User talk:Regebro/Archive1

You probably want to email me instead.

regebro at gmail dot com

Economics Wikibook

Hey, I'm Wikibooks:User:Paul Lynch from wikibooks, and was going to edit some of the economics bookshelf and was wondering if you were still around. If so, maybe you could help out? thanks.

Kissinger

Before I take time (probably next week) to do some library research, I'd like you to confirm that I've correctly understood what you want me to seek: see Talk:Henry_Kissinger#.22Considereded.22.3F. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you didn't get back to me, I've followed up a bit. Have a look, same place. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the basis of your recent edit that says "Kissingers involvement in or support for these plans are unknown." As I cited on the talk page (from the Church Committee report):

"The 40 Committee met on September 8 and 14 to discuss what action should be taken prior to the October 24 congressional vote. On September 15, President Nixon informed CIA Director Richard Helms that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States and instructed the CIA to ploy a direct role in organizing a military coup d'etat in Chile to prevent Allende's accession to the Presidency." The document makes it clear that this was approved by the 40 Committee. As National Security Advisor, Kissinger would have been on that committee.

I figured I'd contact you directly here before I revert your edit or challenge you in the more visible forum of the talk page article, in case you simply had not read what I wrote on the talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, *you* are the one that correctly pointed out that it doesn't mention Kissinger. I only went after what you said. The sentence is there because the page is about Kissinger. If you want to remove that sentence, then reasonably, they whole section about the plans for CIA involvement should be taken away, since it no longer has any thing directly to do with Kissinger. --Regebro 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

Hi, I saw your mediation request on IRC. If you could, please file a request using the box on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal; this will put the case into our system. It might take a few days to show up on the cases page and for it to get addressed, so please be patient. --Ideogram 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts at Single-party state

Your edit on Single-party state article goes against consensus. While you may continue to discuss the issue in the article's talk page, please refrain from reverting other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Vsion 02:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not go against consensus. As I have clearly shown your edits goes against the consensus. Thanks for pointing out the three reverts rule. I'd like to point out that the last 24 hours, we have both done an equal amount of reverts: Two. --Regebro 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with Huaiwei before and for me, it was a frustrating, hair-pulling experience. I applaud your persistence in not giving up in the face of an uncompromising opposition. enochlau (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have a lot of practice from other forums, so I'm used to it. :) --Regebro 17:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how much hair do you have left, Enoch? ;)--Huaiwei 12:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore case

Will you please invite other parties to join in the mediation case discussion? I feel that you and me are the only present in the proceedings. Wiki eZach| talk 22:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll se what I can do. --Regebro 00:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Wikizach has asked me to contact you about the MedCab case regarding single-party state. We've agreed that due to the past Arbitration cases involving two of the editors involved here, MedCab may be too informal for this, and the scope of the dispute would be better handled by the Mediation Committee instead. Would you and the other parties agree to move this to MedCom rather than let MedCab handle it (more than likely inadequately)? Cheers, – Ch acor 10:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all. Although nobody has as of yet responded to my comments from yesterday, so perhaps we are at least moving towards a more common view on Singapore, which is one of the topics being disputed. --Regebro 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't vandalize talk pages

Do not vandalize on other people's comments on talk pages as you did here and here, it is considered vandalism, and I thought users such as you were above such things, and, as such, I wonder why you would stoop so low. If you delete this message I will restore it. If you delete it again I will take it to WP:AIV just so you aren't tempted.--Acebrock 19:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese and fries man, cool down before you get a heart attack. Where does all the hostility come from? If you really think that "users such as me" where above such things, why are you so amazingly aggressive? What happened to WP:AGF? It's completely obvious that those are editing mistakes I didn't notice, and not vandalizing. I would have apologized but with this attack from out of the blue I fell more inclined to don my asbestos suit. --Regebro 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:D'oh: NOW I think I understand what you actually MEAN. OK, I won't comment that way anymore. I'll note that I did NOT do that sort of commenting until the guy who I discussed with started doing it. That made me think it was OK to comment like that (it sure makes the discussion easier to follow). Can I assume you have posed a similar aggressive comment on HIS page? ;) --Regebro 10:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off I'm almost burnt out, and after these shenanagens are done I'm going on indefinite wikileave. Second off you're the only one who actually modified someone else's comments, it looked like vandalism to me, possibly due to stress on one, or both of our parts, and third off I wasn't talking about the comments.--Acebrock 18:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, I'm equally confused now then, but it doens't really matter. :) Take care. --Regebro 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Huaiwei's insults

Frankly I don't care. He will pay for it anyways. I don't care who the persons I encounter are. I look only at the issues themselves. — Insta ntnood 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request here, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Wiki eZach| talk 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

It might be best to avoid interacting with Lovelight for a while until things cool off. If you need to say something on the article talk page, maybe address it to someone else if you can. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be mediated

Please do not change the issues to be mediated, if you wish, please comment on it's talk page. Wiki eZach| talk 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comment should go on Vsions page. He is the one that changed it, I just reverted it. --Regebro 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. Wiki eZach| talk 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Single-party state.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Hello there, my name is Peter M Dodge and I go by the handle Wizardry Dragon on Wikipedia. While I am not a member of the Mediation Committee proper I have offered to mediate this case. If this is okay with you, I would like to proceed. Please let me know either way, and if you have any issues with this please let me know so I may try to address them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

You are currently engaged in a revert war over a link that you have not made a single arguement on the talk page to justify or remove. WP:EL does not require the link to contain information not in any other Wikipedia article, but to contain information relevant to the current article that could not be covered in it once it reaches Featured Article status, which CR does. CR provides a more detailed timeline then can ever be provided inside the article, and further that is shown simpyl by the existence of a timeline article. If the information in CR could be included in the article, we would not have a split off article obviously. So I ask you to participate on the talk page and use Wikipedia guidelines and policies to make your arguement as it would be more pursuasive then simply reverting without explanation based on more then personal opinion and feelings. Thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 15:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaged in a revert war. I just noticed you did two things: 1. Added a link where there still is no consensus. 2. Removed the note to not add links without discussion. I think the first of these changes are doubtful, and the second one completely wrong. So I reverted you change. All this I also noted in the edit summary, so you should know it. Your accusation of me being involved in any kind of revert war shows bad faith, and does nothing to convince me that you are right. Please try to stay factual, and try to accept the consensus in topic that are simple matters of opinion. --Regebro 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conscientious Objection

Hi Regebro -- You should know that "CO" is a legal status that is not equivalent with being "anti-war". So the anonymous user is correct in pointing out that there can be people in the military who are not in combat, or not opposed to war generally, or not opposed to particular wars. Your confusion is understandable; it's a big debate within the ranks of COs, some of whom argue, as you have, that it is inconsistent to be "opposed to war" or "opposed to combat" but then supporting the war or combat in indirect ways. .... That said, while I think the confusion is understandable, it appears to be inflaming the other (anonymous) editor, and taking it away from the specific question of whether the antiwar template should be on that page or not. Perhaps you could follow up that dialogue in another forum, and help in this forum to bring the discussion back on point. Best, LQ 17:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLease keep this discussion in one place (that is, the talk page in question). Thank you. --Regebro 17:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please identify, by name, the specific user whom you feel I was making a personal attack to in [1]. (unsigned)

Please try to listen to what people tell you:

Ad hominem statements are not acceptable, even if you are correct.
Even if statement A is not ad hominen statement B may still be ad hominem.

--Regebro 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]