User talk:Seabhcan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For older discussions see User talk:Seabhcan/archive01, User talk:Seabhcan/archive02 or User talk:Seabhcan/archive03

Contents 1 State terrorism deletion 2 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America 3 rootology arbitration 4 REquest for quick page delete 5 The Institute of Living 6 Personal attacks 7 Terrorism/US 8 Unspecified source for Image:OxfordBoats.JPG 9 NPA on your front page reverted 10 Insulting Edit Summaries 11 Help on WP:RS dispute 12 Page protection warning 13 User notice: temporary 3RR block 14 Regarding reversions[6] made on November 12, 2006 to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America 15 I'm flummoxed! 16 I hope you can read Dutch or French 17 Civility 18 Jumping to conclusions 19 The cabal accusation 20 Lumberjack? 21 Proof to the contrary 21.1 RFA Morton devonshire 22 WP:SPAM WP:NPA 23 Suggestion to help Stone put to sky and NuclearUmpf 24 Blocked 25 Your Point? 26 Thanks 27 Arbitration 28 Gladio 29 Village Pump 30 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan 31 Personal attack? 32 An article of possible interest to you 33 You have been blocked for 24 hours 34 Permission to edit and add too 35 ArbCom 36 Goodluck 37 Apology 38 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan 39 You ARE Anti-American 40 A Barnstar for you 41 RIP Robert Anton Wilson, fnord! 42 Orphaned fair use image (Image:FAB City Limerick Logo.png) 43 Ennis - subtle vandalism

[edit] State terrorism deletion

Hi, sorry I haven't responded to your question in that AfD, I just don't really have time (I'm at work). I'll get to it; I don't you to think I'm ignoring you. If the AfDcloses and I haven't replied, you caan strike-out my vote. Karwynn (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. What ever happens with the AfD, I'd still be interested in your reply. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

here you go. Karwynn (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

Why did you edit the article after it was protected? [1] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is permitted to correct errors after consultation on the talk page. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not an "error", it was a content dispute, as the talk page spells out. And I do not believe it is ever acceptable for an editor involved in an article to edit the article after it has been protected. I would ask you to self revert until the discussion is concluded. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(Moved back to article talk)Self-Described Seabhcán 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to email you, but you don't have an email active. Please let me know how I can contact you. Travb (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rootology arbitration

FYI, rootology arbitration is ongoing: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop "Hey, Bob User:Seabhcan, could you tell me what you think about this discussion? I think your input could help". Now for the disclaimer:

PLEASE NOTE: Users who have a problem with me messaging other users about this case. It is NOT against wikipedia policy to do such things, see: Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette. I have other cases which I can quote. Admin cases. Travb (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap! thats a long article. Sorry - I won't have time to look at it till next week. Thanks for the heads up, though. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REquest for quick page delete

Hi Seabhcan, I've apparently botched a detail in a split. This page will not be missed:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the Collapse of the World Trade Center and if you can just remove it, it may avoid confusion.--Thomas Basboll 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone made it a redirect to the correct title. That is probably the best solution. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Institute of Living

You previously started an AFD for this article, which is now orphaned. Shall I close it or do you wish to relist it? Yomangani^talk 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No go ahead and close it. Thanks. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 15:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I am thinking about mediation of some other form of conflict resolution based on your comments at the Afd. Your thoughts are appreciated and I also left a message on the Afd of course.--MONGO 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck to you Mongo. I'll be away for the next week or so. I fully expect you to be up to no good while I'm away. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will wait for your return and fyi, i have several dozen editors that are deeply concerned about your efforts here on Wikipedia...ie Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (POV pushing), edit summaries, Collapse of the World Trade Center (POV pushing), awarding banned editors barnstars...it's a long list.--MONGO 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, if you're going to retreat from the field due to potential issues concerning your advocacy, surely others see this for what it is. Let me know when you return as I'll look forward to our conversations then. Happy wiki vacation.--MONGO 19:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As an admin, you know to attack the message and not the messenger...edit summaries such as the one here, are of course, unacceptable. If your argument is so weak that all you can do is attack the messanger, then maybe you shouldn't bother to edit pages related to 9/11. If this happens one more time, I'll be forced to draw up an Rfc.--MONGO 20:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

When did you loose your sense of humor, mongo? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You call it funny if you want, I'm asking you to stop. Your ability to argue your point is not reinforced by making attacks on individual editors.--MONGO 05:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir! Yes, Sir! I hereby promise never to use humor, Sir! Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 09:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The POV pushing goes both ways, MONGO, have you ever voted for a page to be kept which involves 9/11 consipracators? This is a serious question. I am just interested if you have. Travb (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism/US

You reverted the entire sections and only provided one source for one section. Please add the rest of the sources today, or if you are unable then please revert the additions of the other sections until you are ready to source them. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Give me a chance. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:OxfordBoats.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:OxfordBoats.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 {{fairusein|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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 09:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA on your front page reverted

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not personal. Does it mention you? No. Bye. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please dont be coy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't vandalise my user page. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not vandalism to remove a personal attack, and as an Admin you should know better. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I realise that you may feel your own importance is of such a degree that you embody an entire nation, but I have to inform you that this isn't the case. Chaka Khan may be every woman, you are not every american. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I liked how you reverted my changes to your user page, but left out some key words, is this an apology? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I realised that you are a poor specimen of your nation, and I shouldn't fault all your people four your personal failures. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WOW, you just don’t know when to quit, do you? And, BTW, I am a wonderful example of an American, intelligent, well educated, witty, handsome, athletic and financially comfortable, so thanks, I guess. 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Torturous Devastating Cudgel

I'm sorry to interrupt, but this last post...this is one of the most embarrasing entries in Wikipedia I've ever encountered. ...If this can be explained by some kind of mental illness, it is great news, treatment is possible, then. SalvNaut 12:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I have the whole 9/11 Truth squad on me. Nice! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan, can you demonstrate one edit I have done which insults your country, or any country for that matter? Your original comment clearly delineates my suspicions about your editing motives on this wiki, and the current version on your userpage, while not specific, is still insulting. If you dislike the U.S., as demonstrated by such an obvious post as linked above, then maybe you're biased by your belief of "dumb Americans" and should avoid articles related to the U.S.--MONGO 19:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you volunteer yourself a member of the category "dumb Americans who prefer to push patriotic propaganda over history". I'm very sorry for you if that is the case. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't, Seabhcan...what I ask of you is to stop insulting myself and other editors who don't appreciate your anti-American editing patterns. I simply have no beef with those who live outside of the U.S. or their countries....and even if I did, I wouldn't be going around spending the vast bulk of my time working on an articles that are structured to insult other countries. I definitely agree that the U.S. is guilty of many sins, as are the governments of most countries, but I stay out of articles that are about countries that are not mine because I admit that my foreign viewpoint might lead me to be biased.--MONGO 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never added any material which is either untrue or well referenced, and I standby all my edits to articles. If you find truth to be anti-american, then I suggest you examine your self-identity and why you rely on myth for your personal satisfaction. The problem is that the articles with a tangential relationship to US policy, government and history are profoundly biased. I try to correct this bias with well referenced material.

