User talk:TDC/Archive 4

Rules and William M. Connolley
Hi TDC, there is a debate whether the rules and decisions of Wikipedia should also apply to William M. Connolley, or whether he should be placed above them. See if you're interested. All the best, --Lumidek 00:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring
I'm going to block you for disruption again if you don't stop edit warring on a number of articles. This is the only warning you'll get, as you have been warned many times before and you know it's unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Its one article, and I am not the only one who is having issues with the anon. Do you have any other ideas on how to resolve this, because I am not going to let this slide. TDC 21:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, can you honestly say that my version of the article is not more NPOV and better written? TDC 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're not the only person who has issues with the anon, and your version is better, then it follows that if you stop reverting the anon's stuff someone else will do so. This will enable you all to show this anon that there is a consensus against his wording. As it is all you're doing is pointlessly ping ponging between his version and yours. I'll not hesitate to block if you keep it up. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, with all due respect, have you seen the edit history? Every editor who tries to work on the article gives up after a few weeks. TDC 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I object to your allegation that all I have been doing is running around reverting articles the past several weeks. I have a finite amount of time to spend here on Wikipedia. I am going for my MBA, work a full time job, have a family, and just bought an older home that needs about 500 hours of rehab work (well, not really, but I am a bit of a perfectionist and it will be picturesque Victorian when I am done). My time constraints mean that if one article needs all my time, ala WSI, and I have little time to contribute to others, than so be it. TDC 19:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If you got a minute
Attack on Venona sources again:Categories for deletion. Thanks. nobs 01:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Submitted to arbitration
The site Winter Soldier Investigation and both your behavior and anons have been submitted to arbitration. Anon's immature behavior today was the straw that broke the camels back Travb 03:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My behavior? Tell me, who deleted every addition to the article you made today?


 * Against my better judgement, but out of courtesy, which I promised to Duk before, I wanted to mention that I mentioned your name again on my talk page. Travb 02:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice convincing rewrite on the arbitration page. Three cheers. Travb 03:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: TDC Arbitration
''Just curious about the specifics of the Arbitration case. ''
 * 1) How long does this take? 
 * As long as is required. One to three months is typical for an Arbitration case.
 * 1) Is the decision making process public or private?
 * Both. There are several subpages of each arbitration request page which are public and which contain public discussion.  Arbitrators may also discuss cases in private on the Arbitration mailing list, via IRC, or by such other means as the Arbitrators see fit.  The actual voting will be reflected in on the "Proposed decision" subpage.  These pages will be created if and when the case is opened.
 * 1) How much input will I have during this process to defend myself?
 * You will be (as is any editor) permitted to submit evidence on the "Evidence" subpage and make proposals on the "Workshop" subpage. You may also contribute on any of the relevant talk pages.

''Thank you. TDC 01:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)''
 * I hope this information is of some use to you. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your help at Category:Soviet spies. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance. nobs 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My talk page
Hey TDC, I noticed that you added back what you had written before on my talk page. Rest assured, I read it, and decided to pop it in my archive already. Sometimes when I go to my talk page, I don't want the contention with other users staring me in the face, so I archived your comment.

You are welcome, of course, to put that same archived message on Stevertigo's talk page too.

I did not respond, because I am familar with what you have written. I can relate with what you said to the anon on the Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation page: that you did not want "a never ending debate". That is why I did not comment, I don't want to be dragged into "a never ending debate" too.

I have heard your arguments before, as you have heard mine, commented on your arguments at length before, and it is now it is ultimately up to arbitration committee to decide, in due course, the merits of your position. Travb 01:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

(LATER) I let Stevertigo know, as I try to do with most everyone I mention since another user told me this is proper wiki-courtesy. Travb 01:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Let me know if you need anything, Always willing to help.--MONGO 01:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO RfA
I appreciate your support on my RfA. They promoted me and I'll do the best I can to make sure you know that you made the right choice. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. My talk page is always there and I have email of course. Thanks again man.--MONGO 08:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep...I see what you're dealing with and the same POV nonsense is going on here--MONGO 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

TDC
What's going on with TDC ? Why is he back I think he was banned for life ? Ericd 22:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * HA! You wish. TDC 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock
Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! 02:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing my comments
I am appealed that you apparently now deleted a whole section, already created by Travb without my authorisation, on Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence, where I was explaining how your reference to what I said was incorrect, while keeping the reference that you now know is flatly wrong.

