User talk:DanKeshet: Difference between revisions

Dan, I'm sorry, but after loading that pic of the Newark skyline, I found out that gonewark.com's images are copyrighted.

I am desperate to have some pictures up of Newark. If you find any on non-profit sites, I would be very happy to see them up there.

At&t Broadband are a bunch of bastards. I'm canceling the whole package (cable and cable modem) on New Years to save over a 100 bucks US a month. Alas, free DSL from my partner's job and broadcast will have to do. A 14.4 should still work, kinda. --mav

American neo-Nazis use "88" as a sort of watchword, since the phrase "Heil Hitler" starts with two H's, the eighth letter of the alphabet. Damn them. Ortolan88

As a result of your telling me this, I am now offended by your user name. Change it, or else. --142

Dan, there is now an improved template in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Voting_Systems. Comparison of approval voting with instant runoff voting has not been re-inserted in the latter pending approval of the structure. I'd appreciate your not reverting files until we have had a chance to discuss them, this is a bad habit and especially bad if you want to cooperate with another prolific author. - 142

Dan, what happened to all that information that you removed from the Pakistan page? Did you move it somewhere else? --Koyaanis Qatsi 19:15 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks. Sorry for missing the unattributed analysis; I prune it when I see it but sometimes I don't see it. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi

Dan, thanks for the edits on the bin Ladin page. The entry is much better for it. I was smiling when I typed the edit comment "re-worded to placate Dan."

Zippy 06:04 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Dan, you made a mistake in your redirect for First Past the Post. It is ALWAYS capitalised, because that is the formal name of the system. It is NEVER written as 'first past the post'. JTD 23:09 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I was bit grouchy yesterday, Dan. (I've a back injury - I had the doctor out to give me an injection, so I was both 'drugged' by the injection and in pain. I think it affected my mood. Sorry!) Re FPtP - it makes sense to use all various titles, probably through re-directs; it helps all of us understand the varying terms. But I do believe that the various names of the voting systems do need to be capitalised. In different contexts they are referred to by name or as a description of the method of voting. In the context of an article title, we are dealing with the name, and it is a specific title, not merely as some people presume a generalised description of what happens. There does appear to be a general confusion on Wiki over how some formal names are used. (Deb and I have just this minute discussing how the office of First Minister is inexplicably down as 'First minister' while the office of US president is down as President of the United States. If First minister is correct, we should have President of the united states and Pope john paul; if President of the United States and Pope John Paul, we should have First Minister. Deb has agreed with me on first minister so am about to change it. Maybe we do need to think through our whole approach to capitalisation. I know it is a general problem, not just on Wiki. But having spent the last few weeks sorting out issues to do with naming conventions on royalty and those with title, I am loathe to take on the job of clarifying another rule. Again, sorry if I was a bit sharp last night. JTD 18:53 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Dan, I disagree with your reversion of Gulf War. While I agree that some of the content removed by 205 needed to be replaced, I also don't think we should discount his/her additions. Can we include somewhere in the text, "Some people also consider Saddam Hussein to be a fag. Polls indicate that the percentage of people supporting this perspective increased dramatically after the release of South Park, the Movie."? Graft

Hi Dan,

Check out http://electorama.com . I've done a number of things there to really promote the heck out of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting Systems, including posting your letter to election methods to the front page. -- RobLa 08:11 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thank for your help on war on terrorism. I had worried that my changes were unconsciously pro-US, but your "rubric" thing fixed it perfectly. NPOV forever! --Uncle Ed 20:19 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

What value is there in removing links merely because you determine that they are "silly"? If you don't like the links, then turn them off in your browser. Pizza Puzzle

Your input is requested at Talk:U.S. occupation of Iraq. MB 00:28 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

comment from over zealous fan [of Yoism --dk]]: I'm glad to hear that the flyers are effective in getting people's attention. We certainly don't mean to piss people off, though. Most of the flyers, as far as I know, are taken down within a few days. We have laid off the flyering for a little bit, maybe we will do some more in a couple weeks, but since you contend that everybody has seen them in your neighboorhood perhaps we should try different neighboorhoods for a while. We are experimenting with ways to get the word out to people who would be interested, and flyering seems to work. It also seems that the more flyers we put up the more people respond (in a positive way). We are trying to get more people involved because we are undertaking a number of exciting projects (for instance the Urban Eco-Village) and the more people who help the better. Anyway, sorry if the flyers have upset you.

