Nobs01 again! I'm going to post a rewrite. 172 | Talk 10:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I doubt that the work's done. I'm expecting a fight with Nobs01, who has been contaminating many other articles with his defamatory personal conspiracy theories. This user needs to be watched very closely. 172 | Talk 13:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I might need some help on Communism with Ultramarine. Also, let me know about other articles ready for quick rewrites like Harry Magdoff. 172 | Talk 14:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I didn't know that! 172 | Talk 19:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian Unlimited, as it were (beforehand too anyway). El_C 19:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. Worse, Nobs01 has a sidekick now, TJive... John Kenney has already worked to keep their conspiracy theories out of the FDR article. We might want to get his help in dealing with this whole "category." SlimVirgin might also be very helpful. I'm not aware of an editor who deals with "original researchers" more effectively than Sarah. 172 | Talk 17:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need some relief from this user. If you have time, please take a look at the 3RR violation that has yet to be enforced. Thanks. 172 | Talk 15:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using any sockpuppet accounts and would really appreciate it if you and your fellow comrades stop insinuating that I am. J. Parker Stone 11:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I left the last message, I did not see the evidence of sockpuppet usage. Perhaps I spoke too soon. 172 | Talk 02:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i only use Trey Stone and 64.7.89.54 when I'm accidentally logged off. i happened to see said anon's edits because they were on my watchlist. J. Parker Stone 02:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what happened to the category "Peruvian Terrorists?" I noticed that it dissapeared, but don't know why. I added Belunde, Garcia, and Fujimori to the list, as I felt they fit the definition, and I noticed that it suddenly went away. Perhaps rather than get in a fight about it, everyone would rather just see the category deleted.

Also, do you know anything about Barry Seal? His article is only a stub, and you are the kind of guy who would know a lot about him. Descendall 01:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just saw that Peruvian Terrorists was removed, CfD. Missed the debate on that one. Descendall 06:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the polite response in the email. On a side note, I'd really appreciate it if you editted back Pol Pot, as the current version is simply inaccurate in terms of dates. If you object to the other edits that I originally made in that section I can discuss it on the talk page -- same with the other articles we were RVing on before I got injunctioned. J. Parker Stone 03:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 15#Category:Peruvian terrorists. It wasn't that hard to find. -- Viajero | Talk 09:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. Understood. Question: How do you find a category that was deleted?--AAAAA 19:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Viajero. Alexs letterbox apparently submitted Porgy and Bess at WP:FAC a week ago, so it's now at that crucial stage. Any input you have would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Porgy and Bess. Cheers.--BaronLarf 01:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

done. the big thing that got me on that article was my inability to edit the date inaccuracies. J. Parker Stone 20:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've been noticing POV creep on both the Ortega article and the Sandinista article but haven't had time to get into them. The POV in the Sandinista article consists mostly of Trey Stone sprinkling in repetitious and somewhat inaccurate references to Marxist and Cuban influences. It's true that the Sandinistas were influenced by both Marx and Cuba, but he makes it sound like they started out without any Marxist ideas and those got snuck in later. I think he also exaggerates the Cuban influence and makes it sound like Nicaragua was simply a client state of Cuba. There is also some language about Sandinista human rights abuses that is poorly-sources and excessive, and Trey chopped out some perfectly accurate statements about U.S. interference in Nicaragua elections since 1990, replacing it with the unsourced and untrue claim that the U.S. has not exerted any influence at all.

With regard to Daniel Ortega, I think there is a place for some of the assertions that have been added lately. Lots of people (including many Sandinistas) are unhappy with Ortega's heavy-handed control of the FSLN, and there has been quite a bit of understandable speculation (although there is no proof) that he had a hand in the murder of Carlos Guadamuz (whose name is misspelled as Guadamus in the recent edit). However, it is over the top and POV pushing to simply label Ortega a "dictator." He led a revolutionary movement that overthrew a dictator and is the first example in a very long time of a revolutionary who came to power through force of arms but left voluntarily when he lost an election. He's not a saint, but the Sandinista-bashers shouldn't be allowed to portray him and the FSLN as devils either.

