Please allow this quote to stand. You cite a desire to have the quotes reflect the Senate vote, however there is nothing in the title "Official Statements" that implies this approach and the list of quotes includes non Senators.
Regardless of your personal opinion of this bill I hope you will agree that Senator Leahy was a key, if not the key, opponent to the bill and so a quote and reference to his position helps provide the reader of this article with an understanding of how deeply some Senators opposed this bill. Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. I'll wait for your response before attempting to re-insert this important quote.
Thanks!
User_Talk:Methuselah5000
Mark Patterson
Mark@BigPictureTours.com
(→Health concerns - a letter in a magazine from an anonymous person does not conform to WP:RS and WP:V)
Actually, the vast majority of Wiki content is precisely ANONYMOUS, and the two policy pages you quote unfortunately never reference anonymity in any context. I will conclude that you misunderstood the policy, so I will just repost.
This seems like selective enforcement based on a technicality to me, because the link to the author, source and publisher was also clearly provided. In the future, it would be a lot less hassle for both of us if you just post a "source required" note (or heaven forbid write me a note) as opposed to censoring content.
Your requirement, that sources not be anonymous, is never mentioned in the Wiki policies.
wp:v-
The content you deleted meets this requirement. In the absence of any other justification or comments, you have left me no choice but to repost it.
UPDATE-
At the time I posted this, I was not aware it should normally be added to the bottom, but in retrospect posting at the top was probably justified anyway.
You have offered an apology for assuming my edits were from a "sockpuppet". I am hesitant to accept it because of the vindictive, opportunistic, biased and disproportionate way you acted on a little more than a suspicion, and your spectacle of personal bias in what is ostensibly a neutral information forum.
What bothers me most is that most of the valid content in the "possible health effects" section (you may rename it that if it would make you happy), has been outright censored and moved to a discussion area without even a link. There are people living with DU around them today who need and have a right to the information you deleted. I'm guessing you do not live with DU.
I always welcome edits, debate, whatever, but trigger happy censorship is flat out wrong and will kill a Wiki. Wiki is a 'many eyes' concept, not a 'impossible to contribute' or 'censorship' concept.
I will not edit the DU section again until the deletion incident is escalated and seen by people with more authority than yourself, or you do the above. -- Fieldlab 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You need to take the info posted to the above link to ensure enforcement of the ban.-- MONGO 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
You have been very helpful with the Robeson article. You seem very knowledgable on this subject. Would you care to get involved in a dispute in the Stalin entry on the death toll associated with him?-- JohnFlaherty 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop stalking my edits TDC. I really would prefer not to hear from you again if possible. I especially don't want to see your phony charges of harrassment on my talk page anymore. Feel free to delete this comment, but please leave me the fuck alone after that. Thanks, and have a nice day.-- csloat 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
TDC, I asked you to leave me alone. Now you are "warning" me on my talk page. Warning me about what? Get lost. Really. I am not interested in your personal attacks, your false charges of stalking, nor your trolling. Leave me alone!-- csloat 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, making friends everywhere, I see. Ribonucleic 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your comment on A People's History and nearly fell from the chair. This is the very first constructive, non-hostile comment I have ever seen you write. Maybe it was that vacation. Ta bueno.
re: (edit summary)
Skywriter 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#Fleetwood_Mack
I have had you tell better jokes before, you are losing your touch man.
PS: Please stop deleting large portions of text which I added. This really gets me mad when wikiusers do this, no matter what they delete, and no matter what their POV. I was in the middle of chastizing you for this a few days ago, hit send, and realized that I had got booted, yet again.
I just told someone (see my archive 6, last message) how I feel guilty about bringing up all your 3RR's, because now I have a history that people can use against me too. It really sucks having your history dog you like that, and have other people bring it up. Sorry man.
