User talk:TDC/Archive 6

Your Removal of Leahy Quote in Military Commissions Act of 2006

Please allow this quote to stand. You cite a desire to have the quotes reflect the Senate vote, however there is nothing in the title "Official Statements" that implies this approach and the list of quotes includes non Senators.

Regardless of your personal opinion of this bill I hope you will agree that Senator Leahy was a key, if not the key, opponent to the bill and so a quote and reference to his position helps provide the reader of this article with an understanding of how deeply some Senators opposed this bill. Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. I'll wait for your response before attempting to re-insert this important quote.

Thanks!

User_Talk:Methuselah5000
Mark Patterson
[email protected]

Well, no problem, then, if you feel that Leahy is that key, it can be restored. I just thought that for balance the quote seciton should represent the 2:1 vote in the sentate. Also it not about my personal thoughts on the bill, its just that the aritle was lopsided and full of factual holes before I began editing it today. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Your revision of my content in Depleted Uranium

(→Health concerns - a letter in a magazine from an anonymous person does not conform to WP:RS and WP:V)

Actually, the vast majority of Wiki content is precisely ANONYMOUS, and the two policy pages you quote unfortunately never reference anonymity in any context. I will conclude that you misunderstood the policy, so I will just repost.

This seems like selective enforcement based on a technicality to me, because the link to the author, source and publisher was also clearly provided. In the future, it would be a lot less hassle for both of us if you just post a "source required" note (or heaven forbid write me a note) as opposed to censoring content.

Your requirement, that sources not be anonymous, is never mentioned in the Wiki policies.

wp:v-

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

The content you deleted meets this requirement. In the absence of any other justification or comments, you have left me no choice but to repost it.

UPDATE-

At the time I posted this, I was not aware it should normally be added to the bottom, but in retrospect posting at the top was probably justified anyway.

You have offered an apology for assuming my edits were from a "sockpuppet". I am hesitant to accept it because of the vindictive, opportunistic, biased and disproportionate way you acted on a little more than a suspicion, and your spectacle of personal bias in what is ostensibly a neutral information forum.

What bothers me most is that most of the valid content in the "possible health effects" section (you may rename it that if it would make you happy), has been outright censored and moved to a discussion area without even a link. There are people living with DU around them today who need and have a right to the information you deleted. I'm guessing you do not live with DU.

• You need to return all the material to the health effects section (or ask me to do it)
• Considering the way your group stalked my contributions, acknowledge that I have as much right to edit the section as any new editor, free from stalking.

I always welcome edits, debate, whatever, but trigger happy censorship is flat out wrong and will kill a Wiki. Wiki is a 'many eyes' concept, not a 'impossible to contribute' or 'censorship' concept.

I will not edit the DU section again until the deletion incident is escalated and seen by people with more authority than yourself, or you do the above. --Fieldlab 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My reason for deleting the content of the letter is quite clear and follows policy. Please read WP:RS and WP:V for more. Secondly, withouth more background on the editor James S., I could understand why you feel we over reacted, but I am sure that you will agree that our suspicions were legtitimate after you read up on this user. I also agree that the health section needs work, but dont "demand" anything from me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to get this straight. I am not referring to the letter. I am referring to loads of missing content in DU. I feel the deletion of most of the DU health effects section was not justifiable, and was against administrative policy. I'm not demanding anything. I'm offering a solution, but I'm happy to escalate it, and maybe Wiki will be better off if I do. The choice is yours. Otherwise, I'll just escalate it tomorrow.--Fieldlab 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

You need to take the info posted to the above link to ensure enforcement of the ban.--MONGO 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

You have been very helpful with the Robeson article. You seem very knowledgable on this subject. Would you care to get involved in a dispute in the Stalin entry on the death toll associated with him?--JohnFlaherty 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I've just asked Essjay for help. Should be sorted out in a couple of minutes. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikstalking

Please stop stalking my edits TDC. I really would prefer not to hear from you again if possible. I especially don't want to see your phony charges of harrassment on my talk page anymore. Feel free to delete this comment, but please leave me the fuck alone after that. Thanks, and have a nice day.--csloat 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No need for the potty mouth. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

TDC what the fuck did that conversation have to do with you? You are the one stalking. I also have his talk page on my watch list, as well as Ron's, and that conversation had to do with edits I had participated in! For fuck's sake, there is no reason I should have to explain this to you; the one thing I know for sure is that that conversation had nothing to do with you. For the last time, please stop stalking me. I do not trust you at all TDC; I have caught you lying numerous times in the past, and you have made numerous edits (such as these) whose only purpose seems to be to launch personal attacks on me. For the last time, LEAVE ME ALONE.--csloat 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I have observed that you have a nasty habit of singling out users and following them around from page to page. Some people might consider that rude and annoying, and the conversation between Ron and 172 had nothing to do with you, or me, but I never chimed into it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

TDC, I asked you to leave me alone. Now you are "warning" me on my talk page. Warning me about what? Get lost. Really. I am not interested in your personal attacks, your false charges of stalking, nor your trolling. Leave me alone!--csloat 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, making friends everywhere, I see. Ribonucleic 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just got back from vacation and am a little swamped, but I will try and look in on it later in the week. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

World's Ninth Wonder

Hello, I noticed your comment on A People's History and nearly fell from the chair. This is the very first constructive, non-hostile comment I have ever seen you write. Maybe it was that vacation. Ta bueno.

re: (edit summary)

• generic intensifier [[1]

Skywriter 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I am not a pimp

I have had you tell better jokes before, you are losing your touch man.

