User talk:TDC/Archive 3

need your help on two RFCs
Please visit these pages and post a comment in support with an example of how this is true. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Gamaliel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon 24.147.97.230 17:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do not feel bad If it takes me a long time to get back to anyone. If I fail to respond in a timely manner, it is not because I am blowing you off, drop me an email if it is urgent or you need a response, and I have not given you one.

Warning, TDC's talk page is a FREE FIRE ZONE. Those with weak egos or fragile emotions had best consult a doctor before participating!

Mediation
Nothing will happen unless someone decides to take on our case as mediator. It's just a matter of being patient, I guess. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation
You have been blocked for violating Three revert rule on Pablo Neruda: . The block is for 48 hours because you have been repeatedly blocked for previously violating this rule. Gamaliel 18:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda &rarr; Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here. I am opposed to the move since "alleged" is POV and prejudges the evidence. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 21:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Received your emails
This is just an acknowledgement of your two emails. I've read them and I'll investigate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverts
I want to apologize for not giving adequate edit summaries. I thought I had done so, but I had not, and I should have merely stated "see talk" and discussed my changes. You have been asked to cite sources for some of your content addtions which have been described as "overstated" on the talk pages. I reverted your changes on Pablo Neruda, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, and Jean-Pierre Raffarin for this reason. I'm not sure if citing a blog on Giuliana Sgrena that quotes another source, which appears to be biased, is an acceptable citation. In the future, I'm going to make my reverts explicit by explaining them on the talk page. --Viriditas | Talk 22:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation, thats all I wanted. TDC 19:47, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

history in digital projects
’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz_at_gmu.edu

Paul Robeson
I unprotected Paul Robeson on your request, as I see you are aware of. But I wish you could be more polite and gloat less both on talk-pages and in edit-summaries. If you indeed "won" the dispute, kudos to you, but that should speak for itself, and you shouldn't need to resolve to further disrespectfull behavour onto other wikipedians. I think you will find that a more polite tone will only help your cases and arguments in the future. Here and in other articles. Thanks. Shanes 03:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Point taken, but in all fairness I had to contort like that "amazing" girl in the M&M commmercial to get the info in there. TDC 03:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration
Please remember that this is a collaborative project. Though other editors may irritate you there is never a sufficient reason to stoop to making personal attacks on other editors, such as this one. Keeping your cool will show everybody what a mature member of the project you are. -Willmcw 11:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Gamaliel has made every effort possible both in his actions as well as his rhetoric to prove himself a Grade -A asshole. TDC 16:59, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the subject is already opened, I'd like to concure in suggesting that you let some steam go, since you seem to be flirting with the 3RR thing on Fidel Castro; the talk page is there to work on consensual versions, and it's free ! Rama 08:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Hi TDC, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Fidel Castro and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. If you feel the block is unfair, feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image:480ruger.jpeg
Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 16:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Your comments
on Talk:History of the United States (1988-present) would be much appreciated. J. Parker Stone 01:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate images
Though I certainly don't agree with all that you've done at Noam Chomsky, you've certainly made some valid points and contributed to the neutrality of the article. But I've very upset to see you uploading a duplicate image, adding an obnoxious filename, and posting it to Talk for the sole purpose of goading another user. This a pattern of behavior remarkably similar to Libertas/Ollieplatt/etc., and it's completely inappropriate and not the least bit helpful to building a better encylcopedia. Please don't do it again, or I'll be happy to make an RFC out of this. RadicalSubversiv E 01:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was funny wasn't it. Look, it was done to drive home a point, and a very serious one at that. Honestly, I had no idea it was a duplicate, as the original picture was gone when I looked for it. And I got lots of RfC, so it dont phase me. TDC 01:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's twice now that you have uploaded duplicates of images used in the Noam Chomsky article. That demonstrates either bad faith or that you haven't even read the article.  &mdash; Chameleon 03:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Either that or I dont give a shit. TDC June 30, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Removal of Quotes for Michael Moore
Why exactly did you remove the quotes from the Michael Moore article. Was it because

1.They are in Wikiquote, and therefore do not need to be replicated in the article 2.They have been chosen arbitrarily, or in a POV manner

Please explain. TDC June 30, 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Both reasons. As a matter of personal policy I always treat quote sections in this way. There is a duplication of work and the purpose of the section is not encyclopedic. A quote in context illustrating a point is encyclopedic but a quote in a "quotes" section may unbalance an article and appear to endorse a particular view of a person or subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 16:29 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I also agree. Would you also care to chime in the Ann Coulter article on this subject as I feel the two are very similar and I have made little progress convincing other editors. TDC June 30, 2005 16:45 (UTC)

3RR
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Also, please stop toying with the letter of the rule; the idea of 3RR is to encourage people to discuss and craft new versions of particular parts of article, not play a game a give opportunities to tease and insult peope in the edit summaries. Rama 5 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)


