User talk:172/Talk block 11

Magnificent job on the Zimbabwe History section. Thank you. Wizzy 13:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I've been interested in overhauling History of Africa whew - looks like a big job :-) It could use a little more structure, perhaps the colonial period could use a section sorted by colonial powers. Maybe a timeline ? No mention seems to be made of the search for the source of the Nile, which I was under the impression drove the colonialisation of East Africa. And I would love one of those old maps, where the Mediterranean is the centre of the world, and Africa has mythical beasts in it :-) However, most of the written history is irretreviably Euro-centric. For a little more perspective, you might try looking for Credo Mutwa - here is one [[1]]. If I can help, it might be on East and Southern Africa, and the Bantu. Wizzy 07:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rhodesia

I have made a stab at fleshing out the somewhat confusing alphabet soup of Zimbabwe's revolutionary war, with ZAPU, ZANU, and Zanu-PF. I recently found some history around Herbert Chitepo, and interactions with players like Joshua Nkomo, Ndabaningi Sithole, Robert Mugabe and Ian Smith. I would welcome your take on things. Wizzy 08:20, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik2

I'm not that sure about how the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2 ought to be formatted. The arbitration committee has not made hard and fast rules. I think my position would be that it is reserved for participants in the case. The edit I did was probably wrong from my own point of view as you are not a participant in this matter. I will leave it as is and bring up the question of how we want to handle the page with the rest of the committee Fred Bauder 13:21, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Re: "Thanks for the warning. 172 12:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

That would be an interesting experiment, do you still have my email?...on the larger point, I agree that VV's behavior is ridiculous. But your behavior's been bad too, which doesn't help matters. I mean, I think the fact that I generally haven't gotten into problems in the same way that you have has a lot to do with the fact that I'm probably naturally more conciliatory than you, and try to remain patient and (relatively) polite on talk pages. You have a tendency to fly off the handle which doesn't serve you well. john 06:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense. john 07:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't back down, I misread the series of events. It had looked like you had edited after I protected the page, but you hadn't. Rick K 22:08, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your support -- if you think I deserve it (if not, I definitely want to know why and hope you will be frank expressing your views) -- concerning an edit conflict relating to "history." It is on the Talk: Jesus Christ page, under the section on religious scholars and professors of history, and refers to a section in Jesus Christ section called "the historical Jesus of Nazareth." Thanks, Slrubenstein

Thanks very much for the nomination. It is nice to be appreciated, and I accept it with all humility. I hope to continue to deserve your faith in me, and be of good use to the project. Chancemill 12:53, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oil for food

Hi there, you helped to find a consensus in the vote for deletion of "oil for food allegations". The article was merged with oil for food, but there are serious problems now, mainly because two users have extreme disagreements and no one else helped. Bcorr now suggested a peace-plan, and I thought you might be willing to help again? By the way, if you are interested in a project about learning, especially vocabulary, please check my page and let me know what you think. Get-back-world-respect 19:06, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

West Papua

Hey, I notice that you were discussing with Wik about his listing of Tannin as someone who should be banned as a West Papuan POV pusher. While I think that's silly (as, to be honest, is much of Wik's list), I found that so incongruous that I did take an interest in the Papuan issue. After some days of discussion there, I have come to the conclusion that Daeron is a ~~lunatic~~ er, you get the idea, and that Tannin has been) enabling him. We all have our bad days, blindspots, or whatever, I suppose. Take a look at Talk:Papua (Indonesian province), if you'd like. john 23:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please do look at the article that John & Wik keep reverting over at Papua (Indonesian province) : Page history -- My version speaks for itself; different maps, more content, and honest facts not twisted racist non-sense. THeir version paints Papuans as dumb blackmen lead around by a Reverend with a sing-song (please compare that paragraph to mine). Their version also removes the vital links to the US State Dept. document & the letter from JFK, without which US readers may have difficultly understanding why their country did what it did at that time.

Please also look at what Wik & John keep reverting over at West Papuan Genocide - a perfectly good article that they aparently hate because the Yale University uses the term West Papua which they have expunged from their version at Human rights violations in western New Guinea. Be careful because they keep replacing the real article with a RE-DIRECT to their version. There is a large list of articles they keep purging the name West Papua from, as people can only look for the subject under that name or the old Indonesian 'Irian Jaya' if they know how to spell that one; Wik & John are basicly effectivly keeping the article concealed from public view.

FYI: Papua = 'New Guinea' as per any dictionary. West Papua is both the Western name and the Papuan name for the country since 1962; the Indonesians now call it Propinsi Papua; but this is not an Indonesian encyclopedia is it? Much time wasted explaining this to Wik & John see discussion page talk about name.

Please do help, as other readers seem to feel too unfamiliar with the subject matter to comment; leaving me at the hands of Wik & John. Tannin did help for one week, and did an excellent job, but I assume he has other articles and does not want the aggravation of dealing with two rednecks who seem to imagine they are doing something great by stopping me from writting or publishing the article. Look at my home page, I was very positive about Wikipedia before this experience.Daeron 13:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

ddr, 02:31, Apr 30, 2004

this edit is heavy with pov, subverts page protection in a manner abusive of your position, and contains several glaring typographical mistakes. further discussion Talk:East Germany. Badanedwa 01:29, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Zanu-PF

I have been doing a lot of work around the Zimbabwe revolutionary war, and think it might justify a page to itself, to prevent duplication and cut down the length of the rather unweildy Robert Mugabe page. If you have tie-in from the Zambia side, or Britains colonial history from before, Nyasaland and the division of the land between northern and southern Rhodesia, that would be helpful. Re: Zanu-PF, I think it was just PF at the Lancaster House Agreement, back to ZANU for the 1980 elections, and then Zanu-PF after Joshua Nkomo gave up the fight. Wizzy 15:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

172, could I ask you to unblock me? Stevertigo wrongly blocked me - I did not violate the three-revert rule and he has no authority to block me on the other reasons he gave. --(Wik) 09:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Silsor did it. --Wik 09:29, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