You know, I've put up fliers in the past for other things, so it's not such a big deal. Just be aware that eventually they do get annoying. And do take them down. Nothing says that you don't give a damn about the environment or neighborhood like six-month-old, rain-drenched flier fragments swimming around on the ground... Sounds like you have the right attitude about it,

though. Cheers, DanKeshet 03:17 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You're welcome, Dan. I'm glad that even this kind of work (deleting junk) is appreciated. I'll try to keep it up. uriber 20:15, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you cast a vote in the TEMP5 debate. The Temp5 proposal was voted down by 61.3% to 38.6%. We seem to be going around in circles on the whole issue of the main page. A new vote is now taking place to clarify what exactly we want, namely

1. Do we actually want to have a new page?
2. If so when (immediately, after a pause, timed to the press release, etc)?
3. What do people want on the front page and what do they want excluded?

As of now, the whole issue seems surrounded by complete confusion. This way, finally and definitively, we will know what we want and when we want it. So do please express your opinions. The vote is on the same page as the previous votes. FearƒIREANN 20:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I just had a frustrating week. I am better now.Ark30inf 22:36, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Dan, thanks for the messsage and just about the bit of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War thing you removed, it is my opinion that we should add something for the Palsetinains in the domestic policy(I wont put my edit back though) as isn't it inbalanced only to have the domestic effects of the Arab Israeli conflict on Jews described and not the Palestinians ? Admittedly my article was not very neutral ;) however the Jewish part of it is not neutral either. We need to add something about the effects of the War on the Palestinians as arguably it affected them more domestically (as the vast majority of Palestinians left their homeland). Anyway hope to hear from you. I hope we can make this article a perfect example of a NPOV :) Cheers and peace, Hauser

So, in case you didn't figure it out from my comment on Talk:Saddam Hussein, you're not getting the Gulf War Reader. Graft 22:33, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Anon edits:
You're right, I kind of forgot about the watchlist and related changes. I'll definately note it when next I do a follow-up analysis. But unfortunately that is not the sort of thing that I can really quantify, so it won't really affect the numbers as such. It will simply make it more likely that vandalous edits are cought and are not stumbled upon by mere chance. Thanks for making that feature request on SF. --snoyes 21:32, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Exising "extremism" - right on, man. Attribution - Well, OK - but there needs to be substantial article up-and-down attrib for that article. I'm doing other things - I'll be getting back to a better rewrite in a couple days maybe - what do you think of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident article btw? Noam Chomsky#potilical views - obviously wont work - but Im curious will lowercase work? - Noam Chomsky#politcal views. -戴&#30505sv 23:24, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) hm. nope.

See my reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Groups Template. I think we are basically in agreement, but I could use help in how best to address this.

BTW, I see you are recently moved to Seattle, my home for the last 26 years. Welcome! -- Jmabel 23:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again. Any chance of getting you to sign up as one of the participants in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Groups? -- Jmabel 01:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dan. Please read the reply in Consumerium:Village pump. We need all the bright heads to bang together so your contributions would be appreciated. Please don't be disgruntled by the ever-expanding ramblings that are off-topic and most of all the internal incoherence, since this seems to be a constant condition in wikis in general

