User talk:Bdell555/Archive 2008

Bill Ayers article

 * Warning - for ongoing incivility and edit warring in an attempt to introduce point-of-view material derogatory to  a living person.  The material you keep adding in an attempt to discredit and cast doubts on the veracity of the subject's statement is improper, among other reasons because it is argumentative and introduces analysis.  I am removing it yet again.  You are at WP:3RR on this today.  Please stop, or you may be temporarily blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys...both of you should take this to Talk. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Kaistershatner.Bdell555 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Second warning - for this edit. Incivility getting close to wikistalking.  Please do not make further comments like that on my talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who was the first one to make a comment on a Talk page, again? I'm just poking some fun at your logical consistency there, buddy.  I'd say "please do not make further comments like" THIS on MY Talk page, but frankly, you, and everyone else, can pretty much say whatever you want!Bdell555 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to figure this out. You agree with the label terrorist yes? I wholeheartedly agree and think the term, which is merely a factual label, should be included in the entry. The use of the term "radical" seems to be okay, but radical in what sense? Radical in the sense that he set bombs to coerce the government into doing something he wanted them to do...which is the dictionary defintion of terrorism. I was going to make the edit, because the article starts with him being a professor then on the side mentioning he was a radical, but it's deceptive in that form. I will wait before I make any edits or argue any points on the talk page.216.135.32.226 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have previously shown an interest in the Barack Obama article. Please state on the Talk page of the Barack Obama article whether you Support or Oppose Scjessey's version.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Let.27s_see_whether_you_really_have_a_.22new_consensus.22_.28version_2.29


 * Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Oren0 (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to this on your user page.Bdell555 (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you're aware of this rule and I know you're trying to do what's best for the article (for what it's worth, I actually agree with your position) but edit warring isn't the answer. Oren0 (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (reply to your message on my talk page) I just used a predefined template for that warning. I'm aware that you've tried to use the talk page and that you're doing what you think is right but talk space is for making and building consensus without disturbing the article unnecessarily. Regardless of what you put on the talk page 3RR still applies (and a glance at this page indicates you're well aware of that rule). Try to build agreement and try not to break policy; I'd hate to see you get blocked for making edits I think are more or less correct. Oren0 (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the need to build agreement. Indeed, that's just common sense, whatever the formal policy.  That means use of the Talk page AND trying different editing approaches in the face of opposition instead of two or more parties just banging their heads against the wall.  In essence that's why I objected to your use of a "template" to deal with the matter: tailored solutions that acknowledge what's happening in the particular are more appropriate in my mind.  But that doesn't mean I don't recognize that 3RR applies: according to the policy, "a revert means undoing the actions of another editor".  When I added the "other than his own", that was an addition (or a reversion of a revert from days ago, if you prefer).  Likewise, adding "nonetheless" did not undo anyone else's actions.Bdell555 (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, I shouldn't have used a template, I am aware of WP:DTTR. I'm not saying you are or aren't violating 3RR (I counted two reversions) but there's no question you're edit warring and edit wars are still disruptive to article space.  Given your previous talk page warnings, you probably know this better than most. Oren0 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. I don't believe I'm edit warring / "disrupting the artice space"(?), or if I am, it's under a technical definition that misses the larger and more important question of whether I'm responding to the other party with words and actions that reflect acknowledgement of their views as opposed to the "head bashing" I mention above.  If your conclusion from my warnings is that I'm a problem editor, I'd remind you that it's just as possible the party warning me is the problem editor.  I'd avoid jumping to conclusions without investigating the circumstances.  If you never have confrontations with problem editors, good for you, but someone will likely confront them and that may even be desirable.  If you have still have a problem with my editing, feel free to take it up with a third party.Bdell555 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Bdell555. I just placed a compromise on Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama. Please take a look at it when you have a chance. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your past experiences with User:RedSpruce
I saw your recent post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision. While I certainly appreciate the additional information, I am disappointed that it was not available to Arbcom while the evidence-gathering process was still going on. Unfortunately, Arbcom took the case but refused to deal with the title issue of the arbitration. This has left RedSpruce still making a number of blanket reverts, though he has offered vague glimmers of hope for a peaceful resolution on his part. I will review your experiences more carefully as a guide for dealing with my ongoing issues. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Questions concerning Arbcom case
I originally drafted a number of BLP-related provisions on the case workshop because a significant portion of the evidence submitted in the case involved BLP matters; the proposals in the final decision were taken straight from that. Kirill (prof) 01:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

