User talk:Sherzo/Archive 1

National Student Television Association
Hi there - you made a comment on the NaSTA talk page, which I'm trying to work on at the moment. Any feedback from someone who isn't involved in NaSTA would be great, as it's hard to write a NPOV article about something you're quite involved in. Specifically, I'd really appreciate pointers to sections that sound too biased. Cheers! Tomisaac 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to redirect pages
You have retargeted several TV pages to National Student Television Association. Removing legitimate redirects is regarded as vandalism. If you consider that an additional redirect is justified then please create a disambiguation page. Further, unless there is a good reason new redirects should not be added to the top of a list. TerriersFan 17:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

World War Z
Thanks, but it was on my watchlist anyway. --McGeddon 10:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. What a douchebag this guy is. -Grahamdubya 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

NaSTA TV Station Redirects
You have redirected several student TV pages to the National Student Television Association article. Could you please also merge the information in them to the National Student Television Association article as these stations were kept after nominations for deletion, therefore must contain important and noteworthy information which should not be lost. 66.249.66.10 21:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't know if it is appropriate to 'second' the comment above here, but I'd like to do so - more specifically, redirecting GUST I felt was not correct, as it has been kept from AFD and contained information not found on the NaSTA page.Tomisaac 18:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to the GUST page, it looks like there's an edit war starting here and I'd really like to stop it. I've not re-instated the page, but can we just have a calm discussion about it's merits before deleting it? Thanks. I'll see you on the GUST discussion page. JMalky 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting entries
The London School of Economics Students' Union Media Group has 3 main bodies, including The Beaver (student newspaper), PuLSEfm (radio station) and LooSE TV. I do not see the logic of allowing the other two bodies preserve their entries, while LooSE TV is not allowed to. The amount of exposure LooSE TV has on campus is as significant as the other two bodies and in fact, LooSE TV has far more viewership than the listenership of PuLSE fm. Going by this indicator, it is clear that LooSE TV is at least as significant as the Beaver and PuLSE fm, if not more well-known and accepted.

I therefore find it unfair that such arbitrary deletion of the LooSE TV entry is being carried out, and rather disappointingly, my contributions have been described as unconstructive.

Notability can be established by secondary sources, to my knowledge. The following are school publications; secondary source references to LooSE TV. LooSE TV is not part of the LSE, but is part of the LSE Students' Union, and thus school publications qualify as a non-primary source.

see page 3 http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/studentRecruitment/sturecpdfs/focus_newsletter_2.pdf

see page 2 http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEAnnualFund/pdf/Donor%20Report%202006.pdf

LooSE TV does not belong to the LSE. i cannot reiterate this fact any more clearly. we are not accountable to the school, and the school has no editorial, fiscal or logistical control over the network. we are a part of the students' union. there is a difference. just as trade unions are not responsible directly to the corporations its members work for.

Wongch2 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

first thats a strawman argument particular since a student's unions are very different from trade unions, second both the links you provide are on an Lse.ac.uk page, the LSE domain name is for the london school of economic as you a club of the LSE thus it is a self refering reference. further if you do a google check you only get about 2 hits outside of wikipedia that is a clear sign it is not notable, and there is more than sufficient representation on the Nasta page. Sherzo 09:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

from wikipedia,

Many students' unions are run by students for students, independent of the educational facility. The purpose of the organization is to represent students' views within the facility and sometimes on local and national issues (however, this is generally only in Universities). It is also responsible for providing a variety of services to students. Students can get involved in its management, through numerous and varied committees, councils and general meetings, or become one of its elected officers.

''A trade union or labor union is "a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment."[1] ''Over the last three hundred years, trade unions have developed into a number of forms, influenced by differing political and economic regimes. The immediate objectives and activities of trade unions vary, but may include:

''Provision of benefits to members: Early trade unions, like Friendly Societies, often provided a range of benefits to insure members against unemployment, ill health, old age and funeral expenses. In many developed countries, these functions have been assumed by the state; however, the provision of professional training, legal advice and representation for members is still an important benefit of trade union membership.

''Collective bargaining: Where trade unions are able to operate openly and are recognised by employers, they may negotiate with employers over wages and working conditions.

'Industrial action: Trade unions may organize strikes or resistance to lockouts in furtherance of particular goals.''

''Political activity: Trade unions may promote legislation favorable to the interests of their members or workers as a whole. To this end they may pursue campaigns, undertake lobbying, or financially support individual candidates or parties (such as the Labour Party in Britain) for public office.''

The activities of a students' union is essentially the same as a trade union, both campaign for rights of its members against institutions which have direct impact on their lives, be it the school, or the industry bigwigs, or the government for both students' unions and trade unions.

students' unions in the UK for instance have organised demonstrations on the national level against top-up fees, which a national higher education issue, a decision made by the British govt. how different is this from say the miners' strike? apart from the fact that people didn't riot and die this time round.

can you clarify the differences which you see in them? i do not see that much.

once again LooSE TV is part of the LSESU and has no direct relation to the school itself. that is a fact, both in practical and legal terms. if LooSE TV were to violate copyright laws for instance, it is the LSE SU that gets hit by lawsuits, not the LSE. Wongch2 13:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

first it is offensive to compare a trade union which protects the rights of often vunerable workers to what is little more than a glorified social club. second i don't know of many unions that are funded or even specifically tied to one corporation. the difference between a protest and strike one is political and one economic are huge, and that a student of the London School of Economics is unable to grasp these is shocking perhaps English university are not truly of the calibur you claim. Sherzo 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

lol. for some one that insists civility in discussion with others, you sure switch faces really quickly. i'm so sure many of the workers in trade unions are very vulnerable. Airline pilots? University teachers? People who earn WAY above the living wage, have cushy jobs, and still want more money. And how did they do it? Trade unions. perhaps you need to read up more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3507137.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6690711.stm

Students' Unions fight for student rights, and in the LSE, even for staff rights. campaigned for school cleaners and security guards to have their pay raised to the minimum wage as stipulated by London city council. the campaign, if you would like to know, was successful.