Hi Dan. The broken link at the bottom of Gush Emunim -- is it supposed to go to Benny Elon now? Timtzeptel 13:57, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello :-) I wanted to thank you with regards to the steward vote. For your trust :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 17:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. There's been a battle over the Khmer Rouge page since March 18th, and perhaps you can take a look if you're interested. Four other Cambodia pages are under contention currently as well - Cambodia, Pol Pot, Democratic Kampuchea and History of Cambodia. Adam Carr just said on the Khmer Rouge discussion page that his solution is three options, I go away (won't happen), I get banned (I haven't broken any rules that I know of, never mind something to get me banned permanently, so that's probably out), or permanent protection of the Khmer Rouge page (and if one considers the last revert war - the other four pages as well). They really have no position, which is built on sand, so for them I guess locking the pages without a resolution would be a win. Anyhow, check it out if you want. Hanpuk 00:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

New answer for you at my talk page. Get-back-world-respect 21:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, you wrote: "You requested that, rather than reverting, nimc and I (who have both reverted your edits) should take it to the talk page. Actually, we already have. :) See [[1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noam_Chomsky#Quote_regarding_Cambodia)] (which is addressed to J.J., who was previously trying to add the same quote. That quote is highly misleading because it was taken from a hypothetical in a sentence Chomsky was making, but rephrased (through quoting it), into an assertion. Please, please, address this issue on talk:Noam Chomsky. DanKeshet 17:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Which quote? I posted TWO. One KR, one China. Nimc, and possibly you, delete BOTH. Nimc always mentions "talk" AFTER deleting my edits. If you are serious, please don't mass-delete everything first. As for the KR quote, since it is well-known and widely disseminated already, if it is apocryphal (and you have yet to prove that it is -- and I have the entire article, in fact, not just that quote! ), why not add an alternative view of it ("Other critics claim that this has been taken out of context")? Lastly, I added a link to a site in Cambodia, which discusses the entire controversy at length with full references. Nimc or one of his other nyms deleted that too! So really, I have cause to doubt the sincerity that this quote is the problem. What Nimc wants to do to to erase ANY mention of the controversy.

Hi, you wrote: "Most editors here at Wikipedia will be willing to work constructively with you, even if they disagree with you, if they can see you are making a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia and to be intellectually honest."

Please take a look at the history of the Chomsky article. Nimc and a few others automatically delete any edits. I wish you would lecture Nimc and his delete-brigade, who refuse to allow critical links.

"I know I will. It sounds from your tone like you are anticipating a fight. This is the quickest path to get one. Please, give us a chance to work with you."

If you are serious, then please apply a single standard. Is *adding* a link or quote impossible? I am not the only one to add links or quotes. Does every addition get automatically deleted until some self-appointed group of 'protectors' deems it acceptable (this will never happen with self-proclaimed Chomsky fans). What is the standard? I did, in fact, make a good faith effort to justify inclusion of links and quotes. Nimc et al. immediately delete them claiming that they are not from scholarly journals, are false, etc.

"Deleting material pending it's justification is perfectly acceptable if you're willing to talk about it. Please wait until we have worked together to find a solution before inserting material under discussion on the talk page. Edit wars and revert wars are highly damaging. Check out this page for tips on how to avoid them."

I only wish you would lecture the self-appointed censors or take a look at the history of their campaign. *No* argument will suffice. They will delete any criticism. Meanwhile, some of the fluff on the page is added with impunity (currently 36 K) and a different standard applies.

"The partial Chomsky quote is highly deceptive. If the context quoted on the talk page is correct, it's clear that the part you are quoting is in the hypothetical tense and is not what he believed."

How? We can post the WHOLE QUOTE if you'd like. It is clearly not hypothetical in the article I have.

"In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report" which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's intelligence agencies) asserts that "Cambodia's pursuit of total revolution has resulted, by the official admission of its Head of State, Khieu Samphan, in the slaughter of a million people." Moss informs us that the source of this statement is Barron and Paul, who claim that in an interview with the Italian weekly Famiglia Cristiana Khieu Samphan stated that more than a million died during the war, and that the population had been 7 million before the war and is now 5 million. Even if one places some credence in the reported interview nowhere in it does Khieu Samphan suggest that the million postwar deaths were a result of official policies (as opposed to the lag effects of a war that left large numbers ill, injured, and on the verge of starvation). The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation. Distortions at Fourth Hand Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman The Nation, June 25, 1977 "

The quote, and the context, clearly show Chomsky dismissing talk of "senational rumors".

