User talk:CJK/Archive 2

Military history of the Soviet Union

Hi CJK,

Upon your deletion, I contacted the author of the paragraph in question who is one of the most knowledgeable Wikipedians in the field. You can see his response at my talk.

It is my opinion that the deletions from the articles is the last resort, especially, as far as peer reviewed and WP:Featured articles are concerned and especially those of them that came out from 24-hour exposure at the WP front page.

I think that the compromise is possible, but if you will absolutely insist I won't through a big fight over this since the author, whose work I absolutely respect, doesn't strongly object to your removal either. --Irpen 02:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind your rephrasing that to say that this is an opinion of some, although rather respected, scholars rather than a fact. And if you remove it again, I won't do anything this time. I just wanted to make sure that the deletions are absolutely warranted and contacted the author and added the refs. --Irpen 21:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

hey

hey it seems the fidel castro article has gotten the attention of a few more communists, and is spiraling down to nonsense. Check out the discussion.--Antispammer 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Also take note of some of the changes that have been made to the article. First they change communist state to socialist state. Second they changed in power to as Prime Minister. I think originally the plan was to make Cuba a socialist state, as it is reflected in the name of their party but Cuba very rapidly, became a communist state right after Castro took over. So, I don't understand why there is a edit war over this, and frankly I'm getting tired of arguing with these two or three communists. They know he is a dictator, but don't want to admit it. They just want to beat me in this nonsense debate. They don't care for accuracy at all, only to win this lousy debate.--Antispammer 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to fill you in, Antispammer, there has been a manic editor called Comanadante (talk • contribs) who has been periodically changing the reference from "Communist state" to "socialist state" in the Castro intro for months. Such edits are clear vandalism because no legitimate argument can be made that the term Communist state (as it is defined in Wikipeida's entry) is not a more specific description of Castro's regime than "socialist state." Fortunately, Comandante's vandalism is only sporadic, meaning that he is only a minor pest. When you see him making edits to the Castro article, just revert him on spot and wait for other editors to back you up. BTW, apologies to CJK for using your talk page for a message not specifically directed to you. 172 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comandante needs a permanent ban. Anyhow this not that harsh because he already has been using multiple anonymous ips and different logins. I left you a message on your talk page.--Antispammer 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Look at this. Not a single citation. Wtf?!?--Antispammer 04:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comandante

Hi CJK. Antispammer just started this page, and then I inserted the template. Are you interested in helping us finish the rest of it, and then co-signing it? 172 01:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Comandante is not a semi-respectable user but an obvious vandal. The ideal solution is to get an administrator to block him indefinitely; but this unlikely to work. People can get away with quite a lot on Wikipedia because the website is increasingly an unwieldy Byzantine maze of a bureaucracy. Comandante is well-known among history and politics editors such as the two of us, but generally not to the administrators, who may not automatically accept our assertion that he is a vandal. Thus, I think that the RfC is worth filing as a step toward arbitration. While we could skip the RfC and go straight to the Arbcom, this might not be a good idea. There'd be the chance that we might be asked to go through "prior stages of the dispute resolution process." Moreover, an RfC with many signatures increases the chances of getting the remedy that we want-- a permanent ban. The arbitrators seem to like well-composed RfCs because they help reduce their workloads. A good RfC will help the arbitrators aggregate all the evidence that they may want to consider. 172 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I got your last message. Let's report him to the Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard as a vandal. We might not get the indefinite ban that we want, but have a good chance of short-term relief. 172 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to talk to you

I really need to talk to you, 172, wikibofh, Jossi, and Lulu. Preferably outside wikipedia, I just realized something very important.--Antispammer 13:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Guess what I forgot my password and I used fake personal information so now I can't retrieve it. Hah! I have been manically trying to login to my email, which I opened up recently, and I can't remember it.--Antispammer 21:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Political Epithets

Please visit this page sometime and edit as you see fit. It is in terrible need of balance. Also, please visit "Useful Idiot" - it needs lots of help as well.

Stalin

Thanks for the note. I just made a couple of reversions of only the worst edits that stuck out immediately. I'll take another look. In the meantime, this reminds me that I forgot to look at the History of Russia article, where a similar (Russian nationalist?) editor made many edits from a similar point of view. Thanks for keeping an eye on that editor. Please keep watching him or her. 172 10:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA Ruy Lopez

Do you think its finnaly time? He contributes nothing, and wages endless edit wars. What do you think? DTC 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OH how funny, you just described yourself TDC, and you clone (possible sock puppet [but with no proof]) CJK too... LOL Travb 03:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What in god's name are you talking about? DTC 17:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the fourth person I've been accused of being a sockpuppet of. I think it says a lot about yourself when you will jump on any pro-US "apologists" but when it comes to a crazed user/vandal whitewashing the worst genocide ever (proportionately), you are there to defend him. CJK 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that it will change your opinion of me, but I criticize left-wing people too. Ask TDC about Winter Soldier Investigation or see my comments arguing with a leftist on Philippine-American War. Lets not get into an argument about who is more biased, because there is no way to definitively quantify this. I just find it so funny how these accusations that Ruy Lopez "contributes nothing, and wages endless edit wars" once again smack of hypocricy, similar to TDC's copyright justifications. Just last week I said the same thing about your contributions CJK, and I can't count how many times myself and others have said this to TDC.Travb 10:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you try mediation before requesting arbitration? --James S. 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a mediation attempt, but it broke down because their isn't anything to mediate about if basic debate goes unanswered, and others felt that a mediation decision would not be appropriate [1] [2]. CJK 17:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested, but I don't know anything about RFA's, how do I comment? I want to say something. (Bjorn Tipling 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

I'm interested but unfamiliar with the intimacies of the process. I am not currently engaged in a serious editing dispute with Lopez (and as such would not accept a ruling concerning myself), but would happily serve as a source of evidence as to the nature of this person's editing, provided that this effort be treated with a modicum of seriousness by Wikipedia editors, particularly if they have indicated their support for, and the inevitability of, such a move in the past (i.e. Adam Carr, VeryVerily, etc.). --TJive 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would draw your attention to Talk:No Gun Ri incident, an old skulking ground of said user and ideological compadres. --TJive 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank for letting me know about posting on the wrong page. Travb 03:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello CJK

I wanted to let you know that I mentioned you by name on Ruy's talk page...Travb 10:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You see this?

