User talk:Pir/archive1

Hello Pir, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 22:56, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on the Butler Inquiry/Iraq Intelligence Commission (UK). I agree that these pages should be merged (under Butler Inquiry - check Google, and you will see that it is being referred to by this name). When they announced the Hutton Inquiry they didn't give it a name either, and the BBC called their section the "Kelly Inquiry" for quite a while. So far as I can see there's no way to guess what will end up being the name of an Inquiry (the "Shipman Inquiry" is named after Shipman, not the Judge; the "Bloody Sunday Inquiry" is named after the incident. I guess it will be the Soham Inquiry.) I think these names are just coined by the media, and end up being used by everybody. Washington irving 19:42, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Washington. I agree with you on nomenclature, 'Butler inquiry' is best. Won't be around for a few days, but I will probably have time to help merge both articles after that. pir 20:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good work on attempting to remove bias. From the owner, down through his chain of command - the developers, beneath them the admins and then the typical American white collar reactionary user, it is quite a battle to remove the heavy right wing bias from all of this. But if you don't get flustered or angry and, unlike them, stick to the rules, and work together with saner people here like secretlondon, Wik, Viajero and so forth, you can get somewhere. One of their old tricks is one of them will provoke you, you'll respond, and then they will hold that against you. Just join together with the sane ones, follow the rules and keep a cool head, we'll win by attrition eventually. The efforts of the sane people collectively can't be scattershot, so I would suggest focusing on the larger pages, such as some you have, Hugo Chavez, war on terrorism, U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. It is possible to maintain NPOV there if a group of the sane people concentrate on it. It's less easy to do this on less popular pages, you can give it a try, but if it becomes an edit war it's not really worth the time. You can let other people worry about that. Venceremos 07:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not necessarily on a mission to remove right-wing views. In fact I find it much better if they stay in the encyclopedia, they just need to be marked clearly for what they are, and we need to add facts, as well as other balancing views. Everyone should have their say, facts and views need to be seperated, and it is always very revealing to see who holds particular views. I am an optimist, in the sense that I believe the truth will always win. That is why I love Wikipedia. pir 13:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Venceremos: here's an example of what I mean. VV didn't like the paragraphe about Torture and murder in Iraq committed by British and US troops (In fact initially the whole article, esp. the title, seems to be inspired by right-wing Iraq war propaganda, but now that the situation in Iraq has changed, it's returning on them.). So he added a sentence to weaken it : However, such misdeeds on the part of individual soldiers violate the US and Britain's policies on combat and occupation, and soldiers who break the rules have been subject to court martial. Of course this is not NPOV, because it is simply his own interpretation that these are acts committed only by "individuals", and of course these are just the "official" USUK policies. So I changed these. Then Rei pointed out that no court martials have taken place (so far nobody has provided any evidence to the contrary). What we end up with is a NPOV sentence which makes the whole paragraphe much, much stronger: Such misdeeds violate the US and Britain's official policies on combat and occupation, and soldiers who break the rules are theoretically subject to court martial.
 * The observant reader will compare official policy and effective practice and deduce that the incidents of torture are in fact likely to be have the backing from superiors. The article has made a step towards NPOV at the same time a step towards the truth.pir 03:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uups ... yes, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is the prime minister in waiting. My mistake on the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq page. -- chris_73 11:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the new version needs work, but it's clearly getting there. I was more than willing to work with Rei's version. 172 was out of line protecting the page, and "Venceremos" is simply a recurring troublemaker who was not going to work with anyone. I am curious, though, about the view you favor. Are you really trying to push the idea that there is a moral equivalency between Saddam's medieval torture chambers and rape rooms and the small number of instances of misconduct by coalition troops? This strikes me as almost inhuman, and suggests you (or whoever favors this view) want it to be true, and will try to make it seem or try to believe that it is. -- VV 19:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes on my user talk page and on Talk:Torture and murder in Iraq; it seems to me you're taking a very constructive approach to writing this article and communicating with other users, and I look forward to working with you on these difficult and potentially combustive issues. I agree with you that all information should be presented and in a proportionate/balanced manner, including reports regardless of the perpetrators; what bothers me balance-wise is that the article goes on at length about coalition misdeeds, but only gives passing reference to torture by Saddam's regime. Of course, this can be corrected with more detail, but at present it leaves I think a very wrong impression, an impression which, I believe, some users would like to leave readers with. I see from your comments on talk that you recognize that I have this concern. As for your point about official policy, well, call me naive, but I don't believe for a second George Bush would ever authorize soldiers to engage in "sexual misconduct" with prisoners, while I am fairly convinced Saddam countenanced such behavior regularly. I believe this is a hugely important difference which needs to be emphasized. As for the claim that torture is a tool of control, I think that is a controversial assertion. Some would contend that torture is of little use in this regard and is more the result of runaway sadism and cruelty/vengeance by people with power. The torture article or its offshoots is probably the right place for these debates, which is why I think splitting the article into one on the "Dirty Dozen" and one on post-Saddam Iraq does not take away anything; the general subject of torture is too broad anyway for an article focusing only on Iraq. Well, these are just a few of many of the issues to deal with. Since I think each of us understand where the other is coming from, I am optimistic we will find common ground for creating good articles. -- VV 22:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message
Hey, sorry it took so long to respond. I have been dealing with a troll recently and he takes up much of my time.

