Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:13, 20 September 2005

Totalitarianism

Hello! When you're adding internal links, it's important to make sure that the relevant article exists; the fact that the link isn't red can simply mean that there's a redirect — e.g. right-wing, Jews. In those two examples, the fact that one is adjectival and the other plural is a strong suggestion that the names can't be right. Also, when possible you should avoid piping — e.g., Chilean rather than Chilean. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that appending the suffix around the enclosed link would still highlight the entire word (as I recall not seeing this occur on an article), though at any rate it seems to be a pointless quibble.

George Galloway

I made several mistakes regarding my interpretation of several things on the George Galloway page, for which I have apologised on that page. I am not a Galloway apologist, although I tend to believe that the subcommitte may have jumped the gun on their interpretation of the evidence against him. I did not appreciate being called a liar, I made a mistake. Jooler 09:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

CP and African-Americans

I disagree with most of your comments, but I'll wait to see what you put back into the article itself (you indicated that you didn't intend to revert all of it) so that we can focus on what we actually disagree on. --Italo Svevo 03:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

sup

Pepperidge Farm from GF. J. Parker Stone 06:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone is Pepperidge Farm? Fascinating. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there are certainly things that are neglected here, I'll be the first to admit that. Well, now I know why he made a "**** wikipedia.org" topic a few weeks ago. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 04:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I find that there is some subtle bias, even when the community thinks we're being as neutral as possible. I think the socio-economic strata of Wikipedians tends to intrinsically influence articles. Misplaced Pages is still a wonderful resource, but there probably needs to be some changes if it wants to be very useful for politics or history. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 06:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Haha. I didn't mean it like that, but I'll go with it. More money for me after the revolution anyway. :P ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 06:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Quite so, but I don't think that restricting the use of user pages would do much for the articles in the mainspace. User pages are mostly out of sight from the average internet user.

We should talk more about this on AIM, as we both have a lot to say and this form of communication is a bit cumbersome. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 06:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

...dude. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)

vfd for Puppet state

As a courtesy I am just letting you know that I recently put Puppet state up for vfd, since you seem to have put a good deal of work into it I thought you might want a heads up, the vfd can be found at Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Puppet_state. Jtkiefer 05:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Misplaced Pages's guidelines ask that you always use an edit summary. This is especially important when editing a contentious article, such as Noam Chomsky, so that other editors can follow the changes you are making. Please use edit summaries in the future. RadicalSubversiv E 28 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Cummings

Thanks for the clarifications. I always think that there are three simple guidelines for working here: Wikilove, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers. Sadly (to quote a phrase), these seem to be breached more often than they are observed. I really would suggest taking the Cummings affair to Misplaced Pages:Mediation cabal, who seem to take an admirably light approach to dealing with these things. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 11:47 (UTC)

I hope you agree that page protection was better than getting into a situation were people would be blocked. I am continuing to try to reach some sort of understanding with Blankfaze that will allow unprotection. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 08:49 (UTC)

Clearly, the page cannot remain protected for too long. I am still talking to Blankfaze, but we may reach a point where we inprotect and he takes his chances on being blocked. Filiocht | Talk July 1, 2005 07:09 (UTC)

Hey YIN

good edits on the totalitarianism article. now help me out on the FRAPH article if Viajero tries to revert it to Blum extract.

well, you don't have to, but it'd be good if ya did. J. Parker Stone 06:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff

Thank you very much for your well studied presentation of the evidence. It is in no way my intent to engage in an edit war or a partisan dispute. My interest is purely as an historian and chronicler of factual events. Being somewhat of a newbie, I may request of you some guidance in pursuing this matter, seeing there obviously is some effort to supress open source data and common knowledge, and perhaps divert wikipedia from it's stated goals as to being a resevoir of factual information. Do you have any suggestions as to the path that I need to proceed? Thank you very much. Nobs01 19:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

In case you are surveying this page, I responded at your talk page. --TJive 20:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Done as you said. thx. nobs 22:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Check the mail. nobs 16:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

