User talk:CJK/Archive 1

Khmer Rouge

Thanks for your excellent edits to this article. The Communist Party of Wikipedia is busy here and needs constant supervision. I thought, however, that there was evidence of US backing for the Lon Nol coup, but I will let the edit stand and see what evidence is produced. Adam 4 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

Your welcome. In my studies on the Vietnam War I have not found a conclusive claim that the CIA backed the Lon Nol coup. According to Henry Kissinger Lon Nol was more of a hastle than a help and the U.S. tried numerous times to restore Sihanouk as a neutral leader. I'm open to evidence on this, though. CJK 4 July 2005.

whether or not the U.S. backed it (which I wouldn't be surprised considering the PAVN and VC in eastern Cambodia while Nixon was trying to negotiate with North Vietnam) it is certainly true that the Nixon administration took advantage of the new government to begin intervention in Cambodia. i've never heard of the U.S. trying to restore Sihanouk -- let's recall that Sihanouk allied himself as figurehead-in-chief with the Khmer Rouge to try to regain power. J. Parker Stone 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How would the Cambodian government being pro-U.S. help? The U.S. had to divert airstrikes to prevent it from being overrun. The "intervention" amounted to a two-month border raid that could have occured whether or not Sihanouk was in power. So I don't see a distinct advantage for "intervention". CJK 7 July 2005.

I don't have the book I found that out with me, but I suspect by the time they tried to restore him (if that occured as claimed) it was to late as Sihanouk was already a figurehead. CJK 19 July 2005

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ruy Lopez

Hello, I have deleted your RfC per policy because a second person did not certify it within 48 hours. Here is the relevant text from that page:

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 9 July 2005 19:20, the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC).

-- Viajero | Talk 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay. CJK 11 July 2005.

Here you go

This edit stips the article of the context of the creation of these structures and institutions at the end of the Second World War, but I hardly care at this point. Is this is sufficient for you? Can we both move on from discussing the U.S. history 1988-present article and archive our squabbling? 172 | Talk 19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It could be tweaked, but I agree it is fair enough for now. Archive away. I'm glad we could reach a degree of compromise on these articles. CJK 21 July 2005

Thanks. I look forward to working on less controversial topics now! 172 | Talk 20:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Satellite state

Thanks for that. Do you have an email address, and could you add it to your account, if so? Thanks. --TJive 19:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome, I would have reverted it to my version but yours was more accurately worded. Labeling Central American states "American Satellites" just because they were backed by the U.S. seems over the top. I looked at User:Bee Hives contributions and they seem to be entirely reverting your edits. Maybe he's a sockpuppet. My e-mail is just about to be set up again so I'll try to add it soon. CJK 23 July 2005

No kidding. --TJive 21:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't look good for Ruy see [1] and [2]

Notice how both short-lived users have reverts to Khmer Rouge which most, if you view the edit history, are exactly the same as Ruy's. [3] CJK 23 July 2005

Interesting. Let me know if you notice any more suspicious users in that vein. --TJive 21:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration and block

I have blocked you for violation of the Three-revert rule on Vietnam War. Also, it appears that your opponent there, Stevertigo, has requested arbitration against you over that dispute. When your block expires after 24 hours, you may wish to respond there regarding this matter. --Michael Snow 03:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration is frivolous and premature, to say the least. However, CJK, 3RR generally applies to making four reverts in the same article period, though sometimes (not always) administrators will check and see if there are completely separate content disputes. In this case it was generally the same and over the introduction segment. Please come back and participate when the block is up. --TJive 03:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

It would have been nice if Stevertigo had mentioned arbitration to me after he started it. CJK 7 August 2005

Request for Comment Against Admin

A Request for Comment concerning allegations of administrative abuse has been filed against Stevertigo. You might want to review it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo. Robert McClenon 17:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953)

I am not happy to see you blocked since I do assume good faith on your part and take your word that you were not aware that 3RR applies to the article and not to the version. I am going to request at the policy talk page that the rule's wording is modified to make it more clear. In any case, you are welcome to email me, if you disagree with the paragraph I restored in a new version. Just use "E-mail this user" link in the quickbar. If you email me your objections, I will post them at the relevant talk page. Or you can post them here, and I will copy&paste them to the article's talk. Again, please don't take our disagreement personally and don't take a block too close to heart. The best of the best Wikipedians have been blocked at times. Sincerely, --Irpen 03:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

OK, but there should be at least a paragraph explaining the West's objection to the Soviet claim. CJK 7 August 2005 (the above copied to the History of the USSR talk page --Irpen)

