User talk:Cripipper/Archive 1

Vietnam War
I see what happened- and have taken away the warnings. Cheers!--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR warnings
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Ragib 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam People's Army
The Henry Kissinger article is hardly the place to fight over what is the correct abbreviation for Vietnam People's Army. May I strongly suggest that if you have an issue about this, discuss it at Talk:Vietnam People's Army? Right now Vietnam People's Army asserts that PAVN is considered incorrect, which was my recollection as well (which is the reason I originally went over there and checked). - Jmabel | Talk 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Norodom-Sihanouk.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Norodom-Sihanouk.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Spring5.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Spring5.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw pact seal
The Warsaw pact seal is under fair use. It was previously tagged as coatofarms and now tagged as logo. Simply because the body does not exist anymore does not mean copyright is not held by some entity. The image must be used under terms of fair use here unless the body that holds copyright has been identified and has knowingly released any rights to the image. Please do not re-insert the image back into the template without performing this verification work. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 17:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * seal or logo regardless, if the image is freely available either of those tags is inappropriate. Please find an appropriate tag and retag the image with it. seal means it's fair use. Simply because it was not an official seal does not mean it is not copyrightable. SOMEbody created it. SOMEbody originally held copyright to it. Until it is verified who holds or held that copyright and whether or not those copyrights have been released, we can not use the image under other than fair use claims. --Durin 17:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to emphasize something here. Wikipedia operates on proactive determinations of copyright status, and not on presumptions. We do not presume something is free from copyright. The only things that are (accurately) free from copyright here are those that are confirmed to be so. No such effort has been done in this case. We do not know what the copyright status of the image is, and capitulating the copyright free decision to another website exposes us to copyright violation claims. If in fact it can be verified that the image is free of copyright, then by all means the image should be retagged as such and I have no issue with it being used on the template. As it stands now, we don't know, and it's existence on the template is in violation of our fair use policy.
 * Re: your edit summary at . Yes, you are butting up against 3RR now, as this is not a simple vandalism concern. I don't care; I think we're working this out but the edit war needs to end. I won't revert you again. But, I ask you to revert yourself until the copyright status of this image is positively verified and the image is retagged appropriately. --Durin 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
It is appreciated that you changed the name of the Indon Civ Wr. SatuSuro 11:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits ref Cultural Revolution
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you.John Smith&#39;s 22:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported for reverting the Cultural Revolution page four times in 24 hours, contrary to the three-revert rule. The report is displayed here. John Smith&#39;s 00:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sino-Vietnamese War casualty rates
Hi. I placed 57,000 killed or wounded (I seem to have misread that) as per you comments. Also, I placed it on top of causalties2, and unlike with Clodfelter's estimate, without a question mark. I did, however, made some corrections and restored my additions regarding Clodfelter, namely, distinguishing between his own estimate (20,000 killed for both) as opposed to citing the Chinese claim of 30,000 VPA "killed" and Vietnam's claim of 26,000 PLA killed. As for the 6,900 figure, Zhang says "Chinese sources categorize the PLA’s losses as 6900," which is why I wrote "China claims" (I presume these are official PRC sources; if it was "Chinese scholars," I'm sure he'd qualify it accordingly). See my edit summaries for further detail. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for all your efforts to improve the entry. El_C 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Thanks for the prompt response. I replied to it on my talk page here. Regards, El_C 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And again. Regards, El_C 22:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

207.74.23.130
Hi, Cripipper. Regarding this edit, why did you tell that IP user that he/she was blocked? The last block was on Nov. 8 for 99 hours, and long expired. Powers T 15:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the IP was not actually blocked. Powers T 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling reversion at Nixon
Please do not revert a British English spelling back into the Richard Nixon article again. Please do review WP:MOS, specifically the section on BrE vs. AmE spellings. Please also be more careful about the use of bots in editing. Thank you. Tom e rtalk 13:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob'm bud. Keep up the good work. :-)  Tom e rtalk  00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey. Whar you at?
I'm curious now, to know where you're located, and whether or not you're aware of the !word vicacious. If you're a Brit and have access to the Rolling Stone article mentioned in the lead of The Dissociatives (album), where the !word "vicaciousness" is supposedly used, I'd appreciate if you could either correct the spelling to "vivaciousness" or "vivacity", or insert a "sic", whichever be appropriate. Cheers, Tom e rtalk 09:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)
(Personal attack removed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draciel (talk • contribs).