One more. Also this too. nobs 18:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) You might wanna check the mail. nobs 14:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You have mail. nobs 20:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Check the mail.nobs 17:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's in the mail nobs 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You got mail. nobs 01:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, good to go. nobs 01:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My latest e-mail is important. nobs 01:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You got mail. nobs 21:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Check the mail. nobs 16:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Amen. nobs 17:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Check's in the mail nobs 20:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC) You got mail. nobs 00:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Resend. nobs 03:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Mail call nobs 05:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Resent lastnites & todays. nobs 18:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've sent two emails to myself to two different accounts since last nite I haven't recieved. Let me know if you got any of the two above. nobs 19:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Mail nobs 01:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

more mail nobs 02:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

resend nobs 02:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC) nothing yet; I'll be gone in about 5 minutes. If this keeps up we should discuss how o handle it. nobs 02:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky

You may want to keep an eye on the Chomsky page. Chamelion and Cadre are systematically censoring the page.

Prachanda

Can you explain your reasons for moving Prachanda to his birth name Pushpa Kamal Dahal, which as far as I can tell hardly anybody uses? My sense is that revolutionaries are often most commonly known by their noms-de-guerre, and that if this is the case (as with Prachanda) Misplaced Pages should use the commonly known names. (Also, bear in mind that these are self-descriptions – it's different from me deciding that Charles, Prince of Wales should be moved to Chuck Windsor.) QuartierLatin 1968 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, his pseudonym appears completely out of context from his real name which is as opposed to, say, Lenin and Stalin where there have been many variations from the point of them being "revolutionaries" throughout their ascension to power and thereafter. Thus those articles utilize the real names in conjunction solely with the false surname. "Prachanda" doesn't even have the benefit of a term being so recognized that it replaces all other references, as opposed to Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh, so there is no real need. "Prachanda" should stay as a redirect to the real name as of now. --TJive 19:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I think most of your points there are weak. If I understand your "out of context" argument, it would make a difference to you if he occasionally went by "Pushpa Kamal Prachanda"? But what difference does this make when, as is often the case with political figures, the person in question is known primarily by their surname? (Robespierre, Trotsky, Metternich, Lafayette... It is quite superfluous to mention their given names in ordinary discourse.)

I also think you should loosen up your ideas of what a "true" name and a "false" name is. A name is simply that by which something is called. You'll notice that we have Pope Benedict XVI and George VI of the United Kingdom called by those names, not Joseph Ratzinger or Prince Albert (the names by which these two men were known, respectively, during most of their lives). Misplaced Pages naming policy is unfortunately schizophrenic, but one key consideration of it is how the person named is most commonly or widely known. Which brings me to my second point.

I don't know what makes you say that Prachanda is not "so recognized" – it depends by whom. I'm very confident that there are millions of people, in India as in Nepal, to whom the name Pushpa Kamal Dahal means nothing, but who would immediately recognize Prachanda as the name of the Maoist leader. Even the internet, which you can expect to be widely biased towards the global North, seems to concur: Google gives 37,200 hits for Prachanda against 5,210 for Pushpa Dahal (I'm being generous by leaving out Kamal as an extra search term and omitting quotation marks) and 631 for P.K. Dahal. Yahoo gives 85,200 hits for Prachanda against 5,120 for Pushpa Dahal. Google News search as of today gives 160 hits for Prachanda against 32 for Pushpa Dahal. Furthermore, a good measure of the hits for Prachanda's birth name are articles that begin with the words "Comrade Prachanda, who was born Pushpa Kamal Dahal..." and then subsequently refer to him as Prachanda throughout the article. QuartierLatin 1968 20:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Soviet spies"

As I am sure you are aware, I'm among a sizable number of editors with serious doubts about the "Soviet spy" series articles. We're in the early stage of preparing the case for a significant overhaul. When we are prepared, I will discuss the merits of Nobs' arguments professionally. I apologize for not setting a constructive tone in anticipation of these discussions, particularly comments that can be construed as personal remarks as opposed to fair-game characterization of edits. 172 | Talk 07:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of getting little sleep tonight as it is, so I will have to give you a full response related to the content tomorrow, for which I apologize. However, I'm not interested in a discussion on Ruy, as I have not been following, and do not wish to follow, the Khmer Rouge dispute. When I have observed his editing patterns, I have seen him work constructively with many editors in good standing, so I see no reason to disregard the policy on assuming good faith in my interactions with him. Beyond that I have nothing else to say about Ruy. 172 | Talk 08:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Lopez

