Get-back-world-respect

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you feel like it, you may leave a note at the new user log too.

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

Dori | Talk 06:01, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

re: your edits concerning polands pre-war position on the invasion of Iraq (in Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq.

Could you pleases elaborate on how the elites supported the invasion and the people did not. Also what are the elites you are talking about, political, economical or intellectual ones (they're three different entities in Poland). --212.76.33.66 21:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I read about the discussion in French newspaper Liberation, where Eastern European intellectuals debated why Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and eastern governments supported the invasion, while younger intellectuals, new leader Vaclav Klaus and the population opposed it. Get-back-world-respect, 27 Mar 2004

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

ARTICLE 51 AND THE ARGUMENT FOR PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE The first exception, self-defense, has long been discussed and debated among international legal scholars. Although the text of Article 51 explicitly provides only for "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs," over the years, scholars have expanded the required trigger for self-defense to include both when an armed attack occurs and when an armed attack is imminent. The legal definition of "imminent" has grown out of an 1837 incident in which British troops attacked the ship Caroline, which U.S. citizens were using to take supplies to Canadian rebels fighting British rule. In his much-quoted analysis of the confrontation years later, then-Secretary of State Daniel Webster argued that the use of force in self-defense is justified when the need for action is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Webster's criteria subsequently became the standard in international law.

But such circumstances—in which an armed attack occurs or is imminent—do not aptly describe the current Iraqi crisis. And so President George W. Bush, over the past several months, has introduced a new category of self-defense—pre-emptive self-defense—that he claims is legally justified in the new post-Sept. 11 world.

Bush first planted the roots of the argument for pre-emptive self-defense in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 12, 2002, when he said, "The first time we may be completely certain [Saddam Hussein] has a nuclear weapon is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming."

Five days later, he spelled out the case for pre-emptive self-defense more fully and forcefully in his National Security Strategy, now known as the "Bush Doctrine," in which he vowed to defend:

   The United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country….Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first….For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of pre-emption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries….The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.

Bush pursued this line of argument again in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, saying, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

But critics of Bush's argument point out that the notion of pre-emptive self-defense is not mentioned in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and is therefore illegal under international law. Moreover, some have noted, Article 51 allows for self-defense "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." This suggests that the right to self-defense exists only when there is no time to take the issue before the Security Council, and that if there is time for deliberation, the use of force is not justified. In the case at hand, the threat posed by Iraq has neither occurred nor is imminent, and time clearly exists to take the case to the Security Council. Thus, many claim, there is currently no legal justification for using force against Iraq in self-defense.

This is a study by Rachel S. Taylor, World Press Review associate editor, you can find the whole text at [1]

You may also want to have a look at my argumentation - shorter and easier to read - at the GWBush archive page, currently no. 5. Get-back-world-respect, 27, Mar 2004

I responded to you on my talk page - check it out some time. Rei

Origin of Guantanamo Detainees

What is your citation for majority of detainees being captured in Pakistan? Cecropia 22:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See GWB talk Get-back-world-respect 23:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Imminent Threat