You see this? I am taking bets on how long it takes before another "new" user steps into the article.DTC 00:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Like anyone will do anything about it? I mean, my check user has been up for days, and does not even have one comment. DTC 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Blum

yeah i saw that. pretty amusing. Stoned Trey 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi; Can I suggest that you use your edit summaries to just summarize your edit? I understand your desire for balance in the article; you'll notice I haven't undone any of your work. But "I think Saddam Hussein wrote this article" is likely to antagonize people, and could be taken as a personnal attack. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It won't happen again, but it was difficult to contain myself in the face of outright lies that had peppered the aricle for quite some time. CJK 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for defeding the truth

thak you, for sticking up for real Amercians, as few of us as there are on wikipedia

History of Laos

Thanks for your interest in this project. The answer to both questions is that I am basing this article largely on Martin Stuart-Fox's book, which I read while travelling in Laos this month, and which I think is both well-informed and fair to all sides. The view that the US effectively ran the government zone from 1964 to 1973 is based on his account, though the statement is mine not his. The 200,000 figure (p144) refers to Lao deaths in the the whole war - I will clarify this sentence. Adam 07:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You write:

I don't think it is NPOV to assert that the US "ran" the Laotian government any more than the US "ran" Cambodia, South Vietnam, South Korea, Iran, Latin America, or Zaire just because they funded their forces. Obviously the government was influenced, but comparing US "control" to North Vietnamese "conrol" is simply not accurate, the areas where Hanoi put military bases were directly governed by Hanoi and enforced using their own armed forces. The US did not literally dictate all of the policies of the Lao government and had no comparative army in Laos.

In response:

• I didn't say the US ran the Lao government, I said the US ran the Lao government zone - not the same thing at all. By "ran" I of course don't mean that they directly administered it. I mean that they made all the important decisions by virtue of the fact they paid virtually all the bills. They certainly did directly control the Royal Lao Army through pro-US commanders such as Uan who took their orders directly from the US Embassy.
• I have never said, and don't argue, that the US ran Cambodia, South Vietnam, South Korea, Iran, Latin America, or Zaire. I don't believe that in any of those countries the US had an agreement to foot the entire cost of the country's army as they did in Laos. The US Embassy and USAID between them also paid for nearly the whole operations of the Lao government, and USAID also administred a huge budget on its own account. Relative to the population of the country, I believe the US spent more money in Laos than in any of those places, and exercised a correspondingly greater degree of control.
• One important difference between Laos and all those places was Souvannaphouma's attitude - he saw himself as a neutral observer in the war between North Vietnam and the US, and effectively abdicated control to the US while waiting for a chance to re-open negotiations. This was not something that Syngman Rhee, Theiu, Lon Nol etc etc ever did.
• It should be noted that the North Vietnamese didn't directly run the communist zone either. They were scrupulous in observing the formalities of Pathet Lao independence, although they made all the important decisions. As the text notes, the Pathet Lao accepted this as both a necessity and a matter of communist discipline. So the situation in the two zones, while not identical, was more analogous than you suggest. Adam 06:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are all fair points, which I will work into the text. This is a work-in-progress so all informed input is welcome (I have added some photos to the first section now). Adam 04:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey

My apologies, you and TDC may share the same views, but you don't share the same body.

I am glad that you are watching my edits, it makes me feel important. Kind of like someone on the CIA COUNTERINTELPRO list.

Although, I admit, I have neglected wikipedia for the past few weeks, as you probably already know. Working on other projects.

Again, my apologies about the baseless acusations, I was wrong. Travb 23:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to add evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ruy_Lopez/Evidence ?

Cuba

No, I don't care. My website has no information on elections in Cuba other than to say that there aren't any. Adam 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez case notification

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez has been merged into the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily case Raul654 17:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with merge?

Hello CJK, to avoid a revert war, would you agree to merging List of alleged U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 into List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945? You seem like the only person who would oppose such act, since you created List of alleged U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. Please let me know.Travb 09:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Drop me a line. Ten Dead Chickens 03:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I promise not to call you an apologist anymore...

...If you promise not to call me an anti-american any more. (I think you only called me it once, anyway)

I am going to try and stop calling names, it just gets people mad.Travb 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Message from: Talk:List of United States foreign interventions since 1945#Suharto_again

I again maintain that giving Suharto a list and ignoring his invasion of East Timor does not constitute "intervention". CJK 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Do you meant that we should include the invasion of East Timor, please clarify.Travb 13:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that both aren't actually US covert "interventions". CJK 20:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I c. I remember your argument.

apologist

This is an excellent example of what I mean by calling you an "apologist" (a more civil form of "imperialist" or "jingoist").

If a communist did this, you would probably think this is horrendous.

But since the US did it, you "apologize" for the actions, and defend reprehensible actions of the US government.

I hope this clarifies the defunct word "apologist" that I won't use much anymore.