 * I am in danger of violating the 3RR? How exactly is that? I am very familiar with 3RR, and I am very careful to not break it, unless you have some insight into my behavior that I am unaware of, so spare me your threats. TDC July 5, 2005 14:17 (UTC)


 * I might also add that I am a bit puzzled by your comments. Am I going to be "blocked" for violating the 3RR of for toying with it? As far as I know of, I have not violated the 3RR in several weeks. TDC July 5, 2005 14:38 (UTC)


 * For instance, you have been reverting Pablo Neruda very regularly these last days; also, a number of these reverts bear taunting and insulting remarks addressed to other users in their edit summary. I would therefore advise you that the 3RR is not meant to be toyed with in the way of "RV, so close to 24 hours, but no cigar" or "3 RV's a day will keep the admins away!" . Also, mind that this sort of provocations bring attention on you and could lead people to doubt your good faith and act harshly upon other forms of disruptions. Thank you. Rama 5 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)


 * The only person who my "good faith" has fallen off with is Gamaliel. I don’t know if you have noticed or not, but he had devolved into following me into articles and reverting my edits without explanation. I apologize if I am not willing to put up with his bullshit, but I am not going to stop. TDC July 5, 2005 14:49 (UTC)


 * I cannot but notice that Gamaliel refrains from inflamatory edit summaries. Also, your edits tend to look llike radical and oftentimes highly loaded modifications of the articles. Your valuable edits tend to look tainted by what can be seen as a recurrent tendency to provocations, and the way you play with the rules is an incitation for others to "wait for you at the corner", an atmosphere which I think is unpleasant and does little for a healthy working ambiance. I therefore solemnely advise you to try and craft a mutually acceptable version with your fellow editors on talk pages and adopt a more conciliary tone -- "bullshit" is not in my active vocabulary for instance. Rama 5 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)


 * I spent several days and thousands of words trying to hammer out an acceptable compromise on the Pablo Neruda article, in good faith, only to have all of my contributions disputed with every fact that TDC and his sockpuppets have added to the article.


 * I do not mean this to sound snide or condescending, but have you actually read the talk page of that article? I was not the only user who was disputing the strong arm tactics, see the contributions and discussions from Anonip. TDC 14:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for 48 hours for persisting in your deliberately provocative and disrupting behaviour ( in particular), according to policies such as Blocking_policy and Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and after have been duely and repeatedly warned, including the entry above and two independant RFCs (Requests for comment/TDC and Requests for comment/TDC-2).

I would like you to understand the above as an opportunity offered to you to take some distance from your involvement in articles like Pablo Neruda and to restart contributing on another mode.

I also explicitely advise you that further offences will lead to further and longer blocks. If you contest the decision, you are welcome to fill in a Requests for arbitration. Rama 8 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)

Sorry to see that the Keystone Kops on Wikipedia are after you now too. I don't edit on Wikipedia as much as I used to, after they ran me out of town for a few months, but let me know if there's anything I can do to resolve some of the more protracted disputes. Viajero is a excellent editor, and I bet you can work things out with him. But I think you're right about Chameleon. I see exactly what you mean in your response on RfC. He seems a bit on the self-righteous and condescending side. BTW, thanks for the advice and encouragement a few months ago. As you can see, I've been taking it. 172 8 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)


 * No biggie, and thanks. I am not sure about Viajero, as my experiences with him have been less than positive, but I would like to do what I can to smooth things over. TDC 14:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sad to see that on your return of the block mentionned above, you have immediately reverted Pablo Neruda twice ([] and []), on the very same revision as before (including a reference to a book which has remained poorly redacted all through your reverts: references to books require edition to be useable, not the mere title and page), without any sort of attempt to communicate on the issue. In accordance to the above statement, you are now block for four days. Rama 16:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And Rama, I am still interested in an explanation of what specific policy I have been blocked for. After a long reading of the specific policy cited by you, Blocking_policy, I fail to see how it applies to me, and only me in this particular situation.


 * Things like your comments "RV, another day, another 3 reverts" clearly are very close to the examples given in  Blocking_policy.
 * Your subsequent reverts and their timing, after having been warned, and later blocked, constitute further provocations, as also fall under WP:POINT.
 * I also direct you to Three-revert rule:
 * the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
 * (emphasise in the original text)
 * Since Gamaliel only reacted to your reverts, never used the edit summaries to make provocative statements and did not feature any particularly disturbing behaviour, I see no reason to take any action against him at the moment.
 * If you contest my appreciation of the issue, youu are welcome to fill in a Request for Arbitration. Rama 15:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My block is over, but I still have an IP block up in place that needs to be removed. TDC 14:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be fixed now. Rama 15:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Beueno. TDC 15:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

My Defense
The idea that I somehow cannot “get along” with other users whom I may have a personal disagreement with is ludicrous. User:172 and I have had a very good working relationship together, User:AndyL and I collaborated from completely opposite POV’s to build a rather solid article; Human rights in Cuba.