Thanks for your email. Next week when I am back from holidays I am going to prepare a formal case for the ArbCom to have Lopez and all his clones permanently banned from editing anything to do with communism. If you could gather the statements you refered to and send them to me that would be helpful. Also perhaps you could rally some other editors to support this effort. Adam 07:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Espionage-related articles

Due to professional obligations I lack sufficient time to participate effectively in the dispute over espionage-related articles. You and Nobs01 no longer have to concern yourself with my objections, at least for several months. 172 | Talk 22:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Revert war over Hudson Institute

I am posting this to both User talk:TJive and User talk:Bee Hive. Your revert war over Hudson Institute is very unproductive. This is not the way things get done in wikipedia. Please, both of you calm down and discuss your differences and come to some comprimise.--Rogerd 00:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. Have you considered wikipedia:Request for Comment?--Rogerd 03:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Revert sockpuppets

The best place to take these issues is probably WP:AN/I. Jayjg 03:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger and Ronald Reagan

Since everyone else only seems to start minding on these articles if they get too "laudatory," I'm posting this here so you can look at the sandboxes that I've posted on their talk pages. When you have spare time and aren't dealing with reverts in your edit history any suggestions or help on implementing some of my suggested changes'd be appreciated. J. Parker Stone 00:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff

I really think that if we are to find a constructive solution, the material should be edited on the new page. It is directly linked from the Magdoff page. It is not hidden. You have to understand that I really don't think there is much merit to the text, and that I see it as an outlandish block of POV text in the middle of an article about a person who deserves NPOV treatment. You probably see it exactly opposite. This is a common technique for finding a compromise text, although often it is not on a linked page but a Temp page that is not linked. I really am looking forward to working with you and others to find a compromise, but if it were up to me the material would be reduced to about 200 words linked to offsite claims on both sides. I am already compromising. I am asking everyone involved to compromise. If we all think we are compromising too much, it is probably about right.--Cberlet 03:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to rename the article. I was pissed off when I wrote it. Needs to be changed. But I was saddened to see that you went ahead and created a VfD and Merge after asking me if I wanted to move it. Not a good start. --Cberlet 03:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to try a different way to resolve this issue or do you want to continue the circle game on the old page. I was trying a constructive alternative. Assume good faith. My opening statement on the new page was an honest attempt to start the discussion over.--Cberlet 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I read the applicable Wiki rules, and it seems that we should wait for the result of the votes you applied for rather than either renaming the page or moving the material back to the page. I prefer to the follow the vote results now that they have started.--Cberlet 11:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Stevertigo has turned what was once a concise and accurate intro into a soapbox for editorializing on the colonial nature of the conflict. CJK has tried compromises but i personally feel the edits are mostly destructive POV and should be RVed. you got time, any help'd be appreciated. J. Parker Stone 23:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks. i see someone also mucked up the Jorge Rafael Videla article with claims about "US Empire," i hadn't checked that article for a while. this site really needs a stricter policy against POV. J. Parker Stone 01:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll make a custom message that explains the dispute is over the intro. Think outside the box. :)Superm401 | Talk 03:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't believe there is an appropriate template. Superm401 | Talk 04:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Steve's revision is mostly unsustainable, though the colonial/nationalism viewpoint is a real one that should be mentioned. But most of what he's added will have to go when the page is unprotected. Steve's obviously a bit out of control right now, once the storm passes the page can be brought back into line. The best thing to do is to move all his stuff to the bottom of Overview as a "minority viewpoint" and replace the original lead. It's important to stop our side from violating 3RR; there's tons of people who disagree with Steve's additions so it shouldn't be a problem.

