User talk:172/Talk block 15

Martin Sheen

There seems to be a block on image:sheen.jpg . Can you please unblock this. I don't see a problem with the image, because it is cited under fairuse and the page is given.

Bretton Woods

Very (fine) explanation. Stirling Newberry 19:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) I type good some days.

Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for all the time you've put into the material on this site. I've just recently discovered wikipedia, and am now realizing how great of a resource it is, thanks to all of the hard work by you and others like you. I look forward to contributing as much as I can in the future. Seenyer 20:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:195.70.48.242

I have unblocked this user who as a survivor of Soviet totalitarianism is entitled to a rant or two, just as survivors of the Holocaust are. I don't intent to support him in vandalism or in trashing articles. While it is unlikely he will become a productive editor, he should get his chance. I note from his contributions that most have been in neutral areas. Fred Bauder 13:33, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

No one is entitled to intentionally cause disruption and personally attack users... A survivor of Soviet totalitarianism? We know that this user comes from Hungary, not the Stalinist USSR, a regime hardly more repressive than a number of (say) U.S. allies in South America. One is trivializing the Holocaust to compare it to simply living in, e.g., Hungary or Argentina in the 1970s or early 1980s, which I find quite personally offensive. 172 19:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How can you compare living in Hungary to living in Argentina? Hungary was like a big concentration camp, from which attempting to escape was intended to be fatal, emigration was not prohibited in Argentina. Without the option to emigrate or change jobs without government approval, one is essentially a slave owned by the ruling oligarchy.--Silverback 09:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really should take you off of my watchlist, 172, it is pretty upsetting to watch – I don't know how you do it. As for Mr. Bauder's comment, it is in very bad taste, I also find it personally offensive to seemingly exploit the Holocaust in this manner, for these ends (read: innuendo which is unecessary anyway) –especially– considering today's 60th anniversary for the liberation of Auschwitz (!) As an aside, I have known quite a few holocaust survivors, some very personally, and I could not concieve of any of them dirupting Wikipedia. I wish for Mr. Bauder to leave the Holocaust out of his 'red baiting.' El_C 20:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172, please take a look at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy. It does not provide for blocking users for "personal attacks" or "trolling", the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks would provide for one day blocks, but only after warning the user. See also Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old) which failed to pass. Fred Bauder 23:58, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

No, you take a look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy for disruption. The block was unambiguously warranted and will stay. You just have an axe to grind against the admin enforcing this policy, i.e. me. 172 00:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:172.27s_block_of_195.70.48.242 Fred Bauder 01:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

what is Wikipedia turning into?

Hi, this evening I revisited the article Shining Path for the first time in a half-year. Leaving aside the state of that piece -- it seems to have gotten worse rather than better in the intervening months -- I notice a new category, Leftist terrorist organizations, which itself falls under Terrorist organizations. I also see that Terrorists is still around. Do I really want to be a part of this??? -- Viajero 19:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediation was recommended for us as part of your arbitration case. However, the mediation committee is rather short handed at this point. I would be happy to apply for mediation, but there may be a long delay. Fred Bauder 01:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

No. After dealing with your attacks for nearly two years, I see right through this. I will only consider making a direct request for arbitration. Fortunately, other users are beginning to see through your smear campaign: I am really quite taken aback by Fred Bauder's comment – I recall you have told him a few months ago about your family's horrific tragedies and murder during the Holocaust, and of all days he picks today to continue with such repugnent statements (ones, which as I noted, are not even key to the issue at hand and are stated rather as innuendo, innuendo which he well knows will upset you). He should know better –and he does– so considering all this, I view his comment with an especial severity and contempt. 172 03:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikicite project page

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite To add a card catalog and citation features. Stirling Newberry 23:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stalin / Fred Bauder / blocking

As far as I can see, Fred openly admitted that he is involved in the Stalinism dispute, in the camp of the 'ranter' you've blocked. But his observations were still judicious, and mainly focussed on blocking policy. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not keen on seeing ranting anons on my side of disputes, because all they do is make my position look stupid. You were mainly criticized for blocking without warning. Had you given the anon a warning or two before blocking him in case the ranting had continued, I don't think people would have fought over the block so much. I would strongly recommend blocking nobody, even the most obnoxious trolls, without fair warning, with the only exception of clear vandalism to article namespace.