But lets be honest. This is no more about my behavior, which I admit can be egregious at times, as it is about one or two other users, but mainly one; Gamaliel.

Perhaps it was when he began reverting my edits without discussion in the W.E.B. DuBois at the behest of another user. Or when he placed the TotallyDisputed header in the article, when there was not even an attempt for him to do anything other that revert on sight instead of taking it to the talk page.

Or when he at least makes an attempt to keep up appearance, he finds another sympathetic admin who just protects the page, on a version different from the last, for 3 weeks. An admin, that I might add, has his own beef with me and solicits others to pile on me when clearly he was aware of that particular users rather rude comments towards me.

Or perhaps it was when he arguably overstepped his authority when he blocked me for a 3RR violation, and when another more respected admin stepped in to question him, he tried to delete all the content of that particular discussion. 

Gamaliel has a fairly standardized tactic when it comes to opposing my edits. First, he claims that they are “factually inaccurate”, when that does not stand up to the scrutiny then he argues that they are irrelevant, then he argues that although they may be relevant they are plagiarized. It would be nice if he stuck with an argument, instead of insulting me while having the nerve to feign insolence when I do it.

Now granted, I have been sloppy with my sourcing in the past, however, damn near everything I have put forth has withstood scrutiny (minus the blanket RV’s of Gamaliel of course) and others have noted this

What I would like to see:


 * 1) 1.A fair hearing of my additions to the Pablo Neruda article, nothing more.
 * 2) 2.And end to Gamaliel’s editorial and administrative harassment of me.

What I will do.


 * 1) 1.Stop editing any articles where there is a consensus that I should not participate.
 * 2) 2.Propose mediation again, after no one took me up on my last offer.
 * 3) 3.Any other reasonable request that is both fair to me and other users.

Later
"Did you participate in Operation Mongoose to kill Castro with an exploding cigar?"

"No, sir, I did not," he responded. "But I did volunteer to kill that son of a bitch in 1961 with a telescopic rifle."

Good news in the mail
Hey, congratulations!!! 172 23:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, all the legal liabilty and no more money! :) TDC 13:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Norinco
I just removed Norinco from the Wiki dead end list; perhaps if it were written into the text of People%27s_Liberation_Army or somewhere might give it more exposure. Good work! nobs 19:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Advice
Id never argue with you.LtDoc 03:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm .... OK, then dont. TDC 15:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky
Thanks for the revert. I reported him but so far nothing has happened. --TJive 15:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Got it
Won't be logged on a lot today, but rved Hue, thx


 * Just dont go over 3.

IM
just wondering if you have it. J. Parker Stone 06:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * of courseTDC 08:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

check your email kthx. J. Parker Stone 08:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * NP, but I am going to hit the sack, just got in tonite and checked an article or two (I know, I have a problem). TDC 08:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Magdoff
I saw that you noticed the attempt to delete factual references in the I. F. Stone article. Please note that the same thing is being attempted in a more egregious form with Harry Magdoff. The content was moved unilaterally to "Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff" which I put up for Vfd. Please vote there. Thanks. --TJive 02:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help on Harry Magdoff. Feel free to let me about anything that may be of concern to you. nobs 20:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem. TDC 20:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please be aware that engaging in personal attacks violates Wikipedia policy and can lead to you getting blocked from editing. Comments such as "Liar liar pants on fire", while apropriate for a primary school playground, are not apropriate for Wikipedia. Thryduulf 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

re my talk:
 * Personal attacks are never acceptable, even if the user that is the target of them were the most horrible person ever, they would not be acceptable. There is a section explicitly dealing with this in the No personal attacks policy page.
 * If you feel that anyone has broken policies then report them in the apropriate place (e.g. Administrator's noticeboard/3RR) and follow the Dispute resolution process. Ranting will not get you anywhere. I don't have time to deal with every action by every user in every dispute. Thryduulf 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it absolutely clear that my talk page is not the place to rant about or place evidence about other users behaviour, or to carry on inter personal disputes. Please start and RfC instead, this what they are there for (this message posted on my talk page and the latest ip addy of the anon user as well). Thryduulf 21:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gas turbine
Hey Buddy, where did you get the 55% combined cycle rating for GE's H turbine?. The GE site still says 60% (no biggie, just curious). --Duk 17:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My bad, I was thinking of the F machines. I have worked on 6 installed H units, you would think I would know better. TDC 18:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Cool, are you in a position to get any pictures? I'm a huge fan of hard to get industrial and engineering pictures, although I realize a lot of companies don't allow this via non-disclosure and for security reasons. Howabout a closeup of a gas fired turbine with the case open? --Duk 10:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I should be able to get you a picture of a turbine block no problem. As far as a picture of the case open, that is going to be much harder. The only time they break the turbine case open is during a hot gas path inspection, or about once every 4000 running hours. This is usually done in SC or Houston. TDC 11:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pictures, I'll try to put them to work--Duk 19:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Castro
hey man, when you've got time you may wanna check out NWOG's "additions" to the Fidel Castro page. J. Parker Stone 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What?
what vandalism, you idiot? --Revolución (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
...regarding my edits to the Rigoberta Menchu article. I was frankly amazed that the writer admits she's a liar and then goes on the equivicate about her lies! He also leaves out key facts such her support for Communist terrorism and her admission of her lies.

