User talk:Shorne

Hi Shorne, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian!

–Andre (talk) 17:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good changes to Saddam Hussein. 172 23:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Andre and 172. Shorne 23:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you take me and other people here for complete idiots? Do you think we have not seen these attempts to whitewash articles on Communist topics before? There has been a long history of attempting to rewrite the history of the Khmer Rouge, China, North Korea and related topics here, and they have been resisted at length, and usually successfully. I will continue to revert your edits, which are pure propaganda and garbage. Are we clear? Adam 05:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not whitewashing anything. It is you who systematically roll back entire sets of changes, even corrections of spelling, without even looking at them, simply because they don't match your own opinions. Readers who want to see what is being discussed here are invited to see the talk page of Khmer Rouge. In the meantime, I am going to report Mr Carr's promise to revert all of my edits. It is obvious that he is just being obstructive, ideological, and impossible. Shorne 05:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To take but the first example: removing the statement "The Khmer Rouge's rule is generally remembered for its violent rule in which at least one million people were killed." is a whitewash. And it's Dr Carr to you. Adam 05:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The statement's history has been discussed separately on the talk page for Khmer Rouge. There is no need to repeat the discussion here. Besides, I have already wasted far too much of my time on immature people and their antics today. Shorne 05:50, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS: I reported the incident at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Shorne 05:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your holocaust denial and atrocity whitewashing have been reported on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, in response to your whitewashing on Holodomor--Xed 10:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now that I have seen Shorne's truly disgusting edits at Holodomor, I am even more determined that his efforts to wreck articles such as this one must be resisted. Adam 14:13, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This deserves some comments from an outsider in this dispute. The edits made by Shorne that I have seen do not deny a holocaust - and Xed and Adam's comments appear to be unseemly and unnecessary slurs. All Shorne has done is remove figures and statistics from these articles, whilst leaving text that makes it clear that there was a holocaust. It is true that this has the effect of the reader not knowing how large/devasting a holocaust these events were, but it leaves the impression of holocaust.

It strikes me that Shorne's position is not entirely unreasonable. Terrible events like these are often exaggerated and figures tend to be unreliable - and in my opinion figures in an article should be supported by a strong body of research before being included. Jongarrettuk 18:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for insisting

Thank you for insisting that at least a mention of the widespread and continuous charges against Kissinger be included in his article. Please let me know if you need any assistance in this or other matters.

LegCircus 23:19, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Personal chararcteristic of yours

Dear Mr.Shorne, I should inform you that you're either an idiot (this is a supposition, not an insulting statement) or a shameless propagandist. Or may be you're a provokator in attempt to make angry every reader familiar with Soviet history.

VeryVerily and TDC

As I saw that you are also fed up with these guys who do not care at all about neutrality, I would like to ask you to help getting rid of the problem they cause by joining the talk at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:VeryVerily. Get-back-world-respect 13:35, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gladly. Shorne 15:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I can understand that you are frustrated with the slow process here. I however think that it is good to see three arbitrators accepting to work on VeriVerily. The only thing I see you could still do is encourage others to join in the complaint. Best place may be George W. Bush, an article with a lot of contributors where VeriVerily has flatly ignored consensus varios times. Get-back-world-respect 21:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge Problem

I've tried to start some kind of structured conflict resolution here: [1]

If you could state your arguments under the appropriate header, it would help the move to some kind of meaningful mediation. GuloGuloGulo 18:58, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hi pal

Hello.

Don't let all this wolf pack of a few right-wing idiots yelling at you get you down. You're doing a good job on the edits. If we keep to the Wikipedia rules (as you are doing, you know about the 3-revert rule and so forth, right?) we will be OK. A handful of right-wing fanatics don't care about NPOV or the Wikipedia rules but other users do, so if we stick to the rules and they don't and we are reasonable and they aren't, we will get the neutral users on our side.

Since there is a small group of zealots who stick together and try to single out people like you and attack them, it's important we who want a neutral point of view stick together as they only win when they perform their very successful tactic of isolating and driving away users as they've done so many times before.

There are other wiki's out there but this is the big one so it's one to stick with. Of course each wiki, like each season, has its place. Ruy Lopez 10:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not all right wingers are zealots and some who disagree with shrone are right.

Featured article candidates

Hello. You might not know, but we already have several Culture articles being voted for and I really think we should have some variety in the sort of articles submitted. Besides, as far as I know, submitting several articles as candidates shortly after each other is considered bad form. Maybe you want to consider starting a Culture Collaboration of the Week?

Thanks for your time. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:14, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Wack Job

Add me to the list of folks who think you're a revisionist communist apologist (yeah, that's right - 3 "ists" in a row).

Actually, you should say a communist apologist and revisionist. Also, it is whack job, not 'wack job'. In hopes of grammatically sound personal attacks, El_C

You're a wack job who, in a short amount of time, has already become a cancer to Wiki. Keep up all the "right wing" rants and conspiracy talk, that does nothing but quell real discussion, which is what Wiki is really all about. You're not the first revisionist to discover Wiki, and you won't be the last. You'll be rooted out eventually.

November 10 2004 (JanSport)

Your aggressive editing

When are you going to start doing some research to back up the edits you are making. It is not enough to aggressively argue and revert. Fred Bauder 20:54, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

It's more than you know

Hi...you said some of this stuff sounds like a CIA press release. Well, you've hit it pretty close to the mark. Much of this stuff comes, no lie, from US State Department press releases.

Here's a sentence from the History of Cuba from the US State Department web site:

Batista's dictatorial rule fueled increasing popular discontent and the rise of many active urban and rural resistance groups, a fertile political environment for Castro's 26th of July Movement.[2]

and here's the sentence in the History of Cuba from the Wikipedia web site:

Batista's rule fueled increasing popular discontent and the rise of active urban resistance groups, a fertile political environment for Castro's 26th of July Revolutionary Movement.

There is a difference between the two versions - someone thought the US State Department's characterization of Batista as "dictatorial" was too far left so they erased it.

The basis of most of these types of articles comes from the US State Department.

Ruy Lopez 21:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

misc.

Yes, much of the facts and histories of countries, from Cuba to pretty much every other country is from the US State Department documents.

As far as deaths due to capitalism, a "White Book of Capitalism" if you will, I agree that tactical decisions should be made whether or not it's worth it to debunk the Black Book and create an alternate.[3] If they do, more power to them.

Ah yes Khmer Rouge. I actually have a copy of After the Catalysm, which is probably one of the best books to debunk what's in that article. KR is a good one to dive into, I dove into Great Purge since that type of thing seems to be the backbone of their whole construct. You start with that and all the peripheral stuff becomes easier.

I was just reading some stuff on the New Left, and it's mentioned how the New Left were anti-anti-communist. I think that's a good way to describe myself. Some people I know feel otherwise but I don't. I see these people trying to tone down anything capitalist regimes have done, and turn any minor problem in a socialist country into a huge thing. I'm from the US - I remember meeting a Hungarian boy when I was a boy and Reagan was president, and a ton of cold war propaganda was flowing around. I asked him what it was like to escape from his totalitarian, 1984-ish prison where the police were always over your shoulder and you had to stand in line for toilet paper. Meeting a living witness, I learned that a lot of what I had been taught had been hyperbole. It was one of the first steps to me realizing much of what I learned in schools and on the media here are lies.

The irony is easy to witness here, we want to add a bit of an alternative view to the articles, and make sure facts have a source, who can be examined, and they start acting like totalitarians demanding one party line. Any difference of opinion is from "Stalinoids" who are machines you can't deal with and must only battle. I guess if you live in a country where the Queen and CIA control the country (and the transportation unions) and can (and have) boot out the PM when they want to can give you that mentality as much as an American. Ruy Lopez 00:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Million+ Dead? Don't think so.

Too bad I don't have "competing" figures handy -- because the loudmouth who is spouting venom about a "Million" dead (whatever the ballpark figure) certainly doesn't want to hear me say I _think_ the number is far lower -- 400.000, say. Maybe even less. Not to say the Khmer Rouge wasn't led by rotten people -- but it's pretty annoying to be constantly having to deal with vicious anti-communists on Wikipedia, when these people are complete loons and where facts are pretty much irrelevant when ideology is at stake. The Vietnamese were communists and FOUGHT the Khmer Rouge. The U.S. is capitalist and imperialist and SUPPORTED the Khmer Rouge!!

No semblance of balance with these people whatsoever. The truth WILL win out, however.

One wonders whether they will blow their remaining gaskets when they find out that Stalin didn't kill NEARLY as many people as their type have been claiming for 80 years...

Thanks for writing. I share your frustration. There's really no telling these right-wing loudmouths anything: they're like religious people who won't let go of their creed even in the face of the most rock-solid evidence. And, yes, they're already blowing their gaskets over Stalin, too. See Stalin, Great Purge, and a number of related articles.