The irony of it all, is that I was indefinetly booted, and user:Duk, the copyright police dude, who fought on your side when you used to use copyright as a weapon on WSI unbooted me. Can you believe this? He is really a forgiving guy. Travb ( talk) 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I hate to say that the ends justify the means, but that is sort of my position in a way. I'll be a good boy and be sickeningly perfect now. Hope all is going good on your end! Keep up the good work.-- MONGO 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope you've had a good vacation. Unless you're still swamped, I'll apprecaite your feedback on this CfD listing. [2] Thanks. 172 | Talk 03:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi TDC, you've been reported for a 3RR violation, and a violation of your revert parole, and have been blocked for 24 hours. Note that, although the versions were different each time, you kept adding one key passage, and reverts do not have to be to the same version. When you return, please try to reach a compromise on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The Coleman page is now stable again, along with a related dispute on Marty Meehan. I was trying to get this paragraph removed [3] (pretty irrelevant, right), and I was ultimately sucessful, which surprised me. Since trying to NPOV Conrad Burns, I hadn't been having too much luck on articles on Congressmen. 172 | Talk 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you have ever been laid, that is probably why you are on this gay computer all day, every day.
Actually, we use keyless entry systems :)-- Zereshk 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is a violation of his ArbCom ban, and I´ve blocked him for it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note:
Please be more careful next time. SeparateIssue 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have reported you for multiple violations of your revert parole. SeparateIssue 10:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't been so long that I forgot that talk comments go at the end of the page. Why would you think, after all my work on UO3 gas and chemical toxicity, that I would start expounding on the radiological dangers of solid particulate inhalation? SeparateIssue 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I was looking through some of your edits, as I do time to time, especailly after you deleted a large section of a page I had worked on before, to see what large sections of text you have deleted which does not fit your POV, and I noticed this. I guess,you can report me for wikistalking if you wish...
When are POV warriors like yourself going to realize that the article is actually strengthened by having two sides? I just don't get it TDC, as we have gone our seperate ways, you haven't changed a bit since WSI except for maybe less 3RRs. I still see the large deletions which don't meet your POV, the large fights, etc. I would like to think that I have become a much more sophisticated POV warrior myself, and actually a dipomat in a few disputes, but I still see the same troubling behavior from you. Anyway, my two cents worth. Travb ( talk) 11:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Out of courteousy I wanted to let you know that both myself and csloan mentioned your user name on our talk pages. Best wishes. Travb ( talk) 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:AMA and
Contact this third party wikipedian, who helped me with the most sophisticated conservative on wikipedia: User:Tyrenius#Disputes
Signed: Travb ( talk) 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Is skyriter and the anon at WSI one and the same? Skywriter seems to have the same behavior as the anon. i.e. the exact same behavior as you do, except he is on the other side politically. See: Talk:Orlando_Letelier#down_the_memory_hole
By the way, EECEE on WSI is probably the anon, he disabled his account when I started asking questions, but it looks like he is back to editing WSI again. Travb ( talk) 05:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What exactly on Talk:Propaganda model do you claim supports this blanking? Publicola 04:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You Wrote this concerning the article on Felix Rodriguez:
I dispute the nuetrality of this. What is this about "most of his family being disappeared?" No one has ever been disappeared in Cuba. Anyone arrested or executed were tried before the people before hand. Why is there no mention of this?
Is this a joke? Cause it aint funny. TDC 19:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC) Those pro-Castro types need to work on their spelling and syntax, Right Camilo! Right Camilo! Right Camilo! Does anybody know where Camilo Cienfuegos is... El Jigüey 1-3-06
I'm seeking sources for the claim often made that Rodriguez' father and two brothers were executed by the Castro regime soon after it came to power. Rodriguez doesn't mention this in his book, which seems odd--it would rather seem to explain his obsession with getting rid of Castro...yet he doesn't mention it.
Does anyone have a source or sources for this allegation? Thank you.
I wanted to tell you my Mother is a close friend and former colleague of Felix and his Father lived to a ripe old age and only recently died. He had no brothers, Felix was an only child. Obviously the claims of their executions are false.
If you have any questions I can be reached at batrickpeale@yahoo.com
If you can please weigh in on whether or not WP:SS is being violated in this article by certain users insisting on "two articles in one"--that is having an article called U.S. intervention in Chile and having the exact same 10 paragraphs or so on Chilean coup of 1973. CJK 21:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi TDC. You may wish to browse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America. Your input, if you feel inclined to share it, would be appreciated. Give Peace A Chance 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you get the email I sent you a while back? Just checking to make sure. CJK 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
TDC, if you're available, could you look at Iran-Iraq War and see about reverting? I've reverted three times today. Of course, User:64.231.199.31 has reverted five times, but... whatever. TomTheHand 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Especially if you have a twisted, warped mind like Noah Chomperski...yes, the U.S. is such an evil empire. Next up...we're going to strap bombs on camels as a sort of quid pro quo... [7]-- MONGO 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
TDC, just when I thought you could not be more partisan and a bigger POV warrior, you delete evidence of a sockpuppet account
[8].
