Misplaced Pages

Mediation

Nothing will happen unless someone decides to take on our case as mediator. It's just a matter of being patient, I guess. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have been blocked for violating Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule on Pablo Neruda: . The block is for 48 hours because you have been repeatedly blocked for previously violating this rule. Gamaliel 18:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here. I am opposed to the move since "alleged" is POV and prejudges the evidence. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 21:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Received your emails

This is just an acknowledgement of your two emails. I've read them and I'll investigate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

I want to apologize for not giving adequate edit summaries. I thought I had done so, but I had not, and I should have merely stated "see talk" and discussed my changes. You have been asked to cite sources for some of your content addtions which have been described as "overstated" on the talk pages. I reverted your changes on Pablo Neruda, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, and Jean-Pierre Raffarin for this reason. I'm not sure if citing a blog on Giuliana Sgrena that quotes another source, which appears to be biased, is an acceptable citation. In the future, I'm going to make my reverts explicit by explaining them on the talk page. --Viriditas | Talk 22:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, thats all I wanted. TDC 19:47, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

history in digital projects

’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Misplaced Pages. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Misplaced Pages, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz_at_gmu.edu

Paul Robeson

I unprotected Paul Robeson on your request, as I see you are aware of. But I wish you could be more polite and gloat less both on talk-pages and in edit-summaries. If you indeed "won" the dispute, kudos to you, but that should speak for itself, and you shouldn't need to resolve to further disrespectfull behavour onto other wikipedians. I think you will find that a more polite tone will only help your cases and arguments in the future. Here and in other articles. Thanks. Shanes 03:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, but in all fairness I had to contort like that "amazing" girl in the M&M commmercial to get the info in there. TDC 03:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration

Please remember that this is a collaborative project. Though other editors may irritate you there is never a sufficient reason to stoop to making personal attacks on other editors, such as this one. Keeping your cool will show everybody what a mature member of the project you are. -Willmcw 11:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Gamaliel has made every effort possible both in his actions as well as his rhetoric to prove himself a Grade -A asshole. TDC 16:59, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the subject is already opened, I'd like to concure in suggesting that you let some steam go, since you seem to be flirting with the 3RR thing on Fidel Castro; the talk page is there to work on consensual versions, and it's free ! Rama 08:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi TDC, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Fidel Castro and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. If you feel the block is unfair, feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin 08:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image:480ruger.jpeg

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 16:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Your comments

on Talk:History of the United States (1988-present) would be much appreciated. J. Parker Stone 01:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate images

Though I certainly don't agree with all that you've done at Noam Chomsky, you've certainly made some valid points and contributed to the neutrality of the article. But I've very upset to see you uploading a duplicate image, adding an obnoxious filename, and posting it to Talk for the sole purpose of goading another user. This a pattern of behavior remarkably similar to Libertas/Ollieplatt/etc., and it's completely inappropriate and not the least bit helpful to building a better encylcopedia. Please don't do it again, or I'll be happy to make an RFC out of this. RadicalSubversiv E 01:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it was funny wasn't it. Look, it was done to drive home a point, and a very serious one at that. Honestly, I had no idea it was a duplicate, as the original picture was gone when I looked for it. And I got lots of RfC, so it dont phase me. TDC 01:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's twice now that you have uploaded duplicates of images used in the Noam Chomsky article. That demonstrates either bad faith or that you haven't even read the article. — Chameleon 03:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Either that or I dont give a shit. TDC June 30, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Removal of Quotes for Michael Moore

Why exactly did you remove the quotes from the Michael Moore article. Was it because

1.They are in Wikiquote, and therefore do not need to be replicated in the article 2.They have been chosen arbitrarily, or in a POV manner

Please explain. TDC June 30, 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Both reasons. As a matter of personal policy I always treat quote sections in this way. There is a duplication of work and the purpose of the section is not encyclopedic. A quote in context illustrating a point is encyclopedic but a quote in a "quotes" section may unbalance an article and appear to endorse a particular view of a person or subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I also agree. Would you also care to chime in the Ann Coulter article on this subject as I feel the two are very similar and I have made little progress convincing other editors. TDC June 30, 2005 16:45 (UTC)

3RR

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Also, please stop toying with the letter of the rule; the idea of 3RR is to encourage people to discuss and craft new versions of particular parts of article, not play a game a give opportunities to tease and insult peope in the edit summaries. Rama 5 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)