I'm not going to let them get away with spreading imperialist lies on Wikipedia. Kind of sad to see them willingly serving as the mouthpieces for tired old Cold War propaganda, but we can't do anything about that. We can only prove them wrong. Shorne 05:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ummm

Every time I turn around, you're on a new article, making new accusations. It looks like you've been on wiki for a little more than a week, have already made >500 edits[?], and you've already created a great deal of controversy. Are you a sock puppet? Stargoat 05:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Referenced material

In a few instances you have changed the content of the article Great Purge in instances where the content was referenced to particular pages of Robert Conquest's book, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, see [4]. The problem is that the cited page will not support the statement which you insert. The effect is that a statement is in a Wikipedia article which is not supported by its cited reference. Fred Bauder 15:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Do you understand the problem and that you cannot make such changes without removing the references also, and hopefully putting a reference which supports the change? To do this well you need to have a copy of the book for reference. Fred Bauder 15:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger

Can you prove that Kissinger was in fact arrested, accused or tried for war crimes by some recognized organization? I know VV is pushing your buttons, but you'd be better of in trying to prove your point than attacking him. (Please note that this is an attempt to help stop the edit conflict. I won't be taking sides.) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 16:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Can you be any more specific of the people doing the accusing of Kissinger? Are they especially notable world leaders, celebreties or other famous people? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 06:54, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

"Documenatation please"

With respect to the following paragraph you repeatedly removed certain materials [5] with the comment, "I want documentation of those claims, if you please." I have now consulted The Great Terror: A Reassessement , a standard reference work and after a little searching found passages which support the generally accepted information which you deleted. See:

The '''Great Purge''' is the name given to the events of the late [[1930s]] in the [[Soviet Union]], when millions of people were arrested, about one million executed, and an estimated 12 million to sent to labour camps. According to [[On the Personality Cult and its Consequences|Nikita Khrushchev]] a significant part of the accusations were based on forced [[confession]]s and on loose interpretations of vague articles of [[Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code)]], which dealt with counter-revolutionary crimes. Due legal deliberation was largely replaced with express trials by [[NKVD troika]]s. The purge targeted all categories of the society: members of the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Communist Party]], the government, the armed forces and the intelligentsia, as well as "anti-Soviet elements" among peasants ([[kulak]]s), in industry, and in transport. The height of the purge occurred while the Soviet secret police (the [[NKVD]]) was headed by [[Nikolai Yezhov]], from September [[1936]] to August [[1938]]; this period is often referred to as the '''Yezhovschina''' ("Yezhov storm"). However, the purge was carried out on the orders of Stalin himself.

It is rather obvious that you do not have a copy of this standard reference work available or choose not to refer to it. Furthermore you seem to be unfamiliar with generally accepted knowledge with respect to this area. I believe it is a reasonable expectation that you familiarize yourself with the subjects you chose to edit on and be able to consult standard reference works and understand them. Could you please remedy this situation. As it stands now you are wasting everyone's time. Asking that generally accepted information be extensively documented while simulaneously espousing information and positions that can only be referenced through fringe sources. Fred Bauder 16:55, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, please look at these reviews (from Amazon), of The Great Terror: A Reassessment:

"Library Journal Upon its publication in 1968, Conquest's The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties ( LJ 12/1/68) received wide acclaim for its broad, well-documented portrayal of the death of millions in Stalin's peacetime consolidation of power. A generation later, the collection of samizdat literature and the openness of glasnost have permitted access to better information, thereby allowing a reassessment of the study. Conquest's review largely confirms the original work. In the new edition more recent documentation is incorporated and some portions are revised based upon new data. However, the substance of the text is much the same. Outdated appendixes have been removed. This remains an essential source, and any library without it should buy it. Larger collections will want the revision."

"Ingram The definitive work on Stalin's purges, The Great Terror was universally hailed when it first appeared in 1968. In the last few years, with the advent of glastnost, an avalanche of new material has been made available. Now Conquest has mined this wealth of new information to write a substantially new edition of his classic work.

Book Description The definitive work on Stalin's purges, Robert Conquest's The Great Terror was universally acclaimed when it first appeared in 1968. Edmund Wilson hailed it as "the only scrupulous, non-partisan, and adequate book on the subject." George F. Kennan, writing in The New York Times Book Review, noted that "one comes away filled with a sense of the relevance and immediacy of old questions." And Harrison Salisbury called it "brilliant...not only an odyssey of madness, tragedy, and sadism, but a work of scholarship and literary craftsmanship." And in recent years it has received equally high praise in the Soviet Union, where it is now considered the authority on the period, and has been serialized in Neva, one of their leading periodicals.

Of course, when Conquest wrote the original volume two decades ago, he relied heavily on unofficial sources. Now, with the advent of glasnost, an avalanche of new material is available, and Conquest has mined this enormous cache to write a substantially new edition of his classic work. It is remarkable how many of Conquest's most disturbing conclusions have born up under the light of fresh evidence. But Conquest has added enormously to the detail, including hitherto secret information on the three great "Moscow Trials," on the fate of the executed generals, on the methods of obtaining confessions, on the purge of writers and other members of the intelligentsia, on life in the labor camps, and many other key matters.

Both a leading Sovietologist and a highly respected poet, Conquest here blends profound research with evocative prose, providing not only an authoritative account of Stalin's purges, but also a compelling and eloquent chronicle of one of this century's most tragic events. A timely revision of a book long out of print, this updated version of Conquest's classic work will interest both readers of the earlier volume and an entirely new generation of readers for whom it has not been readily available."

Please look at the customer reviews at [6]. You will note a few reviews that say it is all a lie, but I think you would have to admit there is a consensus that it is an authoritative account. The point, whether you find it reliable, is that there is enough support for it that when cited it can be reliaby cited as a reference. I hope you will examine these reviews and admit that summaries of the matterial in it can be used extensively in the article. Fred Bauder 01:08, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

So some miscellaneous comments from customers of a bookstore count as useful data? I find it interesting that even one or two of the five-star ratings admit that the data are flawed. I don't accept the "consensus" of a dozen or so English-speaking customers in the First World who grew up doing "duck and cover" drills at school and looking for reds under the beds. I can't believe you are seriously proposing that.

Conquest's book has been discussed at Robert Conquest and its talk page. He always claimed that the opening of the Soviet archives would corroborate his claims. Well, it didn't. The Soviet archives are open. Why isn't he shouting from the rooftops about the purported corroboration? Check this set of articles for a discussion: [7]. Shorne 01:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dispute on People's Republic of China

There are a couple of problems with the reversions you are making to People's Republic of China. You are editing an article when you are not familiar with the subject matter. This is evident in your quarrel with the proposition that living standards have improved due to economic reforms. It is not acceptable to edit an article in a area you either choose not to or are unable to master the basic facts involved in its subject matter. Here is another reference for you, from a Chinese source [8]. Again, notice that the Engel index is mentioned. The Engel index which is mentioned about is a measure of what portion of a person's income goes for food. Here is a quote from the article:

"The consumption structure changed remarkably with reduced money on basic daily necessities and increased spending on housing, communication, medical insurance, education and entertainment.

The Engel Index in China's urban areas went down from 49.9 percent in 1995 to 41.9 percent in 1999. While the Index in rural areas decreased from 58.6 percent to 52.6 percent.

The index, representing the ratio of expenditure on food against the whole expenditure reflects the changes of people's consumption patterns. Experts here predict the urban and rural Engel index will continue to drop respectively to 40 percent and 50 percent by the end of the year."

The same problem exists with respect to famine. That the threat of famine was constant in the old China, then revived with the economic and social experimentation of Mao during the Great Leap Forward is general knowledge, and not just with China specialists. Here's a paragraph from our own article on the GLF:

"The Great Leap Forward is now widely seen both within China and outside as a major economic disaster. As inflated statistics reached planning authorities, orders were given to divert human resources into industry rather than agriculture. Estimates of deaths range from 4 million to 40 million people, with much of the uncertainty coming from defining what constitutes a death due to famine; it is widely believed to have been the greatest famine in history."

Yet you're asking for "proof" and claiming you havn't gotten it. Fred Bauder 19:50, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

What I would like you to do is to do some research on your own; familiarize yourself with the basic information and resources for any area you chose to edit in and not waste everyone's time by engaging in edit wars over generally accepted information. When proof has been put before you with links to resources, could you examine them and if the reference is there, let it go? The way it is you, despite proof being put before you, you either don't read it or understand it and keep arguing. How about it? Fred Bauder 19:54, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

This outrageous allegation was answered at User talk:Fred Bauder and Talk:People's Republic of China. Shorne 01:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, I think you are simply ignoring the data provided to you by Fred Bauder. It suggests that you don't want to seek the truth, but to spread your own ideas which are not based on facts. I think Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of activity. Please do not deny facts and if you want to put your own opinions in articles, please allow other opinions to be expressed. Best regards. Boraczek 06:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know yet how serious the ideological problems are, here on the Wikipedia website. I haven't been active here long enuff. But just from a cursory going-over of a number of the political articles, I think it's pretty safe to say that the heavy, biased hand of western imperialism predominates, at least on the english-language site (and, of course, one of the first things imperialists say is that commies are trying to dominate everything, and therefore they need to "respond", yadda). I'd say, from long experience, and from reading these articles, that overall -- as usual IMO -- communists have shown the usual remarkable restraint in dealing with rightwing venom. Which doesn't mean that many people on the Right can't also "rise above" vested interests -- and in this lies the key to an eventual effective solution, if not harmony.

As regards the PRC article (which I haven't read yet BTW! ;): clearly only some battlefield truce between bilingual partisans of both sides will "solve" this particular problem -- i.e. this article must include the efforts of China-born english-speaking communists TOO. Shorne is batting 500 already here -- not because he may be wrong, but because his POV can always be trumped by a bilingual native-speaker, who was both born and raised in China. Which doesn't imply in the least that that person is truly more objective than Shorne! Only debate like this would prove that.

For the record: I'm a communist, but I hate stalinism, and AFAIC the workers and peasants of China should have another revolution ASAP. But in no way do I want to see the capitalists "capitalize" on any divisions inside China.

Pazouzou 19:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

keep it up

Keep up your good work. As far as VV goes, people know he is difficult to get along with, and if you make a complaint, I'll back you up. That doesn't mean anything will change, but at least you'll have tried.

In any dispute be very careful to be polite and assume, even against all evidence, that the opposed individual is trying to be helpful. This will help you win greater support and (hopefully) prevent people from distrusting your judgement. If someone assaults you 6 times and you lose your temper just once, the community will think, well both of them are behaving badly, but if you can continue to be both bold and cool, then we'll get some good work done.