RSN?
I saw the argument you were having at Holocaust denial - and jpgordon's page, but not having the background, can't make head or tail of it. But it seems like the place you want to go might be WP:RS/N - the more details about what source you want to use and for what purpose, in what article, the better.John Z (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the link. I don't plan on trying that route right now since I think any superficial consideration would lead one to simply say, what?  course not... never, and a deep consideration gets rather involved.Bdell555 (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich Kellner
Thank you for your help with this article. You were right to ask for a source regarding Fred William, and I also agree with the changes you made, based on your reading of the source. Rskellner (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It kinda seemed like there was some possibility Fred William might have some Nazi sympathies, but singing the Horst Wessel Song might not mean that much in Germany at the time for a young, anti-establishment guy (as opposed to that happening today), and joining the German American Bund doesn't really either, because I'd almost be more surprised if he didn't join, having just arrived in the US as an adult from Germany. I think he joined the US Army as opposed to being drafted, so any Naziism is more plausibly just a bit of opportunism, more revealing of a lack of enthusiasm for other codes of conduct than of a positive enthusiasm for Naziism (it seems he abandoned his wife and children in America, amongst other things).  That's what my limited German suggested to me from the article, at any rate.  I am in Stockholm now and plan to head to the Synagogue here in the hopes of seeing the diary.Bdell555 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The exhibit in The Great Synogogue in Stockholm was for the month of October 2007, and it closed on November 1. But Lars Raij, the Director of the Library (the exhibit was in the library downstairs in the synagogue), might still have some of the material available. Regarding Fred William, I'm afraid his sympathies were very certainly pro-Nazi, as evidenced by the 20 page F.B.I. dossier that I have on him. In fact, it was the F.B.I. investigation in New York in 1943 that made him join the U.S. Army. But because the article is about his father rather than about him, all of this information is not pertinent to the article, so I will not add it. Too bad we weren't in touch earlier. I was in Calgary a few months ago when the Calgary Jewish Film Festival showed the documentary, "My Opposition - The Diaries of Friedrich Kellner," and you might have enjoyed seeing it (it was produced in Toronto). I believe it will air on Global Television again (it was shown on Global in prime time last June). Again, thanks for your help with this. I greatly appreciate it. Rskellner (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama
You make a good point on that talk page of Obama. I would agree with you there, but it's protected. Pop6 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I find it somewhat ironic that my edit is supposedly neither notable nor relevant (and should therefore be reverted) yet it attracts so much attention.Bdell555 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Acorn
It's difficult to use opinion pieces as sources, although if John Fund gets something factually wrong in The Wall Street Journal he's going to get in trouble. The Pittsburgh source is also opinion. If we can, it's better to source to news reports. In fact, there are very few news articles that touch on this. So we've got potential WP:RS problems, potential WP:WEIGHT problems, and if we do too much conclusion-drawing, we start to have WP:OR problems. It seems to me we have some problems with a sentence saying not so much that Obama worked for ACORN, which ties us up in technicalities over how much Project Vote is controlled by ACORN. I think it's better to say that Obama worked with ACORN, something I think we already have sourcing for. It's been a while since I looked over the proposed language. I need to get to bed now. I'll try to take a look at it in the morning. I think just being able to tell readers that Obama worked with Acorn in some way would be helpful, and interested readers could then follow the link to the Acorn article. I'd forgotten about that "Early life" article. It's very short and there's so much information out there ... Noroton (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (((fixed typo Noroton (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC))))