I am in danger of violating the 3RR? How exactly is that? I am very familiar with 3RR, and I am very careful to not break it, unless you have some insight into my behavior that I am unaware of, so spare me your threats. TDC July 5, 2005 14:17 (UTC)

I might also add that I am a bit puzzled by your comments. Am I going to be "blocked" for violating the 3RR of for toying with it? As far as I know of, I have not violated the 3RR in several weeks. TDC July 5, 2005 14:38 (UTC)

For instance, you have been reverting Pablo Neruda very regularly these last days; also, a number of these reverts bear taunting and insulting remarks addressed to other users in their edit summary. I would therefore advise you that the 3RR is not meant to be toyed with in the way of "RV, so close to 24 hours, but no cigar" or "3 RV's a day will keep the admins away!" . Also, mind that this sort of provocations bring attention on you and could lead people to doubt your good faith and act harshly upon other forms of disruptions. Thank you. Rama 5 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

The only person who my "good faith" has fallen off with is Gamaliel. I don’t know if you have noticed or not, but he had devolved into following me into articles and reverting my edits without explanation. I apologize if I am not willing to put up with his bullshit, but I am not going to stop. TDC July 5, 2005 14:49 (UTC)

I cannot but notice that Gamaliel refrains from inflamatory edit summaries. Also, your edits tend to look llike radical and oftentimes highly loaded modifications of the articles. Your valuable edits tend to look tainted by what can be seen as a recurrent tendency to provocations, and the way you play with the rules is an incitation for others to "wait for you at the corner", an atmosphere which I think is unpleasant and does little for a healthy working ambiance. I therefore solemnely advise you to try and craft a mutually acceptable version with your fellow editors on talk pages and adopt a more conciliary tone -- "bullshit" is not in my active vocabulary for instance. Rama 5 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

I spent several days and thousands of words trying to hammer out an acceptable compromise on the Pablo Neruda article, in good faith, only to have all of my contributions disputed with every fact that TDC and his sockpuppets have added to the article.

I do not mean this to sound snide or condescending, but have you actually read the talk page of that article? I was not the only user who was disputing the strong arm tactics, see the contributions and discussions from Anonip. TDC 14:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for persisting in your deliberately provocative and disrupting behaviour ( in particular), according to policies such as Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Disruption and Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, and after have been duely and repeatedly warned, including the entry above and two independant RFCs (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TDC and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TDC-2).

I would like you to understand the above as an opportunity offered to you to take some distance from your involvement in articles like Pablo Neruda and to restart contributing on another mode.

I also explicitely advise you that further offences will lead to further and longer blocks. If you contest the decision, you are welcome to fill in a Requests for arbitration. Rama 8 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)

Sorry to see that the Keystone Kops on Misplaced Pages are after you now too. I don't edit on Misplaced Pages as much as I used to, after they ran me out of town for a few months, but let me know if there's anything I can do to resolve some of the more protracted disputes. Viajero is a excellent editor, and I bet you can work things out with him. But I think you're right about Chameleon. I see exactly what you mean in your response on RfC. He seems a bit on the self-righteous and condescending side. BTW, thanks for the advice and encouragement a few months ago. As you can see, I've been taking it. 172 8 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

No biggie, and thanks. I am not sure about Viajero, as my experiences with him have been less than positive, but I would like to do what I can to smooth things over. TDC 14:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I am sad to see that on your return of the block mentionned above, you have immediately reverted Pablo Neruda twice (] and ]), on the very same revision as before (including a reference to a book which has remained poorly redacted all through your reverts: references to books require edition to be useable, not the mere title and page), without any sort of attempt to communicate on the issue. In accordance to the above statement, you are now block for four days. Rama 16:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

And Rama, I am still interested in an explanation of what specific policy I have been blocked for. After a long reading of the specific policy cited by you, Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Disruption, I fail to see how it applies to me, and only me in this particular situation.

Things like your comments "RV, another day, another 3 reverts" clearly are very close to the examples given in Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Disruption.

Your subsequent reverts and their timing, after having been warned, and later blocked, constitute further provocations, as also fall under WP:POINT.

I also direct you to Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule:

the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

(emphasise in the original text)

Since Gamaliel only reacted to your reverts, never used the edit summaries to make provocative statements and did not feature any particularly disturbing behaviour, I see no reason to take any action against him at the moment.

