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]

Hope you can make your best call here. [[7]] BrandonYusufToropov 22:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest, an article which is part of the WikiProject Anti-war of which you are listed as a member, has been recently rated A-class by the Version 1.0 Editorial team (see here) This means that it is considered to be of good quality. The Anti-war project has yet to achieve a featured article but with a little pushing I feel we could get this article up to FA standards. To this end I have put the article up for peer review, if you could help make this a brilliant article that would be much appreciated. Please give your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest or on the article's talk page. Fingers crossed for a FA before Xmass.--JK the unwise 13:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your early (2003) note on Coleopterists (reads Nice but.. ) I didn't start this page but I've added quite a bit to it.See what you think. Also glad of a view of my Timeline of Entomology Best wishes from Ireland Notafly 16:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about Lilian Cristina Aya Ramirez? The entry claims that she is a Venezuelan politician close to Hugo Chavez who was part of the Venezuelan branch of the Shining Path. It seems to me quite possible that this is just some absurd claim by a Venezuelan right-winger who wants to paint Chavez up as a Senderista, which he obviously isn't. But I've never heard of Lilian Cristina Aya Ramirez, nor have I ever heard of the group that the page claims is the Shining Path branch. --Descendall 23:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to know if you could go over the Carmen page. I've added a lot of info, but from the FAC request, I've found my writing style to be lacking brilliance. I think as an experienced Wikipedian, you might be able to help me. --Alexs letterbox 10:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned that Harry Magdoff passed away, I was going to edit his page here (considering the nonsense about him before User:Nobs01 finally got banned for a year) when I saw you had changed it already.

I also looked at your last 50 edits to see how active you were and saw #50 was in September. I guess you've become disillusioned with Wikipedia, something that happened a while ago for me. I am currently creating a corpus of articles with a GFDL or similar license on wikis like Red Wiki, Anarchopedia, Dkosopedia, Demopedia, Infoshop's OpenWiki and Sourcewatch. Thus I have none of the headaches associated with Wikipedia, although none of these have the momentum of Wikipedia. Ruy Lopez 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viajero. Is there any chance you could provide a fair use rationale for Image:Rigoberta Menchu.jpg? --Nick Boalch ^?!? 11:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the guy who put in the "disinfo" about priests roaming the streets of post earthquake 1755 Lissabon hanging heretics. Kudos! "Rectify article submit ante filing"! He who controls the past controls the future!

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PabloCasals pipe.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SoothingR 21:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soman has started a revert war in the List of political parties in Peru article. He made a bunch of stub articles (rarely more that one sentence and none with sources) for a bunch of, for the most part, small relatively unknown political parties and put them on the thread. User:Messhermit reverted it and asked to talk it out in the talk page and then the war began. You can see it all in the page history. I ask that some action be taken.-Jersey Devil 05:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not initiate a revert war. Messhermit did. A study of the history of that page will clarify that. He also made a proposal on the talk page which, IMHO, has no grounds in terms of wikipedia policy (merging articles relating to separate political entities into a single article). The main source of the articles, which of course needs to be added in the respective articles, is from a document from ONPE, [8]. I also object to the statement that most of the parties would have been small or unknown. The list includes many parties that played an important role in a certain political context, but folded long ago. Also, there are many short-lived, but not necessarily unimportant, alliances between political parties included. --Soman 12:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest an article from the WikiProject Anti-war, which you are listed as a member of, has been nominated for the Article Improvement Drive (by me ).

It is an article about a day of much importance both to the history of the anti-war movement and to general discussion of the Iraq war. With a little work from experienced editors it could gain FA status. If you would like to see it improved please vote for it at Make "February 15, 2003 anti-war protest" the subject of an Article Improvement Drive--JK the unwise 13:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was User talk:Davenbelle deleted? It is my understanding that we don't delete user talk pages, because they represent community contributions, may contain warnings, and do not belong to the user. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I asked because another editor, user:Paroxysm, cited your action to justify the deletion of his own former talk page, user talk:24ip, which contained various old warnings, etc. After posting this note I found that Wikipedia:User page is surprisingly permissive. I'd heard various admins and others make comments indicating it wasn't permitted, and left a note on Wikipedia talk:User page asking for clarification, but hadn't received a response. You didn't do anything wrong, apparently, nor did user:24ip, but I think that the guideline should be clearer. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Charles_Mingus.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 09:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on the talk page of this article. I'm hoping to get it featured soon and would welcome your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 21:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject:Peru current collaboration is on Andrés Avelino Cáceres. I've already gotten it out of the stub stage but wouldn't mind some help on it. Feel free to add info on the page if you have time and are interested. Thanks, bye.-Jersey Devil 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in your opinion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973#Differentiating the deposement from the coup. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as we are almost done with the Andrés Avelino Cáceres collaboration and March is coming up. I'd thought that I should inform you and the other members of WP:Peru that you can add your thoughts on what you think the next project collaboration should be on at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peru#Collaboration.--Jersey Devil 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am suspicious of all the recent material from the "KGB archives." All intelligence agencies boast about their exploits--and often it is mostly hyperbole and rumor. Don't have the book, but some of the edits seem to state as fact what should be identified as unverified claims from a partisan source.--Cberlet 14:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you don't have much time at the moment, but I would like to draw your attention to an edit yesterday by TDC to the Sandinista article. [9] Given earlier evidence of his shabby "scholarship", notably with the Neruda article, these edits need to be rigorously examined. Could you lend a hand? Viajero | Talk 09:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"After a Cuban reorganization of the FSLN structure and tactics?" What utter crap. This looks like TDC is again using a tactic he has used before: writing a version that even he knows is not neutral, by way of staking out a negotiating position. Which, in my view, is a waste of everybody's time, including his.

It will probably be Sunday before I get a chance to take a real look at this. And, I should add, it's not a topic where I can really claim to be an expert, though I certainly know quite a bit. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My my Viajero, you have been busy rounding up a posse havent you? No matter, I am more than willing to talk things thorugh. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for my suggestions; I made them almost a week ago; but then, as far as I can see, neither you nor TDC has proceeded at all, either in the article or the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you expressed an interest in link policy in the past. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates and vote whichever way you think is best. Thanks. bobblewik 18:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]