 * Let's see what Rick Block, Wikidemo and some other editors have to say in the face of the evidence. I haven't seen a direct response to either my suggested language or the fact that this is a fact and is important in an ongoing way in his life for years and years. I'm a little tired of doing what I'm supposed to do and knocking myself out getting sources just to be ignored or told I'm talking too much. I've got to get away from the computer for a while. More fun tomorrow. Noroton (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia not editorial/tabloid
I'm quite distressed by your recent edits to ACORN. It appears that you are inserting and/or restoring highly POV material of no encyclopedic value, for purposes of editorializing against the organization. I'm not really sure if an article RFC or a user RFC would be a better approach; I suppose I'll wait a bit before either. But in any case, this pattern is alarming. LotLE × talk 06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not distressed by yours (c'est la vie), and have in fact agreed with the vast majority of your many edits to that article that had the effect of making the article more favourable to the subject. I've really only taken significant exception to two of them, for reasons I've provided on the Talk page.Bdell555 (talk)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized
This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI report
You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Bdell, thank you for your kind comments on my Talk page. I have left my impression of the situation at User talk:HandThatFeeds. Curious bystander (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing
about Project Vote other than that B. as a community organizer is said to have directed some kind of voter registration drive. Could you explain to an ignorant but intelligent person like me what the encyclopedic facts are about the topic and what the kernel of the dispute between yous twos is? (Conversationally, not end-product boilerplate -- if ya want, throw in some kernel diffs. I've also asked LotLE the same question here.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     22:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you "know nothing", how do you know that I and others have "ganged up" in order to "silence" LotLE? I dare say you must know quite a lot if you feel it is necessary to make that claim to the admin community, which is why I'm suggesting you share your knowledge with us ordinary users.  You could start by contributing your "$.02" to Talk:Project_Vote.  I don't see why a person needs additional knowledge in order to opine on the merits of that summary of the dispute I provide there, anyway.  If you need to know what that "allegation" I allude to was, it was LotLE's claim that my edits constituted "vandalism".Bdell555 (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm being completely on the up and up with you, Bdell555 (eg I am not being sarcastic or cute in any way by saying I'm ignorant on the issue). And while, trust me, I've observed just lots-'n'-lots of over-the-top "attitude" from LotLE (which could be just my subjective impression from being reverted by him a few times)...in any case, Bdell555, I'd not written so clearly in that recent comment you mention in the an/i and what I'd meant to say, anyway, is that some editors had ganged up to silence the three guys topic banned from Barack Obama, is all. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     23:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So would you also grant that they may be "ganging up" to "silence" "some editors" just as much (and possibly even more) than "some editors" are "ganging up" to "silence" them? If not, you must know why even-handedness is not appropriate here, and I remain interested in that knowledge.Bdell555 (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So would you also grant that they may be "ganging up" to "silence" "some editors" just as much (and possibly even more) than "some editors" are "ganging up" to "silence" them?
 * I'm going to try and parse to myself what you're saying here.


 * Would I also grant that some editors -- by name, WD & company -- may be ganging up to silence them -- by name, Andy and company?(→yes)'......just as much and maybe more than Andy & company are trying to silence Wikidemo & company?(→OK, now I get it. Sincerely, I'm a little slow sometimes!)


 * Yes, you're probably right. In fact noone on Wikidemo's "side's" really been silenced. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     00:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If not, you must know why even-handedness is not appropriate here.
 * To be evenhanded, WP would have to topic ban some folks on "WD and company's" side as well; however what I'd prefer would be for WP to review the three who've been topic banned and decide to allow them to contribute again on a "probationed" and "1-revert-only" -enforced page. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is, I and others have been effectively "topic banned" ourselves in that I can't edit Obama related pages without edit warring with LotLE et al. You just seem to be interested in speaking out against formal banning.  If you are in a position to do that, you've presumably already expressed your opinion with respect to the particulars of LotLE's actions in order to help resolve the problems at the informal level.  I nonetheless can't see any comments by you with respect to the Project Vote article, to take an example.  I wasn't taking issue with what whatever you believe about those "three" but with your insistence on "doing the same now" for LotLE.  I suggest first things first in terms of dealing with the dispute.Bdell555 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm disposed to think inclusions of fact trump immediate concerns about weight. Yet, while Lulu has told me his take on Project Vote here, you've only told me to go the the article's history to figure out for myself what's your take; and I'm lazy. :^)   $\sim$ Justmeherenow     01:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Also of possible interest is this discussion here.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm already aware of the fact that LotLE accused me of bad faith (i.e. I'm "convinced" of the "wickedness of ACORN" and "hope to tarnish" Obama somehow, as opposed to simply trying to get duly sourced, neutrally presented, notable material added to the Project Vote article), and you found that totally unsupported allegation of his "pretty convincing". I'm also aware that you considered his simply asserted claim that a (c)(3) cannot be an "arm" of any non-(c)(3) a "pretty convincing" argument.  Never mind the fact that the ACLU says on its own website that "the ACLU Foundation (ACLUF) is the national tax-deductible, 501(c)(3) arm of the ACLU", as I note in my first paragraph of that Talk page section I referred you to, above.  That paragraph, stamped 14:18 on 30 July 2008, spells out my response to LotLE about as concisely as I can put it.Bdell555 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thomas Jefferson's foe's said he had a slave mistress and his supporters said of course he didn't; and that ended the matter. Until Fawn Brodie laid out the claim's underpinnings in her controversial Jefferson biography. In Wikipedia content disputes some contributors take a part analogous to that of Jefferson's supporters and shut off facts possibly interpretable in a negative light, others that of Fawn Brodie, letting chips fall where they may; and I'd hope to be in the metaphorical Fawn Brodie camp.