I will now restore this section, and I formally warn you that if I see the slightest tempering with my words without my express consent ever again, I will take the most rigorous actions. Rama 07:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Slow down there chief. The only reason I removed it was because YOU said that I do not approve of its creation without me being even notified. Since the heading clearly says Evidence presented by User:Rama, and since it was not presented by YOU, I thought I would remove it. And what actions are you going to take if I "tamper" with your words? Is that some kind of petty threat? Things get taken out of context all the time, and considering my knowledge of French is rudimentary, in the context of your remarks, its easy to see how I could have misinterpreted it. I really don’t appreciate all of your special attention to me. You have been unfairly targeting me with sanctions for legitimate actions I have take, and I am getting quite fed up with it. TDC 14:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How very considerate of you. Too bad that you forgot to remove your then deliberate misquotation of me, not to mention the fact that I could get things done myself if I wanted to. You would be well-advised to stop taking me for an idiot, you are doing yourself no good in the precess. Rama 15:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Deliberate misquotation of you, I already told you that my translation of what you wrote was apparently not accurate. My comments on the subject still remain the same; This is little more than a digital lynching of an unpopular editor. But if singling me out makes you feel like you are doing your job as an admin, then more power to you I suppose. TDC 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You flatter yourself with inciting much more interest than you actually do, I am afraid. For what I care, you are free to insult the Arbitration commitee in any way you see fit, though I doubt that this will help you much. However, I would be grateful if you could refrain from suggesting that I said the thing, especially when you know perfectly well, now having read my point, that I did not. Rama 15:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Flatter myself? Are you going to sit there and tell me you don’t watch my contributions and as my anointed minder follow me around to content and POV disputes I have been involved in? And when exactly did I insult the Arbitration committee? Please be specific because you seem to be doing the same thing you accused me of a moment ago, namely deliberate misrepresenting my actions or words. And for the last time, read the contribution again, MY TRANSLATION WAS NOT ACCURATE, I REMOVED IT FROM THE PAGE AFTER YOU POINTED THIS OUT, AND WHEN HAVE I EVER REPEATED IT


 * I have better things to do with my time than interacting with you, absolutely.
 * Regarding your claim, the revision of Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence after you removed the section still contains the words "I find it completely unfair that Travb has gone on a fishing expedition to find users that I have had disputes with in the past to turn this into what User:Rama called a lynching. [52].", but not my denial, which I believe wrongfully leaves the impression that I distrust the Arbitration process. As a matter of fact, I have a complete confidence in the Arbitration. Were you not aware that you had left the offending line ? Rama 15:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was unaware that it was still in my comment section. If you look at the workshop section, which was place there just yesterday, you comments were not included in any shape or form TDC 16:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Consider this a formal warning to knock it off and not mis-leadingly quote people.
 * James F. (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Swiftboating edit
Hi. I notice that you reverted a major edit from an anon with the edit summary "rvv". It may not have been a good edit, it may even have been pushing a POV, but it did not meet the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. I'm not suggesting that the revert wasn't appropriate, only that the edit summary is questionable. I'd like to ask you to consider being a little less hasty in what you label "v". Thanks for considering it. Jkelly 21:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, the only reason I know about that article is because it was mentioned on one of the Admin Noticeboards here as having been linked to by some websites, and was then extensively vandalised. It's no mystery to me why you would assume that some more anon editing would be reasonably called vandalism.  There have certainly been times when I have encountered rabid POV-pushing and been tempted to ignore WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but there is some chance that one or more of these anons might, if they have a good experience of Wikipedia and are helpfully taught how to make useful contributions, become an asset to the community.  In any case, this is almost certainly entirely too much conversation about a minor detail, and thanks for considering it and responding to me.  Good luck with your editing.  Jkelly 22:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I. F. Stone
Please see my remarks at Talk:I._F._Stone. I agree that you are characterizing the Hidden History correctly (at least to the best of my knowledge), but the immediately following sentence was not borne out by its citation. I've made some pretty detailed remarks on that citation.

This had been muddied by others removing what appears to be well-cited material that you (presumably correctly) restored, but I believe that this one sentence is a different story. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your name mentioned on my talk page
Your name was mentioned on my talk page, but I moved the discussion to Winter Soldier Investigation. Travb 14:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah
Thanks for your question, TDC. I don't know Lulu that well, me and him have talked a few times, but ultimately he asked me to step in on Ward Churchill as a third party. I agreed, but let him know that i'd have to be neutral, which I was to the best of my abilities, I even restored two instances where his comments were removed from the talk page. (I think it was done by Lulu, but even if it was, I assume it was done accidentally),

If Keetoowah worked towards trying to fix the article instead of attacking Lulu and Cberlet, there would have been no need for the block, which was proscribed from the PAP on Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah (three days per attack, 20 attacks I counted at sight since the rfar closed at the Ward Churchill talk page alone.) karmafist 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have an Idea
If you're willing to ask him to voluntarily enter the Mentorship Committee as someone needing to be mentored, I'd drop the block as long as he doesn't make any more Personal Attacks on anybody. karmafist 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

User:TDC/1000 fighting styles of Donald Rumsfeld
Can you source those images? If not please tell me so I can delete them. If you can please do so that someone else doesn't delete them. Thanks. gren グレン 00:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