What gets up my nose is users who delete that material for no other reason than that it conflicts with their nationalistic view point. The quality of the referencing is irrelevant to those users. I do the same for articles on my own country and history and for other countries. The problem is that Americans are uniquely defensive of what they think should be true, rather than what is true.

American editors do not own the articles on their country or history. I see no reason to stop correcting the bias on those articles simply because I am not a citizen of that country. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What myths do I rely on, I wonder? Did I not state just above that the U.S. is guilty of sin? I fully appreciate the mistakes the U.S. has made and always welcome any edits to Wiki articles that demonstrate facts based on a truly reliable source. The sources you seem to come up with have a definitive anti-American slant to them. I'll examine your comment about "Americans are uniquely defensive of what they think should be true", as I think this is absurd. The U.S. has the most open media of any land and routinely and openly criticizes sitting Presidents, the legislature and the actions of the U.S. Government.--MONGO 20:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can point to any material I have added which is wrong I will remove it. As for my sources, I strongly disagree they are 'anti-American'. I try, where possible, to stick to academic and unbiased sources. As for the US's 'open media', it recently scored 53rd place in the world press freedom charts, tied with Botwana and Tongo[2]. Yet, I can see your first, reflex, action will be to label this ranking anti-American. Before you do, I should inform you that the ranking is compiled based on interviews with US journalists and their opinion of US press freedom. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, RFS ranks the U.S. at 44th (having more recently only been 17th) and may also be a CIA financed operation...[3], [4]...so right or wrong, are they reliable witnesses? I would tend to agree with their top rankings of countries in terms of press freedom...but since most news media that has a wide based platform is corporate or government controlled, bias is what most of the world's people get. The issues concerning you and me are my problem with your choice of using your userpage to attack other countries...that is the gist of this discussion.--MONGO 21:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how you now use those sources to prove your point, yet criticize me above for those same 'anti-american' sources. Zmag and counterpunch? Mongo, I'm surprised you read such anti-american, McChomsky trash. Really now! you should hand in your passport! As for what I say on my personal user page, TDC put it well earlier today when he said "its my right to say it" Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(Defamatory remarks removed) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, TDC was out of line. The issue (again) is not a long debate about Ganser or whether the U.S. media is a corporate puppet (which it probably is). The issue is your using your userpage to attack others. If this kind of issue isn't resloved, then I can't see anything leftto do except take this to an Rfc...something I don't like doing.--MONGO 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, those are a pain. I wanted to do one on you a few months ago but never found the time. What are you specifically objecting to on my current userpage. Lets find a compromise. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they are a big pain, but honestly, I'm inclined to delete your userpage and recreate it without the dumb Americans comment. Even so, the current statement is still insulting someone...why not simply revert it to the version you had until recently. Besides that point, how about you cease with insulting edit summaries and reconsider your editing habits...I mean, do you have anything positive to add to articles or are you here to provide only evidence of U.S. sponsored terrorisms and conspiracy theory advocacy to articles related to 9/11? It might also be nice if you not award barnstars to banned editors.--MONGO 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be quite happy to stop the edit summary thing if you consider raising a civil discussion before you remove material whole-sale as you often do. It isn't fun to spend 30min writing a balanced piece on a difficult topic, getting the references right, only to have you revert with "Baloney" as an edit summary. (although it is useful to learn a new word. I didn't know what baloney was before). I add plenty of positive material to many article, however, generally topics on America-related subjects already have the positive info in - to the exclusion of all else. I am trying to balance these articles. There are two sides to every coin. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

JUst remember that when you go around possible betraying your sentiments by commenting on your userpage that you're dealing with "dumb Americans", that your edits which are from the other side of the coin, are likely to be viewed as more likely to be biased. As far as articles related to 9/11...the only information you have added that I removed was from sources that don't meet wiki policy or are simply not well supported (at all in many cases) by the known evidence and specialists such as engineers.--MONGO 22:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have removed many sources of engineers and scientists. You do this if the engineer in question has an opinion which differs from your own. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Really...oh you mean the ones that you support that have been debunked by all the other engineers? You mean the ones whose opinions are so unnotable that it would be undue weight to mention their "findings" in article space? Once again, you deliberately seek out information to support your anti-American bias...a bias that was made plainly evident when you posted "dumb Americans" on your talk page. I will try to assume good faith, but in reality, I am disappointed with the bigotry you decided to demonstrate on your userpage.--MONGO 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole concept of 'anti-Americanism' is alien to me. If someone suggested that my government had done something illegal, I wouldn't feel the idea was anti-Irish or a personal insult to me. I don't identify personally with any particular government anymore than I personally identify with my boss or any other authority. I really don't understand why Americans feel personally insulted when the actions of government types, people they've never met, are questioned. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? You live in a country deeply divided by loyalties of a religious nature yet you don't understand people identifying with the different factions? --Tbeatty 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't. I'm from the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. But thats beside the point. If someone says "The government of Northern Ireland is corrupt and the cause of many problems", nobody considers that anti-northern-Irelandism. They consider it criticism of the northern Ireland government. A massive difference.