On the content side, I don't know if you are actually defending Stalinism. Of course it will not do to say "Stalin was a criminal" in the article. But Stalin's responsibility for all sorts of atrocities must of course be mentioned, in an uninvolved tone, I hope you accept that, and it is only a question on agreeing on an unemotional way of putting it. regards, dab (ᛏ) 17:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the content side, I don't know if you are actually defending Stalinism. That's a disgusting comment. I will not respond to you any further. 172 19:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism

Could you review the talk page? I am RFCing both Boyer and 24. because there is simply no way to work on this article with both of them treating it as a personal web page, and their constant attacks and rants. In addition, Boyer is making edits to other articles based on his intent to promote his own work, including attacks on known scholars etc.My own POV is that both should be banned permanently, as their contributions, such as they are, are far outweighed by the problems the create. Stirling Newberry 19:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz unblocks

172 - you are using the wrong justification to unblock Gzornenplatz. Refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2#Permanent_ban. There was one vote for and 5 abstains. Those abstentions were based on the fact that blocking for vandalism is covered by normal blocking guidelines. The issue about whether or not this means admins could interpret the severity of the vandalism to mean an automatic permanent ban, is an open issue. I imagine that we will have to rule on that very soon (as well as the Gz/Wik connection). --mav 19:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK - things are getting a bit clearer now. See these emails by Jimbo. [1] and [2] . --mav 19:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz ArbCom case opened; Temporary injunction on blocking

"Admins are instructed not to block Gzornenplatz as a Wik reincarnation for the duration of the arbcom proceeding."

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz#Temporary_injunction. Please add evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz/Evidence. --mav 21:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ceausescu2005.jpg

I'm not sure if we can claim fair use for a credited Reuters photo. What grounds are you citing? -- Curps 05:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Look I changed the title to suit people's request. Other people including Jmbel has congratulated me on the change. Please stop screwing with the page. Your mad as it is. I made this change because people requested it. Please change it back.WHEELER 19:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your original research will never be viable in its current form to be included in any article namespace-- culture defines politics, cultural imprint on politics, whatever. I will not move it back for now, given that the Vfd box on top of the page should link to the Vfd discussion. It does not do so when you move the article from culture defines politics. 172 19:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's dubious. You can use subst and edit the notice to fix the link. I think there is no question that the change of title is an improvement, and WHEELER is allowed to try to meet objections while the article is on VfD. A move like this happens on about 1 out of every 50 or so on Vfd, in my experience. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not going to stop anyone from moving it back, but you can give a pig a bath and dress it up, and it'll still come out as a pig. 172 21:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Website

Very interesting. Thank you. First link was given by the anon IP address the same day H registered. SlimVirgin 02:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

New controversy

If you have a minute, please take a look at the article Anti-Polonism. Based on your recent involvement on the Polish-Soviet War article, I thought you might find it interesting, as it involves some of the same people and similar problems with unreasonable POV. Balcer 10:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Well, more or less. Anyway, you should be aware of it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note

I am 99% sure this was done by an anon vandal (who also did similar thing on other user pages using other sigs). Just in case, I'd think you should be aware of this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another IP has the same MO, and also impersonated you. Judging from the content of their other edits (articles about porn and marijuana), I'm assuming that the IPs belong to the same person[3]. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:22, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts

"You know, if you got an account people could post stuff on your own talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so editors working in the same subject areas are supposed to communicate with each other." -- 172

Who's to say I don't have an account (or two...)? Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and to facilitate this every subject article has a discussion page. Communication between editors, registered or unregistered, has never been a problem even without personal talk pages. In fact, collaboration on subjects SHOULD be relegated to the associated discussion pages, and not hidden away on personal talk pages, so other editors can more easily participate. In almost 2 years of participation here, my log-in status has never hindered communication. It has, however, hindered the efforts of those prone to wiki-stalking; personal attacks; user page vandalism; etc., which I don't consider such a bad thing. -Rob

