Please add new comments at the bottom of the page, using a new section if you're not responding to a previous discussion. Discussions about the content of articles usually belongs at the article talk page, and I reserve the right to move it there.

• First archive

The Persecution of Andrew Villeneuve

I think you've gone in very hard with Andrew Villeneuve. Calling him all those names seem particularly cruel, even by our rough standards. I think it would be best to withdraw your deletion proposal while some more research is conducted. What say you JudgeRad?

Libertas

Thanks for your comments! I think Villeneuve is basically "peeking on the horizon" of encyclopedic notability, WP style. I changed my vote to keep mostly because of the strong opinions and interest expressed in the VfD. From a personal standpoint, Villeneuve sounds like someone I wouldn't trust with my coffee money (this is only a metaphorical remark), and in editorial terms, I'd prefer to see a bit more biographical information about him in the article. Wyss 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your Personal Attacks

Radical, you have in the space of 24 hours called me a liar and that I practice deception. Is this what you mean you speak of personal attacks? Libertas

Replied on my talk page. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was aware that Libertas (it's a she, apparently) caused some unrest. However, I did not consider myself involved, and did not consider my comments on her 'list of shame' an attempt of dispute resolution. You may still quote me, of course, but what I said was merely based on looking on her talk page, and without any background knowledge. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Much as I am enjoying the Request for Comment drafting, I acknowledge that it is a guilty pleasure and bad karma. I was very careful not to initiate such a process but given your pattern of abuse and trolling, a failure to counter would have created a very wrong impression. I will keep writing the RFC until I hear from you affirmatively but I would be happy not to waste the time of the Wikipedia community (which you purport to represent I noticed) with your outrageous claims and my detailed assessment of your contributions. I am not sure it is a very healthy exercise, as I'm sure you're not as bad as your worst contributions and I like to think I'm not as bad as my worst either. In any event, there seems little enthusiasm for what you're doing to me and to other users like Andrew Villeneuve, so I'd be very careful in speaking for the "Wikipedia community" in future. I'm not sure they all like what they're hearing... Libertas

Libertas RFC

I almost can't believe it took this long from someone to get fed up with Libertas enough to start an RFC, but I'm actually not suprised: I would have myself, but being thoroughly sick of Libertas I had little desire to immerse myself in her edit history sufficient to gather the evidence, let alone write the RFC. Thank you for starting this. Now we will see whether we are simply deluded and Libertas' behaviour is harmless and innocent, as she asserts.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:44, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Sherrard

A profile I wrote on this young activist has been listed for deletion. You may want to intervene. (signed as "" but edited as "Zulitz ") 17:32, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

There was no attempt to harass anyone. The profile was produced out of genuine admiration for Sherrard's record, and a belief that record has been vindicated by the conduct of the Bush Administration. The record of over thirteen hundred and fifty American soldiers dead--and no end to the killing of either Americans or Iraqis in sight--is a shameful one which vindicates the opponents of the War. That vindication will only gain force as the tragedy escalates in the months and years ahead. I believe that Sherrard and other antiwar activists of both eloquence and achievement should have their biographies profiled in the Wikipedia, and I will work--hopfully with others--to produce such profiles in the future. If standing up against great force producing policies of enormous American and international tragedy is not a sign of notability, I do not know what is."((User:Zulitz/Zulitz))") 0:06, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent Work

I think your articles are nicely written and well thought out. From the articles I've read so far, they don't seem one sided at all. If my son could write as well as you do, I'd be clicking my heels. Keep up the good work. Paradigmbuff 02:06, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

You have made a personal attack of sockpuppetry or impersonation of Libertas and some other charges. I will give you this opportunity to withdraw these falsehoods prior to seeking arbitration. Ollieplatt 10:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In light of your continued personal attacks, I have requested arbitration against you. Ollieplatt 10:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe you RfA is motivated by the blog site about you. I assure you I had nothing to do with it. Ollieplatt 12:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I am enjoying your attempts to look for anything other than reasonable entries. Keep trying. I enjoyed your blog by the way "Michael Sherrard Exposed", please be assured that I will find out whether it is you trying to "frame" me to get me disqualified from Wikipedia. Ollieplatt 06:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt

I'll keep an eye on him. He's a troll. RickK 06:56, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt, too

from: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ollieplatt

Technical evidence found by Tim Starling confirms that Libertas has multiple sockpuppet accounts. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Proposed decision#Sockpuppets 2.

Salazar, Ollieplatt, Razalah , Jennypratt , Suna , Dean12 , Viewvista , Fylc , Billclinton, Anilingus, and Nutrosnutros are all sockpuppet accounts of one user (as acknowledged by technical evidence), likely Libertas.