Here is the situation: The US provides a death list for Suharto, and gives Indonesia the green light to invade using US weapons to kill an estimated 250,000 people. If I recall, you chastised Ruy for doing the same thing with Cambodians, downplaying the horrendous death toll of the Khmer Rouge (Sp?).

This is a common argument of web blogs, and of lawyers. The argument is: what "is" really is. "Is" doesn't really mean "is". It means something else! Providing a list of 5,000 communists to Suharto is not REALLY intervention, it is something else. Exactly the same as Ruy, the Khmer Rouge (sp?) didn't REALLY kill x amount of people, they only killed y amount of people! I could take this example further, but I am not going to get booted again.

Hypocrisy?

Again, like I said to your conservative compatriot on your talk page, who said you should "get" Ruy for his behavior: Do you think its finally time? He contributes nothing, and wages endless edit wars. I think your standard is a little hypocritical: one standard for US foreign policy, and another standard for US enemies. As I said on your talk page, you are not much different than Ruy. The only difference is your bogeymen are different.

Now, I am making a lot of assumptions in this paragraph, so if I am incorrect, please, correct me.

But if I am correct, I have no patience or tolerance for such revisionist history hypocrisy, from Ruy or anyone else, and I am remind by the comments to you that got me booted for 3 days. Everyone, predictably, seemed to miss the point of that message, and focused on the most sensational part, just like the "Little Eichman" speech of Ward Churchill: Attack the messenger so you never have to contemplate the thought provoking and sensational message. It is much easier to do this, but I personally feel it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

Attacking the sender

I remember how you disregarded all of my arguments on my talk page, including some of my quotes, dismissed them with a flick of the wrist, just as you will probably disregard these comments too.

Here is one of the quotes you dismissed out of hand:

"When adults first become conscious of something new, they usually either attack or try to escape from it... Attack includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely putting out of mind." -- William I.B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation, 1957

Again, I may be incorrect, and if so, please correct me.

Why do you keep asking?

Why do you keep pushing and keep asking why I thought you were an apologist? I fear you may have ulterior motives, and just want to get me booted again.

Did either of you two apologize for accusing Ruy of being a sock puppet, when there was no proof (as he alleges)?

Appears like you silenced Ruy, whose next? If I get booted after being egged on by you, repeatedly, to share my opinion, then Ruy's conservative conspiracy theory about Wikipedia may have something to it. Travb 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Response: Colombia and the nuances of US foreign policy

Re: your comments

The situations are vastly different. Using your theory, I'd have to blame the KR's crimes on Mao, since he sent them most of their weapons. I do not minimize the amount murdered by Suharto. You still haven't proven how giving a list or a green light constitutes intervention in Indonesia's affairs.

We agree then about 99% of your statement. That is great.

hypocrisy Oh yeah, I get it. I'm being hypocritical for "apologizing" about so-called "interventions" but its not "apologizing" by defending Ward Churchill and using his quotes.

The first section repeating my idea is correct, the second section is partially correct. Churchill is a sensationalist author, a person could disagree with Churchill and still accept the idea that America has committed war crimes without apologizing for those crimes, as you appear to do.

In fact, as I wrote here, Churchill, is only a "gateway author", like Hannity, O'Rielly, Chomsky, and Moore. These authors provide readers with one-sided slanted introductions to politics and history. Hopefully the reader goes beyond these authors and finds the nuances and exceptions to their often simplistic, biased, one-sided arguments. Unfortunately, I don't think most readers do go beyond these biased authors. The more I learn about history, the less respect I have for any of these sensationalist authors, on the right and the left. I find Chomsky's "apologist" attitude on Khmer Rouge sickening, for example.

But there is one constant that has not changed: the more I read history, the less "unique" America appears and the more horrifying some of the war crimes of America's history. Take for example Nicaragua_v._US, a subject I almost did my legal paper to graduate on, to name one of dozens of examples.

Instead of doing a legal paper on Nicaragua_v._US to graduate, I am doing a paper for two classes on Colombia. Colombia is a great example of how authors can give a one-sided slanted argument. There are some authors, such as Doug Stokes, who blame all of Colombia's ills on America. This is completely ridiculous. On the other side, there are some authors who completely delete Americas historic negative role in the region, this is also ridiculous.

The reality of Colombia is much more complex. Has America been a positive force in Colombia? Yes and no.

On the positive side, Of the 35 Countries America has intervened in since the end of WW2, Colombia is the only country that was a stable democracy 10 years later. How much America had to do with this, I don't know, but this is a very positive result of US intervention.

On the negative side, America has attempted to keep the status quo class system in Colombia, which it has done consistently world wide.

The world's leading revolutionary nation in the eighteenth century (America) became the leading protector of the status quo in the twentieth century. Such protection was defensible when it meant protecting the more equitable societies of Western Europe and Japan, but became questionable when it meant bolstering poverty and inequality in Central America.

--Page 12, 13, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (The footnote states: This is argued in Eldon Kenworthy, “Reagan Rediscovers Monroe”, democracy 2 (July 1982): 80-90

But it is important to keep in mind: to blame America for all of Colombia's ills today is irresponsible, irrational, and illogical. Chomsky does exactly this, ignoring Colombia's tortured history.

Why do I keep asking My apologies CJK for my paranoia. I hope I clarified my feelings. You seem like a very intelligent person.

I decided to stop using the word "apologist" as much because it is just a simplistic label, and the reality of how people think is usually much more complex. In addition, I have began to really like the way Wikipedia is set up, as a collaboration project, not as a confrontational project. It is much easier to catch bees with honey, not vinegar.

Thanks for letting me share my thoughts. Thanks for listening. Travb 04:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned your name

Mentioned your handle on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters page.Travb 10:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Lopez back?

user:AlgerBliss, user:OnceOverTwice, La Chinoise (talk • contribs), user:MichaelZhu, user:Blindjustice.