Does your partisanship and POV warrior mentality know no bounds? The irony is, that not only do you cry NPOV any chance you get, when you are probably one of the biggest POV warriors on wikipedia, but that you probably think you are not a POV warrior, and that you are being "fair and balanced". My goodness TDC.
Travb (
talk)
00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Mardavich 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You have now been blocked for vast violation of your revert parole on Iran-Iraq War. -- InShaneee 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with this today. Olin 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey TDC
I've posted some possible improvements to the 3RR. If you have the time, it would be great if you could take a look and comment. I'm not sure their you're cup of tea but I'm tired of seeing people (inc myself) be accused of "gaming 3RR"
Justforasecond 00:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you think the AfD exhibits BDS symptoms, try checking out the talk page of the article in question. The logical contortions required to conclude that the source Krauthammer article constitutes WP:OR are quite amusing. Crockspot 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I left this message on both User talk:TDC and User talk:Commodore Sloat.
If the two of you are interested in having it out internet smackdown style, I invite you both to sign up at Conservative Underground and start a thread in the Thunderdome forum. CU doesn't have anything near the strict civility rules of WP, and in the Thuderdome, even those rules are suspended for the most part. If you both declare it "mano a mano", the moderators will keep everyone else out of it, and you guys can settle your dispute (or at least make your feelings known) in a cage match atmosphere. Who knows, one or both of you might decide to stick around. Liberals aren't banned out of hand, and there are even a few lib mods. We do expect them to back up their talking points with facts though. Stop by the Welcome Wagon forum to introduce yourselves after the blood sweat and tears are cleaned up. Crockspot 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It was due to the fact that a non-static IP was making "boderline" disruptive edits without really communicating with several editors in good standing. If more of this pursues, I will bump it up to full protection. But of course, you can feel free to disagree with me, considering I can be wrong a good deal of the time. Yank sox 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
How many times must I ask you this? If you have specific questions about something I did, first, make sure I actually did it, and second, post your questions to the relevant talk page in a polite manner. Don't use the edit summaries to personally attack me. Grow up.-- csloat 06:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, I too am comfortable with my comments and my intentions. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we have out Chronology Right, Sloat left me a rather rude message on my talk page, I just kindly asked him to tone it down and focus on what he is doing instead of continuing with his petty grudge against me. Why you had to jump in this is beyond me, but if you can talk some sense into him all the better. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Sloat frequently abuses editors, including me, in edit summaries. Perhaps he should practice a bit of what he preaches before spazzing out on my talk page, as he has done before ( my personal favorite). Once again though, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the locus of this dispute before becoming entangled in it; if for nothing else than your own sanity. Unless you have anything relevant to add, I consider this closed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ryan sometimes acts like a troll to get editors to be uncivil in a way that will get them blocked for incivility. You may have encountered it as it she injected itherself into your discussion with csloat. Citing
WP:DICK, as it clearly states is a "dick move in itself" and is a form of trolling. Just FYI when you engage in these discussion. --
Tbeatty
04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, can we invite CJK and MONGO into this conservation too? Maybe Morton and 172? We all seem to share the same company don't we?
Must be nice to be so well organized, I always feel like I am herding cats with liberal wikipedians, but the conserative wikipedians walk lock step with each other.
Ryan basically told me to take a hike, he, he.
Whats the latest TDC, haven't heard from you for ages.
...Wikipedia is like a daytime televions soap opera, except I can be one of the charaters! I like to see myself as the misunderstood marginalized charater in this soap opera, like Piggy on Lord of the Flies. Everyone wanted to kill Piggy in the end. Hell, you conservative fellows can even start calling me Piggy if you want. Travb ( talk) 13:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
An article you have previously edited is up for review. See Lori Klausutis. Morton devonshire 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I had a question about your removal of material over at talk:Michele Bachmann. I have not restored the material and would like to talk about your reasoning. Thanks, - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a warning to try to maintain civility. Comments that belittle others are not helpful to constructive dialogue, and do not further your argument. I hope you will endeavor to maintain a degree of respect for your fellow editors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Derex#Friends to keep in touch with. -- Aaron 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I see that you have added for the second time the racist attack incident to the Turn Left page. Please discuss the issue on its Talk page if you feel the need to add it again so as to avoid any edit wars. Thank you. Xiner 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.
