User talk:172/Talk block 14

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


Uploading picture[edit]

This may seem like a very mundane question but I am getting very frustrated at trying to upload pictures from Google. I don't understand the upload Filename and Summary box and how I get a picture from google to my page via this. I have the pic saved but I cannot seem to get it from the saved location to the page. Please help! thanx.

Encyclopaedic Standards Forum[edit]

This seems like a very good idea, though I am at an immediate loss as to what those standards might and how they would be enforced, given the nature of the Wiki. I'll have to give this some thought and will be watching the forum with interest. Thanks for the alert. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I will take a look at the page and let you know what I think. --Viriditas 03:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The idea is a good one. On the other hand, the participation of a POV warrior like IZAK is a bit disheartening. I shall watch and see, for the moment. john k 06:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I respect your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence, and would like to respond, but the evidence page is not for discussion. Can you move that comment to the Talk page? -- Netoholic @ 00:01, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

I'd say just move your response to the Evidence Talk page, with a heading that identifies what it refers to. Since its comments, and not added evidence I think that's were it belongs. Unfortunately, IZAK's section on the main page has a lot of discussion, when it really shouldn't. -- Netoholic @ 00:10, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
You aren't concerned (or annoyed) that he copied your signed comments to so many user pages? In reality, this would be a minor occurrence if it weren't for his over-use of that sort of mass-posting technique, which is at the root of the arbitration. I am going to move your comments and respond there also. -- Netoholic @ 00:54, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

arbitration committee[edit]

i would vote for you, but i have discovered that i will only have had my user name for 85 days by the end of the election. good luck. Xtra 00:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:Visting the Lenin Mausoleum.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm curious where you got Image:Visting the Lenin Mausoleum.jpg, and and specifically its copyright/copyleft/public domain status. (I would like to use it in a work of art, but obviously this wouldn't be possible if it's copyrighted.) Please get back to me. Thanks. -Branddobbe 03:23, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Elections[edit]

You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Univited Company has also offered his services. I would be happy to work with him too, if that is okay with you. Danny 01:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

please help[edit]

I'd appreciate your help. The Cultural and historical background of Jesus page was recently unprotected. FT2 revised it, then I revised it considerably, mostly adding information. CheeseDreams just reverted it and threatens to revert any work I do. Please compare my version to the previous one (FT2) and comment. Thanks Slrubenstein


Thanks for uploading Image:Getulio55.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:22, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Also, how about Image:FidelCastro.jpg?

Could you explain how you would handle the Shorne case?[edit]

I find your candidate statement a bit too abstract to provide insight into how you would conduct yourself.

How about the arbitration case involving Shorne? Do you agree or disagree that his actions warrant blocks or a ban?

For example, would you have blocked Shorne from editing communism-related articles for the length of the arbitration proceedings?

If the other arbitrators were discussing whether to ban him for a few months, how would you respond?

A case that is not so cut-and-dried can reveal a lot about the character of the individuals who are given authority to make decisions about such a case.

You state that you are closer to the individual contributors who actually get things done around here, so I'm curious to see if you would rule any differently than the current committee.

Since you are not on the Arbitration Committee, you can offer your opinion without affecting the fairness of those proceedings.

Thanks for running for election. I appreciate having more choices from which to choose.


--DV 01:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely and informative response to my questions. --DV 04:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Election Get Out the Vote Effort[edit]

Hi Candidate 172,

So far in this campaign, I think your platform represents the best of bringing diversity to the viewpoints of the Arbitration Committee.

I think the best way to insure that your candidacy is successful, is to help to increase voter turnout.

One of the technical people on this site, who goes by the name Danny, helped me to make a very convenient tag that makes it super easy to place this "get out the vote" banner on your user page:

Arbitration Committee Elections - December 4th-18th, 2004
Election InfoCandidatesVoting

Please consider adding this tag to your user page, as a great many pages link to your user page.

Thanks in advance if you choose to help out. If there are any issues which prevent you from doing so, please let me know - I would be happy to make a custom version of this tag just for your page if that's what it takes for you to proudly display it.


--DV 17:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your expert opinion would be appreciated[edit]

. . . on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:National liberation movements. Thanks in advance. —No-One Jones (m) 04:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New feature to control campaign messages[edit]

Hi Candidate 172,

Thank you for your earlier decision to support the "get out the vote" banner. It's been a resounding success, with users adding links to it left and right!

I'm writing to you now about a longer term issue that will affect not only the December Arbitration Committee Election, but all future elections on Wikipedia.

It seems that some folks are truly put upon when it comes to campaign messages, even to the point of not wanting other users to receive such messages.

I'm really not sure what to make of Administrators who are running for election, but don't want individual contributors to receive campaign-related messages on their user talk pages - even if those users have explicitly requested to receive such messages.

I understand the desire not to politicize elections. But aren't voters wise enough to make their own decision to choose to receive campaign messages and make up their own minds?