It's amazing that despite the opening of the Soviet archives--which proved almost everything we anti-Communists and defectors from Communist nations had been saying all along: from the massacre at Katyn to the proof of the guilt of Hiss and the Rosenburgs. Despite this there are still people out there who deny the truth!

Joe McCarthy's estimate of the number of Communist spies in the US government was conservative! Even FDR's personal assistant was a Soviet spy. Thanks to Sen. McCarthy, widespread spying inside the government was ended. Unfortunately, the KGB refocused its efforts on defense contractors, penetrating nearly every one, bugging fax lines, phone lines, stealing all kinds of classified material. SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of Soviet & Warsaw Pact weapon systems were essentially duplicates of American weapons. We supplied the R&D for both sides of the Cold War. But aside from the spectacular cases (the Walker family, Aldrige Aimes, etc) widescale treason was ended by the McCarthy hearings. Ann Coulter irrefutably (with exhaustive documentation) demolishes the Liberal myths about McCarthy in her wonderful book "Treason."

To Reynaldus Magnus: the Man Who Won the War! (Yep, I borrowed that from Tom Clancy's dedication to "Executive Orders;" a book that chillingly predicted the 9/11 attacks on the White House and Capitol.)

PainMan 02:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What Soviet archives? You got proof? So everyone McCarthy accused are commies? Ann Coulter hardly 'demolished' any of your so called 'liberal myth'. In fact her worthless book is improperly sourced propaganda, much akin to 'Stupid White Men'. The fact that you think a fictional Tom Clacy novel as factual historical source who politically blind you are


 * I don’t know much about Coulter and what she did or did not say about McCarthy, but the fact remains that most of the people McCarthy initially investigated were indeed either willing Soviet stooges, or were the unwitting tools of Soviet front organizations like the CPUSA, Comitern, World Peace Council etc. Haynes and Khler have written volumes of scholarly work on the subject if you would like more background. TDC 13:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

About NC
Do not mix science with politics. Unless of course that´s what you want to do. For obvious reasons. But then dont complain...

User:TDK is a troll
I can edit in whatever I want, where ever I want, when ever I want, no matter how inflamitory, irrelevant, or inapropriate, as long as it's factually accurate according to some interpertion of reality, and properly cited with links that either relate to the topic at hand, or are long enough that no one will notice that they're about unrelated topics, user:TDK said so, these are my rights according to user:TDK, if you don't like it, take it up with user:TDK, so here's my citation as well as this impartial 3rd party source to conform my opinion that TDK is in fact a troll  - anon


 * Isn’t there an interstate nearby you could go play on?TDC 15:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
Hi! Could you please lend me a hand at Requests for comment/Agiantman? I am battling "Team Kennedy." I incurred their wrath at Talk:Ted_Kennedy. Thanks. --Agiantman 02:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR
It appears that you have violated the 3RR on Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I wanted to offer you the opportuntity to avoid a block if you are willing to undo your last revert. I understand what it's like when an article is under attack from what appears to be a group of sockpuppets, but there are other means (requests for page protection, requests for comment, etc.) to deal with this other than by violating the 3RR. Gamaliel 18:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's funny, TDC violates the 3RR, 10 zillion sock puppets come along to help restore his edits, and what do his edits say?? John Kerry is a commie thank god you didn't jump to any conclusions and ban him or anything--152.163.100.201 14:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have told people this dozens of times before, I DONT USE SOCKPUPPETS. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do so, otherwise please go play in traffic. TDC 14:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * tried and failed, but there you go TDC 18:53, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Item of Interest
You may want to vote on the the proposed wikistalking policy here--Agiantman 00:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments
Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon.--Agiantman 19:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Peak Oil
Thanks for offering to help with my understanding of peak oil.


 * "I would direct you to research more on the topics of oil shale, sand oil and methyl hydrates in conjunction economic production models, in order to get a better grip on a subject you seem to have so much interest in."