The only place I know, besides the US, where people behaved like that, was the Soviet Union. Take whatever point you like from that.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So if I said "splitting from the U.K. was a huge mistake and the south Irish were dumb for continuing it and that's why their country sucks so bad" you wouldn't take offense even though it's criticism of a political decision? --Tbeatty 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. No I won't because its silly. But that isn't the kind of thing I'm saying about America. I'm not saying "America sucks because it split from the UK" (which it also did). I'm saying things like "The US policy towards Nicaragua during the 1980's have been described as state terrorism by X". And this is to balance some previous statement written by some other user which says something like "The US never had any involvement with Nicaragua, and even if it did, nothing bad happened and Nicaragua was a threat to the US in the first place." Somehow, one is considered 'consensus' and the other 'anti-americanism'. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But you realize that to Americans your statements about America might sound just as silly as my statement about Ireland sounded to you? And that if repeated often enough might get kind of offensive? Tbeatty 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I don't accept that. I realise that there are different views of history and people believe different things. Many politicians in Northern Ireland say things like above. I personally disagree, but I don't think those statement should be deleted from wikipedia. But equally, I don't think that they, or any opinion or fact, should stand alone, if there are other notable opinions out there. Search wikipedia - i bet you'll find plenty of facts negative to my country and government. I don't want you to delete any of it.

American editors seem to think that no fact or opinion which conflicts with their personal view of their country should be allowed in wikipedia. This kind of fanatical nationalism is extremely damaging to the project. Its censorship and I see no merit in it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Some American editors, not all, and probably not even the majority. Badgerpatrol 02:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. A very small minority. However, it does seem to be something peculiar to Americans. I have edited pages about many different countries and in a few different languages. This is really a problem of a few American editors on the English language wikipedia who see it as their job to 'defend' their country's honour against history. I have noticed it once or twice with UK editors too, but much less extreme and, importantly, they don't back each other up and form possies of deletionists.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to take a break after all, you could spend some time bringing up to snuff our coverage of central Europe. Or maybe Cyprus and the eastern mediterranean. I hear there is a lot of interesting historical trivia there to be put in order. Certainly Greece, Turkey, and some of the neighboring countries would benefit from any conributions you might feel able to make. It's up to you of course. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan, maybe there are few "dumb Americans" (as you put it), who don't appreciate when someone not of the U.S. goes around adding negativisms in U.S. related articles and uses radical sources to achieve this. Maybe a few Americans don't appreciate it when an administrator who is not American refers to them as dumb. What kind of response would you expect I would recieve if I went and put up "dumb Irishmen" on my userpage? Do you think this is the kind of behavior that would make me look like an appropriate example of an administrator of this website? Luckily, I don't feel the way you do either about the residents of my country, of Ireland or anywhere else.--MONGO 07:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I have lost track of the number of times you have called me stupid, so don't go crying home to mamma when the other kids refuse to play with you. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 09:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You simply don't get it I suppose. I guess there's only one thing left to do.--MONGO 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Gosh, Mongo, Your scaring me now! Don't do it, I promise I'll be good. I promise I'll stop thinking and I won't mention reality again! Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As always, its a pleasure working with you and I always look forward to it.--MONGO 11:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish we could work together. Get back to me some day if you find a way to overcome your own intellectual dishonesty. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that when you find a way to let go of your overt bias against my country which interferes with your ability to apply occums razor and make sound editorial chioces based on a preponderance of the evidence and not evidence that supports your bigotry.--MONGO 12:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I again add my 3 words here (as you could suspect that I'm listening): Mongo, please read your words again carefully "...and even if I did, I wouldn't be going around spending the vast bulk of my time working on an articles that are structured to insult other countries.". I am willing to say that this statement clearly shows where the problem is. Where is your WP:FAITH? I find here something utterly opposite. Why would you think that anything is done in bad faith? I, and Seabhcan for sure, we stand for truth and what I see I'm doing here is helping your country, which is great in many ways (I always thought USA is "the best ever" when I was a kid). If we are doing something wrong, please correct us, but don't just dismiss our work because it does not fit in a worldview of yours. Then look again at your words: "I admit that my foreign viewpoint might lead me to be biased.". Well, if this is the case, isn't it very reasonable to say that your domestic viewpoint might lead you to be biased, too?

I add one more thing, as it seems from what you've written, that you would preffer non-Americans to stay out from certain articles about USA. Being American or not, has nothing to do. I tend to think, that USA, being the most developed country in the world should be looked onto with the most care. In many aspects your country represents humanity, so it is a disaster for humanity when USA fails as a country. You see, USA is an important part of the world, but it's not the other way round.

US open media - please take a look at the book "Into the buzzsaw"[5] in which 18 firsthand accounts by authors and print and television producers and reporters who challenged the media structure, often with devastating results to their careers, are presented (most are top journalists, often awarded). This book might be worth looking into, too. SalvNaut 20:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire McChomksy franchise that has sprung up in the past 40 years has dedicated itself not to reasoned rational criticism of US foreign policy, but of irrational half truths and downright fabrications, ala 30-31B. Unfortunately this finds a welcoming audience in the mainstream press, but Ganser is so far out in both his conclusions as well as his primary sources that his reliability is an issue wherever he is used as a reference. Ganser’s inspiration for his “research” into Gladio was done on the advice of William Blum, that in itself speaks volumes, but when coupled with his involvement in the “9/11 Half-Truth” squad, completely invalidates him as a credible reference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TDC (talk • contribs). (well it was only timestamped)

Involvement in 9/11 Truth shouldn't have any impact on validity of his claims. Do you have sources that show him wrong? Do not use ad-hominem argument. Present sources. SalvNaut 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It goes to credibility of the source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcán, the remark on your user page is being understood as saying many US editors who disagree with you are dumb propagandists, even if you do not intend that. Whether it is an insult or an expression of your frustration, I do not see how it helps us write the encyclopedia. I wish you would take it down. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I hope you enjoy your break. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a Wikibreak is an excellent idea for everyone. When it comes to issues like this, opinions are so entrenched that no useful purpose can be achieved through further discussion. Not everyone can be reasoned with effectively, and sometimes it's better not to try. Badgerpatrol 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insulting Edit Summaries

Please refrain from making edit summaries like this one: "Thats laughable. Its not a hoax. There are 43 references. Please learn something about European history before you edit." Your comments are insulting and assume a lot. I hesitate to reveal much here, but I will say that I worked for the US government in Europe for 3 years, have Bachelor and Graduate degrees, including several years of studies in the Humanities, and studied at the Haus-Rissen International Institute for Politics and Economics in Hamburg. No, I’m not an expert, but yes, I know a little something about European history, culture and politics. Morton Devonshire^Yo 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You should perhaps consider using your education when you make edits. To claim that Gladio is a hoax is laughable. I had assumed you were merely ignorant. Obviously that isn't the reason you made such a silly edit. What is the reason? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More insults! I placed the hoax tag, because 3/4 of the article is made up. We need to have a reliable encyclopedia here, not one based upon ideologically-driven conspiratorial fantasy. Morton Devonshire^Yo 00:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not made up. Its taken from the 43 sources quoted. Your behaviour is bordering on trollish. Don't blank the article again. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help on WP:RS dispute