Isn't higher education an important political issue? it was in fact a salient issue in campaign manifestos for Labour. pledging not to raise costs of higher education, a promise that was reneged upon. if you think higher education has no impact on the economy, maybe you do need to go to school more. unless of course, you believe that making sure certain privileged few should have the recourse to demand for greater pay, while students should consigned to the bin, suffering under greater education costs, incurring larger debts even before entering the workforce, students of good ability and skill denied education simply because they cant afford it, denying social mobility due to economic factors, allowing only the rich to attain higher education and maintaining this vicious cycle.

you perhaps should realise aswell that students fight for their own rights as well as those of others and organise these campaigns for no renumeration. maybe you've never been to the UK. maybe you've never been to university, or maybe your university students' union don't do anything useful but organise parties. but to think so arrogantly and slap this label on all the rest is extremely unfair to say the least. Wongch2 08:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

i find it funny that middle class student wants to talk about privilege, perhaps you should visit the poorer areas of london, or New york or La or any western city and see an intercity school then talk about how tough you have it. Particularly since british university system is famous for maintaining privilege and class, from what i understand from my British friends is that your "protest" are about being asked to pay your fair share instead you rather blue collar workers bear the tax burden for your "education". as for comparing them to trade unions you should be ashamed, Farm Labor Organizing Committee is a trade union what you have is a social club union reps donate there time and energy for free to protect workers right against companies whos sole concern is profit, a university cares for its students they offer scholarships grants etc. your arguments are frankly laughable. Sherzo 05:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

you presume a lot dude. you think you've seen everything and i haven't? my total family income is less than £1000 a month for a family of 5. you think i don't know anything about being poor and having to balance budgets and live cheap and manage a degree? perhaps your university does sit around and party all day and night. over here, we campaign. it may be pissing into the wind, but its better than pissing your pants after a drunk night out. we may not make a difference to the world, but we have made the difference to underpaid cleaners on campus. this is just abt the most socialist students union you could ask for. social club? u mean socialist. you seem to be a frog in your own well. do find out more about how things work here before you make such comments. simply because you have british friends doesn't make you omniscient about the UK. u can continue assert the worthlessness of student causes simply because you are no longer one. maybe one day when u have your own children going into uni, when the govt spends all their $$$ on trident, iraq and other neo-con nonsense and asks for more fees to pay for your children's education, you will feel it.

why should the govt support students you can join military and get free that way if your willing to do some hard work, or you can take out loans and pay them make when your earning, why for instant should the cleaners you apparantly champion pay taxes to support your care free life of riley Sherzo 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

oh right. so if i'm not mistaken, you are a neo-conservative who believes in unjustified armed aggression and spending money on killing rather than educating? i once thought the objective of govt is the promotion and protection of the general welfare for its citizens. i do believe investing in higher education and making the workforce more skilled and tech-savvy, and thereby making the country more competitive and economically viable, is probably a better idea than to invest in replacing SLBMs and ICBMs (UK and Russia), funding a clearly unjustified war (god bless america), investing in impractical armaments like the Virginia class SSNs and more Nimitz class carriers. which is more socially equitable? which generates more utility for society in general? unfortunately, these govts so wisely decided that maintaining Western hegemony is a lot more important than improving society. Wongch2 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So because i served my country for my education i'm automatically a Neo Con? when did i mention war at all? you and your sockpuppets really do enjoy building those strawmen. Second the defense industry is both the US and the UK biggest industry creating millions of jobs, billions of dollars and countless scientific breakthroughs, The UK and US were both at their scientific and production zenith in WW2. perhaps if you read Keynes you'd understand that such investment help maintain and expand a economic but then i imagine given how often he throughly defeated th LSE his name is somewhat of a taboo. I also chuckle at the idea that someone from the LSE the home of Neo Conversatism, could be throwing that sort of insult about, but the more and more i respond to the less and less respect i have for that institution intelluctual standards. But at last your true colors, you consider people without an education less valuable than yourself, anything as long as you can maintain your personal privilege but i could i expect anything less from a country were the people are expected to economically support the rich and were your opportunities in life aren't according to your own merit but based on who your parents were.

and as for western hegemony i'd rather live under them than socialist utopia's of the Soviet Union, i'd rather be free than fed, but the soviets couldn't even manage that. Western Hegemony as been the greatest stalwart against Tyranny the world has ever know so perhaps you should try learning some history, i suggest you start with the 1940s there was this great British Prime Minister called Winston S Churchill why don't you read about him. as for Nuclear weapons nuclear weapons kept your contient the bloodiest in human history at peace for the longest time in its history so perhaps you should be thanking them instead of cursing them. Sherzo 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

lol. winston churchill? i suppose u get a hard on with Maggie and Condoleeza Rice. did you know the allies lost 250,000 men at gallipoli thanks to him and his harebrained schemes? western hegemony the bulwark against tyranny? HAHAHAHAHAHA. here you go. and you wonder why Iran and North Korea want nukes, why China likes to mess around with the US so much. dude. that was easily the most neo-con thing i've heard in a long time. maybe you shud read Huntington. Clash of Civilisations.

nuclear weapons kept the peace? what a joke. dont spout cold war nonsense which u think u understand so much. from 1945 to 1991, 143 different wars of various intensities took place. i guess you thought it was really peaceful becoz NONE of it took place in your homeland. oh wait didn't the Cuban Missile Crisis scare the shit out the US in 62? i guess i really must love nukes for making generations of people live in fear, watching PSAs telling them to take cover and grab shelter, stock food etc. oh now i get it, as long as you don't see it happening in your face, its not a war. no wonder you could happily ignore Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Falklands, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, South Africa, Argentina, Columbia, Iran, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Malaya, Indonesia, China...i guess it was all peaceful and peachy. if you could ingnore ALL that, no wonder you guys can ignore Rwanda and Darfur.

lol. LSE home of neo-cons? lol. now the truth ignorance has revealed itself...do u even noe what the word Fabian means? i suggest you go check it up. lol. i didn't know asking the govt to help the people who are denied access to education is being condescending to them. lol. i love how u twist people's arguments to give yourself kathartic boost. so i guess you never donated money to any charities. since you think by doing so it is insulting to them? asking the govt to spend on one less ICBM and making tertiary education more accessible to all in the population apparently is too much to ask.

so i suppose you must worship the 2nd amendment as well. nuclear weapons, wars, guns...they sound like your thing. dude. i've spent two years of my life performing national service, i've frends who died in the process (i never said i was british). i dont resent the system, i know its our job to defend our country ourselves. but i know asking your men to put their lives on the line, when there is no clear and present danger to anyone they have sworned to protect and defend, and only to fulfil the agenda of the military-industrial complex and neo-con leaders who think nothing but filling their own pockets, is the most reprehensible thing you can ever do. you know what, if you actually took a minute to read what you just wrote, you sound more neo-con than even the likes of Wolfowitz, Bolton, Armitage and gang. Wongch2 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

god you love those strawmen you should be called strawmanWong. i never said you were conscending so either your reading comprehension is so poor or you just stupid, i said you expect others to pay for your privilege what is the exact problem with paying your own way? why is it so desperately important rather than increasing money for schools in the poor areas that prince william gets a free university education

as for being a neo con? this idea that being proud to have served your country makes you a right wing nut job? what exactly have i stated that i am a neo con? Churchill FDR and JFk were all liberals, or are you the sort of moron who thinks we should treat tyrants and dictators like the equal of presidents and prime ministers? sounds like your just a coward, perhaps you should remember what that Edmund Burke once said all Evil needs to florish is for good men to do nothing. But then it sounds like your more of the appeasing camp.