WSI arbitration
You asked how long. Most of the other arbitrators are working on the webcomics case. I'm looking at the Ukrainian case and the Climate Change thing. I looked at WSI but since there is not a lot of edit warring (and actually am not that interested) started working on the other two. Someone else may take an interest or I may get to it. But you can see that we are backed up a bit. I hope you don't decide "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" and start "squeaking". Fred Bauder 23:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The way iI look at it, I just want to get it over with. I feel that the RfArb is the only way anthing is ever going to be resolved with the article, and the sooner the better. TDC 23:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Government
Hello. I was wondering if you could help me. I've noticed that you've edited articles on forms of government. What form of government would it be called of it was a dictatorship but rather then there being one dictator it is an agency? So for instance the CIA becoming the leaders of the United States rather than having just one person be the leader. If your wondering why I need to know, I am contributing to Mindbenders and you have to write a fictional article. Check it out. 01:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours
I notice that you're back in "revert everything" mode. This isn't acceptable. I've blocked you for twenty-four hours. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The only article I made any contributions whatsoever to yesterday was the same one that has been in contention for 1-1/2years now. You did not block me for any violation of Wiki policy, I did not violate the 3RR, I am very careful not to, this is completely arbitrary, and, once again, I am being singled out in this dispute. This is an absolute crock of shit. I do not appreciate being singled out to the exclusion of all others just so you can grind whatever ax it is you have against me


 * Consider this my protest. TDC 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This type of censorship makes me sick
Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Re: : thanks. I'm sure that edit must have been for you what it is for me when I delete snide remarks about Pat Robertson. Part of you wants to leave it, but then the angel on the other shoulder speaks up... -- Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My assholery knows some limits. TDC 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Great addition to What's the Matter with Kansas?
Great scholarly addition to What's the Matter with Kansas?, very well written.Travb 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Blood Libel equals "Jewish Holocaust Denier"
Hello TDC, in regards to your comments, "it is generally accepted that calling labeling someone as a "Jewish Holocaust Denier" is a kin to a blood libel."

From what I read, it seems that someone who accepts the idea that their was no "Jewish Holocaust" is a kin to "blood libel" http://www.universalway.org/denile.html

In contrast, accusing someone (in this case an American) of being similar to a "Jewish Holocaust Denier" (which I did, and got blocked for 72 hours for doing it) may have another colorful name, but "blood libel" is not one of them.

I may be incorrect, since you introduced me to the term. Please let me know.

I need to temper my words...because I am being watched...

Any luck finding the ID of the anon? Travb 22:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it me, or does user EECEE no longer exist?
Is it me, or does user EECEE no longer exist?Travb 20:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservatism
I've reverted Jacrosse's edits to Neoconservatism in the United States for the ninth time and protected the article. I also filed a request for comment on the edit conflict. He seems to have an aversion to discussing the concerns that you, I, Jmabel, and Hippo43 raised on the talk page. What do you think can be done to bring him around?&mdash;thames 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question, who knows. DTC 17:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Stalinists
Can I suggest replacing the names after the article has survived the AFD process? That many of the names on the list are debatable does not help it's chances of survival. My thought was to cut down the list to individuals that are verifiably Stalinist, to demonstrate the article's intent while it's still "under the gun", and then to replace the other names later. Can I ask you to undo your revert to give this cunning strategy a chance to succeed? If the article ends up being deleted, there won't be much point arguing about what should or should not be on the list! GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * fair nough. DTC 05:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for your vote
I saw that you voted against the adminship of William M Connolly. I reviewed said candidate's actions on the Cold Fusion article and determined them to indeed be very biased and uncivil. I haven't looked at WC's actions on the aetherometry article yet though. The vast support for WC is truly disturbing. I am a candidate for the arbitration council. William M Connolly is precisely the type of biased and uncivil person that I would fight against.

I request that you review my candidate statement and questions at: Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/LawAndOrder, and consider voting for me, though only if you have suffrage for arbitration committee elections (registered before 9/30/2005, and have over 150 edits before 1/9/2006). The votes are vastly against me, so I will not win, but I have very few support votes, so voting for me will at least show that I (who is on your side) am less of a pariah. LawAndOrder 20:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Camp Delta
Thanks for your help there. It's nice to know I wasn't the crazy one, asking him to make it NPOV. I assume you read the talk page... so you can see what I was (am?) going through with this issue. Now get ready for an exasperating amount of reverts and illogical, broken arguments. ;) Thanks again. Kafziel 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I added content pre-merge, and lost track of it. I stumbled onto it again and found the debate. Glad I could help. DTC 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Álvaro Uribe
Hi. I see that you've added a POV check (since December 29) to the Álvaro Uribe article. Could you expand your thoughts on the matter, either here or in the talk page? In any event, I must state that while I don't necessarily disagree (nor, just as well, do I completely agree) with that measure, it might help to clear things up a bit. Thanks in advance. Juancarlos2004 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez
I agree. Its high time that something be done about him. Just don't want to go it alone.CJK 23:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will second it, absolutely! DTC 00:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added it onto the request page, you can just add your name and whatever incidents you have had with Lopez, thanks. CJK 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. DTC 17:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And when you do so feel free to delete "Khmer Rouge" from the title if you have had disputes on other pages. CJK 02:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge
Check the talk page. I dunno if you're more knowledgeable than me on the subject of U.S. "support" for the KR in the '80s. Stoned Trey 07:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue was dealt with some time ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khmer_Rouge/Archive_4

Here is what I had to say about it then:

So, the US and APAC opposition to a Vietnamese puppet government in Cambodia is the same thing as supporting the KR? Would this mean that by extension that the Vietnamese were also guilt of supporting the KR after 1979 because the majority of the new puppet government that Vietnam setup in 1979 was comprised of KR officials?