A source authored by a person engaged in a propaganda operation such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth would be considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Should we delete General relativity? " Bologna Fred Bauder 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed academic publication is by definition reliable. Even were it to contain mistakes, it still fulfills the criteria of WP:RS and WP:V--OliverH 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Being an active participant in a campaign of disinformation seriously damages a person's credibility. Fred Bauder 20:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why your credibility is seriously damaged. So please cease your disinformation. Ganser ins't a current member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Here's the list of members. Ganser is nowhere to be found. Your information is outdated. Whether you want to believe something or not is devoid of any relevance whatsoever. And the fact that you consider yourself more qualified than the department of history of the University of Basel demonstrates that it is you who lacks any credibility. Now can we please stop the delusions of Grandeur? The fact that Ganser isn't satisfied with the 9/11 commission report has no bearing whatsoever on information that university faculty reviewed and judged to be justified. So unless you evolve from a retired lawyer into a professor of history, I suggest you stick to the assessment of issues concerning law. Your attempt to discredit Gander for totally unrelated issues merely discredits you and shows you have an axe to grind in a fashion that has no place in an encyclopedia. --OliverH 20:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just answering the question as it was posed to me. The question was whether a scholar who was a supporter of Scholars for 9/11 Truth would be considered a reliable source. Fred Bauder 20:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Flat Earth Society and similar organizations such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth create grave problems. 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just use common sense. If someone is promoting one phony thing, they can be expected to promote others. Fred Bauder 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Except when it has been reviewed by third parties. By your own words, we can expect you to promote the dissimination of propaganda all over Wikipedia since you spread jingoistic propaganda here. It has nothing to do with common sense, but with your inability to face reality and the limits of your qualifications. Stop the slander and stick to the facts. --OliverH 20:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Any American citizen can recognize the phony 9/11 bull. Fred Bauder 20:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear sign of jingoistic drivel if one attributes truth by the color of one's passport. I ask you to cease and desist your nationalistic propaganda drive. We're not talking 9/11 here and your effort to consistently drag it in merely demonstrates that you're not acting in good faith but in a deliberate effort of defamation and disinformation. It's enough! "The phony 9/11 bull" is unspecific and, in the context of this discussion immaterial hogwash that you obviously lack any ability to substantiate. You're pretty good at demolishing your own credibility with each and every comment. Your efforts to transform Wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda outlet are well-noted. --OliverH 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And what happens when two editors disagree? What if I think that Islam is disinformation? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you're not using common sense. Fred Bauder 20:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then it's time to delete from Wiki all the cites to all the far-right pundits and conspiracy theorists who said that President Clinton had a 'hit list', that Vince Foster and Ron Brown's deaths were suspicious, and that the UN is part of some nefarious New World Order. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly (if they fail the same standard set above) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest. I'm being serious here when I say that Wikipedia should be cleansed of all of that unsupported Black Helicopters from the UN taking over North America, Bill Clinton is really an Arkansas drug runner baloney. I urge both of you to take up the mantle to free Wikipedia of unsubstantiated rumor and propaganda of the Right. I say earnestly that Wikipedia should be populated with articles that are as dry and plain as your Great Aunt Maude's underwear drawer. Functional, factual, and free of opinion. Strip it of Blogdom's unreliable sources: its littlegreenfootballs, michaelsavagisms and freerepublics.com. Dream of Encyclopedia Britannica, and "Go Forth!" Amen. Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection warning

I see you edited the article Operation Gladio performing a revert due to an editing dispute. On your next edit, you protected the page. Yeah, I know, things get heated, but let's not protect pages unless we are dealing with vandalism....but you already know this.--MONGO 07:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider this edit (diff) to be vandalism, as did the Bot. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit you cited does appear to have been to revert a rather huge deletion.--MONGO 12:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] I'm flummoxed!

Fred Bauer stated:

"Being an active participant in a campaign of disinformation seriously damages a person's credibility."

and

"A source authored by a person engaged in a propaganda operation such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth would be considered unreliable"

and

"Just use common sense. If someone is promoting one phony thing, they can be expected to promote others."

The US Government unequivocally and unambiguously states that "the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age" [7], therefore anyone who publically contends that the earth is 1000's of years old, be that person a preacher or a creation 'scientist', politician or scholar, must be considered " an active participant in a campaign of disinformation" and esposing young age earth arguments can only be seen as "propaganda operations" and the arguments themselves as 'Conspiracy Theories'. Following Mr. Bauer's reasoning - all content from any person who believes the earth is 1000's of years old must be considered unreliable, and exclusionable from Wiki. I'll get to work editing.......... - F.A.A.F.A. 03:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I hope you can read Dutch or French

The conclusions of the Belgian inquiry into Gladio wrt links to criminal organization can be found on page 109 of the report [8], point 19. Cheers. Intangible 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your edit now that I understand why you made it. But the edit summary "That's bollox" is not helpful towards that understanding. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That section says that they couldn't draw a conclusion because of the refusal of some people to answer questions. Hardly conclusive. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually they did draw the conclusion, but were unhappy that they could not provide for more evidence to obliterate the myth for eternity (which is why this myth keeps reappearing). It suffices to say that people might have thought about the relationship between the Nijvel gang and Gladio for example, but this can be done in just one line (as shown in my recent edits to the Nijvel gang article). Intangible 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

I and others have asked you before on several occasions to stop this kind of thing.[9] You intentionally mock the guy's name, deny his work here is in good faith, and then pat yourself on the back for being so adept at trolling him. For the past several months you have persistently personalized editing disagreements, condemned editors based on their being Americans, attacked the character and questioned the motives of almost anyone who disagrees with you, and have been persistently uncivil under the guise of humor. You actions have made it harder for all of us to work on what are already difficult pages. Please, stop now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I don't believe these editors are here for the betterment of wikipedia. I think they edit here to push their personal POV. The evidence of this is ample and I see no reason to pretend that isn't true. I assume good faith and their actions prove me wrong. I won't stop seeing the elephant in the room. I don't condemn anyone for being a particular nationality, but when an editor comes here only to push their nationalism and bias, I point that out. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I see [10].--MONGO 17:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Again...your bigotry is more than apparent[11]--MONGO 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Further lies and insults for no reason[12]--MONGO 17:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

These diffs [13] should, I think be removed an placed in your response section so that they are confused with the diffs about your editing.--MONGO 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping to conclusions

I think you jump a little quickly to extreme conclusions. Calling those who disagree with you fascists is over the top. And the worst of it is that some of us don't even disagree with you. I reject 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I am well aware that 9/11 has been used as an excuse for a number of unwise imperial adventures. I've never sat down and thought out what ought to have been done; that's not my job, but clearly 9/11 offered a fool an opportunity he would not otherwise have had. Fred Bauder 18:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether you or I disagree with 9/11 conspiracy theories is beside the point. Your opinion was that when Ganser voiced his support for those theories, that act invalidated all his previous work on all topics. That opinion is anti-free speech.