 * Anyway, Bdell555, I actually had clicked on your provided link and skimmed the stuff there -- but alas didn't find it all so very -- skimmable; but what I'm merely guessing is that folks at ACORN created an affiliated non-partisan group to do voter registration (just as you show that the ACLU has created an affiliated foundation). So, then, apparently Lulu deletes any claim of an affiliation between ACORN and PV pending better "proof," but then won't budge despite whatever proof's shown? And, judging from Lulu's argument that, blah blah, it's obviously that you belive ACORN is evil, blah blah blah, would it be incorrect to surmise that ACORN is either demonstratably farish left or else somehow besmirched with ethical tawdriness? What's the scoop? $\sim$ Justmeherenow     03:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) There are, indeed, a variety of sources that indicate that ACORN "created" Project Vote, but the claim at issue is whether or not Project Vote is currently an "arm". The New York Times and TIME magazine, amongst other sources, unambiguously say that it is, and ACORN even reprinted the NY Times claim on its website (why would it do that if the "arm" language implies something unfavourable to either org)? If you look at Project Vote's own Wiki article, you'll see that it is accused of fraud directly, and Project Vote rejects those allegations directly, such that it is quite unnecessary to tie in ACORN in order to tie into those allegations. It's also clear that Project Vote is concerned with "low income and minority voters" without any reference to ACORN. LotLE tried to insert "mostly" into that article quote "150,000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls" because he thought the quote suggested Obama was too concerned with minority voters without qualifying it. In other words, LotLE seems to imagine Obama as being "besmirched" by pretty much anything and everything, such I can't give you a coherent theory with respect to his specific problem with ACORN. Not that LoTLE's motivations matter anyway. If a notable, reliably sourced, neutrally presented fact "besmirches" a politician or suggests he's "far left", it should be included anyway.Bdell555 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If a notable, reliably sourced, neutrally presented fact "besmirches" a politician or suggests he's "far left", it should be included anyway.
 * Agreed. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     14:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alger Hiss
Hi -- I just wanted to make note of the rare and unusual fact that you've made an edit to this article that I totally agree with and think is good contribution.

Cheers, RedSpruce (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, that may be my only edit to the main page that's been left standing more than a day. Oshinsky seems to be moderate and/or nuanced enough in his general view of not just Hiss but McCarthyism in general that even opposed persons on either side of Oshinsky in the grand scheme of things may agree that readers should have the opportunity to read that .pdf that that quotes his remarks at length.  Given that Neil Gross and Solon Simmons' "The Social and Political Views of American Professors" seems to have found that a greater proportion of Americans believe the moon landings were a hoax than humanities academics self-identify as "conservative", I find the specific quote about the "majority" telling.Bdell555 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tactics
Your note about how the East Prussian violance can be compared to the one in Georgia is interesting. Notice that Russian Empire's campaings in Turkey and Poland by Suvorov also used such tactics to enforce victory. IIRC what I read about it the tactic was adopted by military from Mongol Empire when Muscovy was under its yoke. --Molobo (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So what?..
Our military spending in 2008 was $40 bln (figure from Wikipedia) which is 3.1 % of our nominal 2007 GDP ($1290 bln; since Russia's 2008 GDP will be bigger this percentage is even smaller). In case of Georgia the 2007 gdp was $ 10.3 bln and military budget was roughly $1 bln then. You can easily see which country is more militarised :))

Comparing absolute numbers can also be valid. In this case, however, not only Georgia should be compared to Russia but also SO to Georgia. Best regards. Alæxis¿question? 16:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm rather surprised by your question. Why do countries usually spend their money this way?.. Russia by no means stands out against other countries whether you take absolute numbers (US, UK, Germany spend more), per capita numbers (US, UK, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Norway etc spend more) or a percentage of GDP (US, Israel, Georgia, Turkey, Singapore spend more). I myself wouldn't mind if all over the world less was spent on this. Alæxis¿question? 17:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment
Here (and also, if possible, ) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian intention to invade Georgia
I am ok with the current wording of that paragraph. It is just my opinion that both sentences (from Novaya Gazeta and AFP) should stay or both should go. It is not up to Wikipedia to make its judgment on possible intentions of anyone. I do not know if Russia really intended the invasion, but as a matter of a fact, neither does Pavel Feigensomething. That was merely his conjecture or an opinion, not a fact, and I am surprised that his POV survived in the article for that long, and I am pretty sure that it will be edited out later (not by me, there are enough zealots around).