Anyway I used the word many there for two reasons.


 * 1) I believe making statements that apply universality to large social groups involved in complex human affairs (such as religious leaders) should be discouraged. It leaves too many bases left uncovered. Qualifying the statement with "many" makes the statement more true. Though I would be open to using most.
 * 2) Al-queda is an islamic group and Osama Bin Laden and many of his commanders are Islamic or Muslim leaders (despite however disliked or wicked). So that makes the statement technically inaccurate.

Thanks again for your interest and sorry for the late response. GrazingshipIV 22:40, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions. I've answered at User talk:Angela/Questions. Angela. 04:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi - you've put a lot of trotskyist groups in Category:Socialist parties - there is a category:Trotskyist organisations which is better. Secretlondon 19:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've made trotskyist organisations a subcategory of political parties by ideology. And... anarchists do form organisations! As for the SLP... gawd knows... maybe the general socialist party category is designed for such cases - some would put them under Stalinist but that would be POV. I deliberately didn't make a stalinist category as the number of self-confessed stalinists is very small, and the number of groups that others describe as stalinist much higher. Anyway they've expelled Harpur Bral (spelling prob wrong) who is the only self-confessed Stalinist I can think of. Secretlondon 22:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I appreciate and agree with your comments regarding the trolling poll. Thank you. Jeeves 04:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good call on Cuba. Ambivalenthysteria 10:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem - the atmosphere round here is very strange at the moment. It's getting quite unpleasant - lots of admins on delete and ban missions, all the troll hysteria, biting newcomers, in-jokes... Secretlondon 11:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

gedday
I responded to your post on my user page by the way 11:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anti-American sentiment
Well you can look at the diff to see what this last fight was about. I explained that I want words indicating I'm introducing a contrast, that is all. I don't think GBWR's view is anywhere near as radical as yours, which seems to be that there is no anti-American sentiment, anywhere.

Also, let me know if anyone else accuses you of being a Lir sockpuppet, and I'll correct them. V V 09:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, I got your note, sorry I'm only just replying now. I think we agree more than it may seem, parting ways mainly on semantic issues:  When I hear anti-anything, I don't think necessarily of Nazi-style genocidal anti-Semitism.  That is a huge extreme, among not only anti-ism, but among anti-Semitism, which has existed in much milder forms across the centuries.  The vast majority of authors (or whoever) I've seen described as anti-Semitic expressed nowhere near such genocidal sentiments, and I expect most would not stomach mass extermination.


 * Rather, what you describe as lingering anti-German sentiment is more what I have in mind, and I believe it's more the norm for all these kinds of "prejudice". For instance, I hope you would agree that few who dislike African-Americans would want to kill them all.  But I have definitely experienced anti-Americanism, certainly in my travels to Europe (as well as anti-German sentiment).


 * Your argument that anti-Americanism can't exist (in some sense) because America is ethnically diverse is not very compelling. Of course, some forms of prejudice would be absurd - hating everyone whose name starts with "B" - but dislike on the basis of citizenship or "national origin" is not.  To draw this out, consider the features being switched: Canadians and Americans are not "ethnically" very different, but they may be treated differently abroad.  (However, distinctions may be made, as more of the "hate" may be directed at the "WASP" backbone of the US rather than the minority groups; for instance, in 1979 the Iranian revolutionaries freed all the African-American hostages as they held on to the white ones.)


