User talk:172/Archive 18

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

Happy New Year, my friend. --Neutralitytalk 07:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Hi,

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

Military history of the Soviet Union
I think you are more qualified than myself in deciding whether this deletion of the phrase needs to be addressed since it was you, who wrote it. I just get extra alert when pieces are deleted from FA's. Cheers, --Irpen 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, if this seems acceptable to you, I will leave it as it is. Thanks, --Irpen 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

possible request for comment
I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

V.V.

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

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

Comandante RFC
I would be glad to contribute. Yet...

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


 * I haven't brought up the issue that there is no discussion in the article of the following:
 * Amongst the wedding presents received was a substantial gift (US$500) from Batista, who by then was both a retired President and dictator with the rank of former general in the Cuban army.
 * Just struck me as ironic. *sigh*  Wikibofh(talk) 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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

hopefully it sent this time
--Antispammer 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

ArbCom Vote
Hi 172,

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

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

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

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

Thanks


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

KDRGibby
The request for arbitration concerning this user has been filed at Requests for arbitration. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

MAUP etc.
Since this is not directly related to the article any more, let me respond here. As for Ukraine, I'm confident that you are very much aware of how complex the situation is in the country. Similarly to Russia, the way of conducting historic research is still much biased by how it's been done in the past. And I'm sure that you know that history as a discipline in the Soviet Union was very different to the Western standards. It can take years to change it, but the first changes are already happening. Still, one has to remember that the Orange Revolution happened just a year ago, and nobody knows what the coming parliamentary elections will bring. As I think I said before, level of nationalisms is often unpleasantly high in the countries that won their independence recently. Ukraine is not an exception here. Then there's a push towards market economy, which could also mean promoting private institutions, including education. Finally, the government administration also takes years to change its habits. All these and more make the MAUP problem not as straightforward as it might seem. this however should not eclipse the fact that there are more and more talented young historians in the Ukraine without neither strong Soviet nor nationalistic bias and we should keep our fingers crossed for their progress. If you have not done it before I would recommend reading the Kulchytsky's article, which puts things in a quite true perspective. And no, I'm not a leading scholar in my country and I'm not a Ukrainian either. --Lysytalk 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to jump in. This is mostly to respond to Lysy. His statement about the level of nationalism in Ukraine being "unpleasantly high" shows how little the writer is familiar with the particular issue. Yes, the UA nationalism is as aggressive as any nationalism but it is not at all high in Ukraine. Nationalist ideology is on the fringe there and the results of the recent presidential election, if anything else, shows it very well. The politician with proven track record and without any significant allegations (Yushchenko) won only with a rather small margin over a convicted criminal (Yanukovych) only because Yushchenko's opponents manage to paint him a Ukrainian nationalist (largely unjustly). This was enough to significantly weaken his campaign to a degree when his victory was measured in single digits only and had the pro-Kuchma block picked someone else instead of a candidate with two criminal convictions, the former prime-minister (Yushchenko) who actually paid off the pensions debts the state owed to retirees, salaries to teachers and doctors and filled the state coffers by clamping down on the economic crime would have lost the election. This, if anything, shows that it is rather unpopular in Ukrain to be a nationalist.


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


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


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

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

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

Finally, I would like to add to what I wrote to you earlier about the situation in Ukraine. People in the west tend to get a wrong impression when reports about MAUP surface here. The truth is that MAUP within Ukraine itself is in total obscurity and gets to public attention only when the reports like the one you referred to make its way to the media. No one in Ukraine ever hear about MAUP no matter how much clout it boasts at its web-site, that is until they get involved in another scandal. Similarly, there was or may still be an ultranationalist member of parliament named Tiahnybok. His only clam to fame was the outrage from his statements like "Ukraine for Ukrainians" and that "1917 Revolution was a Russo-Jewish conspiracy". This received much more attention from the media that a little notice announcement that he was expelled from the parliamentary faction by Yushchenko, a faction leader at that time. --Irpen 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Recent news came out and a short analysis that the influence of radical xenophobes in Ukrainian politics should not be overestimated. Also see . While the Ukrainian nationalism within Ukraine itself is rather on the fringe, the judophobia is on the fringe even within this nationalism itself. Days were all evils were considered to come from Jews and Poles are long over in Ukraine and those nationalists who have to hate someone, are happy to hate Russia and the Russians as you can easily see in Wikipedia too. Similarly, among the Polish editors it is more unusual to see much criticism of Ukraine now even on controversial UA-PL issues. Russophobia is much more in fashion among all extremists in the Eastern Europe than hatred towards any other ethnic group or country. --Irpen 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