That Newton believed in alchemy in later life does not invalidate his earlier writings on gravity. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If Newton lived today, he would not. Wikipedia is devoted to verifiable knowledge. Fred Bauder 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that answer proves my point. Back in Newtons day Alchemy was accepted and Newton's theory of Gravity was the outlandish thing. If wikipedia had been around then you would have been deleting the Gravity article while promoting the Alchemy as a FA.

Wikipedia isn't devoted to verifiable knowledge. It is devoted to notable belief and opinion. If it was just about verifiability of 'knowledge' we would delete the article on Jesus. Not a verifiable word of knowledge in it. However we don't delete it because users might want to find out what that topic is about.

If you want to go back to the 9/11 conspiracy theories - it doesn't matter whether they are true or false. Wikipedia should report them objectively just as it reports on the Flat Earth Society. And if Jesus was a believer in a Flat Earth, as he probably was given the time, that doesn't discredit the Bible.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The cabal accusation

As an editor of one year, I have learned that using the word "cabal" is a dead end. Sure, cabals exist, but if you use the word, wikieditors will blow you off.

As I wrote at Politically motivated AfD's: the elephant in the room:

• Why is the word (insert title here) cabal so off limits?,
• Why when anyone brings up the subject, they are heckled off the talk page?

...human beings are hardwired and socially trained to not look at the big picture.

The reality is that, unfortunatly, the word cabal is "off limits", and does not convince anyone of anything, in fact using the word potentially alienates potential allies. Travb (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there is no-one to convince. There is no higher authority in wikipedia that can judge this situation and enforce a solution. Things will continue as they have indefinitely. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Alas, that is true.

I have noticed that like minded right wing groups is a fairly well organized sword, but as a sad reflection of US politics, the left is in disarray on wikipedia. The only way to change things is get organized, and as a group effectively push to change wikipedia policy. Travb (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe its time I make a list of "super friends" like Monty has done. (Its a bit childish, I know, but maybe it has to be done) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Already addressed and already done:

Please see:

User_talk:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All#Friends.2FSpecial_Friends

User:Travb#Important_wikiusers

I personally see the most pressing issue is politically motivated AfD's, what do you think is the most pressing issue?

My weakness, (which also can sometimes be a strength), is that I condemn both the right and the left liberally, friends and allies alike.

Many of the conservative editors on the right seem to have tunnel vision, and only see the fallacies of their ideological opponents on the left. This usually is a strength...

Personally, I have found those on the left are more open to different ideas, and seem harder to lead, than the ideological right. (On the left there are some blatant and troubling exceptions--their are staunch ideologues on both sides). Travb (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough I have to agree partially, though I find any group of people pushing a POV to be particularly bad, no matter which side, left or right. I identify myself as Ind because I think this country needs more then 2 options, I am one of the few who find that if the line goes left or right, it seems to end up crooked either way. I think the goal here however should be to reach a middle ground through NPOV, or through equal POV, preferably NPOV. Unfortunatly I think an editors contributions arent a justified look into their beliefs, I often find myself editing with the POV of a "right winger" to offset what I see as "left leaning" articles for the purpose of balance. Without going into details there are some "far left" sources that are quite over used, and equally "far right" ones. Anyway the best way if anyone must, to present their side, is to do it with facts and citations, and if the other "side" has a counter they should also present it with facts and citations, improving the article all around. --NuclearZer0 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lumberjack?

[14] "In reply to Mongo's suggestion that his employer, the US Federal Government, pays him to edit. I believe he edits in his (ample) free time. Mongo seems to be some sort of lumberjack in real life. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)" How cute. I never once said I was paid by the federal government to edit wiki...folks like yourself believed that. Linking to a parody song about a gay lumberjack is simply further evidence of your incivility.--MONGO 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you took the joke in good humour. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's your Rfc, based largely on incivility. I signed on mainly due to your comments made about American editors. I don't think Wikipedia needs to tolerate bigotry. --MONGO 19:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It also doesn't need POV pushing ultra-nationalists. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep...here's PROOF that I am an ultra nationalist...only an ultra nationalist would say something like I did there!--MONGO 06:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I already pointed out the problem with that myth [15]. Its a sure sign of a fanatic that ignore information that conflicts with your personal myths. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would you post this MONGO? You are intelligent enough to asses that the case with US media is not so simply beautiful as you picture it. Where was the critique of Bush when he led your country to war? Where is media inquiry into Iraq WMD's? 9/11 Comission omissions? I've once before pointed you to a book written by leading journalists, who exposed corporate media bias and content supervision ("Into a buzzsaw" on amazon). You are not writing this to provoke Seabhcan, are you? SalvNaut 07:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You lost me...what are you talking about? The only encounters I have had with Seabhcan have been on articles related to the events of 9/11/2001, and when requesting that he be more civil. My comment is a fair response to his insinuation that I am POV pushing ultra-nationalist, which is definitely not the truth. I am definitely better read than you may assume. In all honesty, I don't care all that much what Seabhcan says about me...but the diffs demostrating his attitude about Americans in general are simply not acceptable for an acting admin. The other issues could possibly be seen as a tit-for-tat of sorts, or possibly laughed off as his form of humor.--MONGO 08:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I might have lost you, my fault. Then.. I still feel something is wrong... Isn't it the thing that you try to portrait Seabhcan as anti-American? (this strategy reminds me something... anti-S...) Wasn't it Seabhcan, who stated that his edits with Tom Harrison are very fruitful and generally ok?

