User talk:Cplot

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.

Thanks and good luck.

Noble Skuld the Legend Killer 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to the Zodiac article and debate. Please dont forget to sign comments on the discussion page with 4 tilds thus ~~~~ Lumos3 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit here was excellent. Have added some links to other articles. Lumos3 08:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way its Wikipedia:Etiquette to post communication on another users Discussion page , their user page is by convention a private space see Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. Lumos3 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote of thanks for your recent edits. Keep up the good work. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my comment on Talk:Capitalism. LotLE×talk 06:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got curious, and looked through your contribution history a bit. I have not edited the article, and don't plan to. But it looks quite "off" to me the way you deleted such large sections of the Transformation problem, especially al the mathematical discussion. That raises a lot of red flags in my mind; it's usually pretty destructive, and not good editing behavior, to delete a whole lot of material other editors have developed. LotLE×talk 06:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article as I found it did not reflect the contemporary understandings of the transformation problem. It was as if the article had been written in 1972. Before I made the edits, I engaged those who wrote the article on the discussion page and there were no objections to the leading material I added. After some time and great hesitation, I eventually removed the elaboration material that no longer matched the lead section. I added a list of references (mostly since 1972) to show how out of date the article was. I recall something somewhere saying that nothing had happened since 1971 on the issue. --Cplot 17:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have not followed that article, and it seems that the regular editors haven't really objected. So I guess my concern was excessive. And you doing so with "great hesitation" reassures me :-). LotLE×talk 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly reply. I know these things get overheated sometimes. I appreciate your contributions. --Cplot 19:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This edit by Ultramarine borders on vandalism. [1] However, I don't want to rever it, minding the 3RR. I'd help if you restored your last edit. Thanks. 172 | Talk 22:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on that. I'm usually reluctant to use the term vandalism, but in this case i concur. --Cplot 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Along those lines, I can't entirely get behind your expansions of the "Marxian political economy" section. They seem to add a lot of wordiness, while not really adding much content. The topic of the Capitalism article is broader, and only the broadest brush on Marx's analysis is appropriate or necessary.... especially since the slightest addition triggers a new fit by Ultramarine and a few others, which is a big hassle to deal with. Before adding a word, ask yourself, "Is this word important enough to fight over intensely for days?" If the answer is "no", it's probably best to leave the reasonable existing explanation as it is.

I think more productively, you could help in fighting the awful nonsense that User:C-Liberal keeps adding to the very first paragraph. I don't think we need more there, but rolling it back pushes me near 3RR. If we can get several editors who automatically remove the rantish POV additions to the lead, it keeps it more stable. LotLE×talk 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I had no idea how the capitalism article worked. I innocently thought I could add some elaboration to the Marxian political economy section without offending others (especially those who don't ascribe to that view; don't they have other sections to clean up?). I just proposed some stuff for the lead section on the discussion page. Perhaps, if we could reach some agreement about what to include in the lead section on the discussion page it might create some more stability for the article. --Cplot 04:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of articles attract persistent ideologues. Not so suprisingly given that a priori, Capitalism is one of them. The lead of articles is always particularly thorny, since the least informed people inevitably think whatever editorial they wish to advance is so important it should go in the lead. I believe that the lead as it exists now (minus recent rantish sentences by C-Liberal) is in pretty good shape, mostly thank to the nice work of 172 and Slrubenstein (a little bit by me). It's not necessarily the best thing possible, but it seems good enough that we should work for stasis, not for radical rewrite.

As obnoxious as the Heritage Foundation folks are, they do have a slight point (albeit badly and disruptively expressed). This particular article needs to cover a bunch of things, including about a half-dozen main thinkers or schools-of-thought. And the best length of an article is finite (i.e. roughly <50k bytes, or it's time for refactoring content elsewhere). To give a sense of balance, those sections on different schools should be treated at fairly equal length. The stuff you wrote about Marx was accurate enough, but feels inessential to convey the main ideas. Other articles, like on Marxism, Labor theory of value, Surplus value, and so on, all of which are wikilinked, can contain more detailed specifics.

