| Revision as of 07:44, 29 November 2004 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:56, 10 September 2010 edit undoWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits rd | ||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #redirect] | |||
| ==] to the ]== | |||
| Here are some links I thought useful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. | |||
| ]! | |||
| ] ] 16:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit Summaries== | |||
| Please try to make your edit summaries actively and fully explain what you are doing to an article. For instance, your most recent summary to ] said that you added some information, but it failed to note that you were also basically reverting Everyking/Adam Carr. | |||
| Also, you may want to look at the talk page for that article - I'm trying to bring both sides together to hash out specific issues and objections, and if you could raise some with concrete evidence instead of continual and blanket reversions, it would be really helpful. | |||
| Thanks. ] 20:51, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Regardless, your version is deleting masses of information. If that information is inaccurate, then you are right to remove it, but I have not seen a good and concrete accounting of where the problems with the information are. (The Herschel list does a good job of listing what parts you take issue with, but it's very weak on citations.) | |||
| :It is not acceptable to have "two competing versions of an article" perpetually reverting each other. You need to work towards compromise. I am asking, on ], for you to take the first step. (Whereas on the other article I'm currently trying to mediate dispute on, the political views article, I'm asking Adam et al to take the first step). Please pick five aspects of the longer version of the article that are, in your view, inaccurate, and explain why, with objective and checkable evidence to back you up. ] 21:08, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Eurasian Land Bridge== | |||
| Please cease your reversions at ] as they violate the ArbCom decision in the Lyndon LaRouche case re Original Research: See ] 09:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sockpuppet?== | |||
| Weed Harper, I found what appears to be some posts of yours on Usenet, and they were sent from IP address 64.30.208.48, which was recently blocked from Misplaced Pages for posting unverifiable LaRouche material. Have you been posting to Misplaced Pages using ] as a sockpuppet? The same IP address, which belongs to Link Line Communications, has been reported for sending pro-LaRouche spam around the Web. I'm posting below one of the Usenet posts I found. | |||
| I'd appreciate your comments. I don't mind debating with genuine editors, but it gets a bit much when the same editor is sending out multiple posts with different user names. ] 07:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| From: weed_harper@bigheavyworld.com (Weed Harper) | |||
| Newsgroups: alt.politics.gw-bush,alt.politics.kerry,alt.politics,talk.politics.misc | |||
| Subject: LAROUCHE: "A VOTE FOR BUSH-CHENEY IS A VOTE FOR PERPETUAL WAR AND ECONOMIC HELL" | |||
| Date: 23 Sep 2004 10:07:43 -0700 | |||
| Organization: http://groups.google.com | |||
| Lines: 65 | |||
| Message-ID: <4db933f4.0409230907.66011608@posting.google.com> | |||
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.30.208.48 | |||
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 | |||
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit | |||
| X-Trace: posting.google.com 1095959263 31300 127.0.0.1 (23 Sep 2004 17:07:43 GMT) | |||
| X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com | |||
| NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:07:43 +0000 (UTC) | |||
| Sept. 20, 2004 | |||
| Lyndon LaRouche issued the following statement Sept. 20, 2004, through | |||
| the LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC). LaRouche, who was a | |||
| candidate for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination in 2004, | |||
| has endorsed John Kerry and John Edwards, and is aggressively | |||
| campaigning for a landslide Democratic Party victory on Nov. 2. | |||
| "Over the course of the past 72 hours, I have conferred with some | |||
| leading Western European statesmen, and I can tell you that they are | |||
| self-deluded in the extreme. . . . | |||
| <snip> | |||
| http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/press_releases_files/2004/040920_war.htm | |||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
Latest revision as of 23:56, 10 September 2010
Redirect to: