Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:46, 7 July 2005

Re: The Blind Shiekh

Its a rather sad day when someone cannot describe someone as a terrorist (when he was convicted of such an act) because it is considered non-neutral. That is political correctness gone crazy.

I won't change the article back, or become embroiled in petty squabbling over it, except to say that I am disappointed in you for having been brainwashed by the political correctness police. I would be willing to tolerate a discussion on Osama bin Laden as being considered a "freedom fighter" by Islamicists, but not being able to label the Blind Shiekh a terrorist?!?!?!

The Shiekh is and will remain a terrorist in my mind, and in the minds of the majority of people....

Placeholders

Hi! Just so you know, extremely short articles that are little more than placeholders for external links are candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 01:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Looks better. Thanks for fixing it! Might have to look at that site closer just for the heck of it. Just when you thought every variation of a Wiki site had come along...there's Anarchopedia!! Have a terrific weekend. - Lucky 6.9 01:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anarchopedia

See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Anarchopedia. As an article that was VfD'd, it can be speedy-deleted if recreated. -- Curps 17:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Xed

Are you the same person as the banned user Xed? Rad Racer 02:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

Hi Ruy, I saw you made this edit to the intro: "Privately, he has attended weddings with family members and kept in contact with his mother." Could you supply a reference for this please? I've looked around for one, but can't find anything. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 06:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I wouldn't delete anything from Misplaced Pages that was accurate or properly referenced. The references you gave don't support the edit you made, that's the problem. "He has attended weddings with family members." So far as is known, he has not attended any since September 11. The one wedding your link referred to (though it did not make this clear) was in January 2001. And he has "kept in contact with his mother." Again, so far as is known, there was a telephone call from someone to the mother just after 9/11 saying that bin Laden was alive, according to one of his brothers ; and then according to (as I recall) Vincent Cannistraro, the mother was sent once to meet him by the Saudi govt as an emissary after 9/11 to ask what bin Laden's intentions were toward the Saudis. The sentence does need to be rewritten to reflect what the references say. Do you agree with that? SlimVirgin 05:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care. Misplaced Pages is controlled by people of a particular political slant, including Jimbo Wales, and I gave up months ago on the idea that it's articles will contain anything contrary to what its commissars will allow, I've moved on to other wiki's for the most part. The article says he was disowned by his family in 1994 - yet he attended a wedding with family members in 2001. You have just said he met his mother after 9/11. The references to this which you said you couldn't find I found within a couple of seconds. Both of these stories which are buried in the news's back pages contradict the story that his family disowned him after 1994, which is still constantly repeated on the news, on American television anyhow. But as I said, I am through with worrying about Misplaced Pages articles. You obviously want to wipe this out, and I don't care. I am not going to waste hours digging up references to (attempt to) prevent you from removing this. It's obvious Misplaced Pages has an editorial slant, and these facts contradict the lie that Osama was disowned after 9/11. So remove them if that's your desire. I'm not spending any more time than the few minutes I already have on this. This discussion is over - do what you want. Ruy Lopez 17:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I won't bother you with it again, but just want to point out that the references I said I couldn't find, were references that supported your edit. And I still haven't found them. SlimVirgin 17:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Weathermen

If it was just a rumour, I agree with the removal rather than qualifying it as "speculation" or similar wording. Thanks.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 18:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your recent reversions without discussion on the talk page are in violation of your Arbitration. Please use the talk page for its intended purpose and stop abusing the edit summary.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property

Hi, can you cite sources for your addition to The Vagina Monologues that the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property "has connections with Latin American death squads". It seems logical to me that if they did have connections to death squads (latin or otherwise) its the kind of thing they might keep quite secret. Cheerio, An An 05:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republican text

Please refrain from making test edits in Misplaced Pages pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Meelar (talk) 01:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you do anything like that again I will report you for vandalism and ask that you be blocked. Adam 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hola

Thanks for your help with Pablo Neruda. I suspect the battle isn't over yet. -- Viajero 21:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing facts from Misplaced Pages