Anyway, I'm not arguing this point. All I am saying is that I can recognize both points of view -- that is to say, "imminent threat," doesn't mean the same thing to all people. Nowhere have I stated my own POV or what I personally believe was the best course of action. Mdchachi 14:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for defacing my user page and deleting all its content. You did not have a user page, so it was easy to mistake it for a discussion page. However, I did not delete anything, nor do I think anyone should ever do that with the page of someone else. The discussion is not about "imminent threat" not meaning the same thing to all people. The discussion is about international law. International law clearly says the war was illegal, the US had no right to decide that it felt threatened while the Security Council saw it differently. Furthermore, the official flawed US argumentation was not about an "imminent threat" but using old resolutions the US had no right to decide about on their own. Get-back-world-respect 02:10, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I admit I was a little peeved and did it to make a point, so you could see how you feel when somebody does that to you. Now you know how I felt when I found my user page defaced like that. Now, because of you my user name links to a blank page (previously it would be colored to indicate there was nothing there) and I can't get it back to the way it was. At least you were able to easily recover your page. As far as your indication that international law is unequivocal -- you are very naive. Look at our own (U.S.) law. Why do you think the federal court system is constantly reversing its own decisions upon appeal and why are Supreme Court decisions rarely unanimous? Because there are many interpretations of the law. Same goes for international law. Just because you and various experts think something doesn't make it so. (Same goes for the other side, of course.) Everything else in your "argument" about what the U.S. is or isn't entitled to do is a matter of opinion which you are entitled to but nothing for me to argue about. Mdchachi 16:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Various experts" can support their position with strong arguments. As is clearly documented at http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ the Bush administration supports its position with obviously flawed arguments. After the forged "proofs" of weapons of mass destruction did not work they changed their mind and now claim that it was all about Saddam's mass murders that were known for many years and are only abused now when the lack of legitimization was too embarassing. Strange that Rumsfeld still shook hands with Hussein when he produced his weapons of mass destruction, shortly before he gassed the kurds. Strange resolution 687 was not used to prevent mass murder directly after the liberation of Kuwait but years later. Did you know that the US were ruled guilty by the International Court of Justice in the Iran-Contra Affair under Reagan, when Rumsfeld already was Special Envoy to the Middle East? The money was never paid, not even when the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution supporting the court. Only the US, Israel and El Salvador voted against the resolution. Get-back-world-respect 05:58, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you even remember what we were talking about? I'm not going to engage you on any of this stuff because it really doesn't interest me to do so. Your whole purpose here is to get your POV across to others and into the Wiki. That is not what I am up to. I am just trying to get a decent Wiki, as NPOV & balanced as possible. Ironically, you have no idea what my POV is though you may think that you do. My opinion: you really shouldn't edit any controversial issue unless you can understand and provide supporting arguments for all points of view. Mdchachi 13:14, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about discussing controversial topics on talk pages. There is also nothing wrong about removing propaganda that others try to smuggle into the articles. If you see anything wrong in my article edits feel free to complain. If you write nonsense alleging law was not being binding because "federal court system is constantly reversing its own decisions upon appeal and" "Supreme Court decisions rarely" being unanimous you get a reply based on facts. Period. Get-back-world-respect 18:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything wrong with discussion. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people to engage you in your disjointed, off-topic style of discussion (harangues is more like it) but I'm not one of them. Have fun. Mdchachi 18:41, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you make accusations base them on facts. Otherwise I will just go on thinking that calling my style "disjointed" and "off-topic" is just as much nonsense as your argumentation that because US Supreme Courts decisions are rarely anonymous one is not allowed to show that the Iraq war broke international law. Get-back-world-respect 18:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My last point was simple. That the law is rarely black & white even in the U.S. let alone in the international arena. And that interpretations of points of law can differ. Few people except people like you and Rush Limbaugh see the world in such black & white terms. Mdchachi 19:49, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) p.s. There's no need to put anything on my talk, I'm watching this page for the time being.

How can you say I see the world in black and white if I provide detailed evidence for my argumentation? Just take a look at the top of this page. Get-back-world-respect 20:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can say that because you present only one POV and completely dismiss other points of view. I can easily dig up arguments that claim the invasion had a legal basis or, at least, that it is not clear. Examples: [2], [3]. Note in this last one where it says Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Personally, I think the decision as to legality could go either way (though it would likely be judged illegal). It would depend on who is arguing and judging the case. But, for me anyway, it's a moot issue. Mdchachi 21:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of "black-and-white". Of course in a discussion one supports his own position. You cannot say that I "completely dismiss other points of view", the analysis I cited shows point for point why the argumentation of the US administration is flawed. But I will take a look at your articles. "Black-and-white" in my eyes is "You are either with us or you are without us", black and white is "Fuck the US" (graffiti I frequently saw in Canada and Germany, Swiss version: "Nique les Etats-Unis"), and black and white is banning all users who do not share the administrators' views as it is done at the "free republic". Today I got an email from a freeper: anthony sassine <sasss21@yahoo.com> i just wanna remind you that there is a power that allowed you to be living on this earth called ( god ) ever heard of it. i dont think so. do you think life is that easy. Marie watched her only son die on the cross. and you want gays to get married. i wish hitler had found out about you  !!!!!! Get-back-world-respect 00:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

That was a truly pathetic attempt to get my article deleted.

For Shame.

It appears that you need to get-back-some-of-your-own-respect now.

