User talk:172/Talk block 12

John Kerry

I realize that it's customary for sysops to protect the wrong page (too lazy to plug in the cite, I know you've seen it). In this instance, though, the edit war at John Kerry was over comparatively minor details of his Vietnam service. In the last few minutes, some anon user jumped in and made three edits attacking Kerry's religion. Most of them were reverted. Your protection enshrined this sentence, however: "John has found that he no longer agrees with some teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and has left it as an adult." Obviously, Kerry won't bother to sue Wikipedia for defamation, but if he did he would win. Summary judgment. Can something be done about this particular wrongness of the customary wrong version? JamesMLane 04:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was just writing to you "Never mind, Guanaco took care of it" when you commented on my Talk page. Thanks for responding. On the broader issue, if you have any suggestion as to how we can get an ArbCom action with unprecedented haste, I'd love to hear it. I've never done a request for arbitration before. JamesMLane 04:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting John Kerry. It was getting a little tiring trying to mediate over that mess. I'm almost sorry I got myself into it, lol. Anyway, assuming I feel like it tomorrow, can I go ahead an unprotect it? I'm not asking your permission, so much as I am asking if this is still acceptable practice (i.e. letting things cool down) since I have been gone for a while, and things have changed significantly since then. JML seems to believe this must now go into the arbitration process. I'm not familiar with the history of the arbitration process, or when it is considered necessary, since it didn't exist when I last roamed these great halls. Anyway, let me know what you think. — マイケル ₪ 04:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ha, nm, someone beat me to unprotecting it. I'd still like to hear you comments on the purposes of the ArbCom, and when it is really nessessary to bother them. — マイケル ₪ 04:17, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Need for quick relief

I don't necessarily think it needs arbitration, just that it needs something, and quickly. This is an extremely important article right now. In the last few days it's been protected three times (I think), the problem user has been blocked for 24 hours, and huge amounts of contributor time have been wasted. On my Talk page you suggested a quickpoll. I appreciate your comment, because I hadn't been aware of that option. I'm now studying up on Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy. JamesMLane 04:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex is very persistant - and like JML said, huge of contributor time have been wasted.--Neutrality 04:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand this passage from Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy: A quickpoll should be announced "On Wikipedia:Recentchanges (the text shown atop the 'Recent changes' page)". Does that mean I go to Wikipedia:Recentchanges and insert a notice, such as right under the announcement of the ArbCom election? That seems to give one humble little quickpoll an awful lot of prominence in the community. Thanks for any help you can give, especially given that this didn't really become your prolem just because you did the protection. JamesMLane 05:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again for your continued helpfulness. Next question: The policy page says, "They must not be a direct party to the dispute. This refers to starting a quickpoll, and to voting in it. If you want to start a quickpoll about a matter in which you are involved, ask someone else to do it (for example, an administrator, but whoever you choose must meet the other conditions above)." That seems to mean that I can't start a quickpoll, nor can half a dozen other people who understand the problem. So now what do we do? Does your protection of the page, and Snowspinner's 24-hour block of Rex, disempower you two from starting it? Am I supposed to try to recruit someone with whom I've exchanged thoughts on an unrelated article, and ask that person to come in and start a quickpoll, essentially on my say-so? JamesMLane 05:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If someone eligible starts a quickpoll, even in barebones form, those of us not eligible to vote but allowed to comment will quickly chime in with enough supporting detail to choke an elephant -- or a donkey, to keep it NPOV. JamesMLane 06:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking so much time on this lunacy. JamesMLane 06:25, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why are you helping Neutrality cheat?

Several of us had consensus on a section and yet, just before you locked the page again, Neutrality reverted it for about the 5th time today. Here is what he keeps deleting:

On December 2, 1968, while Kerry and his crew were on duty on Cam Ranh Bay, they saw people running from a boat to a nearby shoreline, according to two crewmen who were patrolling with Kerry. When the Vietnamese refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry ordered the crew to open fire. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was removed and the wound treated with bacitracin. Kerry returned to duty the next day, conducting a regular SWIFT boat patrol. It was for this injury that Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart.

There is nothing wrong with this and there is no reason why Neutrality shold have sole control over most of the content on that page.