LegCircus 22:11, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

World citizens

Welcome to Wikipedia! In view of most of what you have been involved in, I'm not a bit surprised to see you joining us at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World citizens. Keep it cool, as LegCircus recommends, and keep looking for documentation.
Robin Patterson 03:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chinese history

Shorne, you removed this entire paragraph, from the People's Republic of China article, terming it "Blatant POV nonsense:

"Following the dramatic economic failures associated with the Great Leap Forward, Mao stepped down from his position as chairman of the People's Republic. The National People's Congress elected Liu Shaoqi as Mao's successor. Mao remained head of the Party but was removed from day to day management of economic affairs which came under the control of a more moderate leadership under the dominant influence of Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and others who initiated economic reforms. Feeling sidelined, in 1966 Mao struck back, launching the Cultural Revolution which mobilized the youth of the country in support of his thought, purging the moderate leadership. Disorder followed but gradually under the leadership of Zhou Enlai moderate forces regained influence. After Mao's death, his widow, Jiang Qing and her associates, the Gang of Four, who had assumed control of the country, were arrested and tried and Deng Xiaoping succeeded to power"

Did you look at the reference given: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/prc3.html#cultural and the other information on that site? I wish you would and consider whether some part of the deleted paragraph could be included. Fred Bauder 02:58, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph because I am tired of wasting my time when you persistently add stuff that you know damn well to be POV. I'm most willing to discuss changes with people who are serious about producing an accurate, balanced, and NPOV article. People who are out to wear me down with repetitive POV antics, however, I cannot take seriously. If you want to discuss a one-paragraph summary, I suggest that we take it to the talk page. I am tired of attempting to salvage atrocious POV stuff that you write on the basis of some stuff that you gleaned from the reviews at Amazon.

Also, for your information, Jiang Qing was a member of the Gang of Four. Shorne 03:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Material removed regarding Western reactions to the Great Purge

Shorne, you removed the following paragraph from the article, Great Purge:

"Among many western intellectuals there remained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union which persisted until definitive proof began to appear after Stalin's death with, first, the relevations of [[Khrushchev]], the writings of [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]], the publication of ''The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties'' by [[Robert Conquest]] in the late 1960s, release of Soviet records during [[glasnost]] and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]''. Resistance continues among [[historical revisionism|revisionist scholars]] in the United States who minimize the effects of the Great Terror."

Would you please look at the references provided in the comments? Fred Bauder 03:05, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm taking this to the talk page for the article. Please do not try to hold these discussions on my own talk page. Shorne 03:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requires that attempts be made to discuss issues both on the talk pages of articles and on the user's talk page. Wikipedia:Requests for comment specifically requires that attempt to discuss problems be made on the user's talk page. I am simply trying to discuss these matters with you the best that I am able. I hope that you would participate by also discussing the problems pesented. Fred Bauder 03:19, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Is this just your attempt to satisfy some bureaucratic requirement on the road to getting me expelled? Shorne 03:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'd be happy to see you come around, learn how to apply the principles in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and be a productive contributor, which you could do and still be able to have your point of view represented in controversial political articles. How about joining me in a request for mediation? Fred Bauder 12:55, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm unwilling to take lessons in NPOV from someone who thinks it proper to write disgusting rants about "concentration camps" in China and to make similarly blatant POV assertions. I told you yesterday that I'm game for mediation (separate from the request for mediation with VeryVerily that I have already made), but I'd prefer to postpone it, if you don't mind. You see, I'm tempted to leave this damn site, which is hopelessly dominated by right-wing POV-pushers and, what is worse, jerks like VeryVerily who ride roughshod over everything—with evident impunity. If I do decide to leave, there will be no point in mediation between you and me. Shorne 13:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When different views are conflicted, we should seek a compromise. In my humble opinion, the term "concentration camp" is fully justified. In your opinion, the term "concentration camp" is propagandist. I think we could make a compromise by using the term "laogai" (if it is correct) instead. But to arrive at a compromise, it is necessary that you are willing to make a compromise and you don't consider your POV the only acceptable one. Boraczek 19:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"[I]f it is correct". You don't even know what laogai means, do you? Go away; I have no time for your type. Shorne 20:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what laogai precisely means and I don't know what the context was. I'm not an expert as far as China is concerned. That was meant to be an example, while what I wanted to say is not related to China in particular. Boraczek 20:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hear you, after all I "left" Wikipedia and established a fork due to left wing domination... To have mediation we have to agree to do it and more important you would need to set aside some time to actually make it mean something. I'll give you about a week and if you have not agreed by then I'll take the matter to arbitration. Fred Bauder 14:39, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if you think VeryVerily opperates with impunity, check back. I've recused myself from his arbitration case, due to his "help", but the history of POV pushers like that is that they get banned, at least from the area relevant to their POV. That is what I will be asking for in your case, but I see absolutely no reason you can't turn it around and become a respected and productive Wikipedia editor. Fred Bauder 14:39, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

The only reason that I cannot be a respected and productive Wikipedia editor is that people like you see an Evil Left-Wing Conspiracy (the most bullshit: almost all political articles here are grossly slanted to the ultra-right) and insist à la Goebbels on your party line. I have no confidence whatsoever in your integrity or in the kangaroo court of which you are a member. VeryVerily plainly gets away with whatever the hell he wants, and you know it. Shorne 20:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree. I would oppose any "ultra-right" POV-pushing as I oppose communist POV-pushing. It seems to me that you are so much to the left, that you perceive anything that is not communism as "right-wing POV" and anything that is not socialism as "ultra-right". And let me add that I think Fred Bauder is a very moderate and impartial contributor, so your accusation is clearly unjust and offensive. Boraczek 20:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Fred Bauder is very moderate and impartial is out of their gourd. Relative to people like VeryVerily however, Fred Bauder at least usually follows the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia doesn't require people to be moderate, it just requires people to use a neutral point of view, and follow the rules, the letter and spirit of which is that problems should try to be worked out and compromised instead of warred over - something I see both Fred Bauder and Shorne doing. I think me, Shorne, Fred Bauder and others can work together and come to an agreement over articles like the Great Purge. If someone would just make Very Verily follow the rules as well (like the three revert rule, which he's been banned for breaking before), I think everything would come out amenably. Ruy Lopez 21:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the paragraph referenced at top should have been removed as POV as well. I have no problem for Conquest being cited as a source for NKVD troikas, arrest numbers, execution numbers and so forth. I do have a problem with him and his cohorts as being described as "definitive", and those who criticize them then and now as "revisionists". Ruy Lopez 20:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. This is what I said on the talk page. Anyone who doesn't understand that such statements are POV is completely hopeless, and I will not waste any more of my time discussing things with such people. Shorne 20:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again

Now that we're happily at the talk page for User:Shorne rather than People's Republic of China, perhaps you'd like to consider answering this question again:

Are you Chinese, Shorne? I am and I'm proudly so, if you're wondering. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 03:06, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have answered the question at Talk:People's Republic of China. Shorne 03:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now you're not being fair. For one, I'm no longer asking this question in a place where it would be irrelevant; for two, I've supplied my answer to the question myself, without being asked (though a look at my user contributions list would probably answer that question well enough). Are you Chinese, or did you learn Chinese well enough to read Chinese articles? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 03:13, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to answer these questions. It's perfectly fair for me to decline to answer the personal questions of the general public. Admitting people into my confidence is my prerogative, and you happen not to be high on the list of people with whom I'd like to establish a personal relationship. If anything, I would like to spend less time talking with you, for I have not found our exchanges heretofore to be especially cordial, gratifying, or productive. I'm sorry for not being willing to carry this discussion into the personal domain. I thank you, however, for sharing some information about yourself with me. Shorne 03:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So despite having thrown heap after heap of information after you, all I get is, "I have not found our exchanges heretofore to be especially cordial, gratifying, or productive."

Oh well, you know what they say. 我听说过日本人不承认南京大屠杀，却没听说过中国人不承认南京大屠杀的。自己民族惨痛的历史都不愿意正视，真是国耻上加国耻，?锦上添花?啊。真希望你不是中国人或者华人，因为我觉得你不配。-- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 15:54, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

three revert rule

VeryVerily has broken the Wikipedia:Three revert rule on several pages, make sure that you don't break it (more than three reverts on an article within 24 hours). Ruy Lopez 05:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

woops, I mean more than three reverts in 24 hours. Ruy Lopez 05:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

deletion

I see you're very quick to delete material with which you disagree. However, that's not the right way to do things around here, especially when you're new and apparently haven't gotten the hang of working with people with whom you have disagreements. There's a policy page - I forget which - that points out that the right way to deal with POV text is to add more text that attributes it accurately. Our purpose as editors is not to announce TRVTH; no one here has sufficient reputation to do that on their own personal authority. Instead, you have to say that "X says Y, but Z says that X is an idiot". Just deleting Y is simply the wrong approach, and as you're no doubt noticing, you run the risk of angering enough people to get booted. Stan 05:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

leaving

Well, this place is run by people like VeryVerily and I'm not so sure that that is going to change. Plenty of good users have left after getting tired of this sort of thing, even good administrators like Secretlondon were driven off - she was driven off after Jimbo Wales, who runs Wikipedia, sent her e-mail telling her he was tired of her anti-Americanism or something like that.

Anyhow, you should definitely check out wikis like InfoshopOpenWiki[9] and Disinfopedia[10]. Disinfopedia is a specialized wiki - it is about PR firms, think tanks and that sort of thing. It helps people find out who is funding groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anti-labor, anti-environment groups and things like that. InfoshopOpenWiki is like Wikipedia, except it is run by an anarchist, and it is a much friendlier place except for anti-anarchists who edit articles on Kronstadt, the Spanish Civil War, Nestor Makhno and that sort of thing.

Wikipedia would wear out anybody. The deck is stacked in favor of those with VeryVerily's opinion, which is why attrition always helps his side. He knows he can flout the rules since no one will ever do anything about him (although he would have been banned months ago if he was left wing and used the same tactics), will probably give up and leave. Which is reasonable enough, but I hope you become part of the Disinfopedia/InfoshopOpenWiki/etc. community and contribute there, as we can always use the help. I spend most of my time over there, although I've jumped into the fray here a few weeks ago.

There's a need for a fair encyclopedia or wiki that covers politics, history and that sort of thing. I hope, whether or not you stop editting on Wikipedia, you stay within the community for that. Ruy Lopez 06:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moving to Arbitration

Mediation is the final step before arbitration, where binding penalties can be imposed. When mediation fails, you can move onto arbitration. VV has stated in your mediation against him, "at any rate, I'm not going to concede, so it's moot." I'm fairly certain that that means he is denying to agree to mediation, though you might want to confirm it with him. He has every right to do this, and it allows you to move to arbitration.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

VeryVerily is already involved in 2 other requests for arbitration, one which is one vote away from being accepted. So you are by no means alone. I would create a separate request, though the ArbCom might want to combine them... I don't really know how that'll work.

