User talk:Sagafg65675673/archive1

Comment
looks good -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Light green looks much better. If you want it changed, I suggest you discuss it first though. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know off hand, but I know there is a list of them somewhere. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be a good place to discuss it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ha! It's not me, I'm worried about. Changing the colour will surely bring the folks out of the woodwork. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Colle That is a complement. You are getting your information second or third hand. On the other hand I once fought in Castro's July 26 movements in the Sierra Maestra. There I saw action but also too many bad things, and refused to execute anybody. Later at the time of the Bay of Pigs I was jailed by Castro.....If that does not allow me to say what I believe is factually true, and what I remember ... then nothing does El Jigüe 1/29/06

El Jigüe
What to do. . . Well, first of all, if any of his contributions are vandalism and violate NPOV, he will be blocked. We can even block him per 3RR rule. The continuation of his contributions is damaging to the Cuban related articles, and we must put a stop to it. -- Jay  (Reply)  18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Campbell
Thanks for the Campbell mugshot. Personally I loved the NDP "Stop Campbell" posters but that's nice too. --JGGardiner 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thanks for the commendation. It is greatly appreciated. User:Comandante

Scandal 2006
{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:CC99FF; border-style:none; border-width:3px; border-color:#b2a4c5;"
 * align="left" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:red; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#000000;"|

Re-add
I re-added the comment because it is mine, and I didn't tell anyone to go to hell. The point I was making was that people who don't know could have a better chance of getting into heaven than ignoring. Chooserr 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't being bigotted and it was my statement. How does it hurt you if I am anyway. They would just thing - oh Chooserr, that old fart. He's such a bigot...no need to listen to him. See it is a win win situation for you. Chooserr 03:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. make your summaries clearer in the future...you told me to use the talk page when removing a comment from the talk page.


 * Yes but if you start censoring my statements no matter how bigotted or offesive why can't I censor Jzg's statements. Would it be good policy to remove his comment about 95% of men admitting to masturbation and the other 5% lying about it just because I am offended. I think not. And my comment is a reply to his. Chooserr 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 3rvt, you have violated the 3rvt rule, but I will give you a chance to revert yourself. If you do so I will neglect to make any report. Chooserr 03:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Safe sex
Please do not remove other editors' comments from talk pages. It's not conducive to civil discourse. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning
You are in violation of WP:3RR at Talk:Safe sex. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC) You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm unconcerned about your religious sensitivities. 3RR is 3RR; if there was vandalism, your reverts might be acceptable, but the only thing that approaches vandalism is your removal of material from a talk page that you find religiously unpleasant. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Colle's Statement
Just for the record, I was blocked for removing "I think an Atheist would have a better chance of getting into heaven than most of these Cafeteria Catholics" from a talk page on safe sex. --Colle 03:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is inapropriate and offensive to suggest Heaven is less open to any societal group, be they Jews, Mormons, Athiests, or "cafeteria Catholics." --[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]]Colle 05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved with that article but the 3RR page says if there is a problem you can take it to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Personally I've generally left offensive comments on talk pages but I certainly understand wanting to remove them. I've seen them removed plenty of times. Usually the offensive person doesn't bother restoring them so this doesn't come up. --JGGardiner 08:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I would like to tell them my situation, but I'll have to wait untill my block ends tommorow.--[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]]Colle 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unproductive and generally pointless to remove statements from talk pages. If it was in the article, that would be one thing...but the talk page is meant for discussion. I have occasionally removed statements from talk pages that were actually libellous (e.g. a talk page statement which accused the article topic of being a pedophile), but generally I let expressions of personal opinion stand even if I personally disagree with them. (And I do personally disagree with the disputed statement, but it is an expression of personal opinion on a talk page, and not an NPOV problem per se.) I'll agree with raising your concern at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, but I also wouldn't be too surprised if they tell you more or less the same thing I've said here. Generally, I encourage discussion of these matters, and I'm always available to assist if you need clarification of what your options are in a future situation of this type. Bearcat 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, continuing to remove the comment isn't going to help when there are others who strongly stand by it. A few people have informed me via email that it really makes me look like a moron.  I admit I got somewhat caught up in the moment.  I can't however, get over the fact that brutally insulting societal groups on unrelated talk pages is condoned.  If the comment had referred to a racial group instead of a religous group, would the situation be different?  Maybe I just misjudged how people from other walks of life would view the comment.  To me, anyways, it was absolutly offensive and outrageous --One of the worst things you could say about a group of people.  If I was particularly sensitive, it may of driven me from Wikipedia.  Bearcat: Thank you, I appreciate your input!--[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]]Colle 00:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Critical Announcment!
READ THIS!! Can whoever reads this first please revert Boggle99's massive edit on Gordon Campbell. Its horribly biased propaganda that some people might not catch, for example the "structural deficit" s/he cites has been discredited. Thank you, --Colle 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, fith or sixth person who reads this can edit it too. It really is unfortunate, anyone who reads that article is going to be horribly mislead.  It literally replaces the article with the official party line.
 * Instead of "reduced the staff complement in its ministries, cut programs and services, closed hospitals and schools, and announced a plan to eliminate one-third of all regulations then in force" s/he puts "While some programs were reduced or eliminated, the funding levels for both health care and education were increased year to year" ---NOTE: that was because of the MASSIVE CUTS on the fisrt year.
 * Someone please revert that article, or I may explode.--[[Image:NDPleaf.gif|20px]]Colle 00:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:205.240.227.15
If this user continues to give questionable content to the articles, don't be afraid to set up a request for comment. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 08:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I may if I have the patience to figure that out. The Cuba article is being ruined...  Somone also vandalised a few of the links, and did some hidden vandlaism.  I don't know how to fix that, 'cause I can't find the edit responsible anymore.