By way of guideline, there are currently 252 words (1873 bytes) in the Smith/classical sections. The Marxian section is already longer, 446 words in my latest trimming (a few less if you discount the refs). Past 400 words, it's probably too long for this particular article. Obviously, the limits we have in articles are not "hard limits", but it's sort of useful to pretend they are. If you had to summarize the Marxian take on "What is Capitalism", and you simply could not write more than 400 words, which ones would you choose? (include the fact that some of those words can be links to more extensive discussions in your thinking; part of not covering something is a feeling that it's "good enough" to link to it). LotLE×talk 05:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the necessity of balancing all of these ideological, technical and style differences. I didn't mean to disrupt everything with those minor edits. However, I do think certain articles (such as "capitalism") shouldn't feel so constrained by the 50k limit. Exceeding that limit requires more attention to structure and a well written lead section, but capitalism isn't something as easily explained as many other concepts in the wikipedia. Also, although this is likely controversial, I don't think that every section needs to have the same number of words. For example, Marx and the Austrians, and Schumpter probably have a lot more to say about the characteristics of capitalism than many off the others. Smith was inspirational to many strands of political economy, but was probably too early in the process to grasp what capitalism was all about. Similarly Keynes had a lot to say about how to manage capitalism, but I don't think he had much to say about it's derfinition: he simply took that as settled elsewhere. I'm not saying to cut those out and not give those sections their due, but my interest is mainly in providing interested readers in a sense of what the field (broadly defined) means when it uses the term capitalism.

Obviously, the equality is quite rough. A think Smith really is pretty essential, especially if you sort of mush him with Ricardo too. But Keynes genuinely does get fewer words; the section is only filled out by a couple sentences I wrote on Sraffa (and a silly sentence from the neo-cons about how Austrians disagree with Keynes). But if you look at the talk archive, you'll see that we are hoping to include some other things too: Durkheim seems wanted by some sociologists (I think 172 is such); I'd like a sentence or two extending that to Mannheim and Sohn-Rethel, if it gets written. As loathsome as they are, I think the sado-moneterists should probably have a few words. For that matter, I'm not entirely happy that those poor old Physiocrats don't at least get passing mention. LotLE×talk 06:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This gets back to what I was saying about a well organized article. If the lead section summarizes the various schools of thought on what capitalism is, then the subsequent sections can elaborate on that material (about what it is) and still further sections can discuss what management, problems and issues capitalism faces. Casual readers are then free to delve into that depth as much as they please. This way exceeding the 50k limit isn't such a problem (within reason). It also might relieve some of the pressue that's causing the infighting. Any thoughts? --Cplot 05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the Wikipedia recommendation is to refactor at 32k (which was an technical limit about edit boxes in old browsers). My 50k suggestion is a good margin past that. I'm not saying that it's a sudden crisis when an article hits 50,001 bytes... but as it nudges in that direction, it's time to start thinking about whether everything in the article really should be there (as opposed to in a child or sibling article, related topic, etc). Obviously, the heuristic is very fuzzy: for example, material in footnotes should probably be given a bit more leeway than are word in the main text. And articles with long bibliographic sections should be granted some extra words for those sections, which don't really affect main flow. But I believe it's best to care about length before it's a desperate problem, not only after.

A graduate professor of mine, Robert Paul Wolff, had a wonderful course that he gave for a zillion years. It was reading the Critique of Pure Reason carefully. The course was based on a series of "Kant summaries" produced by students, each covering a certain page rage of the Critique. One crucial requirement of this was that there was an absolute page limit on each summary: if it went over, it failed. Of course, the counterbalancing requirement was that you had to summarize all the concept presented by Kant in the relevant pages, but that was more give-and-take than "threshold fail". I can hardly effuse enough about what a good exercise this was. LotLE×talk 06:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore this edit [2]! VisionThing and Ultramarine would have a fit, and start making edits of much less relevance (or deleting large chunks of text) in retaliation. As the article seems to be stabilizing, the last thing I want to see is an edit that may provoke the partisans. 172 | Talk 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally clear what you're asking me to do here. I corrected some problems with the Marxian political economy section. Someone else is vandalizing the page because, I make a correction then the solution doesn't seem to be break the section again. There's no point in having that section if it's going to misrepresent Marxian political economy, which doesn't derive it's understanding of capitalism from neoclassical 'value' theory. The way to stablize things would be to reprimand those making inappropriate edits on the page: let them know it's not appropriate. --Cplot 20:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, to be young and innocent :-). I understand 172's point that allowing a few slightly not-quite-right clauses is worth it if it shuts up the ideologues. On the other hand, I am slightly surprised to find seeing 172 specifically making the point: he's seemed very strident about absolute non-acceptance of less-than-best in many contexts. I'm not really opining in either direction: Cplot's edit is obviously better, but the other version isn't so bad as to be seriously disruptive. I'll let others make their judgements about what battles are worth the fight... one of mine, obviously, was not letting a lead definition exclude all existing societies as being capitalist, because some buy/sell/produce decisions are made by government via regulation. LotLE×talk 21:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand how one edit can lead to others, but I think we should think more about the audience of readers than little victories won here and ther. Reading through a small section on Marxian political economy's view of capitalism cannot adequately explain the perspective. Addint irrelevant point-counter-point arguments within that inadequatly small text only compounds the problem. The deeper analysis and criticisms of Marxian value theory belong on that page, not in that section.