All new user accounts, all created to remove material that Lopez was so hell bent on removing before. Ten Dead Chickens 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Burns

Hello again. I need to find people who are interested in NPOVing articles on American politics. Could you take a look at the article on Sen. Burns? It's obvious that some editors have an axe to grind against him. Thanks. 172 | Talk 07:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Good to see you back. Thanks for the edit to Cuba. BTW, you got reverted seconds later. We could really use the help on the article. BruceHallman and Scott Grayban are guarding the article pretty closely. 172 | Talk 19:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. BTW, not only do they say that Cuba is the best democracy in the world, they're also saying that you're my sockpuppet! [3] The fidelistas have some imagination. 172 | Talk 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely temporary allies?

I would like to ask a favor, sir.

I would like your comments, someone put my article up for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR

A lot of people want to delete this article simply because I added Ronald Reagan to the list. There is a heated debate about Reagan predicting the fall here: Talk:Ronald Reagan#RE: Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR.

I have an unlikely ally with User:Rjensen a hard core conservative, the best conservative debater on wikipedia I have ever gone up agaist...

Please vote, and if this is something important to you, CJK, please ask your conservative friends to vote, thank you. Travb 05:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of courtesy, I want to let you know that I also mentioned your name here: User talk:Rjensen#Unlikely allies?.Travb 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey CJK, thanks for your kind reply. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I find that my alliances with people fluctate, and sometimes bitter enemies in revert wars become stong allies on other pages. I took your suggestion and built this page: Predictions of Soviet collapse you are welcome to contribute in the future! Best regards, Travb. Travb 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As for friends--I thought you knew that I have no friends;). Except possibly TDC, and you have already asked him. Well, at least you have TDC, I have managed to piss of everyone on the left and the right, at one time or the other. :)Travb 09:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Adam Carr

"What the hell is this block for?" is hostile and inflammatory. Please don't make such comments again. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make such blocks again. CJK 13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Arms sales to Iraq

I remember very little about that now, it was written in the context of the liberation of Iraq and I haven't looked at it since - do what you think fit. I see you have noticed the dispute at the Cuba articles. Any help there would be welcome. Love your homepage, by the way. Adam 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

userpage

CJK, we've met before. I certainly don't approve the message above at your talk by someone's sock. But may I suggest you modify your userpage. It is unhelpfully polemical and we have a policy (Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page?) saying that

"Examples of unrelated content include:

• Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia

... if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be moderated."

Judging by sock's message above (disrputive on its own) your userpage is disrputive as well. Pls take my advise and reconsider it. Thanks, --Irpen 04:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. However, I have no problem with anyone, even the sock, expressing their freedom of speech. These images are posted all over Wikipedia on various articles already. CJK 00:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Free expression can also be disruptive for our goal of building a better encyclopedia. While these images are useful in the articles, they are disruptive at the userpage as they seem to challenge the detractors. This is not just my opinion, but our policy. However, I will not be contacting you anyomore on this matter. Sorry if my intrusion was unwelcome. I just asked you to give the issue an extra consideration. --Irpen 01:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen don't be a d***. Since you are so apt to quote wikipedia policy, I suggest you read this page: Don't be a dick Just because CJK wants to adorn his page with images you find offensive, don't pull wikipedia policy on him. I really despise people hiding behind their own POV with rules. It looks like I came in the middle of the consversation, so if you are not citing wikipedia policy because CJK wants to adorn his page with communist attrocities, then I apologize, and I will reread the page: Don't be a dick, but if you are being a d***. I suggest you read this page.

PS, arent you the liberal ideolgue that I argued with on the Dickenson page? Travb 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, my mistake, that was someone else.Travb 03:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

PS Irpen, nice photo colage (SP?) Anyone know how to spell "flower colage"? Travb 03:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan listed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

people on wikipedia are allowed to pretend communism is good?

why are they allowed to do that?! wit "POV" like that its a wonder they don't call hitler a "nice guy"--Burg Hambler 22:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Hi CJK, I agree with your removal of the democracy section. But I don't understand your insistence on Communist State, particularly in that context. Maybe it's because I'm European and apply different terminology. But it has always been basic understanding that a full-blown Socialist state was the process towards stateless Communism. I think your "Communist State” expression is a "shorthand" that doesn't make sense to me or many other users. Please correct me if I'm wrong? --Zleitzen 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You say that "communist state" is a term most often used in the West. That is not my impression, as any European Union report will confirm (for example). After the fall of the Socialist block in the late 80s, Cuba remains one of the last committed Socialist republics in the world. [4]. In the context of the Cuba article, "the insertion of a full-blown Communist State" is notably inaccurate, and will be repeatedly questioned by Historians, political philosophers and basic scholars of the subject. It would be sensible to use the more international, accurate term here.--Zleitzen 04:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen I think communist is the best word to use here. I know CJK is using it because it has the strongest negative connontation in people's minds. Russians/Ukrainias call Hitler's Germany Facists, not Nazis, but I don't suggest changing the meaning here, simply because the majority of the people reading wikipedia are Americans. Same goes for the word communist/socialist. Most wikipedians, who happen to be Americans, attribute Cuba to communism.

Technically, we both know, and I hope CJK knows this is incorrect. There is no true "communist" state. Communism is a narvna which socialist (unforuntatly dictortial) states attempt to reach. But the American public at large is ignorant of this distinction.