You're a Colbert fan! Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Section edited out by Crockspot per WP:BLP. I think its original purpose has been served anyway. Crockspot 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Forgive my poor translation of German, but the German wiki article [12] on Daniele Ganser is approximately as follows:
Daniele gander (* 1972) is a Swiss historian and peace researcher.
Studied story, philosophy and English at the University of Basel, the University of Amsterdam and the London School of Economics and Political Science.
First book "Reckless Gamble:The Sabotage of the United Nations in the Cuban Conflict and the Missile Crisis of 1962" Treated the elimination of the UN through the CIAS during the Cuba-crisis. In the year 2005, it became through its investigation and publication over NATO secret organization "Gladio" and its produced terrorism in the cold war well known (see also strategy of the tension).
Gander publishes among other things over the conspiracy theories to the 11 September 2001. To the collection "911 and american Empire: Academics Speak Out" gander contributed a capital.
That's all the article states, plus a few references.-- MONGO 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
TDC...shoot me an email...I am using a different one than before so click the link "E-mail this user" after you visit my page. Thanks.-- MONGO 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
How do I go about getting my editing bad lifted regarding the Winter Soldier Article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Not all of them are, but two of the low contribution editors follow the profile, including an obsession with publicizing my phone number. Stirling Newberry 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
A check user probably won't do much good until such time as the current infestation engages in a clear repetition of previous edit patterns. Stirling Newberry 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thought you would be interested in this
[13].
Morton Devonshire
Yo
18:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hotmail and Yahoo offer free e-mail accounts. Please consider enabling e-mail. I recommend that you get a Wiki-only account to preserve your off-Wiki privacy. Cheers Mate!
Morton Devonshire
Yo
21:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please allow this quote to stand. You cite a desire to have the quotes reflect the Senate vote, however there is nothing in the title "Official Statements" that implies this approach and the list of quotes includes non Senators.
Regardless of your personal opinion of this bill I hope you will agree that Senator Leahy was a key, if not the key, opponent to the bill and so a quote and reference to his position helps provide the reader of this article with an understanding of how deeply some Senators opposed this bill. Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. I'll wait for your response before attempting to re-insert this important quote.
Thanks!
User_Talk:Methuselah5000
Mark Patterson
Mark@BigPictureTours.com
(→Health concerns - a letter in a magazine from an anonymous person does not conform to WP:RS and WP:V)
Actually, the vast majority of Wiki content is precisely ANONYMOUS, and the two policy pages you quote unfortunately never reference anonymity in any context. I will conclude that you misunderstood the policy, so I will just repost.
This seems like selective enforcement based on a technicality to me, because the link to the author, source and publisher was also clearly provided. In the future, it would be a lot less hassle for both of us if you just post a "source required" note (or heaven forbid write me a note) as opposed to censoring content.
Your requirement, that sources not be anonymous, is never mentioned in the Wiki policies.
wp:v-
The content you deleted meets this requirement. In the absence of any other justification or comments, you have left me no choice but to repost it.
UPDATE-
At the time I posted this, I was not aware it should normally be added to the bottom, but in retrospect posting at the top was probably justified anyway.
You have offered an apology for assuming my edits were from a "sockpuppet". I am hesitant to accept it because of the vindictive, opportunistic, biased and disproportionate way you acted on a little more than a suspicion, and your spectacle of personal bias in what is ostensibly a neutral information forum.
What bothers me most is that most of the valid content in the "possible health effects" section (you may rename it that if it would make you happy), has been outright censored and moved to a discussion area without even a link. There are people living with DU around them today who need and have a right to the information you deleted. I'm guessing you do not live with DU.
I always welcome edits, debate, whatever, but trigger happy censorship is flat out wrong and will kill a Wiki. Wiki is a 'many eyes' concept, not a 'impossible to contribute' or 'censorship' concept.