There is an article Problems of land distribution in Zimbabwe that is a placeholder for cleaning the Mugabe page .. however, I do not like the title. It is protected from editing, I think by you. There is discussion already on the page about a name change. Can I or you rename it to Land reform in Zimbabwe ? Wizzy 09:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I have done some moving, leaving images in some disarray on the Mugabe page, but because of the scale of the edit I am going to let it rest awhile in case others have problems with the change. Wizzy 10:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering if you meant to revert my change of "Saddam" to "Saddam Hussein" at Saddam Hussein. If so, could you please explain your reasoning on the talk page? Thanks! Wmahan . 16:40, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting why you reverted my change again, but could you please elaborate on your reasoning at Talk:Saddam Hussein? Thanks. Wmahan . 19:28, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

I noticed that you reverted my change again, without any comment, after someone else reinstated it. Would you please explain why you think that brevity is paramount before continuing to revert the article? Thank you, Wmahan . 06:33, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

What I think needs an explanation is why referring to Saddam Hussein as Saddam is more appropriate than, say, referring to George W. Bush as "George". My reasoning is on the talk page. Wmahan . 06:48, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

Hey, I put up an RFC for Cantus. Would you like to join in, so it becomes quasi-official? john 23:42, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

Please don't revert an article more than three times in a day.( Template:Central Asia) it goes against our policies. TIA theresa knott 22:23, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism

Could you please weigh in at Talk:Fascism? WHEELER needs to know I'm not the only one who thinks his suggestions are daft. AndyL 07:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hanpuk, Adam, VV, and so forth

I assume you don't like the idea of Adam and VV acting as censors? I really don't want to get into this, to be honest. That whole worthless revert war with Cantus over a bunch of completely worthless mediawiki pages has completely burned me out on all the arguing of politics and all that. See my user page for my frustrated rant of last night. I'm going to try to avoid stuff like that, at least for the moment, and just focus on, well, not looking at wikipedia quite so much and contributing on the stuff I actually enjoy contributing on, instead of getting into constant fights. I was starting to feel like Wik yesterday, and I realized that that kind of thing is not what I started contributing to Wikipedia for. And if I were going to get into a fight, I wouldn't do it on behalf of Hanpuk, who does strike me as kind of a Stalinist. Yeah, Adam's obsessions can get tiresome, and VV in general gets even more so, but I think picking one's battles is always smart, and picking to fight on Hanpuk's side is only going to result in discomfiture. In general, I'm just kind of sick of all the crappy politics in this place - all the bureaucracy, the phony procedures, the unchangeable conventions, the complete inability to deal with trolls. So, I'm going to try to avoid all that stuff. I don't think I really accomplish much when I intervene in such things, and I'd rather just focus on contributing, instead of constantly fighting with other users. So, I'm going to hang back for a while, stick to non-controversial things, and wait to calm down again. I imagine at some point I'll get feisty again, and pick a fight, but for right now all that stuff is just pissing me off. john 08:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

message2

Hey need your help with someone whom I know you ahve expierence with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV thanks allot. GrazingshipIV 04:45, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. While some of your statement too me aback at first, I think you made some descent points. I do sometimes act a little rashly. Though the comment in question was one he made.

I also, on a more serious note, would like to highlight a key difference between myself and spade. I always have an academic reference to any work I submit as an edit. Spade rarely, if ever does, he openly admits he just likes to start trouble. My conflict with him mostly arises out of his policy to advance an agenda based on little more than thin air. Particularly one that is insensitive to racial issues or in some cases apologizing for racist viewpoints.

Eitherway I will examine what you have said and thank you for the vote. GrazingshipIV 06:28, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

Could you clarify whether your last statement here is an endorsement of RickK's statement or not? Thanks. —No-One Jones 17:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. —No-One Jones 17:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya mate! Glad to hear from you. I had to drop off wikipedia quite suddenly. I am now just occasionally visit. You should have seen the size of my phonebills! :-( Glad to see you are still fighting the fight for academic standards here. Though I have just looked at a couple of articles in areas I had contributed to before and which are my areas of knowledge and found that they now have outgrown my knowledge and that instead of my imparting my knowledge to them, they are educating me with more people with more info coming along. Wikipedia is genuinely getting more and more impressive. (OK frustrating too, that was one of the non-financial reasons why I left!) Anyway, best of luck FearÉIREANN 17:54, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Pinochet, again, is something I'd rather not involve myself in. And I don't see that the revert war is not likely to resume as soon as the page is unprotected, so I don't think that's a sound policy. To be honest, I don't think either version is unacceptably bad. john 16:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks. I am going to try and come back but will probably just edit random articles for the moment. Thanks for your support. Secretlondon 18:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein Photos

172, the pictures that you are trying to remove ARE very important. The Rumsfeld pic shows that Saddam did not always have unfriendly relationships with the United States! And the cult of personality pic demonstrates his cult of personality. WhisperToMe 03:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"And certain pics are critical to an article about the history of Iraq, others to a biographical entry" - That explanation is poor. Saddam Hussein was completely intertwined with the history of Iraq while he ruled! WhisperToMe 03:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

IP block

Hi, I unblocked user:217.96.26.85, who you blocked for around three years. Is it a static non-proxy IP? You didn't say anything in the block message, and I tried to tracert it, but it was inconclusive. 24 hours is the normal block time for vandals, even if the User:John Kenney edit was way out of order, so it'd be nice if you could give a bit more detail to justify longer blocks. I've reblocked for 24 hours, anyway. Martin 23:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-French sentiment in the United States

Could you please explain how "jimgoism" is NPOV? I also note that you have violated the three-revert rule on this page now. Rick K 00:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Hinton

Ever read Fanshen? Care to add anything to William H. Hinton? -- Viajero 09:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! -- Viajero 18:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get a chance to see the Monthly Review on a regular basis? There was a wonderful reminiscence by Hinton last year -- I can dig it up and photocopy it for you if you are interested. -- Viajero 19:10, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it is now online: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1003hinton.htm