I also respect privacy, and if users indicate they do not want campaign messages, there should be harsh sanctions for campaigners who ignore those wishes.

Please check out the proposal at Software and features, and vote to approve a new feature that allows users to control whether or not they receive campaign messages.

I'm hopeful that if users are allowed to explicitly declare their willingness to receive such messages, that others will not feel quite so offended.

If you'll support this effort, I think it will go a long ways towards increasing voter turnout in future elections.

Thanks in advance if you choose to help out.

And good luck in the December vote. Despite Jimbo's labeling of you as one, I don't think you're an "insider". :)


--DV 12:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: I've been impressed by the ability of the contributors on Wikipedia to find creative solutions to difficult issues, so if you have additional, creative ideas of your own, I would like to hear from you.

Hi 172! I was just reading about a new biography of Josef Stalin and i thought about you. *Not* because possible comparisons ;) but the review is very nice and i guess you're interested in this things. Anyway, its by Robert Service and its published by MacMillan. Good luck with the election. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 18:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Join RWNB![edit]


I see from your contributions that you are interested in Russian topics. Perhaps you would like to join the new Russian wikipedians' notice board? It is a discussion forum for wikipedians interested in all things Russian. Also, each week we pick an unfinished stub article to improve through collaboration.

Flag of Russia.svg Russian Collaboration of the Week Flag of Russia.svg

Every week, a lacking Russian topic is picked to be the Russian Collaboration of the Week.
The current RCOTW is Vostochny.

Notice boards and Collaborations-Of-The-Week have become increasingly popular on wikipedia reciently, with Irish, British, US and many more. There is also a score board for competing collaborations! See FAC.

Isn't it about time we got articles on Russia up to standard?

Hope to see you on RWNB!

Seabhcán 12:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just had time to look at your economics metapage[edit]

Excellent work - I've been busy with original work (the Pyramid and the Sphere) and have not had time to contribute, but have book marked for future use. Stirling Newberry 04:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 21:16, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

A Message to my Fellow Candidate[edit]

The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or <tt>{{stub}}</tt>. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.

--Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom


Thank you for supporting my bid for adminship! --Woggly 20:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Efraín Ríos Montt[edit]

You are requested to respond to my consensus proposal at Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt. Given your deletion of the NPOV section designation, I ask why I should consider you continuing to act on good faith. --Dhartung | Talk 12:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have sent an email to your hotmail account. Danny 15:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom endorsements[edit]

It is my view that "disendorsements" are in general inappropriate and should be removed. The other election organizers share that view, and you've probably seen our statement at the bottom of this page in that regard. Accordingly, I believe that Fred's statement that you brought to my attention is one of many that would, ideally, never have been made in the first place; failing that, it is one of many that should be removed.

However, our remit as election organizers is to be sure that the voting itself is conducted fairly and that the votes are counted accurately. We have no special authority over the candidate statements page or the related endorsements and comments pages. Our goal is to remain neutral and avoid taking any sort of public stance regarding any candidate, so we have strived to remain uninvolved.

As a result, in regards to the appropriateness of Fred's statement in particular, I am obliged to keep my views to myself.

Very kindest regards

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oder-Neisse Line[edit]

Talk Cold War:

essentially, along a line in the center of Europe that came to be called the "Oder-Neisse Line." ... 172 09:38, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Oder-Neisse Line was the frontier between Poland and East Germany (GDR). The boder you mean was the River Elbe. See Battle of Berlin and The end of World War II in Europe. Philip Baird Shearer 00:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I just wanted to express my sympathy on the issue of your being compared to Holocaust deniers. I've been called a racist, a sexist, a primitive positivist, and an anti-Semite before (as well as a Jew-lover, a crazy postmodernist and hopeless relativist, and a "pinko faggot"—when one has both Jews and Muslims in one's family and one uses Foucault but also has a scientific background, people get confused!) on the basis of my opinions as an historian. But calling someone a Holocaust denier without evidence is beyond the pale, and in some countries (France, for example) could be grounds for a libel case.

BTW, ¡No pasarán! ;) —Tkinias 02:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It took a lot of courage for you to run under the current political climate, 172. El_C


Hi 172, I'm writing to you because I understand you were one of the editors who has expressed concern about the activity of the Lyndon LaRouche supporters on Wikipedia, in particular Herschelkrustofsky, C Colden and Weed Harper.

If you have time, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision under the heading Regarding this Arbcom ruling, as it applies to the dispute between SlimVirgin and HerschelKrustofsky?