"What "claim"? Withdrawing from Iran and Czechoslovakia in 40s, non-interference in Greece and backing up from Finland isn't a claim. I could see a paragraph about "Soviet Rhetoric" you suggested earleir for the next chapter but I don't see it here. You can try, of course, to do either, and, as you know, it may be subjected to constructive criticizm, same as our discussion above. OTOH, maybe we could leave this alone for now. With spending so much time on this discussion and rewritings, the later version differs from an original so little, that I am not sure it was worth it. And this is not because there was not enough compromise, but perhaps, the article is already close enough to an optimal balance. Of course, there is always a room for improvement but there are so many articles that are in much more dire shape and there is so much interesting material that needs to be added to WP, so that I would like to work on other things too in the limited time I have for WP. Regards, --Irpen 19:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)"

I meant the claim of Soviet aggression only being done for "security" purposes, not the facts about Iran, Finland, etc. We have already mentioned the Soviet governments side of the story about how they claimed to take over Eastern Europe for "security", therefore there should be a counter-claim. CJK 7 August 2005

By the way, here is the paragraph that mentions Soviet concerns of a resurgent Germany:

"Despite the wherewithal of the United States to advance a different vision of postwar Europe, Stalin viewed the reemergence of Germany and Japan as Russia's chief threats, not the United States." CJK 7 August 2005

This paragraph also concerns the above and warrants changing as well:

"In this sense, the aims of the Soviet Union were not aggressive expansionison but rather consolidation, i.e. attempting to secure the war-torn country's western borders. Stalin, assuming that Japan and Germany could menace the Soviet Union once again by the 1960s, thus quickly imposed Moscow-dominated governments in the springboards of the Nazi onslaught: Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria." CJK 7 August 2005

These two are in a different context from our past disagreement. So far we discussed the cold war thinking. What you brought up now is an immediate post-war aftermath. I am kindly asking you to reconsider your attacking the article per se and bringing up any possible reason just to sustain the argument. I tried my best to give you an opportunity to argue your point and even posted your statements for you when you could not. You can of course resume this soon, but please consider the interests of Wikipedia above the interests of one or another ideology. Please read the whole article and try to follow its logic and structure, please read our past discussion as well as others at talk. I hope you will consider my request. Thanks! --Irpen 21:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it is so "illogical" to counter claims of brutal dictators. What do you mean these are out of context? You have said that the Soviets feared the U.S. more than Germany and here the article says the Soviets feared Germany more than the U.S. You have inserted the Soviets perceived security problems and then in another paragraph it says the security problems are real. "Post-War aftermath" IS part of the Cold War. Frankly, I believe that Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe requires a section of its own. I'm sorry if this is taking up too much of your valuable time, but my points are perfectly accurate and not just "sustaining the arguement". I hope a decent compromise can be achieved but I'm not going to let the Soviet Union's own dubious claims go unchallenged. Thank you. CJK 7 August 2005

And here is the "corrupt autocracy" quote I was reffering to:

"...and did not aid the communists in the struggle against the corrupt, British-led monarchial autocracy in Greece" CJK 7 August 2005

Just check the time frames of each of those things. Look, I really had enough of this circling around. I am amazed with your persistence. Perhaps you just happen to be right and the article is full of pro-Stalinism trash and with your cutting chunks from it or, better yet, your ideas it will become more encyclopedic. Deep in my heart, I feel terrible from the perspective of another good (in my [insert a label] view) article on very underrepresnted in WP topic and so few knowledgable editors keeping an eye on it being torn into an anti-Soviet attack page. I have very little sympathy to the Soviet regime but, my own views aside, I tried my best to keep the article in a balanced shape. I just can't take the pressure anymore on my own. Finally, I urge you again to read the whole article calmly, try to understand the logic and the flow, reread our earlier discussions and check the article's history of how it got to were it is, and please remember about the "WP:reckless". What started as a useful discussion between us which resulted in some mutually acceptable changes has become a senseless arguing, maybe on my side too. As an alternative, you can wait until a couple of more editors take a look at it and say something. Probably, I won't be one of them, at least not in one of these days. --Irpen 01:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your proposed article/section on Soviet takeover

I agree that this is a worthy topic. Please see my comments at the project's talk. Regards, --Irpen 05:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The WP:RfAr

I just read your statement on WP:RfAr. You should probably provide diffs for the reversions you are talking about, even though I am totally on your side in this, you basically have to take your words for Svertigos actions. A few diffs would go a long way. Cheers, gkhan 07:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Conflicting Information

Since you are interested in the Vietnam War, can you help me solve this: Encarta says the first American casualties in Vietnam were at Ap Bac, while the Almanac of American History says it was Bienhoa.--HistoricalPisces 17:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. It was very nice of you.--HistoricalPisces 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's me again