Davenbelle 08:31, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Salazar et al

I've looked at a lot of the socks' "Contributions", and tried to clear-out the pov-pushing, but there's lots. (Sorry 'bout the Green Party page.) Tomorrow I want to look into Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front && Nepalese_People's_War. Except for Ollie && Sal, I thinks the other puppets' damage is fixed. I only saw Ollie blocked, so I expect s/he's on a fixed IP, which should help. — Davenbelle 10:25, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Martin or Michael Luther King?

I looked at the discussion on Martin Luther King Jr.'s name at birth, it seems that he was actually Michael? Anyway, I leave it up to you, though you should be aware that there is an inconsistency with the Martin Luther King, Sr. page. Please change both or not at all. Tedneeman 08:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas

FYI - Libertas and all sockpuppets are banned for a year (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas#Ban_for_disruptive_behaviour). Effective whenever a non-involved admin issues the block. --mav 00:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians who blog

Hi! if you have a moment, could you please see to comment? We're interested in learning how Wikinews can work with bloggers; what they might be interested in, how they can take advantage of Wikinews, how they can contribute through their blogs, etc. Thanks! Amgine /^talk

Chuck F's arbitration case

A final decision has been reached in Chuck F's arbitration case. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Chuck_F#Final_decision. --mav 00:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Some people say adding tags does no good. But I have to say thanks for "cleanup" tagging Council of Conservative Citizens. The old article was horrible, copied directly from the ADL, (and which was not a work of which they could be proud). Several weeks ago I wrote a beautiful, detailed article with many sources, which I promptly lost in a crash. Your tag gave me the incentive the write at least a better stub. Thanks for the push. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Craft unionism

Took your suggestion. Also took the liberty of erasing the curse of inaccuracy/POV template. Invite further comments. 24.126.41.116 04:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) (who would sign in as Italo Svevo if this computer did not freeze every time I try to log in.

Chomsky

Hi Radicalsubversiv. Reverts are, by Wikipedia convention, marked as "minor" edits. While I could have simply reverted his re-insertion of the deleted information (not deleted by me, I might add), I did him a favour instead, and left it physically there while commenting it out. I also used edit summaries to explain why. If you'd prefer I could simply hit the revert button, then there'd be no question why the revert would be marked as "minor". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, I deleted no text, merely commented it out. If I had simply hit the revert buton, the net effect would have been the same, and the "minor" edit designation would have been automatic, but it would have been significantly less friendly. A revert is a minor edit any way you slice it. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NLRB long long titles

I'll take your suggestion (again). But your comment "great work" is unintentionally ironic: I did this instead of the "real" work that I came to the office to do. Thanks all the same, without any irony on my part. Italo Svevo 06:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Labor Wikiproject

I'm in favor of it, but what exactly does it mean? That we announce the project in order to attract contributors? Impose standards for content? List articles that need priority? Promote the good articles for recognition? Gather them up some way? I'm in favor of all of those things, but what is the process?

I'd also like to see more articles about other nations that appear to have been overlooked, Mexico in particular. Mexican union history is as rich and complex as that of the US, but we have nothing on the CTM and only a very brief piece on the PRI. Odd, considering the profusion of pages on the tiniest left sects in Sweden or the US. We may not be able to fill the gap by translating from other languages: the Spanish wikipedia has an article on Vicente Lombardo Toledano, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Lombardo_Toledano, but no discussion of the 1948 rail strike in it and no page for the CTM. The PRI article itself is not much to speak of . . . but I digress. -- Italo Svevo 01:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

International Workers of the World -- is my face red! or maybe reformist pink! I am deeply appreciative of your sharp eyes. -- Italo Svevo 22:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism in Canada and England

Looks like you're right about Australia. I'm not sure about England, but Canada has at least one Libertarian Party, which indicates that they (might?) use the term the same way as in the US. [1] I don't know much about England, but I suspect they should be removed from the list at the beginning as well. Dave 08:42, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jay Inslee

Nice addition. However, please be aware of the distinction between "challenger" and "open seat" races -- the former is generally used only to refer to races where the incumbent is running for re-election. Inslee's 1992 race was for an open seat, as was his 1996 gubernatorial primary bid, and I've been unable to find any information on his 1988 election to the state legislature. RadicalSubversiv E 02:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoops. Should've checked whether there was an incumbent in those races. Thanks for fixing that. At some point, I'd like to make similar tables for other politicians (I just started with Washington ones because those are the ones I'm most familiar with and Inslee in particular because MCs tend to have a lot of info available and he's in the 1st district). Whether that actually is going to happen or not is debatable... Jonel 00:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

• VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
• VfD: Franklin High School
• VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
• VfD: Red Lake High School
• VfD: The Sage School
• VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