Good luck. GuloGuloGulo 06:35, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Slandering

Shorne, please stop slandering other Wikipedians.

from User Talk:Ruy Lopez Now VeryVerily is fighting to propagandise United States, to which I added a section on human rights. (Evidently he's a racist, very eager to overstate laws against discrimination as "extremely harsh" or "extremely effective" or something of the sort.)

VeryVerily is just trying to make Wikipedia articles NPOV and free from your biased and arbitrary changes. Calling him "a racist" for this is an unacceptable insult. I think you should apologize to VeryVerily. Boraczek 06:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm allowed to have private conversations on my own page. Shorne 06:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually you're not - talk pages are just as public as anything else here, it's all indexed by Google, and this kind of thing will get you banned right quick. Take your slanders to private email. Stan 15:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are not allowed to publicly insult other Wikipedians. Please stop doing it. Boraczek 07:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

leaving...

You can e-mail me privately at ruylopez@mail.com so we can discuss VeryVerily's Ku Klux K--- attitude without upsetting Boraczek's sensibilities which he talks about further on up this page. I don't read that e-mail a lot but this week I will be checking it a couple of times. After you send me an e-mail, tell me what the subject of the e-mail is on my user page here so I know it's you (or at least a wiki admin pretending to be you).

Yes Wikipedia pretends that it is fair and unbiased and it is not. As Mr. Hammer or Sickle might say, it is all dependent on the means of production. A millionaire like Jimbo Wales puts up a wiki and it looks like Wikipedia. A liberal like Sheldon Rampton or an anarchist like Chuck0 puts up a wiki, and it looks like Disinfopedia or InfoshopOpenWiki.

As far as the other wiki sites, well, each site has its own deal. Wikipedia is run by a bourgeois millionaire, and thus has a lot of money behind it and is tilted politically in the direction you'd expect a site owned and run by a man who is a white, Western bourgeois millionaire. Disinfopedia is a different site, and InfoshopOpenWiki is a different site. InfoshopOpenWiki is limited compared to Wikipedia in terms of content, but at least you can write articles in peace without some idiot coming along and wrecking it. In fact, the guidelines state that they don't truck with conservatives coming on and doing that.

I think Wikipedia has its place - for things like scientific articles. For historical or political articles, it is hopelessly, and I stress *HOPELESSLY* biased. I think InfoshopOpenWiki has the best potential currently to fill that gap.

I think the best way to look at it is as a corporate newspaper. You know what kind of junk they're going to print. If you start a letter-writing campaign, they might decide to print a letter to the editor about what you want to say. Or they might not. Wikipedia is like that, a lot of effort might nudge them in a certain direction, but that's it.

You're right about InfoshopOpenWiki's limited selection, but the choice is the sisyphusian task of battling it out here, or trying to form the structure of the new society within the shell of the old over at InfoshopOpenWiki. That old slogan is apt, because one of the positive features of Wikipedia is that the articles are GFDL, which means we can copy any of them, paste them over at InfoshopOpenWiki, and edit them to our liking. Legally, it's actually encouraged.

I think it's just a matter of perspective. Wikipedia is good for scientific information. It is crappy for historical information, especially modern history, which is incredibly biased. Wikipedia's GFDL licensing is good as well, as anyone can just legally, and with their blessing, grab all of Wikipedia's content, go off, and start their own wikis with their own rules. Of course, it takes a lot of money to start something like that, but InfoshopOpenWiki has already done so. Ruy Lopez 09:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Is this just your attempt to satisfy some bureaucratic requirement on the road to getting me expelled? Shorne 03:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'd be happy to see you come around, learn how to apply the principles in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and be a productive contributor, which you could do and still be able to have your point of view represented in controversial political articles. How about joining me in a request for mediation? Fred Bauder 12:58, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

See above for the answer. Somehow your question got posted twice. Shorne 13:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Ruy Lopez is so wrong. I don't know if you noticed but user Adam Carr quit editing all areas in the communist area because Everyking and I stood up against him regarding an edit of Ruy Lopez. It isn't including a POV that offends, it's insisting on one point of view to the exclusion of others. Fred Bauder 12:58, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I thank you for standing up to him. Again, however, you are not listening to me on the subject of POV. Pardon me for being unwilling to repeat myself. Shorne 13:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users Shorne and Fred Bauder

User:Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. I know he must agree to mediate and set aside time for mediating, but the destructive effect of his constant edit warring mandates that some action be taken. Fred Bauder 21:59, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Update on mediation request with User:VeryVerily

The section /*Request mediation with User:VeryVerily*/ at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there.

Thanks, BCorr, Chair of the Mediation Committee, 22:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wish to know why nothing has been done about my request. Shorne 22:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Users Shorne and Fred Bauder

User:Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. Extensive discussions on article talk pages have been to no avail, see especially Talk:People's Republic of China, for example this edit: [11]. Mediation has been refused, see [12] Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/1/0)

Recuse Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

hi

Hi, I'm trying to get VeryVerily to follow the three revert rule, can you go to User talk:VeryVerily and ask him to follow the rule as well? If he ignores us, at least we can say we tried. Ruy Lopez 03:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Good idea, although I know that it's just wasting our breath/keystrokes.

Still going to get back to you on that other note, by the way. As you can see, I haven't had any time.… Shorne 03:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your comment on VV's talk page

I removed your comment:

This is the most bullshit. Not a goddam word of evidence got presented this time on Khmer Rouge by anyone but me. No one else even joined the discussion. Have you no shame, lying hypocrite?

from VV's talk page. I found it a most unconstructive. "No one else even joined the discussion" is also just false, I seem to remember joining the discussion. It is also breaking a Wikipedia rule Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. GuloGuloGulo 09:48, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that no one among those who had been involved in the controversy leading up to the freezing of the article participated. I appreciated your participation.

As for personal attacks, I take your point, but I'm reminded of a lawsuit for defamation brought by a wrestler against a newspaper that had published his photograph alongside that of a gorilla. The judge concluded that the gorilla had a better case. Shorne 09:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noted, though two wrongs don't make a right. GuloGuloGulo 09:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'm just becoming rather frustrated with "th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, / … the law's delay, / the insolence of office and the spurns / that patient merit of th'unworthy takes". Shorne 10:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"'Tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." Though, hopefully you won't die in the third act. GuloGuloGulo 10:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

USA

I'm out of reverts for the day, so I will not be able to remove VV's nonsense for at least the next 24 hours. As you are not limited by this, please revert VV's POV additions in any way you can. Thanks. --Cantus 20:18, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Rudeness

You really need to watch your mouth - calling me an "idiot" and a "POV-pushing propagandist" is walking the line. All of your bile is carefully preserved in history, and has a way of getting trotted out when you anger too many of your fellow editors and end up in front of the arbcom. Stan 01:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where did I call you an idiot or a POV-pushing propagandist? Shorne 01:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On Talk:The Great Terror, I wrote "let's do something different: enumerate the factual errors here (should be easy if they're so obvious), and we'll discuss" and you came back with "I'm really sick of wasting my time with idiots, but here is a sample" and then "You POV-pushing propagandists have one day to clean this shit up". When you reply directly to something I write, I think it's pretty natural to assume that you're referring to me and not anybody else in the room. Stan 02:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if the shoe fits… Shorne 04:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please don't let Stan Shebs intimidate you and dissuade you from making active contributions. Though not a full-time member of the rightwing clique that has been reverting your work at random, I've found him for the past couple of years to be one of the more rude and erroneously self-righteous active editors on this site. He does not speak for the community, despite his posturing. 172 02:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's symptomatic of 172's, uh, "unusual" POV that he would think of me as right-wing; just to brag a bit, I'm pretty sure I've contributed more actual $$$ to the Democratic cause than any other Wikipedian this year, and spent hours last Sunday going door-to-door in Las Vegas' 88-degree heat to talk to voters. Yup, clear proof that I must be a neocon! :-) Stan 03:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, 172. I'll probably give up and leave this right-wing rat hole eventually, simply because I don't like the company. They can all moan among themselves about the Left-Wing Conspiracy that has supposedly turned Wikipedia into a Stalinist propaganda organ.

Voting for Demokkkrats is no left-wing credential in my book. I wouldn't participate in the charade that is the US election (vote for Tweedledum or Tweedledee, as Helen Keller put it) even if I were a Yank. There's no genuine choice. Incidentally, although I don't think the outcome of that (s)election will make any difference to speak of, I kind of hope that Bush will win. Surprised? Shorne 04:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nope, not surprised. It's one of the old lines about politics that the far lefties eventually go so far as to meet up with the far righties coming around the other way.

That's not my reason. Shorne 05:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I feel a little sorry for you actually, because with so much bile and hatred built up for everybody you're probably not getting much enjoyment out of life. You should do a meditation; go out, lie on the ground, and watch a plant grow up close for an hour, concentrating on the plant and not thinking about anything else. Stan 05:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Been reading pop psychology again, have you? Thank you for your condescension. Shorne 05:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tweedledum versus Tweedledee is almost on target. However, being in the U.S. perhaps I see it a bit differently. For example, with John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in their eighties and seventies, I'm not comfortable of the idea of Bush appointing up to three or four new Justices to the Supreme Court... Incidentally, I doubt that Stan has contributed more to the cause of ousting Bush than I have. I don't have much money to donate, being in teaching (unlike our friend Stan from the "aerospace" industry, I believe). But I'm here in Florida with 27 votes next to Nevada's 5; and I've taken the initiative to revitalize and run one of the more active Democratic organizations in my area, helping to bring more service sector workers, migrant workers, young people, African Americans, and Latinos into the fold. (I will not disclose any further details, especially to the likes of a crank like Stan, as I wish to contribute to Wikipedia anonymously.) 172 05:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I encourage you not to disclose too many details; they're likely to fall into the wrong hands.