If you contest my appreciation of the issue, youu are welcome to fill in a Request for Arbitration. Rama 15:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

My block is over, but I still have an IP block up in place that needs to be removed. TDC 14:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. Rama 15:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Beueno. TDC 15:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

My Defense

The idea that I somehow cannot “get along” with other users whom I may have a personal disagreement with is ludicrous. User:172 and I have had a very good working relationship together, User:AndyL and I collaborated from completely opposite POV’s to build a rather solid article; Human rights in Cuba.

But lets be honest. This is no more about my behavior, which I admit can be egregious at times, as it is about one or two other users, but mainly one; Gamaliel.

Perhaps it was when he began reverting my edits without discussion in the W.E.B. DuBois at the behest of another user. Or when he placed the TotallyDisputed header in the article, when there was not even an attempt for him to do anything other that revert on sight instead of taking it to the talk page.

Or when he at least makes an attempt to keep up appearance, he finds another sympathetic admin who just protects the page, on a version different from the last, for 3 weeks . An admin, that I might add, has his own beef with me and solicits others to pile on me when clearly he was aware of that particular users rather rude comments towards me .

Or perhaps it was when he arguably overstepped his authority when he blocked me for a 3RR violation, and when another more respected admin stepped in to question him, he tried to delete all the content of that particular discussion.

Gamaliel has a fairly standardized tactic when it comes to opposing my edits. First, he claims that they are “factually inaccurate”, when that does not stand up to the scrutiny then he argues that they are irrelevant , then he argues that although they may be relevant they are plagiarized . It would be nice if he stuck with an argument, instead of insulting me while having the nerve to feign insolence when I do it.

Now granted, I have been sloppy with my sourcing in the past, however, damn near everything I have put forth has withstood scrutiny (minus the blanket RV’s of Gamaliel of course) and others have noted this

What I would like to see:

1. 1.A fair hearing of my additions to the Pablo Neruda article, nothing more.
2. 2.And end to Gamaliel’s editorial and administrative harassment of me.

What I will do.

1. 1.Stop editing any articles where there is a consensus that I should not participate.
2. 2.Propose mediation again, after no one took me up on my last offer.
3. 3.Any other reasonable request that is both fair to me and other users.

Later

"Did you participate in Operation Mongoose to kill Castro with an exploding cigar?"

"No, sir, I did not," he responded. "But I did volunteer to kill that son of a bitch in 1961 with a telescopic rifle."

Good news in the mail

Hey, congratulations!!! 172 23:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, all the legal liabilty and no more money! :) TDC 13:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Norinco

I just removed Norinco from the Wiki dead end list; perhaps if it were written into the text of People's_Liberation_Army#The_PLA_and_commercial_enterprises or somewhere might give it more exposure. Good work! nobs 19:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Advice

Id never argue with you.LtDoc 03:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm .... OK, then dont. TDC 15:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky

Thanks for the revert. I reported him but so far nothing has happened. --TJive 15:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Got it

Won't be logged on a lot today, but rved Hue, thx

Just dont go over 3.

IM

just wondering if you have it. J. Parker Stone 06:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

of courseTDC 08:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

check your email kthx. J. Parker Stone 08:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

NP, but I am going to hit the sack, just got in tonite and checked an article or two (I know, I have a problem). TDC 08:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Magdoff

I saw that you noticed the attempt to delete factual references in the I. F. Stone article. Please note that the same thing is being attempted in a more egregious form with Harry Magdoff. The content was moved unilaterally to "Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff" which I put up for Vfd. Please vote there. Thanks. --TJive 02:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Harry Magdoff. Feel free to let me about anything that may be of concern to you. nobs 20:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey no problem. TDC 20:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please be aware that engaging in personal attacks violates Misplaced Pages policy and can lead to you getting blocked from editing. Comments such as "Liar liar pants on fire" , while apropriate for a primary school playground, are not apropriate for Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

re my talk:

• Personal attacks are never acceptable, even if the user that is the target of them were the most horrible person ever, they would not be acceptable. There is a section explicitly dealing with this in the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policy page.
• If you feel that anyone has broken policies then report them in the apropriate place (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/3RR) and follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution process. Ranting will not get you anywhere. I don't have time to deal with every action by every user in every dispute. Thryduulf 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it absolutely clear that my talk page is not the place to rant about or place evidence about other users behaviour, or to carry on inter personal disputes. Please start and RfC instead, this what they are there for (this message posted on my talk page and the latest ip addy of the anon user as well). Thryduulf 21:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gas turbine