Perhaps you should learn some history of the institution you so love, Hayek famed lecturer of the LSE and rival of Keynes is the architect of reaganomics and thatchism. oh so the fabian society is now a product of the LSE is there anything you don't want to take credit for on the LSE behalf? perhaps next you'd like to claim Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha were all graduates.

not a single war in europe since the invention of nuclear weapons, not a single world war since there invention, because no sane man would ever use them, the cost is too high.

i like the way you flirt off to divert the issue, what exactly the 2nd ammendment has to do with anything, but as you ask no i'm not fan i don't think there's any need for guns in civilian life, except for some parts of the west and northern canada for hunting but there is no jusification for owning a gun in a city.

but on the matter of rights i love my first ammendments rights, when do you think you'll be getting those in england? Sherzo 07:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'''nuclear weapons kept the peace? what a joke. dont spout cold war nonsense which u think u understand so much. from 1945 to 1991, 143 different wars of various intensities took place. i guess you thought it was really peaceful becoz NONE of it took place in your homeland. oh wait didn't the Cuban Missile Crisis scare the shit out the US in 62? i guess i really must love nukes for making generations of people live in fear, watching PSAs telling them to take cover and grab shelter, stock food etc. oh now i get it, as long as you don't see it happening in your face, its not a war. no wonder you could happily ignore Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Falklands, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, South Africa, Argentina, Columbia, Iran, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Malaya, Indonesia, China...i guess it was all peaceful and peachy. if you could ignore ALL that, no wonder you guys can ignore Rwanda and Darfur.'''

such is the arrogance of Americans. not on my turf, not my problem. i was wondered how people can actually deny the Holocaust. now i understand. since people like you can so easily sweep 143 wars under the rug, and say it was peaceful because there was no WORLD WAR or European war, it's probably not that difficult to claim 6 millions jews never died, even we all know how ridiculous holocaust deniers are. such Western-centrism. such arrogance, to believe the world was saved from a 3rd world war by the good grace of the USA and its ridiculously massive nuclear arsenal. for you info, the cuban missile crisis was partly the US fault for so gleefully building nukes and generating a missile gap of 180 ICBMs to just 20 Soviet ICBMs in 1962. and you wonder why they wanted to put nukes in Cuba. and thanks so much to Clinton and his Presidential Decision Directive 25. costs 800,000 Tutsi lives. but i guess who cares huh? its not Americans dying anyway.

let me tell u what was neo-con. not a single war in europe since the invention of nuclear weapons, not a single world war since there invention, because no sane man would ever use them, the cost is too high. this very insightful statement of yours. exactly the sentiment of people like john foster dulles. no wars that we cant handle = peace. having people in various parts of the world killing themselves so we Americans don't have to fight as much with American lives and at the same time claim the moral highground in the Cold War battle of ideologies and maintain economic dominance = peace.

i never said we shouldn't pay for education. did i ever say that? i simply reject the idea that the govt shud choose to spend 25 billion on replacing trident, yet at the same time say students need to pay more because the govt has no money to keep fees at the present level. indeed, higher education is largely accessible to middle class families. but isn't that exactly my point, that there is a problem? to raise fees, doesn't it mean you exclude more people from higher education? universities are not filthy rich, unless you are cambridge and oxford with millions in endowments, and probably can afford to hand out plenty of scholarships and grants. but the lesser lights cant afford that. it is logical? we should kill more, educate less? shouldn't the money go to keeping student fees at a reasonable level, and at the same time spend more for financial aid and grants to bring in the working class kids? isn't that more utilitarian and more beneficial for general social welfare? i can see how 25 billion can be better spent on education than replacing a nuclear deterrent which is decidedly superflous. indeed, nuclear disarmament is probably impossible. even if the UK and US disarm, iran and NK will still want them. but still, 25 billion? and that was just a modest estimate. replacing the SSBNs could raise the cost to 70Bn.

by the way, the LSE is the product of the Fabian Society, not the other way round. have you heard of Amartya Sen? development economics? anyway, when Churchill became PM for the first time in 1940, he was not an elected PM, and he was a Tory. he led the losing Conservative Party in the 1945 elections as well. when he became PM in 1951, he was elected as Conservative leader. he was a liberal only in the early stages of his career, and certainly he is not considered great for being a liberal. also, the quote you attribute to Edmund Burke is a mis-attribution. he never actually said that. it is a statement people have come to think of as Burke's. just like Louis XIV never actually said "L'etat ces moi."

oh i suppose you are so qualified to judge the appeasers as weak. let me tell you something, they did their job they way they saw it best. when Neville Chamberlain came back from Munich, the UK was DELIRIOUS. they were so happy they didn't have to fight, or so they thought. now it turned out to be not that great an idea, we stab them in the back when we ourselves were so supportive. When FDR wished to aid Britain in 1940, guess what? no a single American soul was willing to gp to war. all couldn't be asked to lend a hand in the fight against "EVIL". only when 2,400 men get killed by the Japanese, did US decide hey maybe we shud go kick hitler's arse... land of the brave and home of the free? yes by all means, only if we get some our kids killed first. the europeans can die for all we care. it's always easy to judge with hindsight. such arrogance. since you are fond of judging, why not judge what Clinton and Albright did about Rwanda? Such hideous use of semantics to evade the term genocide. when the US went into Moghadishu, they lost 19 men and bugged out. too much. but hey, they killed hundreds if not thousands of Somalis, left the place in a mess and buggered off without consequence. How about Darfur now? what will Bush do? its ok to send troops to fight for oil, for "justice" and "liberty", but not a great idea to help innocents in Darfur.