PS: Please stop deleting large portions of text which I added. This really gets me mad when wikiusers do this, no matter what they delete, and no matter what their POV. I was in the middle of chastizing you for this a few days ago, hit send, and realized that I had got booted, yet again.

I just told someone (see my archive 6, last message) how I feel guilty about bringing up all your 3RR's, because now I have a history that people can use against me too. It really sucks having your history dog you like that, and have other people bring it up. Sorry man.

The irony of it all, is that I was indefinetly booted, and user:Duk, the copyright police dude, who fought on your side when you used to use copyright as a weapon on WSI unbooted me. Can you believe this? He is really a forgiving guy. Travb (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I hate to say that the ends justify the means, but that is sort of my position in a way. I'll be a good boy and be sickeningly perfect now. Hope all is going good on your end! Keep up the good work.--MONGO 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The ends justifying the means ... that was the subject of a 6 hour debate while I was on my trip to Glacier. Needless to say, this time it does. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

CfD

Hope you've had a good vacation. Unless you're still swamped, I'll apprecaite your feedback on this CfD listing. [2] Thanks. 172 | Talk 03:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

National Lawyers Guild

Hi TDC, you've been reported for a 3RR violation, and a violation of your revert parole, and have been blocked for 24 hours. Note that, although the versions were different each time, you kept adding one key passage, and reverts do not have to be to the same version. When you return, please try to reach a compromise on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would protest, but would it so any good? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Thanks for the reply. The Coleman page is now stable again, along with a related dispute on Marty Meehan. I was trying to get this paragraph removed [3] (pretty irrelevant, right), and I was ultimately sucessful, which surprised me. Since trying to NPOV Conrad Burns, I hadn't been having too much luck on articles on Congressmen. 172 | Talk 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

123

I don't think you have ever been laid, that is probably why you are on this gay computer all day, every day.

could be, but I dont discuss my personal life on Wikipedia. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"plastic key"

Actually, we use keyless entry systems :)--Zereshk 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose a truce and hope we canboth stop acting like ass holes; agreed? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and well received. About the keyless entry thing, I was just trying to be funny :)--Zereshk 03:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I figured. I nominated the article for the Article improvement Drive if you want to weigh in on it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Depleted uranium

Yes, it is a violation of his ArbCom ban, and I´ve blocked him for it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but is a dynamic IP, so it wont last too long. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um- excuse me conspiracists, I hate to break the news, but that is my IP and no one else's, and certainly not the person you seem to suspect. It is a hard IP I have had for 4 years. And you certainly cannot justify blocking it based on anything I have ever done or posted at Wiki. You have banned this IP I believe because you believe me to be someone else. If you bothered to check the IP of that person, chances are he has never posted from anywhere around Olympia, Washington, USA.

You have not only blatantly violated and abused Wiki policy, which you seem to have little regard for by doing this, you also seem to be behaving in a juvenile, vindictive fashion, contrary the spirit of the Wiki.

You have left me no choice but to escalate the incident, as this type of behavior could threaten the integrity of the Wiki itself.

Simply put, this is just LAME.

Please note:

• 216.173.207.10 has very little editing overlap with Nrcprm2026
• 216.173.207.10 is a static IP in Olympia, Washington while Nrcprm2026 claimed to be in Menlo Park, California
• No checkuser was performed before this block.
• Fieldlab (talk · contribs) claims to be 216.173.207.10, and not Nrcprm2026

Please be more careful next time. SeparateIssue 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert parole violations reported

Please be advised that I have reported you for multiple violations of your revert parole. SeparateIssue 10:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you James, I will be sure to look into that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been so long that I forgot that talk comments go at the end of the page. Why would you think, after all my work on UO3 gas and chemical toxicity, that I would start expounding on the radiological dangers of solid particulate inhalation? SeparateIssue 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

James, do me a favor, two in fact: look in the mirror and repeat after me "no one cares", and please leave me alone. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. If no one cared then you wouldn't be running to accuse any newbie or IP posting about DU of being me. SeparateIssue 18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey James, file it under the "NO ONE CARES" department. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The more things change...

I was looking through some of your edits, as I do time to time, especailly after you deleted a large section of a page I had worked on before, to see what large sections of text you have deleted which does not fit your POV, and I noticed this. I guess,you can report me for wikistalking if you wish...