Sorry, I already blocked Cantus. Danny 00:52, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hob nisht kein koach mit Cantus. Danny 00:56, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just got an email from the user who had been using the IP 67.161.15.61 which you banned for being Cantus. He claims he is not Cantus. If there is no other reason that he was banned, please you could you unblock him. Thanks. Angela . 05:01, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Possible Massive Copyvio

Please see my note on User talk:Ahoerstemeier about this. Burgundavia 09:41, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Gulf War

172, you protected Gulf War. Anon. has not responded to the last comments left on the talk page on Friday. I do not know whether he has given up on us, but I would appreciate being able to edit the article again. Please evaluate the situation and consider lifting the protection. Thank you, DanKeshet 17:22, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Viet Cong, NLF, or whatever

The cut and paste moves are bad news - the article should be at the location where the history of its writing is. At any rate, why don't you work towards coming up with a solution on the talk page, rather than just reverting? john 06:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to make some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll? 172 15:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to get into an edit war, and while VV's motives in involving himself in the article may be suspect, I don't think his actual comments were all that unreasonable. john 15:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pinochet

As you may have know, I did a fair bit of work on that article last summer, and as such have kept an eye on it in intervening months, but when the right-wing cabal descended upon it earlier this year, I decided to keep out of the fray; I simply didn't have the stomach to deal with those pendejos. They are winning the battle because they have set the terms of the debate; namely, whether the US backed the plotters (and by backing I mean provided substantial material and moral support). Of course it did, and I don't think any serious historian debates that, just the Anne Coulter crowd, which, unfortunately, seems lately to be in the ascendency here. (These people live in tooth-fairy land as far as US foreign policy goes.) I just left a comment on the Talk page, but I have no illusions about having any meaningful impact. Sorry I can't be of more help. Hang in there.-- Viajero 16:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is now a "vote" (but I have reservations about this quickpoll thing). -- Viajero 16:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is going heavily in our favor, so hopefully VV will chill out. -- Viajero 20:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein

172, On my talk page you had left me a note about the PGP article as a featured article candidate. But I guess you meant Saddam Hussein that I have supported now as a featured article candidate. Andries 21:13, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I read in another article that there was a personality cult of Saddam Hussein but I can't find it in the current version. Why not? Andries 11:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am at work till quite late tonight, but as soon as I get home I will look into it. Danny 21:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment (seriously I mean that too!). I am sorry I have not been as engaged as I normally am. I have spent the past 2 weeks in Pascagoula working out some issues with a client of mine. I will be relaxing in Wisconsin this weekend, but will be back in force on Monday.

Caio.

TDC 17:07, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed Burschenschafter's dubiousness. Holocaust, at the moment, doesn't seem to be that intense - mostly a tempest on the talk page, as it were. But it bears watching. I'm definitely keeping an eye out for Burschenschafter. I imagine we're in store for a rant about how bad the DDR was, once he sees my response. john 20:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

TDC

May I ask what changed your attitude towards TDC so completely? Rules here strictly say No personal attacks. TDC has broken that rule repeatedly, and telling someone to "suck his own dick" in my eyes has nothing to do with humour. I would appreciate if TDC acted as you describe, reasonably and fair. However, as I described at the comments page, he repeatedly engaged in edit wars, did not accept the results of polls, and ridiculously tried to twist articles towards his own political convictions. He never said sorry for any of his attacks. Get-back-world-respect 23:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

Any assistance on the talk page would be appreciated, although I tend to think IZAK is cutting his own throat - he's gotten to the point of accusing Christopher Browning of being an anti-semite based on a hunch. It may be to the point where the whole thing is more amusing than actually worrisome, but some support to remind myself that I'm the sane one would be nice. john k 07:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

British East India Company

Thanks. I guess this article is a good example for editing on Wikipedia, with so many people contributing positively and constructively. BTW it is now an FA :)I hope it gets featured on the main page some day - but it lacks some good images at the moment. Chancemill 09:02, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

I would not support a strike. What are you going to do? Give VeryVerily run of the place when you are gone? Danny 11:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call.

I'm not vested with any admin powers. Snowspinner 01:53, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wik's talk page

You said "arbitration cabal and their asinine rulings" First there is no cabal since what we do we do in the open and we list who we are. Cabals don't do that. Our intentions are to look at matters fairly and hand out fair rulings (both to the user and to the community) so that disputes that could not be resolved in any other way get resolved. --mav 14:18, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

History of China

I appreciate your comment about consistent color schemes for Template:History_of_China, so would be happy to include them. I don't know which other articles you are refering to, but your comment that what I introduced was "pretty nice" did prompt two questions - (1) does it matter if it is inconsistent?; (2) if something is better than the existing standard, shouldn't the standard be changed? I am not claiming that for the colors I introduced - that is a very minor matter - but as a general principle the whole Wiki idea seems to me to be that improvements will take place over time, and if something new is introduced and is generally accepted as being better than what currently exists then a migration to the new will take place. The more appropriate question to ask in this kind of situation then is not, is it consistent, but, is it better, and if it is, then either the inconsistency should be allowed to stand or the standard should be changed. Of course, there may be situations when such a change would just be to mammoth a job, but probably not in most cases. I'd be interested in your comments... - Madw 04:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. A look at the links that you told me about makes it abundantly clear there is no standard form for these boxes, and judging by the comments on those pages there is unlikely ever to be one! I notice the new Template:HistoryofChina you created is only on the History of the People's Republic of China pages. It doesn't make sense to have two different boxes for one series of articles, so I am going to change the boxes on those pages back to Template:History_of_China, mostly on the grounds that I believe that these boxes need to be as slim as possible so as not to impinge on the article itself - something also mentioned in the pages you pointed me too. However, I will also draw attention to these two different versions on Talk:History of China so that others can chime in with their opinion and some sort of consensus on the way forward can be reached. I suspect that whatever results would probably worth suggesting for the other article series you mentioned too. - Madw 05:52, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Nominations