You are doing the wrong thing, if you aid and abet him! Rex071404 05:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex's statement is demonstrably false. See my comment on Talk:John Kerry. Neutrality did not delete the language that Rex claims he deleted. JamesMLane 06:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted image

Since you seem to oppose me removing copyrighted material from wikipedia, I thought I'd let you know I've listed the image in question on vfd: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg. Since when do we allow copyrighted work on wikipedia just because it may be free use? That won't help us when we get sued for copyright infringment, even if it is "freeuse." I'm sure I've missed a lot of similar discussions in the past few months. Has this been brought up on the mailing list? If not, maybe it should be now... — マイケル ₪ 16:36, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

See Image talk:TrangBang.jpg -Joseph 17:04, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Since this image is clearly copyrighted, and we do not have permission to use it from the copyright holder, could we please leave it out of these articles at least until the vfd process is over? I doubt we will be sued for having it up for a few more days, but imho it's better to be safe then sorry. — マイケル ₪ 18:01, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, we should be able to use the image under fair use. Unfortunately our own terms of use prohibit such use. This image IS copyrighted. When someone uploads an image, the following text is displayed "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Clearly, the copyright holder of the file DID NOT agree to lisense it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright. Whenever you edit a page, it clearly states "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" We don't have permission from the copyright holder to use this image, we don't have permission from the copyright holder to release this image under the GFDL. Therefore, we can not use this image, even if it does fall under fair use. — マイケル ₪ 18:38, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I hope wikipedia has a good unpaid laywer, because if someone does decide to sue us, even if it is fair use, it's not going to be cheap... — マイケル ₪ 18:48, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

The image had already been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright Problems for a month. It's a straightforward case of fair use. The Wikimedia Fondation is protected by the CDA and OCILLA. It's likely to be free - we have plenty of legal friends who are likely to be happy to assist in a nice high profile case of fair use. Jamesday 04:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco's RfC

I'm not sure I understand your comment on Guanaco in re: John Kerry. Guanaco unprotected without checking the status of the page while discussion was going on among the editors. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

People's Republic of Poland

My magic eight ball says Adam Carr and his cronies will go ballistic from my suggesting that the Polish Communist Party may have been more than "agents...of Stalin" in the People's Republic of Poland.

Here's some more encyclopedic facts that Adam Carr has graced us with (comments are mine):

"Stalin was determined (in early 1945 no less!) that Poland's new government would be controlled by the Communists, and therefore ultimately by him."

"There is no doubt that Roosevelt was naive to accept Stalin's promises at Yalta." (well of course, it was Stalin - evil personified!)

"The Stalinist grip on Poland tightened in 1948, when the repercussions of Stalin's break with Tito reached Warsaw. As in the other eastern European satellite states (see, Warsaw Pact countries were "satellite states" of the USSR, unlike the free, independent nations of Western Europe, which had the US army there to protect them from the Evil Empire and to help run free and fair elections like the Italian 1948 general election), there was a purge of Communists suspected of nationalist or other 'deviationist' tendencies."

Well, you get the gist of it. And I've only gone through 1945 through the early 1950s so far.

Fraternally yours, Señor NPOV 14:26, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship

Hi there,

Thanks for the offer, but I would not have the time nor the dedication to pursue such a role. I also hold some quite strong views on some issues (Christian, Irish nationalist, pro-European, against US imperialism, semi-socialist) and as such, would either find it hard to remain unbiased - or would find it stressful to deal with those of the opposing view. At present, I am far from being a wiki-holic, or suffering from wiki-stress, as I can choose to abandon Wikipedia entirely for a weekend or a few days any time I like.

Regards, Zoney 14:55, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the History of the PRC, preponderence is a POV word all by itself. It basically says the spread of western culture is bad, which is not really true, in my opinion. As for standing for a year and a half, so what? There's a list somewhere of pages that haven't been touched in forever, it contains stupid articles (i.e. the kind like "Hitler is a douche bag"), as well as legitimate ones with POV no ones worked on. And if you know how long each sentence has existed on that page I'll eat my hat.--naryathegreat 21:00, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Is English your native toungue? A dictionary does not give connotative definitions. It is only the denotative. The way you use it makes it sound bad. That one word is my biggest complaint. And I'm going to keep changing it. Oh, and about the great leap, you never mention how millions died. Almost all sources acknowledge 20 million deaths, of course, you could be in China and have some sick respect for Mao (who deserves no respect--he didn't do anything good for china, most of the years since his death have been marked by attempts to undo all of his effects on China), but now i'm starting to rant, but that page is a little too NPOV about Mao, saying he's a dictator and was responsible for millions of deaths personally is not POV, it's the truth. Here's hoping you don't live in China, where I can't believe they don't censor this site since they censor everything else.--naryathegreat