When are POV warriors like yourself going to realize that the article is actually strengthened by having two sides? I just don't get it TDC, as we have gone our seperate ways, you haven't changed a bit since WSI except for maybe less 3RRs. I still see the large deletions which don't meet your POV, the large fights, etc. I would like to think that I have become a much more sophisticated POV warrior myself, and actually a dipomat in a few disputes, but I still see the same troubling behavior from you. Anyway, my two cents worth. Travb (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you come here to bug me, because had you taken the time to read my explanation of the edit you might have come to the same determination that I did, namely that that particular statement could not be verified, and worse yet, after a quick Google search, it turned out to be complete bull [4].

You still don’t understand my objections at WSI, do you? It should be apparent to you now what they were, since you have been chastised for so much copy vio in the past several months, but I see that the point is still lost on you.

If an article is written with cut and paste material from a handful of biased sources, how can the article be NPOV?

Take the article you wrote on the Kerry Committee report. Every line and every word was taken verbatim from the sources below. Each of those sources has its own agenda, and when all the material is combined it will present whatever view those authors (Kornbluh, Cockburn, etcetera) want to projects. No relevant information that disputes their POV will be included in their writings, and since the article is drawn solely from these writings and redacted excepts from the report, the final article will also contain no such information.

Don’t you see a problem with that? Would you find it all right to write an article on the No Child Left Behind act and use reference, verbatim, nothing but white house press releases on the subject?

I have tried to explain this to you 100 times, and it’s a shame you dont get itTorturous Devastating Cudgel 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey TDC, Thanks for your comments.

Did you come here to bug me Nope, just to express some concerns.

Like I said, I occasionally look over your edits. I find it troubling how much you delete--large, large portions of text which don't meet your own POV. As I mentioned above: an article is actually strengthened by having two sides. I hope someday you will see this. Take for example, Philippine-American War, which has stayed pretty much static for months. I met CJK for the first time on this article, when he was arguing that Philippine attrocities should be added to the article. This was several months ago, and I brisled at the suggestion, using similar POV language that you used before, and still contine to use. Calling CJK a jingoist, apologist, etc. But I added the suggestion, Philippine-american_war#Filipino_atrocities and CJK left happy. I just see you spending so much time in edit wars which could be avoided with a little diplomacy. Talking with CJK for weeks and weeks and being in other aruguments like Norm Coleman and No Gun Ri, have made me realize how much easier it is to allow both sides, and how much less energy I am expounding by simply tempering my words. My edits are staying static not for hours, like many of yours, but for months. Many are not even questioned.

RE: namely that that particular statement could not be verified, and worse yet, after a quick Google search, it turned out to be complete bull [5]. My apologies, I was wrong. I know little about this character. Thank you for editing that out.

RE: You still don’t understand my objections at WSI, do you? It should be apparent to you now what they were, since you have been chastised for so much copy vio in the past several months, but I see that the point is still lost on you.

Guilty as charged. I guess it is only fair for you to bring up my wonderful recent block log history since I used yours so much against you before. Now that I am in your shoes, I actually feel guilty about that now, and I am sorry.

Like I have mentioned again and again. At WSI Copyright violation was used as one of many weapons at your disposal to push your own POV.

I must say that I am impressed that you have become more well read in wikipolicy, and use wikipolicy in your arguments, as I have.

As Isaac Asimov stated about creationists, "Creationists don't want equal time...they want all the time there is." Your edits and behavior show there is truly only one opinion which should be on wikipedia: your own.

RE: Take the article you wrote on the Kerry Committee report. Every line and every word was taken verbatim from the sources below.

You are welcome to edit any of my work TDC, but I am familar with your tactics, and won't allow you to delete large portions of text which don't fit your own POV. When I say edit, I mean adding an opposing view, which I will gladly and warmly embrace, not delete large sections which doesn't meet your own view of the world. I really enjoyed your edits to What's the Matter with Kansas. I wish more of your work was adding information, not deleting it.

RE: Each of those sources has its own agenda, and when all the material is combined it will present whatever view those authors (Kornbluh, Cockburn, etcetera) want to projects.

I find the people who scream POV the loudest are usually the biggest POV warriors. You are the poster child for this. I am curious with all of your POV fights across wikipedia, you talk a lot about certain sources being POV, but what do you consider as NPOV? What is a source which is NPOV to you?

RE: No relevant information that disputes their POV will be included in their writings, and since the article is drawn solely from these writings and redacted excepts from the report, the final article will also contain no such information.

This is the stark difference from the two of us, I welcome "relevant information" which contradicts my POV, because I feel that the article benefits. Please, edit this article with NPOV sources. I will be very amused and interested to know who those NPOV sources you quote actually are. I spend most of my time adding content to wikipedia, whereas you spend a good amoount of time deleting it. That is our biggest difference. Other than fights about copyright violation, my edits have become less and less controversial, my tone less and less confrontational. Sure, I sometime digress, but overall, my tone is much different than before. End result: My edits stay on wikipedia unopposed for months and months.