Hey Buddy, where did you get the 55% combined cycle rating for GE's H turbine?. The GE site still says 60% (no biggie, just curious). --Duk 17:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My bad, I was thinking of the F machines. I have worked on 6 installed H units, you would think I would know better. TDC 18:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Cool, are you in a position to get any pictures? I'm a huge fan of hard to get industrial and engineering pictures, although I realize a lot of companies don't allow this via non-disclosure and for security reasons. Howabout a closeup of a gas fired turbine with the case open? --Duk 10:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I should be able to get you a picture of a turbine block no problem. As far as a picture of the case open, that is going to be much harder. The only time they break the turbine case open is during a hot gas path inspection, or about once every 4000 running hours. This is usually done in SC or Houston. TDC 11:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pictures, I'll try to put them to work--Duk 19:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Castro

hey man, when you've got time you may wanna check out NWOG's "additions" to the Fidel Castro page. J. Parker Stone 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What?

what vandalism, you idiot? --Revolución (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

...regarding my edits to the Rigoberta Menchu article. I was frankly amazed that the writer admits she's a liar and then goes on the equivicate about her lies! He also leaves out key facts such her support for Communist terrorism and her admission of her lies.

It's amazing that despite the opening of the Soviet archives--which proved almost everything we anti-Communists and defectors from Communist nations had been saying all along: from the massacre at Katyn to the proof of the guilt of Hiss and the Rosenburgs. Despite this there are still people out there who deny the truth!

Joe McCarthy's estimate of the number of Communist spies in the US government was conservative! Even FDR's personal assistant was a Soviet spy. Thanks to Sen. McCarthy, widespread spying inside the government was ended. Unfortunately, the KGB refocused its efforts on defense contractors, penetrating nearly every one, bugging fax lines, phone lines, stealing all kinds of classified material. SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of Soviet & Warsaw Pact weapon systems were essentially duplicates of American weapons. We supplied the R&D for both sides of the Cold War. But aside from the spectacular cases (the Walker family, Aldrige Aimes, etc) widescale treason was ended by the McCarthy hearings. Ann Coulter irrefutably (with exhaustive documentation) demolishes the Liberal myths about McCarthy in her wonderful book "Treason."

To Reynaldus Magnus: the Man Who Won the War! (Yep, I borrowed that from Tom Clancy's dedication to "Executive Orders;" a book that chillingly predicted the 9/11 attacks on the White House and Capitol.)

PainMan 02:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

About NC

Do not mix science with politics. Unless of course that´s what you want to do. For obvious reasons. But then dont complain...

User:TDK is a troll

I can edit in whatever I want, where ever I want, when ever I want, no matter how inflamitory, irrelevant, or inapropriate, as long as it's factually accurate according to some interpertion of reality, and properly cited with links that either relate to the topic at hand, or are long enough that no one will notice that they're about unrelated topics, user:TDK said so, these are my rights according to user:TDK, if you don't like it, take it up with user:TDK, so here's my citation as well as this impartial 3rd party source to conform my opinion that TDK is in fact a troll - anon

Isn’t there an interstate nearby you could go play on?TDC 15:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

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 02:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR

It appears that you have violated the 3RR on Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I wanted to offer you the opportuntity to avoid a block if you are willing to undo your last revert. I understand what it's like when an article is under attack from what appears to be a group of sockpuppets, but there are other means (requests for page protection, requests for comment, etc.) to deal with this other than by violating the 3RR. Gamaliel 18:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That's funny, TDC violates the 3RR, 10 zillion sock puppets come along to help restore his edits, and what do his edits say?? John Kerry is a commie thank god you didn't jump to any conclusions and ban him or anything--152.163.100.201 14:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I have told people this dozens of times before, I DONT USE SOCKPUPPETS. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do so, otherwise please go play in traffic. TDC 14:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

tried and failed, but there you go TDC 18:53, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Item of Interest

You may want to vote on the the proposed wikistalking policy here--Agiantman 00:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon.--Agiantman 19:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Peak Oil

Thanks for offering to help with my understanding of peak oil.

"I would direct you to research more on the topics of oil shale, sand oil and methyl hydrates in conjunction economic production models, in order to get a better grip on a subject you seem to have so much interest in."