I don't want to abuse your hospitality but I'm wondering if you can give me tips to improve my user page and help me put pictures on it.--HistoricalPisces 17:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Imported arms from the Eastern bloc"

i know this is true, but what year? J. Parker Stone 06:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

was this after U.S. opposition had begun to clearly manifest itself? J. Parker Stone 10:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

i don't even mean econ. pressure, which i'm not sure was ever significantly applied -- i meant UFC lobbying and statements from Eisenhower and CIA chief Dulles. J. Parker Stone 04:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

it's interesting to note that later in the Eisenhower administration they forced UFC to sell off one of its American subsidiaries under antitrust law. kinda against the theory that Eisenhower was some kind of corporate whore. though Dulles undoubtedly had some significant influence as the CIA chief. J. Parker Stone 08:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

KLA

Please leave the edits alone. The KLA were terrorists just as al Qaeda are terrorists, the PLO are terrorists, Hamas are terrorists, the IRA are terrorists - a terrorist is someone who carries out attacks on civilians to instill fear for political aims in this case (Greater Albania). Just because your Western Government supported them for their own as usual, selfish motivations (to weaken Serbia because it was not as Noam Chomsky calls it, a 'client state'), does not make them freedom fighters. I would upload pictures of the results of their actions to proove it, but they are probably too 'distressing' for your western stomach. America invaded Afghanistan and fought their terrorists man to man as the Serbs did.

Here are two different defintions of terrorism for you. I think they fit the KLA quite well.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

Please stop spreading your propaganda. I see from your history that you are often involved in revert wars. I don't know if it gives you a thrill or what, but if you could kindly stop the reverts and discuss with me why exactly it is you do not see the KLA as terrorists when their attacks on civilians are well documented, then perhaps that would be more constructive?

Byeeee!

What?

You could call the Serbs terrorists? For what? For fighting terrorists - like the Russians fight terrorists, like the Americans fight foreign terrorists, and home-grown insurgents in Iraq? The Americans are not the only people who have problems with terrorists. Whether or not the KLA flew airplanes into Belgrade is a moot point. Terrorism is not defined by flying planes into buildings, or by the number of people you kill. And the Serbs did not ethnically cleanse Kosovo either - whenever there is a war you will have refugees. Many of the people in Kosovo did not feel safe with the Serb Army operating against the KLA, and as many of them had relatives in Albania which is right next to Kosovo, they went into Albania. Serb Forces only entered Kosovo because the KLA terrorists were targeting civilians, operating Mafia-esque policies, gun running and heroin smuggling to fund themselves. The Serbian Government had little to no tax revenue for one of its province because the KLA were attempting to set themselves up as some kind of local Government.

Also, I never said NATO is plotting with the Albanians. I simply said that there were alterior motives for this war. Now I don't know if you are American or not, but surely you can see that the american Government does not simply carry out Wars on purely humanitarian grounds? Otherwise there would be US troops in 1/2 of the countries in Africa right now, correct? Like I said Serbia was closer to Communism than any other country in the region - it was a Socialist state, with democratic elections. It was not a client state like Poland, Slovenia, Czech Republic all are. It was and still is heavily independent, and has very strong Armed Forces. Note they are the first army to have shotdown the Stealth Fighter. NATO Bombing raids were firstly aimed at military targets, but the Serb Tanks and Army was able to evade the bombs indefinitely. So NATO switched to bombing civilian targets in Belgrade. They bombed a hospital, a refugee convoy, bridges and power stations, the state run Broadcaster, the Chinese Embassy. Resedential Areas were hit. If you want I can show you the pictures of dead babies lying on the side of the road killed by NATO Bombs. And who are the terrorists supposed to be again? The Serbs?

Here is a link to some pictures of the results of NATO bombing civilian targets. I warn you some of the images are extremjely graphic involving bodies blown to pieces, severa shrapnel trauma, and dead babies and children. There are your terrorists.

[4]

you

Listen you yank idiot you cant go around the world killing children with your bombs. the photos on that website are real and are part of Mr Milosevic's defence. Innocent until proven guilty my friend. Or don't you have that in America anymore?

Hey Hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today?

Its part of your history - going round the world and dropping bombs from the safety of 50 000 feet onto innocent people.

The KLA are terrorists. The Serbs had every right to defend themselves and their country.