Herschelkrustofsky has initiated a query of the Arbitration Committee for clarification of their earlier ruling regarding his activities, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision. I have been having trouble with Herschelkrustofksy ever since I created an article on Jeremiah Duggan, which reports criticism of LaRouche. This brought me to their attention, and them to mine. I agree that clarification of the Arbcom decision is needed, because I feel the wording of the ruling has left loopholes that the LaRouche supporters are exploiting. I have therefore written up a long response to Herschelkrustofsky's query and have requested clarification from the Committee on three specific points, as I feel this is an opportunity to put the matter to rest. I wondered whether you'd be prepared to comment on the page, because it might help if editors other than me were seen to have concerns. If you don't have the time or inclination, however, don't worry about it, as I know it's a pain in the neck. Many thanks, Slim 16:20, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 03:27, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 03:51, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Another image tag[edit]

Image:WhiteandKeynes.jpg needs an image tag and was uploaded by you. Evil MonkeyTalk 06:36, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


Hey, I could really use your help. I ma running into major edit conflicts with Stirling Newberry at three articles: Postmodernism, Postmodernity, and Political economy. My changes in each article are to the introduction. I believe my versions are more accurate, NPOV, and sourced. He simply reverts anything I have done. I also find it hard to communicate with him. I know this is a lot to ask but I'd appreciate it if you could look at the edit histories from the past two days, compare my version of the intro to his, and also look at the talk pages and make any comment you feel justified. (actually, he seems to have relented somewhat in the postmodernity article) Thanks, Slrubenstein 17:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:28, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

These images that you uploaded are missing copyright information Image:Venezuela, Hugo Chavez survives coup.jpg, Image:Venezuela.JPG, and Image:Venezuela_2.jpg --nixie 07:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:PMChirac.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Edwin Stearns | Talk 16:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:PMChirac.jpgand Image:Dudayev.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Edwin Stearns | Talk 17:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jacques Chirac's official photo[edit]

This official photo may be a copyright violation. Nowhere on the official site of the French presidency it is said that the use of their photographs was free. This particular photo was shot by Bettina Rheims and is apparently copyrighted by the Documentation Française (a government agency printing official reports).

The matter is being discussed on Talk:Jacques Chirac. I don't think that the Élysée would complain about the use of their photograph, but we have to be cautious and, if possible, use photographs for which we have clear authorizations (such as the one from Agência Brasil). David.Monniaux 10:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trey Stone[edit]

While I fully understand why you banned User:Trey Stone -- his impersonation of you was clearly a violation of the rules -- I'm a bit surprised that you used your admin privileges to do this yourself with someone with whom you are obviously in a current conflict. I have been under the impression that is not acceptable. Is there somewhere there is clearly formlated policy on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:51, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Listen to the wiseman. J. Parker Stone 10:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And listen, I wholeheartedly apologize for all the vandalism I have caused on this uniquely objective encyclopedia. I just have a visceral reaction to lame excuses for blatant and systematic anti-U.S./Marxoid povulation. EDR 10:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:18, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.



Thanks for your congratulations; I am sorry I will not get the oppurtunity to serve with you. Regarding page protection: I'm attempting to avoid page protection and user disputes because sometime in the future the Arbitration Committee may be asked to consider the case, and then I'd be forced to recuse myself. Warmest regards --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:06, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Auto IP Block[edit]

I am auto-blocked every time I log in on my normal IP I don't see the purpose of re-blocking my IP every time and extending the ban -- it is completely unnecessary. Messenger 07:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge[edit]

172, can you take a look at this ridiculous situation? How many sock puppets does Stone Trey Parker Shmopulist Shadow Trey have? I am getting so tired of fighting with these jackasses. Stargoat 22:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We have e-mail? Stargoat 12:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, it's not my fault wikipedia doesn't have a registration system that requires input of an actual email address. Haha. Mr. Stone 22:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protection request[edit]

Can you please protect Kevin B. MacDonald? Thanks. AndyL 13:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, im not too out for fame tho, so not tonight. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'll let you in if you vote yes. lol. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thanks for the support; I really do appreciate it. Everyking 02:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History of Indonesia && "Trey Stone"[edit]


First off, I'm new; and I want to do good here.

I just noticed a summary deletion by "Trey Stone" in the History_of_Indonesia page of quotes by Noam Chomsky. I restored them. This is my first venture into potentially controversial editing. I also noted that you've been on his case, and thought I'd give you a heads up and ask if you think I'm understanding the norms here...

Davenbelle 01:21, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

==Trey Stone==
You're doing just fine dealing with him. In the future, let another admin or me know if you have any more trouble with Trey Stone; and we can protect the article from additional edits. Just make sure that he doesn't drag you into breaking the "three revert rule." I have to watch out for this myself. 172 03:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I will give his posts some attention. I've done some furthur looking already and he seems to get around!

Glad to have made contact with an admin.