I'd be happy to nominate Andy, but I think waiting a bit longer would be a good idea - maybe get into June a bit, given that he was already nominated twice. I don't know Mark Alexander, so I'd not feel comfortable nominating him. john k 04:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

BEIC Featured on the main page

Awesome! Thanks for the picture and the effort :) Chancemill 08:10, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Polish nationalist bias

Are we guilty of systematic Polish nationalist bias? Could you help me understand what's going on here? 172 01:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

This concerns early history of Russia. But IMO it is Ukrainian, not Polish, and not very systemic. The whole idea was to "prove" that Muscovy somehow "usurped" the name "Russia" and robbed Ukraine from its glorious past, Kievan Rus' (which they claim was in fact Kyivan Rus). That Muscovites are more finns (i.e., mongoloids, i.e., asiats) than slavs, that Holodomor was specifically carried out to eradicate ukrainians, and lots of other opinions proliferated in modern Ukrainian textbooks on history. And of course russians are guilty of oppressing poor poles (somehow forgetting that russians, belarussians and ukrainians were "bydlo" (cattle) and "psia krew" (dog's blood) for "democratic" polish szlachta in their good times). Mikkalai 16:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

More sad news :-(((

David Dellinger, an amazing figure. I read his autobiography last fall. -- Viajero 15:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please no more Vietnam war on wikipedia

Hi there, 172, I saw you had a disagreement with VV about the My Lai Massacre. As far as I see it was mainly about whether to call your country US or America and whether to call "Charly" Vietcong or National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam (NLF). It would be interesting to see how the Vietnamese page called both sides, but apparently there is not yet even an article about the war in the Vietnamese section. Why do you two guys not collect some money and send used computers to Vietnam instead of engaging in fruitless edit wars? When I once had a similar conflict with TDC I remembered that there was a rule not to revert more than three times within a day, so I warned him and put a remark on request for comments. If that does not help you can also put it on request for protection. Get-back-world-respect 15:31, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

French Revolution

Inotice your recent major edit to Template:French Revolution. I would really like to revert it, but feel we should discuss rather than have an edit war, since you made the change without comment.

The way I had set this up was to deal with the fact that French Revolution is part of the History of France series, but has itself been growing to the point that it had to be split up into a series itself. I felt that what was most useful was, on the articles relating to the French Revolution, to provide easy access to both levels of series. As far as I know, I'm not violating any standard by doing this. What is your problem with that?

--Jmabel 16:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

ugh

Welcome to the Mickey Mouse school of history: Chilean coup of 1973. -- Viajero 19:34, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-U.S. relations

172, thank you for this article. That is the way an encyclopedia article, especially about a subject many think sensitive, should be written. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:37, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, 172, but you were praising the wrong person, I did not add any picture to that article. Get-back-world-respect 15:49, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sandinista

I created an article on Michael Barnes and incorporated something Oliver North said in his autobiography in the article. If you have a minute, could you please check it for NPOV? --"DICK" CHENEY 02:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

With the flow

Great recent work; at least the major edits I've seen. The reversions make me sad; a waste of your precious time! I have a few better ways to get your point across I could share. Leave me a note on my Talk page if you care to discuss it. +sj + 07:33, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid reversion on principle. A waste of time! The only exception is when I'm dealing with a new user who doesn't understand, and I can just leave an explanation on her user page. 95% of the work I do meets with no opposition. The other 5% I let be; I leave a note on the relevant talk page explaining what I want, and walk away; if I really care about the topic, I watch for a few days to see what happens, leave notes for a few others asking for support, and come back (to the talk page first) in force.

Try not to be angry at those who care about WP but still oppose you; understand that they are imperfect and cannot see everything; pray for their enlightenment. When you become angry, you have already lost. It's important to wait patiently for your opposition to put their feet in their mouths; you only hide the truth of the matter by making a fuss about it.

Here's my prediction for the next week or two:

If you stop posting to meta: pages about you and VV, ignore the matter completely, avoid reverting any changes at all -- which means, for instance, letting VV revert you without retaliating (save via comments/complaints on Talk pages) -- and focus on improving articles, it will be easy for everyone to see who is focused on contributing to the encyclopedia and who is not... and this problem you see will go away.

+sj + 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a User-page note saying you're avoiding meta-discussions for a while would be nice. (: +sj +

Message

Greetings, I received your message. I unfortunetly have been busy traveling and with summer activities so I apologize for not giving a prompt response.

I will review your message and its given links in full when I get the chance. I definetly, like you, and many others am concerned by the number of quality users leaving wikipedia due to trolling activity. You have proven yourself time and time again to be a credible user and I of course would hate to see you leave. If indeed your are being trolled, you can count on my full support in any matter. thanks. GrazingshipIV 17:24, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the nomination for admin status. It's a particularly meaningful thing when someone you've been a vocal critic of is able to rise above it enough to do something like that. I hope that, whatever decisions the community and/or arbitration committees come to, you'll stick around Wikipedia - as someone who's also gotten into a fair share of spats in only six weeks over edits made by the truly clueless, I understand your frustration with VV, and I agree that it's important to have knowledgable editors. As I've said many a time, my only issue was with your methods, not with the content of your edits. (In fact, I largely agree with you on many of those points - particularly the NLF/VC issue). In any case, thanks. Snowspinner 19:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was a little surprised to see myself nominated this early. I was expecting that someone would eventually, but I was figuring July or so, and considered declining the nomination because it was too soon. But I've voted a few people in early (Tom, notably), so I figured I'd brave the longshot. In any case, no, I haven't seen that user around. Though, wow, I'm really impressed that we had Habermas's translator on Wikipedia at all. It's impressive, sometimes, how many really big name academics do respect Wikipedia as a source. Snowspinner 03:21, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noted your request for community support made to another user, and also the extensive discussion on the mailing list.

Other than a few times we've worked together on various project-related pages, I don't believe we've had much chance to get to know each other. Different interests. I reviewed your edits today and noted your excellent work at 1973 energy crisis, which I would characterize as fact-based, well organized, and accurate. I also saw evidence of your high quality work at Berlin Blockade.