Do we also mention the chorus of western leftists ( Chomsky, Gareth Porter, Herman, Hildebrand etc…) who rallied around the KR before 1979.

Do we mention that North Vietnam sent large numbers of troops into Eastern Cambodia (the KR's stronglhold in the late 60's and early 70's) to aid the KR insurgency? Or that the NVA had maintained a large presence in eastern Cambodia for years prior to the beginning of the Khmer Rouge war in 1967 and trained KR foot soldiers for asymmetrical warfare?

Do we mention that Lee Kuan Yew stated that China was the only country that had given direct aid to the Khmer Rouge?

Do we also mention that despite the bullshit allegations that Reagan aided Pol Pot the Cambodian refugee community has been almost unanimous in its support of him?

Do we also point out that Reagan was one of the only national politicians of the 1970s to speak out loudly against Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and was called a paranoid lunatic and a liar for it until the evidence became irrefutable.

Fact is the prime source for allegations of US funding the KR after 1979, come from John Pilger. Pilger’s biggest mistake it that he makes the leap that because the US funded ASEAN NGOs that supplied food to refugees along the Thai Cambodia border, and that some of those refugees were KR that we were in effect supplying and supporting the KR. Pilger also seems content to lump every single political faction, some of which the US and APAC did support, into the same category. Pilger presented a picture that the political opposition to the Vietnamese puppet government was this monolithic force and was all run by Pol Pot and the KR; nothing could be further from the truth. The opposition was very wide and mainly non communist. TDC 22:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * the only thing i dunno about is the Zbignew (or whatever his name is in the Carter admin.) quote about the Chinese supporting Pol Pot. d'you know anything about that, if it has any larger context? Stoned Trey 02:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have always had my suspicions about the Brzezinski quote. Although it appears all over the web, primarily on crackpot sites like ZMag and Third World Traveler, I have had a difficult time, to say the least, finding an attribution for the quote. The quote has several different prime sources, anything from a letter from Brzezinski to the UK's Thai diplomat Derek Tonkin, to an interview with Linda Becker. Needless to say, I don’t know how much faith can be put in this quote, it could be real, it could have been taken completely out of context, it might even be a fabrication, but considering the implication of Brzezinski’s alleged quote, I think that inclusion of it should be handled very carefully unless proper attribution can be made. DTC 15:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Schwartz
Hi, I cleared most of Stephen Schwartz (journalist). You had mentioned it to me, so I wanted to let you know and ask you to help keep an eye on it. We want to build the article back up, and with very very strict attention to published, reputable sources, only.--Jimbo Wales 08:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. DTC 16:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel like a laugh?
I am going around to random peoples pages and dropping off this hilarious video.http://media.putfile.com/FPS-Doug. Tell me if you like it. Fighterforfreedom

Considering
Consudering that Nobs1 was banned for a year, taking up his torch may not be the best idea. In fact, it seems rather disruptive, and I encourage you to stop. Phil Sandifer 03:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello TDC
I wanted to let you know that I mentioned you by name on Ruy's talk page...Travb 10:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
A request for mediation involving you has been filed concerning Venona related pages.--Cberlet 16:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks TDC
Thanks TDC for reverting the vandalism on my page.

I wanted to mention, as a follow up to what I wrote on CJK's page, that if Ruy is guilty of what you say he is, he should be sanctioned, irrespectable of you or CJK's past behavior. If I didn't say that, I would be guilty of a "red herring" fallacy of logic as I just preached to others just today. You and CJK's past behavior and what I see as hypocricy is irrelevant to the punishment Ruy Lopez deserves if he "contributes nothing, and wages endless edit wars". Travb 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another one to keep an eye on
This charming user (a very rabid Chinese nationalist) has graduated from using a range of anonymous IP addresses to push POV (and troll and vandalize) to actually creating an account for the same purpose. Having known me from another forum, he has also pledged to revert any changes I make to articles (which have been slim in number), a promise he has kept thus far. [See: Peekskill Riots, National Endowment for Democracy, Lucheng, No Gun Ri, Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front, Islam Karimov, etc.]  --TJive 05:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you have encountered his behavior recently yourself, at Alpha 66 and Raúl Rivero. --TJive 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are interested, I posted about this ongoing disruption at ANI. If it is summarily ignored (which I half expect), I would like to see an RFC as the next step.  Would you be willing to participate?  --TJive 07:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * mmmmmmmm ...... sure. DTC 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