In addition, I do not want Cuba to be dumped in the same category as say, the Socialist leader of Spain. They could not be more different. I think that Socialism has a lot of good qaulities. I think communism has some good qualities too, but unforunatly, unlike other socialism, these few good qualities are outnumbered by some really horrendously terrible qualities, as witnessed in the history of communism.

Remember, you are dealing with an American audience who is a lot more naive about world affairs than probably Europeans are. Since Americans are much more naive, they are much more likely not to understand the nuances of Communism and socialism like europeans do.Travb 13:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to using the shorthand "Communist state" in other parts of the article such as "some other Communist and post-Communist states found that...etc". It's just that in specific cases the socialist republic/state term needs to be applied for technical accuracy.--Zleitzen 17:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello CJK

Moved to: User talk:Travb/Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work Travb 00:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Response on talk page of Travb/Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work. Please watch the page.Travb 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've offered a full response finally at you gun-barrel page, don't know if you care. CJK 22:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I care, I really appreciate your opinion. Thanks. As you probably can tell from my talk page though, I have been busy offending others. But not to worry, I will focus exculisvely on offending you soon probably with my communist ideals, and anti-americanism. Thanks for the comments. Travb 22:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I responded, I took a wrote much more than I expected (you just have that affect on me). The beginning section I thought about deleting...but I won't. The last entry, where I respond to your words, sentence by sentence is really the message I am attempting to convey. If your eyes start glazing over in the first part, with all the quotes, skip to the last one. Oh never mind, I will just erase that first section.Travb 23:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why_Gun-Barrel_Democracy_Doesn't_Work#Thank_you.21 Thank CJK, you helped me so much! Travb (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Axis & Allies

You know damned well who I am. Go to my user talk, and put the Axis and Allies CD key on it. El benderson 19:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

KLA

I would appreciate if you stop removing verifiable sources from the article. Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello CJK

Looks like you are making more friends. Have to laugh at some of the comments.

I survived being booted indefinatly. I don't know if you followed that drama.

That said, I wanted to email you, but I could not, because you do not have a valid email. It is in regards to the history of US exporting democracy, a continuation of our conversation. I found a lot more information, which is really interesting, which you may find interesting to.Travb (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Philippine-American War

I don't understand. "Aggressive" or "repressive", either way the U.S. wasn't in the right — at least as seen through my Filipino eyes. They're both negative words, aren't they? With touchy subjects such as this, it's of course helpful to see both sides. For instance, as seen through my viewpoint, we were having our own revolution against Spain when our leader got (or at least thought he had secured) some U.S. aid, and then suddenly Spain annexed us to them when we had already declared our independence (which, admittedly, no other country did recognize)... An American soldier called Grayson even shot first and sparked off the fighting; it's documented in his own words. Uthanc 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Aggression" is somewhat POV because the other side may dispute whether or not it's "aggressive"--I don't see aggression describing what other countries do (North Korea attacking South Korea, North Vietnam attacking South Vietnam, Iraq invading Kuwait). You are right of course that the U.S. was not justified in a moral sense to seize the Philippines, but even if we didn't do it someone else (probably Japan) would have. CJK 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He he. You are so funny CJK.

Can't you simply make a bad statment the US without using a qualifier? (qualifier definition: A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of another word or phrase.)

Statment: You are right of course that the U.S. was not justified in a moral sense to seize the Philippines

Justification (qualifier): ...but even if we didn't do it someone else (probably Japan) would have.

He he.

That like me saying:

Statment: The Japanese were not justified in a moral sense to invade China....

Justification (qualifier): ...but even if Japan didn't do it someone else (probably India) would have.

Further, I don't think historical speculation of alternate realities is very productive in any argument, especially when one is justifying war crimes. Although I am a big fan of Science fiction alternate realities I try to avoid Science fiction alternate realities at all costs in debates, the first example that springs to mind (although there are hundreds) is The US would have lost one million men at Hiroshima, etc.

Hope you are doing well.

Signed:Travb (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not like that because

a) India was under British control.

b) India could not invade China in the 1930s even if it wanted too.

c) Japan owned Taiwan in 1898, which is right next to the Philippines.

d) Japan demonstrated the ability and willingness to expand it's empire in the Asian area.

CJK 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Domestic analogy

Response to your argument

Hi. The India idea was not supposed to be historically correct. You first two points [ a) India was under British control. b) India could not invade China in the 1930s even if it wanted too.] shows that you may be being distracted by my inaccurate example. My apolgies.

RE: c) Japan owned Taiwan in 1898, which is right next to the Philippines. d) Japan demonstrated the ability and willingness to expand it's empire in the Asian area.

The Japan argument, although much more historically possible than the Indian argument is speculation. It will always be speculation, because it never happened, nor will it ever happen.

The point I was making, as (I think) we both know, was that you are justifying US actions in the Philippies. This is not the first time. That is my central point. The India example can be ignored as a distracting, unimportant, and poor example used to illustrate my central thesis/argument.

The Domestic analogy and the rape of the Philippines

I read a terrible book for school this semester in International Affairs "Just and Unjust Wars", by a liberal hawk, Michael Walzer. He adapts the International Affairs theory of Domestic analogy, a term which was coined by Hedley Bull. Domestic analogy is the idea that states are like a "society of individuals". A person can look at international affairs like a society of people, except their is no police, and violence can destroy the entire society. Unfortunatly, Walzer limits how far he applies his interpretation of Domestic analogy. Although he argues there are crimes in international society which should be punished, such as War Crimes just as there are crimes in domestic law which should be punished, he still justifies the death of soliders by other soldiers as okay, and not murder. I have used the Domestic analogy a lot, but have never used a clever term like Domestic analogy.