I originally wrote an addition to describe the popular conception of Communism. That perception is that Communism is necessarily the same as totalitarianism, which is not what all of its advocates or Marx or Lenin advocated. User:Astroceltica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I read this correctly, Stalin is being said to have been responsible for a vague range of 1.2-2 million deaths (not counting famine). These are not the only numbers floating around and you know this. So why are you reverting to this version? --TJive 11:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not write the sentence quoted above. In the context of the paragraph in which it was inserted, my understanding of the reading was not that Stalin was said to have been responsible for a "vague range of 1.2-2 million deaths" over the course of his rule. Instead, the sentence to me read as if it were referring specifically to deaths in the Gulag resulting from the Great Purges, not the famine. In the future please take concerns like the above to the relevant talk pages, not user talk pages. 172 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR
(posted to 172 and Ultramarine). Please be very careful of the 3RR on Holodomor. I'd hate to have to block either of you. -- Pakaran 07:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the time windows, which indeed is quite a sad practice. By the way, the talk page is illuminating. Notice that the edits in question have been thoroughly discussed for a week and now all of a sudden Ultramarine is jumping in without saying a word on talk. What does one do with an editor whose idea of building consensus is forcing other editors to play games with the 3RR? 172 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-bullying petition
fyi: Silverback decided he didn't want to remove his comments about you (that he added to his signature on the anti-bullying petition), so I removed his signature entirely, along with your comments about it. If you need the diff it's here: --Ben 09:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's your user page, so it's your prerogative. Still, thanks for trying to be even-handed. 172 09:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

2003 invasion of Iraq
Hi, thought you might take a look at the discussion. 84.59.102.68 14:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby
Hello,

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

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


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

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

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

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

Hiya, Happy new year.

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

thank you for defending the truth
Category:Real Americans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey,

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

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

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

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

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

Frog won!
Dijxtra 21:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

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

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

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

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

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

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

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

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Dubai Ports World controversy
I did not realize the Bush administration scandals category had previously been added and removed. I can see how this is iffy, as it represents more of a PR blunder than a "scandal", although there certainly appears to have been lax attention paid to some rather obvious concerns that could be raised. I will not dispute your editorial judgment, but I think it could easily go either way. Cheers! BD2412 T 07:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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


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

and


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

He also inserted this unattributed POV:


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

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


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

Lukashenko
I didn't see that your edit related to material further down in the article. I just saw parts of the first paragraph being deleted. I have no objections to the Christian Science Monitor, but it is a very bad idea no the make any references to Luka's dictatorical regime in the first paragraph. It is not accusations; it is extremely well documented, and it is the most important part of his regime. Several of my friends have just been deported from Belarus because Lukashenko wants no foreign observers to witness the rigging of the current presidential election, and Lukashenko has threatened to "wring their necks" to anyone protesting against his election. In Belarus peaceful protestors are now treated with anti-terrorism laws! That country is simply a banana republic without bananas. That fact should not be hidden. Valentinian (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are references to the dictatorial regime in the first paragraph. The second sentence states, "his opponents, at home and abroad, accuse him of being dictatorial." I share your political point of view on Belarus. That being said, we have to avoid the temptation of advocacy, as Wikipedia's editorial position is supposed to be neutral. 172 | Talk 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of your edits to this page is of very good quality but I strongly disagree with you regarding the top paragraph. I've replied on my talk page. Valentinian (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversions reversions everywhere
Hey there,

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

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

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


 * We agree with each other for the larger part. Whether the protests will be succesful remains to be seen (although when citing dwindling numbers, perhaps you would also like to cite the many reports of night-time disappearances of protesters? ). Nonetheless, that they have become relevant is not speculation, Belarus is/was in fact in the grip of that crisis, and that information is worth inserting in the article. The fact that you think it shouldnt go in does not mean it was POV. It wasnt. I resent the suggestion that the information was entered to further some sort of agenda. Like I said, dont throw heavy terms like that around this easily.
 * Secondly, if you think the word 'crisis' is too much, change it! Of course I know your version can be changed, but if you revert the whole paragraph because you find one word to be a bit overdone, then there is not much left for me to change except put it back in, is there?
 * We both just want to enrich the encyclopedia with information on the topic. If you think information is out of place, put it into place. If you think it is badly formulated, then formulate it better. We should be editing constructively together, rather than just reverting each others work.
 * Greets, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