BTW, I know you from Gamefaqs WoT board; I was ragnarok757, if you recall, though I never really go there anymore. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Harvard is a lot of fun. I was surprised at how strong the conservative movement is there, its god enough good organization to outweigh its numerical disadvantage. Good classes too. I seem to recall that you went to Mars Hill at one point, but I think maybe you were leaving there? I don't quite remember. Anyway, it's good to see you've made the transition over to WP. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:37, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Any email you sent me I didn't get...feel free to email me directly at cgparham757 /at/ aol /dot/ com. I don't trust that WP email function too enormously. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:56, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Stevertigo

Due to Stevertigo's actions, I have posted an RfC. Please submit your comments and consider certifying the RfC. Carbonite | Talk 01:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply from Coqsportif

Strawman? Yes, I think I do.

Sockpuppet? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coqsportif (talk • contribs) 02:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hey

i got your email. don't know if you're around, but if so you may want to check out Revolutionary government of Cuba, which has recently been butchered by NWOG & co. an RV to the pre-NWOG version'd probably do it. J. Parker Stone 06:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

24 hour block

I know but by removeing it it isn't my problem any more.Geni 09:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Coqsportif on satellite state

Suggest you check the spelling in satellite state before reverting again. Coqsportif 12:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif

S/he doesn't seem to have violated 3RR at Harry Magdoff. If he's being disruptive, can you give examples? SlimVirgin 12:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

It does indeed seem to be a violation. Sorry for missing it first time I looked. He's blocked for 24. I'd normally warn first, but he's definitely not a new user. Cheers, SlimVirgin 13:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to find the time later tonight to take a close look at the contribs. If the account is clearly disruptive, I may be able to block on that alone without having to show sockpuppetry. SlimVirgin 13:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I would welcome your comment on my recent edits. I have no desire to be seen as disruptive, and have never been accused of such a thing before. Obviously some articles are more sensitive than others and I would appreciate the feedback without you rushing to denunciation first. Coqsportif 15:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I got onto Ruy Lopez I think through an edit history of an article I think. I was interested in what he was writing, which seemed to be about communist articles and so on, something I know a little about. Maybe he'd say little about. You did the same thing I suppose by looking at my edits and reverting them, as others did. I don't mind really. I was looking at Ruy Lopez's edits as a guide to interesting areas in Misplaced Pages. I assure you I am neither him nor wanting to appear to be him or against him or for him or anything to do with him. Perhaps I'll stick to less exciting areas, attracting less paranoia. I think there must be a balanced way of reporting on Soviet spies who operated in America, condemning them or whitewashing are not desirable, they need a good encyclopedic treatment. As for my old user name, I have no idea atm, but will track it down eventually I guess. It's two PC's ago, so I'll have to find it among edit histories somewhere. I would ideally like to merge that record with my new one if that's still possible. Coqsportif 15:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The NED article I definitely screwed up, I thought I was reverting to a different version entirely, not the POV one I seemed to. Obviously wasn't concentrating. As for the vfd, I thought it was a clear case of someone wanting to control an article about themselves and when it didn't work they wanted it deleted. I don't know which way Ruy Lopez voted, or care, I thought it was clear-cut enough. Coqsportif 15:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqspucfor's track is to insert links to ihr (neo-nazi) site. nobs 23:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Coqsportif 23:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Mail

I got 2, the short one & a long one. nobs 02:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC) No.nobs 02:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Mail.nobs 05:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam War

I liked your edits, sounds like you're someone who actually knows something about the topic - as opposed to me (who has a smattering of half-remembered facts rattling around in his head) or someone who only has opinions. Keep up the good work! Uncle Ed 17:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cuba

About the "in which near-unanimous yes votes are continually reported" clause which you added back — despite the fact that NWOG doesn't like it, I chose not to restore it, because frankly it's a piece of information that's not really needed in an article with a scope as broad as that of Cuba. It's a detail best left to the Politics of Cuba or Elections in Cuba article IMO. I'm also not going to unrestore it, because it's not worth it to me to revert it back out, plus I'm sure NWOG will be happy to do it for me. :) Caerwine 18:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Your violation of 3RR in the George Galloway page

TJive, I draw your attention to your persistant reverting of the George Galloway page. This is a violation of the 3RR.

I have let your last revert stand and added a discussion on the topic on Talk:George_Galloway. I hope that you will take part and respect the majority opinion, whatever the outcome.