I am in no position to evaluate, objectively, your edits to topics that have become controversial, because I lack the background. However, if the volume and quality of your other work is at all indicative, as I expect it is, I have every reason to believe that your contributions to the project are substantial, in number, depth, and quality. I hope you will continue to choose to contribute here.

Thus, I offer my support. I will note that it is my experience that a) Wikipedia doesn't always get it right, and b) that when Wikipedia is insistent upon being wrong the battle is best deferred to a more appropriate future time. Consider the MeatBall:LongNow and the fact that the content will endure for years, if not centuries. I will refrain from offering any tactical advice unless it is specifically requested.

Best regards

UninvitedCompany 02:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry to see you seem to have left. I wasn't aware of the mailing list discussion until just now, as I studiously avoid the mailing list. I hope you choose to return soon, but I can see how you wouldn't want to. Best wishes, john k 00:12, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with John here -- it's unfortunate that there's not a better mechanism for resolving conflicts such as the one between you and VV. Perhaps the departure of such a valuable member of the Wikipedia community will motivate us to figure out a better way of arbitrating and resolving conflicts. Peace, --Atemperman 12:45, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Having briefly returned to the Wikipedia, at the request of some friends; I would like to take a moment to note my agreement with 172. 172 is a trained and professional historian; who is constantly forced to defend himself against the ideological crusades of people such as Ed Poor. Ed Poor's actions are inappropriate and its time that sysops start being punished for these infractions. Lirath Q. Pynnor

- I repeat here the request I made on the mailing list: please list any infractions of rules which you believe I have committed. If I have written or done anything you feel is inappropriate, I am willing to take it back. This is a wikiwiki, and it's easy to edit one's own mistakes as well as the errors of others. --Uncle Ed 14:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VfD

I just added the truly horrendous Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to VFD. Care to vote? -- Viajero 22:26, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Following in the footsteps of user Wikisux (sic!), who gutted the thing, I added some material, mostly sourced from FAIR, who at least try to quantify bias by compiling statistics on the use (or avoidance) of terms and that kind of thing. I'll have a look at some of the other sources you mentioned. -- Viajero 11:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New quickpoll

Please see Wikipedia:Quickpolls. You have been listed there. →Raul654 21:50, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

If you feel need to discuss this "offline", the noted E-mail address will reach me. Of course you probably understand that I remain skeptical about your intentions, as I do of your declarations of "harmony", withdrawal from the Pinochet page, etc. As for "demands", I've clearly stated my complaints many times and don't see how you could not understand them - unless you think I have some secret other agenda. V V 09:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

A personal thanks from me Colipon goes out to 172. Thanks a lot of nominating me for admin, despite the fact it failed. I have received a lot of helpful comments and tips. I will be continuing to edit China-related articles as I take a break from my research during the summer of 2004.

Colipon 00:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll

You are now the subject of a second Quickpoll regarding Wik's user page. I am absolutely shocked. --"DICK" CHENEY 02:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article in Business Week

See this article in Business Week (!) "Latin America's Stunted Growth":

"The region is suffering the effects of a quarter century of bad advice from economic-policy mavens. Time to change course" [2]

-- Viajero 17:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER and Nazism

Please see Talk:Nazism and Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism AndyL 19:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By no means do I intend to return. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Chavez on the block?

Check out this great piece on Venezuela by A Cockburn: "Venezuela: the Gang's All Here Replay of Chile and Nicaragua?" [3] -- Viajero 13:29, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The US has been out after Chavez for some time. Something about oil... I'm less impressed with Cockburn's article, he misses a good deal of critical information. But then, I've tangled with Cockburn a few times, so my POV may not be the most... charitable. Stirling Newberry 17:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interview with Shrub

Fascinating the way that "intellect" works. One line jumped out at me:

And no other country in the world feeds more of the hungry than the United States. We're a compassionate nation.

An interesting message to the Irish. Indeed, in absolute terms, the US is the world's top donor of foreign aid, but in relative terms the Irish devote a comparatively generous 0.41% of GNP to foreign aid while the US parts only with miserly 0.14% (The Netherlands spends 0.81%). [4] Of course, many (most?) Americans, like GWB, aren't aware of this. -- Viajero 11:23, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lynne Cheney

Hey I updated the Lynne Cheney entry. I think you'll enjoy what I added, its not much but at least it balances it out. StoptheBus18 14:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

another

In the same vein: "Gas-Rich, Dirt-Poor, Fed Up": "After 20 years of free-market reform, South America's most impoverished country is growing restless". The kind of thing you only read on the smudgy, typo-ridden pages of lefty zines in the 90s. I am amazed... Are the more thoughtful members of the capitalist class are reflecting upon the fact that unbridled greed has too a high price in the end, that it is ultimately self-defeating? Or I am being too hopeful?... -- Viajero 19:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER and anti-Semitism

From Talk:Early National Socialism/draft

And by the way since you want to declare a pedigree just because your relatives suffered under the Holocaust.

The Nazis also committeed atrocities on the island of Crete. My uncle, Sirodakis, was a great underground fighter. It was my island that lead a ferocious resistance to the Nazis. It was my co-religionists, Catholic priests that went to the camps as well. And it was Jewish communists that destroyed the Orthodox Church in Russia. Many a Christian died in Jewish concentration camps in Russian before the Nazis ever killed a single Jew. So don't cry buster and don't wave your victimhood in my face.WHEELER 15:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER complaint

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER I need one (or two?) people to certify the complaint. If you can attempt to resolve the dispute or intervene on Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft and then document that would be helpfulAndyL 03:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello

I figure if I can bridge the gap, countless future wikis might writhe in relief from ideological tyrany. Shall we attempt communication? Sam [Spade] 09:19, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certification needed

Hi, I need someone to certify my comments so my complaint can proceed. If you can do this please add your name under mine at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER (ie under certification but above endorsement where your name now is.)AndyL 18:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