Please do not remove facts from Misplaced Pages to suit your POV. The world, strangely, isn't that black-and-white and neither your edits will make it so. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seeing more of your recent activity I asked for block on you. Most of your contributions are highly biased POV, always get reverted yet you do not seem to be bothered by this at all. This behaviour doesn't bring anything useful to Misplaced Pages, only chaos and more work for people on RC check. If you really feel the urge to create your own verion of the world, please fork the Misplaced Pages or join some other online encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree you are deliberately POVing articles to suit your own personal opinion.--198 06:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi again :) Just figured I'd you that I reverted here --198 02:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Stalinists

Could you take a look at the list as it has developed since vfd and reconsider your vote? Gazpacho 01:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the comments! I've been beginning to notice a lot of the patters that you bring up. There are quite a few contributors willing to work toward neutrality, though. BTW, please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Trey Stone. WebLuis 01:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Vyacheslav Molotov

I don't compromise with Communists--198 02:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I came up with a compromise so-to speak with Humus (), mind you I don't want to compromise with you, I'm only willing to deal with Humus and I hope you are willing to accept his version. Mind you Ruy I founght in 'Nam against Commies like you (and there's some stuff I did I ain't proud of that I did in Hue (city)); nonetheless I'd be glad to fight commies again (especially in Nepal or Russia).--198 03:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge

I also don't compromise with Communists, particularly ones who front for the mass murderers of the Khmer Rouge. You may fool Rangek, who appears not to know much about Cambodia, but you don't fool me. Adam 00:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The Royal Governement and Khmer Rouge were allies; Sihanouk was as much of a commie as you are. Look at my current revision on Khmer Rouge , frankly the only truly democratic non-communist leader was Lon Nol--198 23:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, Sihanouk was not a commie. See the KR talk page. Adam 00:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing? What the heck are FUNK, CPNLAF and GRUNK? This article is about Khmer Rouge, not these other terms. RickK 05:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

VFD page

Hi. We haven't interacted yet, but I've seen your work and you seem to be one of the more influential progressive contributors on this site... You might find this page on the VfD interesting. This is an article on a Democratic organization affliated with the socialist United for Peace and Justice umbrella. While I doubt that you are too impressed by the Democratic Party in the U.S., perhaps you may be interested in voting to keep this article, as it is the only organ of one of the two mainstream parties in this country officially taking on a progressive, socialist orientation. (The vote's real close now so I'm looking for support.) Thanks. JMaxwell 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam Medal Template Images

Please be careful about mass deleting images without discussing it first. Your huge alteration to Template:VietnamWarMedals affected Awards and decorations of the United States military. I changed the template name in repsonse to your concern about north and south medals. I have no opinion if you want to remove the template from Vietnam War. Just please don't change the template itself as this affects other articles. Also, if you are concerned about North Vietnam medals, please visit Military decorations of the Cold War. There is a section over there that needs writing. -Husnock 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the comments. From looking at some of the discussion threads, especially the Khmer Rouge page, I'm beginning to notice some of the things that you are noting. It's a shame that things are the way they are here, since you seem to have been doing so much good work. So I'll have to ake a look at Anarchopedia. JMaxwell 21:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

North Vietnamese victory

In your edit of Vietnam War, you wrote:

North Vietnamese victory? What about the NLF?

To which it might be noted that it was uniformed troops of the North Vietnamese regular armed forces who occupied Saigon and received the surrender of Big Minh, and it was the government of North Vietnam that subsequently suppressed the South Vietnamese insurgents following the capitulation of the South. Moreover, despite public protestations to the contrary, it was North Vietnam—not the NLF or any other "local" revolutionaries—that initiated and controlled the action of NLF partisans throughout the duration of the conflict.
However, because I can see how a good-faith argument exists to name the NLF and/or other South Vietnamese revolutionary groups as at least co-victors, I changed the wording of the appropriate sentence to mostly avoid the issue. —Ryanaxp 20:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the DRV initiated resistance in southern Vietnam is absurd. If anything, the DRV in the first years of its existence tried to get the southern communists and nationalists to lay low while it was busy shoring up its new government. The DRV was especially adamant to not engage in armed resistance. From 1954 until at earliest 1959, the southern communists and nationalists were always chomping at the bit to resist Diem, while the DRV was urging caution. By 1959-1960, the situation for communists and nationalists in the south had reached what was perceived to be a dire level, and the DRV had firmed itself up, and at this point the DRV stopped trying to rein in the southern communists and nationalists. The initiative was in the south, where it always was.