Request for Assistance

Hi! Could you please lend me a hand at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Agiantman? I am battling "Team Kennedy." I incurred their wrath at Talk:Ted_Kennedy. Thanks. --Agiantman 02:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism

Thanks for reverting it off of my user page. Any info on this particular vandal and what his problem actually is? I can't glean why I'm a target from his contributions. --TJive 08:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Search me, the vandal was working on an AOL IP which is shared by thousands of users. You must have done something truly terrible to upset him, the usual possibilities are:

• You reverted some vandalism s/he made. If somebody vandalizes, leave the vandalism alone so that everyone can see how smart and clever the vandal is, by being able to vandalize a free content encyclopedia which anyone can edit.
• You voted "delete" on one of the creations. Always vote "keep" on everything, even vanity and hoaxes, because voting "delete" always upsets people, and that is much worse than having the integrity of Misplaced Pages compromised.
• You told off the vandal by sending him one of the test-templates. Never tell off a vandal. They know very well that they are vandalizing, so they don't need to be told that. Leave them alone.

Keep up the good work. :-) Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I always get the orange bar. It might be a delay or something. At any rate, it's a good idea to add your main userpage (and thereby your main main talkpage) to your watchlist. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bentley FBI deposition

Hi, do you know of a source (preferably online) for this? (Yes, yes, I know I could FOIA the FBI - that's a incredible hassle.) Bits and pieces of it are scattered throughout the FBI Silvermaster FOIA documents, but I don't think I've ever seen the complete thing in one piece. (The new edition of her autobio might have it, but it's out of print, and I can't find a copy used.) Anyway, I'd really like to see it, and I thought you might know where it is. Noel (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Item of Interest

You may want to vote on the proposed wikistalking policy here--Agiantman 00:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Resident NWOG

hey have you put up an RFC on this character based on continual pro-Castro POV-pushing? cuz if you haven't i'd suggest it when you got the time. maybe move swiftly to RFM and RFA after the RFC doesn't amount to anything as my wikicensors predict.

btw love the new userpage... well i love a specific part of the new user page... but still. thumbs up. J. Parker Stone 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon.--Agiantman 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR at Fidel Castro

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. - ulayiti (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Kissinger cross-post

cross-posted on 172's page, but if you get the time please check out my proposed Kissinger article rewrite. thankyouverymuch J. Parker Stone 07:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Odd name

I did hear that 2004-12-29T22:45Z is a sockpuppet, SqueakBox 15:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Would you please stop stalking me?

Would you please stop stalking me?

Please stop reverting

Hi, once again I would ask you to stop reverting the edits without further explaination. If you have enough time to revert edits, you have enough time to explain what your motivation is. I do not agree with your assertion and would like to solve the problem by discussing it. --Ebralph 22:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem set to constantly revert - very well. If that is what you want. I have time. I've repeatedly asked you to discuss why you want to revert the edits and you seem not to want to discuss it. You're obviously not interested in in a solution. Ok, then we will continue this game in all eternity. I'm patient. Tell me when you bore of the game. --Ebralph 05:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW - you might find this enlighting: Misplaced Pages:Talk_page#What_is_it_used_for.3F

I saw your answer on the page and would like to thank you that you answered. My point is following: if everybody went and edited something without discussing it, we would have real trouble. I really couldn't see what motivated you to see the edits as POV. You've made your (good) points and I'm just responding to it now. As you can imagine, I don't agree with you, but maybe we can focus on content and not on mechanism. I will be patient for your responses - and really ask only a few minutes of your time - to take in consideration the little time you have. --Ebralph 00:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

it's cool

it's cool dude, i don't have much time for this wikicrap now myself. but if you ever could get to it that'd be sweet. J. Parker Stone 04:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Krafsur

If you got a minute take a look Misplaced Pages:Speedy_deletions#Requested_pages. nobs 21:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Image:RKT.png has been listed for deletion

TJive insulted me at GameFAQs

This guy aka YINever insulted me at GameFAQs and called my grandfather a fascist because he fought for China in the Korean War, yet ironically he supports Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

I consider this guy an American hypocrite. He thinks NPOV only applies to left-winged sources, and wrongdoings by leftists are stated as fact, whereas ones done by rightists are stated as alleged.