El Che

I don't know if you have the time or inclination, but in the article on Che Guevara the section on ideology is just a bunch of muddled quotes; essentially meaningless. [5] Ok, Che was a man of action, not a theorist, but surely we can do better than that? If you'd care to make any suggestions, I'll tackle it myself. -- Viajero 18:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Hi there! Just a short note to let you know that your vote in favour of my sysop nomination last week was very much appreciated. I'm so glad to be able to play a small part in building this fantastic project. David Cannon 10:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

call for UN observers

Time for the Nicaraguans and Bolivians to ensure the the US runs a clean election [6]. -- Viajero 12:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

bien hecho amigo

excellent job on El Che. wow. -- Viajero 16:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VfD discussion

Please take a look at the discussion here: [[7]] If you have a moment, could you please explain to others why a selection of quotes an encyclopedia article does not make? And that the solution to a tendentious selection is NOT to simply add more? Thanks. Viajero 10:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll certainly vote delete, but the idea of the wrangling on the VFD seems like a painful ordeal. It may be worth the shot to try another strategy.

I am not sure if the VfD route is the ideal strategy, but I have found it to be an effective way of drawing attention to some of the darker recesses of Wikipedia. For example, several weeks ago, there was no concensus to delete Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but various people who were previously unaware of it got involved, and subsequently we turned it into a reasonable text (please take a look at it). The original contributors, the fanatics, complained of course, but they were heavily outgunned. I now regard VfD partly as a way of obtaining a mandate to clean up some of this junk (although in the case of the Hamas/PLO article it does indeed look as if there are sufficient votes to delete). Perhaps this is a misuse of VfD; maybe RfC is the right way to go about this, I don't know. A fair number of people vote on VfD against deleting simply because they don't want to see anything deleted and don't really look the underlying issues. Maybe next time I should try RfC. In any case, your suggestion to start a fresh article may not be necessary in this case, but I think it could be in others. -- Viajero 11:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unblock?

I blocked myself for a week because I wanted a break from the whole WHEELER thing but I'm over it now so if you could please unblock me that would be great. AndyL

Hitller

Abe could you have a look at Adolf Hitler please - from a brief skim some of the latest edits by people disturb me - particularly when it comes to the Holocaust - someone has tried to minimise it. PMA 08:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks mate. PMA 08:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sandinistas

Hi, on Talk:Iran-Contra Affair there is a discussion about the wording to use in reference to the Sandinistas, and the issue came up of the support they received from Cuba and the USSR. There is no mention of this in the Sandinista article itself. Can you help clarify this point? Alas, I don't have any books on the Sandinistas at my fingertips. TIA -- Viajero 10:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for support

Many thanks for your recent support for me as sysop. I think that I'll take some time playing myself in before I go mad! Cutler 12:51, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Editing

Could you try to group your edits into larger ones. It is extremely hard to follow the history for a page like History of post-Soviet Russia when there are 100+ edits in a week by just one user. It would be best if each edit dealt with one area and had a clear descriptio. Otherwise it's too confusing. Paranoid 13:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the Sparky situation. I did notice before my recent absence a brewing edit war over some allegations I'd never heard of. V V[[]] 03:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz's compromise

I really like Gzornenplatz's edit [8]. Hopefully Lir will accept this compromise. 172 17:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course I will, I've always been reasonable and this is no exception. Its a shame that we had to waste so much time in achieving this relatively minor degree of progress. In the future, I hope that my edits are not reverted and deleted; but rather, users take the time (as Gzornen has done) to edit my contributions. I will probably vanish from the Wikipedia for awhile, to celebrate my victory -- I will then undoubtedly return to either New Imperialism or DNA. Naturally, I could have strived harder to make an edit akin to that of Gzornen; but, I know from experience that the heavy-handed reverting of some users makes it a waste of my time to put any great effort into attempting "golden prose". Naturally, if Gzornen's contribution is reverted -- the edit war will continue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Protection request

Hi, saw you are here. VV and I have been reverting each other more than I have ever seen on any page, this is ridiculous. Please protect Anti-American sentiment and Project for a New American Century. Get-back-world-respect 03:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PLO and Hamas article

There was no concensus to delete PLO and Hamas. I have just reduced the article to a stub of three paragraphs with two quotes, and moved the remaining quotes to the Talk page. Care to add/change anything? Thanks. -- Viajero 11:25, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image:TrangBang.jpg

I don't think we can make a case for fair use for the Pulitzer Prize winning photo by Nick Ut with AP of Kim Phuc running from bombs. Ut's life was on the line and AP paid to have him there. They are entitled to whatever royalties they can get unless they have released the photo to the public domain -- ke4roh 17:37, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

There's a good discussion on the question at Image_talk:TrangBang.jpg. -- ke4roh 03:10, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

USinVietnam.jpg

Thanks for restoring all those pictures. Stargoat 21:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is a poll at Talk:Saddam Hussein over what images to use. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Che Guevara images

Actually, my image concerns still stand:

Image:Che guevara black and white bust photograph.jpg "When originally uploaded this photograph was listed as being public domain, however I have been unable to corroborate this. However the photo is well-known photo of a historically significant individual, so the case for fair use within Wikipedia is pretty overwhelming." - why?
Image:Felix Ismael Rodriguez.jpg "This image may not have information on its source."