Whereas you are still in the POV warrior mode, deleting large portions of text which don't meet you own POV. You seem more civil on chat boards, but the tactics are the same. So you spend a lot of time focusing on one article pushing your POV, arguing back and forth, getting into minor edit wars. Whereas at the same time, I am adding information, unopposed to 10 articles, with 90% less emotional work and mental labor. Take for example CIA, I have completly rewritten large portions of this page, with little or no opposition.

RE: Don’t you see a problem with that? Would you find it all right to write an article on the No Child Left Behind act and use reference, verbatim, nothing but white house press releases on the subject?

I would welcome other editors to come along and not delete the white house press releases, as you are apt to do, but to add their own POV. that is the difference between the two of us.

Anyway, if you find sometime to add information to Kerry Committee report, I welcome it.

I apoligize for being 100% wrong about Leonard_Peltier Please accept my apology. Thanks for your comments. I reverted the edit. [6]

Best wishes. Travb (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Courteousy

Out of courteousy I wanted to let you know that both myself and csloan mentioned your user name on our talk pages. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to stop edit wars

WP:AMA and

Contact this third party wikipedian, who helped me with the most sophisticated conservative on wikipedia: User:Tyrenius#Disputes

Signed: Travb (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is skywriter the anon from WSI?

Is skyriter and the anon at WSI one and the same? Skywriter seems to have the same behavior as the anon. i.e. the exact same behavior as you do, except he is on the other side politically. See: Talk:Orlando_Letelier#down_the_memory_hole

By the way, EECEE on WSI is probably the anon, he disabled his account when I started asking questions, but it looks like he is back to editing WSI again.Travb (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Skywrtier is not "The Anon" just editing anonymously. I dont know or care about EECEE. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks TDC, have a great week. Travb (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda model

What exactly on Talk:Propaganda model do you claim supports this blanking? Publicola 04:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it, and I do agree, somewhat. I am replying there. Publicola 07:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on Felix Rodriguez

You Wrote this concerning the article on Felix Rodriguez:

I dispute the nuetrality of this. What is this about "most of his family being disappeared?" No one has ever been disappeared in Cuba. Anyone arrested or executed were tried before the people before hand. Why is there no mention of this?

Is this a joke? Cause it aint funny. TDC 19:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC) Those pro-Castro types need to work on their spelling and syntax, Right Camilo! Right Camilo! Right Camilo! Does anybody know where Camilo Cienfuegos is... El Jigüey 1-3-06

I'm seeking sources for the claim often made that Rodriguez' father and two brothers were executed by the Castro regime soon after it came to power. Rodriguez doesn't mention this in his book, which seems odd--it would rather seem to explain his obsession with getting rid of Castro...yet he doesn't mention it.

Does anyone have a source or sources for this allegation?
Thank you.

I wanted to tell you my Mother is a close friend and former colleague of Felix and his Father lived to a ripe old age and only recently died. He had no brothers, Felix was an only child. Obviously the claims of their executions are false.

Clarification on Felix Rodriguez cont.

If you have any questions I can be reached at [email protected]

Chilean coup of 1973

If you can please weigh in on whether or not WP:SS is being violated in this article by certain users insisting on "two articles in one"--that is having an article called U.S. intervention in Chile and having the exact same 10 paragraphs or so on Chilean coup of 1973. CJK 21:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America

Hi TDC. You may wish to browse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America. Your input, if you feel inclined to share it, would be appreciated. Give Peace A Chance 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Email

Did you get the email I sent you a while back? Just checking to make sure. CJK 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I have been on the road, and was extremely busy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War

TDC, if you're available, could you look at Iran-Iraq War and see about reverting? I've reverted three times today. Of course, User:64.231.199.31 has reverted five times, but... whatever. TomTheHand 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Love to, but I am on RV parole. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a shame. Thanks anyway! TomTheHand 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, perhas a SP is in order to deal with all these anons. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

American terrorism is evident everywhere

Especially if you have a twisted, warped mind like Noah Chomperski...yes, the U.S. is such an evil empire. Next up...we're going to strap bombs on camels as a sort of quid pro quo...[7]--MONGO 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this shit needs to be ground to a halt, the lunatics are starting to run the asylum. Its getting out of hand. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Does your partisianship know no bounds

TDC, just when I thought you could not be more partisan and a bigger POV warrior, you delete evidence of a sockpuppet account[8].

• First there was you yelling copyright, and then when you are caught doing the same thing, you deny that this was a copyright violation.

Trav, I might remind you that your lose interpretion of fair use almost got you permanently banned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Second there was the widespread deletions of referenced material stating NPOV, followed by the inclusion of Commentary magazine, with David Horowitz.

I wouldnt cite Frontpage magazine, but Commentary is one of the most well respected and influential magazines in the US. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Then there was your cries on the American terrorism page about NPOV, and

My cries, clearly I was not alone, and even you can see there are serious issues with the article Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Finally, today, you delete all of the evidence I added about a sockpuppet.