DTC or TDC
Whichever you prefer - please stop the revert wars. Explain in talk clearly why you want to make changes and try to reach consensus. Your conduct on the Joseph Wilson page in particular is execrable. I understand you have a POV that you want represented, that is fine, but it is not OK to delete sourced content that you find discomforting because it doesn't help your POV. If you think a source is a "lunatic" you can go to his page and add the information there that you think establishes that. If you think a paragraph does not help the page you can make your case on the talk page. But to simply revert without explaining or with a cryptic "this article needs a pruning" is conduct that is incivil by Wikipedia standards. I realize that you and I will never agree on many things, and I don't expect you to try to convince me that you are right (and I don't plan to try to convince you that you're wrong), but I would not remove relevant sourced information from the pages you edit just because I don't like the content. Please knock it off.--csloat 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does need a pruning, no question about it. The action was not uncivil, but was bold. Much of the information was redundant, or overly lengthy, so I pruned it. And if you have any problem with the information I put on any of my pages, then take it up there. This is not some personal vendetta against you, the article just sucks. DTC 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But the information you removed is, to my eyes, valid. It could certianly be stated more consisely, and with less editorialising from those quoted, but it makes the case that there was not enough time, in a way the text you left behind simply does not.  That seems to me an important distinction.  So now, why not go over to the article's Talk page and come up with a more concise version you can both agree on? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on Joseph C. Wilson
Stop edit warring or be blocked. I'm warning simultaneously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

your email request
I don't know your email address. But you can email me at actionforum@comcast.net Please put TDC in the subject, in case I won't recognize your username/address. I get a lot of traffic at the email address since it is subscribed to wicken-l, and I wouldn't want to miss your message. --Silverback 13:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

DU DEBATE
To keep you in the loop. I just posted this to James' Talk page. --DV8 2XL 21:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

''Would you agree to split this topic into a Depleted uranium page dealing only with the material and its applications, with a one paragraph section on heath issues neutrally stating that there is a running debate between those that believe the hazard is high and those who believe it to be minimal? Heading that section would be a main article link to Depleted uranium (health and environmental issues) that would deal in depth with this aspect of the topic in a complete, meaning; the history; the debate; the evidence from both sides; the politics; perhaps even major players (although as I said I don’t see this as a positive) aside from the material itself. It will draw away much of the fire that the current article has drawn, and would allow a much more detailed treatment of your issues under a heading where science and reportage will not be in so much tension. --DV8 2XL 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)''

We've got him on the run!!!
Press on! We've got him on the run now! We can't let him escape! We have to get feedback on his alleged sockpuppets...

But do you think we can nab him when he reincarnates himself relatively quickly?CJK 01:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think arbitration is going to have to either make a ruling on the article itself (which I'm not sure they can do) or protect it permanently, a bit extreme, but it would be effective. Something like the Winter Soldier proposal. CJK 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Uranium Trioxide (gas)
I started the entry Uranium trioxide with a section on this supposed gas and referenced all of the literature that James is using to back his claim. Part of the reason was a fishing expedition to see if anyone had knowledge of this work, the other reason was to separate the investigation of this topic from the quagmire of the DU article.

Although I haven't had time to go into the issue in any depth, a cursory examination seems to indicate that should this species exist it is unlikely that a sufficient concentration of these gases could be maintained at STP for any length of time to make them a health hazard.

Also I am not yet sure that these references indicate that these gases would necessarily be produced as a primary by-product from an impactor type event, or if James is extrapolating this from the data.

I am an inorganic chemist and a working metallurgist with some thirty years in industry under my belt, and I can say with some confidence that if stable gases of this sort could be produced, on demand in any useful amount at reasonable concentrations, temperature and pressures it would be little short of revolutionary. As that hasn't happened yet already tells me much about these claims.

Hope that's some help. --DV8 2XL 12:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that article is the biggest partisan unsupported bs on the entire wikipedia site. My jaw hung open when I first read it a few days ago.  I didn't know if I should be upset or laugh, it was so absurd. Dr U 04:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Depleted uranium dispute
I'm not acting as an advocate too actively, no, I'm quite busy with school. I told James that I won't take offense if he seeks another advocate. I may be on more starting tomorrow, since I'm finishing my take-home test tonight. -- Pakaran 22:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * gotcha. DTC 22:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason you ask? -- Pakaran 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Hi, i don't know you but, an anon on my talk who's been giving me a hard time when i revert his pov edits on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq thread, is now talking crap about you on MY talk page. Thought you might want to check it out. I'm 90% sure he's Commodore Sloat's anon sock puppet, and I notice you've had problems with c sloat too, which lends credence to my theory. Swatjester 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not Csloat, he's is out in California. This anon is in Germany. http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm DTC 00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * TDC I'm pleased to see you can use your sleuthing for good as well as evil ;) Swatjester, what makes you make such an accusation?  I may be losing my mind in my old age, but the only thing I recall disagreeing with you about was the "unprecedented terrorism" item on 2003 invasion of Iraq.  You may disagree with my edits, but I always try hard to engage in discussion about them on the talk page, and I certainly haven't used sockpuppets.  More insulting though is that the anonymous IP you're complaining about is a terrible writer (probably because this isn't his first language).--csloat 00:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. How were you able to find that out? I asked an admin and they told me they couldn't do that? My apologies Csloat. I don't have a problem with you whatsoever, my problem is with the anon. Swatjester 02:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Pixie Dust, its good for what ails ye. DTC 14:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

RE:Sockpuppets
Well, since CJK already knows, might as well tell you too. My sockpuppet theory, based on zero evidence, was proven incorrect. You and CJK may share the same brains, it seems b/c of similar editing styles, but you two share definatly different bodies and are not sockpuppets.