"We should not include misleading material, whether or not we make caveats about there being different interpretations afterward."

Is that the standard? Well Nimc is violating this elsewhere, where unproven "allegations" are the rule, and any deletion (pending discussion?!) is immediately reverted. This is hypocrisy--claiming that anything not discussed first with Chomsky fans should be deleted, but in other cases, anything that is posted stands until disproved (again, standards being impossible to meet)

You asked Henrygb a while ago about non-proportional STV results. It was caused lragely by differential turnout in NI - higher in the more Nationalist West, lowest in the strongly Unionist Belfast suburbs. His analysis of Malta (very, very, close two party system) is spot on.

The way the system works in NI for Assembly elections is that there are 18 x 6 member assembly constituencies. So the system should be proportional at a constituency level. Because there are a small number of constituencies in NI with significant differences in turnout, that doesn't necessarily aggregate to a result which is proportional overall, although it probably approaches perfect proportionality in respect of the electorate, at least in terms of ethnic/community background.

The problem the SDLP had in 1998 was that they were weak in the low-turnout and very Unionist Belfast suburbs, weak in low to mid-turnout Belfast (SF strong in terms of the Nationalist vote) and strongest in high-turnout rural areas.

Of course in 2003, their vote collapsed and they had bigger things to worry about!

Transfers are another factor. In NI, they seem faily neutral for most except SF are transfer repellant, North and South of the border, and the Alliance Party in the North and the Greens in the South (and in their heyday the Women's Coalition in the North) are transfer sticky. The Greens in the North are very transfer sticky but never have enough of a first preference base to make use of it. Hence they often argue for rather eccentric consensus-rewarding electoral systems based on things like the Borda preferendum. Gerry Lynch 12:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Would you agree to having Cimon avaro mediate between you, Zero, and RK? If so, please sign at the mediation page? Danny 00:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello again. Neutrality has agreed to mediate between you, Zero, and RK, in lieu of Cimon avaro, who seems to have disappeared. Because of the inherent difficulty of the case, we have also asked Moink to help out. Please let me know if this is acceptable to you? Danny 01:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support for my adminship. Perhaps at some point soon we can get back to working on the Israel Shahak article. Jayjg 16:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering why you put trotskyist political parties under communist rather then socialist parties as a sub category? The latter seems to me more of a natural home for them, as most if not all of the Trots are keen to distinguish themselves from the communist parties proper.