The research I've done thus far into these non-renewables is that the ratio of energy expended to energy provided is fairly low, like 2:1 or 1.5:1 or something like that. I have no doubt that these areas will be looked at closely, but they certainly do not address the reality that global energy use will peak, after which we will have to use less energy.

Something I am very curious about it the maximum amount of energy that we can produce when all the fossil-fuels are gone. Is it 10% of current energy production? Higher? Lower?


 * "I have always though that peak oil proponents are a bit hysterical."

Well, it did come to a bit of a shock when I was driving home one night a couple of weeks ago and began to work out the implications for gasoline that was $2.79 in my area. There are a lot of working class families here in Michigan, and some are my family and friends. When gasoline (regular) exceeds $3/gallon, I think people are going to start to realize that something is up. When it hits $4/gal, even more so. I am going to do some analysis later today on the rate of increase of the oil prices so that I can give a best prediction for upcoming prices in the Fall, assuming the USA doesn't do anything militarily or politically that could accelerate the increase. 

If we have an annual 65% increase in oil prices, then we'll be above $100/barrel by the end of April. That doesn't even take into account the current cycle that oil prices are in.

It looks like last year oil prices climbed steadily from Labor Day until Halloween, after which they leveled until after the New Year, followed by another climb for a couple of months.

Here's some interesting data on gasoline prices:  Looks like the price doubled in two years, which means $5/gallon sometime in late 2006.

Michigan has also suffered a huge amount from the oil prices being low so long. Most of the corporations have globalized, and many people are unable to find jobs. In fact, Michigan is something like the 2nd highest for unemployment in the nation; and this is only the official figure, not the actual number for those who are no longer receiving benefits.

I am concerned about the possiblity that we will jump above the 5% over use line in the winter. If so, then 1973 and 1979 are the only models we have to work with in the USA as to how to respond.

I'll look forward to your thoughts! 216.120.141.3 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR
TDC, I have blocked you for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. Please keep in mind that no one is allowed under policy to revert a page more than 3 times in less than 24 hours, unless it is reversion of clear-cut vandalism. Thanks for your understanding, and thanks for your contributions! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And the anon? I know that a range block would block too many users, but do they get off scott free? The two anons, btw, are the same user.

cor01-p5-0.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net
 * 209.86.3.213 user-38lc0ul.dialup.mindspring.com
 * and

cor01-p5-0.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net
 * 165.247.204.42 user-2ivfj1a.dialup.mindspring.com


 * ThanksTDC 20:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you know they're the same user? (i.e. where did you get the dialup.mindspring thingies?) If they are, I will block both for 24 hrs. Don't take the block too personally, BTW. I hope you continue contributing. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * ::: How do I know, the fact that the anon IP always edit the same articles with the same styles, that and they all come from the same proxy server. Do a google search for "IP Trace"; there are many good cites out there. One of my favorites is geobytes.com. Unfortunately with the big ISP's, they have more users than allocated IP#’s. You might remember from years back when AOL got in all that trouble for the long waits, because they had far too few IP #’s. Basically AOL and Earthlink (for example) assign a random open IP slot to a user when they log in, reserving that IP for as long as the user is on. After logging out, the IP# is put into a que and is assigned to the next user who needs one. So every time the anon logs out and logs back in, chances are they are issued a different IP address. Blocking wont do any good either, because a range block is the only way to do it and that could effect thousands of users. I don’t take it personally, I am just a bit frustrated, that’s all. TDC 20:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

VVAW
Sorry to be so long in answering (currently really busy moving into college), but let me just say that the fact that you made multiple reverts in a day is a problem in itself. Take a look over Resolving disputes for some options. Meanwhile, I cannot in good faith, and so should not revert even to a preferred version. I am uninvolved and shall stay so. Sorry for the inconvevience on that one. Try some dispute resolution, as we'd like to get this thing unprotected as soon as possible. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

WSI

 * "It will be interesting to see just how full of shit the WSI participants were when I get my hands onthat report."

This reads a little (ie. "a lot") like "POV + POV + my original research." Take it down a notch would you please? -St|eve 02:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, thats your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Any how exactly is relaying the contents of the NCIS/JAG report original research? TDC 17:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Krafsur
Another attempt to delete a Venona name-->Articles for deletion/Samuel Krafsur (this is the guy the KGB sent to recruit I F Stone, recruited a DNC member, & passed along intimate convesations of FDR, Cordell Hull & Averell Harriman, among other things). Thanks. nobs 02:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Disruption
As you probably know, I don't specifically enforce 3RR. However I do take action in cases of disruption. You've reverted the article Vietnam Veterans Against the War four times now and you're in an edit war with three other editors. This is disappointing. You're not in danger of being blocked by me right now, but if you continue this way, trading insults in edit summaries and edit warring, I will consider taking action. I know someone called you a Nazi and you responded by calling him an East German Commie. Two wrongs don't make a right, and you're experienced enough by now to know that this kind of response only makes things worse.