I'm sure that Wikipedia should not only tolerate, but insist on, good humour. SalvNaut 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't wish to label him...I had hoped that his edting pattern could be explained from a standpoint of what he claims..that he only trying to add balance...but his comments that he thinks some editors he is dealing with are "dumb Americans" along with other broad strokes of a similar nature, are indicators that he is instead editing from a point of bias, not one of enlightment.--MONGO 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, an excellent debate, with intellegent users. I love wikipedia.

I wrote the article American civil religion, based on a famous term (within sociological circles) coined by sociologist Robert Bellah in 1967.

MONGO wrote: I don't think Wikipedia needs to tolerate bigotry.

I guess on the wikipedia that MONGO invisions, User:Seabhcan wide, slanted comments about Americans is too be condemned. On the other hand admins who call those who do not adhere to American civil religion should be condemned as "bigots". In otherwords, it is "okay" to call other editors bigots.

MONGO wrote: You lost me...what are you talking about?

I follow User:SalvNaut's argument perfectly. I have found that human beings, when faced with evidence that contradicts their ideologies, use many tactics, consiously or unconsiously, to avoid facts and opinions which do not support their own ideologies. As I wrote above: "...human beings are hardwired and socially trained to not look at the big picture."

I do disagree with User:SalvNaut and User:Seabhcan dire outlook on American press freedom. I believe that the American press is very free, but it is simply a reflection of American's own biases, ideologies, hopes and fears. In otherwords, don't blame the "elite" for the state of American media, blame the American public, who want to believe, like most countries want to believe, that their nation and national values are blessed by God, and are "right". I address the falacy of logic of the American left originally on the the Zinn talk page, now found here User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Moved_from_this_conversation.

MONGO wrote: My comment is a fair response to his insinuation that I am POV pushing ultra-nationalist, which is definitely not the truth.

MONGO, what would you see yourself as? Would you see yourself as pro-American? Would you see yourself as a nationalist? If I took the modifying term "ulta" out of "ultra-nationalist" would you agree to this characterization? Do you ever push your POV? Do you have a POV?

No, I generally see myself as pro-Earth...I see a world at some point without borders or silly nationalist tendencies...not in my lifetime...but you see, that is one reason that wiki is so great...this is an international cooperative effort, and when someone goes around espousing they are anti-American or that there are dumb American editors, etc. all this brings to the project is disharmony. I would be ashamed to state I am anti-(any country). If you want to state that, then expect editors you get in disputes with on such pages to likely pick up on that kind of bias you now openly state. People see your edits as they are...and my not supporting conspiracy theory stuff in the articles related to 9/11 isn't an indication I am nationalist...it is an indication that I know what facts are and what the facts aren't. As far as what the feds had as involvement...they were underinvolved if anything...there was plenty of warnings about some big event...even the Clinton administration was informed...but there was nothing that completely pinpointed where and when, or even how...certainly not enough evidence to make a huge entity like the U.S. Government actually do anything...it's like trying to move a boulder with a blade of grass.--MONGO 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be ashamed to state I am anti-(any country).

Would you consider yourself anti-9/11 conspiracist?

As far as admitting I am anti-American, this is a label that has been thrown at me so many times, that I have decided that it is just easier to wear it, then try to sit down with people and explain my viewpoints, human beings are hardwired to see the world simplistically, in stark black and white. I make no apologies for my views, except when I am wrong, which is very often. I won't temper this statment more than this.

If you want to state that, then expect editors you get in disputes with on such pages to likely pick up on that kind of bias you now openly state.

That is one of many differences between us: I openly admit that I am biased. Whereas you don't admit it, but editors simply need to look at your edits to see your bias. Its not hard to see anyone's bias after looking at their edit history.

User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All today here: User_talk:Travb#Your_advice said it was "foolish and self-defeating" to admit that I am "a partisan POV pusher". Another user once stated it was foolish to admit that I was anti-American. They are probably right.

I find this game we wikipedians all play rather disingenuous. No wikipedian has a POV except for those whose ideologies they oppose. We can throw labels around at others, but we can never admit some of those same labels that are thrown at us have any merit.

Your statments below to Seabacan are very defensive and hostile, why?

Again: "There are certain terms in societies that people will never, ever admit to being."

User:MONGO, I come from a different perspective. My views are in the minority among Americans. Your views are in the majority of Americans. Deleting other peoples views which you disagree with is pretty drastic. You can state wikipolicy as much as you desire to justify those deletions, but there seems to be a definite pattern here, an intolerance of facts which are different from your own.

I always hesitate to openly talk to editors such as yourself MONGO. Your skill at wielding wikipolicy to get what you want is impressive. You have powerful admins who share your POV and support you. How many Arbcom's and RfC's as a person under investigation have you been involved in? You have to be pretty cunning and intellegent to survive so long.

Interesting that User:SalvNaut's question remains unanswered: "You are not writing this to provoke Seabhcan, are you?" I haven't spend that much time looking at your edits, but I wonder if a pattern would emerge? How have you survived the past Arbcom's and RfC's? Whats your tactics? Travb (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Myself, I readily admit that I am anti-American. I could temper this statment, but their is no need to now. There are certain terms in societies that people will never, ever admit to being. In American, Anti-American is one term which no one wants to admit to being. Liberal is becoming another term no one wants to be associated with. Close minded, biased, an ideologue are other terms. (I readily admit I am all three) The same is true in other cultures. According to my friends and family, during the Soviet Union, the word "ambitious" was a bad term to be called, which no Soviet wanted to admit being or be associated with.

MONGO wrote: but the diffs demostrating his attitude about Americans in general are simply not acceptable for an acting admin.

Why is his attitudes about American not acceptable? According to who? I am in the process of writing an article about Anti-Americanism, one of the excellent points that one of the scholars point out is that Anti-European bias, particularly Anti-Frenchism, is ignored in America.

Then you have the subtle anti-Muslism attitudes of Americans, which another scholar talked about. In most wars, the country's leadership attempts to demonize the leaders and the population, the "War on Terror" is unique in that the American leadership is attempting only to demonize the leaders, and not the population. But unlike America's leadership, right-wing hatemongers on AM radio make no distinctions, and routinely condemn all Arabs.

So are anti-French attitudes or anti-Muslism attitudes also not acceptable MONGO? Have you roundly condemned those who have anti-French or anti-Muslism attitudes? If you have not, why? Why only focus on those who have anti-American attitudes?