As far as the surrender of Minh, when I look at this picture of the tank smashing through the presidental palace gates in Saigon, I see an NLF flag, not a DRV one. I would agree that after over twenty years of being shot at by the ARVN, US Army, and Phoenix Program operatives, so many PLAF soldiers had been killed that the PAVN/PLAF ratio changed. Nevertheless, as that picture shows, the NLF was given the honor of taking the palace, and an NLF flag was flown from the palace. No one received Duong Van Minh's surrender, Minh was told he had no connection with the Republic of South Vietnam and he had no authority to surrender anything. Ruy Lopez 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of Poland

First, let me say that I believe it is possible to reach NPOV on Misplaced Pages in the areas of history. My past FAs, like Polish-Soviet War or Polish September Campaign do adress controversial issues, yet togheter with other editors, like 172, we were able to create excellent (if I may say so) articles. Now, regarding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Poland_(1945-1989): please be specific with your comments. I can and I will fix anything that is pointed out to me, but I can't work on 'general super-POV'. On a sidenote, remember that N stands for neutral, not apologetic of friendly to any side. I tried to give the regime - if this is what you are concenred about - a fair hearing. But the bottom line is that PRL was a nearly-totalitarian regime responsible for thousands of deaths, 50 years of political opression and economic ruination of its country. If you find POVed words or phrases, point them out or fix them yourself. If you find factuall errors, do the same. But please, don't comment on 'general super-POV' without facts to back it up. Tnx for your effort so far, take care. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your replies with specific objections. I have created 10 FAs, I am sure I can help adreess your objections, if you but be more specific. Calling an article 'generally POVed' is not helping much. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 29 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)

So far I and others have stumbled over this within the first three sentences. Now the first sentence is ridiculous. Why was Poland under "Soviet" communism? Does the Italy article say Italy was "shaped by the influence of American capitalism"? The History of Italy article is a good guidepost for this article. The entire article there is not how horrible the American troops occupying Italy are, how horrible the Italian government is and so forth. Why doesn't the Italian article talk about deaths, political oppression and economic stagnation in Italy? Of course your article is about Poland, not Italy, but it must be viewed in comparison to other articles about similar subjects. If this article had a few minor problems I would fix them, but with even the first sentence being objectionable, the exercise seems pointless. This is not a factual encyclopedia article about Poland, it is a diatribe against the PRL. Ruy Lopez 29 June 2005 19:09 (UTC)

Trey Stone arbitration

I am sorry this is taking so long. I did propose an injunction. As far as I can see you are not involved in the matter. Fred Bauder June 29, 2005 01:36 (UTC)

CJK

Hi, thanks for the heads up regarding its just differentiating and integrating - and then comes the fun with labels.. His edits as 24.210.183.105 suggest he is not conclusively a sockpuppet but he nonetheless merits watching. User:David Gerard has developer status and can run queries on the database if you suspect sockpuppetry. I think it is easiest if you have a page both users have edited. -- Viajero | Talk 29 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)

See also this page: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Developer help needed. If you suspect someone currently undergoing arbitration may be using a sockpuppet, you could ask David or another member of the ArbCom to post a request on that page. HTH -- Viajero | Talk 29 June 2005 15:20 (UTC)

OK Great, thanks Ruy Lopez 29 June 2005 15:23 (UTC)

new alterna-wiki

Sorry for my late reply. I finally got around to exploring the new alterna-wiki, which are quite interesting. Still, I think that it might be more worthwhile to work within this site than on forks simply because of the sheer number of hits that the English Misplaced Pages generates. (For just about any subject, Wikipeida will appear among the first 20 entries for a Google search. The influence of Misplaced Pages finally became evident to me personally when I had first discovered that students at the university open use computer lab were using Misplaced Pages to write study guides earlier this year. I find this a bit distressing, but if Misplaced Pages is going to have such influence, I might as well do what I can, if I can do anything, to change it.) For the alterna-wikis the readership will be much smaller, though if one of them becomes popular among a target audience, I can see it having the potential for some real influence. 172 1 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

3R rule

Au contraire, comrade, my third edit was not a revert, as the edit history will show. Adam 4 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

Insulting other users

You probably ought avoid making broad accusations about other member's conduct. On a more general level, you should probably note the success with which POV-pushing LaRouche activists have met at the arbcom in the past, and take that into account before engaging in an unhelpful pattern of advocacy. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 05:12 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a threat, and a threat against simply expressing an opinion. Will the outrages never cease? Everyking 6 July 2005 05:50 (UTC)

