User talk:Ruy Lopez
|
|
Re: The Blind Shiekh
Its a rather sad day when someone cannot describe someone as a terrorist (when he was convicted of such an act) because it is considered non-neutral. That is political correctness gone crazy.
I won't change the article back, or become embroiled in petty squabbling over it, except to say that I am disappointed in you for having been brainwashed by the political correctness police. I would be willing to tolerate a discussion on Osama bin Laden as being considered a "freedom fighter" by Islamicists, but not being able to label the Blind Shiekh a terrorist?!?!?!
The Shiekh is and will remain a terrorist in my mind, and in the minds of the majority of people....
| Contents |
Placeholders
Hi! Just so you know, extremely short articles that are little more than placeholders for external links are candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 01:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Looks better. Thanks for fixing it! Might have to look at that site closer just for the heck of it. Just when you thought every variation of a Wiki site had come along...there's Anarchopedia!! Have a terrific weekend. - Lucky 6.9 01:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Anarchopedia
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchopedia. As an article that was VfD'd, it can be speedy-deleted if recreated. -- Curps 17:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Xed
Are you the same person as the banned user Xed? Rad Racer 02:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Osama bin Laden
Hi Ruy, I saw you made this edit to the intro: "Privately, he has attended weddings with family members and kept in contact with his mother." Could you supply a reference for this please? I've looked around for one, but can't find anything. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 06:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I wouldn't delete anything from Wikipedia that was accurate or properly referenced. The references you gave don't support the edit you made, that's the problem. "He has attended weddings with family members." So far as is known, he has not attended any since September 11. The one wedding your link [1] (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/House-Of-Bin-Laden12sep02.htm) referred to (though it did not make this clear) was in January 2001. And he has "kept in contact with his mother." Again, so far as is known, there was a telephone call from someone to the mother just after 9/11 saying that bin Laden was alive, according to one of his brothers [2] (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/18); and then according to (as I recall) Vincent Cannistraro, the mother was sent once to meet him by the Saudi govt as an emissary after 9/11 to ask what bin Laden's intentions were toward the Saudis. The sentence does need to be rewritten to reflect what the references say. Do you agree with that? SlimVirgin 05:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I really don't care. Wikipedia is controlled by people of a particular political slant, including Jimbo Wales, and I gave up months ago on the idea that it's articles will contain anything contrary to what its commissars will allow, I've moved on to other wiki's for the most part. The article says he was disowned by his family in 1994 - yet he attended a wedding with family members in 2001. You have just said he met his mother after 9/11. The references to this which you said you couldn't find I found within a couple of seconds. Both of these stories which are buried in the news's back pages contradict the story that his family disowned him after 1994, which is still constantly repeated on the news, on American television anyhow. But as I said, I am through with worrying about Wikipedia articles. You obviously want to wipe this out, and I don't care. I am not going to waste hours digging up references to (attempt to) prevent you from removing this. It's obvious Wikipedia has an editorial slant, and these facts contradict the lie that Osama was disowned after 9/11. So remove them if that's your desire. I'm not spending any more time than the few minutes I already have on this. This discussion is over - do what you want. Ruy Lopez 17:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I won't bother you with it again, but just want to point out that the references I said I couldn't find, were references that supported your edit. And I still haven't found them. SlimVirgin 17:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Weathermen
If it was just a rumour, I agree with the removal rather than qualifying it as "speculation" or similar wording. Thanks. — Saxifrage | ☎ 18:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Your recent reversions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weathermen&curid=33984&diff=0&oldid=0) without discussion on the talk page are in violation of your Arbitration. Please use the talk page for its intended purpose and stop abusing the edit summary. — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
Hi, can you cite sources for your addition to The Vagina Monologues that the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property "has connections with Latin American death squads". It seems logical to me that if they did have connections to death squads (latin or otherwise) its the kind of thing they might keep quite secret. Cheerio, An An 05:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Republican text
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Meelar (talk) 01:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
If you do anything like that again I will report you for vandalism and ask that you be blocked. Adam 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
hola
Thanks for your help with Pablo Neruda. I suspect the battle isn't over yet. -- Viajero 21:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removing facts from Wikipedia
Please do not remove facts from Wikipedia to suit your POV. The world, strangely, isn't that black-and-white and neither your edits will make it so. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Seeing more of your recent activity I asked for block on you. Most of your contributions are highly biased POV, always get reverted yet you do not seem to be bothered by this at all. This behaviour doesn't bring anything useful to Wikipedia, only chaos and more work for people on RC check. If you really feel the urge to create your own verion of the world, please fork the Wikipedia or join some other online encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree you are deliberately POVing articles to suit your own personal opinion.--198 06:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