Davenbelle 04:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring[edit]

I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hair-trigger Blocking[edit]

Earlier this evening, you responded to a Request for Page Protection by arbitrarily blocking a user from editing the pages. In particular, the pages: Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. A claim of plagiarism was made, yet you didn't verify that claim before taking action. Reverts made to supposedly remove plagiarized text instead deleted whole pages of content, spelling corrections, formatting, link additions, etc. You profess to support the 3-revert rule, yet rather than block the violator, you block the other user. Anonymous user TDC has pulled these stunts before, regarding these particular articles - just ask Admin Theresa Knott. Can we please show a little more prudence in the exercise of our admin powers in the future? Thanks much, -Rob

In the interests of full disclosure, I have had positive experiences with User:TDC. I had a few of my own disputes with him that were even more protracted than the ones resulting in the block today that ended very amicably, with changes to articles that we both considered helpful. Perhaps this left me a bit too uncritical... Regarding the block, the anon appeared to be adding a good amount of content that did appear to be plagiarized.
If you'll look closer, you'll see that the anon user was not adding content at all, but merely reverting the unexplained sweeping changes of anon user TDC. The content being stripped from the article by anon user TDC's rollbacks was provided by many users over the past several months. As for plagiarized content, I don't see it in either article. I do see quoted material, public domain material, cited exerpts and other content easily confused with plagiarized text - but those issues appear to be heavily discussed and sorted out in the Discussion pages associated with each article.
However, you are correct that TDC's edits went beyond removing the content that constituted the alleged plagiarism. Both sides indeed were not behaiving as well as they could have been.
Anon user behaved exactly as required, by reverting sweeping, unexplained and unsubstantiated changes - and marking the reversion as such in the edit summary. Anon user TDC, on the otherhand, has refused to follow the wikipedia customary procedures for discussing and resolving edit disputes. Just as he refused to do so months ago, despite the intervention of multiple admins. Perhaps you can utilize your amicable standing with that individual, and persuade him to enter into productive discussion on these articles.
It seems that resolving the neutrality dispute requires the blocked user to come back and work out a compromise with TDC. So I will shorten the block to one day and allow this user to come back tomorrow. 172 11:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A magnanimous gesture, I'm sure, but the blocked user never left. Resolving the dispute (now it's a 'neutrality dispute?') can be handled simply enough if anon user TDC follows the standard procedures of raising his issues on the article talk pages, discussing them and resolving them. He may even find that some of his issues were already addressed long ago in previous discussions. But chosing an edit version several months old, and dozens of edits old, and reverting to that version repeatedly with no explanation other than "plagiarism" won't cut it. This issue [1] isn't a new one. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. -Rob

Howdy, 172. You recently Page Protected Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War citing "edit war continuing." I believe you are in error. The last edits made by me on these articles addressed all outstanding issues raised in the discussion pages. Can you please take a second look, then tell me if I am overlooking something? Thank you very much. Best wishes on a Happy New Year to you. -Rob

Finno-Ugaric blocks[edit]

I only blocked Finn-whatever for 12 hours, hardly onerous. If you unblocked him because his block had run out, that's fine (the power failed at my house after blizzard, and I'm just back online now, so I couldn't do it myself). Noel (talk) 13:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

You have just protected Finno-Ugric languages. However, User:Antifinnugor requested protection of Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups on RFP, and not of this page. The request was made in bad faith at that, see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups_3RR_violation. regards, dab () 17:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, dab is constantly vandalizing that page by redirecting. Unfortunately his vandalismus is now protected, and that is no good. I requested already to protect the page before his vandalistic redirection. He also animates others, like Wiglaf for vandalismus. antifinnugor 17:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good catch on the inflation article[edit]

we seem to be getting one of our periodic gold bug infestations. Stirling Newberry 05:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CSTAR from Daily Kos has also been wading in, he's very solid. Stirling Newberry 05:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I presume it requires a developer to check Libertas's IP; I'm not even an admin, so I can't help you with that. FWIW, I now think it's unlikely that Libertas is Chuck, given that they've done a fair bit of reverting each other on Ron Paul. It's more likely that Libertas is a reincarnation of User:Reithy, but he hasn't repeated any of Reithy's most outrageous behavior. RadicalSubversiv E 06:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate you keeping an eye on things, but I have to agree with Libertas that you acted a bit hastily in protecting Ron Paul. Please see my comments on Talk:Ron Paul. RadicalSubversiv E 07:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And also you wrote as follows:

Hi. I could use some help. Is there a way of finding out whether or not User:Libertas is User:Reithy? Even if he is not, he is a quite a problem user. 172 05:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, he just exposed his IP address. It’s ( 172 05:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are many more references to such things. I suggest you take a look at the Janus article.

The IP address I have for Reithy is, which seems to belong to an ISP called Bigpond Australia. I can't get a good lookup on, I'm afraid, though it looks like it might be from somewhere else. So there you go. Evercat 15:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I've added Soviet Union and the History of the Soviet Union articles to my watchlist. The former is protected right now so I'll wait until it's unprotected. Don't have the time or patience to debate the issue in Talk right now. AndyL 16:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Let me know if you decide to pursue a request for comment for trolling. I'd be happy to certify. RadicalSubversiv E 23:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I've posted a warning on his talk page asking him to stop. If he continues with this kind of anti-social behavior, I'd be happy to certify. RadicalSubversiv E 23:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If my recollection of the RFC process is correct, the two people certifying have to have attempted to resolve the issue directly. You and I have definitely done that. I'm not sure how strictly that's interpreted -- perhaps others who've commented on Talk:Soviet Union or Talk:Ron Paul would qualify?