Could you please use the talk page to resolve this? I'll also have a word with the other editors to ask them to discuss this civilly and not edit war? --Tony Sidaway Talk 12:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to second the above comment by Tony Sidaway: after two RFCs and ample warnings by myself and others, I though that you would know better than this; I was about to leave you a message about edits such as, which are of course utterly unacceptable. I now expect you to behave in a civilised manner, or suffer my displeasure. Rama 12:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone who continually vandalizes my user page and targets my edits for vandalism deserves more than a warm fuzzy. Its not a 3RR violation to rv vandalsim.


 * And Tony, I might remind you that the VVAW article was nothing but cut and past plagiarism before I took the unenviable task upon myself to stand up to that asshole anon. TDC 14:20, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't remember Giuliana Sgrena vandalising your page, and even if she had done so, calling her a "shithead" would not have been an adequate way of solving the issue. We are talking about your general attitude here, not one single possibly explainable instant of irritation on your part. Rama 14:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The view that Sgrena is/was a “shithead” is my own personal view, and I never attempted to interject it into the article. TDC 14:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that your use of edit summaries to taunt other users had been agreed upon. Since you are now familiar with the consequences of such behaviour, I will deem it unnecessary to warn you yet again. Rama 14:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm grounding you for extensive disruption. Your uncooperative attitude on this talk page made me think again, and looking at your recent history I see that you've reverted edits on Cuban exile, The Epoch Times, Wilfred Burchett, Korean War, Anti-communism, Fidel Castro and Anti-Chinese sentiment. In some of these you're clearly engaged in a revert war. In some of them you're falsely labelling a content disagreement as vandalism. You seem to have done pretty much the same thing yesterday. That's enough. I'm blocking you for forty-eight hours for egregious disruption. This is me being nice; you could be for up to one month at administrator's discretion, and with your record I could make that stick. --Tony Sidaway Talk 15:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no content disagreement here, just some vandal who has targeted me for harassment. So some asshole with a hard on for me targets articles that I have contributed to with edit summaries like “removed TDC's bullshit - everything he writes is a lie” and my personal favorite “Die Nazi, DIE !”, I revert them, and somehow I am bieng the jerk?!? Come on, get off it. Do you even take the time to look at the changes, or do you just assume the worst? Do you see that there are many users involved in edit wars on Fidel Castro (including an admin) over real content issues, and that perhaps, just maybe, some of what is being pushed is clearly POV garbage? Have you bothered to take the time and look into the VVAW article, and see that I have on several occasions attempted to use dispute resolution to solve content issues and that the anonymous user on that particular page has populated nearly every VVAW related article with POV garbage and cut and paste information, and that I have been the only user who has been willing to remedy this?


 * If you are going to give me a 48hour ban for being “disruptive” I suggest that you apply your crucial eye to others involved in this as well


 * And Rama, where the hell do you get off reverting the VVAW page? Have you followed the developments of the article, and the background of all the users? Are you doing this just as some kind of malicious kick me when I am down? TDC 15:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * One more thing Rama, it nice to see that you have reverted to a users version that included the edit summary to user:TJive Fuck off and die bitch!

Good point about the others. That fellow has a mouth on him, and no mistake. is being a bit of a bugger, too. I'll watch them both. --Tony Sidaway Talk


 * The reason why I reverted your revert is because I think that the previous version was more suited for the article than the one to which you reverted. taking your record into account, I skimmed through a number of your latest reverts, and reverted a few of them, while leaving a number of others in the state where you left them.
 * Since I find myself writing on this page again, I would like to size the opportunity to tell you that your chronical rudeness and vulgarity are beginning to bore me so much that I am tempted to attenuate the niceness of Tony Sidaway's block. Nothing, even begin targeted by the worst fools of the world, is an excuse for you to compete against them and have third parties endure your insufferable moods. Rama 16:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Chronical rudeness? Is this some attempt to merge comical and chronic, cause I aint laughing? And remember, when you point the finger at someone else, three fingers are pointing right back at you. But lemme guess, as a respected admin, you are above the allegations you throw at me? TDC 16:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, by all means do feel free to fill in a RfC against me. Rama 16:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And what, exactly, would an RfC do, exactly? What has it done to me? A big fat nothing! Wikipedia’s sanctioning and discipline mechanism are worthless. What would stop me, for example, from discontinuing my use of this account, and switching to another? What would stop me from just doing everything anonymously, from a mega ISP, making me virtually unblockable? I just find it extremely satisfying for you to acknowledge that you have engaged in the same behavior that you are chastising me for. TDC 16:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to "acknowledge" anything to you, merely to suggest, as you seem to well know yourself, that there is nothing reprehensible in what I wrote in, as that someone trying to disciplin me for it would be likely to break his teeth. This is quite unlike a repeatedly banned user, deemed to be problematic by many, easing his nerves on the very admin who suggest that he calms down by using vocabulary such as " asshole anon".
 * To answer your question, Wikipedia does have a discipline mechanism, which you are presently experiencing. If you persist in your present course, you might be indefinitely blocked, and any suckpuppet you might have would be banned on sight. This has happened in the past, and experience shows that individual vandals get bored more quickly than the admins. The most notable effect would be to anihilate what would be left of your credibility. Rama 17:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your meaning you did acknowledge it, so I will accept your belated apology. TDC 17:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me end this debate, for now, by restating my main point: any other editor whose work has been targeted like mine has, would be more than justified to behave in the same manner I have. TDC 18:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why end it now? Which person is targetting you? --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why end it now? My fists are swolen from beating on this wall. There are, I think, 4 or 5 distinct anon users targeting me, which is the price I pay for bieng as outspoken, abrasive, and full of material on largely ignored articles, like Wilfred Burchett. TDC 15:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you considered that it might be that the "abrasive" part of it makes for most of the problem for everybody ? Rama 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you considered that I do not care?


