User talk:172/Talk block 13

Collaboration of the week
Could you consider voting for Partisans (Yugoslvia) as a collaboration project?AndyL 21:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Che Guevara
172, I admire Che Guevara, but remembered as a "theoretician and tactician of asymmetric warfare?" He was a disaster as a military leader. He got himself and a good number of other people killed by completely misjudging the situation in Bolivia. One can admire his spirit and his unwillingness ever to rest comfortably on his laurels without thinking that his Bolivian adventure was anything other than a fool's errand. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:06, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Question
I happened to run across Alberto Fujimori and was surprised to find it protected after a total of three edits. I didn't think it customary to protect a page so quickly. Did one of the parties ask you to intervene? There's no discussion on the talk page yet, by either side. Mackensen (talk) 18:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; probably a good idea actually. Thanks for the quick response. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fujimori
Hello 172, I saw you "protected" the Fujimori page. Why did you protect it with the latest change, instead of with the oldest one? The paragraph in question is the LEGACY that I inserted 14:22, 29 Aug 2004. It stood untouched (except minor changes), until 02:59, 1 Nov 2004. Then, Shorne took it out, I reverted, and you protected WITHOUT IT? Wouldn't it be fair to protect something that other Wikipedians did not find as "incorrect" for more than 2 months? Why is Shorne's version, which is the shortest lived, the one to "stay" during the protection period?--AAAAA 04:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MSU copyright?
could you please put a copyright notice on Image:MGU view.jpg Mozzerati 22:55, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":
See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Categories_for_deletion and Categories_for_deletion and Categories_for_deletion and Categories_for_deletion and Categories_for_deletion and this one too: Categories_for_deletion

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Please stop removing categories while the vote is going, PARTICULARLY, since the majority is voting Keep right now. -- Netoholic @ 15:00, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK
Please see Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lehi, Irgun, and other "Jewish Terrorist" groups
172,

Just because an organization may be secular, it does not contradict whether or not it is Jewish. There have been many Jews who were not religous, such as Albert Enstein, Neiztche, and others.--Josiah 21:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jewish? terrorist group
There is an ambiguity caused by the fact that "Jewish" refers to both a practitioner of Judaism and a member of the Jewish ethnic group. Jayjg 02:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abimael Guzman
Hello 172. I am currently involved in an edit war with Shorne, who is insisting on whitewashing a convicted terrorist: Abimael Guzman. Could you please protect the page before the user reverts again? And please correct me if I am wrong. I insist that this person is a TERRORIST, because what he did falls unto the Terrorists Category, as his group Shining Path caused the death of more than 12,000 in Peru (mostly civilians). Am I wrong because I label him and his group as terrorists? Also, the U.S. DoD considers Shining Path a terrorist group.--AAAAA 03:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shining Path
How did this end up protected? I guess the previous dispute on Abimael Guzman gives me a clue. Yes, DoD considers Shining Path a terrorist group, which the relevant articles say, but per Words_to_avoid that doesn't mean it belongs in the lead, unqualified even by who used the term.
 * Why didn't you leave a signature?--AAAAA 11:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: your comments at the arbitration page
172, I understand your position, but I personally would prefer that the AC not go too far in accepting your promises of future conduct. While we may all trust you to keep them (I personally would), I think the arbitrators need to do what they can to show impartiality and fairness -- after all, we have not taken the pledges of good future conduct in the past, unless I have forgotten a case. You are right that you have in recent months respected the revert rule, but I am sure that many would protest you did so out of fear of arbitration (I don't think this is the case at all), and that letting you off without restriction is tantamount to condoning your earlier revert wars (which were, I think you will admit, massive on occasion, hugely in excess of 3 or 4 reverts a day, although these have not occurred in the last 2 months at least). 172, as I have often said, I personally accept revert parole as though it were imposed upon me. As I know you have some level of respect for me as an editor (and hopefully as a human being), I will offer you the only thing I can. If you honestly feel that being placed on revert parole is an indication of disrespect, I will add myself to the list of users so restricted. I believe the rule should be sitewide regardless of wrongdoing -- sadly, the community couldn't find a way to enforce it themselves, so that now the only way to enforce the revert rule is for people to be placed in arbitration for reversions, and then placed on revert parole. I hope that, if users you respect (like me) share your restriction, you will perhaps see that being placed on revert parole is less a "punishment" and more the simple enforcement of an existing rule that should apply to all. Furthermore, perhaps you will be willing to bear the indignity of revert parole if you recognize that, in paroling you, we will parole all those who shared in bringing the complaint against you -- I think you will admit that the site would be better served if at least one or two of them was less quick to revert and more willing to listen to reason. I have offered all I feel, in good conscience, that I can. I hope it gives you some form of peace, and that, at least, it is a demonstration of my high regard for your scholarship and your contributions here -- I would not make such an offer to many editors here. My best wishes to you, as always, Jwrosenzweig 04:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image:AtlanticCharter.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AtlanticCharter.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   15:36, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Advocacy
Please vote on Category:Advocacy. HistoryBuffEr created this category as a duplicate of Category:Activism, and fabricated a negative definition associating Advocacy with propaganda -- a definition that cannot be found in any dictionary. Then, he replaced Category:Activism with his new Category:Advocacy on Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Advocacy groups are already categorized under Activism so HistoryBuffEr's new category is essentially a duplicate, and contains a false definition. --Viriditas 10:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arb-Com
Hi Abe. I was going though Arb-com cases and I saw yours. Are they going to de-sysop you? Honestly I hope they don't because your a pretty good admin. Should you need my help you know where to reach me. Thanks :)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 14:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry if I was very annoying when you came onto to the IRC today I really didn't mean to bother you, I was just trying to help you out :)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 02:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I haven't been on the IRC channel-- not today not ever. I don't even know how to log on to IRC. 172 20:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Evidently someone was masquerading as you, with the nickname "Abe." Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 00:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I sent you an E-mail Abe explaining everything--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 01:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I noted we are both running for the Arb-Com, may the best man win ;)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 03:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not get an email from you. Try sending it again to sokolov47@yahoo.com. Thanks. 172 04:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I sent it to you now (I made a mistake before)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 08:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi Again Abe. About Gustuv he sent me an e-mail last week (from a friend's computuer) that his computer had crashed, but he told me that he'll come back to wiki once he gets a new one. I sent him your e-mail address also (I hope you don't mind).--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 10:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

request for comments
Hey, I'd really appreciate it if you would review and comment the discussion on Cultural and Historical Context of Jesus. Even if this field is not something you are expert in, I value your sensibilities as an historian, It is a very long discussion, I'd be glad if you would just review and comment on the section on "new messiah" and the subsequent sections/discussions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#New_Messiah_paragraph Thanks, Slrubenstein 17:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)