As for History of post-Soviet Russia, by my count each of us have reverted twice, so we're fine. Libertas is now up to four, however.

And Happy New Year to you, too.

RadicalSubversiv E 04:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like raise the possibility of an RFC again. I've checked the policy, and it's fairly clear in requiring two certifiers who have attempted to resolve disputes on the user's talk page, which realistically only includes you, me, and Evercat (who Libertas has just succeeded in driving into a Wikivacation). Let me know if you'd be willing to reconsider certifying and I'll get the ball rolling. RadicalSubversiv E 20:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Natural monopoly[edit]

You protected this on 29 Dec; I think it's OK to unprotect now. See Talk:Natural monopoly. Cheers, Rd232 14:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Section on internal security[edit]

Thank you for this concession. I'm going to take it easy for a while and concentrate on how to actually write politics of the Soviet Union. I will drop a note to Libertas and ask him to stop browbeating you. Perhaps we might try to identify the major contestants in this matter and try mediation. But only after we see who is seriously involved. Fred Bauder 11:23, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your support on requests for adminship. Happy new year. Tim Ivorson 17:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of Chirac images[edit]

Hello. I'm image-tagging, and I came across Image:Chirac.jpg and Image:Chiracinauguration.jpg. Do you remember where they came from? Cheers, – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:42, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Untagged images[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:BigStick.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, AlbinoMonkey 00:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced[edit]

I want you to continue the "investigation," I am very excited about the prospects of its findings! All the way to Columbia University! Professor Cohen, are you, or have you ever been a...? El_C 11:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Just a note to let you know that, at my suggestion, Libertas has begun removing his comments from Talk:Soviet Union which do not directly pertain to the article. Hopefully this will lay the groundwork for a more constructive dialogue. I hope this is helpful for you, and that you're not still thinking of leaving. RadicalSubversiv E 11:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see on the admin noticeboard you're not pleased about this. I think the best thing to do would be to take a look at the page when he's all done and see if any of your comments come off looking badly, in which case you can revise as necessary. So far, I haven't noticed any particularly problematic changes. He at least appears to be contrite (see his remarks on my talk page), and I very much hope this will be an enduring shift in behavior. If he returns to trolling, we can get the dispute resolution process rolling right away with plenty of evidence that all other options have been exhausted. RadicalSubversiv E 11:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"I mean, I don't get to delete my replies to the provocations, nor do the other users" So far as I know, you absolutely do. You've been around and active more than I, but I've never heard of a policy which presents users from editing or removing their own comments. RadicalSubversiv E 11:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

G'day mate[edit]

I've just stopped reading that Soviet Union talk page. I'd thought that the soviet union was totalitarian! I am talking from a position of ignorance however. It seems to me that Libertas might have a point, but I thought I'd ask you first why it isn't considered one, because I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge and research ability. Libertas, for me, is an unknown quantity. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hey man, c'mon you're getting done dirty too join me. :)

I'm done anyway, good luck with everything dude you are much better than this place. GrazingshipIV 11:15, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Libertas RFC[edit]

I've finally gone ahead and posted an RFC regarding Libertas. Rather than trying to rehash the merits of the Soviet Union dispute, I've focused on his repeated personal attacks and other nonsense, which I think are now so blatant now as to appear unacceptable to any neutral observer. Would you mind certifying? (I'm also asking several other folks, but the more the better.) RadicalSubversiv E 03:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Civil War[edit]

Hi 172, SWAird direct me to you to help with a POV dispute of American Civil War/Origins of the conflict. I have marked it as pov for the reason being that edits were point to it being a strictly slaver based war. Where as i belive that slavery was a contributing factor, i dont belive that it the focal point for the orgins of the war, as it would later become during the conflict, and that issues of states right/Federal control and economic issues not related to slavery also played a major part in the orgins in the conflict. Its sister article Origins of the American Civil War is also in a pov dispute. I was wondering if you could give your comment to this issue. --Boothy443 08:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Could you take a look at this? Cantus massively violated his arbitration terms, but the other sysops are doing nothing as usual. Gzornenplatz 10:36, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

unblocking Gzornenplatz[edit]

You should not have unblocked him. That is without justification, and an insult to a fellow admin.

Gzornenplatz clearly is violating his arbitration, plus is making repeated edits which are disruptive and without consensus. I suggest you step away from this case. -- Netoholic @ 06:41, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)


Each of these reverts is a part of the debate on the merits of Cantus' country infoboxes, which he has discussed on various relevant pages. There is no need to post the same note on dozens of different country talk pages explaining this actions. Rather than blocking him again, perhaps you can advise him to add see [insert relevant page here]... in the edit summaries in order to direct users to his stated reasoning behind the removal. Also, my decision to unblock is an insult to no one. Hence, I put a polite note on the talk page of the user who had blocked Gz explaining my action immediately afterwards.