Cuba

It's fact from the point of view of Castro's critics. While I agree with that POV, it isn't neutral. There are other areas of the article that could benefit from toning down a pro-Castro tilt far more than that sentence. The healthcare section in particular is decidedly pro-Castro, but the efforts of the anti-Castro vandals there have made cleaning that section up far more problemeatic than it ought to be. Caerwine 17:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Fidel Castro article

Hello. I note you have recently reverted this article to include a comment about Castro's father, so I'd be grateful to know your response to Irrelevant / POV comment? Thanks!  David Kernow 01:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

---

About governmental sources

My dear CJK.

All this govermental source stuff is not easy, I know.

Sometimes we think all governmental sources are inflated or optimized. It is not a privilege for dictatorial coutries. I could list some examples, like the cash of some Brazilian cities. In these cases, the truth, unfortunately, is flexible.

Yet, since we (and I'm meaning wikipedia here) believe in the governmental sources from Brazil, United States (would you believe in US government sources about Cuba?), France, China, we have, due to NPOV, believe in Cuban sources, too.

This doesn't not mean we can present an alternative source. What we can't do is write that those sources are not realible, every time we want. This is an encyclopedia, not a investigative newspaper.

No where did I put they were unreliable in the article. But if the source was from the Cuban government it should be noted that it's a "Cuban government source".

US civilians and Panama

The "flag incident" you are referring to happened in 1964. Aside from very few periods of tension, relations between American civilians living in Panama and Panamanians have been very cordial. There is absolutely nothing to support your claim (stated in your edit summary) and your deletion of the sentence about relations between the citizens of both countries. (see for instance the Roberto Eisenman Op/Ed piece in the NYT which is referenced in the article.) Moreveor, another paragraph you deleted about the canal administration was clearly not redundant. You could legitimately claim that sentence is factually incorrect, although that dispute is also easy to settle, since many published accounts support the claim.

Thanks.--CSTAR 21:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hard chargers

The linked article explicitly refers to the hard chargers (in addition to the link bleow in the LA Times).--CSTAR 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the abstract of the LA times article

Instead, it was a step in a pattern of aggressive behavior by a small group of U.S. troops who called themselves "the Hard Chargers" and who frequently tested the patience and reaction of Panamanian forces, particularly at roadblocks, the sources said.

They added that although "the Hard Chargers" acted on their own, their tactics were well known by ranking U.S. officers, themselves frustrated by what then seemed to be the unwillingness of Washington officials to strike back at Panamanian provocations committed under dictator Manuel A. Noriega.

"I was very strong about `cowboying' and not doing those things," he said. "I convinced myself there was probably going to be an incident (that might lead to war between the PDF and the United States). There was a complete breakdown of Panamanian discipline after 3 Oct., and I wanted to make sure we were on the moral and legal high ground."

The article itself is not much different in tone (I am not including it for copyright reasons) What is distorted? --CSTAR 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

please don't make things up

You added: "The U.S. supported this move, claiming that Ho had no intention of holding free elections" You can't just make things up and put them on Wikipedia. Where did you get that false claim from? The reason the U.S. refused free electiosn was they knew the people would vote for Ho Chi Minh in a landslide.

As President Eisenhower said, "Ho Chi Minh would win 80% of the vote in a free election." "It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier." Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 ( Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc, 1963), pp. 337-38

elections in 1954?

The elections were schedualed for 1956 for God sakes. You invent a hypothetiacl election in 1954? Come on guy. Ho CHi Min was popular for God Sakes. And how do you get that the concern was that Ho CHi Min "wouldn't allow a free election"?!?! You are trying way to hard.

You can not find a source for your made up calim. The souce I qoute is clear: "When it became clear that Ho Chi Minh would win the planned election in 1956, Diem, with U.S. backing, refused to allow a vote."

I gave a source. PBS You are just making things up with yout claim that the "The U.S. supported this move to maintain its Southern ally, also later claiming that Ho had no intention of holding free elections. "

Targetted killings

Targetted killings is hardly nonsense during the Vietnam War. The Vietcong assassinated many people who they cannot intimidate into helping them (they call them "Việt gian")[5]. DHN 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comandante

Check out this user's other vandalism!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Comandante&offset=20051018222941&limit=50

I'm reverting/fixing what I can. JG of Borg 02:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Led x Ruled

Comandante and CJK,

May suggest you something? I don't like ruled, it seems a little tragic, but I don't like led either, it seems as he is a kind of god. I think that a more neutral term, between ruled and led, would be governed, that is exactly what he has been doing in Cuba. What do you think? José San Martin 14:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And don`t dictators govern? José San Martin 20:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I see that someone keeps restoring the Rumsfeld photo to the Saddam article. I'm feeling less gutless than last time, so I removed it myself. BTW, by the way, if you have time, please take a look at the dispute on the Anti-Defamation League article, where I think users are slanting information against the ADL in order to attack it for its longstanding opposition to perceived Marxist terrorist groups internationally. My hunch is that you'll agree with me, based on your interactions with similar users, but I may be wrong. 172 08:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. In response to your question, I'm not interested in covering up U.S. ties with right-wing authoritarian regimes with proper citations, though I am trying to uphold some sort of standard of relevance. Such information should be removed when irrelevant, even if it is properly sourced, such as that out-of-place Rumsfeld picture in the Saddam article that we have been removing. 172 20:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

CJK, what articles have you created recently?