Arbitration, perhaps

As we have had our differences in the past - and fixed them - I'd appreciate it if you could look at Talk:Blitzkrieg#Inaccurate_changes and this revert. Perhaps I am wrong here - I am not a person to start a rv war. So I'd appreciate other people opinon on who is right - I believe User:119 is removing large portions of materials (not to mentions hours of my edits) without any justificiation. Then, again, I may be wrong. It is hard to tell as long as it is only me and 119 arguing about this matter. I am not going to rv 119 until I hear from other people - of course, if you feel to revert him yourself, by all means, do so. Or tell me I am wrong. Either way, I'll be satisfied. Tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz

Looks like User:Gzornenplatz is getting banned for good Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz/Proposed decision. He needs to do something right now before arbcom close the case. Can you ask him to e-mail Jimbo and talk to him about lifting the ban? OneGuy 08:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what that could accomplish. As it is, Jimbo wants me banned, and I'm not going to do any kowtow before him. Gzornenplatz 10:26, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

If Jimbo wanted you banned, he would have done it long time ago. This was started by some people on the admin board. You don't have to do kowtow. Just e-mail him and ask him why this is happening now when you are not involved any vandalism OneGuy 10:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, he was indifferent. But apparently the Arbcom has pressured him on IRC to take a stand, and he came down for a ban. I don't see how I can change his mind. Gzornenplatz 10:48, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

At least talk to him in email. Arbcom has this section already in the ruling: All banned editors are theoretically redeemable. The canonical example is Michael, who was hard-banned as a persistent vandal but has since reformed and become a good editor. Ask him why is this not used to redeem the previous ban. OneGuy 12:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ACCIDENTAL vandalism

I destroyed by mistake the English version of page ATC code A02 (overwrite to translate into french; I tought I was in the French section.
Please restore the previous English version
I am very sorry

Eras-mus 23:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Stirling Newberry & 3RR

Hi. Next time you unblock someone from a 3RR block (or anything else), could you please drop a line on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? At least I would like to know if an user blocked by me gets unblocked by someone else. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 04:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

I'm not trying to mess with your article, but I do feel that articles should try to comply with WP:MOS, even the bits I personally disagree with. If you could spare the trouble to support a change along the lines we discussed on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style itself, it would be much appreciated. Kind regards, jguk 22:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Investigation, Vietnam Veterans Against the War

I don't know if you want to involve yourself in this, but the articles have been unprotected again. They aren't reverting like mad, but they are bickering over them on the discussion page. I'm at the point where I don't want to get involved otherwise loose my sanity. If you have any advice to give regarding what to do about either user, or the conflict that they are having, please let me know. Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that's too much detail for the intro, but I'm always a little reluctant to revert added content. I'll comment on the article talk supporting its removal. Everyking 16:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Hi again, 172; I got myself invited in as a third party to an edit war over Nagorno-Karabakh, a topic I find interesting, but have little prior knowledge of. I'm still rather new around here and this is my first time in a mediation role. Interested in taking a peek? — Davenbelle 11:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Zero

172, Zero is attempting to have me banned, and he has now stooped to full blown dishonesty. I am disturbed by Zero's attempt to confuse peopel by lying about recent contributions to an article, and by personal attacks on me by "messianic Jews". Zero writes:

He is inserting a claim (alleged to be a report that someone says that) Chabad Lubavitch is "developing into a new form of Christianity". RK knows this to be factually false (Chabad do not believe in Jesus Christ, the most that could be conceivably be claimed is that they are adopting some features common to Christianity). RK also knows that Lubavitchers would regard this false claim as exceedingly offensive. But it's his POV and POV pushing is what he does