 * But anti-Americanism, of every kind, does exist. When Osama bin Laden says, "To kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able", I believe he means it.  He does not just hate westerners, but Americans, and his attacks on "allies" are more aimed at making them not our allies than because of dislike, as note his recent "truce offering" to Europe.  As another example, it is America and America alone which Iran calls the Great Satan; Iran meanwhile has good relations with European countries such as Germany.


 * I see, and this may be a stickier point, this coming from the left as well. America is attacked for not signing Kyoto and being environmentally "irresponsible" while China's rivers run pink.  America is protested for not giving enough money to African AIDS research.  America alone is attacked for "not doing more" during the Holocaust.  America is criticized for having had good relations with Iraq, while criticized for not having good relations with Cuba.  And so on.  This may be a different sort of prejudice, but in a self-reinforcing way it creates a vicious circle of hatred for America.


 * Again, it's hard to believe that everyone completely separates passions about the government with feelings about the people, especially since they are related. You seem to think all non-Americans do separate them, while Americans (who are, e.g., anti-French) do not.  Obviously, I find this "American uniqueness" unbelievable.  (Indeed, it almost seems anti-American.)


 * I hope this helps understand my perspective on the article in question. I also want to say I appreciate your constructive tone, having had so many trying experiences on this project.  V V  19:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heeb, etc.
Hey pir, thanks for the kind words. I've never been around so many closet racists, anti-semites and homophobes as I have been here. It's unnerving but I guess I'm getting used to it. In regards to Heeb, I've only read one issue (the back issues are expensive to buy). But they're not secular, not in the sense of like Socialist Zionism or the Jewish Bund. They're kind of like a counterculture movement within all of Judaism. They cover Orthodox Jews to Reform, to Queer. All of the subjects are basically united by their status as fringe within the entire Jewish community. They're definately not anti-Zionist, they're just anti-Occupation and pretty much Likud. They also don't really espouse a political ideology (hardly anyone serious does these days, ideology is dead). They're progressive. Howd you come across the Heeb entry on Wiki? StoptheBus18 19:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gentile Heebism, perhaps
Im glad you agree. Ive been wanting to make this guideline a policy for a long time now. Back in the old days it was simply assumed that Uncle Ed would come down from the mailing list to radiate his (((soothing))) vibe. But, now things are moving along a little too quickly, and the policy procedure has to have the steps in place. They already are there, but while the page is protected, sysop moderates should feel free to amend make changes to the article, dealing with the issues discussed on the talk by the partisans. This would give some gradiations to the page protection policy that limit the talk a little bit, and state out front the role of mediators to implement changes quickly, so that we dont just write really nice, long, talk pages, and still wind up arguing over the article in two weeks anyway. ;) More or less permanent page protections could be implemented for the really flashpoint articles (there have been a few pages kept protected for a while.) This would mean an augmentation of the WP:PP policy to have protected pages without the currently required header. Ah, wiki policy... social engineering with a quick and wide feedback response curve. :) -SV 03:05, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Wikipedia Letzebuerg
Sali Pir, Hues de keng Loscht mir bei der LUX-Editioun vun Wikipedia ze hellefen ? Du fenns se ennert http://lb.wikipedia.org an bis lo ass nach quasi nix do. Daat eenzegt waat ech gemaach hun ass eemol d'Haaptsait. Ech ging mech opallefall freen.

Briséis

Animal sex
Hi GBWR. I thought you might be interested in this. Two new users (LiveNude and FT2) are praising the virtues of Zoophilia. See especially LiveNude's user page. I wasn't quite sure how to react, as the ethics here are much more complicated than with paedophilia. I'm getting really confused with all this! pir 17:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no time, protecting animals by being a vegetarian is all I can do at the moment. Get-back-world-respect 23:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--

Prisons and forced Slave labour
Hi Pir,

You left a message on my user talk. Thanks for your kind words. The passage dealing with prison and slavery for the article on slavery was written based on a very strong movement across countries which most people call as prison slavery. The movement is strong in Britain and other parts of the world.