Jeronimo 18:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cold War people

The user is blithely adding people to the list with no justifications. If he/she wants to update their articles, in an NPOV way, to justify the inclusion, then I'll have no problem with their additions, but he's just adding people wholesale. RickK 05:09, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Now User:Sesel has taken it up -- probably same person who hadn't logged in. I've listed him on Vandalism in progress. RickK 05:23, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in. I've suggested people continue at Category talk:Cold War people. I've removed Sesel from vandalism in progress. Of course RickK's reaction created an equal and opposite on in Sesel. Secretlondon 06:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mao Zedong

Hello,

Can I ask why you reverted my recent edit at Mao Zedong? I'd appreciate it if you'd give an explanation rather than simply rolling back and marking it as "minor" with no explanation. Thanks, Zh 05:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I protected it because Herschelkrustofsky requested protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The protection of this page on his version is not meant to express support for that version. I don't think the current version can be classified as "blatant vandalism", not as defined by Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism anyway. Please resolve this issue on the talk page rather than simply reverting Herschelkrustofsky or ask for outside comments at WP:RFC. Angela . 12:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have returned to New Imperialism. If you continue to revert my edits, the edit war will continue. I am disappointed that you reneged on our earlier compromise to include a list of notables at the bottom of the article. I have reinserted them and once again edited the introduction. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I will be watching that page. Lir, if you misbehave there, i.e. if you engage in an edit war as you threaten to do here, I will recommend to the arbitration committee that you be banned. Jimbo Wales 22:01, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please explain why you have chosen to edit war at Talk:New_Imperialism. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Please explain why your first comment to me is to threaten an edit war. - Nunh-huh 02:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fidel Castro & Kim-Jong Il

Please, please don't do that. It's bad form. It doesn't matter whether you were right or not. Next time, get help, WP depends on people doing that rather than engaging in edit wars like that.

Best regards

UninvitedCompany 16:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Russian history

I have been using the new collective diffs to read your contributions to the Russian history pages - like a novel :-) Great stuff. Wizzy 17:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said on your talk page but still fail to see why it would not have been better to ask someone else to protect the page. UninvitedCompany 20:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused as how you can feel that by deleting everything I added...that you will have somehow appeased me. You didn't rewrite what I wrote -- you rewrote the General Overview by deleting my text, and replacing it with completely unrelated comments. My ideas haven't been edited by you, they are just gone. As for whether the "general overview" was unnecessary -- please explain why you feel this subject shouldn't provide readers with an overview of the content. Lirath Q. Pynnor

hello

Hey mate, glad to see you again. I just make occasional visits (the odd couple of minutes) back. I really love the redesign of wikipedia. It looks superb. Best of luck. Keep in touch. feareireann

Russian constitutional crisis of 1993

Please stop reverting Russian constitutional crisis of 1993. The version you are reverting to has an image in it that is listed as a copyright violation on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Including copyright images in articles is a liabilty for Wikipedia, so until concerns on Wikipedia:Copyright problems are resolved, the image should not be featured in any articles. Thanks. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Talk:New Imperialism Lirath Q. Pynnor

You're welcome

Thanks. I guess Michael has been busy tonight. 172 05:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Vandals are scum who should be taken out and shot. Or drawn and quartered. Or flayed alive. Maybe all three. :-) Ocon | Talk 05:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Russia, mailing list, what not

Hi, I took a look at the thread on the mailing list, and I'd looked at the article in question before. In general, I think the critics are probably right - the article reads rather one-sidedly, at least in the version I read a few months ago. Personally, I don't see this as a tremendous problem - the article is excellent, and others can always add stuff to balance it. I'd add that there is tremendous amount of POV in wikipedia that doesn't seem to cause much in the way of problems - large chunks from the 1911 Britannica, for instance, and a great deal of POV that people like Stan probably don't recognize because it duplicates their own. At any rate, what I think is unfair is the implication that you won't allow any changes to allow the article to become more NPOV (which I think is the important thing - not that there are POV articles, but that we are constantly trying to make them more NPOV). While I do think you can be a bit quick with the revert, I don't think the implication that you're unwilling to allow anyone to "mess with" your articles is fair. For Fred Bauder to accuse anyone of POV problems is just ridiculous, and if Stan doesn't want to put the time in to do the research necessary to revise your articles (for whatever reasons, justified or not), he shouldn't be attacking you on the mailing list about perceived flaws. I'd also note that I fucking hate the mailing list. I don't understand why this type of discussion should be on the mailing list, rather than at Talk:Russian Constitutional Crisis of 1993. john k 10:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the pic! TDC 02:19, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

mailing list

Don't pay any attention to the mailing list, since it is read by an ever-declining percentage of Wikipedians and since it has been quite some time since any sort of complaint there has been taken at all seriously. The mailing list issues no subpoenas and there is no compulsion to reply. So, don't; if you already have, don't reply further. The constitutional crisis article is better than most others we have and more informative than anything you'd read in, say, Brittanica. In time it may improve further. Ignore the hecklers. Carry on.

Best regards, UninvitedCompany 03:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo has never once intervened in an article dispute, that I am aware of, and I doubt he's about to start. Rest easy. UninvitedCompany 04:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

request

Hi, I banned my userid until mid-September because I was getting pissed off and wanted to take a break. I overreacted and it's also a pointless move since I can still edit as an anon IP. If you can lift my self-imposed ban I'd appreciate it. AndyL

A small note.

I fully support you in your candidacy for ArbCom. Your statement that "members of the arbitration committee should see the bigger picture and better distinguish between users mucking up Wikipedia with inane rubbish and users dedicated to writing a serious, quality encyclopedia" is very true. Good luck in your endeavors. You have my full support.--Neutrality 01:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Abe, I have started a little merge between the two options at Talk:New Imperialism/Merge. Im about halfway done, not counting small little details etc. Ive enjoyed it so far - both were very good in their own right, but coming from a different background I tend to stress the general context (including current) and then zooming in smoothly to the particular issues. BTW I think your resources template is brilliant, and would like to see that go into into a more general resources page or on Goings on, as part of Wikiproject:History - editible by anyone. I made {{SteveNews}} kind of as a joke to play around with this idea of 'customed tailored template news' for a very small audience. But more general has more appeal I think. Goings on needs some does need some content. -S V 15:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Twas not I. I simply made the statement that they would "provide some evidence". Im not on the arbitration committee, and if that evidence is as meaningless as you say, then that will probably mean that it gets tossed out. Im in no position to selectively remove anything there. -S V 15:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I havent been reading up enough on this topic, so Im keeping my comments confined to issues of clarity, etc. I have left a couple comments there just now. -S V

Arbitration cases

Thanks for removing that confused arbitration request involving Plato. If I may make a suggestion regarding your own case, please don't fight too hard even if people try to repost "evidence" based on past disputes. If it gets added again, I'll make my own statement that I don't think that stuff is relevant to the issue at New Imperialism. You've obviously put in some effort lately at working well with other people, even difficult ones. The biggest problem has been the incident noted by UninvitedCompany, and I think his counsel is generally good. I don't think you've done anything recently at New Imperialism that warrants sanctions, and I applaud your efforts to discuss the situation.