I have a friend who lived in Nicaragua for the better part of a decade who might be interested in doing some editing on those articles. I'll give her a call and see if I can get her hooked on Wikipedia. ;-) --Sheldon Rampton 11:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Viajero: Can you cite point by point which sources you are challenging? Thank you.nobs 17:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised: a vote to Merge was the result --> Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff; in good faith, there was a compromise understanding to limit its contents to the essential paragraph on the Harry Magdoff article. nobs 22:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at [1] He has since become even more of a disruption since my post. Thanks. 172 | Talk 17:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you might also want to take a look at this VfD. 172 | Talk 19:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that the best defense which can be culled by you in support of massive deletions of material is to repeatedly state that I and others are engaging in such acts as "McCarthyite smears"? It is not productive and it establishes nothing but the fact that as an administrator you do not feel you need to adhere to certain Wikipedia rules, like on personal attacks. And yet, my "McCarthyite smear" represents the most extensive and constructive effort to verify the material put forward that has been made so far....--TJive 20:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Viajero: I took your advice and opened Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Keetwoowah. —Theo (Talk) 11:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old version:

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, a publication which has itself had two correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:

Nobs01 version[2]:

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, which has been referred to as a "Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece" evidenced by having two of its own correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:

Thanks again, Viajero, for nominating me for adminship. Please let me know if I can help with any administrative responsibilities, or if you have any problems with the way I use the admin tools. Cheers. --BaronLarf 00:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing up the edits on the Helen Hunt article. I would have finished it up but I had to leave for a little while. Dismas 21:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't noticed, Theo Clarke opened an Request for Arbitration for Keetoowah about ten days ago: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Keetoowah. Two ArbCom members have voted to accept it, but much to my astonishment, two others have voted to reject it. I know you were thinking along these lines awhile ago -- care to add your voice? It would be helpful. I am contemplating adding a comment or two as well. -- Viajero | Talk 20:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few comments on the topic. Kelly Martin 21:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have filed another request for Arbitration, this one against Ultramarine; you commented on his RfC. Septentrionalis 17:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On 9/11 (ominous date!) there's going to be a wikimeet for to create an nl.wikimedia. OMG, that's sunday! Could you spread the word a bit? Thanks! :-) Will you be coming too?

See also: http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Ontmoeten#eerste_nl.wikimedia.org_ontmoeting

(and sorry for spamming this to a few folks) Kim Bruning 20:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. ENdless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome. --Cberlet 22:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you let me know the reason for removing the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#His_marriage

Hi traveller. Do you have any idea how to deal with the anon reverting Fiaruz article ? Cheers -- Svest 10:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the tect written by Nobs on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks. --Cberlet 12:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Arbitration case against Keetoowah that you contributed to has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

have a look at Wikipedia:Leftist Parties and Movements Collaboration of the Week. --Soman 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on [[: :Image:Artifacto-1.jpg]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation and has no credible claim of non-free use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by [[::Image:Artifacto-1.jpg|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Great job again. I didn't notice that bulk addition of Oct. 20th. I believe that the anon is obsessed with Fairuz. -- Svest 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

Hello again! Would you be interested in keeping on eye on this article? We can expect a lot of big news coming out of the Summit in the next few days. 172 | Talk 00:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links by email. I was looking forward to making the article on the summit as comprehensive as it should, but not the topic seems to be totally overshadowed by the events in Peru and France. 172 | Talk 07:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I page which is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war (of which you are listed as a member) is up for deletion. It is The Left and Opposition to War, you can see its entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Left and Opposition to War. It would be helpfull if you could add your opinion.--JK the unwise 12:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your name crop up on my watchlist; it's been a while. Yes, I think we can look fwd to a flurry of editing activity on various Peru-related articles over the coming months. Anyone who reads that Miami Herald article and Googles for "la cantuta massacre" or "barrios altos massacre" gets pointed here. (Btw, the herald is registration only, and I've never bothered, but I caught the same story (or at least a similar one) on some similar site: byline 'Tyler Bridges'?) Cheers, –Hajor 18:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote to merge and redirect Islamofascism to Neofascism and religion...

... which is where it belongs. Vote here: [3] BrandonYusufToropov 21:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viajero: Kindly take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25#Sub-Categories of Jewish people. This area needs some cut-backs again. IZAK 03:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[4] or the Requests for comment/TDC[5]

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [6]

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at Talk:List of dictators. Thanks. 172 20:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]