I will not edit the DU section again until the deletion incident is escalated and seen by people with more authority than yourself, or you do the above. -- Fieldlab 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You need to take the info posted to the above link to ensure enforcement of the ban.-- MONGO 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
You have been very helpful with the Robeson article. You seem very knowledgable on this subject. Would you care to get involved in a dispute in the Stalin entry on the death toll associated with him?-- JohnFlaherty 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop stalking my edits TDC. I really would prefer not to hear from you again if possible. I especially don't want to see your phony charges of harrassment on my talk page anymore. Feel free to delete this comment, but please leave me the fuck alone after that. Thanks, and have a nice day.-- csloat 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
TDC, I asked you to leave me alone. Now you are "warning" me on my talk page. Warning me about what? Get lost. Really. I am not interested in your personal attacks, your false charges of stalking, nor your trolling. Leave me alone!-- csloat 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, making friends everywhere, I see. Ribonucleic 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your comment on A People's History and nearly fell from the chair. This is the very first constructive, non-hostile comment I have ever seen you write. Maybe it was that vacation. Ta bueno.
re: (edit summary)
Skywriter 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#Fleetwood_Mack
I have had you tell better jokes before, you are losing your touch man.
PS: Please stop deleting large portions of text which I added. This really gets me mad when wikiusers do this, no matter what they delete, and no matter what their POV. I was in the middle of chastizing you for this a few days ago, hit send, and realized that I had got booted, yet again.
I just told someone (see my archive 6, last message) how I feel guilty about bringing up all your 3RR's, because now I have a history that people can use against me too. It really sucks having your history dog you like that, and have other people bring it up. Sorry man.
The irony of it all, is that I was indefinetly booted, and user:Duk, the copyright police dude, who fought on your side when you used to use copyright as a weapon on WSI unbooted me. Can you believe this? He is really a forgiving guy. Travb ( talk) 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I hate to say that the ends justify the means, but that is sort of my position in a way. I'll be a good boy and be sickeningly perfect now. Hope all is going good on your end! Keep up the good work.-- MONGO 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope you've had a good vacation. Unless you're still swamped, I'll apprecaite your feedback on this CfD listing. [2] Thanks. 172 | Talk 03:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi TDC, you've been reported for a 3RR violation, and a violation of your revert parole, and have been blocked for 24 hours. Note that, although the versions were different each time, you kept adding one key passage, and reverts do not have to be to the same version. When you return, please try to reach a compromise on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The Coleman page is now stable again, along with a related dispute on Marty Meehan. I was trying to get this paragraph removed [3] (pretty irrelevant, right), and I was ultimately sucessful, which surprised me. Since trying to NPOV Conrad Burns, I hadn't been having too much luck on articles on Congressmen. 172 | Talk 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you have ever been laid, that is probably why you are on this gay computer all day, every day.
Actually, we use keyless entry systems :)-- Zereshk 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is a violation of his ArbCom ban, and I´ve blocked him for it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note:
Please be more careful next time. SeparateIssue 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have reported you for multiple violations of your revert parole. SeparateIssue 10:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't been so long that I forgot that talk comments go at the end of the page. Why would you think, after all my work on UO3 gas and chemical toxicity, that I would start expounding on the radiological dangers of solid particulate inhalation? SeparateIssue 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I was looking through some of your edits, as I do time to time, especailly after you deleted a large section of a page I had worked on before, to see what large sections of text you have deleted which does not fit your POV, and I noticed this. I guess,you can report me for wikistalking if you wish...
When are POV warriors like yourself going to realize that the article is actually strengthened by having two sides? I just don't get it TDC, as we have gone our seperate ways, you haven't changed a bit since WSI except for maybe less 3RRs. I still see the large deletions which don't meet your POV, the large fights, etc. I would like to think that I have become a much more sophisticated POV warrior myself, and actually a dipomat in a few disputes, but I still see the same troubling behavior from you. Anyway, my two cents worth. Travb ( talk) 11:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Out of courteousy I wanted to let you know that both myself and csloan mentioned your user name on our talk pages. Best wishes. Travb ( talk) 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:AMA and
Contact this third party wikipedian, who helped me with the most sophisticated conservative on wikipedia: User:Tyrenius#Disputes
Signed: Travb ( talk) 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Is skyriter and the anon at WSI one and the same? Skywriter seems to have the same behavior as the anon. i.e. the exact same behavior as you do, except he is on the other side politically. See: Talk:Orlando_Letelier#down_the_memory_hole
By the way, EECEE on WSI is probably the anon, he disabled his account when I started asking questions, but it looks like he is back to editing WSI again. Travb ( talk) 05:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What exactly on Talk:Propaganda model do you claim supports this blanking? Publicola 04:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You Wrote this concerning the article on Felix Rodriguez:
I dispute the nuetrality of this. What is this about "most of his family being disappeared?" No one has ever been disappeared in Cuba. Anyone arrested or executed were tried before the people before hand. Why is there no mention of this?
Is this a joke? Cause it aint funny. TDC 19:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC) Those pro-Castro types need to work on their spelling and syntax, Right Camilo! Right Camilo! Right Camilo! Does anybody know where Camilo Cienfuegos is... El Jigüey 1-3-06
I'm seeking sources for the claim often made that Rodriguez' father and two brothers were executed by the Castro regime soon after it came to power. Rodriguez doesn't mention this in his book, which seems odd--it would rather seem to explain his obsession with getting rid of Castro...yet he doesn't mention it.
Does anyone have a source or sources for this allegation? Thank you.
I wanted to tell you my Mother is a close friend and former colleague of Felix and his Father lived to a ripe old age and only recently died. He had no brothers, Felix was an only child. Obviously the claims of their executions are false.
If you have any questions I can be reached at batrickpeale@yahoo.com
If you can please weigh in on whether or not WP:SS is being violated in this article by certain users insisting on "two articles in one"--that is having an article called U.S. intervention in Chile and having the exact same 10 paragraphs or so on Chilean coup of 1973. CJK 21:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi TDC. You may wish to browse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America. Your input, if you feel inclined to share it, would be appreciated. Give Peace A Chance 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you get the email I sent you a while back? Just checking to make sure. CJK 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
TDC, if you're available, could you look at Iran-Iraq War and see about reverting? I've reverted three times today. Of course, User:64.231.199.31 has reverted five times, but... whatever. TomTheHand 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Especially if you have a twisted, warped mind like Noah Chomperski...yes, the U.S. is such an evil empire. Next up...we're going to strap bombs on camels as a sort of quid pro quo... [7]-- MONGO 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
TDC, just when I thought you could not be more partisan and a bigger POV warrior, you delete evidence of a sockpuppet account
[8].
Does your partisanship and POV warrior mentality know no bounds? The irony is, that not only do you cry NPOV any chance you get, when you are probably one of the biggest POV warriors on wikipedia, but that you probably think you are not a POV warrior, and that you are being "fair and balanced". My goodness TDC.
Travb (
talk)
00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Mardavich 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You have now been blocked for vast violation of your revert parole on Iran-Iraq War. -- InShaneee 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with this today. Olin 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey TDC
I've posted some possible improvements to the 3RR. If you have the time, it would be great if you could take a look and comment. I'm not sure their you're cup of tea but I'm tired of seeing people (inc myself) be accused of "gaming 3RR"
Justforasecond 00:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you think the AfD exhibits BDS symptoms, try checking out the talk page of the article in question. The logical contortions required to conclude that the source Krauthammer article constitutes WP:OR are quite amusing. Crockspot 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I left this message on both User talk:TDC and User talk:Commodore Sloat.
