User talk:TDC/Archive 7

Thank You

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for looking out for me.--MONGO 22:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Iraq War

Care to make a statement? CJK 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: James, you got some splainin to do!

I know you aren't going to believe this but those editors are NOT me! I haven't even looked at anything on Wikipedia in a week. And Peter Cheung or whoever who was supposed to be on an open proxy wasn't me either; I always thought he was someone trying to look like me misbehaving. I don't know what to tell you. I need to look at this some more. LossIsNotMore 21:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. What was Peter Cheung's email address? LossIsNotMore 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan

I noticed you haven't joined the party yet. Come on, everyone is welcome. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I have opened a case of arbitration at Requests for arbitration:Seabhcan--MONGO 08:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Resilient Barnstar

I really thought some of your comments on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Torturous_Devastating_Cudgel re: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Seabhcan were excellent:

As an editor who frequents controversial pages and edits articles that tend to provoke a good deal of dispute, I have learned the heard way that extreme care must be taken, and you have to go out of your way to be civil and stay on topic...Wikipedia is a big enough tent to have lots of POV’s included, even marginal and and those widely seen as delusional, but cases like this tend to reinforce that these editors are so devoted to their pet theories that they have a hard time playing nice with others.

I am happy to see you truly have developed into a great editor. Travb (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Resilient Barnstar

The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms...

It is great to see your development as you learn and grow on wikipedia, I look forward to working with you in the future. Travb (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 23:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandinista National Liberation Front, Vasili Mitrokhin, and Mitrokhin Archive Mediation

Hi, I'm C.lettinga from WP:MEDCAB. Abe.Froman has requested mediation on the pages indicated in the subject header. I'd like to know from you if this is still an issue, what's been going on, and generally what you think ought to be done. Thanks.--C.lettinga 07:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is still an issue, I beleive, but I have little time to devote to it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Announcement

The "Help name my baby" Poll has closed :). Greta Annette was born 12/12/06. She weighs 6lbs 14oz and is 19inches long. Mother and baby are both doing fine. Thanks for all the suggestions!

To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today! -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 03:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War History Project

You are invited to be be a founding charter member of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Cold_War_History

Thanks.

nobs

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you for all the hard work. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrike Meinhof rewrite

Hi, I've just largely rewritten an enlarged version of the Ulrike Meinhof article (after providing a week's notice on the Talk page) and I've just noticed that you'd done a fair amount of work on the old version. I'd be very happy if you could look over my version and make any alterations, corrections etc. ; alternative viewpoints and all that (I wouldn't say I'm quite a 'Neo-Com' but I still wouldn't want to POV it by accident ;) ). I think it's quite free of bias but then again, I would.

I'm aware it's currently in need of more sources for much of the historical information but this is largely a product of being based off the German article which is also in dire need of sources. Also there's some bits of translation (book titles and so on) which I can grok what they mean in German, I can't think of decent translations ; you might be able to articulate them better than I can.

Thanks in advance. (If you're going to make any large changes, particularly deletions, I ask that we discuss it first.) Zetetic Apparatchik 14:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean edits

Hello, TDC/Archive 7, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Hi TDC. This is a reminder about your revert parole--you are limited to one reversion per day and yesterday you reverted twice: here and here. Please be more careful in the future. Bucketsofg 14:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proactive and Preemptive Operations Group

This is a little bizarre. I see almost nothing about this group in a LexisNexis search. There are a couple of media reports about a proposal to create such a group, but there's no evidence that this proposal actually went anywhere. I think you could probably argue notability in an AfD since there's no evidence that this proposal actually went anywhere. There's no question that the article is using the proposal to make highly POV (and downright absurd) claims that a probably non-existant group is fueling the military contractor industry and the like. I'm not sure the article would get deleted (although there's a good chance) but I'm sure it would have to be significantly improved if it went up for AfD. GabrielF 23:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WSI

RE: WSI

Hi TDC, sigh. User talk:TDC/Archive 6#The_more_things_change...

Is the anon back too? If the anon is back, I will gladly revert his deletions too.