My apologies.Travb 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Erasure by [User:Curps]
Curps erased something on your page. I didn't want to revert it. Thought I would let you know.Travb 00:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

DU Settlement
Just wondering if you could chime in regarding your feelings about the settlement proposed on Talk:Depleted uranium. Thanks :) -- Pakaran 05:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me add my voice to Pakaran's, as we are basicaly waiting on your input to bring this to a close. --DV8 2XL 14:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have been swamped. DTC 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Police State Article
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If you disagree with something on a page, discuss it on the talk page, please don't simply blank the page. Also please don't remove large amounts of the page. Discuss things you disagree with on the article's talk page.

--Tisquantum 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sock check
As I don't have the "checkuser" privilege to view IPs, I've got no idea who is a sock of whom. You might want to ask over at Requests for CheckUser, though they do have somewhat of a backlog. Thanks for helping keep track of this article, though it may be time to ask for protection to cool things off. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Who you can ask about socks
Hey TDC, I dont think anyone should have socks.

The list is here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#English_Wikipedia

In less than a day I found out if you and CJk were the same.

Hope this helps. Travb 02:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FredHampton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FredHampton.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 07:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Comment
Hi TDC, thanks for the note. I understand your frustration with the anon. I'm not happy to see discussions taking place outside of the RFA, and even less happy to see arbitrators cast votes based on discussions outside of the RFA. I will participate in the latest round if the discussions are moved to somewhere in Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier. --Duk 21:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. DTC 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Info
Thanks! Very interesting.Ultramarine 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help in Talk:Prescott_Bush
TDC, I need help @ Talk:Prescott_Bush

Give me a hand? 207.69.139.140 23:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

POV at Barack Obama FAR
[] seems to say that there is concensus (even on Rezko) someone may conclude. This is not the case. I am writing to you because you are a recent talk contributor. There is a debate on ig the article should remain a Featured Article or if it no longer qualifies (if edit warring stops then it may qualify, being a FA or not doesn't say Obama is good or bad). Feddhicks 19:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My e-mail
I have activated an e-mail that I hardly ever use--just for situations like this. Look forward to hearing from you.--Getaway 01:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bite
In response to this edit, please familiarize yourself with WP:BITE. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are learning good manners and civility. That's great news.Skywriter 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was lulu of the lotus eaters
Lulu added those external links. I only revert as a last resort. But now an administrator has stepped in and deleted the entire issue article just like I said that I would do if I was an administrator. Oh well.... Albion moonlight 07:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fake new message header
TDC, regarding the fake new message header on your user page and user talk pages, there's been a lot of ridiculous conflict over the past 24 hours, with posts to various noticeboards (much of it related to specifics besides the header. In any case, you can read the various threads yourself on WP:AN and WP:ANI. There seems to be consensus that a link to Practical joke is OK, so I'm doing that here, which is the only place the box remains.--Chaser - T 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I added 'practical joke'. I'm confident that you will agree that identifying this fakery as fakery so unsuspecting editors aren't fooled and waste time and get distracted by going to their own page then getting upset is OK, yes? Bmedley Sutler 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Chaser, thanks for the input. Butler, dont touch anything on my user page again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He's still fried
After all this time, he's still carrying the axe for us. He even protected it. Nancy Pearl would be so ashamed.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! You know whats really funny is that the ANI he has linked to is a compaint from Rootlogy! Its like the old song goes: its his party and he can ...... Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

DDIS
Do you have a reference for the Danish DDIS? Intangible2.0 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * . Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Alger Hiss
The Alger Hiss article is at a stand-still over whether a majority of scholars believe he was a spy. The number of sources in support of that contention are so many that it would take a long time to review them all. But if you do have some time, you could review the Talk discussion and weigh in. I believe the involvement of more Wiki users will help move the issue forward to a resolution.Bdell555 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Info
Thanks! Very interesting.Ultramarine 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help in Talk:Prescott_Bush
TDC, I need help @ Talk:Prescott_Bush

Give me a hand? 207.69.139.140 23:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