A cluttered page is not the place to accuse someone of sock puppetry, file a check user, or take it to the users talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Does your partisanship and POV warrior mentality know no bounds? The irony is, that not only do you cry NPOV any chance you get, when you are probably one of the biggest POV warriors on wikipedia, but that you probably think you are not a POV warrior, and that you are being "fair and balanced". My goodness TDC. Travb (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My goodness indeed knows no bounds :) !

What article did I cite Horowitz on and Commentary on? I forget. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I can't remember. :) I was thinking of posting your Horowitz and Commentary edits on my talk page , but then I figured you would be monitoring my talk page, and notice, and get mad at me for being deragatory.

Duk got mad at me about a year ago for posting an edit of his on my talk page, with a deragorty word on the link. Since then I have changed my behavior, and I have been more careful what I post on my talk page and elsewhere.

I was also afraid you would accuse me of being a troll, so I posted those edits somewhere, but now I can't remember were. : )

I was proven wrong about the sock puppetry. Opps. Travb (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being so uncivil before, I have turned over a new leaf :) Travb (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Mardavich 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not violeated the 3RR, not even close to it. Keep your threats to yourself. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You have, any reversion of an old edit, in part or in whole, qualifies as a revert. --Mardavich 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing my edits in talk. I am correcting gross distortions of material presented in the article. I am adding well sourced material that should replace the bullshit rampant in the article. You and the fellow Persian junta attempting to dominate the article are destroying it with your bullshit. This will go to arbitration unless it stops. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for vast violation of your revert parole on Iran-Iraq War. --InShaneee 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

UO3...again

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with this today. Olin 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

wiki improvement proposal

Hey TDC

I've posted some possible improvements to the 3RR. If you have the time, it would be great if you could take a look and comment. I'm not sure their you're cup of tea but I'm tired of seeing people (inc myself) be accused of "gaming 3RR"

[9]

Justforasecond 00:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD:BDS

If you think the AfD exhibits BDS symptoms, try checking out the talk page of the article in question. The logical contortions required to conclude that the source Krauthammer article constitutes WP:OR are quite amusing. Crockspot 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Its the Wiki airbrush brigade, remove from Wikpedia that which one does not like via layering, cabals, and brute force. This project is in sever need of an enema to remove all the shit that has collected here over the years. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That will change. Darth Cheney and Teh Rove sent me here to clean house. :) Crockspot 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to the Thunderdome

I left this message on both User talk:TDC and User talk:Commodore Sloat.

If the two of you are interested in having it out internet smackdown style, I invite you both to sign up at Conservative Underground and start a thread in the Thunderdome forum. CU doesn't have anything near the strict civility rules of WP, and in the Thuderdome, even those rules are suspended for the most part. If you both declare it "mano a mano", the moderators will keep everyone else out of it, and you guys can settle your dispute (or at least make your feelings known) in a cage match atmosphere. Who knows, one or both of you might decide to stick around. Liberals aren't banned out of hand, and there are even a few lib mods. We do expect them to back up their talking points with facts though. Stop by the Welcome Wagon forum to introduce yourselves after the blood sweat and tears are cleaned up. Crockspot 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Iran Iraq War

It was due to the fact that a non-static IP was making "boderline" disruptive edits without really communicating with several editors in good standing. If more of this pursues, I will bump it up to full protection. But of course, you can feel free to disagree with me, considering I can be wrong a good deal of the time. Yanksox 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave me alone!

How many times must I ask you this? If you have specific questions about something I did, first, make sure I actually did it, and second, post your questions to the relevant talk page in a polite manner. Don't use the edit summaries to personally attack me. Grow up.--csloat 06:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, now Mr Sloat, watch it with the potty mouth. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have deleted your comments from my talk page, as you seemed to progressively become more defensive and enraged towards csloat than less - finally saying that he 'deserved' your treatment - and as posted, I won't encourage disruption or tolerate trolling on my talk page. Best regards. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Double note: I have moved them here as I will not allow you to twist what I have said out of context, and I will most certainly not allow you get away with playing the good kind intermediary when you called me "a dick" clear as day. Also dont put quotes around "deserve" becasue I never said it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To quote you : kindness is in the eye of the beholder; its about all the civility I can muster up towards Sloat, and considering his abusive and acrid nature, all he deserves from me.

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how incorrect - intentionally or otherwise. With this bit of revisionist history of yours, I am finding it difficult to believe you are not being intentionally disruptive. In any case, I'm comfortable with my comments and my intentions. Good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not an opinon, and is there for all to see:

"If you leave a message on someone's page accusing them of stalking and telling them in essence to 'shut up and get to work', you might be violating WP:DICK" . -- User:RyanFreisling

I'm comfortable with that sentence. It wasn't calling you a dick, it was saying your actions might be a violation of WP:DICK. The rest is your projection. I wonder if you'll now escalate AGAIN, or leave it alone... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt at lawyering aside, we both know what you meant. For someone who is so tired of the escalation, lets see how long you can leave this one alone? I am predicting less than 12hours. I guess I should have said 12 seconds! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, I too am comfortable with my comments and my intentions. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Message from TDC