You remind me SO much of another wikipedian, who has three letters too.

We seem to have the same interest in articles, and edit them both. The difference between you and I though, is that I actively create content while you actively delete it. CIA and Philippine-American War are only two pages that you deleted content from, without adding a single sentence to the articles.

It is much easier to delete something that doesnt match your own pet POV, it is harder to actually add meaningful content which supports your POV.

It appears from your edits today, that in any debate, on any wikisubject you will lose against any person who takes a few minutes to research, simply because you don't seem to want to take the time to research anything. Thus, what appears from your edits today, to be a very shallow and one sided view of history continues into perpetuity (forever).Travb 21:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, cooled down. I am not claiming you are a sockpuppet. I am just saying you are similar to someone I know, thats all. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your commentsTravb 22:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But that and statements like "its hard to believe the CIA was not involved" is in blatant violation of our NPOV policy. Rewrite don't delete--add sourced references to your view of this history. The CIA was actively involved, right up to the point were Chile was overthrown. Travb 22:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Philippine-American War section was POV. You said it yourself.

Absoultly. I did say it was POV. But you are missing the difference between you and I: I talked about it at length on the talk page, then I added referenced substitues which were still not satisfactory to this user. I see no recent contribution to the article from yourself, except a deletion. That is the difference.

I will not cry any tears that this sentence is gone, nor will I add it back.

When I go into hotly debated articles, I add content which fits my POV, not delete it. I rarely delete full paragraphs, the last paragraph I think I deleted (and I may be wrong) was probably on Plausible Deniability, not because it didnt fit my POV, but because it was written so poorly I couldnt understand what the user wwas trying to say.

I then argue on the chat boards with these people, who attempt to question my additions. I then find more references and historical documents which support my views. It is a lot more work, but I have won debates decicively using these tactics, so much so that many people have given up. Your deletion tactics today seem to only perepertate (start) edit wars, and add nothing to wikipedia as a whole.

It would be great if I could learn from you, you learn a lot in debates, but right now all your edits do is annoy me in a positive way--I am learning a lot more abour Suharho now, and as often is the case, the finished product will be more negative against America than before your deletion. For a fine example of this, look at Philippine-American War before and after the debate I had.Travb 22:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits make me sick to my stomache

Re: Your nit picking on Philippine-American War among other examples.

CJK, throughout history their have been people like you, extreme ideological jingoists who will downplay and deny their own country's attrocities. I see you in the same leagues with Jewish Holocaust Deniers and those who deny the attrocities of Stalin and the Gulags. These are the attrocities that America demonizes, and most familar to Americans, but added to the list are less known attrocities: Japan's attrocities in China, Frances attrocities in Algeria, the first genocide of Armenians against Turkey, Colonial attrocities, etc. All of these attrocities have something in common: their are always "little Eichmann's" like yourself, who deny and downplay these attrocities. As long as their are people like yourself, their will always be genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I have no respect for you and your ilk. None. I cannot adequately express in words my disgust for you.Travb 05:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

(Change a few words, and your comments show my point):

A hypothetical message from a nationalistic Japanese jingoist to a Japanese pacifist who criticized the invasion, torture, rape, concentration camps, and genocide of the Chinese in the 1930's up through World War II. Japan is one of the first examples that come to mind, but you can insert any aggresive country which commits war crimes into the following shameful statment:

You

I've learned that its best not to argue with pathological anti-[Japanese] propagandists (such as yourself) so rather than giving a meaningful response to your vicious personal attacks you post, I will simply reserve hope that one day you will stop your fake "outrage" against [Japan] and live in the real world.

Travb 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Travb

CJK, the comments by Travb above are too offensive for him to be allowed to edit Wikipedia. He was just blocked after I'd posted a note on the administrators' noticeboard. [6] There's no need for you or any Wikipedia editor to tolerate such abuse. 172 17:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, check out his latest comments. He implies that I'm a member of the 'Wikipedia neocon cabal' along with TDC. [7] (He's a bit confused, it seems.) Judging by his comments, he'll continue to be disruptive once his block expires; so I'll help you keep an eye on him. 172 22:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I'll take a look at the list soon. Happy New Year! 172 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)