CIS = the organisation of 11 former Soviet Union states
Why do you keep removing "the organisation of 11 former Soviet Union states" from the Belorusian election article? I think that CIS and even the name are not so well known (it used to be in mid 1990s, but it is not anymore). I am not discounting CIS's observation I only explain what CIS is. If organisation from Texas observerd election on Florida when Bush was elected and considered the election fair I would have to add that this organisation was from Bush's home state as the organisation might be potentialy biased (but does not have to be but any reader must be careful). But anyway, I do not writing "CIS is biased" (although I think it) but instead CIS is group of 11 former Soviet union states. It is fact not my POV. --Jan Smolik 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Bush analogy has me puzzled. I'm not a believer in Bush family conspiracy theories, although I've never voted for any of them. There's nothing wrong with an organization based in Texas observing an election in Florida (my home state, btw) featuring a member of the Bush family on the ballot, if it has a good reputation... Regarding the CIS, there's little need to get bogged down in the details surrounding the organization in articles related the Belarus election. This is a wiki. If readers are unfamiliar with the CIS, they can click on the hyperlink and read the article on the Commonwealth of Independent States. 172 | Talk 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To the Bush analogy. First "if it has a good reputation" is the important part here. Reader must know on the first sight that the organization has or has not a good reputation. If that hypothetical organization from Texas has thirty years of experience with observing election it is a good source. But we must state this. Second I will always more trust to the neutral observers rather than home observers (so UN or OSCE to observers from Texas). Anyway maybe it was not that good analogy. As for inclusion of short CIS description (not details). I believe that reader must be able to understand the lead without clicking to sublinks. I am afraid that Commonwealth of ... might get misinterpretated as British commonwealth. Especialy for non native speakers who know this word only in this context. When first reading that name I thoutht it was British commonwealth. For me observers from British Commonwealth would be more trustable than observers from CIS. So actually this would be misinformation for me if I thought it was British commonwealth. --Jan Smolik 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will always more trust to the neutral observers rather than home observers. I think that the issue has more to do with institutions than locale. Technically Belarus is a member of both the OSCE and CIS. The difference, according to officials with the OSCE's monitoring unit, is that the OSCE's methodology is more rigorous than the CIS's. I think that they are clearly correct. (BTW, a good article was published by Radio Free Europe on the topic. ) The nationality of the observers does not matter per se if the organization has the resources needed to be effective, if it's transparent, and if it's professional. If the CIS were a more effective inter-governmental organization, in theory it could one day play a more effective role in monitoring elections in member states... Regarding the articles in question, I don't think we need to go in detail on the debate over the varying standards of the respective monitoring units of the two organizations. That topic is more complex than one would expect at first glance, and thus best covered in the articles that one can access by clicking the hyperlinks to the related articles. 172 | Talk 19:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Of course you are right. But on the other hand country of origin will have impact on persons definion of "free expression". This differ in the US, Czech Republic (my country) and Russia (maybe this is a key to the Bush analogy -- which is not a good one on a second thought. Anyway I still have a concern about confussion of Commonwealth of Independent States and British Commonwealth (as I confused it in the first reading). --Jan Smolik 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Redirects
Just so you know, when you want to redirect a page (when you want something to a "see such and such") instead of keeping two articles the syntax #REDIRECT page name here is the accepted syntax. You got the bot auto warning because the redirect didn't match the pattern, I know its good faith and I've fixed it for you. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a message :) -- Tawker 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC) -- Tawker 17:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually you fixed it first and I just used my template :) -- Tawker 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Cannabis (drug)
Hey, can we talk about the revisions you want to make at Talk:Cannabis (drug)? Thanks, Rory 0 96 01:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubai Ports World controversy redux
The category "George W. Bush administration scandals" has been deprecated in favor of Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. Would you object to including this new category in the DPW article? Seems fairly, ahem, noncontroversial to refer to it as a controversy (as opposed to a scandal). Cheers! BD2412 T 20:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Synarchism
Hi 172, I've left a note on User talk:Herschelkrustofsky about his edits to Synarchism. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, Herschel got User:BirdsOfFire to revert to his version at Synarchism, and a user check confirmed they both edit from within the same two IP ranges, so HK has been blocked for three days and BirdsOfFire indefinitely. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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

Also, another matter I'd ask you to look into: Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

User:195.229.241.187's request
This particular user sent me an email saying that he was banned for linkspamming. He pleads ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, and would like to continue as an editor. Is there any scope? (and btw, I think its time for you to archive this discussion page, lol!) -- Andy123  (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


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

thank you, 172
for the the civilized discussion and your kind words Bublick439 19:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

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

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

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

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

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

And if so, did you get it from there?