But regarding 205.240... why are the admins not dealing with it! I posted this on the admin notice board TWICE. I asked the guy to cease his efforts as a freedom fighter, his response was "Colle: My efforts are merely a penance for my youthful support of Castro in the mountains." This is just too frustrating for me, I'd rather wait for someone who can actually DO something to get involved.--Colle 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your patience with the issue, but I can only block if any of his edits fit the vandalism requirements, such as his section blanking, and even at that, I could only ban him 1 week max. However, if you follow the dispute resolution processes, you could get better results.


 * I seriously believe you can get more help if you filed an RfC at Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. I'll even help you set it up. What the Request for comment does is list exactly what policy El Jigüe is breaking (through diffs), and try to get more of the Wikipedia community involved in hopes he'll improve the encyclopedia. As a matter of fact, you can get Jay to help, since I see he's been involved in this as well. If that doesn't work, you could take him to the Arbitration Committee (a group which is higher than admins) where they'll look over what's been going on, and come up with serious resolutions, including but not limited to permanent bans. However ArbCom can't do anything if you don't go through the rest of the steps first.--LBMixPro<Sp e ak 06:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted him again. I'm going to trust that the sides are as they've been represented. 68.39.174.238 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment for User:205.240.227.15
I've set up the RfC template for you. However, I'm strapped of time at the moment to begin filling it out. Could you do that if you can?The page is at Requests_for_comment/205.240.227.15 --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 07:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, you forgot to certify your RfC. Requests_for_comment/205.240.227.15 when you get the chance, could you sign this? --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you could try a WP:RFAr, and see how it goes, but you'll need to file it yourself. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 08:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Campbell
Why have you removed the NPOV banner. Please wait until there is discussion before removing the banner. Thanks Tawker 05:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon reading your edits, I have made a small one and removed the NPOV banner. Thanks for being nice and open! Tawker 05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I really don't want to dive in a POV dispute right now. Tawker 07:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, I'm trying to avoid POV disputes that I might be swayed by my polical beliefs, I'm running everything I put by a independent person before adding it to try and prevent POV from showing. Tawker 07:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the tuition averages statement with a little info on how with the funding additional spaces have been opened. Please let me know if this seems to be in violation of POV. Tawker 07:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Boggle99 3RR
Provided he does't push the issue any more I'd let it lie, no point of giving out a block for a 3RR there unless he really goes crazy. I think the present one works and is neuteral.

As for the 3RR, I wouldn't worry too too too much about it, we have the article watched and we'll keep an eye on it, if he does it again we'll revert. Tawker 07:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a note in the chat room that usually does 3RRs and such, so hopefully it won't be a revert war. Thanks for the cool head on this! Tawker 08:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I just gotyour message. I am not prepared to revert Boggle because I have intervened as an admin. It wouldn't be right for me to do this. Guettarda 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is pov. If you say that only corporate elites hold power you essentially argue in favor of your own beliefs without an citations. This is quite a leftists thing to argue.

The truth is, speicial interests hold considerable power and influence over governments. Special interests include corporate interests but also the interests of labor unions, enviornmentalists, and many non-profit groups as well as profit groups.

Any time a government has the ability to bend rules in favor of one group or another, all groups will seek advantage over others...whether they are leftist, or rightist, socialist, or capitalist. (68.97.49.51 04:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

Special interests
See: User talk:KDRGibby

Also
You might also want to see Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 05:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cuba POV tag
I didn't taged all Cuba article. Just the section present state of Cuban literature. I'm not an active editor of Cuba article, so I'm pretty out.

There have been being some edits that are a little pov and I didn't want to revert them.

Look: this version is completely npov: But, this other one, however:. Now, looking at the history, I see that you have reverted that edits just before I've put the POV tag. So, there's nothing wrong there and I've just deleted that tag.

Sorry for the incovenience.

By the way, is present state of ... literature the stantard section title? Would Cuban literature be better? José San Martin 13:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your idea of pov seems to be very special. Xx236 15:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Campbell drunk driving
I see that you're fixing up the Gordon Campbell section on his drunk driving incident. Perhaps it should include that he said "I will not drink again" in his public apology. 