A (popular) vote in Nevada may well be more important than one in Florida, precisely because it translates into a larger percentage of an electoral vote. In this case, however, I assume that Florida is a more hotly contested state, Nevada probably being solidly Republikkkan. (I love the new article Alternative political spellings!) I'm sure Bush's brother has already hired a company to strike names off the registry again. Now all he has to do is line up police in Black and Latino areas, harass immigrants, and interfere with the counting, and Bush will be ready to go. Shorne 06:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's why I didn't claim to be doing more overall than anybody else, because I know there are many committing lots of time to the cause. It's funny that you should be so afraid of "Stan the crank" though, his trail on the net is 22 years long - lots of dirt to dig up even, should one be so inclined. The first thing you would find out that I've been at Apple for almost 10 years, not normally considered part of the aerospace industry, at least in the economic models I'm familiar with. :-) Stan 06:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I recall you making references to the defense industry. Perhaps you were just referring to federal research grants... I don't remember. I made it clear when I'd brought it up above that it was a vague recollection. I am not, nor do I care to be, up to date on your bio. Whatever it is, it leaves you with more money to donate to political causes, I'm sure; and that's the point I was trying to make. 172 06:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In any case, good to hear that you're fighting the good fight in Florida! Three more weeks! Stan 06:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne does not intend to waste time with right-wing people who are too stubborn or stupid to hold a proper discussion. Shorne 06:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While we're on the matter, I'd like it you popped on over to Talk:Communism, and explain to me why I've been treated with such rudeness and condescension. Mackensen 06:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, I'm sorry. People can be difficult... I wish to stay out of the mess on that article, so I'm sorry that I can't help you out. 172 06:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I apologise for the rudeness and condescension, which were not directed exclusively at Mackensen. They were directed, rather, at the swarms of people who go around talking about Stalin this and Cultural Revolution that without knowing anything about them but the vague horror stories that they have heard from various anticommunist mouthpieces. I've had these discussions a million times before, and I must say that they have quite worn me out. Shorne 06:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Forgot to tell you why I think—and it's not a very firmly held opinion—that Bush may be preferable to Kerry: things will have to get worse before they get better. Let Bush go ahead and invade some more countries on a cowboy whim. That should get the US into a nice pickle, with body bags by the truckload, a draft, and all sorts of delightful problems. This article doesn't put quite so fine a point on it, but it's the sort of thing that anyone voting in the US should consider: [13]. Shorne 06:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

McDonalds's

If i may ask: do U boycott McDonald's, Shorne? Boraczek 09:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but not necessarily for political reasons. I happen not to be keen on plasticised patties of reconstituted beef tallow. Of course, it's true that I also dislike the uniformity and cultural imperialism that companies like McDonald's are spreading all over the planet. What does this have to do with anything on Wikipedia? Shorne 09:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nothing. It's just that I boycott McDonald's myself and I was curious if there is at least one point we agree on. My reasons are a bit different than those listed by U, though. Sorry for the offtopic. Boraczek 09:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Curious to hear your reasons. I must admit to smiling whenever I learn of a McDonald's outlet that got its windows smashed. And I was positively beside myself with glee when that guy in France ploughed into one of them with his bulldozer.

By the way, I used to have an anti-McDonald's message at User:Shorne. I'll put it back, just for you. Shorne 09:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't like McDonald's attitude towards the natural environment and I believe they violate workers' rights. Boraczek 11:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Continued insults

Shorne, everywhere I find your name, I find insults against members of this community. You refer to members of this community as idiots, bitches, fools, POV pushers, brainless, and incapable of reading. I would like to find resolutions to the problems we are working to solve, but your continued insults make this difficult. Please stop this behavior, and help promote a friendly and viable community. Thank you. Stargoat 21:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll try. I have to admit, though, that I find the behaviour of many people exasperating. Shorne 22:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PRC

Please go to Talk:People's Republic of China and look at Ran's rewrite. Fred Bauder 13:01, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Insult

Shorne wrote: Not to worry. VeryVerily is just being an asshole, as always. [14]

Could you please refrain from using this kind of expressions in reference to other Wikipedians, if not other people in general? It does not seem to be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Thanks. Boraczek 16:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FAC revert

Your recent edits to the Featured article candidates caused a page tripling. As such, I reverted them. Feel free to re-add any comments that were lost as a result. →Raul654 17:35, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Human rights in the United States

I have created an editing sandbox there. See the discussion page. Gazpacho 18:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

I am requesting arbitration regarding your refusal to follow the three revert rule. --Michael Snow 05:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, please stay cool! There are lots of people who piss us off here, lots of morons and revisionists. However, you should stay cool and civilised. I know it's hard, we're all struggling against such behaviour and if we achieve victory it's always bitter, but it's worth it. Disobeying the rules just because others don't and they are not punished is not the way to go. In short time you'll be treated as those bad guys, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 14:57, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You're right, of course. I just find it terribly difficult to deal with some of these people. Shorne 19:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's good to talk

I want to talk to you about a few things in private. You should set an email address in your preferences (you can always create a free hotmail account if necessary). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please reply... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm arranging an account for e-mail. Shorne 01:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've set the account up. Please go ahead and send mail if you wish to. Shorne 06:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have mail! :) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sparticists

See my comments in Talk:List of Communist Parties AndyL 23:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of Communist Parties

Shorne, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. There are *no* other Trotskyist parties or groups listed. The SL is the only one on the list. If I'm wrong please give me the names of other Trotskyist parties listed. Thanks. AndyL 03:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please stop the edit war with VV on "South Korea"

Please keep the "editing dispute" tag until a resolution can be reached on the article`s Talk page. --Ce garcon 10:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is no way to reach a resolution with VeryVerily; he refuses to take part in discussions. See the four cases against him at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Shorne 10:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History of Modern Greece

You've not discussed *any* on its talk page, and you attack other people for supposedly not discussing issues? I'm Greek and I know much more than you what are crucial bits of Greek history and what are trivialities. The current archibishop was the secretary of the archbishopry of the junta, the Greek orthodox establishment aided it, pretty much everyone other than the top group of dictators were given a pardon for all intends and purposes, including actual torturers in the attempt to make as little fuss as possible about the junta period-- but NOOOO according to you the important thing is a panel that didn't make any headway on *America's* involvement. I'm not adding all those other bits because they are *again* not significantly important in an article about Greek modern history from 1830s onward. But you don't know when to quit.

And in the meantime you keep on deleting the actual bit that's relevant and truly subsequently important to Greek history and politics -- that America's support of the junta boosted Greek anti-Americanism. You keep on retaining irrelevancies (how the hell is it important if Papadopoulos was a Nazi collaborator three decades earlier? how is his supposed single-reference CIA agentship important if there's no sign of CIA involvement in the coup?) but the actually relevant bit you delete.

Biased. Blatant POV. Unrepentant. Discuss and explain or be damned, Shorne. I'm sick of your POV-pushing, and your attacking other people for your own sins.

Aris Katsaris 17:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please calm down. I am not the author of the material. I only reverted the reversions of Boraczek, who simply goes through my changes and reverts everything political without discussing it.

The involvement of a foreign power in the junta is relevant and deserves to be mentioned. It is certainly important for people to know that the US was manipulating Greek politics. I suggest that we continue this discussion on the talk page. Shorne 17:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why didn't you care to mention about the Council of Europe's *opposition* to the junta? Why so many paragraphs about USA's *support* of it? And my version also included a mention of USA's support, it was simply to the *point* and indicating how it affected Greece's future politics as well -- rather than babbling again and again and again about the USA in three repetitious paragraphs. Whenever you want to take this to the article's talk_page, go right ahead and copy paste this thread there.

Your reversions also kept on deleting the categorization of the page, btw. Is it so hard to actually see what you are reverting? Aris Katsaris 22:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you please be a bit more careful about whom you accuse? I haven't touched that article since you wrote earlier today. You're blaming the wrong person. Shorne 22:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You and the others (Lopez and the nameless IP) have done the exact same thing -- reverted without discussing any of my objections (like accusations of Nazi collaboration or CIA agentship belonging properly to Papadopoulos' own article, where there's room they can be disputed), without reading any of my additions (like the effect on Greek attitude towards America), and without even seeing that you were removing the article's categorization. All because you somehow found that common version of yours to be satrosanct, you didn't care to see what other people had to say. Don't worry Shorne -- I'm blaming you only for the things that you *also* did. Aris Katsaris 23:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please take this discussion off my talk page. It seems to have very little to do with me. If you want to discuss History of Modern Greece, then Talk:History of Modern Greece is the place to do it. I've read what you have had to say there. The only reason I haven't added any comments of my own is that the others have said pretty much all there is to say. Shorne 23:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If there was any response on my points in the article's talk page, I definitely don't see them. But as you wish -- no more comments from me here, as long as you don't blindly revert, deleting the article's categorization again, or my additions concerning the effect on Greek attitudes towards America.Aris Katsaris 23:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't "blindly revert" anything. Shorne 23:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does that mean you *meant* to remove the article from Category:Greek history ?

Sept. 11

Hi, Shorne. This is belated, but I wanted to thank you for helping fight for literacy on the title for the article on the September 11 attacks. Maurreen 03:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It's reassuring to see at least one other person who isn't content with the atrocious state of literacy today. I seem to spend more time correcting spelling and punctuation here than writing anything of my own.

By the way, did we win? I lost track of that article; too many other things going on here. Shorne 04:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Conversations work better - sorry about that...

Shorne, I am sorry you feel the "Gated Communities" thread was an "idiotic discussion".

I sometimes get frustrated when I encounter contributors with confusing agendas or murky identities, but I nevertheless should have been more tolerant of your point of view.

I apologize for my intolerance.

I'll try to do a better job of staying out of your way.