Most words are not negative by themselves. This one is in the context of the sentence. And English is my native toungue (its the only one I speak, americans don't need to be bothered with other languages, we let other people learn ours ;) anyway, that's the word that tends to be negative in that context.--naryathegreat 21:31, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't just care about that one word. And I ALREADY said that a dictionary cannot give connotative definitions, the way a word is used changes its connotation (think jokes?). I just mean that that word in particular is annoying. I was thinking something more along the lines of : If this trend continues, China should be expecting to become more dominant economically and culturally, and to become a dominant force on the world stage in the twentieth century.--naryathegreat 21:46, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

That's about the same as what you said. Except that I didn't say it would overcome western "preponderence" or "preeminence". And notice I said A MORE DOMINANT not THE DOMINANT. THE DOMINANT is POV, not what I said.--naryathegreat 21:56, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

You still didn't solve my main problem: it is POV concerning Western culture because it acts (kind of) in a way which makes the spread of western culture sound bad. My other, and more pressing, problem, is the convoluted nature of the sentence. I don't know if you know what AP tests are, but that is an example of what not to write on one. Anyway, the whole article suffers from sentences that don't quite get where they want to. This usually happens when someone writes a sentence, but can't see it themselves (not that it's just you, it happens to me and everyone else). This sentence just seemed to me to be POV, and also unnecessary regarding the previous sentence. I just thought the conclusion could be better, and I think grammar in the article as a whole could be improved. I also think it takes the NPOV thing too far, millions of deaths resulted from the Great Leap Forward at ANY rate.--naryathegreat 22:07, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

NLF vs. Viet Cong vs. NVA

Most Americans understand that we were fighting Viet Cong and/or NVA soldiers during the Vietnam war. I have read very view books which use the term NLF. I think we will lose our American readers if we completely omit the term "Viet Cong". Rex071404 03:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"

Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me several days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request for advice re John O'Hara and Talk:Modern Library

I'm not requesting any specific action. If you would care to eyeball Talk:Modern Library, sections 5 (Request for Vote), 6 (Further Comments), and 6.1 (Replies) and if you have any thoughts on how to move things forward constructively I'd appreciate hearing them. User:Simonides makes some good points. I'm hoping to reach some kind of agreement whereby "we" (the other active discussants) agree not to simply reinsert any of the citations of the Modern Library list that Simonides has removed, particularly not on the John O'Hara page when unprotected, but that Simonides will agree to show some flexibility in occasionally allowing use of the Modern Library list or other lists as evidence of a book's notability. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade

I left a message for him. I want to try talking and see where it leads. Danny 01:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I saw your advice to Rex071404, and I found if insightful and encouraging. I would ask that you accept mediation w me via danny, and that we figure out a better way to interact. I've figured out that your not such a bad guy all the time ;), and I'd like to hear you be able to say the same. Heres hoping, Sam [Spade] 05:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it was simply a matter of him seeing me in a new light, but you'd have to ask him. I'm a pretty reasonable guy afaik, I get along pretty good w my friends and family, and out of my over 10,000 edits I've actually had a great deal more pleasant experiences than negative. Best as I can tell, certain people assume things about me, and stop noticing the good things while they are trying to read between my lines to find the bad. If you'd like to see if we can start over again with new (or maybe just fewer? :) opinions regarding each other, let Danny know that your willing to have him mediate. Thanks for considering the solution either way, Sam [Spade] 05:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good. As far as the past, its only importance is the wisdom it provides us in the present when planning for the future. You seem to already know that revert waring is counterproductive, and that civil communication is nearly always the answer to a dispute. The question as I see it, is how we are going to make sure we do whats best for the wiki now, and in the future. Mediation is my best idea ATM, esp. since thats what the arbitrators seem to be suggesting. Sam [Spade] 05:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex seems to be right, but is a bit.. excitable? He's also kind of hard to understand, and between the two I think the source of the conflict can be found. In my life I have noticed that people get angriest when they misunderstand each other. When two people honestly and clearly disagree, they can usually agree to disagree and move on, but when they assume bad faith, or misunderstand some particular, they often start to escalate hostilities back and forth. Sam [Spade] 06:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hope this sort of information isn't what decides this election. Have you heard the Bush campaign has approved of the wikipedia John Kerry article? I saw something about that on the mailing list. To be honest I've never been more sympathetic to John Kerry than while reading that talk page, and seeing the sorts of things that they’re trying to use against him. Attack ads don't work on me, I tend to sympathize w the "underdog". I still think I'm going to abstain from this election tho, my family and I are undecided, and I think were going to stay that way. Sam [Spade] 07:32, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, but my point is that its counterproductive. Are you familiar w "black propaganda"? I'm not saying that (or gray propaganda for that matter) are what is going on, but its an interesting thought, especially w Bush and Kerry having been in the same frat and all ;) Sam [Spade] 08:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hm.. Have you seen User:Spleeman/Sam Spade? I assure you its not black propaganda ;) I wonder what it is about me that inspires a certain % to become so angry? I tend to think its my sense of humor, or not being PC enough? I try very hard to be polite. Maybe you can enlighten me as to how I managed to get on your bad side? Sam [Spade] 08:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as utilizing the dispute process, I tend to feel its one of precious few options for handling a dispute here, particularly when it begins to seem intractable. Clearly you are not alone in being disturbed by my being so quick to use it, that conversation on MIRV's user talk illustrated his feelings about my use of the dispute process pretty clearly. The problem is, outside of leaving the wiki, or breaking its rules, I don't know of a whole lot of other ways to handle an untenable situation. BTW, if you formally agree to mediation (say by dropping a note on Danny’s page) I'll remove my RfAR. I figure if mediation fails horribly, it would look better for both of us having had tried it. Besides, I've noticed you are capable of compromise, so long as the person proposing it is someone your comfortable with. If I were able to become such a person, I'd have precious little to complain about in your regards ;) Sam [Spade] 18:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John O'Hara page proposal