You will notice my recent edit, returning the information you deleted. Travb (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information was removed for a reason, go to talk and look at that reason before you get involved with this again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't touch this article with a ten foot pole. I am not going to get actively involved again. I just wish you would stop deleting other editors referenced work.

Is the anon back too? Travb (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you just did get involved, and secondly there are good, valid reasons for removing the material that follow guidelines on WP:NOR, NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. If you dont have anything helpful to contribute then please do not bother me anymore. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did get involved, actively involved, no thanks... Best wishes TDC, until we cross paths again. I just dropped a line to CJK, havent seen him forever

Since we share the same interests, you continue to drop into many of the articles I edit (usually in AfDs on the opposite side), but CJK has dropped off the planet. Travb (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1R block

Per your 3RR page report, I've blocked X for 24h; but also you, for the same reason William M. Connolley 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must protest. MY Rv's were made with a corresponding thread on that talk page, and I did not Rv more than once in a 24 hour period. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last 2 edits to it are rv's and are within 24h William M. Connolley 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block - parole vio

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. I have blocked you for 31 hours due to 2 reverts on User:Xenophrenic today Gnan garra 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the sockpuppet User:Xenophrenic has been indefinately block under WP:SOCK policies and the IP address from the arbitration case has been block for 1 week for violating parole via the use of a sockpuppet. Gnan garra 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IN the future please seek assistance at WP:AN or WP:CN alternatively use the wikipedia IRC channels to get help immediately. Gnan garra 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your blocking of me for a violation of my Arbcom Parole which states:

2) If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) performs more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.

I made several edits on the 15th, and after being reverted, I made one revision to the article [1], and it was discussed in talk [2]

After that I made no changes to the article. It is my understanding that a content revert only applies to articles, not user spaces. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked, as parole isnt clear as to where the the reverts can take place, accept that it applies to article content not user warnings. Gnan garra 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love your signature!

I don't care for your politics, but your signature is great!

2 questions:

Has TDC always stood for Torturous Devastating Cudgel, or do you mix it up (i.e., change your sig) from time to time?
Is the phrase some sort of pop culture or historical reference?

However you came up with that name, The Fat Man salutes you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. I decided to change up names from time to time to keep it “real” (or something like that). TDC is nickname that some friends gave me back in college. While playing around with some names, I found that “Torturous Devastating Cudgel” fit my some times confrontation editing style the best, and its kind of snappy. And I think that I dont always care for my politics at times :) Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xenophrenic

I unblock for two reason firstly the Arbcom case you are quoting stated a 12 month period this has expired, it had also expired at the time you requested the checkuser as such if this was the same person those conditions no longer applied. Secondly as the check user isnt conclusive, based on discussions with yourself and Xenophrenic, a review of what edits have taken place and the arbcom case I have doubts and as such in good faith I have conditionally unblock Xenophrenic while I try to resolve the issue. I request you refrain from disputes with Xenophrenic while this occurs, if you have any issues contact me directly.

I do recommend that you reaquaint yourself with some guidelines and policies WP:BITE , assume good faith , WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. Gnan garra 15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case in question did not specify a time limit on the Rv patrol, only on the prohibition to edit the article. If there is an implied time limit on the Rv patrol I was unaware of this. I also understand that you are not familiar with the case as well as the circumstance surrounding it, but for me to assume good faith with Xenophrenic when it is highly likely that he is the previously mentioned Anon, is just not possible. Don’t take my word for it, a number of other users and admins have also come to this conclusion as well after dealing with him. Also, considering Xenophrenic’s ownership of every article he becomes involved in, it is virtually impossible to introduce information that he does not like. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom House

Hi TDC, I just would like to let you know that User:Vlad_fedorov who recently edited Freedom House is currently under review: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. He did wikistalking of all my political/history articles for months and effectively blocked all my work on political subjects in Wikipedia. Best regards, Biophys 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, Biophys. Could you look here though? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys.Vlad fedorov 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please just go to that comment page and see my response. I think everything is clear about Putin Phallus lover-Biophys.Vlad fedorov 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Cudgel