POV at Barack Obama FAR
[] seems to say that there is concensus (even on Rezko) someone may conclude. This is not the case. I am writing to you because you are a recent talk contributor. There is a debate on ig the article should remain a Featured Article or if it no longer qualifies (if edit warring stops then it may qualify, being a FA or not doesn't say Obama is good or bad). Feddhicks 19:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My e-mail
I have activated an e-mail that I hardly ever use--just for situations like this. Look forward to hearing from you.--Getaway 01:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bite
In response to this edit, please familiarize yourself with WP:BITE. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are learning good manners and civility. That's great news.Skywriter 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was lulu of the lotus eaters
Lulu added those external links. I only revert as a last resort. But now an administrator has stepped in and deleted the entire issue article just like I said that I would do if I was an administrator. Oh well.... Albion moonlight 07:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fake new message header
TDC, regarding the fake new message header on your user page and user talk pages, there's been a lot of ridiculous conflict over the past 24 hours, with posts to various noticeboards (much of it related to specifics besides the header. In any case, you can read the various threads yourself on WP:AN and WP:ANI. There seems to be consensus that a link to Practical joke is OK, so I'm doing that here, which is the only place the box remains.--Chaser - T 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I added 'practical joke'. I'm confident that you will agree that identifying this fakery as fakery so unsuspecting editors aren't fooled and waste time and get distracted by going to their own page then getting upset is OK, yes? Bmedley Sutler 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Chaser, thanks for the input. Butler, dont touch anything on my user page again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He's still fried
After all this time, he's still carrying the axe for us. He even protected it. Nancy Pearl would be so ashamed.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! You know whats really funny is that the ANI he has linked to is a compaint from Rootlogy! Its like the old song goes: its his party and he can ...... Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

DDIS
Do you have a reference for the Danish DDIS? Intangible2.0 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * . Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Alger Hiss
The Alger Hiss article is at a stand-still over whether a majority of scholars believe he was a spy. The number of sources in support of that contention are so many that it would take a long time to review them all. But if you do have some time, you could review the Talk discussion and weigh in. I believe the involvement of more Wiki users will help move the issue forward to a resolution.Bdell555 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Due to the rampant edit warring, I've locked your user page. If you'd like me to make an edit onto the user page, let me know. MessedRocker (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Due to the rampant edit warring, I've locked your user page. If you'd like me to make an edit onto the user page, let me know. MessedRocker (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My name on your user page
Just to make crystal clear - I would be very grateful if you would please remove the link to my userlinks and contribs on your user page. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the objection exactly? Deleting these links yourself or enlisting others to delete them seems abusive even bizarre.  No idea how or why 3 people showed up to help remove these links from someone else's user page.  What's inappropriate about linking to other users or their edit histories?  There's not even any commentary offered that could be construed as incivil.  Many people use their user space as a sort of scratch pad for keeping track of important links.  For example you yourself seem to have some precisely analogous links on your talk page.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you, fourdee. In any case just to be clear, I didn't touch TDC's page. It's his page and he can do what he wants. And indeed, I'm aware of the use of userlinks for these sorts of situations, as I believe I made clear on MONGO's page . The links on TDC's page to select edits of mine are from an ancient dispute (October 06), left there and now irrelevant. Accordingly, I removed the corresponding links of TDC's notable behavior from my own page back in February, 3 months after the dispute ended. The userlinks there now (to Ribo) are for a more recent event (June 07), where it looked like a user was trolling TDC. Those links are due for me to scrub soon (next archive, I imagine).


 * If you want a complete breakdown, here you go.


 * TDC and I had a dispute in October '06, stemming from an exchange on Military Commissions Act, during which time I started tracking a few of TDC's edits that I saw as tendentious or intentionally disruptive . He then acted capriciously, taking notes on my notes in kind . That's his right. Despite my removal of the notes after the conflict had gone stale he has not yet removed them 10 months later, preferring (I think) to leave them up because he believes it bothers me.


 * It doesn't. I was content to ignore it - since as I've said before, drama is boring.


 * But when MONGO removed the other userpages' links I asked him if he would intervene with his colleague TDC and help to remove them as well, on the same principle he stated. He acted unilaterally (and I appreciate his boldness) and others have objected - so, 'presto'. More WP edit warring. Yawnsville Central.