It is however true that Russian exercise was conducted at the same time as USA and Georgia conducted their own joint exercise. Who am I to judge whether both sides intended the war? (Igny (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't object to removing the whole paragraph if that's what you'd like to do. My problem was with the details of your editing (which suggested that the predominant view of US officials is that the Russian actions were largely a bolt out of the blue); one can't say the details are OK if they serve some desirable larger purpose.  There were elements of WP:OR in your editing (e.g. it appears to be largely your research that reveals American military exercises to be notably relevant.)Bdell555 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They can not be any less relevant than the Russian exercise. There are references in abundance in Russian media linking these two events together, so it is hardly my OR. An example and another one.(Igny (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC))


 * As I recall the New York Times article specifically addressed the relevence of the US exercises and analysts and/or officials rejected their relevance. Again, at issue here was whether the NY Times was saying what you were saying it said or not.Bdell555 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest major changes on discussion page first
When changing intro section on a controversial topic please suggest them on the discussion page first.Anatoly.bourov (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you review my contributions to the Talk page, you'll see that I made a variety of contributions to intro related issues already. The current intro seems to be significantly different, but that doesn't mean previous discussions of what should go in and out of the intro become no longer relevant.  The edit here, which added just a few words, was also quite straightforward, in my view.Bdell555 (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?
In reply to your comment I created a new article, but it has been nominated for speedy deletion. What do you think? Is the new article appropriate?Biophys (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at this and tell me if I'm off base here?
I've just reverted an edit by Wikidemo at Obama-Ayers controversy and explained it here on the talk page. Please tell me if I'm off-base here. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I'm on the road now otherwise I'd be able to contribute. Perhaps in a few days...Bdell555 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion on terrorism and Weatherman-related articles
Hi, you commented on Bill Ayers' relation to terrorism on the Talk:Bill Ayers page a while back. The matter is up for discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. Your opinion there would be welcome. Thanks! -- Noroton (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC
This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From the reliable source PolitiFact, a highly respected subsidiary of the St. Petersburg Times in Tampa Bay:
 * "Michael Slater, the current executive director of Project Vote, said the two organizations are separate. And in 1992, the two groups didn't really work together, he said. They began partnerships on voter registration after Project Vote went through a reorganization in 1994, according to Slater."
 * You see the "1994" reference in there? Now self-revert your synthesis immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't deny that the current executive director says "the two organizations are separate". However, that doesn't mean the two organizations haven't been affiliated since PV's founding or that there are no sources of comparable reliability indicating such an affiliation.  In any case, I suggest keeping cool and raising your objections to my edits on the article's Talk page.  If you want to persist with the various accusations of bad faith editing, I'm obviously going to disagree, so I suggest you raise my behaviour with ArbCom sooner rather than later if it is that grevious to you.Bdell555 (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You still need to self-revert your synthesis. There is no consensus for your misleading version. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you can speak of consensus when I have seen no Talk page discussion of the appropriateness of suggesting the two organizations did not work together prior to to 1994, or, for that matter, any discussion of the "tight relationship" alleged in the 22 Oct 2008 New York Times story. Whatever the case, we've reverted each other 3 times, so I suggest letting other users take up the editing guantlet, at least for the next few hours...!Bdell555 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Stilwell
Could be. If so, I can only suggest you source & explain, 'cause the bust alone doesn't do it. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Persons interested in more about Stilwell, in particular the Chinese government's view, should visit the Stillwell museum in Chungking. Where in the article are readers informed of this museum's existence?  There no Wiki sourcing policy being violated here.  The photo does not make the article significantly longer relative to the aesthetics having having so much text in the 2nd half of the article, and the museum is notable as objective evidence of Stilwell's popularity with the Chinese government.  How about providing a reason for DELETION?  I don't understand why you need to reason at all to remove another user's contribution to collective information besides your subjective opinion that it is not, in fact, informative.  Why not let the reader decide that?  In any case, I have attempted to compromise with whatever your objection is by making the photo smaller.Bdell555 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I might add the that Korean war section of the Military Museum in Beijing is titled the "War of American Aggression in Korea". This is the background that makes a monument to an American officer notable.Bdell555 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)