Gracias amigo for the complement. It has been difficult at times here in the PC universe (and I mean that in more ways than one) to get anything completed without touching off a firestorm, but the work is reward enough in itself. You would think that after all of the water that has passed under the bridge, that people would have learned a lesson or two from history, but I guess not. Maybe its a generational thing. See you on down the road. RM Gillespie 03:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for bringing some of the most dilapadated artices up to WP:FA quality. I amhonestly suprised your efforts have slid under the radar this long. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sagacious

Good word and thanks...I've never heard it before but will start using it myself. Thanks again.--MONGO 05:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I really love is when I see commments made such as this, and have to face the reality that American bashing is vogue...for someone like me, somewhat big belted and not always without a vularity or two, I suppose I can just take solice in knowing that Europe didn't end up a gaint concentration camp in the 40's or a gulag in the 50's because we decided to help them in their time of need.--MONGO 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, everyone needs a hobby right? Some of us like the outdoors, fishing, hunting and all that jazz ... and others ... well who know why they do what they do. Penis Envy is my first guess. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Felix Ismael Rodriguez.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Felix Ismael Rodriguez.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. KonstableSock 09:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What do you think of....

Hi, i looked at the edit and it was way funny. i was on the floor. then i had a look at his page, and i gave off laughting. actually i got quite scarried by him. now i'll have a little edit. then i'll follow that page. he have a mission. show to the world how bad communists are. he don't seem to matter what the commision was, just that it was about talking bad about KGB, so in his mind must be pure and holly by definition. i suppose it's going to be an hard time discuting edits with him, if he don't show he can think above his userpage. Teardrop.z 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Mike bw.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mike bw.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strangerer (Talk) 21:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help?

I created article Russia and Saddam WMD allegations, but am I not familiar with the subject. Could you take a look and criticize or correct this article? Biophys 04:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO

If you would be so kind as to copy your comment (shitcan lynching, get back to work) to a separate view, I will happily and enthusiastically endorse. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assata Shakur

Could you please place more specific comments on this article's neutrality on the talk page. I do not think its appropriate to throw up a point of view tag just because many of the sources used are available on Shakur's website. I did very extensive lexis and google books searches in writing the article, and do not believe that there exist any sources with information not currently in the article or that contradict any of the facts mentioned. I would be glad to work with you on this if you believe that you have sources which can offer a different point-of-view, or have comments on the way the article itself is written. Savidan 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor and take another look at the article. I just got through somewhat of a facelift for the article. Having also just finished relatively thorough lexis and factiva searches, I'm skeptical that there are very many more source-able facts that have been excluded (prove me wrong!). If you still feel the pov flag is necessary, please give me a few specific things that I can work on. Savidan 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson

Hi. I tried to explain my deletion at Talk:Paul Robeson, but I hope we can discuss it further. Without a doubt, Robeson was a supporter of the Soviet Union. He supported progressive causes in the United States and elsewhere, and he refused on principle to deny that he was a Communist. That does not make him a Communist or a Communist sympathizer.

It's been a while since I read Duberman, and I'll have to check it later. I don't remember him writing that Robeson was a Communist sympathizer, or that he attended Party meetings, or anything similar, but as I wrote it's been years since I read his book.

If Duberman does say that Robeson supported the Party but wasn't a member, I think the phrase "Communist sympathizer" should Wikilink to Fellow traveler rather than Communist, which redirects to Communism. "Fellow traveler," while perjorative, is a more appropriate description than "Communist," which leaves the reader with the impression that Robeson was a Communist.

As I wrote, I'll review Duberman tonight. In any event, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think a good portion of the article needs a re-write as a previos editor almost destroyed it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common law

Hi TDC, the source it was made from [3] singles out Louisiana as being mixed civil/common, but says the rest of the United States uses common law. --Astrokey44 02:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally identifiable names

Hello! Please do not post personally identifiable information of any user without their consent. Doing so would get you blocked. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, correspondence through email is private while on wiki is very public. There is absolutely no excuse for revealing the identity of a fellow wikipedian. If you had a dispute with the user, take it to WP:ANI. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to FSLN

Hi. I reverted your edits because 1) it looked like you were making a POV deletion of a proper entry, and 2) your behavior was edit warring. If you feel strongly about this passage, you need to gain consensus on the talk page through discussion and, if needed, outside feedback through rfc's, etc.