I would like to mention one thing about that discussion. You indicate on the talk page that it is far too difficult to respond point-by-point on every one of Lir's questions or changes, and that it's unreasonable for Lir to demand that. I agree that this is not easy and sympathize with your position. I would mention, however, that in some of your previous disputes, other people seem to feel you have demanded of them what Lir is demanding of you. I say this not to accuse you of anything, just to try and share some understanding of why people may have had problems with you in the past. I figure it helps to be alert to such perceptions even though they are not intended.

And speaking of perceptions, since I know it has bothered you in the past, I hope you don't mind too much that I am "butting in" here. As always, I want to help resolve the problem, and thank you for taking the time to listen. --Michael Snow 19:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir

I think all that's really left to do with Lir is wait for the arbcom to finally rule. They're clearly leaning towards a substantial sanction, so I'm not all that worried... it's just a matter of time, and I don't think Lir is in need of any more rope to hang himself with. Snowspinner 05:04, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Re:

Archived at User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172.

Sam [Spade] 22:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To my opponent

I wish you the best of luck in this month's Arbitration Committee election. May the best Wikipedian win! _{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 10:23, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

! WikiLove must be shared. --Merovingian✍Talk 10:43, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mao Zedong

Hello 172,

Can I ask why you have reverted my recent attempt to cleanup the intro at Mao Zedong? It is frustrating when you revert without providing an explanation. As I have mentioned, the phrase "free of foreign domination since the Opium War" is incorrect since Qing China only ceded a few ports to Europeans after the Opium War, the mainland was sovereign until the WWII occupation of Japan. In addition, the intro had typos and mistakes in it.

Have you even read and compared the two revisions? Please don't revert a major edit without providing an explanation. Thanks, Zh 16:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hm, I found it reminiscent of [9], although you might not. V V 07:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A Quick Note

Thanks for the endorsement. ;-) Seriously, though, I appreciate your words of confidence -- I have done my best never to lose sight of the important task of adding factual information to the Wikipedia, which I think is all too often neglected by many of our most experienced users. I'm glad you noticed. I of course understand your desire to endorse Sj, a very worthy candidate, and so can't be upset at all. :-) But only 8 endorsements have been made public, and I've managed to lose two of them already....is the electorate trying to send me a message? ;-) Best of luck, Jwrosenzweig 16:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't feel badly at all, please! I was merely playing around with the wry humor of the situation -- obviously being two users 3rd choices in a field of such eminently qualified candidates is a compliment, not a cause for melancholy. And I think Sj is an excellent candidate well worthy of your endorsement. Best of luck to you both. Jwrosenzweig 15:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom questions

A quick - OK, actually, probably a long question regarding your candidacy for the arbcom. How do you think you would have ruled/would rule in the following cases?

Thanks very much. Snowspinner 17:43, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

WP:RfAR

"If, and only if, all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee."

Sam [Spade] 02:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really don't see any problem with 172's request. I have recused myself, but I ask you, Sam Spade, whether requests on 172's talk page, the talk pages of the articles in question, or requests for mediation would meet with favorable responses? If you think they would you should definitely get together with the mediation committee and get busy rather than exposing yourself to arbitration. Fred Bauder 14:43, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think they would. I won't decline mediation if it is suggested by the arbitration committe, but as I said on RfAR, I think 172 is intractable. Sam [Spade] 18:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think he is in pushing his point of view, but both of you need be trying to talk to each other if you are not to drag each other into the pit. Fred Bauder 18:29, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Additional defendants

Regarding this, "Sam Spade, Lir, and Plato did not follow dispute resolution procedure so they should also be considered defendants. 172 14:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Yes by filing a complaint against you these three users lay themselves open to any complaint you wish to make regarding how they have handled disputes with you, particularly the low level matters such as willingness to discuss matters on the talk pages of articles, willingness to try out compromises with other editors, talking to you on your talk page regarding the problems they see, etc. Lir is currently the subject of a major arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Proposed decision. However those questions do not focus on his use of dispute resolution procedures, although edit waring and failure to compromise is mentioned. Likewise your complaint against Sam Spade is phrased in terms of POV (your own weak point), not in terms of his failure to communicate regarding disputes. Perhaps an amendment of that complaint could be made as it is already under consideration. Regarding Plato, make a complaint if one is justified.

However, I can see you are attempting a lot of arbitrating, perhaps more than either you or the system will bear. I suggest you prioritize this all a bit and focus on those matters which will make a long term difference to Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 14:43, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Bauder

If Sam is making claims against you, the heading should probably be updated accordingly. Since Fred recused himself from the case, it seems like that shouldn't do too much damage. Snowspinner 14:24, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Re:Re:

Archived at User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172_revisited.

Sam [Spade] 03:32, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deficit Spending

I'm merely reporting what the IMF and every economic model says: current US deficits are creating monetary strains and are unsustainable. Heck, its what the Congressional Budget Office and Alan Greenspan say as well. If someone wants to document a model or position that says otherwise, there are, of course, welcome to do so, but I haven't found any. Stirling Newberry 00:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the section. I will however respond to the absurdity "that it can be attributed to the slow down". Show me a documentary source that shows this. Even the CBO and OMB don't believe it. Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney don't count as documentary sources that show that the deficit is recession related. The deficit is projected out to 10 years as the CBO's own numbers, using dynamic scoring and the most favorable economic growth numbers available - which is to say the most favorable numbers available for the theory don't support it. If there is some documentary evidence I am not aware of, by all means link to it. Stirling Newberry 01:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)