i'd prefer not to have 1st amendment rights if it means Bush and gang can spout all the propaganda they want without consequence, while 8 US Attorneys get fired for stepping out of line. if it means a conservative religious joke that is Frosty Harrison can become world news for wanting schools to present 2 sides of the climate change story - Gore's side and the Bible's side, i'd rather not. we get on fine here. BBC suffered none for the worst despite reporting Ministry of Defence reports from Falklands as if they were propaganda. now that is objectivity. still get tabloid nonsense from Daily Mail and etc, but at least i don't get brainwashed by Fox. Wongch2 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You twist facts quite alot is that what they teach you? there is no evidence anymore that Burke said it other than its historic connection which is more evidence than to the contrary is not to call it mis-attributed. Also no Prime Minister is elected only MPs how then choose the government its due to the way the british system evolved rather than established. But since that is quite clearly Godwins the holocaust? your acusing me of denying the Holocaust. Sherzo 18:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

oh yes. i actually forgot something so obvious. you can eat your words about no European wars since nuclear weapons were invented, unless you either regard Yugoslavia as non-Europe or the Bosnian War as merely a civil disturbance. Wongch2 18:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

oh dear, an editor deleting a line from the discussion!!! censorship!!! go read up on edmund burke carefully. please get your facts straight before passing off misconceptions as facts. Prime Ministers are elected as MPs, and are appointed in practice by the British Monarch. i do know that thank you very much. the essence of my point is, Churchill is a Tory. I did not say u denied the Holocaust. Please read carefully. I compared your denial of the existence of wars going on during the Cold War era as a denial as ridiculous as Holocaust denial. Wongch2 18:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i believe one is not supposed to tamper with the posts unless it is mutually agreed upon that it is no longer needed and can be deleted, am i right? can i ask what you are trying to do by deleting posts? Wongch2 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm simple restoring your constant revisions at it to the end, i could reply to all your moronic arguments, but i suggest you look up godwins law you pathetic idiot Sherzo 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

godwin's law or not, your statement on nuclear weapons still does not stand. i'm eager to see how you retort. can you justify your statement that nuclear weapons kept the peace? Wongch2 19:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

in any case, 143 wars in 46 years, and the wars in the years after the cold war, several of them involving genocides and large scale crimes against humanity (Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay) is probably a viable comparison to the Holocaust. and godwin's law applies to hyperbolic comparisons. i do not think comparing denial of the holocaust, to the denial of so many various conflicts (involving so many ethnic-motivated killings, gross violations of human rights) in the world, especially the Bosnian War which involved ethnic cleansing, is terribly inappropriate. since your statement implicitly ignored the Bosnian War (no wars in Europe since nuclear weapons were invented), there is an implied denial of ethnic cleansing. Wongch2 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

also, back to the point abt student fees. how unjustified am i in asking the govt to spend less on nuclear arms in order to spend more money on education? i already stated clearly, i'm not asking for free education. paying for education is reasonble. Wongch2 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

and one more thing, your assertion that appeasement is cowardice. can you defend that? quite clearly the appeasement attitude was the logical, pragmatic, although ultimately wrong decision. but cowardice? that is an extremely irresponsible claim to make. Wongch2 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

notability???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29

there is no sign of this notability for TV stations which you claim exists. please enlighten me.

Susoctv 06:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Susoctv

Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios.

LooSE TV is a student television network. it is not a licensed commercial network. i believe there is a distinction to be drawn here.

Susoctv 12:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

precisely its non-notable i'm glad reasoned debate has won out this one. Sherzo 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

reasoned debate? calling it a victory when the debate has yet to begin is one surefire way of winning it seems. Susoctv 08:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

students' union
i see a personal vandetta developing here. from LooSE TV to the LSE SU. what next? the students' unions of England? Wales? Scotland? The entire UK? THE US??? THE ENTIRE WORLD???

just what won't you delete?

if you havent realised, a students' union is a major part of university life. every graduate has spent 3-4 or even more years of their lifes in one. a decent sized uni would have say...at least 10,000 students at any one given time? given a history of maybe 50 years, you are talking abt 165000 students. most major universities have been around for at least a hundred.

and for your information, the LSE SU was major headline news several times in 1960s. student riots led by LSE students. school closure due to student sit-in. police called in to disperse students. look it up on BBC if you will. it is still there on the archives. perhaps you are not from the UK, but as your guidelines say, notability can be specific to a country or region.

158.143.229.222 07:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First i would remind you to remember to assume good faith as i will do with, you. and of civility. i would also ask you to create an account as this ip leads back to the LSE you could be accused of sockpuppetry.

second your assertion or estimations make it no more valid. there is no inherented notability, at most it would deserve a mention on the university page not its own forked article.

If however it has been notable then PROVE IT cite sources if you feel its notable provide the sources that back it up don't ask others to do it for you. I could say chicago university was the site of the first atomic pile or that Ithaca is the best school for partying but without a source niether can even be considered for entry. Sherzo 09:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/27/newsid_2506000/2506255.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/24/newsid_2506000/2506485.stm

http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/4427

http://asteria.fivecolleges.edu/findaids/amherst/ma1.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4832402-111231,00.html

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/campaigns/student.html

it has been notable enough to become named in a display in the National Portrait Gallery in London as an icon of the UK in the 1960s.

158.143.229.222 12:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They make the university notable not its student social club, they're students of the university just like students of seattle university that protest during the G8, and even if every member of the debate team that year rioted it wouldn't make the debate team notable Sherzo 01:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

lol i read your argument with great amusement. i suppose you think student protests come out from nowhere? some one just said "hey let's go protest. let's go demonstrate", and suddenly 2000 students drop their books and step into the streets? don't you realise some so big needs to be organised? needs to be coordinated? needs to be led? the students' union organised it. the students' union president led it. the decision to do a sit-in was voted on in the Union General Meeting, and the decision to stop the protest was done in the same way. Everything that was done was carried out using the institutions of the Students' Union.

i guess some people will never understand how things work until they have seen it for themselves.

Marshalapplewhite 08:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do enjoy your rather comically proposition that there organised by committee. Sherzo 04:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. i hereby invite you to come down to the LSE library archives and have a look at the newspapers and documents with YOUR OWN EYES. until you do so, perhaps you should learn to shut up about things you have no idea what you are talking abt. if not, go on and live in the blissful belief that you understand how things in the entire world work from your little PC or MAC or wateva, simply because u edit wikipedia. Marshalapplewhite 08:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

what a great argument, shut because i know better, simple because you have niether evidence and simple trying to self agrandize your own importance and leech off the achievement of others sounds like typical british upper class. Sherzo 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

deus ex machina. what a godsend. something to shut this ignorant guy's yapping mouth. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6299579.stm

i refer you to this part of the article.