The research I've done thus far into these non-renewables is that the ratio of energy expended to energy provided is fairly low, like 2:1 or 1.5:1 or something like that. I have no doubt that these areas will be looked at closely, but they certainly do not address the reality that global energy use will peak, after which we will have to use less energy.

Something I am very curious about it the maximum amount of energy that we can produce when all the fossil-fuels are gone. Is it 10% of current energy production? Higher? Lower?

"I have always though that peak oil proponents are a bit hysterical."

Well, it did come to a bit of a shock when I was driving home one night a couple of weeks ago and began to work out the implications for gasoline that was $2.79 in my area. There are a lot of working class families here in Michigan, and some are my family and friends. When gasoline (regular) exceeds $3/gallon, I think people are going to start to realize that something is up. When it hits $4/gal, even more so. I am going to do some analysis later today on the rate of increase of the oil prices so that I can give a best prediction for upcoming prices in the Fall, assuming the USA doesn't do anything militarily or politically that could accelerate the increase.

If we have an annual 65% increase in oil prices, then we'll be above $100/barrel by the end of April. That doesn't even take into account the current cycle that oil prices are in.

It looks like last year oil prices climbed steadily from Labor Day until Halloween, after which they leveled until after the New Year, followed by another climb for a couple of months.

Here's some interesting data on gasoline prices: Looks like the price doubled in two years, which means $5/gallon sometime in late 2006.

Michigan has also suffered a huge amount from the oil prices being low so long. Most of the corporations have globalized, and many people are unable to find jobs. In fact, Michigan is something like the 2nd highest for unemployment in the nation; and this is only the official figure, not the actual number for those who are no longer receiving benefits.

I am concerned about the possiblity that we will jump above the 5% over use line in the winter. If so, then 1973 and 1979 are the only models we have to work with in the USA as to how to respond.

I'll look forward to your thoughts! 216.120.141.3 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR

TDC, I have blocked you for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. Please keep in mind that no one is allowed under policy to revert a page more than 3 times in less than 24 hours, unless it is reversion of clear-cut vandalism. Thanks for your understanding, and thanks for your contributions! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

And the anon? I know that a range block would block too many users, but do they get off scott free? The two anons, btw, are the same user.

• 209.86.3.213 user-38lc0ul.dialup.mindspring.com

cor01-p5-0.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net

and

• 165.247.204.42 user-2ivfj1a.dialup.mindspring.com

cor01-p5-0.ca-oakland1.ne.earthlink.net

ThanksTDC 20:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

How do you know they're the same user? (i.e. where did you get the dialup.mindspring thingies?) If they are, I will block both for 24 hrs. Don't take the block too personally, BTW. I hope you continue contributing. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::: How do I know, the fact that the anon IP always edit the same articles with the same styles, that and they all come from the same proxy server. Do a google search for "IP Trace"; there are many good cites out there. One of my favorites is geobytes.com. Unfortunately with the big ISP's, they have more users than allocated IP#’s. You might remember from years back when AOL got in all that trouble for the long waits, because they had far too few IP #’s. Basically AOL and Earthlink (for example) assign a random open IP slot to a user when they log in, reserving that IP for as long as the user is on. After logging out, the IP# is put into a que and is assigned to the next user who needs one. So every time the anon logs out and logs back in, chances are they are issued a different IP address. Blocking wont do any good either, because a range block is the only way to do it and that could effect thousands of users. I don’t take it personally, I am just a bit frustrated, that’s all. TDC 20:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

VVAW

Sorry to be so long in answering (currently really busy moving into college), but let me just say that the fact that you made multiple reverts in a day is a problem in itself. Take a look over Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes for some options. Meanwhile, I cannot in good faith, and so should not revert even to a preferred version. I am uninvolved and shall stay so. Sorry for the inconvevience on that one. Try some dispute resolution, as we'd like to get this thing unprotected as soon as possible. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

WSI

"It will be interesting to see just how full of shit the WSI participants were when I get my hands onthat report."

This reads a little (ie. "a lot") like "POV + POV + my original research." Take it down a notch would you please? -St|eve 02:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, thats your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Any how exactly is relaying the contents of the NCIS/JAG report original research? TDC 17:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Krafsur

Another attempt to delete a Venona name-->Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Samuel Krafsur (this is the guy the KGB sent to recruit I F Stone, recruited a DNC member, & passed along intimate convesations of FDR, Cordell Hull & Averell Harriman, among other things). Thanks. nobs 02:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)