MONGO wrote:

In all honesty, I don't care all that much what Seabhcan says about me

Based on your behavior and your reaction, that is clearly not true.

MONGO wrote: The other issues could possibly be seen as a tit-for-tat of sorts, or possibly laughed off as his form of humor.

It appears like you do not find Seabhcan's word as a simple "tit-for-tat of sorts" or "laughed off as his form of humor", because you have actively contributed to rebuking Seabhcan on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan.

Travb (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"blame the American public"... which one of us is supposed to be anti-American? :-) Have you seen the documentarys "Out-Foxed" and "Spin"? They are on Google Video now I think.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I already beat you to the label of Anti-American (there was an edit conflict, so your post appears before mine). Yes, I saw the video out-foxed. On one side, it was biased pop-culture drivel, on the other side, it was good gateway video though, introducing watchers to some real problems in American media bias. (Stage 1). You may be interested in the book Public Opinion, by Walter Lippman. There is no copyright on the book.

I actually read the book "Into the Buzzsaw", and have large portions which I typed on my web blog. Portions of the book appear on the wikipedia pages CIA#Illegal_activities, and No_Gun_Ri#Associated_Press_stories_investigating_the_deaths. Travb (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I must take a look at "into the buzzsaw" when I have a chance. If you haven't seen it Spin is a good, entertaining doc on the subject too. Where's your blog? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I must have a look then. To explain my stance on media: everyone is to blame, both "elites" and public who is willing to fall under its wings. Keep in mind that most of the public are common ppl with common problems, who rarely have time, occasion, to face establishment. Those I rarely blame (only those who have chances and missed them). I feel sad when some ppl deliberately enter that biased world, either without second thoughts, or with evil heart. I belive that most ppl have choice wheather to act good or wrong, and mostly they know very well which is which. (Oh, and to be clear here - I have no idea what Mongo and other thinks in their deep hearts, who am I to asses it... I often like to think that they are a couple of romantic guys who have this beautiful dream of America (from which I happen to have awoken lately) ...dreams on :) SalvNaut 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The media problems in America are very far from unique. The exact same problems exist in all privately owned media where advertising is the primary funding source. However, like everything in America, they have taken these problems to extremes. I'm not really interested in blame, more how to fix it. The blame is so diffuse as to be meaningless.

I think it could be fixed by seperating the advertisor from direct contact with the media. Just like the way drug companies aren't allowed to contact patents directly (in most of the world anyway, the US is an exception). If the advertisor had to submit the ad to an independent body who would then place it in a magazine of their choice (within guidelines) it would remove the direct editoral powers companies like Boeing have over the media. My 2c, anyway. al Seabhcán bin Baloney Hows my driving 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Like everything in America? What is everything? Have you ever lived in the U.S.?--MONGO 15:47, 20 November 206 (UTC)

Yes, briefly. America takes everything to extremes. Thats partly what people love about the place and also what drives people crazy. But thats common in all big countries. I lived in Moscow for a while too. They love extremes. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Briefly was a long enough period of time to render a verdict? Where did you live? Is your new signature a supporting nod to Osama?--MONGO 16:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't base my verdict just on my direct experience. Boston and California. And, no. I may be mistaken, but I think that Osama isn;t the only person on earth who speaks Arabic. I think there are 300m of them.

Since we're exchanging biographies. Have you ever lived outside the US? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not lived for protracted periods of time...just on official government business as I answered to question four in in this section. I have always wanted to visit Ireland...maybe if I get there you can give me the grand tour?--MONGO 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to! I don't live there at the moment but I'll be moving there again in a few months. We can continue our discussions over a few pints of Guinness ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I rarely get near Ireland...usually I am well south and east of there...but if I get close I can always get the usual transportation and get there I suppose.--MONGO 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Actually, your not far from the truth. Our former Prime Minister was involved in a helicopter conspiracy of sorts. I don't know what colour they were. But he made a fortune avoiding tax and selling beef to Saddam. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Friendly note to Seabhcan. I too am offended that you lump all of us Americans together. GW Bush, his war, and his policies are widely scorned by the vast majority of Americans. His approval rating was 31% last time I checked (post election). Most Americans also believe he's less honest than President Clinton, and lied us into war. This administration has very little support. In regards to previous administrations, Americans overwhelmingly condemned the Reagan Admin's similar constitution-trashing actions of ignoring the will of the people expressed in the Boland Amendment, trading arms for hostages, and his illegal and immoral wars of aggression in Central America. The last time I checked, and this data is from within the last 90 days, Bill Clinton was over twice as popular as GW Bush. We're not all Bush-flavored-Kool-Aid slurping Rush Limbaugh-worshipping Neocon Wingnuts here in the USA! (not that Wiki has any of those)-F.A.A.F.A. 07:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never lumped all Americans together. This has been a misrepresentation by Mongo, Morty and their friends. I simply pointed out that there is a 'group of American editors' who are putting their nationalism before the good of wikipedia. The cabal twisted that to mean I was anti-American. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 11:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the core point here. This seems to be some kind of nationalist strategy from some of the American editors. They keep trying to picture Seabhcan as some kind of anti-American, and they do that by quoting him out of context, while it is obvious that Seabhcan never opposed Americans as a nation. This is something between ridiculous and disgusting. I think it should be somehow adressed on the Rfc page... SalvNaut 13:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User:SalvNaut: "This seems to be some kind of nationalist strategy from some of the American editors. " Please see User_talk:Seabhcan#The_cabal_accusation. If you feel it is important, go ahead and update the comment on the RfC. But please don't include the "ridiculous and disgusting" comments, which, IMHO, will only make you look partisan and biased toward Seabhcan.

SalvNaut, please attempt to talk in a neutral tone, it really helps defuse conflict and makes you sound like a better editor.