Thanks on ACORN

Thanks for watching ACORN and doing the revert, I have the reference to SEIU well cited in the NRLB decision but every once in a while someone will come along and remove SEIU from being mentioned for whatever reason. --Wgfinley 07:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page. I appreciate it. --Holdek ^(talk) 22:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Sockpuppet seems to be a popular expression. I am not one. I disagree with your edits to the Dean article which tag him "insurgent", "party animal" and other stupidity. How can you justify this? Lagavulin 23:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In case anybody is reading this and gives a damn, Lagavulin is a sockpuppet of User:Libertas and/or User:JoeM, both of whom are currently banned from editing Wikipedia. Also, the dictionary definition of insurgent is "rebelling against the leadership of a political party", obviously an appropriate label for Dean's presidential campaign. If someone besides Lagavulin wants to come up with a less colloquial synonym for "party animal", please feel free. RadicalSubversiv E 23:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am neither User:Libertas or User:JoeM, and have never been banned from Wikipedia which I have been using for over a year. You are editing an article in a manner that you cannot or chose not to defend and are using scurrilous attacks to change the subject. Attacking Dean for being an insurgent or party animal or whichever insult you can devise undermines Wikipedia's high purpose. Lagavulin 23:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS I have invited User:Libertas and User:JoeM to disassociate themselves from me. I don't know if they will but I demand that you stop falsely accusing me without evidence. I have done nothing to you to warrant your attacks. How can I possibly prove that I am not someone you say I am. I will gladly give my contact details to Wikipedia staff to discuss the matter. But I won't tolerate your continued questioning of my good faith. I didn't intend to make many edits, just to express my concerns about the bias in some articles I had read as a regular user of Wikipedia. Your attacks may be designed to stop me from removing anti-Dean bias but they will probably have the reverse effect. Lagavulin 23:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that your choice of articles to "de-bias" coincides almost exactly with articles those that Libertas/Ollieplatt/etc. picked fights with me over, and that you use similarly-phrased over-the-top rhetoric and denials. It's also a coincidence that you appeared at the same time as a veritable army of "new" users began make POV-pushing and vandalizing edits to many of the same pages. RadicalSubversiv E 23:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what disputes you have with others, they don't involve me and I cannot imagine why you would say so. I don't wish a dispute with you of any kind. How do I make contact with Wikipedia staff to resolve the issue. I am *most* unhappy about this. I have done nothing to warrant your accusation. Lagavulin 23:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would encourage you to take any complaints about my behavior to ArbCom, I'm sure they'll be very sympathetic to your plight. RadicalSubversiv E 23:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know ArbCom, all I need is a contact on Wikipedia staff. Reviewing the pages of Libertas and JoeM, it is clear you mean no good by associating me with them. I wish for the question to be resolved quickly and for an apology. Lagavulin 00:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not you are a sockpuppet, your attitude is extremely obnoxious. Please review the Wikipedia help files, and familiarize with what Wikipedia is, what it is not, and how things are done here. Most of us have been very accommidating to the fact that you are new here, but you seem not want to adjust your attitude. It's wearing very thin, very fast. Again, the "Help" link in the upper left-corner box is a great starting point. Thanks. --Holdek ^(talk) 00:08, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

My attitude is that bias should be called bias. I'm sorry your attack piece on Oliver North is being questioned, just as Radicalsubversive's attack piece on Howard Dean is being questioned. While very different figures, the same issue is at stake, which is the facts should be recorded not just partisan opinion about the subject's enemies. Biased and factually wrong articles need to be fixed, when I realized the way of doing that I signed up as an editor and am contributing what I can (not much probably) but I can see blatant spin when I see it. I don't why we're discussing this on Radicalsubversive's page but it is now very unfortunately on the list of pages I watch. How sad, I'd prefer to be improving articles rather than responding to right-wingers and left-wingers attacks. Lagavulin 00:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not looking for trouble, and after all, assume good faith, but are you implying that the changes made to the Karl Rove article after my own were me using a sockpuppet? Seems like a pretty serious accusation to toss around, but maybe I'm misinterpreting what you wrote. If you visit my user page you'll note that I'm not shy about taking responsibility for my changes. On an unrelated note, I think there's room to debate just how many unsourced allegations should be written into an article before it drifts away from NPOV. If someone wrote "Radical Subversive was accused of being a serial killer by a journalist in the Oregon Daily Blab, but he denied the charge," it might not warrant inclusion. I'm not saying to cut all of these things, because part of what makes Rove noteworthy is the degree of mythology that exists around him, as well as the depth of liberal animosity to him, but I do think we need to consider how much is "fair" to include. Sincerely, Kaisershatner 02:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, wanted to add that I took a closer look at the changes you reverted, and it's probably clear I had nothing to do with them (some things he removed I put in myself). Sorry for the misunderstanding; I still am curious about your view of my other point about NPOV allegations and rumors, though. Kaisershatner 02:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)