I have left a specific proposal here. You may wish to have a look at it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bretton Woods Article

Though it needs more work, I'd like to compliment you on the quality of hte Bretton Woods article, it is a fine introduciton and covers a number of topics that are not generally mentioned in histories of the system. Stirling Newberry 00:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The New School as the really fine presentation, when we are up on a par with their pages... Stirling Newberry 14:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the ArbCom elections. Danny 00:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poland

I am sorry that you saw fit to delete my previous comment from this page. I did not "insinuate you are a Stalinist." I said explicitly that I accepted your earlier assurance that you are not a Stalinist. I then asked, given that you are not a Stalinist, what other explanation you have for the fact that you consistently edit articles so as to whitewash Stalinist regimes such as 1940s Poland and the DPRK, or son-of-Stalinist regimes like Lukashenko's. I phrased this question as civilly as possible, because I genuinely want to know the answer. I am sorry that you have made no effort to answer it.

Having said that, I appreciate your most recent comment at my Talkpage on the People's Republic of Poland article. I will edit it as lightly as is consistent with restoring its historical integrity. Adam 13:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's RfA

Hiya. Just to prevent people being confused, you may want to list Neutrality's recent failed nomination there, for reference (I had to check the history since I thought the previous one'd actually passed...). Thanks — Kate | Talk 03:07, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Edit summary RFC for Lir

Your edit summary got cut off when you edited Lir's RFC. What were you trying to say? WhisperToMe 04:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First impressions

If, as you say, first impressions are often unfair impressions, perhaps you could apply that rule to yourself, and stop helping Neutrality beat up on people.

Rex071404 07:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh but you have and here's how:

By not slapping Neutrality down when he is far over the line, you enable him to maintain sufficiently high credibility that he is able to get the final word in on disputes. This gives him undue power to stifle those he disagrees with.

Rex071404 07:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Soviet culture

Regarding this edit and comment by User:172 deleting a paragraph with links to Soviet culture and Soviet popular culture [1]. The article Communist state was merged with the article Marxist-Leninist government on April 11, 2004 by User:Mikkalai, see [2]. Thus the article after the merger properly contains information regarding both the formal governmental structure of the Communist state but also the practical consequences of Marxist-Leninist rule. Thus the reason given for deleting the paragraph is inappropriate as it is not "off-topic". Fred Bauder 14:09, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Information specific to Neutrality 08.17.2004

On this page here Neutrality admits that he was involved in an "edit war" about Fox News. At this page section here Neutrality is told by Fred Bauder that moving (evidence) "statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate". At this page section here on August 13th, 2004 (only four days ago!) he was warned and admonished by Guanaco for "You have reverted John Kerry nine times in 24 hours". Also, at this link here you can find this sentence; "C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it." by Neutrality (from July 15th, 2004).

Let the record about these episodes, speak for itself. Rex071404 06:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Neutrality

My interest in drawing attention to Neutrality's flaws, will wax and wane depending on whether or not he is trying to move up in authority, as he's trying to now. I am absolutely convinced that he was the prime mover of the pro-Kerry "rv" editors. Did I blunder? Perhaps. But Neutrality is supposed to know better - much better, yet he did every awful thing I did - and more! He even swore at me on the JK talk page! Once again, I can not understand why people let him run hog wild. Is he an editorial maestro or prodigy? Perhaps. Does that outwiegh the harm he causes by bullying people? I think not. Rex071404 06:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality started 7-8 edit (exact?) wars against me on JK

• He edited the title of the Rfc I initiated (twice!)
• He moved my evidence on the Rfa page (right off the evidence page, onto the talk page)
• He swears at me
• He repeately refers to me as a troll when I try to dialog with him about edit conflicts
• How can you ignore someone like that?