No. It's a warning about the practical consequences of loading articles with the same POV garbage that has already required two arbcom cases. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 06:19 (UTC)

Adam Carr traipses around Misplaced Pages, accusing everyone he disagrees with of being a fanatic. In my case, in just one comment he says I'm "a vandal...crazed...determined to impose lies and distortions" for mentioning Sihanouk's political role in the 1970s. Cognition he accuses of being a "cult"ist, who is part of a "conspiracy" (!), and has been "programmed" into his opinions. I point out Adam Carr's penchant for ad hominem attacks and mud-slinging and I am accused of "making broad accusations about other member's conduct". My worst accusations are quotes I've taken directly from Adam Carr. Adam Carr doesn't even make rational arguments, he just does a series of ad hominem attacks on people, so saying I should avoid accusing him of certain conduct is a laugh. His conduct can be seen from his edit history. As far as the LaRouche article, the Associated Press calls LaRouche an economist, so I don't see why calling him an economist is "POV". Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)

you wouldn't be called a fanatic if you didn't reflexively defend regimes such as the Khmer Rouge. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)

Defend the Khmer Rouge as reflexively as the United States government did after 1979? I'd tend to think a fanatic is someone who couldn't control themselves about their opinions...who would break the 3RR repeatedly, create multiple sock puppets, be abusive to other users, push POV, and then get to the point where ArbCom is dealing with them, and even while under arbitration they get blocked eight times for being too fanatical to control themselves...does this sound familiar? Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 07:07 (UTC)

we have been through this. apparently since the KR were discredited as fanatical murderers, you have to use them as a tool to criticize "U.S. imperialism" with another invented charge. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

We both know the Khmer Rouge were a bunch of genocidal ultra-leftist deviationist thugs, but it is no use trying to explain the actual history of how this took place to these editors, since npov is not a concern when they are assured success through ignorance in an establishment which shares their politics and inexorably is in favour of certain articles being degenrated and reduced to tabloid propaganda on that account. Had you exhibited even one hundredth of Trey Stone's misconduct, for example, you would have been banned ages ago. It is, after all, their encyclopedia. Don't waste your words. El_C 6 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)

this is laughable. "their" encyclopedia? there are plenty of articles around here with a noticeable (sometimes blatant) leftist bent (the blatant cases that have been thankfully fixed by users like Adam Carr, much to Ruy Lopez's objections.) my only "misconduct" as of late is attempting to reach a consensus on specific political pages, which has met with stonewalling from certain other users who apparently believe their version is the incontrovertible Truth. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)

"We both know the Khmer Rouge were a bunch of genocidal ultra-leftist deviationist thugs." Does Ruy Lopez concur with this statement? I have certainly never seen him do so. Adam 6 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)

I trust that he does. If he dosen't, then he is a revisionist, and revisionists are not my comrades. El_C 6 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

If he thinks that the KR were "genocidal," why has he consistently removed any reference to the mass murders committed by the KR regime? Adam 6 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

As in the genocide having taken place? I was not aware he did this. Naturally, I'll need to see the pertinent diffs. El_C 6 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

I suggest you go and read the edit history. (Incidentally I don't categorise what the KR did as "genocide" - they weren't trying to exterminate the Khmer nation. I class it as an extreme form of class warfare amounting to mass murder, on the model of, but going proportionately further than, similar class-based mass murders carried out by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Ho.) Adam 6 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)

Adam Carr is a master at slander, lies and obfuscation. If you go and read the edit history as Carr suggests, you will find that since May, Carr has been trying to call the army, the government and the political coalition the so-called Khmer Rouge was in the "Khmer Rouge". It does not make much sense - were the Red Army and USSR government both called the CP of the Soviet Union? Of course not, but that's what Carr wants. Furthermore, Sihanouk was head of state in 1975, and DK was not established until 1976, another fact Carr does not want mentioned. Or that the US Air Force dropped over half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia in the early 1970s. And so on. Every edit I have made from May until July 3rd has been to try to mention the existence of GRUNK, FUNK and the army. On July 3rd, with this edit war unresolved, CJK tried to add a bunch of new material, which included revising downward how many people the US bombing killed, attacking Sihanouk, the liberal" US Congress which allegedly wouldn't let the generals win the war, and so forth. With me not being able to get sourced information in the article for months versus CJR's massive changes without sources, and with the original issue still unresolved I didn't see why CJK should be able to put all of this new material making the US bombing look like nothing etc. So I began reverting that along with my changes. Every edit I've made since May, except for one, has been either inserting information on FUNK and GRUNK, or removing CJK's new material. So do go through the edit history as Carr suggests.