''The student union has a tumultuous history, dating back to the 1960s. Demonstrations, sit-ins and hunger strikes were held in 1967 in protest at the appointment of Walter Adams as LSE director. When security gates were installed in 1969 inside the school, the students went on the rampage, pulling them down.''

and IN FACT, an BBC article ALREADY REFERENCED in the LSE SU entry has this paragraph in it. i only noticed it just now when i updated the page. well done me. which also means you did not verify the entry's references before challenging its notability. well done, mr know-it-all editor. is this how you do things around here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/january/24/newsid_2639000/2639609.stm

''A student union meeting took place and we debated what to do about it. There was a very vociferous, strong and well-articulated opinion that the gates should be just removed.'' ''A motion to negotiate with the school was attempted. That was defeated and then some people went out and took them down.''

satisfied? did the protests occur just because willy wonka snapped his fingers? or was it organised by the students' union? or is the BBC not good enough for you? indeed Bush House is right across the street from the LSE, but i'm pretty sure its editorially independent of the LSE Students' Union. i wish i could leech off this wonderous achievement like you accuse. i guess simply trying to assert the right thing to someone who thinks he knows everything is self-aggrandising to some people. i guess i probably come across as a loud and irritable dude who cant wait to stand on the shoulder of giants. if only...if only... Marshalapplewhite 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this as simple its not encyclopedic Dr Appa is giving a personal opinion its is not as you tried repeatedly to mislead the BBC making an NPOV report. a quick google check shows no other contributory evidence for your claims. Mr Appa could be just like you trying desperately to raise your own importance, but as even he says "So a protest started, and in the late 1960s all sorts of other things were going on - Vietnam protests, French students protesting and so on." do you think those were organised? just because the student union had a talking shop after the event, it reminds me of the story of the french radical who see the crowd rushing by, "there go my people, i must find out were they are going is i can lead them" Sherzo 04:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

even if you can accuse that particular article of potentially being biased, the first one is a feature article by the BBC. no affiliation to the LSE SU. the point is, the protests were organised by the Students' Union, it has been stated by a credible non-LSE source and short of asking you to come down to the school and looking at primary evidence with your own eyes, there is not much else i can do. the fact still remains a fact, i've already proven it as far as secondary evidence goes. you prefer to check google for facts and not use reliable news sources? what has wikipedia come to?

i cant believe you can actually think that protests are not organised in any form. have you actually studied history? heard of the Algerian war of independence? the setif and guelma massacres? the Dec 1960 riots in Algiers? the 17 Oct 1961 Paris Massacre? heard of the civils rights movement in the US? you didn't really think the millions that stood before MLK in 1963 all simply turned up at the spur of the moment did you. student riots in Paris? Algiers? Heard of the Malayan Emergency? student riots, trade union strikes in Singapore? Malaya? Indonesia? All, without exception, were organised by groups operating behind the scenes - communist parties, socialist radical groups, liberation fronts, student bodies, trade unions, underground groups. on the surface, they appear like popular uprisings, at the spur of the moment. but the truth is they are all orchestrated to various extents. even the Rwandan genocide, it didn't happen as a spontaneous outburst of anger dude. meticulously orchestrated by the Rwandan govt, who used the mass media, military and militia to great effect in spreading the killings. Marshalapplewhite 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

is this issue finished then? Marshalapplewhite 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wongch2
why respond with some many different accounts whats the point Sherzo 04:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

lsesu
is the issue settled? Marshalapplewhite 06:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I told you i'm not willing to continue talking to you, accusing people of holocaust denial simple because they have a different opinion is not acceptable. take you nonsense somewhere else Sherzo 07:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

what? that is very impartial and objective behaviour to associate two different debates together. bravo. if you can't defend your points against someone else, tell him. if you do not wish to pursue this LSESU issue anymore, say so. stop being a pussy. Marshalapplewhite 07:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

oh and i've read that incredible debate with great interest. he didn't accuse u of holocaust denial. like he said, he is saying that your denial of post-1945 conflicts in the rest of the world and in Europe is just as valid as the denial of the holocaust. if you can't see that, maybe you need some english lessons? Marshalapplewhite 07:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

hmm unless your logic processes see things like this? saying your style of playing football is the same as Tom Brady's style of football = you are Tom Brady. unfortunately, we all know thats not very logical. which is exactly what you are doing. he said you deny post-1945 conflicts in Europe just as ridiculously and irresponsibly as how Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust. Does that mean you are a holocaust denier? no. i think you are just pissed off and out of any decent rebuttals. if he had said, maybe instead of the holocaust, the Moon landing deniers...like Bill Kaysing. would you still be so petulant abt it? Marshalapplewhite 08:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe if my grandfather had been Neil Armstrong instead of a Holocaust survivor i would. Sherzo 08:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

also i suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry and godwin's law Sherzo 08:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

lol. it has come to this sort of shameless withdrawal. what if i had said this. "I think your suggestion that nuclear weapons kept the peace after WW2 and that there was no world war and no european war, therefore there was peace from nuclear weapons, and thus implying events like Greek/Turkish skirmishes, Bosnian War, Chechnya, Prague Spring, 1961 Berlin Crisis all never took place, is very offensive, and therefore i do not wish to reply and ask you to take your nonsense somewhere else."

if i had said stuff like that, i'm sure you won't be the least bit amused. but that is exactly what you have done. i do think for you to say nuclear weapons kept world and european peace is wrong, and arrogant at the same time, since it implies many terrible localised wars are not important enough to you to be considered as wars. it is reprehensible. the ridiculousness of this denial deserves comparison to the ridiculousness of denying the holocaust. godwin's law does not apply here. i do know it, and stop using it to weasel your way out of this. and for the last time, i NEVER said you deny the holocaust. Wongch2 09:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

even if your grandfather was a holocaust survivor doesnt mean your assertion that the you are accused of being a holocaust denier is any valid. your logic still doesnt stand.

is the LSE SU debate closed now? Marshalapplewhite 10:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

read godwin's it essential means your trivalising of the holocaust, means you and all your sock puppets lost just as Hayek lost to Keynes Sherzo 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

HEAR! HEAR! trivialising the holocaust????????????????????????????