As for the lead section, the point you raise actuallly speask to the proposed rework of that section. I think there are those who understand capitalism as only a utopian ideal that have not and may never reacy. Others understand it as something we've always had (New Classical economicsts perhaps). My view is that these sentiments and the others listed should at least receive brief mention in the lead section. This way the reader (especially the uninitiated reader, who probably wonders why they can't get a clear sense of what capitalism is) will see that many schools of thought have approached this question with some common elements, but no clear agreement on what it is. This is the case with most topics, but I think it grows more intense as we move into realms of political economy. I don think the lead section needs to reflect the view that capitalism exists now. But I also think it should reflect the other views in the trailing sections. --Cplot 21:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You called Economizer a "crazy person" in labor theory of value discussion page. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Economizer 01:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not make false charges of "vandalism." [3] Someone editing an article in a way that you don't like is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Economizer 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to yourself in the third person raises more concerns. :-) There's been bad behavior both ways. However, Economier (if I may refer in the third person)_ has only engaged in attackes (referring to the article as nonsense, but then not producing any sources or verification to back it up). Economizer has not engaged at all in any substantive discussions whatsoever. Economizer simply produces sources ad infinitum in some "mad". googling frenzy. The sources that I've pursued for verification have not borne out Economizer's claims. Its hard for me to see Economizer's behavior as other than vandalism considering these circumstances. I encounter plenty of edits that I don't agree with and don't consider them vandalism. These appear to meet the vandalism criteria to me. --Cplot 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the wiki policy on the three revert rule. You are close to violating this policy on the September 11, 2001 attacks article.--MONGO 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 12 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Please discuss your proposed edits when you return. JoshuaZ 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have again been listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for your reverts of September 11, 2001 attacks. Weregerbil 18:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for another 24 hours for 3RRV on the same article. Please don't do that. Please discuss the matter and don't just fight over the tag especially when every single other editor on the page finds the tag unnecessary or innappropriate. JoshuaZ 02:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, it is innappropriate for you to be blocking users rfegarding a discussion that you have participated in. You should recuse yourself from fruther actions on this article. --Cplot 03:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Where have I participated in this discussion? JoshuaZ 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted another users comments on the talk page whom you disagreed with. You provdied no explanation in the edit summary, and there was clearly no violation of wikipedia's ettiquette in the users remarks. Whatrsmore, the editors edit history indicated this editor was very new (only making a few edits) so if any action was warranted (and I don't think there was any action warranted) a simple explanation of what the editor had done wrong would have been sufficient. Regardless, your intervention on the discussion page — whether appropriate or not (I think not) — demonstrates you are not a disintrested administrator when it comes to this article. You should be recusing yourself from actions related to the article: especially blodking other editors. --Cplot 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall deleting any comments nor do I recall commenting on the talk page. Could you point to difs please? JoshuaZ 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have you seen this discussion at the village pump?

I take POV-pushing seriously, but I am incredulous of any sort of conspiracy theory like those being presented in the Village Pump discussion. Believing that Wikipedia is slave to governmental interests is not caution, it's paranoia. This, combined with the obvious sock status of the original poster, led to my tongue-in-cheek reply.