--DV 16:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too, about the direction that that discussion took. My original comment may not have been clear enough. I shouldn't have said "idiotic"; "confused" would have been closer to the mark. Anyway, please accept my apologies for my part in the mêlée. Shorne 16:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Land reform in Zimbabwe

You wrote:- and the best land at that. Sorry if I am being a little picky, but if you have 80% of the land, I cannot see that it matters if it is the best land. It just doesn't sound very encylopedic. Is this just a dig at the white farmers, or is there another point ? Wizzy 06:32, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I guess it's not crucially important. I'll let it drop. Shorne 06:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I disagree, it is important to note and place in an historical context. See my Land Approtionment Act section in my Southern Rhodesia draft. El_C

Our arbitration case

has been accepted. I'll set up the pages tomorrow if no one else does it first. Fred Bauder 23:58, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Our arbitration case"? Shorne 03:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration case we are both involved in. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Users Shorne and Fred Bauder. I looked at your comment. The outcome of the case is by no means certain. While the arbitrators do work together, at times, we ofter disagree about fundamental issues. I worked on another matter today, maybe make pages for this tomorrow. Fred Bauder 16:37, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

You're obviously not interested in discussing anything, so kindly leave me alone. Shorne 18:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

KR

I wan't making an accusation, I was making an observation. If you look outside, the sky is blue; if you look at the edit history, you deleted the said material. How can you deny outright something that is so plainly evidenced in the article's edit history? GuloGuloGulo 23:49, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Ruy Lopez deleted much of that material. Shorne 03:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

When setting up the pages I was unable to find a statement you had made in response. If you wish to make one please make it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Shorne_and_Fred_Bauder#Statement_by_affected_party. Fred Bauder 14:50, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

List of African writers (by country)

Hi comrade. You nominated the above subject on WP:Bias. It's currently on the fortnightly To-Do list. The voting section of WP:Bias states If you nominate or vote for an article, this is taken as a commitment to contribute to it. I have created a new article for Mohammed Dib, from the Algeria section. Also I've wikified the Algeria section with as many birth and death dates as I could find, and added more authors. The authors and dates I added were also added to the List of African writers. Additionally, I created a List of Algerian writers article, and an 'Algerian writers' category. It would be good if a few people could choose a country, and an author from that country to concentrate on. - Xed 15:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Take your name-calling elsewhere. I have nothing to say to you. Shorne 19:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The voting section of WP:Bias states If you nominate or vote for an article, this is taken as a commitment to contribute to it. - Xed 19:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Get lost. I did not even finish reading your request, but I hereby reject it. No one who addresses me with "Hi commie" will get any favours from me. Shorne 20:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The voting section of WP:Bias states If you nominate or vote for an article, this is taken as a commitment to contribute to it. - Xed 21:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ludo Martens

Comrade,

I just noticed and I wanted to extend my admiration to you for having mentioned Ludo Martens' work in wikipedia. As I noted elsewhere (I forget where in wp), while many in wikipedia may elect to view the approach promoted by Martens as tantamount to Holocaust denial, it is my (admittedly, somewhat limited) understanding that this is far from being the case. Thus, his study should be evaluated on the historical evidence and analyses provided rather than simply be dismissed outright. A few years ago, I intended to subject his historical account to serious, objective scrutiny, but unfortunately, I have yet had the chance to do so.

In solidarity,

El_C

Culture of Greece

You voted for Culture of Greece, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Minor edits

Please don't write in your edit summaries that such edits as Because broadcast media are controlled by corporations, access to funds is vital in the political system are minor. Rick K 00:00, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Those were not the minor changes in question. I restored the latest version of the article and made some minor changes in addition. I do not recognise the reversion by VeryVerily. Shorne 01:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agriculture of the Soviet Union

VeryVerily was and is reverting Agriculture of the Soviet Union. I have a clear vision of VeryVerily, who is of course a formerly banned, three revert rule breaking, in arbitration vandal. Fred Bauder is an exercise in how to write POV - he is like a conservative version of that old joke that Partisan Review's typewriters had a key which would insert the word alienation into articles. Although Fred Bauder whatever his worldview actually follows Wikipedia rules, and doesn't come near VeryVerily's type of vandalism.

Anyhow, someone else is interested in the article who I don't know, Gene S. He has been reverting my stuff but he is discussing what he thinks about Uzbekistan's cotton output and the like in the talk page.

So I'm replying to Gene S and figured I'd leave the paragraph I changed on productivity in his version and await his reply to me. Like Mikkalai, he actually may be more well-informed than Fred Bauder, which means he probably won't put in the type of nonsense that Bauder does.

So on this page right now I am just reverting anything VeryVerily reverts of me you or whoever back. Fred Bauder it depends - if he puts a real fact usually I leave it, if he just puts some long POV opinion I may change or revert it. And everybody else is OK. Gene S has shown himself to be reasonable thusfar, so I'm fine leaving the paragraph with his version while we're discussing it. Ruy Lopez 10:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I saw that discussion on the talk page. In fact, I just posted some words of my own. Like you, I will not stand for VeryVerily's blind reversion of articles with no dispute expressed, but most other people seem to be OK at least some of the time. Please report VeryVerily's violations of the three-revert rule on that request for arbitration. Shorne 11:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation begins

Your mediation with Boraczek is now underway; please see the subpage at RFM created for this purpose to participate. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:08, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

The arbitration committee has issued a temporary injunction, prohibiting you from editing articles relating to do with a German or Polish subject. If you violate this, you may be banned for up to 24 hours. →Raul654 02:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

A mockery of justice! After I pointed out on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily that I have not been involved in any disputes on any topic related to Germany or Poland, the kangaroo court of "arbitrators" went ahead and imposed this ban anyway. Readers should note that I have taken the matter to User talk:Jimbo Wales. I have also publicly demanded the resignations or the expulsion of corrupt arbitrators James F., Martin, the Epopt, Delirium, and Raul654. Shorne 11:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In full
1) Gzornenplatz, ~~Shorne~~, and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. --mav 11:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since you voted for (1), I also demand your resignation or expulsion. Shorne 11:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are in no position to demand anything. I have removed your name from this order and proposed exectly the same order in the area I feel you revert most often (which was the point of the order in the first place). --mav 12:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I most certainly am in the position to demand the resignation of a corrupt and vindictive arbitrator. Shorne 12:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello

You seem to be the opposite of TDC and VV, in a bad way. Im not trying to insult you, its good to have people with different ideologies contributing to wikipedia. But it seems to me you see capitalism vs. comunism as a black and white topic, if capitalism is bad then communism is good. In practice and in theory, both have failed and succeeded. What I am saying is dont assume that capitalism is bad and communism is good, they both have their faults and advantages. It seems to me that the best way to deal with contravercial topics is to state the relevant facts and let the reader decide. 209.197.154.195

Presenting the relevant facts is precisely what I am trying to do. Shorne 11:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

this is what you said: "While a famine did occur, it cannot be pinned on the Soviet government. The kulaks provoked it by hoarding grain, destroying property, killing cattle, attacking people who wanted to join the collectives, and refusing to work the land that they occupied. The claim that Stalin caused a famine is indeed a lie that was cooked up by Western "historians". Shorne 06:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)" First of all this is bullshit, ask anyone who lived in Ukraine during that period, do some research before you make insulting comments like this. The famines, although at first aimed at the kulaks, later extended to most Ukrainians. And if you dont believe me, then you should trust the govn't of Canada and Gorbachev, who said that the famines were artificially created. 209.197.154.76 05:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've defended the claims on the relevant pages. Get lost if you have nothing useful to say. Shorne 08:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you didnt, not recently, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukraine#.22Artificial_famines.22 209.197.155.30

Go and read Collectivisation in the USSR, for starters. Shorne 02:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS: I know that some people have recently been mucking with that article. I take no responsibility for any version later than my most recent one. Shorne 02:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did, wow, "Ukrainian famine is a joke"??, thats like saying the holocaust didnt happenMir 23:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, no "holocaust" did happen in the Ukraine. You seem not to be prepared to discuss the substance of the issues, so I'm afraid I'd prefer to end the discussion here, if you don't mind. Shorne 00:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss it on your talk page, but I would like to discuss it on articles of kulaks and collectivization of USSR.Mir 01:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

U.S. embargo against Cuba

You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

I shall not contribute to this article. For the reason, see my discussion of the arbitrators' corruption at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. Shorne 18:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requests for Mediation

Hello Shorne. I have removed your comment about Herschelkrustofsky's request for mediation on the requests page. We ask that those not directly involved do not comment there, as it may interfere with the request. I hope you understand the importance of this in a mediation setting. Regards -- sannse (talk) 16:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

A bunch of people not involved in my complaint against VeryVerily posted comments. The mediators still have not replied to that complaint or to my questions about it. I reject your censorship of my comment about Herschelkrustofsky's request. Shorne 17:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That wasn't a case I was involved in. As I understand it - that case has been transferred to the arbitration committee. In this case, as the mediator currently involved, I am asking that no comments be added by those not involved. This means by people on either side of the dispute. You might see from the page history that I have removed comments by others in other cases where I felt that appropriate. Please let this mediation have a chance to work without interference. Thank you -- sannse (talk) 18:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is it that you, a moderator, were not involved in my request?

In any case, I've given up on the corrupt (mal)administration of this site. Go ahead and have your damn case. Decide in favour of Carr, while you're at it. That'll yield the sort of site that the (mal)administration wants—and deserves. Shorne 18:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for missing this question yesterday. When you made your request, I was having a break from mediation for personal reasons. I may not have been involved anyway, but this is the main reason I did not follow the request. -- sannse (talk) 11:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Calls for resignation of the Arb. Comm.

Is there only one Arb. Comm.? That's news to me! How is this even practical? Anyway, I think you might be drowning your own case with these quasi-inflammatory calls for the Committee's resignation. If FB had recieved preferncial treatment in his capacity as member of the committee (having his own RfA reviewed prior to earlier ones), then this is something that I would strongly object to. If FB, VV, et al. refuse to engage in intellectual discussion, but you do, then this would reflect very poorly on them and -must- then be accounted for in the findings of the Committee(I am still astonished to learn there is only one and that FB needs to recuse himself repeatedly). But do let the other (non-FB, that is) members of the Arb. Comm. get on with the work, one which I would hope will be based on a careful documentation of the facts, not on ideological bias. Allow them a chance to do this first, do not let a temporary injunction of a couple of hours (which I gathered had been partially lifted) result in hasty statements about the other members of the Comm., especially corruptability. It seems premature, unfair even, at this point in time to conclude that they will be grossly unfair. El_C

As far as I can tell, there is only the one committee—currently nine "active" members who hardly ever do anything.