TDC 20:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you are not ashamed of your articles I cannot help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#Oil_for_Food_Allegations Get-back-world-respect 00:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Relucant allies

No offense GBWR. When I say I'm a little reluctant to claim you as an ally, I just feel you are perhaps a bit too passionate in pursuing your objectives and that can appear tactless and alienate otherwise well-intentioned persons. For example, I think your conduct during Cecropia's admin vote was an embarassment. Just my opinion. Bkonrad | Talk 00:44, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So you think someone who adds lengthy paragraphs about French and Russian financial interests in Iraq to an article about George W. Bush is not too passionate in pursuing his objectives to qualify for adminship?Get-back-world-respect 00:53, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

GWBR, you have been complaining about this French/Russian/German thing in various places on Wikipedia. You seems to be the only one who considers this a big deal--I placed all the relevant paragraphs in the RfA talk, and the only responses indicated they thought it was appropriate. On the regular RfA page I asked you what it is about that particular subject that riles you so much, and you didn't respond. Care to respond now? Cecropia 01:10, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is self-explanatory that someone who includes these allegations that are obviously no part of the George W. Bush biography has no interest in neutrality. Given this you should be very careful with your privileges as administrator. I do not know what you mean in that I did not reply to anything you wrote. Get-back-world-respect 01:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First, you say "Given this you should be very careful with your privileges as administrator."&mdash:what is that supposed to mean.

Since your privilege as administrator entitles you to do take exclusive action in editing conflicts which should be handled in the most neutrally possible way but your neutrality is questioned, in my eyes, you should be careful.

Second, what you didn't respond to (from VfA):

What's wrong with convincing one person? With statements like "just not true" against better knowledge you will certainly not convince all of us. Talk is for discussion, entries for information. And changing biased edits is a legitimate means of preventing propaganda like Cecropia's about French and Russian financial interests in Iraq in the GWB article. Get-back-world-respect 13:04, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I treated my edits in respect of French/German/Russian at some length in the talk here—and judging by the response, most deemed it appropriate material. You've mentioned this over and over, including in other places. What is it about that particular issue that angers you so much? Cecropia 13:48, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) Cecropia 01:38, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, had not seen this before, maybe it was written on a day when I did not check. Obviously most did not deem your edits appropriate material since your paragraph has gone for a long time and was never defended by anyone on the GWB page. What angers me is the attempt to downplay critics and to discredit them in a most off-topic way. The criticism of the Iraq war came from millions of people all over the world and form dozens of governments who did not have financial interests in Iraq. Furthermore, it is completely ridiculous that France and Russia only based their action on such an important topic solely on financial interests that are completely neglectable compared to their overall budget. And the US were among the five most important creditors to Iraq as well, a fact American conservatives always leave out of the discussion. But regardless of all this, I am ok with mentioning the claims in a discussion of the critics of the Iraq war such as "worldwide government positions on the war in Iraq". Even if the claims are ridiculous they are worth mentioning just because they were raised so often. But to include this in an article about George W. Bush is completely off-topic. An article about a president of the United States should be about the person and the presidency. Major occurrences in the presidency like the Iraq war and the opposition against it of course need to be mentioned, but to include paragraphs about why some singled out critics may be untrustworthy is obviously off-topic. And you presented what was allegedly proving their untrustworthyness just as facts. You engaged in similar actions by questioning Clarke's trustworthyness as a Republican. If at all you can include that in the article about Clarke himself. Get-back-world-respect 02:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is that really what was bugging you?? Both of these edits were in response to assertions made in the respective articles. If my insertions were in an inappropriate place, so was the material I responded to. The proper action, in that case, would have been to remove the original material (if it was off-topic) but it seems in general that Wikipedians prefer balancing material to the removal of the POV material it balances. Cecropia 03:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is nonsense. The worldwide protest against the war is a fact very important to George W. Bush's presidency. The question whether two of the many critics had financial interests is completely irrelevant. If you cannot see this I cannot help you. Get-back-world-respect 22:38, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I wrote this before seeing either Cecropia's comment or GBWR's reply above. Cecropia may be passionate, but within my experience he has not been unreasonable to work with towards reaching NPOV compromises. There's nothing wrong with passion, but it needs a degree of diplomacy as well. In any case, being an admin really is not such a big deal. That is what I found embarrassing about your campaign. It is not surprising that people disagree sometimes, but I saw no need to go on a global campaign to discredit him because you disagree (even if the disagreement may have gotten unpleasant). Please don't take this the wrong way, because I think that you have made valuable contributions to articles, but sometimes your discussions come off sounding more like rants rather than reasonable discourse. Bkonrad | Talk 01:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, when I explained why I thought Cecropia should not be administrator I was not fully aware of the fact that adminship does not mean that much here. Judging from my experience with online forums where people easily get banned just for presenting an opinion judged unwelcome I may have overreacted. I however welcome any advise in cases where my comments sound "like rants rather than reasonable discourse." Given that people are around here who want to include the word opium seven times in the article about John Kerry, people who want to point out what his relatives allegedly once stored in their garage for someone else, and people who write that "only limp-dicked historians" question the necessity to kill hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki I regard myself as comparatively rantless. But I think that the German way to discuss is usually way more direct and outspoken than what most people are used to in the US. If we think someone tries to spread propaganda we just say so instead of "I tend to think that the wording of this paragraph could be approved if maybe we change it to xyz, what do you think?" Maybe this is so because Germans had a bad experience with propaganda. Get-back-world-respect 01:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are more than a few bull-headed people contributing to articles here who IMO should be in an institution of some sort (or for all I know, maybe they are). But I don't think either you or Cecropia fall into that category. Wikipedia is not only U.S.-centric (although it does seem that way sometimes, at least with some contributors). What I find really fascinating about Wiki is it's openness. It is a sort of utopian experiment (or perhaps idealistic might be a better term). Can people really get along with people they disagree with in an environment with very few absolute rules? I don't know. I hope so, and it is certaining interesting to be a part of, however small. Bkonrad | Talk 01:45, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is a great statement to go to bed with.Get-back-world-respect