Why do I bring this up? Because I want to use the Domestic analogy to explain why your argument about Japan is illogical and (arguably) immoral. It is immoral because you are justifying war crimes: the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

Lets use a Domestic analogy to explain why:

If a mugger mugged someone in a bad part of town, later in court could the mugger argue in his own defense that the victim was in a bad neighborhood, and if he (the mugger) didn't mug the victim, the victim would have mugged someone else?

Would this defense work? Would the judge be correct to let the mugger off?

If I recall correctly from first year torts class, that a rapist cannot argue that the woman he rapes was in a bad part of town, late at night, and so therefore deserved to be raped. This defense is almost always thrown out.

The Philippines did not deserve to be raped/mugged by the US simply because it was in a bad neighborhood. I argue that your defense of the US is as indefensible and (arguably) immoral as the mugger and rapist defense.

Signed:Travb (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your arguement involves too many variables. The "bad neighborhood" arguement would have to be something along the lines of that the victim was in a neighborhood where everyone like the victim was getting mugged, and everyone in the neighborhood except the victims are muggers. In East Asia, the "victim" was the Philippines and the "bad neighborhood" it consisted of was entirely "muggers" (Japan, France, Britain, Holland). Every other independent country except for China (because it was too big) was being swallowed up.

In fact, the "mugged" concept is inaccurate--it's more like stealing. The Philippines were "stolen" by the U.S. to advance our interests since if we just left them someone else would "steal" them. That's why the Philippines were completely seized and Cuba was not. No one else could "steal" Cuba. Furthermore, if the Philippines came under Japan's control the situation would be much worse for the Filipinos if we consider what happened to Korea and China. But if your arguing that we did it way too harshly, I would agree with you. CJK 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

CJK, you are awesome. I am really, really impressed by what you wrote. three cheers. If you ever want me to condem the Cuba human rights apologists, or the Khmer Rouge genocide apologists, I will happily do this, with zeal. It would be nice to be on your side, for a change. Travb (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

dispute tags

You have recently added the 'totally disputed' tags to three articles related to Cuba. Would you please stop by the talk pages of these three articles and itemize the specifics of your disputes to allow the disputes to be resolved? Thanks in advance. BruceHallman 23:39, 20 June 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 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned your name

Duk (or was it TDC?) once told me, it is "wikicustom" to mention a wikiuser when I talk about that wikiuser on another wikipage. (Got that?)

So, that said: I wanted to let you know that I mentioned your username on user:172's user page.Travb (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for collage

Re: User:Travb

Thanks for the collage. You and the User:Irpen have inspired me. Travb (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

dispute tags

You have recently added the 'totally disputed' tags to three articles related to Cuba. Would you please stop by the talk pages of these three articles and itemize the specifics of your disputes to allow the disputes to be resolved? Thanks in advance. BruceHallman 23:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, there were POV or NPOV tags in those groups previously. You recently added 'totally disputed' tags which have a different meaning than POV and NPOV. Would you please itemize the specifics of your 'totally disputed' disputes in the talk pages of these articles to allow the disputes to be resolve? Thanks in advance. BruceHallman 16:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, I understand that you do not dispute the 'factual accuracy' of those articles. Thanks. BruceHallman 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

An insight of you

You are a religious fundamentalist, who uses affective traps to argue for the only way of living you know. Be well! Teemu Ruskeepää 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll take that as a compliment. CJK 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wall of fame or wall of shame?

I am thrilled that I am included on your user page, with the Philippine-American War edit.[5]

I am troubled though, that you include me right below user:ruy lopez, who denies the Khmer Rouge genocide. [6] In fact, as you know, I chatized user:ruy lopez for his immoral stance. I have never denied the death of innocent civilians, no matter what country does the killing, have you?

signed: Travb (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You just noticed that? It's been there for months. You "chatized" Ruy Lopez behind his back, but when talking to him you were trying to build up a defense for him using "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude.CJK 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall, I was pretty hard on him. I told him I have no respect if he was a sock puppet, and I did mention that I am disgusted by the Khmer Rouge genocide. We can pull up the old messages, if you like. If I did talk behind his back, I am deeply embarrased by this. I try to offend every person equally. Regardless, I was pretty god damn harsh on Ruy Lopez, really harsh. I felt like he was a pussy to leave, and I will tell him that right now. Travb (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, reading over his talk page, I was not hard on him there, but I remember being really hard on him, somewhere. I remeber talking to him about sockpuppets, etc, in a (typically) long message. Maybe I am a backstabbing ass. Go figure. *blush* Your back stab accusations made me reevalute myself...(I hate that)... Travb (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Ruy_Lopez#Comments_on_CJK.27s_talk_page Travb (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your (in)famous !

""If we need a citation that Cuba is not a democracy, then maybe we need citation that Cuba is in Latin America," retorts CJK, another user." Bachelet, Pablo (2006). "Dueling edits dog Wikipedia's Cuba entry". Knight Ridder Newspapers. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) User:Travb 15:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Pretty cool. CJK 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind you of your one minute of fame. I haven't even had a second of fame, so I am sooooo.... jealous. User:Travb 15:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats pretty fuckin' sweet dude. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't seem to be mentioned in that one. I got mentioned in the longer version of the Miami Herald article, quoting me calling for the ban of User:Comandante. "If Congressional staffers are banned, certainly a propagandist for Castro deserves the same," wrote 172, who claims to be a history professor at a U.S. undergraduate institution. [7] By the way, has Comanadante finally been blocked? 172 | Talk 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No. --TJive 23:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pathetic. What's taking so long for him to be blocked. He's an obvious vandal if there ever was one. 172 | Talk 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you guys target a particular user, I cringe. I see User:172 has joined this one. User:Comandante probably deserves to be booted. I don't care enough to find out, and it is none of my business. just my two cents. Travb (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fairuse images

Greetings. Just a FYI, I've removed a couple of images from your user and user talk pages because they are not free content. Because Wikipedia is a Free content project our policy requires the use of unfree material to be strictly limited. Non-articles pages are not included in the limited compromise we permit, more information is available at the fair use criteria page. Sorry for any trouble. --Gmaxwell 07:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, Why did you just add another fair use image to your user page? --Gmaxwell 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry CJK

Sorry CJK, I led this user here who deleted your images. I think this is how it happened: they deleted my images, then I complained to Duk, they saw the message, and came here.