Rex071404 06:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please quote me accurately. As I said on your talk page, I think that he was the prime mover of the pro-Kerry "rv" editors. There is a big difference. Not all the pro-Kerry people there are "rv" happy - but I'd say that N and his cotiere are. Rex071404 07:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I reached out to N no less than 6-8 times. He has rebuffed each and every overture. At present, I am focused on making sure a wide audience is aware of that and also of those many of his recent past misdeeds that may interest those voting on him (now or soon). Also, there can be no reconciliation unless and until he promises to stop with the endless series of false and misleading Edit Summaries. He has the nerve to call my Edit Summaries "attacks" while he is posting fraudulent ones himself! When I reduced an oversized photo he posted, he claimed in an Edit summary that I made "deletions". Since you obviously like him, that may all be well and good, but as they say "you made your bed, now lie in it". Neutrality succeded in getting me the boot from John Kerry (which was the primary page that interested me!) so now I have plenty of time to inform interested voters of certain details about him. Rex071404 07:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS: It has already gone to Arbitration. We'll see what comes of it. Rex071404 07:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re

John Kerry Talk

See this from farther up my talk page than where you were posting:

Am I allowed to post comments to the Talk page of John Kerry? Please advise, ASAP. Rex071404 08:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't. Find other areas of interest to edit for now. Fred Bauder 11:04, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404 07:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, since you are N's sponsor, I see no benefit in discussing this further with you unless you answer this quesiton:

Yes or No:

If it is true that Kerry has lied considerably about many details of his military service and protest years, and if those lies can be documented, is that important to you from an editor's standpoint?

Rex071404 07:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Precisely WHO is accusing me of using shill (ie "sockpuppet") votes? You have a lot of nerve for saying that! Rex071404 07:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the link. Though if you check the article, you'll notice that I am indeed the author of that segment on Wikipedia. :) Don't feel bad though, many many folks have sent me the same article, not noticing that the byline changes halfway through. Sree Sreenivasan is a good friend and former colleague of mine. Fuzheado | Talk 07:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'll be publishing more about Wikipedia's role in online journalism soon. Fuzheado | Talk 08:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hard luck on not getting elected, 172. I came on to wikipedia especially to vote for you a while back. Better luck next time. FearÉIREANN 17:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

TrangBang.jpb image

This image was deleted after full and detailed consideration on VfD. PLease desist from reuploading it, and of reverting the pages where it was deleted from. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 10:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will repeat. The image is a copyvio. It is *not* fair use. It must stay deleted. Tne VfD process confirmed this. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 15:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, 172. I added source and licensing information at the Trang Bang image. :) Neutrality 03:52, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In case your confused

I don't "broadly attack (your) contributions in sum". I've looked into you, and stand by what I said on jrosenzweigs page. Your a good guy, w strong opinions and a tendancy to aggressively bend/break the rules. I can't say I know you, only having been around you online, but I have to admit I kinda like you. Your passionate, educated, and opinionated. I simply ask that you give your fellow man more respect, and strive for modesty rather than hubris. Sam [Spade] 00:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, 172: Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I take your support and that of everyone else seriously, and would strive to exercise my adminship privileges judiciously and conservatively. By the way, your user page is very impressive. -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 17:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

mediation

I will go for mediation generally, but I hardly know anything about Montt, so that doesn't seem like a good focus. Also, at this point I think I'd be better off seeking mediation w AndyL or spleeman, or maybe even rickK. To be frank when were not edit warring and personally attacking one another we seem to get along just fine. Sam [Spade] 01:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any substantive communication on Montt in the last few days, which isn't promising. Trey seems to be saying something, but I'm not clear where its going. If there continues to be no communication for awhile longer, or if he also wants the page unprotected, I suppose I would hesitantly support unprotection, but I fully expect it would need protection again shortly thereafter unless we reach some sort of concensus 1st. As far as the RfAR, we both recently expressed ourselves on User_talk:Jwrosenzweig#172. I stand by what I said, do you? Sam [Spade] 02:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

adminship

Dear 172,

Yes, I will treat the "keys to the mop closet" well. :-)
Thank you very much for your vote in support of my nomination for adminship.