---

Looks like your Oil for Food Allegations whine fest on the request for deletion page was DENIED. TDC 16:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks linke you still have not learned how to use proper language. And your article looks has lost most of its propaganda style after some rounds of edits and the neutrality dispute note. Get-back-world-respect 17:51, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

G. W. Bush

Do you really think your latest contributions to the George W. Bush article add anything to a serious encyclopedia? I do not like him either, but doing what you do just discredits wikipedia. Get-back-world-respect 19:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with my edits to George W. Bush? The information I've added is interesting, important, and backed up by strong sources. True, the information may make Bush look bad, but I do not think it is appropriate to keep Wikipedia devoid of all information that makes people look bad. Bill Clinton discusses Monica Lewinsky, which certainly makes President Clinton look bad. --AaronSw 20:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are thousands of facts that may make people look bad, and in the case of George W. Bush there are so many that I really wonder why Americans do not just send him to The Hague. The question here is whether the facts belong in an encyclopedia article, and in the case of "O'Neill said he is an idiot" - although O'Neill also says he would not prefer Kerry, which in my eyes makes O'Neill an idiot - the obvious answer is: NO, if we listed all the people who say George W. Bush is an idiot the article would enlarge excessively, plus this is not the kind of information appropriate for an encyclopedia. Probably every head of state has some of his advisors saying about them "He is an idiot" at some point of time. Get-back-world-respect 20:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Saying someone is an idiot is a far less meaningful and specific claim. O'Neill has said that Bush does not understand what is going on in his meetings, and provides transcripts to back up this claim. The fact that the President does not know what's going on in his meetings is an extremely important fact. I don't know how to tell whether something belongs in an encyclopedia, but the test I use is "what should a smart English-speaking person who knows nothing be told about this topic". I feel that "this president did not understand what was going on in his own meetings" passes that test. --AaronSw 20:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I feel that "this president did not understand what was going on in his own meetings" passes the test if it is a fact, such as diagnosed by a psychiatrist who was asked when the President noted he had some mental problems. It does not pass the test if it is just the opinion of one former member of the administration but denied by the others. Get-back-world-respect 20:27, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe the others have denied it. This is an important former member, backed up by transcripts. I don't know of any other former cabinet members who have spoken out, but I expect they'd agree; there's certainly no evidence to the contrary (that is, evidence that Bush does know what he's talking about). --AaronSw 21:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even if it was true, do you have any doubt Rumsfeld, Condi and Cheney would deny it? They have indeed done so. Get-back-world-respect 21:25, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oil for food

I think it's a haphazard collection of complaints about the oil-for-food program, which seems to be little more than a playground for the local right-wingers. However I mostly stay away from articles on modern politics (it's not my forte), so I'd rather not get involved; best course I can think of is to summarize it and fold it into Oil for food, as is done with most of these Criticisms of . . . articles. —No-One Jones 03:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I cannot count on you declaring this in the vote as well? Get-back-world-respect 04:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'll repeat that in the vote, if you'd like. —No-One Jones 04:50, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Page française