I would have told you earlier, but I was booted for sometime again for arguing with these people.

You are smart not too argue and accept it.

BTW, Khmer Rouge guy responded to my message, if you didnt notice. Travb (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, at least I still have most of them. I didn't even know about the policy to be truthful.... CJK 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

May have done it again

I may have led an admin to delete a template because of my comments on their user page. I guess I am just a lightning rod for bad luck and bad vibes.

Out of courtesy, I wanted to mention that I mentioned your user page there: User_talk:Netsnipe/User_Bureaucratic_F**k#Further_Comments.

Haven't heard back from Ruy Lopez. I think he was a coward to leave wikipedia. I am disappointed that the Khmer Rouge page, last I checked, does not mention the US at all. Although I share much of Ruy's POV, I disagree with how he apologizies for Khmer Rouge attrocities. I personally would have stayed and fought.

I figure it is only a matter of time before the "right wing conspiracy" gangs up on me (I don't think you and TDC would gang up on me, I strangely see you guys as sortof friends now, and I have a kindof respect for you two...maybe it isn't mutual...LOL).

But maybe the "right wing conspiracy" will not ganging up on me after all, because I haven't made some of the mistakes that Ruy did. For example, I don't ignore people's comments on talk pages, nor create sockpuppets to bolster my arguments.

Anyway, I am rambling, again, sorry.

Signed: Travb (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

They found and deleted TJive's image too

here. Figured it was only a matter of time. Wonder if I led them to this too, or they found it themselves? Travb (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

CfD

I know you have your hands full on the Cuba entry. Still, if you're not too short of time, I'll appreciate your feedback on this CfD. [8] Thanks. 172 | Talk 03:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran-iraq

Can you please keep the posts in the article talk itself, so other people can read it. Thank you, --Spahbod ☼ 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq war article

Hello CJK,

You don't know me, but I wanted to say something to you.

I understand your concern with anti-Americanism.

I'm talking about the Iran-Iraq war article.

I agree that this stuff needs to not be given a free hand.

If you really want to do something useful, instead of trying to get rid of EVERYTHING that could be used as ammunition by anti-American agitators (which would mean that you also would have to deny things that are essentially true), I would suggest a different approach.

For example, the Soviet Union supplied Iraq with Scud and Frog missles (among other things).

The Iranian government is probably not so critical about that now - since they have a cozy relationship with Russia.

It might be a good idea if you could look up and possibly add some information about that to the article.--Johan77 03:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Just a friendly note about using edit summaries, please try and be civil when using them, try not to refer to other peoples contributions in such a dismissive way. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers · 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Your message has inspired me. CJK 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, --Spahbod ☼ 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from using obscene language, especially in reference to other users. --Ionius Mundus 00:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hồ Chí Minh

I also wish for a legitimate consensus to be reached. However, I will not agree to any compromise which treats the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam not being democratic as a fact as basic as the Earth being round. Half the world disagrees. If you agree to treat this as an opinion, perhaps we can decide upon something. You appear to be treating Communism as an absolute evil. I suggest that you look at the less controvertial example of Mwalimu Julius Nyerere and then reevaluate your opinions. --Ionius Mundus 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere was indeed a Communist. See http://www.nathanielturner.com/ujamaanyerere.htm. Albert Einstein (see his article "Why Socialism?"; and he was an outspoken anti-Stalinist) and a number of other positive figures were also Communist. I don't believe that Hồ Chí Minh could have gotten 99.91% of the vote, unless the opposition, though small, did not vote against him due to inherent fear justified by their own stereotypical beliefs about Communism. But he did truly mean what he said in the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, his subordinates were often not like him. They even betrayed his last wishes. They have made Việt Nam the repressive state that it is today. The landlord campaign was due to extreme pressure from the Chinese, and he needed foreign support, which is why he turned to Communism in the first place. When he saw the trouble the campaign caused, he put an end to it and fired some people over it. He was first and foremost a nationalist, second a Communist. This is why he was so wary of the Chinese - Kuomintang or Maoist. He admired the way things were done in the US, except for its opression of African-Americans (he wrote extensively on the subject). During the war, he would ask, "Is the Statue of Liberty standing on her head?" Also, Westerners who met him found that he was exceptionally polite. The country was in the middle of a long war while he had power. If he had lived through the war, Việt Nam would probably be democratic today (though there is no way he could live that long). Also note that he was widely mourned all across the nation, and even the Saigon newspaper conceeded that Việt Nam had lost a unique and valuable politician. --Ionius Mundus 01:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but I won't re-add the sentence back if its a problem. CJK 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will soon return to demolish your attempt to demolish Uncle Hồ's reputation with some sources of my own. --Ionius Mundus 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Ngo Dinh Koi"? Try finding that on google. ZERO results. Check again. --Ionius Mundus 20:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not compare Ho Chi Minh with other communists. Before 1954, Ho wanted to win the French, he had no choice: America sided with French, England sided with French, Japan and German losted WW2 and wouldn't engage, only big power ready to help was China (even Stalin at the time had doubt on Ho's commitment to communism). China forced him the repeat a version of "cultural revolution" in Vietnam, the "landlord campaign"; which he later publically apologied the nation (he cried in tears during the televised apology). After winning the French with China's aid, the domino theory put Vietnam at front end of Cold War, this time he could not refuse Russia aid; the only thing he could do was not allowing Chinese and Soviet troop entering Vietnam soil. North Vietnam policital power rest in the hand of his communist subordinates, Ho was used as an image to unite the population. Many stories about the communist aspect of Ho were actually made up by his subordinates, and his image is still used until today by the Communist Party. But Ho's popularity is not just caused by the information campaign of the Communist Party; it is because he is actually a popular hero in the heart of generations of Vietnamese (and I believed many citizen of former conlonies of French also considered him their hero; only after Battle of Dien Bien Phu does France admit their freedom). Anh this fact, like "the Earth is round", knewn by any American leaders who believed the domino theory in the fear of Ho's popularity. 193.52.24.125 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right! Thank you. --Ionius Mundus 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a lie, but it is very popular. Does a lie become true once X number of people believe it?