The point is Carr does not want to discuss the facts of what happened. It's what I said on the Lyndon LaRouche page (which I never edited before, and only went to because I saw Carr attacking someone there) - Carr doesn't want to discuss facts, he just attacks people. Carr says I "consistently removed any reference to the mass murders committed by the KR regime". The fact is Carr has been the one removing reference to mass murder - revising the deaths from US bombing from 600,000 down to 50,000. I have made dozens of edits since May, and all save one have either been to mention GRUNK and FUNK, or removing CJK's removal of reference to US mass murder in Cambodia. Here are three recent edits of Carr's where he tries to do what he accuses me of doing, removing references to mass murder. If you go back to May, you will not find more than one edit from me where I can be accused of doing the same. Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)

Yes, that is utterly laughable class analysis on his part, and I'm not surprised by the curde, ahistorical juxtapositions, either. I expected such tabloid propagandizing. No surprises, this is about class and class allegiances. It's always safe to appeal to big money (globally; and to the labour aristocracy domestically), what else is new under the sun, since time immemorial, etc. *** Still, don't bother with the LaRouches, they are not worth defending. Save your energy for more worthwhile articles — ones which I, myself, will never edit, because the lies would consume me and bring about my demise. Not that I can tell you it's worth it, there are many more of him —not to mention that the establishment is his establishment— because this encyclopaedia is a First World encyclopaedia, so it's colluded with First World lies, egotism, greed, arrogance, eurocentrism, and pretty much every imaginable form of social-chauvinism. Fraternally yours, El_C 6 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

well i certainly hope you are not consumed by the neo-bourgeois deviationist anti-doctrinalist cultural fascist tendencies of the pre-Modernist ultra-Left that continues to worship the conventions of Mao Tse-tung and Jiang Jieshi without regard to the consequences of class warfare and the international theory of bureaucratic collectivism, comrade. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)

Oh, and genocidal dosen't need to involve an attempt to exterminate a peoples or a nation entirely. As the article states, it is defined as the deliberate killing of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or (sometimes) politics, as well as other deliberate action(s) So, I am unsure as to what Adam's "categorization" for the Khmer Rouge as non-genocidal is founded on. I, for one, view them as having committed a genocide. El_C 6 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

anyone who doesn't think class extermination and communism played a significant role in the Khmer Rouge's rule needs to do a little research before lecturing other editors about their bourgeois reactionary deviationist anti-scripturalist post-Trotskyite tendencies. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

Read closely, and don't troll, Trey Stone. El_C 7 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)

i read closely, and came to the same conclusion. posting contradictory comments on a Talk page is not trolling. sorry i just find the fact that communists seem to have developed their own language amusing. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

You are trolling. I am wholly unintersted with your amusement, contradictory comments, or your fake apologies. El_C 7 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)

LaRouche ideology

LaRouche ideology is cult of personality, conspiracy-theory right deviationism (make sure to examine their 'theory' and 'claims' carefuly):

Not only am I committed to that cause. My contribution is presently indispensable, if there is to be hope of survival of the nations of Central and South America, in particular. Specifically, at this moment, under those conditions, the prospect for the survival of those nations, depends upon the effectiveness of my continuing that uniquely personal role, as an intellectual and political leader... ("My Unique Role in the Americas," by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.) In solidarity, El_C 6 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Comrade Ruy, and especially the amusing observation on weak-minded Trotskyiate mysticism, an observation I strongly share.I responded at greater length on my talk page, here. I also reverted you on LL, I hope my explanation satisfies you. Fraternally yours, El_C 6 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

Poland 1945-1989

I have been NPOVing the article hoping to resolving some of your objections to FAC. Much of your concerns, of course, will likely go unsatisfied, given the political climate on Wiki, but I think that the article can become balanced enough to satisfy all parties. Also, thanks for the additional info on the alternative Wikis. 172 6 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)