 * In any case, I hope that clears it up for you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't say it makes any sense to me at all. You say it doesn't bother you but if it didn't I daresay you'd ignore it rather than asking MONGO for help in getting it taken down.  A watchlist of editors seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate sort of scratchpad to have on one's user page or talk page and unilaterally deleting something like that which is being used by the editor in the course of their work on wikipedia seems to be at best vandalism.  In fact I could use something like this myself, seems like a very convenient way to do it.  Some people edit from different computers or prefer not to use bookmarks or other storage outside wikipedia and I'd say this is quite a bit easier to use.  From what you say you have a habit of this very behavior yourself and that's perhaps where TDC picked it up?  Now you are complaining about it because you object to the the duration of it?  I'd say the best thing to do is just ignore it and let it rest, and perhaps stop doing it yourself.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are determined to object to my point of view, there's little I can do to stop that. However, I hope that's not the case and you actually would prefer not to be 'devil's advocate' if the facts don't warrant it.
 * If you carefully re-read the information I provided for you above I think you'll find the comments you just made were already addressed:
 * Yes, it's a useful practice for conflict resolution (see MONGO talk page link)
 * Yes, unilateral deletion of content from another user's page is not appropriate (and I have not done so here)
 * Yes, TDC did it after he saw me do it, specifically in retaliation for my note-taking. Noting notable edits for users with whom I engage in conflicts is not my 'habit', it is, as you say, a 'useful practice'.
 * No, It doesn't bother me. Again, I only asked MONGO to help because TDC is his friend and the links are getting on a year old (and TDC hasn't maintained any other such links for other users despite numerous ongoing conflicts). The duration isn't the reason I mentioned it. That (plus the lack of any other such links) and MONGO's new policy were all reasons to ask for MONGO's help. If he'd simply asked TDC to remove them that would have been fine too - since again, I really am quite content to ignore the links for another year if TDC doesn't remove them.
 * Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he'll consider his friend's request to remove them. However, there is some considerable conflict between your assertion it doesn't bother you and your repeated explanation of why it does bother you.  Perhaps we're having a language barrier but objecting to something and it bothering you mean basically the same thing to me.  Similarly you said the "duration isn't the reason" in the sentence immediately after you explained that the duration was the reason.  "Getting on a year old"... "duration isn't the reason"... "Don't bother me"... "[reasons it bothers you]"...  I'm thinking maybe I need to add a link to your contribs to my page because if this sort of equivocation is a problem for you it must crop up frequently.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Emphasis isn't clear - duration isn't 'THE' reason is what the sentence is meant to express. By asking if I am "complaining about it because you object to the the duration of it?") you seem to miss that I made quite clear in the very next sentence that there were a few reasons to ask MONGO for help with his colleague these 10 months after the fact, given his decision re userlinks today and his friendship with TDC.
 * And given TDC's name and his self-described reputation as an 'internet troll', being actually bothered by TDC's non-content-related behavior is the last thing on my mind. Such user trolling is pretty easy to spot . ;)
 * So now we don't disagree on WP policy, the incorrectness of MONGO's unilateral removal, or the utility of userlinks.
 * What do we disagree about? While my comments have been clear regarding my motives, you seem very determined to orient this conversation away from these issues of agreement to a dissection of what you claim my feelings to be (rather than the actual issue at hand, which is whether TDC will maintain these links or not). Since I can't continue without feeding your 'fait accompli' that the more I elaborate the more bothered I am, I won't bother :), except to say this has been an actual laugh, and that it's nice to 'meet' you. :) :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...TDC...can you take down the links...I can detail all this if you want, but I'm rather tired now...--MONGO 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, might I remind you that this entire shit storm began when you decided to begin posting links to my edits on your userpage and involving yourself in a third party dispute.

If you wanted me to remove them, you could have asked nicely (as you have done now). I have not been avoiding this, as I usually don’t edit from home and stop once I leave work. There is no reason to involve anyone else who was not a party of the original debate (but thanks for everyone’s involvement, seriously) and do onto me what you would like done onto you.

I will remove (or anyone else can if I am not available) the links, and consider this matter closed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As will I - thank you, TDC. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel
I think you made your point, probably best not to antagonize further. I am recommending to him that he either ignores you, or takes up the discussion on the appropriate discussion pages. I don't think it's inappropriate to point out inconsistencies in policy application, I've done it myself. But it's best to make your point, and then let it go. Be the water. - Crockspot 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * : I hope I have made my point, and hopefully, perhaps Gamaliel will recognize it. Thanks for playing referee, BTW. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A "significant" campain issue that went nowhere. I cannot beleive that you would argue so hard on this page for the inlcusion of material like this, but fight so hard on another page for the exclusion of the cape wind project. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't "fight so hard", I removed it once or twice and then went on to other issues while other editors dealt with that article. Not sure why you keep bringing that up, other than a desire to make this editing dispute personal. Your judgement that this campaign issue "went nowhere" should not be subsituted for reliable sources which conclude this issue was significant during the campaign. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Didnt fight so hard ehh.., , ..... anyhoo, there was a very good reason I brought it up. To some of the less experienced editors here your actions could be viewed as hypocritical, even biased. I just thought that you would like to opportunity to impress upon the dozens of editors on this page who disagree with you on this subject, that you do have a good reason for your actions, and that your actions and motivations are applied with an equal degree of jurisprudence on every article you edit, from the “lion of the Senate” to Tom Coburn. See, if you dont explain why you are acting the way you are on this page, some less experienced editor might even think that you are trying to WP:OWN this article, and we cant let that go unchallenged. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed your comments as they serve no other purpose but to attack some minor edits on another article. If you have a problem with my edits there, take it up on my talk page or on the talk page of that article.  If you have a problem with my edits in general, start an RfC on me.  But I will not allow you to use this talk page as a forum for your personal animosity. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, they serve a very important purpose, and it has nothing to do with any "beef" you think I have for you, so please don’t attempt to divine my motivations. Other editors of this article might like to know why you would apply one standard to one article, and another standard on this article? While these articles are “different” in that they cover different topics, all guidelines and policies apply equally to both of them. WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV apply just as much to this article as they do to Ted Kennedy (or Joe Scarborough for that matter). So, I ask you again, why is material that would not be fit for one article you edit, be fit for this one? Its a legitimate question, and answering it could go a long way in easing this dispute. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've attempted to make this dispute personal from the beginning, so your motives are quite easy to divine. If I am wrong, then all you have to do to prove me wrong is stop bringing up irrelevancies from my edit history.  I stand by all my edits and I will defend them, but in the appropriate forums, not here and not as part of your blatant attempt to personalize this dispute by inventing claims of hypocrisy. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)