-- PFHLai 03:42, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

The business and economics forum

Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them.

mydogategodshat 18:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi again, 172: I am now officially an admin. Thanks again for your support. Yours, 山道子 (Sewing) - talk 13:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Politics

• thanks for the politics of Iraq edits. JDR

Saddam Hussein

Hi 172, I came across this message on a mailinglist. It's basically a speech Saddam gave in Feb 1990 in front of U.S. Arab allies, and in which he called for Arab unity against U.S./Israeli power in the region. The speech seems to be real (e.g. mentioned here in the footnotes). I don't know how much of a departure this is from his previous pro-US stance, but some people think it is the real reason for the 91 Gulf War. I'm not exactly an expert on this stuff, so I'd like to ask you: do you think it deserves mention in the Saddam Hussein article? - pir 13:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speed delete request

When you locked the article Prem Rawat, I started working on Prem_rawat/temp. Can you speedily delete it now. Also Prem_Rawat/temp thanks in advance. By the way, I have great problems with the amount of propaganda and dangerous disinformation in the current version. Andries 19:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi there. Thanks for your support towards me in becoming an administrator. I really appreciate your vote. Unfortunately, an error was made on the page, and I don't actually have 1,906 edits. Instead, I have about 1,492 edits. I apologize for any confusion caused, but I assure you that I had no idea about this until a few minutes ago. If you want to change your vote, I understand completely, and you can feel free to do so (Don't worry- I won't hold it against you or anything). Thanks! -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Clitoris

Can you please please please tell me what is wrong with having a drawing instead of a porn picture of a clitoris? All encyclopedias use drawings and not adult photographs. Please have a little bit of judgment and dignity. This is not your personal image collection in your hard drive. It is an E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A for Christ's sake. Wake up. --Cantus 19:18, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Cantus' edits (sp bullets) in templates

172, I know you've been resistent to Cantus's edits in several templates. I tend to agree with you that bullets dont' belong in them (at least, I think you belive that from your edits). I'm trying to explain to him why I think bullets are overboard, if you wish to voice your opinions, I'd welcome it. Here is where I posted about it: User_talk:Cantus#Regarding_bullets_in_templates and template talk:history of Russia —siroχo 06:27, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

WP:$&%&^

Thanks. A. Shetsen 03:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No Right

hey mr/mrs/miss 172 you dont have any right to delete what other users say to other users' pages. thats FASICM! what WE do is none of your business. if you dont like the rules then create www.172hitlerpedia.org --Themata 22:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated it very much. If you would like to talk sometime, please drop me a note on my talk page or email me. Mike H 23:39, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Religions

You asked "Are the Oklahoma City bombers listed under the category of 'Christians?'". Good question. (I was the one who listed a few Muslims with Muslim categories.) I'm not sure the best way to handle categories based on religions. There's a debate starting elsewhere. On the one hand, most Americans don't know that the 9/11 hijackers were Sunni, not Shia, Muslims. On the other hand, is that important? Is it important that Timothy McVeigh was Catholic, not Protestant? I'm not sure. I can see where having categories for religion, so you can see a list of Category:Quakers or Category:Priests or Category:Sikhs, would be useful and interesting. On the other hand, it opens several cans of worms. I'd be interested in your opinion. Quadell (talk) 02:56, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Mr.172 I don't really know you, but could you explain to me why there are two articles related to NLF (or "Viet-cong"). Thanks (also good work against the Fox News crowd which I seen in the edit history ^_^)--Gustuv 05:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see now Mr. 172, thanks for explaining it to me ^_^ and also watch out for the fox news crowd!--Gustuv 00:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About User:Totally Nude

Excuse me, 172, but User:Totally Nude saw my new "Requests for Defense" on my user page and emailed me about his block. I represent Totally Nude for all intents and purposes in this discussion. According to the block list, I can see that he was blocked for "vandalism and uploading pornography". Yes he did upload a pornographic image, but a quick check of his conributions doesn't show any vandalism, only an RfA self-nomination. Did he create some nonsense that was deleted, or is there something I don't know about? — i386 | Talk 17:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of Brazil

Hi, since I'm currently writing about the history of Brazil for Swedish Wikipedia, sv:Brasiliens historia, I have read what is available on english Wikipedia. You seem to have been involved in quite a few of those articles but I have noticed that the years 1945 - 1950 has not been written about. Don't you find that odd? Regards, Thuresson 12:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support re: my adminship. Jayjg 18:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrations

Thanks for your comment. I skimmed over the LaRouche-related arbitration. I wasn't so negative about the ArbCom action as you seem to be -- I don't know much about the whole dispute, but to impose a one-day sanction for a shot like "lying slanderous piece of filth" doesn't seem out of bounds. The decision, as I understand it, does seem a bit weak on understanding the long-term consequences of certain types of conduct to Wikipedia.