Americofascism

Sorry about that. I reverted your edit because it looked like vandalism, but then I read the article and realized it was indeed nonsense, so I deleted it as such. Then I decided it would be best as a redirect, so I replaced it with the same content. — Dan | Talk 03:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Please don't blindy revert ALL of a user's edits just because you think it is a bad user... some of them are actually good. Remember, reverting is bad in general, only revert if it is vandalism, otherwise, try to edit or add to the article. Thanks! Sasquatcht|c 01:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you should still be wary of blind reverts (unless we're dealing with Willy on Wheels). The user may be accessing WP through other IPs (at work maybe?) but he hasn't done anything disruptive using those IPs so I see no reason to block them. Just a word of caution, nothing more. Again, regards! Sasquatcht|c 01:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff

Sorry to bother. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. Endless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome.--Cberlet 09:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Extremely bad and nonfactual revert by TJive on the North Korea page.

Hey, if you insist on mentioning the 'Axis of Evil' talking point on the N. Korea page, at least do it in a factual manner. George Bush absolutely did not put N. Korea into the 'Axis of Evil' in 2005 as a response to N. Korea reveling that they have nukes, he did it in the 2002 State of the Union address, long before we knew they had an arsenal.

Please don't vandalize that page any more. If you would like to mention the Axis of Evil, please do so within a truthful context.

Sukiari 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

I regret to see that you did not take my advise and warning seriously at Anti-Chinese sentiment. As a consequence, I have blocked you for 24 hours. I strongly advise you to stop reverting and warring, and attempt to discuss the matter on your return. Thank you. Rama 18:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent and I am sure a most productive, legitimate use of your administrator powers, blocking me for undoing the belligerent POV edits of an anonymous editor who has been harassing, threatening, and insulting myself and other editors for undoing his damage to articles, including ones so egregious they were unilaterally deleted (the same user, BTW, evaded a week long block placed on him by Sasquatch). Heavens why would I not discuss in minutiae why I would revert a rambling, original research article from such a person; you happen upon this particular conflict by way of warring with TDC and anointed yourself armed mediator. I assure you I have no interest in any such masturbatory process with either party. --TJive 18:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally I do wish to know when precisely administrators were given the same latitude in discretion for subjective blocks as the arbitration committee. I have not actually broken any hard, substantive policies of which I am aware. --TJive 18:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that Tony Sidaway proposed a similar initiative in an article subjected for a much longer period of time to a more fierce and determined war than this one, and yet the reaction for such a move was far from welcoming. Are you sure this is a road you wish to go down or are you testing the waters on your own part? --TJive 18:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I just happened to catch something rather ironic about your action. As of late I have not had much time for Wikipedian activities, editing, discussion, or otherwise, so much of what I am able to do is engendered by a look through my active watchlist. I had just stopped by Talk:Fidel Castro when I noticed the orange strip on my screen, where? Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment.

• (diff) (hist) . . N Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment; 11:23 . . Rama (Talk)
• (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Fidel Castro; 09:49 . . 67.84.59.210 (Talk) (→"Great" healthcare and literacy increases)

I was given precisely nine minutes:

1. (cur) (last) 14:21, September 18, 2005 TJive (rv)
2. (cur) (last) 14:30, September 18, 2005 Rama (Blocked)

For an explanation (assuredly forthcoming) to the satisfaction of an editor, himself previously involved in reverting the article, who has taken upon himself a very novel role in administrating this site. --TJive 19:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You also made a bad revert on the North Korea article with no explanation. Sukiari 04:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