DUDE YOU TRIVIALISED BOSNIA, CHECHNYA, RWANDA, BURUNDI AND SO MANY MORE WARS THAT I CANT EVEN BEGIN TO LIST, AND YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY I TRIVIALISED THE HOLOCAUST?????????????????????? SUCH ARROGANCE. IT IS BECAUSE OF PPL WHO THINK LIKE THAT, MORE ATROCIOUS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ARE ALLOWED TO BE PERPETRATED UNDER THE NOSES OF THE INT'L COMMUNITY.

or worse, are u suggesting that lives of European Jews who died are of greater worth than those in sub-saharan africa, muslims in bosnia and chechnya, common citizens in latin america? other wise, how is comparing the scale of the holocaust to over 50 years of crimes against humanity trivialisation? are you such a arrogant western-centric?

whatever. you need to find a way to admit you made a mistake and take it like a man. Wongch2 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I refer you again to godwin's, Sherzo 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

godwin is not a life-saver. this comparison is not out of context, it is not hyperbole, it is not done in jest. the holocaust is not being trivialised. you instead, by accusing me of that, are trivalising countless acts of genocide. godwin does not apply. so stop using that lame defence. Wongch2 16:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

i still await your responses to the other points. which you have so conveniently placed in archive. Wongch2 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

if i were really to become a dick with this godwin's law thing, the essence behind it is namecalling in a debate, without valid basis for doing so. which you yourself have already done several times. Wongch2 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Godwin law is to stop people trying to win arguments by using the moral high ground of the nazis and the holocaust, its consider a way of poor debaters to prop up there arguments, which ultimately leads to the lessening of the impact of these hideous crimes. as for courtesy i stop extending that at the point someone calls me a holocaust denier simple because i disagree with there view. so again i refer to godwins, which establish the use of such comparsion immediately ends the argument and the person who used such analogy lost the argument learn to deal with your lose i imagine losing is something your'll face often in life. Sherzo 02:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

lol. you've never been called a nazi, never been called a holocaust denier. so godwins doesnt apply. you can check the whole damn debate againt word for word, so stop using semantics to save your skin. Wongch2 05:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

in any case, all i see is a guy cowering naked when left with no viable retort behind godwin's law which barely even covers his toenails. this is not a 3 year old game which the first guy to say the 3rd Reich loses. the comparison is viable, unless you believe the only genocide to have EVER happened in the entire human history is the holocaust, which also means that you need to go read more to open your narrow mind. Wongch2 05:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

fact: you stated nuclear weapons made sure there was no world war, and no european war. a statement which is blatantly untrue. if there is a poor argument that is begging to win here, it is yours. Wongch2 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

ah...whenever out of ammo, call for backup. as ever the wise move. since i get no response to the contrary, i shall assume the LSE SU issue closed. Marshalapplewhite 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's is a rule to stop people overusing the holocaust and the nazis,you crossed the line so if i continued to debated with you despite your breach i would be encourage bad habits, but seriously do you think there is anything you can say that would aganised me into returning to the debate? are you a child or that immature? it worries me that you have nothing better to do with you time than post large rants on this page, to someone who is unwilling to engage with you. so i refer you once again to godwins

oh and BTW its spelt issueSherzo 08:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

i would like to hear why you think the BBC article is not a valid reference. you have no basis for claiming it is not, and would prefer to use google to verify facts, instead of a valid and credible news source. unless wikipedia has made a catastrophic turn towards such poor standards of verification of facts, i don't think the notability tag you placed is of any constructive purpose. Marshalapplewhite 10:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law stops people misusing the holocaust, which i did not do here. the fact that u think it was misused means you are belittling the many other acts of genocide, which you had so conveniently forgotten abt. Wongch2 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

you did but seriously why keep coming back here to post are you that egotisical? Sherzo 05:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

it's abt getting you to realise how narrow-minded you are. and accepting it. Wongch2 07:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply
See my reply on my talk page. JMalky 09:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Student Television
Did you put in a RfC on the GUST page? It's still just you and me arguing back and forth, I really think we need more voices in this debate. JMalky 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, sometimes it can take a little while, alternatively you could contact the guys who commented on the LooSE TV debate, user:AndyJones, user:Phish user:ohconfuscious.


 * That's a good idea. Some of those links seem to be broken though. I've contacted ohconfucius, tomisaac and Jayron32, who made some very level-headed contributions to the LUST debate. Hopefully we can get this sorted soon. JMalky 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've put both pages on my watchlist and I'll join in if I feel I can help. If in doubt, listing at RfC is always a good idea. AndyJones 12:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

reply
I only wondered what country you were from. Trust me, All will become clear.:)TorstenGuise 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC) well put!!TorstenGuise 23:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

MattNIan TV
Why do you remove it? Its a LEGAL, and WINNING station at the NaSTAS fully affiliated. Why?

First do not place a comment at the top place it under others, show some respect you are not autmatically the most important thing. second sign your comments with 4 ~ if you fail to do this in future i won't reply. Thirdly i didn't remove it check the edit history a Capone of Lesta removed it, fourthly i did remove mention from the non affliated section since there is no evidence you are a student tv station, rather than a couple of guys streaming from there flat, provide a source for your nasta membership. Sherzo 16:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sherzo, just to clear this up, given that Matt 'n' Ian TV and LooSE TV are affiliated NaSTA stations, perhaps they should be listed? The list of stations is kinda an all or nothing deal. Thanks. JMalky 17:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting a little silly. Could you please try to make edits which reflect the consensus? Edit wars=very bad. JMalky 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean adding information without sources, or else you have truth by consensus and suddenly the population of elephants in africa is exploding and Washington didn't own any slaves. I am more than aware of the negiative nature of edit wars and have left messages of both users talk pages.Sherzo 08:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

insisting on putting up out of date information when people who know what they are talking about tell you it is the case is silly. you said you from the military once. i believe there was a term i read from bob mason's book Chickenhawk describing people who act by the rules as if they were the words of God. i think they were called "chickenshit". in my time in the army (albeit a different army), we did things as long as they worked and achieved the objective. certain rules can be bent if the aim is achieved, unless of course in things which training safety is a paramount concern. however, this thing is not a matter of life and death, people don't die because we try to make a article the best it can be. if even in such a scenario you cant bend the rules for the best of the situation, you are indeed inflexible and acting counterproductively. Wongch2 08:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

again you are totally off topic, and reverting to personally attacks, provide a source, or better yet help develop the draft on Tominsaac user page. and try and remember this is an encyclopedia, and your own flat earth example works here those people claim to know what there talking about but because they lack reliable sources its not on the page.

as for the matter of calling me a "chickenshit" for not having an ends justify the means mentality, I'm glad i'm ecstastic to except such a label and i wish the current adminstration was more chickenshit and less "as long as they worked and achieved the objective" because then we wouldn't be torturing people. the ends never justify the means. Sherzo 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

dude. the ends you are talking about are not even ideal to begin with. neo-imperialism and expanding their already massive oil reserves and maintaining western hegemony wasn't my idea of the ideal end. with such an end in mind, are you even surprised that they are holding people in Gitmo without trial? invading Iraq in the first place?

what do you want for this article? i don't think it is any different from what i want. but your intransigience is illogical. your insistence on a source that is provided by NaSTA anyway, when members of NaSTA are giving you the same information is rather silly. your mark of credibility is hinged upon whether it is listed on a website. a website made by NaSTA members. thats the only difference. Wongch2 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a discussion about a war i didn't support with someone who's sole intention is wind me up, there is no circumstances where the ends justify the means.