Specifically, I am by training a lawyer. My automatic reaction is to think in terms of people's rights, that a judicial proceeding shouldn't lightly impair. I've come to believe that this model isn't completely applicable to Wikipedia. If a user's conduct is repeatedly so disruptive as to consume huge amounts of other people's time, the project is entitled to say that whatever contributions the problem user is making aren't worth the drain on resources. It's legitimate to make a hard-nosed decision to dump such people. Whether Herschelkrustofsky is in that category, I don't know, but my skimming of the proceeding suggests that the case could be made. As time goes on, I think this kind of hard-nosed practical decisionmaking will become more important to the success of the project. I must admit that, if I were on the ArbCom, I'd find it hard to do, though. JamesMLane 20:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:ColdWar

You seem to have the most vested interest in Template:ColdWar so I wanted to let you know I removed the "Edit" link. It pointed to the wrong thing, and does not seem necessary anyway. --Twinxor 05:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kim Jong-il article

Hello again Mr.172, I just so happened to look at the Kim Jong-il article and this guy by the name of Sam Spade is stating that he was a dictator of North Korea, wouldn't this be a violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy??--Gustuv 22:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that Mr.Plato told me in a E-mail that "172 means big trouble," might I ask why he hates you so much? you don't seem to be such a threat that he thinks you are, actually your one of the nicest users I encountered here so far (along with Mr. Wales).--Gustuv 05:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BARNSTAR!!! ^_^

I Gustuv do hereby award 172 a barnstar for his commitment to NPOV

--Gustuv 03:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Now I've got some homework to do. Thank you for your supportive RfA vote and consideration. Fire Star 13:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Saw your vote for admin!

This is cool - 172 voted for me. And Jiang too! I feel honoured :) Thanks mate! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

blocking policy

Hi 172. For some reason Marcus2 asked me on my talk page to talk to you about you blocking of User:216.20.9.22. Why he didn't just come and talk to you himself I don't know. Do you have a history with him? Anyway he feels that the block was too long. Whilst i don't really care all that much, I have to agree that it was rather long, and you didn't follow the normal practice of warning first. So, as it's already been longer than the usual 24 hour block, I unblocked the IP.

I don't see you name on the blocklog very often, so I assume you don't know about this, but we have a series of templates {{test}} {{test2}} {{test3}} and so on that allow you to warn kiddie vandals that they are going to get blocked without you having to type very much. Also a very short block of say 1 hour is normally enough to deter most vandals. Short blocks keep the blocklist short and easy to keep abrest of, and also are far less likely to affect innocent users on the same IP. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 16:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"A Viable Encyclopedia"

In re your comment at RfA: "my commitment to making Wikipedia into a viable encyclopedia and my willingness to fight for scholarly standards" I would have to say "yea, go for it!" When I first came here I hoped for the same, but have mostly given up in regards to most politics and some history, as well, though I still grouse about it from time to time. Maybe that's a bad attitude, but I still have a little hair left, and would like to keep it.

The problem is a Catch-22. I believe you can only achieve this if editors who know what the hell they're talking about on certain specific subject have some kind of editorial oversight of their subjects of expertise. But then it would change the entire nature of the Wiki. If you can suggest some way that Wikipedia could ever by a source that could be cited in a scholarly journal, I'd like to hear it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Burueaucratship and my past behaviour

Hello Abe I noted that your on Requests for bureaucratship, personally I had some problems with you however Gustuv e-mailed me some time ago and told me how nice you were, so I decided to vote neutral rather than oppose, because you did write some good articles and you seem somewhat nice. I am sorry for my past behaviour. Good Day to you.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 12:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History of the United States

I'll think about what you said, but did you have to start off so crudely? Gazpacho 10:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi 172: Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Best wishes, IZAK 12:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Given your comments here, [3], which I approve of whole-heartedly, I wonder if you might support an effort to convert List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 into a redirect to Cold War.

Best, Mackensen 04:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea very much, although I'm not sure where I'll find the time - my undergrad thesis really ought to take precedence over this place. Ah well. I'll scavenge up some sources and see what I can develop. Mackensen 15:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cheer up mate.