My revert had nothing to do with the section that you discussed. Once I am able to edit again I will fix it how I intended to. --TJive 07:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet, you reverted it anyway? Did you read the above post by me, about how you reverted to nonfactual material in that article? If you want to expand it that's awesome but I don't understand why you would revert to something that's not true. Sukiari 09:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't quite get it, do you? I went through the changes for several days and attempted to separate out legitimate changes such as yours from POV insertions, and I missed yours, unhappily. I do not disagree with the paragraph in question being changed and my revert had absolutely nothing to do with an opinion on that section. --TJive 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't understand at all. It would have been nice to mention what you were doing and why on the Talk:North Korea page so people know what's going on. As it appears from your first response to me, reverting that and other paragraphs was just the first 'phase' of a project you are engaged on in the North Korea page. Pray tell what phase two is? Sukiari 22:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I would have done and explained precisely this, were it not for the fact of a block which still remains (preventing me from editing anything save this talk page), hours and hours after it was supposed to have been lifted. Other than that, I have no idea what you are getting at and do not particularly wish to. --TJive 05:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

TJive, I do not clearly understand about what you are unhappy, so if you wish to complain, I will ask you to be more specific.

The blocking policy for sysops does include general disruption, and I regard your constant reverting of Anti-Chinese sentiment, without one single attempt at discussing on the talk page, as caracteristic disruption. That you kept this on after what I think was a very clear warning from me is a sign that you either do not care or wished to provoke me, which is certainly a motive for a block, or that you never read this talk page before your revert, which is undoubtly a sign that your attention had to be catched in another way.

I would once again warn you against the misconception that the system of rules can be toyed with. There is clearly a spirit in which the rules must be read, which is one of mutual cooperation and refraining from warring. "I have not actually broken any hard, substantive policies of which I am aware" is absolutely no excuse for twisting the rules and constantly going against their spirit.

If you have a problem with a particular user, the way to go is to talk to him, and in case discussion fails, signal the matter to competent "authorities" at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment or Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection for instance. Thank you. Rama 16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rama, my first encounter with this anon was the first trolling message he left on my talk page, of which numerous similar examples occurred on others' actual user page. He appears to know me, and did not exhibit any signs whatever of good faith behavior but merely that of a simple and dedicated troll. This is not someone I am going to repeatedly attempt to approach with very egregious POV issues.

Not only was I going to participate in discussion as you wished (though whether to your satisfaction I will never be sure), but I was literally on or beside the page when the block was enacted (as I described above). Essentially, you have decided that you, having yourself reverted the article without explanation, would enforce arbitrary rules on the page. A content dispute with a half-vandal is hardly disruption and at best it is a very weak case of any subjective violation, for which you neither reciprocated blocks against the equally offending user (see this, which is also an abuse of the edit summary field), nor did you actually remove my block within the 24 period. Please remove my block whenever you see this message. --TJive 21:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Further, the page in question is not "rambling OR." It should be re-named Sinophobia and expanded. Plz see talk there—which Rama is right you should be using before simply blanking a page. Marskell 19:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It's about Sinophobia? That's funny, it doesn't seem to be the argument of the creator, nor does the article read as such. Incidentally, Sinophobia is a form of racism. If you wish to redirect the article for a legitimate article on Sinophobia, be my guest. --TJive 21:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish to re-name the page Sinophobia as a more appropriate descriptor; if the article doesn't read as such, edit it, don't blank it and retreat into a belligerent shell. You didn't (perhaps don't want?) to respond to the talk there. As I said there we don't redirect an undescribed reptile or lizard to animal. It's an appropriate topic. You're suggested redirect is senseless. Marskell 23:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You read the article as being Sinophobia, which was not the author's intention. This was not my reading; it was that it was an original research, personal political rant of an anonymous vandal that was not worth a separate and distinct page. I am not required by any reading of any rule to treat bad, frivolous content in any prescribed manner by any other editor, administrator or not. Essentially you appear to be arguing for argument's sake, which is not conducive to anyone's ostensible goals. --TJive 05:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice try. That article was translated from the Chinese language page. Clearly you have a frud against me and all so called "Anti-Americans".

As for why I did not participate (when asked) it is because I was given precisely nine minutes to do so and still remain unable. --TJive 05:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If the topic of an article is not appropriate, the correct procedure is to bring it back on tracks, not to keep reverting it. Even if you had in fact been confronted with an unsalvageable article, I fail to understand why you kept on this pointless reverts rather than require the article protected, for instance.

As for your 9 minutes, you had enough time to revert the article; you might have chosen to engage in discussion, as I clearly enough recommended you did. Rama 07:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)