Safe sex
I've had a look; and I'll jump back in, but I've got to work and then sleep, so it'll be tomorrow. I appreciate the work you're putting into the article, and your patience with the sometimes tortuous process of dialogue and consensus. We'll get a good version worked out (for some value of the word "good"); these things just sometimes take a few days. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship
If "Cuba" is legal Wikipedia article it means that Wikipedia has moral problems. I believe that Ten Commandements are more important than Wikipedia rules. May I know is your life experience to teach me what is wrong and what is good? I'm probbaly twice or 3 times older than you, and have seen results of many local rules and censorships. Xx236 10:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The police La Seguridad del Estado supports the system
What right have you got to remove the sentence? Do you know that the police doesn't exist in Cuba? What is your source? http://www.marporcuba.org/Crimenes/VictimasFemeninas.htm Is this source O.K. for you? Xx236 11:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User talk:Xx236 -- Colle | [[Image:NDPleaf.gif]] |  Talk -- 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
Saving the tourists or isolating the tourists from local people? Has really something changed since 2002 http://69.13.31.116/cooperativa/y02/n01280201.html Xx236 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Colle,

Just a quick note to say thanks very much for your support of my RfA. It is really encouraging to see people understand and associate with the sentiments I expressed, and your comments ini other areas almost perfectly reflect my own. Hopefully more people will think like you do!

Regarding the image in my sig, it has been brought to my attention that it violate WP:SIG and so it has to be removed. However, your sentiments of support were greatly appreciated.

Regards, DJR (Talk) 14:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck!-- Colle | [[Image:NDPleaf.gif]] |  Talk -- 04:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Virginity Pledges
2.5 million people Chooserr 20:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive revert
Yes, you're right about that one. I was looking at the edit summary of the previous user and not the text. Although I don't understand how it can use "under-age structured homosexuality as an outlet". Chooserr 20:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not involved in that article.-- Colle | [[Image:NDPleaf.gif]] |  Talk -- 20:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

contact by email
Not really, just ask nicely :) ed g2s &bull; talk 21:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV facts
Sorry if I was trying to be NPOV - want me to take a direct quote from that site and past it on the Abortion page, because I will. Chooserr 01:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

BigBear on Abortion
Those aren't BigBear's edits. BigBear is a troll, obviously reverting to an old version of his vandalism under another sockpuppet, instead of just readding his old stuff to the current version. Now we have to mop up the mess in addition to dealing with the trolling. -Kyd 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Refer to the sockpuppet warning at BigBear's user page. He is, apparently, User:Jason Gastrich who has been stirring up trouble on various articles using a number of puppet accounts. JasonG044, Gastrich81965, and Wiki4Christ are just the ones he's used to make the "fetus/embryo" -> "human being" edit on Abortion over the past two or three days. -Kyd 04:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. No problem. :) -Kyd 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr and vandalism
Hi, Colle. I made my request on the grounds that Chooserr was blocked for making four reverts to an article, when in fact he only made three. I could unblock him myself, but don't want to undermine the blocking admin, who has always treated Chooserr with kindness and fairness. Chooserr may be a POV warrior, but he is certainly not a vandal, and calling his edits vandalism in your edit summaries probably increases his frustration, and gets him more excited and more into an edit-warring mood. It's also rather unkind and uncivil. Please don't use that word in edit summaries unless it fits the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Basically, if you can't justify reporting an edit here, don't use "vandalism" in the edit summary. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal

 * I am sorry, but your opinion that you feel reality is somehow "tabloid" isn't a reasonable objection. Every period and comma in the article is backed up by reputable sources. Specifically, the quote you mention comes from the non-partisian Nuclear Threat Initiative organization that is co-chaired by Ted Turner and Sam Nunn. Also, your comment about hype is a falsehood and I dare you to cite an example. The article is very constrained. Lastly, regarding your criticism about the article not mentioning China's entry into the WTO: So what? The article also does not mention sugar causes tooth decay . They are both completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Something tells me it is the subject matter alone that makes you uncomfortable. Regards, --Jayzel 07:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps amor.png|55px]] I'll talk about the article on the appropriate page, but we can chat about what makes me uncomfortable here, if you like.-- Colle  | [[Image:NDPleaf.gif]] |  Talk  -- 07:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed all the "american jargon" and cut the quote to remove the offending "military industrial complex." The focus on the scandal players remains. To remove them would be like discussing Iran-Contra without mentioning Ollie North and John Poindexter or discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict without mentioning Yasser Arafat or Yitzak Rabin. Regards, --Jayzel 14:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Noncommercial only licenses
No, there are no exceptions. The only thing you can do if you want to keep the image is flag it as fair use. See Image copyright tags and try to find an appropriate fair use tag. This, however, will disqualify it from ever becoming a featured photograph.--Eloquence* 08:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Martini.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Martini.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 there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading 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, consider checking 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Central District of Pyongyang.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Central District of Pyongyang.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. - SCEhard T 05:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)