Here are a few links some of which are more neutral than others. However you can go through all of them, to get a complete view of the validity of the term and its current social context.

http://www.thewinds.org/1996/12/modern_slavery.html (prison slavery in the United States)

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/mt11labor.html (maoists international movement against prison slavery)

http://www.enrager.net/hosted/caps/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=241 (campaign against prison slavery in Britain)

http://www.prisonactivist.org/crisis/labor-of-doing-time.html (essay on prison slavery by Julie Brown)

http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/prisonlabor.html (prison slave labour factories)

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WageSlave (wage slave)

http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/news/china130801.htm (slave labour on increase in China)

http://www.sundayherald.com/40864 (sunday herald slavery news)

http://www.clearharmony.net/articles/200406/20434.html (slave labour in china's forced labour camps)

http://www.veggies.org.uk/news/bullet04a.htm (slave labour in britain)

Deleting a text because it could be controversial is but the greatest threat to the very idea of a wikipedia. There are several other high quality encyclopedias in the world that are well researched and well written. However these hard copies being official versions leave out a lot of controversial topics and also have to take a lot of permissions from several sovereign states for official approval. The wikipedia is meant to be a repository of knowledge which otherwise would never have been expressed or known, without of course being compromised on authenticity. Else the wikipedia would turn out to be just another official version, and that would be a classic example of the waste of time of literally millions of people around the world.

Deleting a passage because it is not conforming to the official view is the worst form of POV and vandalism. In that several wikipedians engage in, without being realized and ironically even commended for it instead of being condemned for it. The issue here is pervasive and far reaching, and therefore such deleting should be stopped.

Since my passage was deleted by a well respected wikipedian, and since I do not believe in edit wars. I would please implore you to add whatever you feel is relevant and of NPOV. You can go through whatever I had written and the links that I have posted here and maybe write an even better passage on the relevant topic and with a more NPOV content. thank you --Robin klein 04:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001
Hi Piv, like you say, let the people decide if there is some conspiracy going on, but fact is fact, thus far I see only fact on 911truth.org, and the name of the site and its mission also state that. You can't possibly claim that you are all 100% sure that everything on sept. 11 2001 were 'terrorist attacks', I'd say they were attacks alright, but the claim for them coming from so-called terrorists has never been proven. Knowing that, you should alter all mentions of these attacks where it says "9/11 terrorist attacks" or anything similar to that. Let the people themselves decide if they were terrorist attacks or not ;-) In my opinion more facts point to things being covered up than there are facts pointing to these attacks having to do with terrorists, but that's just me. By the way, have you ever tried using your cellular phone in a plane when it was at 12000 feet altitude? I recommend you do that... Julius 14:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Population genetics
Thanks for your offer! Palestinian and the second paragraph of Berber could both benefit from a geneticist's attention; I've sourced everything, but I'm not sure how well I've interpreted the evidence. - Mustafaa 20:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy
On Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy you wrote: "The thing is that some people (no matter how respected they are in the first place) have and develop a taste for making use of their power against others."

You make an important point, and I wonder if you've had a chance to look at (and possibly vote on) the soon closing policy proposal Blocking policy/Personal attacks? -- orthogonal 07:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trolls in Music
Cite for Grieg's quote posted on the Talk:Troll discussion page per your request -Thomas Veil
 * Just so you know, I had to change my nym. It seems there was already another Thomas Veil.  Thanks for your help on the Trolls page.  --Viriditas 02:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger
I thought your solution to the Kissinger page was an elegant compromise. VeryVerily does not seem to think so and continues to delete parts of the article, despite the efforts of at least 3 users.

LegCircus 21:41, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't edit the word terrorism
Please don't edit the word terrorism in the article Beslan hostage crisis until the issue is settled in the talk page --Gene s 17:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote against me
Thanks for explaining, Pir. I haven't been to the nomination page yet, did you put your reasoning there as well? Jayjg 23:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Pir. In answer to your question, of course I wouldn't abuse my powers, and would be careful in their application; I take Wikipedia quite seriously, and my own integrity as well. Jayjg 02:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support for my adminship, and for you many thoughtful comments. Jayjg 16:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A picture
Pir hi. If you are really planning to write a page about the term occupation in Palestinian and Israeli society, here is a picture you might be able to use (warning: objectionable material). The picture was taken in the gay pride parade in Tel Aviv, 2003. The text in the big sign says "no pride in occupation" basically a criticism of the a-political celebrations of the gay parade while the occupation continues. (there's nothing special about 2003). Gadykozma 22:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, if you ever do pick this project up, I'll be glad to help. Gadykozma 00:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

?
"I noticed your unconventional views on Nazism before, and your tendency to misspell non-white religious/ethnic groups non-capitalized and with double oo."


