User talk:Weed Harper - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Weed Harper (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 24 January 2005 (→User accounts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:10, 24 January 2005 by Weed Harper (talk | contribs) (→User accounts)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam 16:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Please try to make your edit summaries actively and fully explain what you are doing to an article. For instance, your most recent summary to Lyndon LaRouche said that you added some information, but it failed to note that you were also basically reverting Everyking/Adam Carr.

Also, you may want to look at the talk page for that article - I'm trying to bring both sides together to hash out specific issues and objections, and if you could raise some with concrete evidence instead of continual and blanket reversions, it would be really helpful.

Thanks. Snowspinner 20:51, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, your version is deleting masses of information. If that information is inaccurate, then you are right to remove it, but I have not seen a good and concrete accounting of where the problems with the information are. (The Herschel list does a good job of listing what parts you take issue with, but it's very weak on citations.)

It is not acceptable to have "two competing versions of an article" perpetually reverting each other. You need to work towards compromise. I am asking, on Lyndon LaRouche, for you to take the first step. (Whereas on the other article I'm currently trying to mediate dispute on, the political views article, I'm asking Adam et al to take the first step). Please pick five aspects of the longer version of the article that are, in your view, inaccurate, and explain why, with objective and checkable evidence to back you up. Snowspinner 21:08, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge

Please cease your reversions at Eurasian Land-Bridge as they violate the ArbCom decision in the Lyndon LaRouche case re Original Research: See AndyL 09:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Weed Harper, I found what appears to be some posts of yours on Usenet, and they were sent from IP address 64.30.208.48, which was recently blocked from Misplaced Pages for posting unverifiable LaRouche material. Have you been posting to Misplaced Pages using user:64.30.208.48 as a sockpuppet? The same IP address, which belongs to Link Line Communications, has been reported for sending pro-LaRouche spam around the Web. I'm posting below two of the pro-LaRouche Usenet posts I found that use the same IP address, one from Weed Harper and one from Ralph Gibbons.

I'd appreciate your comments on this. I don't mind debating with genuine editors, even if I strongly disagree with them, but it gets a bit much when the same editor is sending out multiple posts with different user names. I'm beginning to think that Weed Harper, Herschelkrustofksy and C Colden may be the same person. You should be aware, when posting on Usenet, that the combination of the IP address, date, time and message ID makes the message traceable back to a specfic computer. It's one of the disadvantages of Usenet.

Once again, I ask you please to stay on Misplaced Pages as a genuine contributer. Slim 07:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

The computers I use are shared with 50-60 other people. And, you are maniacal about this anti-LaRouche activism. Why can't you simply debate the issues? Weed Harper 16:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not in the slightest bit "maniacal" about the LaRouche issue, nor am I an anti-LaRouche activist. I just don't want to see unverfiable serve-serving propaganda in Misplaced Pages. I have tried to debate the issues. That's one of the reasons I object to sock puppets, because it makes the debate very time-consuming having to address four people, when in fact they are only one or two. Your IP address may be used by 50 other people, but I don't believe it's pure cooncidence that one of those other 50 just happened to post pro-LaRouche material to Misplaced Pages, on exactly the same article as your associates Herschel and C Colden, within the same day or so. Anyway, as I said before, I have no time to debate these things with you or them anymore. Please abide by the spirit of Misplaced Pages, as well as the arbitration rulings on insertion of LaRouche original research. Slim 17:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

From: weed_harper@bigheavyworld.com (Weed Harper) Newsgroups: alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.kerry,alt.politics,talk.politics.misc Subject: LAROUCHE: "A VOTE FOR BUSH-CHENEY IS A VOTE FOR PERPETUAL WAR AND ECONOMIC HELL" Date: 23 Sep 2004 10:07:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <4db933f4.0409230907.66011608@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.30.208.48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1095959263 31300 127.0.0.1 (23 Sep 2004 17:07:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:07:43 +0000 (UTC)

Sept. 20, 2004 Lyndon LaRouche issued the following statement Sept. 20, 2004, through the LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC). <snip> "Over the course of the past 72 hours, I have conferred with some leading Western European statesmen, and I can tell you that they are self-deluded in the extreme . . . <snip> http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/press_releases_files/2004/040920_war.htm

From: ralphgibbons@my-deja.com (ralph gibbons) Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,dc.politics Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche for Prez...Is he Any Good? Date: 12 Jan 2004 22:19:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <7abfe569.0401122219.3de27cbd@posting.google.com> References: <1005lb1686c2q92@corp.supernews.com> <HLAMb.5266$i4.2628@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> <1005n0s8r1pdm23@corp.supernews.com> <1_adnSqETsuTlZ7dRVn-gw@comcast.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.30.208.48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1073974788 27946 127.0.0.1 (13 Jan 2004 06:19:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:19:48 +0000 (UTC) <snip> This is the biggest bunch of refried childish fantasies I have seen to date. The only circumstances under which you could have heard bogus line number 1, on the Queen of England, is if you were hanging out in the bar with former NBC reporter Mark Nykanen ( http://www.marknykanen.com ). He fabricated that one. Bogus line number 2 isn't even internally consistent -- LaRouche did forecast the demise of the Warsaw Pact, but thereafter, of course, there were no longer any Soviet Hordes to speak of. Have you ever actually been to the Sheraton National Hotel? I don't recall any LaRouche conferences there.

More Confirmation

New information!!!

Cicero titled the Spartan Government a Republic.

In The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Muller quotes Cicero on Vol II, pg 190.

In Republica II. 23., Cicero writes "respublica Lacedaemoniorum". That means that the Latin word "Republic" is same/similar to the Greek word "politea".

This is great news!!!

Sparta is a republic. This is great confirmation! Aristotle, Plato and Cicero agree. The proof is in the pudding.WHEELER 23:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would point out that Aristotle, Plato, and Cicero were writing in languages other than English, and thus that the word "Republic" in English may or may not have the same meaning as their use of the words. Snowspinner 00:02, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

From HK

When and if the present skirmishes at the LaRouche articles subside, I am due for a Wikivacation. I hope you will be around to keep an eye on them. --HK 16:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User accounts

A request was made recently to the developers regarding the relationship, if any, between the user accounts User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden. The reply from the developers is: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person." Assuming this is correct, it would be appreciated if you would choose either the Herschelkrustofsky or Weed Harper account to edit the LaRouche pages. There is no policy against using multiple accounts, but they shouldn't be used to create the impression of more support for a position than really exists, or to get round 3RR violations. Alternatively, if you feel the technical information is misleading, any light you can shed on the relationship between the accounts would be helpful. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 01:25, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I responded to this the first time you made the accusation. Grow up. Weed Harper 16:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)