Just so we have out Chronology Right, Sloat left me a rather rude message on my talk page, I just kindly asked him to tone it down and focus on what he is doing instead of continuing with his petty grudge against me. Why you had to jump in this is beyond me, but if you can talk some sense into him all the better. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because you accused him of stalking without cause. Your request wasn't kind. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sloat knows why I accused him as he has stalked my on Wikipedia for months. If you don't know the back ground then stay out of it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Another 'kind request to tone it down'? Sorry, but the incivility speaks for itself. I'll comment where I think appropriate (and in this case, I think my comment was appropriate). In any case, have a good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What does and does not "speak for itself" may be open to interpretation. And just for the record, keep in mind that while I am powerless to prevent you from commenting on what a “dick” I am, you are equally powerless to stop me from criticizing Sloat’s behavior. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is trying to stop you from doing anything, or to call you anything. I merely pointed out that your email was not 'kind', as you falsely claimed, and that your accusation of stalking and telling him to 'get to work' was uncivil. And your subsequent incivility towards me does indeed speak for itself when it comes to determining who is attacking whom. I trust this thread has now run its' course.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I don’t enjoy being taken out of context, just a few corrections to what you wrote above.

1. No one is trying to stop you from doing anything; you suggested I leave Sloat’s page because I was being disrespectfull [10]

   or to call you anything; You did call me a dick, its even in the edit summary. [11]

   I merely pointed out that your email was not 'kind', as you falsely claimed; it was not an email, and kindness is in the eye of the beholder; its about all the civility I can muster up towards Sloat, and considering his abusive and acrid nature, all he deserves from me.

   And your subsequent incivility towards me; my incivility towards you? You call me a dick and then accuse of not playing nice? That’s some nerve and either speaks to an severe case of over sensitivity or plain misdirection. But since I have never really dealt with you, I will (unlike you) give you the benefit of the doubt.

Sloat frequently abuses editors, including me, in edit summaries. Perhaps he should practice a bit of what he preaches before spazzing out on my talk page, as he has done before (my personal favorite). Once again though, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the locus of this dispute before becoming entangled in it; if for nothing else than your own sanity. Unless you have anything relevant to add, I consider this closed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, all this fuss about little ole me? I'm flattered, TDC. Since you claim to be so interested in getting things right, let's recall that this most recent dispute started because you used an edit summary to falsely accuse me of having mucked with the Plame affair page, which a simple glance at the history would have showed was incorrect. Interestingly, you left the page alone after I told you it wasn't me, which suggests again that your purpose here is to go after particular editors rather than to improve articles.--csloat 23:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As you well know, I am on Revert parole. That is why I had not touched the page. Nice try though, your explanations get more creative by the day. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see... And, of course, actually trying to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page or choosing a more imaginative approach to contributing to the page besides reverting was just too difficult? Or does "revert parole" prevent you from doing that too? Never mind, I really don't care to know. Have a nice day.--csloat 23:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t think I needed to discuss removing Wayne “5000 Jews stayed home on 9/11” Madsen. Whatever, go troll some place else. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ryan

Ryan sometimes acts like a troll to get editors to be uncivil in a way that will get them blocked for incivility. You may have encountered it as it she injected itherself into your discussion with csloat. Citing WP:DICK, as it clearly states is a "dick move in itself" and is a form of trolling. Just FYI when you engage in these discussion. --Tbeatty 04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty (a defender of known trolls like Rex/Merecat) is welcome to his opinion. I'm comfortable that my behavior is well-intentioned and civil and not at all trollsome (unlike Tbeatty, who apparently refers to me as 'it'), but you know the remedy if you disagree strongly. Tbeatty - I find you referring to me as 'it' to be offensive and derogatory, so please desist. 'She' or 'her' will do fine. Have a lovely day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the "it". And I have never defended a troll. Rex/Merecat may have been sockpuppets but not trolls. --Tbeatty 05:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

More boogeyman talk, you would think some people were personally scarred by merecat that they have become utterly obsessed and feel he is everywhere stalking there every thought. Its amazing and I hope he still reads Wikipedia and smiles when he is mentioned in such infamy. I was just accused for the umpteenth time of being Merecat, this is now 2-3 RFCU's later all stating I wasn't. Nice to see you are still editing TBeatty, we havent had a mutual article in some time. --NuclearUmpf 12:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what Ryan is up to and I hope (s)he will realize that I wont fall for it. I know where the line is on NPA and am very sure to never cross it, even when provoked. I called him (her) on these shenanigans. Thanks for the tip though. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you boys having fun? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. And unless you have anything productive to add, please keep it off my talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, if you'd really like to be productive, and you'd like me off your talk page, you should reconsider whether you should have a thread with my name on your talk page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you came here in the first place, I did not start this thread, and I have no I dea who Frank is. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got little to add other than to try to point out the obvious - that the existence of this thread on your talk page is more than enough justification for me to visit it and contribute to the discussion. I'm not trolling when I respond to an attack thread that you leave on your page. If you'd prefer I wasn't here it makes sense for you to delete this thread and concentrate on other topics besides me. And I'd be glad if you deleted the thread, but it's your talk page and your call. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey it’s a free Wikipedia and all, so if your coming here and participating in this conversation scratches some itch you have, well so be it. Its not an attack thread, no less than telling another editor to stop being a dick at any rate, and if you perceive it as such then that’s a shame. But you are right about one thing, this is my talk page, it is my call, and I don’t delete any comments. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll keep it on my watchlist and repeat my request for you to focus on content, not contributors. Have a good day! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

