User talk:172

See User talk:172/Talk block 1, User talk:172/Talk block 2, User talk:172/Talk block 3, User talk:172/Talk block 4, User talk:172/Talk block 5, User talk:172/Talk block 6, User:172/Talk block 7, User:172/Talk block 8, User talk:172/Talk block 9, User talk:172/Talk block 10 for old talk.

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

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

Rhodesia

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

Wik2

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oil for food

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

West Papua

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

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

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

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

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

ddr, 02:31, Apr 30, 2004

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

Zanu-PF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three revert rule

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

Fascism

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

Hanpuk, Adam, VV, and so forth

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

message2

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

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

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

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

Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Saddam Hussein Photos

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

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

IP block

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

Anti-French sentiment in the United States

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

William H. Hinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible Massive Copyvio

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

Gulf War

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

Viet Cong, NLF, or whatever

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

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

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

Pinochet

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

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

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

Saddam Hussein

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

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

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

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

Caio.

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

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

TDC

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

Holocaust

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

British East India Company

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

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

Mail call.

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

Wik's talk page

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

History of China

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

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

Nominations

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

BEIC Featured on the main page

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

Polish nationalist bias

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

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

More sad news :-(((

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

Please no more Vietnam war on wikipedia

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

French Revolution

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

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

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

ugh

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

Franco-U.S. relations

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

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

Sandinista

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

With the flow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Message

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards

UninvitedCompany 02:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

VfD

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

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

New quickpoll

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

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

Thanks

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

Colipon 00:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll

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

Article in Business Week

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

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

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

WHEELER and Nazism

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

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

Chavez on the block?

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

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

Interview with Shrub

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

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

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

Lynne Cheney

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

another

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

WHEELER and anti-Semitism

From Talk:Early National Socialism/draft

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

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

WHEELER complaint

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER I need one (or two?) people to certify the complaint. If you can attempt to resolve the dispute or intervene on Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft that would be helpful and then document that would be helpfulAndyL 03:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)