User talk:Keithd

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! EdwinHJ | Talk 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black

Your beratement of my calling you on the carpet would almost be amusing except for the fact that it is over a subject very near and dear to my heart, as a person of mixed blood citizen of both African American and Jewish European heritage, all I can say is..how dare you?! ...I wonder only now after reading your edits far and wide, that you must be either a friend of or a member in good standing with the Ku Klux Klan, and/or a friend or member of the John Birch Society? (Cathytreks 18:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

This person's hysteria resulted from stalking me to another page to discover I used the term black in a sentence. Never mind that the US census uses the term [1] , the wikipedia does, and that very page did over 20 times, including even the preceding sentence, none of which she corrected, I might add. keith 19:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keithd's edits on looting (diff) show a tendency to make, accept, and/or promote excuses for effective racism. Wikipedia should be a place substantially free of even that taint of racism. Benjamin Gatti 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah another one for my collection.

I just realized something: why does the pot's presumably being black affect it's ability to discern the blackness or lack thereof of the kettle? This is a racist cliche. keith 09:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Vandalism on Ann Coulter

In the latest bit of his page vandalism Keithd states, "...cathy quit trying to dominate the article. multiple people have stated preference for version, you have violated the 3RR.."

Well I am truly sorry Keith if you feel that way, but isnt it a matter of what "multiple people" want want on the Wikipedia?, or is it a matter of policy...and what is right?!, ... there are rules that are being ignored and flaunted by you and others, and I can assure you I will at least continue to do everything in my admittedly limited power to overcome such prejudical and inflamatory POV's on the page(s) I may find and always support the NPOV. Shalom! Cathytreks 19:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

you go girl. keith 01:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC) p.s. rules get flouted. Vocabulary skills get flaunted.[reply]

CfD

If you got a minute can you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. nobs 22:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word American

Im sorry it took me this long to answer, but I coulndt spare the time then. LtDoc 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad Hitlerum

If you wish to fight against this phenomenon (as do I), the current dispute around the altruism article would be a good place to start. Regards, Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would help where I can but I am fighting this on two fronts already. And now my favorite such agenda pusher has followed me to the conservatism page. keith 09:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non productive techniques

Hi! Welcome to wikipedia. I have noticed that you are using offensive personal language, and non-productive teqniques, such as daily page reversion to put and remove information into wikipeida, on a few articles related to conservatism. May I point you to Wikipedia:Five pillars? I think it is important that we all try to understand where the others are coming from, and work in good faith togeather! Thanks,--sansvoix 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You say you are "fighting on two fronts" above. Fighting has no place on wikipedia (: We need to work cooperativly on all fronts!!

I reserve the right to make such characterizations on my own talk page. keith 02:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looting

Just to let you know - when I found "looting" the image was a line of Africans carrying food in baskets on their head. Since the word has been used (whether subconsciously or not is irrelevant) to perpetuate an unhelpful stereotype, I felt strongly that Wikipedia should not become a tool to advance racist undertones (I had the image removed for copyvio) and included the criticism of the press for apparent racial inconsistency. I feel that you are trying to move the article back towards a cavalier attitude towards racism, and it leaves me concerned. I suggest that racism is no more acceptable simply because it is subconscious or blended with unpersuasive excuses. (for example the Dubai Port deal is easily reducible to racism as the US has played a much larger role in creating and supporting the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden as any Arabic country (we trained the guy for Cris sake - something about fighting the Russians in Afghanistan) Benjamin Gatti 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove your argument, just worded it as an accusation instead of an assumption of guilt in a specific case. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I'm sure the dubai controversy is mainly due to racism or some such prejudice, but for example we shouldn't say unequivocably that any particular politician's reasons are racism. keith 05:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your revert

"rv divulging of top secret information"... and a good thing too! I feel I may have suffered "internal brain damage" reading just the few scraps of information available. I wouldn't wish that on anyone else. ;) --Ashenai 23:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the danger of external brain damage. keith 00:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Take a deep breath before calling people obtuse or vandals and do not assume that a content concern is necessarily POV in disguise. You're under the mistaken assumption I don't believe Anti-Americanism exists in the Middle East.

I hope my re-structuring reads decently. Marskell 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for the antagonism on that page, with no less than six reverts to the claim of sympathy that you freely admit is true, just because of pedantic wording issues. I asked you multiple times to reword it to your satisfaction and tried multiple variants of my own but you repeatedly chose the rude and uncollaborative approach of outright deleting it. btw your current "re-structuring" still manages to neuter the point being made and pulls sources off to make other points instead. Go dig up your own sources. keith 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't rude to you. Not once. And note, those weren't straight reverts as I did tweak things where I saw fit. One edit summary: "That taleban protected bin laden is factual and common knowledge." Well, OK, but you didn't mention the Taliban; you used "sympathy and protection" as a blanket statement. My concern over it may have been pedantic but the point holds. Who is supporting and protecting? Governments? No, with a couple of exceptions. Petro-dollar businessmen in the Gulf states? No. Major Muslim organizations? No: [2] [3] [4], [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17][18][19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Rural Pakistanis? Apparently yes.

Anyhow, my point above was you should avoid name calling when something gets under your skin like this. Marskell 10:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the reverts which I considered rude. Especially with no discussion for the first several. keith 11:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies

Hello! Samwb123 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:User:S9/c}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]