TDC

Wow, can we invite CJK and MONGO into this conservation too? Maybe Morton and 172? We all seem to share the same company don't we?

Must be nice to be so well organized, I always feel like I am herding cats with liberal wikipedians, but the conserative wikipedians walk lock step with each other.

Ryan basically told me to take a hike, he, he.

Whats the latest TDC, haven't heard from you for ages.

• How is CJK? I really like that guy, despite our political differences, we had some really intense political converstaions before.
• Still editing No Gun Ri? Is the anon back? I still think he is that EECEE character, remember, I was the one who taught you how to do checkuser :). Someday I will probably have to call in that favor when I am being driven out of wikipedia and need as many allies as I can get...he he.
• Duk and i have become friends.
• I see you and csloat are still trying to cut each others throats--is there any chance you two can become friends like we are (you may not see me as a "friend", but thats okay though) Man your postings above crack me up. I love it. Everyone calling everyone else "dicks" and "trolls" etc...*JERRY*JERRY*JERRY

...Wikipedia is like a daytime televions soap opera, except I can be one of the charaters! I like to see myself as the misunderstood marginalized charater in this soap opera, like Piggy on Lord of the Flies. Everyone wanted to kill Piggy in the end. Hell, you conservative fellows can even start calling me Piggy if you want. Travb (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ALL YOUR WIKI ARE BELONG TO THE ROVE!!!!!1111oneeleven - Crockspot 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ALL YOUR FAKES ARE BELONG TO US. I loved this one and its about to be pulled from you tube, so catch it while you can.

I made nice with Sloat, and although I got a kick out of raising his blood pressure by 500 points it was too much and just a big distraction. Alls well that ends well I suppose. I wont be around here as much as usual, I have a lot going on at work .. big big project at work and a new baby, so I think my editing will be rather spastic. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you have a new fan now, from your argument above. :)

Thats nice you and csloat have kissed and made up. I have found that reaching consensus keeps my own blood pressure down too. I must be getting old, I don't have the tetestone drive I did a year ago, when I was a brand spanking new wikiuser, and we first went at it, I was fresh from frontpagemag.org [I even lasted a week at frontpagemag.org, taking on all of the intellectual big wigs---and their discussions are no holds barred over there, WP:NPA doesn't exist]. Wikipedia has a way of mellowing people out, at least it did with me. Those who don't get mellowed out, eventually leave or are thrown out. I have noticed you have a lot of restrictions on pages now. How many pages are you restricted from editing now? I have thankfully avoid this so far. My only arbitration has been with you and anon back in October 2005. But, and this is a big but...I am one of the few wikiusers who has been indefinetly banned though...but it had nothing to do with politics....it had to do with wikipedia's interpretation of copyright. I didn't know you had a baby. Thats cool. I have a step son, 11 years old.

I was always surprised how you have never used wikipedia policy like other users have, like a weapon. It is rather refreshing actually to debate you. Actually, I take that back now, remembering back. I guess you do, but not as much as others. I gotta go...wife home. Travb (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Previously edited

An article you have previously edited is up for review. See Lori Klausutis. Morton devonshire 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann

I had a question about your removal of material over at talk:Michele Bachmann. I have not restored the material and would like to talk about your reasoning. Thanks, -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometime tommorrow, I am off to bed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid Incivility

Just a warning to try to maintain civility. Comments that belittle others are not helpful to constructive dialogue, and do not further your argument. I hope you will endeavor to maintain a degree of respect for your fellow editors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I am surprised you did not come in here like last time and tell me to stop being a … hmmm …. I forget what it was you said …. It is easy to become frustrated when I following every content guideline and others not, but I have not violated WP:NPA. I plead guil-didily-ilty for aggressively defending and documenting my edits, as well as informing others when they have not been as diligent as I have, but because someone inferred my comments to be uncivil, does not mean there was any implied incivility. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that degree of parsing is far too Clintonian for me. I merely hope you'll take a few deep breaths when you feel frustrated, and refrain from insulting the intelligence of your fellow editors. From my viewpoint, WP:NPA is not part of the equation and hasn't been violated, unless the uncivil conduct escalates to characterizations and derogation. I'm pretty confident from your response that you'll avoid such conduct and so I am grateful. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Do us both a favor and leave me alone. I don’t really care for unsolicited advice. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that was decidedly uncivil. Certainly if one only considers advice they themselves solicit, one is deluding oneself into believing they possess objective knowledge. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Asking you to leave me alone is "decidedly uncivil"? I realize you are trying to provoke me into calling you a nasty name or go on a tirade, but if that is your aim, your time would be better spent justifying your edits. I noticed your list on several users, including myself and another user who dared stand up to you, and I also noticed that you noticed me noticing. Good, perhaps we will both play a bit nicer if we know someone is watching us. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll not bother you if you are conscientious and respectful of WP rules and other editors. In this case, you were (are) behaving uncivilly and I won't promise not to inform you when you violate the rules in the future. And I would be thrilled if you would behave 'nicer' . In any case, have a good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a 'nicer' day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you for complying with my demand that you cite the material. I knew I could get you to work with me if I just gave it a shot! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You should be made aware of this