 * I think, and if you go through the dozens of articles that I have had long running POV discussion on, that when an individual cooperates in good faith I show them the same amount of respect that they show me. I could cite you many example if you would like.


 * I treat people with the same amount of respect that they show me, no more and no less. If that means I come off as abrasive, than so be it, but make no mistake I am no more abrasive to anyone I have had a conflict with than they have been to me. TDC 16:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

One of your first four edits after the block ended was an edit to a talk page. The other three, in the space of four minutes, were reverts. That isn't editing, it's warfare. I've blocked you for another 48 hours. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know TDC that while I am a strong supporter of Sidaway and his efforts, and can empahsize with his rationale in this second block to a degree, I see that your reverts were in combat with a sockpuppet and I think that the sockpuppet must be the one trying to push a POV. At least you're up front with your edits and not hiding behind a phoney log in.--MONGO 11:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The VVAW case appears to be a content dispute between TDC and (probably) one other editor. TDC has shown marked reluctance to use the talk page and he's been reverting for ages now. It involves the inclusion of a brief excerpt from the VVAW's own official history, to which TDC apparently objects. This edit war led to a page protection last month, lasting from 20 August until 10 September. That's a serious matter, nobody could edit the article for three weeks, and all apparently because TDC and this other chap (or chaps) won't agree amicably on whether to include the excerpt. --Tony Sidaway Talk 14:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I would like to thank you for your even handed treatemtn of all parties in this affair. I would also like to commend you for taking your time and looking into these disputes and coming to the realization that I have been the only one behaving poorly here, and that my edits and subsequent reverts have been completely without merit, and that after lloking into the many RfC and input from other user on these articles, that you have also come to the conclusion that all possible methods for dispute resolution have been solved. TDC 03:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * TDC, you seem to have the grave misconception that unacceptable behaviour from your part should be tolerated if other editors do not behave properly. There are procedures to solve the sort of problems that you have ran into without disrupting Wikipedia, and insults and vulgarity are absolutely not a way to cancel improper actions by other editors anyway.
 * As for "all possible methods for dispute resolution have been solved", I cannot but notice that after two RFCs and a two blocks by myself which led you to write what I though would be a positive agreement for better behaviour, Tony Sidaway and myself are still discussing exactly the same sort of problems here. For what I can think of, the initiative is now yours. Rama 10:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Advice requested
Hello, I am having trouble with User:Gamaliel deleting comments that I make on talk:Rob Liefeld and Talk:John Byrne (and even on other peoples take pages). Since he is an admin I've had little recourse. I thought it had stopped. However, it's started again on talk John Byrne. I was hoping since you were a much more experienced editor you might have some advice on what I can do. Thank you,-- 15:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Update. I've been threated with being blocked for reverting Gamaliel's vadalism of my comments on talk John byrne so if I suddenly disappear. That's why.--198.93.113.49 17:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Lion claw.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lion claw.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use .)  See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. You claimed PD-military but there is no link to verify that - please supply one --Nv8200p (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Weathermen
take a look at the talk there if you get time. how anyone can say this wasn't a terrorist group is beyond me.