 * What&#8217;s this about? My views in general are unconventional (esp. here on the wiki), not just in regards to Nazism. And so what if I misspell or forget to capitalize things on a talk page? What your referring to isn't even misspelling, it&#8217;s antiquated spelling. I happen to enjoy 19th century literature, and the traditional method of spelling words like "Hindu/Hindoo". I also happen to like double vowels as a general rule, and love, for example, the Dutch language. Why any of this is relevant enough to bring up in article talk is beyond me, but I suspect you had some sort of disparaging intent. Lets keep things intellectually honest; making unusual personal observations is not a necessary part of an efficient dialogue. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 10:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Why thank you, that was thoughtful. Do you think we might agree to disagree on this definition of racism thing, and simply leave the article as is, presenting both uses of the term? I think its probably pretty obvious to both of us that each of our respective definitions is in use widely enough to merit mention. Sam [Spade] 11:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See User_talk:Sam_Spade. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 12:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi pir -- I've left a message on Talk:Racism as well. Since there is clearly not agreement on the definition of racism, it seems very reasonable and NPOV (IMHO) to use a major dictionary's current full definition at the beginning, rather than a slight paraphrasing of the same dictionary's definition from 78 years ago (cf. our previous discussion). I propose leaving the 2002 Webster's definition until we can reach agreement about a definition. I added in the part that VV finds POV months ago (and I note here that most African Americans agree with the definition as I had left it, so it's definitely not a "native/non-native speaker" divide, as VV has claimed), so clearly the Webster's definition isn't my idea of what racism is, so I hope that all can see this as a compromise. Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re:
See WP:RfC. Its fairly simple, and while it doesn't necessarilly always work, there is also WP:RfAR. See Requests for arbitration/172, where I am currently having an admin arbitrated. If you look into things, you will find that my angriest critics are admins who I have taken to task, and that I have been demanding accountability thruout. That is one POV w both share strongly. Sam [Spade] 17:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade sysop vote
You may wish to weigh in at Requests_for_adminship/Sam_SpadeAndyL 17:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RFC: IZAK
Please check [Requests_for_comment/IZAK]. If you agree with the complaint please add your sig to certify the basis for dispute (1 more sig is needed within 24 hours.) Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 02:43, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Two
Hi Pir, thought you might be interested in [this] inelegant side-by-side solution to an issue dealing with intransigent conflict and two disputed versions. It's almost like the "two-state" solution - and I don't think it works for Wikipedia either. Alberuni 00:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your book on Palestine
Pir, your remark below gave me food for thought:


 * ...write an article that manages to incorporate fair descriptions of the conflicting POVs into one single narrative. This would be very hard work ...

I think it would be longer than article-length. It really requires a book. There's another topic which is just as complex: Creationism vs. Darwinism. Larry Witham, a professional newspaper editor, wrote a book about the various points of view on this topic which comes rather close to Wikipedia's neutrality policy -- even though Witham is a devoted Unificationist.


 * By Design: Science and the Search for God ISBN 1893554643

We might be able to create a series of articles about the history of the region of Palestine, and about the various proposals and arguments for establishing sovereign states in the region. But it would be as much hard work as writing a book.

It wasn't until I read your comment this morning that I realized how much work this project is going to take. It makes the controversy over Augusto Pinochet seem rather small and simple. Hundreds of books have been written on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Can we condense these into one comprehensive article? ----Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 13:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks (Communism)
Thanks for helping to counter the absurd fairy tale at Talk:Communism that capitalist police are avuncular defenders of justice whilst communist police are Satan personified. Shorne 02:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No personal attacks
All right guys, from today 14. October 2:35:08am I'm removing all personal attacks on sight. I've had enough of them. pir 01:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good luck. :-) Jayjg 20:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, along those lines, this might interest you: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Alberuni Jayjg 20:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:GeneralPatton suggests that HistoryBuffer be taken to Arbitration
From User:IZAK: See Requests for comment/IZAK

''':Izak, from my own experience, I suggest you now take HistoryBuffEr straight to Arbitration, and demand he be banned from all articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have a great and compelling body of evidence against him. GeneralPatton 19:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)'''

Users are asked to please help set this in motion.