Salut. J'ai déplacé la page de descritpion que tu avais faite sur ta vraie page perso : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Get-back-world-respect Bienvenue sur fr:WP et bonne continuation :o) --Pontauxchats 08:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

...and weapons of mass destruction

Although I don't have the inclination to create the pages myself, why stop with the "big five" and WMD? Israel, Pakistan, India all have nukes. Iraq certainly used WMD's in the 1980's, but so did many European powers in WWI and WWII. So a page per country, even if it says they stopped using X or Y in a specific year, would be très cool.

Also, wouldn't it be fun to compare rhetoric with policy? e.g., U.S. law prohibits aid to countries that develop nukes but we happily provide aid to Israel and Pakistan; we provided Saddam Hussein with the weapons used against the Kurds, and blocked a UN investigation of Halabja when Saddam was useful to us; didn't we support exceptions to the chemical weapons ban when such weapons could be useful for riot control? (I say "we" because I'm south of the 49th parallel; I know you're north of it.)

'Course, I'd love pages on "<Country> and International Law", but that's a topic for another day. :)

Rjyanco 23:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I only created the articles because Iraq and weapons of mass destruction already existed due to the strong US bias in wikipedia. I created Israel and weapons of mass destruction today when I read about Mordechai Vanunu. I think I had seen the page existing before as well but I had to restart. The breaking of international law should be covered, I agree with that, but I do not know which page would be best. There were remarks in George W. Bush but probably 2003 Iraq invasion, The UN Security Council and the Iraq war, or Governments' positions on invasion of Iraq would be better. I still do not understand why no one tried to bring it to the courts. Maybe because since the Iran-Contra Affair the US just do not care for international courts any longer. Get-back-world-respect 01:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gabriele Lesser

Hi, I'd like you to revisit Gabriele Lesser and consider removing NPOV dispute. Wikimol 10:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks ok to me now. Get-back-world-respect 11:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

World respect

On your talk page, you wrote:

While it was said that democracy should be brought to the Middle East, efforts to ensure democracy works in Afghanistan are minimal. ... Billions were spent on bombs and the military while the only way to prevent terrorism, educating people and giving them hope, was neglected.

I deplore the use of military power to "improve" the world. There are better ways... --Uncle Ed 14:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Although I refused to serve in the military for reasons of conscience I can accept that sometimes it can be useful to keep peace by force, e.g. in Kosovo. But it should be the last resort, and only the United Nations are entitled to decide. Regarding the case of Iraq I would like to know why the United States refuses to admit weapons inspections at home although together with Russia it has the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Get-back-world-respect 15:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Victory celebration

A virtual ice-cream? Aren't you supposed to give us cigars? That's OK, I don't smoke anyway. :) -- Cecropia 15:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But I won! Strange rules you have. Go to Cuba and buy them yourself. Get-back-world-respect 15:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's considered a magnanimous gesture. Besides, I'd need someone from Canada to buy them for me. *Cough* Cecropia 15:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You can go to Canada and fly from there to Cuba. Thousands of Americans do it every year. Get-back-world-respect 15:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know that "a woman is just a woman, but a cigar is a smoke," but that's one hell of an expensive smoke. Cecropia 15:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You could try and win another contest. Get-back-world-respect 15:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Huh?

I really do not understand what you're saying to me on my talk page. RickK 15:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You added a redundant link to an extremely partisan forum to the John Kerry article. I cannot understand why you do such things either. Get-back-world-respect 15:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was just trying to link to a page which had his Foreign Relations Committee testimony on it. What makes it a partisan forum? RickK 22:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The testimony was already there. For partisanship check "Free" Republic. Get-back-world-respect 23:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removing the notice that a page has been listed on Votes for deletion

Hi, if an article has in fact been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, however unfounded the listing, whether or not proper procedure has been followed such as first bringing up the matter on the talk page, the notice needs to be posted in the article. Fred Bauder 16:10, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I see that. Otherwise not so many could have voted against deletion. Get-back-world-respect 16:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Consider readability

As an advice, I would propose that you put some structure on your user page. As it stands now, it unfortunately repels me. No offence intended.