User_talk:Derex#Friends to keep in touch with. --Aaron 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Turn Left

Hi. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I see that you have added for the second time the racist attack incident to the Turn Left page. Please discuss the issue on its Talk page if you feel the need to add it again so as to avoid any edit wars. Thank you. Xiner 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Regarding Talk:Turn_Left, please try to remember that I am trying to find a solution to your concerns about the balance in the Turn Left article. That is why I took the trouble to notify you of the removal of your paragraph, when usually I do not bother to (check my edit history). I will respect your opinion, but only if you express the same courtesy towards others. Thank you. Xiner 01:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

I wish I didn't have to do this, but your refusal to acknowledge your uncivil behavior has prompted me to read your talk page more carefully. I have since reported you to Arbitration enforcement. Xiner 04:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop joking about or mocking your fellow Wikipedians, even if they are "lefty wankers" at Turn Left. Thank you. Xiner 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you work at/for Left Turn? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

I understand everything now!

You're a Colbert fan! Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Seabhcan

Section edited out by Crockspot per WP:BLP. I think its original purpose has been served anyway. Crockspot 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

NP. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my poor translation of German, but the German wiki article[12] on Daniele Ganser is approximately as follows:

Daniele gander (* 1972) is a Swiss historian and peace researcher.

Studied story, philosophy and English at the University of Basel, the University of Amsterdam and the London School of Economics and Political Science.

First book "Reckless Gamble:The Sabotage of the United Nations in the Cuban Conflict and the Missile Crisis of 1962" Treated the elimination of the UN through the CIAS during the Cuba-crisis. In the year 2005, it became through its investigation and publication over NATO secret organization "Gladio" and its produced terrorism in the cold war well known (see also strategy of the tension).

Gander publishes among other things over the conspiracy theories to the 11 September 2001. To the collection "911 and american Empire: Academics Speak Out" gander contributed a capital.

That's all the article states, plus a few references.--MONGO 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That is more or less what the English language article said before it was deleted. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

TDC...shoot me an email...I am using a different one than before so click the link "E-mail this user" after you visit my page. Thanks.--MONGO 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Ban Lifted

How do I go about getting my editing bad lifted regarding the Winter Soldier Article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your ban will expire In early February. What is the basis for lifting the ban early? Fred Bauder 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In light of TDC's recent conduct on a number of other articles, I imagine quite a few editors would want to chime in on this topic. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My "recent conduct"? How nice of you to chime in. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to strike my comment as unproductive, but that would now be seen as evasion so I'll simply apologize for interrupting Fred's question, and state again that should the question of your revert parole being lifted be raised, I for one would welcome an opportunity to discuss the matter with ArbCom or the appropriate party. Again, sincere apologies for disrupting this thread. Have a good evening. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about my revert patrol, I am talking about my prohibition on editing one particular article that has been in dire need of attention for almost two years. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Deflation

Not all of them are, but two of the low contribution editors follow the profile, including an obsession with publicizing my phone number. Stirling Newberry 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A check user probably won't do much good until such time as the current infestation engages in a clear repetition of previous edit patterns. Stirling Newberry 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser Declared Unencyclopedic by Admin Fred Bauder

Thought you would be interested in this[13]. Morton Devonshire^Yo 18:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In the words of Marv Albert: FROM WAY DOWNTOWN, YES! This is fantastic news though, he is used as a source in many an article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but the people over at WP:RS say Ganser is ok. [14] [15] Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It also says that Saint Ganser should be cited as opinion, not fact. Hardly an unambiguous endorsement. Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Say it with me: BOO YAHH!!. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody ever said he should be cited as fact. You have both removed references to him that cite his opinions as opinions. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya know

Hotmail and Yahoo offer free e-mail accounts. Please consider enabling e-mail. I recommend that you get a Wiki-only account to preserve your off-Wiki privacy. Cheers Mate! Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Its enabled. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tango. Roger Out. MD

Planning to do some off-wiki planning and scheming, are we? oohh... how exciting! Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to correspond with you as well if you're feeling Left out in the cold. Cheers. Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Thanks. I just thought it funny that a couple of guys who are so disbelieving in conspiracy theories would be conspiring on wikipedia. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)