If the two of you are interested in having it out internet smackdown style, I invite you both to sign up at Conservative Underground and start a thread in the Thunderdome forum. CU doesn't have anything near the strict civility rules of WP, and in the Thuderdome, even those rules are suspended for the most part. If you both declare it "mano a mano", the moderators will keep everyone else out of it, and you guys can settle your dispute (or at least make your feelings known) in a cage match atmosphere. Who knows, one or both of you might decide to stick around. Liberals aren't banned out of hand, and there are even a few lib mods. We do expect them to back up their talking points with facts though. Stop by the Welcome Wagon forum to introduce yourselves after the blood sweat and tears are cleaned up. Crockspot 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It was due to the fact that a non-static IP was making "boderline" disruptive edits without really communicating with several editors in good standing. If more of this pursues, I will bump it up to full protection. But of course, you can feel free to disagree with me, considering I can be wrong a good deal of the time. Yank sox 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
How many times must I ask you this? If you have specific questions about something I did, first, make sure I actually did it, and second, post your questions to the relevant talk page in a polite manner. Don't use the edit summaries to personally attack me. Grow up.-- csloat 06:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, I too am comfortable with my comments and my intentions. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we have out Chronology Right, Sloat left me a rather rude message on my talk page, I just kindly asked him to tone it down and focus on what he is doing instead of continuing with his petty grudge against me. Why you had to jump in this is beyond me, but if you can talk some sense into him all the better. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Sloat frequently abuses editors, including me, in edit summaries. Perhaps he should practice a bit of what he preaches before spazzing out on my talk page, as he has done before ( my personal favorite). Once again though, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the locus of this dispute before becoming entangled in it; if for nothing else than your own sanity. Unless you have anything relevant to add, I consider this closed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ryan sometimes acts like a troll to get editors to be uncivil in a way that will get them blocked for incivility. You may have encountered it as it she injected itherself into your discussion with csloat. Citing
WP:DICK, as it clearly states is a "dick move in itself" and is a form of trolling. Just FYI when you engage in these discussion. --
Tbeatty
04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, can we invite CJK and MONGO into this conservation too? Maybe Morton and 172? We all seem to share the same company don't we?
Must be nice to be so well organized, I always feel like I am herding cats with liberal wikipedians, but the conserative wikipedians walk lock step with each other.
Ryan basically told me to take a hike, he, he.
Whats the latest TDC, haven't heard from you for ages.
...Wikipedia is like a daytime televions soap opera, except I can be one of the charaters! I like to see myself as the misunderstood marginalized charater in this soap opera, like Piggy on Lord of the Flies. Everyone wanted to kill Piggy in the end. Hell, you conservative fellows can even start calling me Piggy if you want. Travb ( talk) 13:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
An article you have previously edited is up for review. See Lori Klausutis. Morton devonshire 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I had a question about your removal of material over at talk:Michele Bachmann. I have not restored the material and would like to talk about your reasoning. Thanks, - Ravedave ( help name my baby) 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a warning to try to maintain civility. Comments that belittle others are not helpful to constructive dialogue, and do not further your argument. I hope you will endeavor to maintain a degree of respect for your fellow editors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Derex#Friends to keep in touch with. -- Aaron 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I see that you have added for the second time the racist attack incident to the Turn Left page. Please discuss the issue on its Talk page if you feel the need to add it again so as to avoid any edit wars. Thank you. Xiner 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.
You're a Colbert fan! Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Section edited out by Crockspot per WP:BLP. I think its original purpose has been served anyway. Crockspot 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Forgive my poor translation of German, but the German wiki article [12] on Daniele Ganser is approximately as follows:
Daniele gander (* 1972) is a Swiss historian and peace researcher.
Studied story, philosophy and English at the University of Basel, the University of Amsterdam and the London School of Economics and Political Science.
First book "Reckless Gamble:The Sabotage of the United Nations in the Cuban Conflict and the Missile Crisis of 1962" Treated the elimination of the UN through the CIAS during the Cuba-crisis. In the year 2005, it became through its investigation and publication over NATO secret organization "Gladio" and its produced terrorism in the cold war well known (see also strategy of the tension).
Gander publishes among other things over the conspiracy theories to the 11 September 2001. To the collection "911 and american Empire: Academics Speak Out" gander contributed a capital.
That's all the article states, plus a few references.-- MONGO 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
TDC...shoot me an email...I am using a different one than before so click the link "E-mail this user" after you visit my page. Thanks.-- MONGO 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
How do I go about getting my editing bad lifted regarding the Winter Soldier Article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Not all of them are, but two of the low contribution editors follow the profile, including an obsession with publicizing my phone number. Stirling Newberry 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
A check user probably won't do much good until such time as the current infestation engages in a clear repetition of previous edit patterns. Stirling Newberry 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thought you would be interested in this
[13].
Morton Devonshire
Yo
18:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hotmail and Yahoo offer free e-mail accounts. Please consider enabling e-mail. I recommend that you get a Wiki-only account to preserve your off-Wiki privacy. Cheers Mate!
Morton Devonshire
Yo
21:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)