User talk:Fastfission
|
|
You can leave me messages here and things like that. Old messages have been moved to the Talk Archive.
Venona
The decision not to use information retrieved by the Venona transcripts was made by this document pg.70 (http://foia.fbi.gov/venona/venona.pdf) and applied to all cases thereafter as code names were identified. I would recommend reading the entire memorandum from pgs. 61-75, which really needs to excised from that file and placed in Wikisource. It is a fascinating study as to how General Omar Bradley with mid-level FBI investigators made a political decision shielded from even President Truman that has had enormous consequence on the political history of the United States. Would you be interested in helping excise and edit that primary source document for Wikisource? Thanks. Nobs01 14:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. As a technoidiot, I don't know how to extract that FBI file as a text document, then which needs some editing and restoration. That document itself is of enormous interest, cause it can be used to show that the Rosenbergs were perhaps made to be patsies, (albeit, willing patsies) while many bigfish and conspirators got away. Also, that Joe McCarthy, while beginning with a half-truth (pgs. 74-75), then did go on a witchhunt after the wrong subjects (see my comments Talk:Whittaker Chambers/Venona). What is really of primary interest is, how an American military commander stepped into a chaotic political situation and made a crucial decision, thus putting the United States in the same category as many other nations at that time, where political decisions were being resolved by military commanders because of the ineffectiveness of civilian leadership, heads of government, and parliamentary bodies (Doenitz in Germany, McArthur in Japan, Rokossovsky in Poland, Chiang Kai-shek in China, etc. etc. etc.).Thx. Nobs01 16:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thx. This requires a cooperative effort. Again continuing with my thesis of the "ironies of history" (Talk:Whittaker Chambers/Venona), it's ironic that the Clinton administration declassified material that "vindicated" McCarthy, then it appears the G.W. Bush administration re-classified material that protects suspects (Venona#Document_Release_Issues). Indeed history often reveals the inverse opposite of commonly accepted conventional perceptions. Nobs01 17:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did you know?
| Missing image Updated_DYK_query.png Updated DYK query | Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article The United States and nuclear weapons, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Nuclear weapons and the United States
Thanks for the rewording. I am not a native speaker of English, but in my opinion, the former wording seemed to somewhat belittle the public opinion, possibly implying that the morality of nuclear weapons might be judged differently by the "non-public", say politicians and the military. Ah well, perhaps I am just over-sensitive when it comes to questions of global politics and the U.S. military. Kosebamse 05:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Magic
Since you answered a question concerning intellectual property on the Reference desk, I thought I pose this to you. If I were to develop a magic trick, by which law would this be protected against people robbing the idea and reselling for profit? I've heard several people say it's not protected by copyright, but since it's an original work, I believe it should be. Can you shine your light on this? - Mgm|(talk) 15:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
lobster
hallo - that is ok with me, thank you Uwe Kils 11:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
All four hooves off the ground
I like the links in synch with the Muybridge photo (one of the best legacies of Stanford). Anyway: I've learned to stay away from race and intelligence but I do stay interested in William Shockley I just added some material from an L.A. Times article by Slate editor David Plotz (apparently a condensed version of an E-book he has out.[1] (http://www.ereader.com/product/detail/19531?book=The_Genius_Factory:_The_Curious_History_of_the_Nobel_Prize_Sperm_Bank) Shockley and Graham are portrayed as driving another nail into eugenics' coffin while at the same time revolutionizing the operation of sperm banks in a way that may further some of their goals. Anyway, the article may get more eugenics material in it. If you have time you might look in on it and help to keep us honest. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- That article has been quieter than I thought it might become. Good. So, I've come to collect on your offer of support. After having been invited a few times, and been called one several times, I've decided that I'm ready to to become an admin. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willmcw. Of course I'm not holding you to your previous offer and if you choose instead to oppose me then I won't let that affect our editing collaborations in any way. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Nonhuman animals ethics
Quite what is going on here I don't know, see the talk page. I think it's someone's personal essay but it's very skewed. Dunc|☺ 01:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)