We don't all dislike you. I don't. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually I don't either, for what its worth. Of course we have divergent POV's, as well as wiki-politics / philosophy, but I'm still glad your here. I apologize for harassing you so much, frankly your far from the most problematic sysop in my eyes, but your very active and persistent, and while I respect your being a prof, or teacher or whatnot, I don't agree that that is a trump card on article disputes. To be perfectly honest I am anxious for the RfAR to be resolved, and for us all to move on. If I had thought at any time that backing down would have solved problems, I assure you I would have. Anyhow, I wanted you to know that your positive contributions are appreciated, and that I think they do outweigh the things I disapprove of. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 15:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172/Proposed decision. Since neither you nor Sam Spade have participated much in the case, I expect it to be wildly inaccurate. I hope you both with help rectify that. Martin 00:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unprotecting.

172, I'm unprotecting People's Republic of China, since it's been over a week. Cross your fingers. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

User Page

I like your user page, especially the list of research sources on the left. Your page is GDFL so I will put it in my page, and give you credit :o). Is there an article for research sources on Wikipedia? If not, having that information there would be a good idea. Bye, --ShaunMacPherson 07:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit counts for admin

172, I like and respect you, so I have no desire to get into a shouting match with you at WP:RFA about the relative frequency of promoting a user with fewer than 1,000 edits (I don't want to create an occasion where those who dislike you pile on to what seems to be an agrument involving you, as they seem to enjoy doing). I do want to note that, according to Wikipedia:Recently created admins' archives, between September 2003 and February 2004, we promoted 17 admins with 1000 edits or less. Over half of the nominations from that time make no mention of edit counts...therefore I think it reasonable to postulate that at least a half dozen could be added to that number as a safe estimate. So, while you may feel it's important to impose your own personal standard now (and I respect your right to do that), I don't think it's responsible or accurate to claim that promotions of users with 1000 edits or less is a "rare" occurrence -- by my count, as recently as a year ago, somewhere between 1/5 and 1/3 of all promoted admins had edit counts beneath 1,000, and many of them remain active and trustworthy today, including both Raul654 and myself, recently elected arbitrators (which gives at least some community confirmation of our faithfully discharging our duties). I hope you'll reconsider your remarks at CyborgTosser's nomination, but I won't pursue the matter further there, out of courtesy. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig is right, the usual guideline was 500 edits up until the beginning of this year, though many more active editors had more than 1000 edits by the time they were nominated. uc

Artur da Costa e Silva pic

I'm tagging untagged images, and I came across Image:Artur da Costa e Silva.jpg, which you uploaded back in August. You gave the source. Do you have any more info on the license? Do you think I should tag it as "fair use" or "unverified" or what? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge & Communism

FYI, I just unprotected Khmer Rouge and Communism, since it has been over a week. I hope they play nice this time. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:36, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Your arbitration case

I did get your email, but hadn't decided how to react to it yet for a variety of reasons (e.g. being busy trying to prepare my own evidence for arbitration, having my inbox overwhelmed with flamewars from the mailing list, not being up to speed on developments in your case). Sorry for the delay. Anyway, now that some additional ideas have been put forward as proposed rulings, I've made some comments on the talk page. The revert parole doesn't seem that inappropriate to me (things in the past do have to be considered, as they were with RK), although I agree that you generally don't insist on your views via edit wars anymore - but if not, then it's not much skin off your nose either. Assuming the arbitrators agree on that measure, I would support a request to have it lifted after a little more time with no problems. The prohibition on the rollback feature does seem excessive to me. --Michael Snow 22:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think my influence would prevent the arbitrators from adopting a revert parole if that's what they're inclined to do. I wish you would look at the revert parole differently, since from my perspective I don't think there would be any need to change your current editing style. I don't think being on revert parole has much affected Cantus' legitimacy as an editor, though he's gotten blocked a few times for violating the parole, which I trust you wouldn't do. I think if anyone took advantage by systematically reverting all of your work, that problem could also be dealt with; my inclination would be to ask for a temporary injunction against that person reverting any article for which you made the last edit. --Michael Snow 01:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point was just that Fred has no evidence to back up his claim. AndyL 11:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point was just that Fred has no evidence to back up his claim. I'm not familiar enough with Shorne to comment on ideological differences.AndyL 11:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikistress

Thanks for the note. I couldn't much blame you if you called it quits, but for purely selfish reasons, I hope you don't. There is a lot of good stuff in Wikipedia, but anything involved with history or politics attracts people who think they know everything and/or have an axe to grind. I understand your frustrations, but I think your leaving would be a great net loss, and only advance the cause of ignorance. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)