent POV. Political scientists always disagree on what totalitarianism is, where and when to apply it, and even on whether or not it's a useful concept", which is vague but false (who are these "political scientists" who "always disagree"?). --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 10:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Jimbo Wales has reiterated repeatedly on the mailing list that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, which means that the content policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, cite your sources, and no original research) trump process rules in the individual articles. Categorizing Suharto's regime as totalitarian is a violation of all the said content policies because no credible scholar classifies it as such. In comparative politics, scholars using the typographical scheme of regime-types laid out by Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan (perhaps the closest to a standard in the field), never classify Indonesia as totalitarian but rather as authoritarian or personalistic, given that Suharto never came close to controlling or eliminating pre-existing pockets of civil society as in Stalinist Russia. Further, according to Kirkpatrick's framework, during the Reagan years the most influential in the U.S. policymaking community, Indonesia was never considered "totalitarian" but rather "authoritarian." It is also worth nothing that the notion of totalitarianism since the 1970s has come under considerable criticism in terms of its value for political scientists and historians; and even many Russian and Soviet specialists reject the usage of the concept to describe Stalinist Russia, the historical case that almost certainly comes closest to total control of state over society. If totalitarianism fails to be a description of Stalin's Russia expected by all experts in the field, certainly it fails in the case of Indonesia, where the state did not consolidate anywhere near the degree of control over society seen under Stalin. In short, the category must be removed because it is not only POV, but a POV at that that cannot be verified in any credible academic source, regardless of the CfD debate. 172 | Talk 19:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. You didn't say any of this when you removed the category (indeed, you didn'yt have the courtesy to say anything at all on the Talk page; you merely gave an edit summary that was false, and that bears no relation to your argument above.
    I have stated this explanation repeatedly, and I have explained my reasoning each time when asked about the removal of the categories. I will continue to do so, but I will not comment on finger-pointing and innuenedo. 172 | Talk 15:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    ?? --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. It is an argument, not a mere statement of self-evident fact, and one that demands sources. --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 21:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    That Suharto's regime is "totalitarian" is not a self evident fact. In fact, most political scientists who are experts on Indonesia reject this description. Perhaps they're wrong and you're right, but with that in mind, calling Suharto's regime totalitarian is a representation of a particular point of view, which cannot be enshried in a category given Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. 172 | Talk 15:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    Again, ?? First, you don't seem to be responding to what I write, but to some other voice. Where, for example, did I refer to Suharto's regime being "totalitarian" as a self evident fact? Secondly, you keep referring to "most political scientists": see Wikipedia:Cite sources. --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    By reverting my edit to the Suharto page and restoring the category, you imply that it is a self-evident fact that Suharto's regime was totalitarian, as it shows that you feel that opinion to the contrary is not worth consideration. Perhaps the best known perspective that Surharto's regime was authoritarian not totalitarian is based on the distinction publicized by Jeane Kirkpatrick. For a recent restatement of this distinction in the case of Indonesia, see the following article by Joshua Muravchik published by the AEI. [16] 172 | Talk 23:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

First, by reverting your edit I imply nothing except what I sadi — that your removal the category lacked a proper explanation, and as high-handed and against Wikipedia policy. Secondly, you said "most political scientists", not a politician with a certain agenda and a member of a right-wing think-tank. --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 22:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I cited Kirkpatrick not because she is my only source but because she is the best known contemporary writer on the totalitarian regime typology; when it comes to picking an author to cite, Kirkpatrick is simply the best bet for naming an author with whom people interested in following the debate on CfD will be familiar. Yes, she is a politician and a researcher for the AEI, a right-wing think-tank. Even so, citing a right-wing think-tank alone is sufficient for removing the category on the grounds of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The AEI article is an example of disagreement with lumping Suharto's regime under the category of totalitarianism, which must be considered if Wikipedia's use of categories on the subject is to be neutral... At any rate, Kirkpatrick is hardly the only one I have mentioned to explain the need to de-populate the category. In the past few days, I have been citing the most influential academic category scheme in comparative politics: Linz, Juan J., and Stepan, Alfred. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation and Linz, "Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism," 1975. Under Linz's scheme, Suharto's Indonesia falls outside the typology because of a lack of a unified utopian guiding ideology, the presence of some pluralism in civil society that existed under the old regime, the lack of intensive mobilization of society, and the presence of some predictable limits on the leaders power. If you do not trust my summary of the litetature, it will be quite easy for you to find copious scholarly articles grounded in Juan Linz's analysis in (say) Jtstor or Project Muse database in order to verify my statements on your own. By the way, if you have not been satisfied with some of my previous replies, I am sorry. As you're probably aware, I have been carrying on similar conversations with multiple people; so perhaps I have been confusing the conversations, assuming incorrectly at times that I explained to you certain points that I had instead explained to other people. 172 | Talk 01:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)