It would be great if the physical disposition of the page corresponded with the logical disposition, but it's also needed to get the physical appearance adapted to usability principles and information foraging.

Consider the (by now classical) How Users Read on the Web.

regards!
--Ruhrjung 11:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My user page only has two parts. One of them I do not want to adapt to your theories because I want people to read word by word. The second one is concisely written and has a telling title, so I do not understand why you wrote that message. I am however grateful for any specific advice. Get-back-world-respect 22:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you want people to read it, and if you get more than this indication that your chosen path doesn't lead to that goal, maybe my advise will do some good. If not, I'm sure it couldn't harm.

--Ruhrjung 22:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to tell me? Get-back-world-respect 22:24, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vocabulary program

Strangely, enough, I have also written a program for learning vocabulary. I used VBA but then ported it to SprintDB so it runs on my Pocket PC. I've learned about 850 Korean words since last spring, using it. --Uncle Ed 14:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great. Are you a programmer? My program does not work with Korean signs. Why do you learn Korean? Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm also interested in this project as you asked. However I can not promise 100% commitment simply because lack of time, but I'll try to participate as much as possible.--Kulkuri 12:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cool. I have just finished the English version (although a lot remains to be done) and created a zip file. You can now try the program. The easiest thing to start with for improvements would be adding new vocabulary, sound files or images. A guide to the program will follow soon, although I think it is rather self-explanatory. Get-back-world-respect 14:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm quite busy already :( Good luck with your project, anyway. Fredrik 00:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but almost all of my free time is taken by Wikipedia, and I am slowly learning my way around here. I'll check back every now and then and see how your project goes. Good Luck, and thanks for asking -- chris 73 | Talk 10:26, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Astonished and delighted to encounter someone who shares my appreciation for both Jack London and John Collier, but I regret to say I'm not interested in participating in development of your vocabulary program. Dpbsmith 13:41, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think I would have the time at present to assist in this project as I'm in two other WikiProjects which still need a lot of ongoing work to be done. As well, with spring finally here, I will have less time for Wikipedia in general. Good luck with your project. RedWolf 16:51, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Er you lost me at It is written in QBasic. I know nothing about computers! -- Graham  :) | Talk 23:47, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, nothing wrong with that. While improvements on the programming are badly needed progress can be made in the other areas as well, such as adding sound or image files, new vocabulary or even new topics such as anatomy, chemistry or whatever you want to learn with a question and answer scheme. Get-back-world-respect 23:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The program looks fine. (how about creating a windows installer for it?) It's not obvious how to contribute, however. Why not create a wikibooks page for vocab lists? There are many uses for such lists; the relevant language-teaching wikibooks will link there, and you'll get the advantage of efforts from various WB editors. then you can do diffs b/t that list and the one you use in your program. +sj+ 22:58, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Good idea about the vocabulary lists at wikibook, thanks. Might work with images and sound as well. What is a windows installer? Do you have an idea how I could find someone who would improve on the program? Get-back-world-respect 23:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for Oil for food

Hello -- I've made a proposal for trying to make some progress on Oil for food. The proposal is here: Talk:Oil_for_food#A_proposal_and_some_suggestions_for_moving_forward.

Please read it over and indicate if you feel that you can accept it as a way of making some progress. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:03, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Get-back-world-respect 19:37, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation. Let me just take a look at the discussion and try and see if I can be of any help. What kind of a vocabulary project are you envisioning? I did not get you very clearly on that. Could you please explain Chancemill 12:35, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitaion, but I am sorry to say that right now I don't have the time to get involved in any of the other projects. Dori | Talk 17:37, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

I took a look at the page; unfortunately I am not up on the facts so I am in a weak position to help. If I notice any really gross problems of course I will say so. But it looks like you and other contributors are working things out, Slrubenstein

Hello, sorry for not responding to your message on my talk page. For some reason I never got a "you have new messages" thing, and I only noticed it just now. I'm afraid that like Slrubenstein, I am not up on the facts about the "oil for food" allegations. I suspect it is just so much hot air and that there actually are no facts to be up on. Good luck with it, anyway. GrahamN 02:27, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

re:RfC

[4]

do not sign entries. Sam Spade 21:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit esoteric, but I tend to multi-talk, as was busy at that moment. I already removed the signature and the comment. Comments are ment to go on the talk page in question (Talk:Oil for food). It looks like you signed and commented on Bush/Kerry as well? Sam Spade 22:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)