Bauder did indeed get his case handled ahead of mine: voting within seven minutes, whereas my prior case didn't get a single vote for weeks, and then only votes to merge it with a broader, mushier case (which merger still hasn't really been done) rather than to consider it on its own merits. The committee has ignored every single one of my questions on this matter over the six-week period since the complaint was filed. Not one "arbitrator" has replied.

The "temporary" injunction would likely be for months. It took the committee one month to impose a temporary injunction, so how long is it likely to take for them to resolve a case involving four parties? Besides, it is grossly unfair to ban VeryVerily and me from editing a vast (and undefined) body of articles when I do serious editing but VeryVerily just deletes stuff. That amounts to taking VeryVerily's part.

I appreciate what you're saying, and I'm aware that my aggressive reaction to their behaviour will likely turn them against me. But I cannot pretend that their behaviour is acceptable when it is so plainly unjust. They unanimously voted to ban me without even bothering to check to see whether I was involved in the dispute. That's an outrage, and it casts doubt on their ability to make fair judgements. I don't trust them. I also don't care what they decide because I don't intend to stick around at this goddam right-wing propaganda-fest anyway. As I said at User:Shorne weeks ago, there's no way to achieve anything close to neutrality and accuracy here in articles on a political subject. Shorne 23:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoever said it is fair? Whoever said it is going to be fair? They did – and you took their word for it? On the contrary, expect that in all likelihood it will prove unfair and expect to be obstructed every-step of the way. Did you really think it would be any different? I know you are not that naive, that's why I feel comfortable in chastising you a bit. And again, you never know, in some cases reactionaries do choose fairness over bias, even when it comes to politically-charged issues – it does happen, if not often. Give the Arb. Comm.'s yet-to-be-issued conclusions the benefit of the doubt, as remote as a fair judgment might seem. Remember, your opponents want for you to get heated, they want to see you off-balanced. Do not let them win in this way. And if you do end up going down, do not give them the satisfaction of knowing they upset you. You can still get the same arguments across. Do not let them mentally exasparate you. Imperturbable, that is the key word; and intellectual honesty, that is the ideal. Even if intellectual dishonesty wins at the end of the day, if some of your appreciable contributions get retained, then you have made a positive, progressive difference. And if they do end up banning you, I sure expended a lot of words on this, but even then, I would hope to think, not for naught. El_C

P.S. You would'nt even stick around to witness my mildly-amusing antics? I assure you, I can be far more entertaining. You have yet to even see me dance! El_C

Oh, I've never had any illusions about the fairness of the (mal)administration here, Comrade. I hadn't been here for more than a few days when I told someone else that a heavy right-wing bias pervaded the superstructure. That's exactly what materialists would expect of a site owned by the bourgeoisie and dominated by anglophone reactionaries. All the talk of "accuracy" and "NPOV" is as hypocritical and self-serving as the "democracy" and "human rights" of the capitalist countries.

Anyway, I certainly won't go down without a fight. They'll have to ban my ass to get rid of me. And I'll bet you a rouble that they'll do so. They can't win in the intellectual sphere of rationality, so they play the ace of administrative authority. Fine, let them do it. Their hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty will be exposed, however, as they already have been. I think I've said enough for now on the subject of the kangaroo court of corrupt arbitrators who impressionistically go around banning people they don't like. It's clear that none of the arbitrators is going to discuss the matter with any integrity, so there's nothing to be gained by repeating myself. I reserve the right, however, to point up any more corruption, dishonesty, or other untoward behaviour on their part.

¡La lucha continúa!

Shorne 12:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But composure, Comrade, composure. Bear with me as I come to you now (at the turn of the tide) with more chastistement. No, tis innacurate to say that this website is owned by the bourgeoisie; if it was I, for one, would not be here. It is an open-source project, which is operated through donations in money and equipment. To my knowledge, it was founded by an eccentric millionaire, sure, but with millions of millionaires in the United States alone, not all millionaires necessarily align themselves with the bourgeoisie against the toiling masses (any millionaire who does not align him or herself with the bourgeoisie is of course, by definition, 'eccentric,' a sort of Robert Owen, etc., if you will).

Remember how in The Iron Heel how Ernest is speaking to the petit-bourgeoisie 'machine breakers' ? At that time (1905) being a millionaire ammounted to today's billionaires, and they were not it (though they wanted to be). My point, a century later, not all millionaires are and/or want to be apart of the bourgeoisie, just the vast overwhelming majority of them. Simply because Mr. Wales did not know, for example, that surplus value is, for Marxists, the cornerstone of the process for capitalist exploitation and accumulation (sorry, that sums up the articles I contributed to where I have seen his name in the revision history), does not mean he necessarily lacks the potential for some progressive leanings.

It is possible, we always have to leave room for exceptions. But alienating him by calling him the bourgeoisie (I keep refering to him because I can't think of whom else you had in mind, there are no coporate advertisers, etc.), and chances for this may become considerably lesser. Of course, I mean all that inadvertantly, we are certainly not writing articles for his benefit – in fact, this is the very first time I have mentioned his name – I did not even know who he was (as the founder) until a little while ago (though that is a discrapency on my part, as an historian).

Now, as for being dominated by anglophone reactionaries – what did you expect? It is (as international as it might wish to present itself in spirit, in practice) a First World english-language encyclopedia, and the vast majority of the inteligencia in the First World are reactionary. None of this should come as a surprise to you, so again I urge you to remain reserved when you encounter such reactions. They can say something along the lines of ban my ass (I mean, in terms of the choice of language – not that this comes close to being an expletive), but we, Comrade, must elevate ourselves to higher standards, they do not: they are on the winning team, and at any rate, they have the lumpen hordes for that.

Another example, instead of telling someone to [g]et lost if you have nothing useful to say, say something to the effect of: 'I do not consider it productive to engage in anectodal discourse with you, so unless you have something substantive to say, I do not see this conversation going anywhere and would, therefore, refuse to participate in one outside of the [respective] article's talk page.' It's four times as long, yes, and takes four times as long to formulate, but what's that? Twenty versus five seconds, it's nothing. And the end of the day that approach ends up reflecting much better on you, and by extension, other comrades as well. So, I reiterate, do not let them mentally exasparate you.

The fight for intellectual honesty goes on! El_C

Hello, Comrade,

Of course there are those who choose to fight against their own class interests. Some of our greatest comrades—right back to Marx, Engels, and Lenin—came from a decidedly upper-class background. (Legend has it that Khrushchev pointed out to Zhou Enlai that they were from very different class backgrounds: Zhou, from the élite; Khrushchev, from the peasantry. Zhou replied by pointing to a similarity: "Each of us is a traitor to his class.")

Mr Wales is a devotee of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, a fact that he acknowledges on Wikipedia. It's pretty unlikely that he'll take up the cause of the world's toiling masses. Of course he is entitled to his own beliefs; I've never questioned that. But those beliefs do pervade Wikipedia in subtle ways that result in a palpable right-wing bias. A leftist who acted like VeryVerily, reverting everything in sight without discussion, would be booted off in a trice. Even some decidedly right-wing people have complained bitterly of the problems that result from questionable administration. I'm certainly not the first to point these things out.

I'm also well aware that this site is peopled primarily by anglophones from the imperialist countries; indeed, I have pointed to this inherent bias when telling people what is wrong with their assumption that their views are shared by "the majority".

You're right to criticise my choice of language. It is true that I sometimes let a little vulgarity or at least a little vitriol show when I get incensed with impossible people. I'll try to subdue my tone. Shorne 02:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Comrade, if is this is the worldview he follows, then he has indeed aligned himself with the bourgeoisie (ideologically, though not economically; the site is still advertising-free and open-source – would either of us be here otherwise?). But, yes, I agree, it does make a significant difference – I admit that I was (wishfully) hoping for a social democrat, even a reform liberal; oh well, what can you do, these are the given conditions. Thanks, as always, for the engaging conversation, and for the honest introspection. Your comrade, El_C

Thank you, Comrade, for the much-needed criticism. I actually wouldn't mind at all if this site were avowedly right-wing; I'd simply leave and never come back. What annoys me is the hypocrisy of shouting "NPOV" and such from the rafters while making it difficult to achieve even accuracy in many of the articles. If you look at some versions of Khmer Rouge and Great Purge from mid-September, before I came here, you'll see that they are unabashedly one-sided. But hypocrisy often reflects a shortage of intellectual integrity, and that's what we have to expect from most of the right. (Not all of it: there are tiny factions that are more or less honest and rational but that simply start from a different set of priorities, such as a bias towards profit over people. Sadly, they're rather thin on the ground.)

The issue of funding is a curious one. The information itself is free, and you and I could even copy it all and create ComradeWiki or something if we wanted to. On the other hand, the economic base, so to speak, turns the content politically towards what is acceptable opinion in Peoria, Illinois. Well, there's a world outside Peoria, as even a glance at some of the material in other languages suggests (although it too tends to have a First World slant). But poor people in Mozambique or Laos are not likely to be heard here. The few of us who speak more from their vantage point get slammed for being in the "minority", as if that, even if true, were fatally damning. It's hard to make progress when many of those pushing the status quo lack the detachment and integrity to analyse facts and merely argue (to the extent that they do) from perceptions of who is in the "majority" and who isn't. Yet some progress has been made, and a number of articles are better for it, even if others still suffer from inaccuracy, bias, or other flaws.

By the way, your comrade is under the weather and may not be up to writing much for a couple of days or so. All the recent hostility here probably did nothing to help my condition.

Revolutionary greetings, Shorne 11:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Comrade,

I have been fighting against this First World-centrism since day one of becoming an editor here and I entirely agree that the rest of the world is largely voiceless and acutely underepresented here. This should be an international encylopedia, not Westernized editorial journalism. Sadly, but unsurpsingly, there are many here who equate the latter with the former, whether it is due to ignornace, outright intellectual dishonesty, or both. How many editors here know that life expectancy in Mozambique has been cut in half during the last decade (from 58 to 31 yrs) ? I wager not many. Even more controversially, how many care? I would (and could) go on, but I will wait till you are in better health. And on that note, get well soon!