POV On Exit of French
I suggest you stop masking unsubstanciated assertions about Washington's perception about the nature of the anti-French war fought. The Pentagon Papers as I have reffered in the discussion page shows the total opposite of your opinion. User:Green01 2:30, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC).

I have made no reference to Marxism, you just did. I was refering to the South Vietnamese rebellion, whereas you deveated to the Korean conflict(which was orrelevant to French objectives). I'll continue on from where you appear ignoring:

"It is equally clear that North Vietnamese communists operated some form of subordinate apparatus in the South in the years 1954-1960. Nonetheless, the Viet Minh "stay-behinds" were not directed originally to structure an insurgency, and there is no coherent picture of the extent or effectiveness of communist activities in the period 1956-1959. From all indications, this was a period of reorganization and recruiting by the communist party. No direct links have been established between Hanoi and perpetrators of rural violence.

Statements have been found in captured party histories that the communists plotted and controlled the entire insurgency, but these are difficult to take at face value. Bernard Fall ingeniously correlated DRV complaints to the ICC of incidents in South Vietnam in 1957 with GVN reports of the same incidents, and found Hanoi suspiciously well informed. He also perceived a pattern in the terrorism of 1957-1959, deducing that a broad, centrally directed strategy was being implemented. However, there is little other corroborative evidence that Hanoi instigated the incidents, much less orchestrated them." - Section 1, pp. 242-69, The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 5, "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960"

"The primary question concerning Hanoi's role in the origins of the insurgency is not so much whether it played a role or not--the evidence of direct North Vietnamese participation in subversion against the Government of South Vietnam is now extensive--but when Hanoi intervened in a systematic way. Most attacks on U.S. policy have been based on the proposition that the DRV move on the South came with manifest reluctance, and after massive U.S. intervention in 1961. For example, George McTurnin Kahin and John W. Lewis, in their book The United States in Vietnam, state that:

Contrary to United States policy assumptions, all available evidence shows that the revival of the civil war in the South in 1958 was undertaken by Southerners at their own--not Hanoi's--initiative. . . . Insurgency activity against the Saigon government began in the South under Southern leadership not as a consequence of any dictate from Hanoi, but contrary to Hanoi's injunction" – Ibid

More revelations from The Problem Confronted; Jan. 1961-Feb. 1962, Vietnam 1961-1968 as Interpreted in INR’s Production by W. Dean Howells, Dorothy Avery, and Fred Greene:

“INR noted, as did others in the Intelligence Community, that ‘the Communist apparatus has relied more on local resources than on infiltration” (ref: See1-10: RFE-3 On Oct. 5, 1961, SNIE 53-2-61 estimated the VC to be composed of 10-20% infiltrated cadre and 80-90% locally recruited forces.)

“INR considered that the concept suffered from a basic weakness in “the US assumption that the crisis in Vietnam can be solved virtually by flooding the country with US aid,”(See 1-19: id)(pg. 10)

“INR held that Communist China was unlikely to consider direct military action in Vietnam “unless subsequent developments result in fighting in North Vietnam” (Intelligence Note, ‘CPR Posture Toward South Stiffens,’ Dec. 8 1961.(pg. 12)

User:Green01 8:32, Jan 8th 2007 (UTC).

Sino-Vietnamese War

 * Well... After CAREFULLY examining my edits on this wiki I have concluded that your statements are total and utter nonsense. I did no such thing, nada, nothing. You are absolutely wrong. Period. Where exactly you got your ideas from I have no idea whatsoever. Go bother someone else. Manxruler 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)