172 06:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right? It does not matter what debate over the merits of the infoboxes is. Heck, I don't like them myself, but all editors of those articles are reverting him, not just Cantus (well, anymore). Gz is under strict guidelines, which he is breaking. He is edit warring, without discussion. It is time to stop coddling him, and make it known that Wikipedia is not a place for him. He's been banned (as Wik) once, and does not deserve any more effort from us. -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
Oh, and please tell me you didn't just hide evidence of him evading the block ? -- Netoholic @ 07:03, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Of course if he is violating the revert perole an admin has every right to block him. However, we still are able to exercise some common sense. While he has not been pasting the same message on every country talk page explaining his actions, which would be quite redundant, he has discussed this issue on the relavant template talk pages. Gzornenplatz has also been repeatedly removing the country infobox template link; but he has been doing so over 24 hour increments (so as not to break that Arbitration ruling). 172 07:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pasting the same message on talk pages is insufficient as well. He must "discuss" on the relevant talk pages. Right now, all he is doing is repeating the same edit over and over again, and all kinds of various editors are reverting him. I'll tell you waht I wrote him - I am sorry the ArbCom ruling is inconvenient for him, but that is the situation he brought himself. Do not help him. -- Netoholic @ 07:15, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but User:Netoholic reported his grievences with Gz to me, and I responded to them as an Admin. Almost all of my work on Wikipedia is geography-related, so I have some of the same issues. If Gz has discussed this in many relevant places, why have I never seen any discussion of this subject on his end? I watch all the places it should be. To me, if there are people on almost every page questioning his changes, reverting them, and then having them revert them back does not speak to me as a beneficial user who is willing to take part in the Wikipedia process. I am more than willing to have a discussion with Gz and many others, as well as with the Arbitration Committee, but until you can provide me with solid, consequential reasons why I should remove his ban, I must insist on mainting it. Thank you. Páll 07:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172, you also have no right to intervene as you have been previously involved in this matter when Gz asked you to ban Cantus with this statement on your discussion board: "Could you take a look at this? Cantus massively violated his arbitration terms, but the other sysops are doing nothing as usual. Gzornenplatz 10:36, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)." Frankly, neither of us is neutral, but it disconcerts me that you are perporting yourself to be neutral. I think the block should remain because I know from Gzornenplatz's previous actions in the few minutes that he was unblocked this evening that he will immediately attempt to force his opinion through again. To leave him blocked presents the least number of things that can go wrong because I frankly do not think he will respect any sort of cooling off period. The block remains. Páll 07:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I don't know WHAT we can do except to contact his ISP, but I've NEVER heard that any ISP has even responded to a request. Locking the country pages is drastic, though I considered it last night, but I just can't see locking every single country. Maybe we could delete the infobox pages? RickK 22:20, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to start deleting the infobox pages? - no, not without going through the tfd process first. RickK 22:28, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely need to wait a while before moving to delete the extra templates. All sides look like they're willing to compromise on the Infobox Country template, but it's best to let things cool for a few days while they get into it. This thing is liable to turn WP:TFD upside-down if we do it right now, but given a waiting period, it could go smoothly. -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Polish Nazi Propaganda[edit]

"Quit disguising unexplained reverts as minor edits."

Im always marking my edits as minor... Especially if someone rewriting whole articles, without showing sources and use terms like "Polish nationalist POV"...

"This is against the rules. I could block you for that"

Which rules?--Emax 21:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
172, you should also quit disguising introduction of your own POV as fight against Polish propaganda and POV... Halibutt 11:28, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

Hi 172, I understand you used to edit the LaRouche pages. If you have the time and inclination, would you mind taking a look at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and Talk:Lyndon LaRouche? User:Herschelkrustofsky is causing some disruption because American journalist Chip Berlet wants to add some material about LaRouche (specifically, LaRouche quotes on gays). Berlet specializes in studying right-wing movements in America and so is familiar with the LaRouche organization. Herschel is making Berlet provide the contexts of the quotes, making him scan them into his office computer etc, and is still disputing them. Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche is protected and Herschel won't allow it to be unprotected, even though the quotes are perfectly legitimate. Herschel has also tried to edit the Chip Berlet page to cast a negative light on him (though his edits have now been undone and the page rewritten). Any help from a knowledgeable editor like yourself would be much appreciated. Best, SlimVirgin 03:20, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Emax + Space_Cadet[edit]

I think what these two guys are doing is abuse. They are actiong like "there are two of us and we will outrevert you no matter what". Their refusal to have a meningful discussion is abusive. --Gene s 06:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

country infoboxes[edit]