Just want to know ;)

(Deng 12:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Not that I know of. I choose the number based on an IP address. 172 | Talk 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


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


 * 187 would have been a nice name :D


 * (Deng 14:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

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

Congress and Wikipedia
You may be interested in discussing things in Talk:Norm Coleman.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  03:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Marx and anti-Semitism
Please keep an eye on this as it plays out, and make such interventions as you feel appropriate, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Cuba
Thanks for your input - you're a good person - sometimes i wonder why i put up with people like that - been abused in email too. PMA 19:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * what do you mean coming from me it means a lot? PMA 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * blushes* thanks - that's really nice of you. PMA 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're a really good person - do you have MSN or Yahoo Messenger? PMA 10:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein
I think you nominated the Saddam Hussein as a Featured Article a couple of years ago. I just read it cold and found it to be a terrific article. I've placed a Peer Review tag on the Talk page and would like your feedback about givng it another go as a Featured Article. Cheers! &mdash; J M Rice 11:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't remember nominating it. But what I remember and what I did are increasingly two different matters as I age. I'll try to take a look. Regards 172 | Talk 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Carr
Will do the best i can my friend. PMA 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * I put together a short list from my own knowledge, and some help from Google. If you care to, feel free to add to it. Derex 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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


 * You wrote on my talk page:


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


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


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


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


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


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

Cuba again
I reverted like you had and then they tried again. I am tired of ideleogs from both stripes - i've protected the Cuba page to allow a truce betweeen the two sides and discussion but this will be probably be my last involvement - i am taking others advice of the past and plan to concentrate on non-controversial topics and maybe i might end up a Missing Wikipedian. For what its worth my chronic health problems have flared up again so if the below attempt to censure me or do an RfC works can you arrange a defence team? take care my friend. PMA 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=49975036


 * I believe your "sock puppet" is most likely this guy, 172 who has just registered after requests from PMA. Can you remove your additional comments please? --Zleitzen 01:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected
Have just done so. PMA 02:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thomas M. Davis
Hey there. I was wondering if you might take a look at Thomas M. Davis (particularly Talk:Thomas M. Davis). Lemme know what you think? -- Sholom 14:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your well wishes - it's rough having to live with and the discomfort when it flares up prevents me from being at the computer as much as id like. PMA 21:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you email me please? PMA 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Weird users
Where is this Chico whatever guy coming from? . And is NWOG the Mystork guy? This is all very confusing. CJK 22:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Marty Meehan
I totally agree with you on the Marty Meehan situation. I wouldn't be shocked if some of those members who insist on keeping it in are in the KKK. 75.3.4.54 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Davis page
Thank you for looking at the Davis page. I was hoping to keep more information on voting history, especially b/c the page as I found it made statements that he "supports federal workers" and was responsible for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and increasing DC autonomy, and I saw no support for that. In response, another user added some some support, and as such it is important to include other information as balance to that where another position exists. I have no objection to removal or editing of unsupported, untrue, or even unnecessary information. However, in the editing, what is left now seems again unsupported and unbalanced. I wanted the benefit of what is clearly your extensive experience.

For example, the mention of the Contract with America is removed on the grounds that Davis was not in Congress at the time. Few of the CONTRACT signers were in Congress. It was a platform for candidates for the Congressional seat and it included a pledge to support term limits not to exceed 12 years. According to Issues2000.org, "Tom Davis signed the Contract with America." That included the pledge. I see DTfromDC said it is a pledge "that Davis signed as a political stunt" so no mention is necessary. I disagree that before it's mentioned we must read Davis's mind on whether it was a stunt or not. It is worthy of mention when he continues to run, especially when he conducts an interview on additional long-term political aspirations.

Also the discussion of the Committee is relevant. With almost no changes in composition, the Committee under Davis has gone from issuing thousands of subpeonas yearly to 3 in six years.

I am interested in your response. Acham 05:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When you found it, it didn't say he "supports federal workers", rather it said, "His positions are generally favorable for federal workers, even if they are opposed to general GOP sentiment, enabling him to win a high degree of popularity in his district."
 * It didn'st say "was responsible for the WW Bridge", it said he "secured Federal funding for the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge" (he certainly played a large part, including sponsoring legislation)
 * As for the Contract with America, I have nothing to do with those edits, but one must draw a distinction between those who support terms limits with those who promised that they themselves would serve no longer than 12 years -- if you want to be accurate.
 * FWIW, I am using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_M._Davis&oldid=45739235 as a reference to "how you found this".
 * --Sholom 14:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

'Communist state' has been moved to 'Communist Party state'
Hello 172,

The 'Communist state' has been moved to 'Communist Party state' by a new user, without discussion. They seem to have also manually moved the talk page. I think it should be moved back, but I don't know how to revert a page move. I'm asking you because we've productively discussed that article before, so I know you are interested. I'm happy if you tell me what to do, point me to a help page, or do it yourself, whichever is most convenient. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  19:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations and article stuffing by User:Dhwani1989
Please help. This user appears to be a sock or political operative. A review of Dhwani1989's edits makes clear a pattern of CopyVio issues. See User:Dhwani1989 talk page history - deleting warnings left and right. what can be done? Merecat 20:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)