Your comrade, El_C

Yes, Comrade, I agree completely. Plenty of people here even seriously go around citing CIA-produced literature (almost the entire article History of East Germany was ripped from a book funded by the US military without even the decency of a citation) and using the US Department of "Defense" as a touchstone of what is and is not the truth (such as the idiocy about "terrorism" that someone keeps inserting over and over into Abimael Guzmán).

Anyway, I see that the ~~arbitrary~~ arbitration committee has imposed yet another ban on me. Even knowing how far it extends is impossible, since the author thereof made a point of stating that it should be construed as broadly as possible. The "temporary" order will presumably last for months or years until the hooded kangaroo court issues its final diktat. The effect is to stifle discussion and maintain the atrocious level of intellectual dishonesty and pro-Western bias. I have added some thoughts on the subject to my user page.

The atrocious decline in life expectancy in Mozambique in the past decade—a result of capitalist violence in the form of denial of food, clean water, and basic medical care to that long-suffering country—is probably of little interest to most people here. Who cares about a bunch of Blacks far away when there's so much to be written about recent TV programmes from the US and other decadent trash? Also scandalous is the decline in life expectancy among Russian men, down to 58 a few years ago—a rate not seen since the 1950s. Even the staid UN is alarmed. [15] I'm sure the "arbitration" committee will be along any moment to suppress this bit of information.

Your comrade (still too ill to write much), Shorne 01:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC).

Hello, Comrade,

The kangaroo court of "arbitrators" is going to ban me: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. You can read the long discussion if you have several hours to spare. The "arbitrators" have said virtually nothing, and evidently they haven't taken anything that I said into account. I think this vindicates everything that I have said about Wikipedia. I'll probably have been cut off by the kangaroo court by the time you read this. If you wish to communicate with me, try sending e-mail or talking to Mihnea Tudoreanu or Ruy Lopez—before those users are banned themselves. Shorne 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand, and sympathize, comrade. I will be in touch. El_C

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week

Wonder if you'd consider voting for Indian reservation at Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week? It's about to get eliminated only a few days short of winning. AndyL 23:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not voting for anything anymore. For my reason, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. I also have given up on collaborations of the week and, indeed, almost all other editing. Shorne 23:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Besides, I already have voted for it. Mine was one of the first votes. Shorne 23:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question

Why did you revert me on Karl Marx?--198 23:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's with "so-called"? Unnecessary at best, offensive at worst. Shorne 00:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marx founded the so-called Marxist movement (why it is So-called is because it goes by different names for example Socialist, Communist, and Leninist movements)--198 00:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please ban VeryVerily

Please ban VeryVerily. In violation of the injunction issued by the arbitrators, he has reverted List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 three times in the past twenty-four hours. (The last time was also a violation of policy, for he added "twoversions" after restoring his own version.) Shorne 20:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't ban VeryVerily any more than I could ban you as he has the nasty habit of jumping in and engaging in edit wars which preserve my edits. This results in an unseemly involvement with him. You might check and make sure that the temporary orders are included in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, which as I have checked, they are not. I'll make sure they are put there. Fred Bauder 20:41, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

You're right: I should not have asked you to take action because you are too intimately involved in the dispute. Someone else has already taken action. (I posted my message in four places to make sure that it would be seen.) Thank you for registering the injunction in the appropriate place. I was unaware of that page. Shorne 21:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I represent, within the Arbitration Committee, that faction which maintains that even within the blackest heart, hope remains that they may see the light. I by no means assume that you will never become an effective contributing editor here. That, in my opinion, you are unable now to evaluate references and appropriately weigh conflicts by no mean implies that you are fated to continue in that state. So please don't give up; quit failing around attacking everyone and consider whether you might in some small ways have contributed to the troubles you find yourself in. Fred Bauder 20:41, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

My "blackest heart" strongly disagrees with you and suggests that you do a bit of introspection. It is you who seem unable to evaluate references and hold fair discussions much of the time—although you're at least a hell of a lot better on that score than VeryVerily and Boraczek, for discussion with you is not an utter impossibility, although it often does not work out. As for "attacking everyone", I have a very legitimate grievance against the administrative structure, including the arbitration committee, and I will not for one moment apologise for airing it.

I'm afraid I also do not share your Pollyanna optimism about uncoöperative editors. People like VeryVerily should be put on a short leash. If they continue to be impossible, they should be expelled as soon as their handlers get sick of dealing with them. In any large gathering, there's bound to be a certain tiny minority that just won't observe even minimal standards. For the sake of the group, they must be removed. One jerk making noise will ruin a concert for three thousand people. Rather than entertaining fantasies or upholding his "rights", the ushers should quickly show him the door—manu militari if necessary—when he refuses to comply with instructions. Shorne 21:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice

Shorne, I've been reading over that current RfA mess, and I must say, you're hurting your own case. I usually find that your side of revert battles with VV is clearly more NPOV, and I appreciate (and thank you for) the enormous time you've spent combatting VV's attempts to fill wikipedia with slanted POV... But reading your call for six of nine arbitrators to resign, I can't help but think you're starting to look a bit crazy yourself. Mav made a mistake, and then corrected it, right? For all the noise, I still can't find where you've exposed some serious wrongdoing on the parts of these arbitrators. Here on your user talk page would be a much better place to make your case than under mav's vote in the poll at Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. ~leif ☺ _HELO 03:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I acknowledge that my very aggressive attack on the arbitrators was tactically a poor idea and that it probably turned a number of people against me. On the other hand, it was not merely a case of a mistake made by mav and quickly corrected; it was a mistake made by six out of six arbitrators and not yet corrected. Furthermore, the gravity of the mistake raises serious doubts about the arbitration committee, as does their general conduct during this case.

I'll remove that comment that I posted under mav's vote; it is indeed a bit over the top. Shorne 03:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Just dropping a message of support for your work, especially in what regards the Communism/Marx/Lenin et. al. articles. Without your (and others) changes the articles would resemble something from an 80's version of The Readers Digest. While I may not always agree with your sometimes agressive stanza the truth is that it's probably necessary to counter the the absurd ammounts of misinformation and downright lies that were being spread with impunity.

Best Regards,

Frederico Munoz

Thanks for your comments. To tell the truth, even I don't always like my aggressive stance. I'll try to moderate my tone where possible, but not at the expense of getting things done. Shorne 11:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Countering Bias

I was just wondering why you decided to stop working on the countering bias project? Personal reasons, or some sort of fault with the project? I'm vaguely interested for the good of the project. Thanks.

Peregrine981 11:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have scaled back my participation in Wikipedia in general in response to corruption in the administration. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily and User talk:Jimbo Wales if you want the sordid details. I'm so busy countering the arbitrators' systemic bias that I don't have time to counter the systemic bias in the content of Wikipedia.

Now that you've asked, however, I may as well mention my disappointment with the lack of response to date. Look at List of African writers (by country), for example. Only Xed and I contributed anything while it was a collaboration of the fortnight (or whatever those things are called). It seems that there are still too few people for any project to be truly collaborative. Shorne 12:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's quite a few people - see here - but fewer regular contributors. Peregrine981 is no doubt aware of this problem since he was the only significant editor of Second Sudanese Civil War over the last fortnight. - Xed 12:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps I would have had more time to spend on Second Sudanese Civil War, Ethiopia, or other articles that sorely need attention if I hadn't had to wrangle with impossible editors like VeryVerily or make unanswered requests to the arbitration committee. Shorne 15:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom temporary order

New temporary order:

3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

--mav 20:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A mockery of justice! And more proof of the ~~arbitrary~~ arbitration committee's vindictiveness and unresponsiveness. I continue to demand your expulsion. Shorne 00:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rfa

Please see my oppose vote at [16] Thanks. 172 01:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of asexuals

Page restored. Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Shorne 18:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requests for administrative action

I have placed the following on the talk page, only arbitrators can edit the page you put it on. However arbitrators generally don't personally enforce arbitration orders. Any sysop can interpret and enforce the order. Or try Village Pump. Fred Bauder 11:39, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily has violated injunction #3 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. It says "Enacted 3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this." Yet he not only editted, but just reverted changes that me and Ce garcon had worked on [17] pertaining to the very Cold War Gwangju massacre (with the South Korean dictatorship claimed had been instigated by North Korea and so on). It appears this is breaking the temporary order but the arbs would know best. Ruy Lopez 11:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily has violated the injunction below (#2) by reverting Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision three times in twenty-four hours (actually, only one hour). Please impose the twenty-four-hour ban that the injunction specifies. Shorne 10:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's a project talk page, not an article, and it's a stretch to say I reverted it more than once. Very Verily 10:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to personally apologize to you for not responding sooner to the mixup with the temporary injunction. I've been travelling and thus quite swamped -- just today I managed to get time to really look into it, and your edit history in general. The mistake was regrettable, and I'm glad that Mav acted quickly to rectify the problem.

You may not find this helpful coming from me, but a little less anger might help you to achieve your goals in a more effective manner. I fear that when you have a legitimate complaint or concern, you may be ignored simply do to the rather excessive anger with which you express yourself. It's understandable that you were upset, of course.

Jimbo Wales 23:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He did not rectify the problem. My complaint stands. It also covers far more than the narrow "problem" that you seem to have identified.

As for my angry tone, I was left with no option but to turn up the heat when the arbitration committee ignored me over and over. Shorne 17:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements page

Sorry to bother/spam you, but I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the state of the endorsements page on its talk page. I'm posting this message as Michael Snow apparently forgot to include you when lobbying for the survey.--FeloniousMonk 06:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic for adminship

I've decided to take the plunge and self-nominate for adminship to make the work I do a lot easier. Please head over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#MacGyverMagic and let your voice be heard. There's no hard feelings if you oppose, just make sure you let me know how I can improve. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:41, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India

You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

COTW

Your vote for African art has helped bring about the article's selection as this week's Collaboration of the week. Please join in trying to make the article a feature.