Hi again, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

voting: Wikipedia:Country_infobox_vote

Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:31, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War[edit]

You have just deleted my comments from the Talk:Polish-Soviet War. This was a step too far. You don't want to reply my questions - fine. But you do not have the right to delete my comments, especially that you denied to take part in the discussion. I demand apologies for calling me a nationalist and I strongly suggest you re-inserted my own comments to the respective talk page. Halibutt 21:39, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

The dialogue took place in the middle of my own statements. It was difficult to tell where my comments ended and started the comments by others since my questions were thought of as an entity, not as a set of frases. I do not wish that my comments be interrupted and I don't think those who contributed to the discussion would mind my changes since I didn't change what they wrote, only the place their comments were posted in. Also, I explained my change in the edit summary, yet you reverted.
So, so far your only contribution to my questions I asked you is calling me a nationalist repeatedly and reverting my comments without even looking at what was changed. Above you have exact instructions on what to do. Halibutt 21:50, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
All right, I'll add the comments myself. As to calling me a nationalist - I'm going off-line for now. I hope that until tomorrow you will either prove to me that I'm a nationalist or you will apologise for your accusations. In where I live there's little or no difference between calling someone a nationalist and calling someone a Nazi or a mother fucker. It's one of the most severe insults I've ever heard in my life and I certainly did not deserve to be called a nationalist just because I had the effrontery to criticize your vision of history.
Initially I decided to simply close my eyes and count to ten, especially that Piotrus advised me to be more tolerant. However, your repeated insults and accusations crossed the line. I'm disappointed with you and your behaviour and I must admit that, judging from your previous contributions to countless articles I saw, I believed you are a decent, cooperative and intelligent Wikipedian. I'm really sorry I was wrong. Good bye to you, 172. Halibutt 22:07, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Accepted. Nice article, BTW. Halibutt 23:38, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to see we are close to the compromise - I added my answers and accepted most of your recent changes. I hope we will be able to work on the rest of the article - as I wrote before, I plan to nominate it to FA after the matter is resolved and I'd be happy to further work with you on it unitl you feel it is all right. Hopefully we will be able to unprotect is soon. In other news, I am also working on another topic you may want to make sure has no 'Polish nationalist POV' :> - please check Dymitriads. this article needs expantion, as I am just in the process of reading relevant materials, so there may be bigger or smaller mistakes and ommissions. Please use talk before major rewrites, though :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Natural monopoly[edit]

Perhaps you can unprotect it now. It doesn't look like the dispute is going to be resolved on the Talk page, so maybe an expansion of the article will help (see Talk:Natural monopoly). Rd232 22:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Heya, you removed the block on User:Everyking; Could you explain why? He has made 3 fullout reverts and 3 partial reverts. By my book this counts as 6 reverts, and is a violation of the 3RR. See also the discussion on WP:AN --fvw* 22:21, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

You should be made aware of the fact that Everyking has substantial charges of effectively "gaming the system" to avoid banning at the hands of the 3RR. There are details at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyking and its respective talk page if you wish to review them (which you should, if you are going to be removing bans placed on him). I'd also like to ask that you re-instate the ban for violating the spirit of the 3RR, even if he has been doing things such as making a minor edit on top of a blanket revert or re-introducing his version of the page over the course of a few edits. They all amount to the same thing, both as actual content in the article and in spirit. →Reene 04:53, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship vote[edit]

Thanks for your support on the adminship vote. Dbiv 03:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

trivial and stupid[edit]