dunno if you're busy with your studies right now or something but if ya got the time, i could use the backup Dr. Trey 09:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Thanks for the note. As I told Steve, pov won't have anything to do with the resolution of this copyvio, and I have no interest in the article other than resolving the copyvio. Also, your copyvio complaint on Winter Soldier Investigation was accurate, and this one looks right too. Sorry nobody working WP:CP has stepped up to resolve it yet - I guess nobody is happy about removing a year's worth of work because of copied text. I'll try to fix it today. --Duk 16:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam Veterans Against the War new copyvio
Thanks for the note, left a comment on the article's talk page. --Duk 16:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Scott Ritter
You reverted "Al-Khafaji gave Ritter $400,000 has admitted being awarded over one million dollars in oil allocations during the UN oil-for-food program." a text which isn't English. You apparently insist to mention this, so at least correct the language. Otto ter Haar 07:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Shakir al Khafaji
Can you give a motivation of your revert of my attempt to neutralize the wording of this article? Otto ter Haar 07:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting
I am a tad peeved that you reverted my edit and told me to wait until things are hashed out on talk when i made my position perfectly clear and then you didn't add anything to it to justify the reversion. If you are going to revert any more edits could you at least repond on the talk page first? It's just a matter of courtesy really.  Sasquatch  t|c 21:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A tad peeved .. thats cute .. I like it. I apologize, but several different editors are pulling the article in a number of directions very quickly and the talk page is being filled up faster than I can keep track of. TDC 21:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we find a way to talk it over, rather than reverting each other? I got coffee and chips waiting for you in my living room. :-) Uncle Ed 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm usually fine with people reverting my edits provided they actually do respond =) just a note.  Sasquatch  t|c 04:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comment and my reply
Since when do we allow whole sections af articles to be nothing more than single quotes from single sources? Removed. TDC 16:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

We have entire articles which are (or were, in many cases) nothing more than a quote from the article by that name in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica. Deleing long quotes is vandalism. Don't do it. Rewriting them is common here at wikipedia but nowhere in the policies is it mandated. That said, the best solution to this specific article's current difficulties might just be to use the Ed Poor rewrite and add to it one piece at a time with each piece properly referenced and given time for editing and debated before the next piece is attenpted to be readded. You don't have to make wikipedia perfect by tomorrow. Most important, be nice to each other guys! WAS 4.250 05:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits to the Hugo Chavez article
Thanks for your contributions to the Hugo Chavez article. I searched the World Bank, CIA World Factbook, and the INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas) websites for the data on unemployment, GDP per-capita, and inflation. On the World Bank website, I was only able to find GDP data, while I found all three types on both the CIA and INE websites. GDP per-capita in fact plunged over 25% (not the 5% that you stated), while unployment did rise from around 16.5% in Jan 1999 (when Chavez started) to more than 19% at the end of 2004 (thus a rise over Chavez's term up to 2004). However, the official INE data shows that, since 2004, unemployment rate has throughout 2005 and up to the present remained significantly lower than 1998 levels (before Chavez), with the current September 2005 estimate of 11.5%. Hence the justification for the statement that unemployment dropped, as stated in the inline cite that was deleted; I have thus removed your statements on unemployment and inflation, while correcting your statement on GDP per-capita drop. Please provide links/sources in the article (as inline cites) if you decide you need to reinsert the unemployment/inflation statements again, and thanks for the interesting GDP data. Saravask 11:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Edits
My edits and edit summaries speak for themselves. It would be golly gee swell, however, if you practiced some shred of honesty in yours, and making your obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, bad-faith deletions, and transparent sabotage (you pretty much used up the "copywrite" [sic] argument, haven't you?) longer on the Talk page is meaningless. Your track record speaks for itself. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * you forgot to mention the 13 boots in the past year Calton, add this to your list.Travb 05:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, since I am not the only one who thinks "testimony" is not an accurate descirption, (and by the way, he has actually contributed to the article),it looks like we have narrowed down who the asshole here is. The copyvios were real, and no thanks to you, are finally gone. Its a shame you did not take any time to actually look at the meat of the debate and see what my objections to the material were about, but the sanctimonious usually don’t. Ta. TDC 04:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your friends, Duk, 172, SEWilco, and Uncle Ed, who shadow you from site to site agressively reverting text, hardly are partial enough to decide this...Lets see what Sasquatch, the assigned moderator decidesTravb 05:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

mentioned your name on Winter Soldier Investigation
Out of courtesy, wanted to tell you that I mentioned your name several times on Winter Soldier Investigation -- Travb 07:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC about Stolen Honor
You've participated in editing Stolen Honor. I've started a Request for Comment at Talk:Stolen Honor because we appeared to have reached a point of diminishing returns on the talk page. JamesMLane 11:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What Happens to History
''What happens to an article's history, i.e. WSI, when it gets rolled it back? There is, yet again, another argument over what went where and when [7]. TDC 21:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)''
 * History is usually not deleted when rolling back and article to resolve copyvios. It was this time however per sugestions I got on WP:AN. The idea was to remove copyvios from visible history and make it harder for the anon to keep reverting to these versions. The article currently has 421 deleted edits, only admins can see these pages.


 * Since we now seem to have a commitment from everyone to remove copyvios, and there are some more recent copyvios in un-deleted history, I'm willing to un-delete them if you want. --Duk 21:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)