This can be proven to be a deliberate lie. Please do not take my word on this. Contact JFWolff immediately. Zero's behaviour constitutes harassment. It is a fact that many historians and scholars of Judaism have been writing about how various Jewish factions have developed into forms of neo-Christianity, including the Donmeh, and now a faction of Chabad (Lubavitch) Judaism. This is very well-known in the field. Zero's disingenuously claims that the existence of this body of scholarly research is only "alleged", which is a provable lie. Entire books have been written on the issue, and scholarly journals have articles on it. Also, Zero attacks bizarre claims that no one is making. For instance, neither I nor anyone else claims that Chabad Jews worship Jesus Christ. That is just silly. Essentially, he is angry at me that I am here at all, and is counting on the entire ArbCom being totally ignorant of the facts. This is not merely acting in bad faith; this is a deliberate attempt to pervert the entire process. Again, do not take my word on this. Please contact JFWolff immediately. RK 18:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Historian needed

172, are you an academic historian? If you are, we need help at Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Philip Beard Shearer is inserting what I consider to be his personal opinion (original research), which he insists is as obvious as stating "the Thames flows through London," and therefore doesn't count as original research. I regard this article as an academic topic and feel that scholarly standards should prevail, but he won't take it from me. I'm hoping that an academic historian might be able to explain it better than I can. There are a number of disputed sections, but the one we're currently in a revert war over is this: "Günter Grass, the German novelist and Nobel laureate for literature, called the bombing "a crime". Simon Jenkins, the former editor of The Times, has called it a war crime." Fine, I have no objection to that, though why we're quoting those two, I don't know, but no matter. It's the subsequent sentence I object to:

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

It seems to me that this is Philip's personal commentary. I've asked for a reference. He won't supply one because he says it's as true as "the Thames flows through London." But of course it isn't; it's an argument. He can't or won't see the difference. Can you help? If not, can you recommend any other historian at Wikipedia who might be prepared to? SlimVirgin 22:39, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Best, SlimVirgin 04:41, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Manual of Style

172, if you have the time, you may wish to go over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and look at my comments about dealing with the ever-contentious US vs non-US English issue. They may help solve the comma edit wars over at History of Russia. If you felt able to lend your support, that would be great. Kind regards, jguk 16:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Replicating References

Hi, I am using your resources page as the intial reference link on my page. I plan to add to it later so it will not be identical. I don't have a lot of time to use wikipedia and found your reference link setup quite impressive. I credit you as the creator on my user page. I hope this is ok with you, if it is not please let me know and I will take it down as soon as possible.

Generally, I like to use the little time I do have for wikipedia to edit articles and I am only today taking some time out to deal with user related issues. I also looked at some of your edits and found them to be very well done. If you see anything I do and think it should be changed, needs work, or was done contrary to procedure please inform me on my Talk Page. Thank you. Konev 17:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PRC, ROC, mainland China, Taiwan, etc.

Hello 172. Thank you for joining the discussion over the titles of China-related topics articles. Would you mind help explain to the contributors who opposed renaming because they thought the new titles are confusing, that how these terms differ from each other, and how the choice of one of these terms as a title is important. Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 18:19, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Hello 172. The vote and discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Economy of Taiwan → Economy of the Republic of China is getting messy. Do you think there's anything that we could do? — Insta ntnood 12:40 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

hey

could you look at today's discussion at talk:capitalism concerning the introduction, and comment? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure that it needed to be blocked; I don't think anyone has violated any rule ... I was just hoping for your comments on the talk page, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will undo the protection. I haven't had any bad experiences with this user -- but I appreciate your concern. I am signing off myself, but I will unprotect it. Please do check on it later, contribute to the discussion, and if you still think the page needs protection, then you can protect it. I think RJII at least deserves a chance to respond to my last comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, could you look at that talk page and engage RJII directly. See this edit [4] -- My point is (1) not everyone will agree with this definition, and (2) given disagreements of definition, we shouldn't open with a definition but rather discuss different definitions in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see you are working on the capitalism page. May you have better luck than I did. Stirling Newberry 23:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct Russian/English names?

I am planning to nominate Stanislaw Koniecpolski for FA soon. I'd appreciate if you could look over the names and such, I am sure some of the red links are a result of my lack of knowledge of Russian/English names. Same would apply to my recent expansions of the Polish-Soviet War. Btw, congrats on your recent FACs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)