I reported you for a WP:3RR violation in error. I had mistakenly counted the reversions you had made a few days earlier. When I realized this, I deleted the report on the noticeboard. Sorry about that. I see that you have quite a history of problems with the 3RR. You might want to consider other methods of working out disputes. Cheers. Notmyrealname 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roskam

I made some comments on the talk page. From a strictly RS and V standpoint, I'm not sure that those two sources should be discarded out of hand. But I haven't really looked very deeply at the dispute. - Crockspot 14:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Request

A request for informal mediation for a dispute regarding Command responsibility and Military Commissions Act of 2006 has been made with the Mediation Cabal. You have been listed as a participant in this discussion. I am hereby offering to mediate this dispute in the hopes of helping all the involved parties come to a consensus and resolve the dispute. If you accept this offer please indicate your acceptance on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-31 Military Commissions Act of 2006. I look forward to working with you on this matter! Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Felix_Ismael_Rodriguez.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Felix_Ismael_Rodriguez.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:People Demand Peace.jpeg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:People Demand Peace.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

I have blocked you for ~~three~~ two days for edit-warring and violation of the three-revert rule on National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The 3RR rule is quite clear that editors may be blocked for edit-warring even if they have not exceeded three reverts in 24 hours. The length of the block is justified by your 1RR parole at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier#Parole_violations.

I also blocked Badagnani for 3rr on the same article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaser (talk • contribs)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TDC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you review the history of the article I was blocked for, Badagani had no edit summaries, made his revisions within minutes of each other, made no indication of any issues he had in talk, and did not justify why the links should have been kept in the article, which should have been obvious because they were all non notable weblogs. And then out of spite Badagani follows me to another article I was trying to strip of conspiratorial bullshit and reverts me there!

And I get the 3 day block!?!

I noticed that my parole violation from Arbcom was cited, but the expiration on it ended 3 months ago.

Decline reason:

Sorry, you are becoming uncivil. Chaser made a mistake, but that was no reason to begin to become uncivil. You have had problems in the past. This is a short block and it is warranted. — Alison ☺ 23:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Where does it indicate that your parole ended three months ago? If I missed that, I will shorten the block.--Chaser - T 03:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. It would appear that the rv parole never passed, but I was on Rv parole for another article, which expired in may. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. My apologies. I've reduced to two days, less block time already passed. Due to your long history of 3rr blocks, it's longer than the standard 24 hours. This is in-line with the 3rr rule.--Chaser - T 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		Order of Michael the Brave
		For all your work on wikipedia, and in particular List of Americans in the Venona papers, and for not being User:El_C. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please see this, particularly the warning regarding future reversions. This message is cross-posted to Xenophrenic.--Chaser - T 03:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser...I would back off a bit. If TDC "messes up", I'm sure someone will let an admin know on an appropriate noticeboard. Your constant monitoring of TDC is becoming worrisome and I think you are looking for a reason to block him.--MONGO 04:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the edit-war is over, so I'll not block unless it really flares up again. MONGO, let me know if you wanted something else. TDC, you didn't respond to the mediation suggestion. Do you want to do that? If not, there are several other options available. I'd also be willing to switch to a third opinion role if that would suit both of you better.--Chaser - T 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi. I prefer to communicate via talk pages, if at all possible.Ultramarine 18:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the subject matter is appropriate for open discussion. Drop me a line if you change your mind. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bill Frist

My apologies, then. I do vandalism reversion at high speed and don't have time to check talk pages or page history beyond a few edits. From where I was sitting, it looked like somebody was just POV-pushing. east.718 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Interventions of the KGB

Another user pointed out that an article with this title could be written, and the KGB article seems a little thin on a subject about which volumes have been written. Perhaps you could contribute to the creation of such an article? There has to be a community of people with a lot of information to add. MarkB2^Chat 06:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have been meaning to writing something like that for a while. IT is a large subject, and I would need a good block of uninterrupted time to do it, and unfortunately there is not that much on the web, most of it is in books. Makes it more reliable and better researched, just a bit harder to find. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a workhorse, TDC. You can do it. There's also a hundred people I can think of who could add to the article who are interested and informed on the subject. MarkB2^Chat 15:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]