List of Stalinists
Could you take a look at the list as it has developed since vfd and reconsider your vote? Gazpacho 01:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia
Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the comments! I've been beginning to notice a lot of the patters that you bring up. There are quite a few contributors willing to work toward neutrality, though. BTW, please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone. WebLuis 01:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Vyacheslav Molotov
I don't compromise with Communists--198 02:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I came up with a compromise so-to speak with Humus ([4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vyacheslav_Molotov&diff=13813330&oldid=13813131)), mind you I don't want to compromise with you, I'm only willing to deal with Humus and I hope you are willing to accept his version. Mind you Ruy I founght in 'Nam against Commies like you (and there's some stuff I did I ain't proud of that I did in Hue (city)); nonetheless I'd be glad to fight commies again (especially in Nepal or Russia).--198 03:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Khmer Rouge
I also don't compromise with Communists, particularly ones who front for the mass murderers of the Khmer Rouge. You may fool Rangek, who appears not to know much about Cambodia, but you don't fool me. Adam 00:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- The Royal Governement and Khmer Rouge were allies; Sihanouk was as much of a commie as you are. Look at my current revision on Khmer Rouge [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khmer_Rouge&diff=0&oldid=13997414), frankly the only truly democratic non-communist leader was Lon Nol--198 23:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, no, Sihanouk was not a commie. See the KR talk page. Adam 00:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
What are you doing? What the heck are FUNK, CPNLAF and GRUNK? This article is about Khmer Rouge, not these other terms. RickK 05:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
VFD page
Hi. We haven't interacted yet, but I've seen your work and you seem to be one of the more influential progressive contributors on this site... You might find this page on the VfD interesting. [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/New_College_Democrats) This is an article on a Democratic organization affliated with the socialist United for Peace and Justice umbrella. While I doubt that you are too impressed by the Democratic Party in the U.S., perhaps you may be interested in voting to keep this article, as it is the only organ of one of the two mainstream parties in this country officially taking on a progressive, socialist orientation. (The vote's real close now so I'm looking for support.) Thanks. JMaxwell 18:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vietnam Medal Template Images
Please be careful about mass deleting images without discussing it first. Your huge alteration to Template:VietnamWarMedals affected Awards and decorations of the United States military. I changed the template name in repsonse to your concern about north and south medals. I have no opinion if you want to remove the template from Vietnam War. Just please don't change the template itself as this affects other articles. Also, if you are concerned about North Vietnam medals, please visit Military decorations of the Cold War. There is a section over there that needs writing. -Husnock 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for the comments. From looking at some of the discussion threads, especially the Khmer Rouge page, I'm beginning to notice some of the things that you are noting. It's a shame that things are the way they are here, since you seem to have been doing so much good work. So I'll have to ake a look at Anarchopedia. JMaxwell 21:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
North Vietnamese victory
In your edit of Vietnam War, you wrote:
- North Vietnamese victory? What about the NLF?
To which it might be noted that it was uniformed troops of the North Vietnamese regular armed forces who occupied Saigon and received the surrender of Big Minh, and it was the government of North Vietnam that subsequently suppressed the South Vietnamese insurgents following the capitulation of the South. Moreover, despite public protestations to the contrary, it was North Vietnam—not the NLF or any other "local" revolutionaries—that initiated and controlled the action of NLF partisans throughout the duration of the conflict.
However, because I can see how a good-faith argument exists to name the NLF and/or other South Vietnamese revolutionary groups as at least co-victors, I changed the wording of the appropriate sentence to mostly avoid the issue. —Ryanaxp 20:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- The idea that the DRV initiated resistance in southern Vietnam is absurd. If anything, the DRV in the first years of its existence tried to get the southern communists and nationalists to lay low while it was busy shoring up its new government. The DRV was especially adamant to not engage in armed resistance. From 1954 until at earliest 1959, the southern communists and nationalists were always chomping at the bit to resist Diem, while the DRV was urging caution. By 1959-1960, the situation for communists and nationalists in the south had reached what was perceived to be a dire level, and the DRV had firmed itself up, and at this point the DRV stopped trying to rein in the southern communists and nationalists. The initiative was in the south, where it always was.
- As far as the surrender of Minh, when I look at this picture[7] (http://www.fallofsaigon.org/tanks02.gif) of the tank smashing through the presidental palace gates in Saigon, I see an NLF flag, not a DRV one. I would agree that after over twenty years of being shot at by the ARVN, US Army, and Phoenix Program operatives, so many PLAF soldiers had been killed that the PAVN/PLAF ratio changed. Nevertheless, as that picture shows, the NLF was given the honor of taking the palace, and an NLF flag was flown from the palace. No one received Duong Van Minh's surrender, Minh was told he had no connection with the Republic of South Vietnam and he had no authority to surrender anything. Ruy Lopez 21:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
![[7]](http://www.fallofsaigon.org/tanks02.gif){kind=link}