--Martin Wisse 09:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

Zero has taken a break from Wikipedia, and RK has recused himself from editing controversial articles. Why don't you and I fix up the Israel Shahak article now? Jayjg 15:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 09:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 02:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 08:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#The war for Palestine where User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. He also isnsists on editing-away lots of NPOV's that don't suit him, take a look at [1] please. IZAK 08:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, are you back from your Wikibreak? Jayjg 18:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope so. And yes, this is me. +sj+ 21:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should be more specific than to just say, "I found your comments unhelpful". You can play word games with that dishonest hypocrite of a troll but I don't have the patience. --Alberuni 19:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dan--Great to meet you today. It was a huge pleasure to see everyone in Seattle. I put up some pictures at Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, including one or two of you. Best wishes, Matt -- Decumanus 09:11, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of nominating you for adminship. Please accept at WP:RFA. uc 04:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ¨ 22:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jayjg 23:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan, thanks for your edit of the article about Jeremiah Duggan. You've improved the flow of it a lot. I've done a slight edit of your edit, because there were a few points you'd missed out that had been agreed with other editors after long discussions, so it's best to leave them in. See the Talk page for details. Also, it's best not to remove references and the references section. Articles are supposed to include a References section at the end, listing all the works that the authors have actually referred to in the compilation of the piece, whether also quoted inline or not. I know that not all articles do this (in fact, most don't), but they're supposed to. I always think that the more references can be given, the better it is for the next reader that comes along. But otherwise, I think you've improved this article immensely, so thanks for taking the time to do it. Best, Slim 03:08, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Dan, since you and Slim seem to get along, I'd like to propose that you edit Schiller Institute, which is currently protected. Slim and I have had our differences there, but if he is amenable, he could drop a line to his friend Jayjg and get the article unprotected. You seem to be working your way through the the LaRouche series anyway, and I know you to be an opponent of LaRouche, but a fair-minded editor. I actually liked the image you inserted in Lyndon LaRouche earlier this year, and I'm thinking of putting it back in. --H.K. 17:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan, you don't have to have in-depth knowledge of the S.I. to edit the page; I just think it would be helpful to have a third party involved, because the dispute is not over facts, but rather, the ever-elusive NPOV. I have had no problem with your edits on the other LaRouche articles, and apparently neither has Slim, so you seemed a logical choice. Oddly, when Slim asked today for unprotection they turned him down, which is atypical. But I might put in another request, indicating that you are willing to take a crack at it, as you apparently are. Correct me if I'm wrong. --H.K. 00:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you know, I've now unprotected Schiller Institute in case you want to try your hand. There seems to be some hope that you can help deal with the dispute. Not meaning to rush you into anything that isn't adequately researched, of course. Best of luck! --Michael Snow 22:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:38, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I saw that you recently made an edit to Chip Berlet. If you are interested, Chip has complained about his article being edited by LaRouche activists, who are trying to insert as much criticism as possible, because Berlet was once a critic of LaRouche. Berlet has complained that this article has the potential to damage him professionally, so I am rewriting it, trying to make it as factual as possible, relying only on published sources, and not LaRouche sources (Berlet's work on LaRouche is a very small fraction of what he has done). I'm currently writing it on a user subpage, and when it's ready, I intend to replace the whole article, provided other (non-LaRouche) editors agree that it's a fair and accurate portrayal. If you would like to review it, it's at User:SlimVirgin/CBdraft and you can leave comments about it at User Talk:SlimVirgin/CBdraft. I would welcome input, if you have the time.

I hope all is well with you and that you had a restful Wikibreak! Best, Slim 08:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dan, I've put the rewritten Chip Berlet page up, because I noticed people were editing the old one trying to get rid of the LaRouche material, and I didn't want to be seen to have wasted their time. I also showed it to another editor who is familar with this area, and he said it was fine. Feel free to incorporate the criticism section into the other sections if you would prefer that. I'll also leave this note on your Talk page too. I've left a note explaining what I've done, and still have to do, on the Chip Berlet Talk page. Best, Slim 00:39, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dan, SlimVirgin has been posting increasingly urgent warnings on the Schiller Institute talk page, indicating that he wants to start editing that article again. As I am already involved in one POV conflict with him and Chip Berlet at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, I would request that you prioritize your re-write of the S.I. article so that I don't wind up in another conflict on that one. Thanks in advance, --HK 15:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And, SlimVirgin is now in full attack mode on that article. --HK 01:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dan, if you have any spare time, your views at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche and/or Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche would be most helpful. Best, SlimVirgin 13:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The text as provided by me to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia is my own. However it is a summary, I made while studying for my exam, from the book Contemporary Sociological Theory, which seems to be copied on the page you posted a link to.

Thanks for your contribution to User:Willmcw/sandbox, the draft of a LaRouche movement article. The intro was just a sketch of a draft, and I'm glad not to have to write it myself. Feel free to make any edits you like. However due to a moratorium on editing LaRouche articles in the main space, it won't be posted until a related editing disagreement is resolved. Cheers, -Willmcw 12:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've followed up a bit at Wikipedia:Museum projects. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Fuck you too , la  ! it is serbs who literally are square headed not albanians. check out milosevic's face and you'll reckon the truth

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT a sock puppet of Rienzo! Sandor 14:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are, your edits are identical in style to Rienzo's other sock puppets, particularly your edit summaries. CheeseDreams 14:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)