Pathetically, HistoryBuffer is now antagonizing more people at Holocaust denial examined, see the "history" of that page and the "revert wars" and other stuff at Talk:Holocaust denial examined IZAK 02:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC):


 * "This article contains an unsubstantiated assertion about the use of term "Zionist" by Holocaust deniers. The Zionist extremist and Palestine denier Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to correct the false implication that anyone using the term "Zionist" is/could be a Holocaust denier, without supplying any evidence for the assertion. HistoryBuffEr 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)"

Jirate
You asked how it is that I have linked Jirate to Stormfront. In a thread on the Talk:Occupation_of_Palestine page, I observed that Jirate was posting a link to Deathmasters and claiming it was undisputed truth all the while ignoring his inability to verify the dubious references. I mentioned that I saw this site on the [ http://www.stormfront.org  /archive/t-96047 Stormfront White Nationalist Community] message forum, listed with a number of popular neo-nazi web sites. When I brought this up with Jirate, he did not attempt to deny it or bring up the fact that he may have found the link somewhere else. In response to my observation of Jirate's choice of link, he called Israelis, "vile people". What I find interesting, is that the only place I can find the link to Jirate's sources, is on the Stormfront message forum. The site gets very little traffic, and is linked to only a few sites. The site itself is hosted in Brazil, but registered in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Coincidence or not, this is same web host and location where neo-nazi holocaust revisionist and publisher [ http://www.stormfront.org  /forum/showthread.php?t=146455 Germar Rudolf] used to have his site published. I suggest that Rudolf or his associates maintain the deathmasters.com site. Finally, there is a real, concerted campaign by Stormfront to manipulate the Wikipedia. Many members of Stormfront have been quite open about their goals on Wikipedia, and you can find information [ http://www.stormfront.org  /forum/showthread.php?t=149686&highlight=wikipedia here]. If you look hard enough at the wiki, you can find them. As an example, the user who goes by the anonymous name of "Igor" on Talk:Jew is none other than [ http://www.stormfront.org  /forum/search.php?searchid=411786 Svyatoslav Igorevich], an active member of Stormfront. I admit that the link between Jirate and Stormfront is very tenuous, but it is a link nevertheless. --Viriditas 21:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What I said in reference to your finding it on neo Nazi websites was That vile people will use vile actions to justify there views is not at all suprising., which is the complete opposite of what you have just said. I never said it was undisputed I said that 'you' had not disputed it, which you hadn't, you had disputed the title, but nothing else. goto http://www.altavista.com/ and search for 'israel massacre 1947'. I trust you do understand how to use a search engine.--Jirate 23:54, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * I accept your explanation and I apologize for my comments. I have removed my allegation from IZAK's talk page, and Pir is welcome to remove this section from his page as well.  If he chooses to do so, I will remove his comments from my talk page as well.  --Viriditas 09:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Pir. You're right, I'll cool it and discuss the edits. :). But I won't stop doing significant work on that article. Cheers. --style 05:31, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

--

ciao! greetings from Luxoland! peter

Ogg Theora Response
Hi Pir,

Yes, I created the Ogg Theora version myself. It was not the simplest process, because there is no application with integrated encoding support. As the origional file was WMV, first I had to decode that, and correct the frame rate. Then I could convert to a YUV stream, then from that I could convert to Ogg Theora.

I am using:

ibogg-1.1 libtheora-1.0alpha3 MPlayer september CVS

These are the commands I used:

$ mencoder shakinghands_high.wmv -ofps 30 -nosound -ovc lavc -lavcopts vcodec=mjpeg -o donnald_mjpep.avi

$ mplayer -ao null -nosound -vo yuv4mpeg donnald_mjpep.avi

$ encoder_example -v 2 stream.yuv > 1983_Donald_Rumsfeld_meeting_Saddam_Hussein.ogg

Hope this helps, Cheers Now3d 13:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)