I want the article to be sourced to the most recent reliable source, and i have done my best to do so, yes but niether of you are the spokesperson for that group, and wikipedia is not a primary source, as for credibility Jmalky has admitted he's may "overhype" things to keep them on wikipedia you are both a vandal and a sockpuppetmaster and the IP 217.147.240.180 has been blocked for vandalism and has been trace to MTV europe so is no doubt wiki lobbying as many major corporations now do. This is the problems with articles on the fringes of notability, but rather than spending your time continually critising me for being unable to find a more recent source why not find one yourself or better yet contribute to the draft article on Tominsaac page that is soon to replace the Nasta one Sherzo 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

the "reliable source" you speak of is no more reliable than what we have been trying to tell you. Wongch2 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

there is not one reliable source on any one topic, however it is more reliable than the assertation of private individuals such as your self, provide a source to back up your claims. I could assert i am a member of a Union or Mensa or Political party I am, but without a source there would not credible, you'd only have my word, so claiming you're are in a group when that group doesn't aknowledge as such doesn't make you a credible source at all, and certainly far from one on which material in an encyclopedia should be based Sherzo 07:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

POV?
What unreliable data? Mikel-Fikel 82

Award
Thanks for the award. Although it is very difficult for me to maintain NPOV, whenever someone challenges me, I have to try to think about how to present different sides and to settle disagreements without having an edit war. Fanra 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you show an amazing level of neutralitySherzo 10:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

World War Z
Hello, Sherzo. I thought you'd like to know that A Man In Black is back, and as per usual, singlehandedly demolishing the World War Z article. --Grahamdubya 17:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exeposé
I'd like to question your comment that This is no way notable and should be removed. You also added templates for no references or sources and a lack of notability. There are many student newspaper pages on Wikipedia: The Oxford Student, Cherwell, gair rhydd; to name but three from the student newspaper page. The article itself has 20 references - more in fact than the British Department of Health article, which has no template attached. CR7 14:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's notable because it's a newspaper read by 12,000 people. CR7 11:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of the 19 references, 8 are not related to the Guild or University and 4 are from the University. The 8 that are completely unrelated are reliable sources and verifiable. CR7 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Student TV
Don't even start. I don'y give a toss what you thin about student TV. Leave it alone, there's a good chap. 87.81.62.92 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GUST
I'm going to have to disagree with you here Sherzo on this one. I think there wasn't a consensus, with the exception that you were not in favor of the article as it wasn't notorious enough. It had already gone through an AFD debate where the ending decision was to keep it. On the merit you are giving this article, all student radio stations should be amalgamated into a similar single article. This is something that the original debate didn't even contemplate. In fact, by creating the new article, you have contradicted your own opinion that a single page for all Glasgow university media be created. The discussion was not ended, and I think that there should be more debate on this issue. I think that there will potentially be a rather large edit war here if something isn't said now. For the sake of an interim measure, could you replace the article, and link it to the new page you have created. I'm not saying this as an inclusionist either, I just feel that you have made a rather rash decision to end this debate.TorstenGuise 11:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have recreated the article and established an AFD discussion here in order for the correct procedures to be followed instead of your own unilateral actions. Let the majority decide on it's fate. TorstenGuise 20:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

British Student Television
Replaced references to the Republic of Ireland in preparation for title change. Sorry Sherzo, but i think you were a little premature in eradicating something that's actually relevant to the article and debate. TorstenGuise 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth are you obsessed with me adding content to this article, and wikipedia in general? I've been generating content here for a while. The most recent being a photograph of the tile mural at Manchester Victoria station. My beef is with the way you have continually tried to belittle me, and the other British editors currently involved in this debate, which I will remind you again is about the name of the article. You then attempted to slam the discussion by removing the references to Ireland. Why are you obsessed with the existing title? What issues do you have with the change to Student television in the United Kingdom & Ireland?

As far as my arrogant claim that anyone outside britain would be unable to comment on any aspect of British culture and that they are all automatically biased, my exact words were

Secondly, and a major sticking point for me in any debate on the use of language in wikipedia, is International editors not understanding the consequences of the use of certain phrases in creation or editing articles. I'm constantly baffled why international editors have the need to impress themselves on articles for the only reason that it doesn't fit their particular interpretation on the guidelines regarding notability, or what wikipedia is not. I understand that there is a wide range of interpretations from the hard core deletionist, to the hard core inclusionist. However. Editing an article that is removed from their national and influential sphere, not as it is their interest or expertease, but as a jobsworth for the rules, to me is becoming more and more unacceptable.

I was critisising the use of language, and inferring how international editors can offend nations by not understanding the consequences on how they word an article. There are still very sensitive tensions between the UK & RoI, something I don't think many countries could possibly understand. I was also critisising the editors that have interpreted the guidelines as legal requirements, and go round editing articles with that idium, without regard to the consequenses of their actions.

I never said you owned wikipedia, I said Sherzo began to enter into this rather snotty behaviour thinking he owns wikipedia. I was critisising your behavior in the way that you have treated us involved in a debate over the use of language in the title.

As far as the deletionist approach, it will remain my opinion that there was no consensus reached in the GUST article, and the debate was far from over. JMalky said it was Maybe notable, As did Jayron32. Only OhConfucious, who marked it in the AfD case (which was decided to keep it) was against it. There was also a consensus to reopen the AfD debate, In fack JMalky asked you to do it. I think you should have done it. Given the article due process, and not mothball it on your own whim. I've read the self promotion debate, and think it's very weak to use as an excuse for it's termination. The AfD debate should have been reopened, regardless to any period of inactivity. The rules should have been followed. You didn't and took the law into your own hands. Something that is, in my own eyes, patent vandalism.