Of course not. Has the lie that Bác Hồ was evil become true? Of course not. --Ionius Mundus 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just love how lefties have re-written history. If Kim Il-Sung died in 1952 and North Korea won the Korean war, then we'd be hearing about his heroic "anti-colonialist Japanese" posture and his great "popularity" and how he was "so sorry" that some of his people were murdered by him. And he wasn't "really" a Communist. CJK 17:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just plainly incorrect. By the way, though repressive, Kim Il-Song cared for his people. Kim Jong-Il isn't like him though. --Ionius Mundus 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War

Do you mind not reverting? --Spahbod ☼ 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You've just broken 3RV with this last edit. Tazmaniacs 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, its four rvs not three. CJK 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

America: Land of the Devil

Support for Latin American dictatorships.

- Check.

Genocide of millions by bombardment of airplanes in Indochina.

- Check.

Support for Middle Eastern dictatorships.

- Check.

Overthrowal of over 40 democratic regimes in the past 60 years.

- Check.

I never subscribed to Pravda. CJK 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic American, can you tell me why you overthrew democracy in my country of Greece in 1967?

We didn't. CJK 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You did, CIA overthrew George Papandreou and put the regime of the colonels in place.

America MUST pay. 9/11 is a start but it is not much.

I doubt it, there isn't any reason we'd want a NATO dictatorship. CJK 18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Greece_KH.html - America is pure evil

William Blum is a liar and fraud and provides no reliable sources in that blurb with regards to the coup. Now off my page. CJK 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

are you actually claiming that the CIA did not sponsor a coup against Papandreou? Are you that insane? It's wierd you claim Blum is a 'liar' though, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, they all have pretty good reasons to lie, what would be Blum's motivation for lying on such an epic scale? Is it because he is 'virulently anti-American'? Well, most of Europe is in that case, and let me make one thing clear, I burned an american flag on 9/11.

I have absolutely no doubt Europe is behind a lot of the anti-American trouble on Wiki. CJK 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the concept 'Anti-Americanism' to me? I don't quite understand it, I mean it's a genuinely accepted term on ultra-right outposts of the Imperial Murdoch Empire such as FOX (and the TW Empire such as CNN), but I just can't understand it, for example, can you imagine if someone in Italy released a book called 'The Anti-Italians'? It wouldn't even merit discussion, perhaps laughter, but certainly not discussion.

Though you are certainly right that America has done a number of evil things, including the overthrow of democracy in Greece, you are being a stereotypical fool. No number of evil deeds can justify such a massacre of thousands of civilians. For all you know, half of them could have agreed with you about the coup in Greece. Please, use some common sense. --Ionius Mundus 21:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work: The sequel

Remember: User talk:Travb/Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work after being deleted, the newer, more comprehensive version went through three attempts for deletion, and has now been merged here: Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States#History_of_exporting_democracy. Thought I would let you know. Travb (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul Castro

Hey, do you think Raul Castro should be on the list of dictators?--Antispammer 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War

CJK, I'd like to suggest making less sweeping changes to the Iran-Iraq War article. Make some of your more minor changes, like shifting a paragraph or moving a photo, and if someone reverts then discuss it and reach a compromise. After a compromise has been achieved as to the structure of the article, then start dealing with disputed content case by case. If you'd prefer to deal with the disputed content first, that'd work fine too, but please do it step by step. When you make sweeping changes people tend to revert them without giving them a second glance because the topic is so controversial. I generally agree that the article is written from an anti-American point of view, but you'd have better success improving the article's neutrality if it's done a little bit at a time. TomTheHand 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

CJK sign the mediation agreement. Requests for mediation Marky48 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chile

Excuse me for barging in, but your use of the term "vandalism" disturbs me. [9] To quote one of my favorite movie characters: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Vandalism is writing stuff like OOGA BOOGA or blanking the page. It does not refer to "content edits" which you or dislike. Disagreements over how to phrase or arrange article content are best taken to the talk page.

And who am I? Well, I am the original creator of the Chile coup of 1973 article (May 28, 2004). So please be gentle with "my baby", okay? :-) --Uncle Ed 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, it wasn't exactly "vandalism" but it was in violation of policy. CJK 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

A Request for Arbitration has been filed in regards to the failed mediation. As an involved member of the mediation, you have been named a party in the Arbitration request. Thank you for your time. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoax

Please do not add a hoax tag to the Operation Gladio article. This article is not a hoax. This issue has been discussed at extraordinary and painful length on the article talk page. Thanks ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your right. My mistake. CJK 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. One question, this IP added the same hoax tag to the same article just before and after you did. Is there some connection?... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)