172 your edit summary on Human rights in Saddam's Iraq was a mindless ad hominem attack. The original language you were defending was so tame that it was legitimizing murder and torture as just another legimate means of exercising government control and power, like taxation. You are reinforcing your reputation as an apologist for repressive regimes. You don't recognize a reductio ad absurdem argument when you see it, it was obvious from the formulation you called trivial and stupid, that torturing soccer players did not fall within maintaining Bath party control, so that the language you were defending did not begin to cover this monstrousity of a regime. Apparently, I made the point too subtlely for you, so I have implemented language that better encompasses this regime's behavior.--Silverback 19:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk about ad hominem! [T]o improve the performance of the Iraqi soccer team in the lead sentence? You know, Sadam's regime tortured or killed many thousands of people, and highlighting a soccer team in the very first sentence is a trivialization of its crimes, and as such, it actually serves a pro-Sadam, apologist end. I just happen to be a staunch opponent of the Sadam regime, but I don't think this affects my ability to judge –correctly, I argue– that this is a poor lead, followed by a very poor and questionable defence of which directly above. El_C 21:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
El_C, ince when is torture of a soccer team trivial? It shows the character of the Saddam regime. Apologists for Saddam claim that Iraq was better off when he was in power, because they had security and they weren't a theocracy. The original opening paragraph played right into this diminishing of Saddam's evil by stating the torture and murder were merely to maintain Bathist power. BTW, I'm surprised that you are the one responding, as if you are 172, are you his sock puppet?--Silverback 06:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh no, you found out. Please don't tell anyone. 172 06:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, I take exception to that, Silverback. I'm –not– writing, as you say, as if I am 172, I am writing as if I am El_C, a sockpuppet of 172. Regardless though, I find (the non-comedic part of) your response to be highly lacking and flawed, but I'm writing in haste, so more on that later. E172_C 12:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was a bit of a mystery to me how you stumbled onto the subject and took the same position as 172 even though you hadn't appeared to edit or follow the page recently. I look forward to flaws being pointed out however. -- thanx in advance, --Silverback 07:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All easily demystifable. 172 is on my watchlist, so I noticed the comment. It took me little time to compare the pertinent edits through the article's revision history. The position I take (as does 172), I argue, makes sense and addresses the trivialization that I maintain exist (or existed) with your revision. The lead sentence needs to speak of mass murder and torture – accounting for any VIPs in that respect (a soccer team, govt. Ministers, etc.) needs to be noted at the body of the article. In terms of objective and encylopedic prioritizastion, your and to improve the performance of the Iraqi soccer team addition to the lead sentence implies equale importance to the general conduct of Sadam's regime against many thousands of people viz. enhancing the performance of a soccer team. Thus, I continue to maintain and agree with 172 (and no inter-editorial distractions, inadvertant or otherwise can cloud this position) that your addition to the lead sentence is an inappropriate editorialization, and I am pleased to see it omitted from that section of the article. El_C 22:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The torture of the soccer team could be equally important to the wikipedia article because the very insignificance of the excuse for torture sheds significant light on the nature of the Saddam regime and how terror was an integral part of how it maintained power. Lots of regimes have maltreated political prisoners, those that torture soccer players and lure family members to their death deserve to be put in a special catagory. It also sheds light on those in the international community that respected Saddam's "sovereignty".--Silverback 01:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, not to diplomatically nit-pick, but the alleged sovereignty belonged to the Republic of Iraq, not Sadam, was/is their argument; and at the event, whether (and how) it sheds light on those countries' motives and conduct should not be –as an agenda– a consideration in the formulation of the lead sentence for this article. El_C 01:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Republic of Iraq"? So is there a legal argument to be made that the coalition did not violate Iraq's sovereignty, because it did not exist since the usurpation? Morally that seems valid, Saddam had no more right to oppress Iraqi's than you or I, which is of course, none at all, unless one accepts an argument based on racial, geographic or cultural affinity, or the elder Bush's "New World Order" (a euphamism for Saddam had no right to oppress Kuwaitis, but oppressing Iraqi's is his business).--Silverback 02:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters, in a crucial sense, it's only platitudes. Since time immemorial, it has always depended on who writes and/or interperts what law and whether they have the ways&means to enforce it. El_C 05:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


You're definitely right: they have turned it into a battle, and it's a battle I can't win. I never was any good at popularity contests. Unfortunately, I don't suppose the fact that I've given up matters much now that I've got an arb case accepted and a temporary injunction on the verge of passing. Everyking 08:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I took Ashlee Simpson and Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) off my watchlist, and I announced that I would no longer be an active participant in the dispute. I'm not quite willing to give up editing them completely; I still want to be able to make an occasional update or revision. I guess it'll probably be a week or a month of vacation time; life will go on, I suppose. Everyking 09:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cold War and Afganistan[edit]

You might find this interesting: I originally saw the Churchill quote in an article in the Economist. Philip Baird Shearer 13:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

turning the clock back?[edit]



The Pentagon's affinity for a "Salvadoran Option" in Iraq appears consistent with its broader shift to promote a strong state security apparatus internationally in the fight against terrorism. In a summit of Latin American defense ministers held in Quito, Ecuador, in late 2004, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld unveiled his campaign to reverse nearly two decades of military reform in Latin America. Though the summit went largely unreported in the U.S. media, we may look back at it in years to come as a significant watershed for American foreign policy. Central to Rumsfeld's Quito doctrine is the re-integration of the military and police, reversing a major reform objective in the hemisphere during the last two decades. Both U.S. and Latin American human rights agencies deem that separation of powers necessary to bring military activity under civilian accountability.
During the drafting of the final summit statement, the Canadian delegation tried to salvage the gains for civilian freedoms once absent in the region's former security states. Backed by Brazil and Chile, the Canadian defense ministry introduced language that would reaffirm a commitment to international human rights and civil protections. The Pentagon team, however, successfully blocked this corrective from being added to the summit's final documents.


A tu servicio, -- Viajero 19:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Ruling[edit]

172 is held to the promises he made during this case. He is placed on one month parole to (a) revert only once per 24 hour period (b) give edit summaries when reverting any established user, even those he finds trollish. Should he break this, the one month starts again.

Should 172 break his parole on edit summaries and reverts, he will be blocked for 24 hours and the one-month parole will recommence.

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/172#Final_decision. Ambi 09:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)