As for paid editing in general, I am against it in principal but in actual practice I believe it requires finesse to judge. For instance, the MyWikiBiz affair earlier this year resulted in the deletion on principal of articles which were pragmatically good, and had no apparent flaws other than their being written by a paid author. (They were a little short on sources, but were much less POV than your average fan-written article on a TV show or band) If a university were to offer a grant to individuals willing to write FA class anthropology articles, would we refuse to accept their contributions? I certainly hope not. Being paid to push POV is of course different. --tjstrf talk 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reposting my username in your headings. If you want something done, this kind of nonsense is not the way to achieve it.--MONGO 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR...you are being nothing but disruptive at this point. I asked you nicely to not expect results for your requests if you are going to be going around adding comments about people in the talkpage headings. You have been blocked twice al;ready for 3RR on that article...and you are now at 3 reverts.--MONGO 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do this.[4] Comment on content, not other users. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're just disruptive, nothing more and I have done nothing "wrong" as you indicated [5]. Cool it.--MONGO 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Calling people "clowns", as you did at 13:02, 28 November 2006 is not acceptable. Please refrain from these kinds of personal attacks, and focus on the article, not the editors. Morton devonshire 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said. I used the word "clowns", but I wasn't referrring to people. Morton devonshire, who did you think I was referring to?. --Cplot 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add a nonexistant category to the September 11, 2001 attacks talkpage?[6]--MONGO 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall making that edit. Sorry. --Cplot 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How odd...it seems you did it at the same time you added a POV tag to the top of the article...seems like it must have been deliberate...can't imagine what else would explain it.--MONGO 21:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about you correcting your mistake then?--MONGO 21:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I don't even receall adding a category. I'm not sure I remember how? I do remember adding the POV template per our discussionst. My guess is it's a bug in the Wikmedia software attributing it to me. I would leave it alone. It could be an important administrative or technical flag. --Cplot 21:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the empty category? Why did you restore it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't restore it. Mongo asked me to remove it and since I didn't know what it was, I thought it could be something important. --Cplot 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right here: [7] Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sure seems odd that there would be a bug in the software that this would happen twice to the same editor. Maybe we have a server overload.--MONGO 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my edits, but not the category. Soemthing weird is going on. My computer's boggind down a lot too. I'm going to restart it. Hopefully, if the bug is on my end, that will fix it. --Cplot 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've had time to log out and back on and have edited since....so remove that dead category now please.--MONGO 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems to have cleared up my general slowness issues. Thanks for the concern. --Cplot 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cplot...remove the vandalism category from that talkpage. The games are done.--MONGO 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for Category:vandalism and Cqtegory:Vandals. I also looked for Category:Clowns and Category:Losers. Those didn't come up in my search either. Are you sure this is on the Septemter 11 2001 attacks page, or are we talking about a different article? --Cplot 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was your edits...you added it. Nothing you want is going to happen in that article...yopu might as well give up as I think anyone surely sees that your efforts are nothing but disruption. I'm heading out, if you're up to the same antics tomorrow, you're done on wikipedia. Straighten up or get lost.--MONGO 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, I do not understand your repeated hostility towards me. I have done nothing but try to reach out and be frineds with you. Sure I've made mistakes. But I've always quickly apologized for those. I would really like to be your friend here. Please tell me what I did to insult you. --Cplot 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? He can't figure out how to remove it himself? Dang, just tell him to jump through his own hoops. If he don't like the category, then he is free to remove it himself, he don't pay your bills.... does he? (couldn't resist, been going through Wiki and reading all this rouge admin's evilness)74.241.140.49 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cplot...I told you several times to remove a nonexistant category from the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page...you deliberately acted dumb about it. Then you added it here[8] on your own talk page. You have been nothing but disruptive and I have blocked you for one week.--MONGO 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you would like to help there. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think he said that? Whatever. I'll see you tomorrow. --67.167.7.187 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. --Cplot 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo wrote:

Cplot...I told you several times to remove a nonexistant category from the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page...you deliberately acted dumb about it. Then you added it here[9] on your own talk page. You have been nothing but disruptive and I have blocked you for one week.--MONGO 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, again I do not understand the hostsility. I've been trying to reach out to you and be friends. I wasn't playing dumb. I really don't know anything about that category. I don't even understand what it's for or how it's used for discruption. I feel really hurt by your reaction, and I don't understand how I offended you. I respect your decision though. I always try to assume good faith. And you're clearly an administrator who takes his respsonsibilities seriously. Please accept my deepest apologies for offending you. --Cplot 18:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Tbeatty 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block to indefinite due to the evasion of your block with multiple IP's. [10]--MONGO 06:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would get a chance to respond to the Sockpuppet case first, but I guess not. I've been away from a computer all day (that's what of the positive sides of the block, at least I got out for some fresh air and some contemplation)) As soon as I get back home I find the sockpuppet case and it's already settled in favor of an indefinite block? What's happening here? I feel like I've done something to offend Mongo, but he won't even tell me what I did. I had started out being mostly jovial with Mongo and later, when I could see he was upset with me, I tried to understand what I had done. I normally feel like I'm pretty good at understanding rules and regulations and abiding by them. I think I've gotten by pretty well in the five months I've been on Wikipedia. Then suddenly this all happened so fast. It's dizzying. All this is about the category I allegedly put on some pages? I don't even recall doing it. What does it do when a category is added like that?

As for the IP addresses, they cannot possibly be mine. I have internet service on a LAN that I think gets it's service from Comcast (I'd have to check with the administrator). It's just an open wireless connection. There are lots of us who use it. As for Sprint, they do not even provide service in this area as far as I know. In fact, I thought Sprint was only in the southern United States.

I do have friends who have been on Wikipedia much longer than I. I usually turn to them when I don't understand something here, but they say they can't figure out what I did wrong either. I'm not swaying I didn't do something wrong. I'm just saying I'm trying to understand what I did wrong and feel like I'm not getting any help with that. I did however post once on the "September 11 2001 attacks" article last week when I was blocked. I did sign it with my username (Cplot); tried not to be at all disruptive and didn't try to hide the fact that it was me (I posted from a friends computer). I didn't realize that was wrong, but now I do.

Thank you to CyclePat for continuing on this, but I'm afraid you're going to end up punished in this too if you keep up. Honestly, I'm just one editor here on Wikipedia. There's plenty more to contribute ideas. I'd hate to see anyone else drawn into this mess.

Again would everyone please accept my humbles apologies. Even if I'm permanently blocked, I don't want any of you to harbor any bad feelings after I'm gone.. I've felt our discussion were richly informative and I felt we were starting to work things out before this all went sour. --Cplot 06:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you need to add the sockpuppet alerts, but did you have to blank the whole page?

Wikipedia and the CIA Saturday, April 15, 2006 How US Intelligence Can Embed in Wikipedia, Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens by Dr Les Sachs

Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the Internet

Fake Wikipedia Biography of Bush Donor Patricia Cornwell

Absurd Wikipedia "Budget" - the Giveaway of CIA-NSA Funding?

Staffers of the Wikipedia online "encyclopedia" - now one of the most dominant media websites in the entire world - show signs of being CIA-type operatives, directly engaged in US-funded propaganda operations against US citizens.

Remove 00 from middle of urls Bon Voyage Thehappyfish 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what you should say in the face of a trojan horse?... Thanks for the gift, now get the fuck out. --Cplot 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post those links again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry. I didn't add those links. Someone else did. I certainly will not add them again. --70.8.150.242 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well regardless, I wish you'd just stop what you're doing. They're now blaming that on me and claim tha I put the links there (because I restored them to reply after Mongo removed them). User:Thehappyfish looked like a name you'd makup. --Cplot 06:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean you won't add them again? Did you or did you not add those links? --Cplot 06:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add them. Come on, lighten up. You're getting as worked up as these Federal Clowns. It's only Wikipedia. You're acting like it's the end of the world. My guess is they added them, removed them knowing you would get frustrated with them editing your page and restore them. Then Bingo! They bust you for adding the links they added in the first place. --68.30.146.202 06:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right. Sorry for geting miffed. It's just that I spent a lot of time here contributing material. I donated money to these clowns. And now I find out it's just to support some ridiculous Federal bullshit to control yet another media outlet. Nice policy piece you did by the way. I wish I had had that to read before contributing money. . --Cplot 07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really intend to just use this page to continue promoting/discussing your paranoid conspiracies? --tjstrf talk 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page so you can't use it as a soapbox. Good day. JoshuaZ 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]