My comments to Tomisaac were to clarify what I meant by relative secrecy, and I hope I've made clear my position in this debate to you. At no point have i been arrogant or tried to take the moral high ground over anyone, despite your efforts to taunt and belittle both CR7 and myself. TorstenGuise 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. you have just invoked Godwin's Law. You have completely missed the point of what I have said. The line relevant is: Editing an article that is removed from their national and influential sphere, not as it is their interest or expertease, but as a jobsworth for the rules, to me is becoming more and more unacceptable. If you are an international editor and you've got an interest in a subject, or happen to be an expert in it, then fair play. I have nothing wrong with that kind of editing. The time I have a serious problem is when an international editor who has no interest in the subject, decides to edit it only as it doesn't fit their particular interpretation of the rules.

As far as you phoning the Irish embassy, that's completely irrelevant. Have you lived in 2 major cities that have been bombed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army? I have. The memories of Birmingham pub bombings and 1996 Manchester bombing still run very deep here. I also spent a conciderable amount of time with the Irish community in my university years, one of which living with two students from Northern Ireland (one from each side of the troubles) and one from the Republic. Take a good read at the articles on the Republic of Ireland and The Troubles. Hopefully you begin to understand the tense Anglo-Irish relations that still exist.

Again, i'm forced to remind you that the debate is pertaining to the '''name of the article. Period.''' Nothing about it's content. TorstenGuise 08:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which has been my argument all along, your the one who berates me for not being british Sherzo 09:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Military Service for Presidents
I happen to have been a veteran of ten years of service and a government and civics teacher. If you want to rewrite history then you might need to find somewhere else to do it or you will be banned. Reagan served on active duty during WWII and Bush served during Vietnam. The AWOL issue is still under dispute and being a former guardsmen myself I have questions about the validity of that claim knowing how the system works. If you are going to put that on there then you might as well list Clinton's deferment. Wikipedia is NOT A PLACE TO MAKE POLITICAL STATEMENTS. BOTH OF THEM SERVED PERIOD, AND THAT IS SOMETHING YOU CAN NEVER TAKE AWAY. HOWEVER, I DOUBT YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SERVING.Bluecord

Your comment was left on the wrong page. I happened to have a great-grandfather who left at the age of 44 and fought in Normandy. I served time overseas during war as well. I also happen to have been a member of the National Guard. Does that fact discredit my service? No. It shouldn't discredit Reagan or Bush, if that is the case then you need to take every other President who did reserve time down. According to you that is a slap in the face. It isn't to me nor anyone else I have served with. Reagan served. It really doesn't matter if it was overseas or not. He played a part in the total war effort. There is a guy in my church who served as coastal artillery during the war. Should we take away his service due to the fact he did not go overseas? Plenty of people are serving in the U.S. right now in direct support of the War on Terror. Do we take away their service? No. Bush, he served time and the controversy behind his SUPPOSED AWOL is just that right now, controversy. Being a civics teacher you should know that what you are doing is strictly political. Wikipedia is not a political forum. Both of these men served, I really don't care if you like it or not. There are plenty of questions on military service from the democrat side as well, why haven't you made any effort there? It is because you are biased and bias has no place here.Bluecord

I find it odd your a civics teacher yet live with room mates who "hack" your account, after a period of service, strikes me as odd as to several other elements of your "story" perhaps your the one being political.

Why no mention of Clinton's deferment? Does that scare you? It doesn't bother me in the least bit, lot's of people recieved them during Vietnam. At least Bush signed the papers and put on the uniform. How can Reagan help that the Army assigned him to making training and propoganda films? You are clearly making a political statement via Wikipedia which is in strict violation of Terms of Service. According to your standards I should be lamblasted if I ever become a politican due to the fact the Army sent me on a peace keeping operation rather than Iraq and Afghanistan before I got out. You have been reported to Wikipedia for you flangerant vandalism and uncooperative nature on Wikipedia. Have a nice day.Bluecord

Clinton never served at all and no one is trying to pretend he did, i think your the one being political, being called a vandal by a vandal, well i guess you'd be the expert Sherzo 12:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way Reagan was place on limited duty by the Army due to his physical which kept him from going overseas. He is still a veteran and is legit. This is not a slap in the face to no one. He did his part, served his time, and should have been proud of that fact. There is more to winning a war than firing rounds down range.Bluecord

yeah he did a great job hanging out in Hollywood. Sherzo 12:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The AWOL issue is still a controversy which has it's own page on Wikipedia. It is just that a controversy. Until papers come forward that say he was AWOL then that has no business being placed on his service record page.Bluecord


 * Also, since this issue is so controversial, please DO NOT add the content you keep adding until a concencus has been reached on whether to add it or not. It WILL be considered vandalism. - J acќя М  ¿Qué?  17:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to British Student Television, you will be blocked from editing. TorstenGuise 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comments on User talk:TorstenGuise :&#32;Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. CR7 (message me) 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to List of United States Presidents by military service, you will be blocked from editing. Continuously changing controversial content without concencus. - J acќя М  ¿Qué?  16:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

how exactly was it vandalism? Sherzo 09:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Continuously changing controversial content without concencus. - J acќя М  ¿Qué?  09:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

so the truth should be hidden because it upsets some people? E Pur Si Muove Sherzo 09:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

oh and its spelt ConsensusSherzo 09:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Discuss it first. Full stop. Don't just change it to how YOU want it if there are people who think different. Discuss it first, prove it, whatever. - J acќя М  ¿Qué?  10:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I take more from the man in black school of editing, but whenever i add fact tags they are simple revert so i assume they have no sources and remove it. Sherzo 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

also if you check the edit history you'd have notice that i've changed back to before Bluecord alter it nothing more. Sherzo 12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Student television in the United Kingdom and Ireland (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 13:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not copy and paste content from one page to another as you did here, this destroys the history of the page and is not permitted both by our policies or those of the GFDL licence which we use here. Thanks. Nick 14:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please use edit summaries to describe your edit actions, not your opinion about text or other editors. `'Míkka 16:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

classics
i've dealt with some fools on wiki but Bluecord wins the crown

Vandalism
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to List of United States Presidents by military service, you will be blocked from editing. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}Bluecord August 5, 2007 You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{ unblock|your reason here }} below. You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{ unblock|your reason here }} below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:2 months|You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months|You have been temporarily blocked from editing}} in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:For continually vandalizingList of United States Presidents by military service|For continually vandalizingList of United States Presidents by military service|repeated abuse of editing privileges}}. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{ unblock|your reason here }} below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|Bluecord 18:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)}}

poor deluded fool