As a rule of thumb, when I talk to other people I am having a disupte with, before I press "save page" I always try to proof read and delete all adjectives and negative verbs.Travb (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof to the contrary

Just another disgusting cabal piece from Morton you might want to use in your response. [16] (emailing off-wiki...) SalvNaut 14:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Keep them coming! ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is amazingly easy - it's enough to take a look at the talk page of anyone who comes and votes against you. Here is another newcomer to this discussion thanks to Morton: User_talk:Strothra#Dude. Who's next? Has Morton's tentacles reached Jimbo Wales already? SalvNaut 01:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:54, 15 October 2006 (edit) Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) (→Lori Klausutis - - strong delete).  : ) Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Morton devonshire

Do you think its finnaly time? He contributes nothing, and wages endless edit wars. What do you think? Its high time that something be done about him. Just don't want to go it alone.Travb (talk)

What good would it do? I'm not sure it would be worth the effort and work. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just testing the water, like an opinion poll before you run for president. You have to see if you have enough support to run with it. Like your new user name, funny. Travb (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand if you go ahead with it. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly support Morton's RFA. Administrator powers would level the playing field a bit.--Tbeatty 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead too if it hasn't already been done. I seem to be the late kid on the block. =) -Slash-^μιλώ 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SPAM WP:NPA

WP:SPAM

Are some users messaging others about your RfC? I see a lot of ideological conservatives joining the endorsement to condemn you (i.e. voting). Should we respond in kind? To my understanding this is acceptable, I can show wikipolicy to back it up (including a user's boot history).

WP:NPA

I am concerned that you have not learned to bite your tongue. You are still calling people names, etc. Everytime you do this, gives other wikieditors ammunition. I am afraid if you continue to do this, you will get sanctioned. The editors you are arguing with hold their tongues much better than you do. I have learned from other editors several ways to not violate WP:NPA and still get your message across:

• "Some editors may argue..."
• Post your statment as a question. (like the question about your new user name)
• Use sophisticated words that no one knows the definiton of, (User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters taught me this when he called me ant brained) or
  • Use words in the wrong context, "bullocks" for example.

Best wishes, let me know if I can help you in anyway.

Have you maybe considered that a RfC or something about Operation Gladio? Travb (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I told four or five people I thought might be interested - see my contributions. I thought about putting something on some article talk pages, but I'm not sure that's the done thing. I think you should feel free to tell anyone about the RfC who you think might want to comment, or who you would like to comment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You always seem like a fairly even handed person User:Tom harrison.

I don't know enough about Operation Gladio to know if it is bullshit or not, (nor honestly do I care enough about the subject to find out), but Operation Gladio appears to be the basis of much of this disupute among most of these editors. Travb (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to help Stone put to sky and NuclearUmpf

Please see: User_talk:Stone_put_to_sky#Advice_I_was_given Travb (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I am blocking you for three hours for this personal attack.[17] Your incivility has become increasingly disruptive, and you have made clear you do not intend to moderate your language. I'll post this at ANI for review. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Lighten up, Tom. If Mongo can call Stone "galactically inane", I don't see any reason that I can't make these kind of gentle comments. Really Tom, If I didn't know you better, I'd nearly imagine that you only enforced these rules against me. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Someone called me "galactialy inane"? Where? Stone put to sky 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Point?

Now, now Mongo, No Personal Attacks, please[18]. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What's your point, Seabhcan? Now it appears you're just trying to provoke him. Not helpful. -- tariqabjotu 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it seems childish, but he is constantly doing that to me and others. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'm giving myself til the new year to either come back fully or stay away for good. Needless to say, your good humour counts in favour of the first option.--Thomas Basboll 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity (and please feel free not to answer if you don't want) where are you from? I'd thought you were an American yourself until Mongo started asking your opinion "as a European". ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Dane who grew up in Canada. I heard a good joke about this sort of thing once. Globalization isn't Americanization; it's Canadianization. It will not turn everyone into Americans; it will force them to constantly make clear that they are not American.--Thomas Basboll 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Ha Ha. I remember a few years ago walking past the Canadian Embassy in Dublin. A guy came out wearing a t-shirt with a red maple leaf and text in bold "I am NOT an American". I laughed at that too - couldn't have been clearer.

It seems everyone is from somewhere else these days. I'm Irish and live in London. My wife is Russian. Her father lives in Ireland and my father lives in Moscow. Most of my Irish friends have moved to eastern Europe and we have 400,000 Polish people living in Ireland now (along with 3.9m natives). I love it.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have opened a case of arbitration at Requests for arbitration:Seabhcan--MONGO 07:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gladio

In our favorite common article the section on Gladio is well sourced however lacks anyone alleging it was terrorism on the part of the US. Can you please add a quote to someone making the allegation, as it stands noone is even calling what the secret groups did to be terrorism. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It used to say so. You'll have to give me a day or so to go back through the history and figure out when that point was taken out, by who and why and how best to put it back it. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I didnt add a citation tag because I remember us discussing it and it was well sourced as a terrorist accusation, so I figured it must have gotten mangled somewhere. Thanks. --NuclearZer0 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Village Pump

Did you see this. Your name came up surrounding editors targeted for harassment by US agents. --Cplot 09:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser wrote about it too. Operation Balonio. Tbeatty 13:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I was being serious about this. Tbeatty is just being, as usual, uncivil. --Cplot 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was being funny. --Tbeatty 07:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, real-life calls and I'll be away for a week or so (I should have time to comment next Tuesday, assuming I haven't already been banned). You'll have to have your fun without me. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a minimum one week grace period befor the arbitrators start considering a case, to allow the parties to gather evidence. I have also suggested a gentleman's agreement that the parties not edit the workshop page until your return. (A bit unorthodox, perhaps.) If you would like an official continuance, you can propose it on the workshop page. Thatcher131 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That ok, I don't mind it continuing while I'm away. Have fun. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As an impartial arbitration clerk, I am contractually forbidden to have fun with the cases. Take a look at the Hkelkar workshop if you want to see just how much fun I'm having. Have a good trip. Now, where did I put the aspirin? Thatcher131 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

lol. Thanks ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack?

What was the personal attack? I will strike/reword/redact whatever you found offensive as it was not intentional. --Tbeatty 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. I don't presume that europeans speak english as their first language or that they understand colloquial American expressions. I tend to write in an American colloquial fashion and when people don't understand very basic expression, I want to make sure they understand the writing style and the biggest impediment to colloquial understanding is whether or not English is their primary language (second to that is whether they are American). You seemed to not grasp the essence of what I was saying so I wanted to know if English was your firt language or should I write more formally. Tbeatty 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An article of possible interest to you

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. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked for 24 hours

For a 3 revert rule vio on Operation Gladio. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this judgement by User:Luna Santin - Seabhcan was reverting completely undiscussed additions of hoax tag by anonymous user. There is no sign of discussion by this user on the Talk page (checked IP's), while the same topic was discussed in the past by others. Seabhcan should be unblocked. SalvNaut 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Luna Santin's decision. Seabhcan has engaged in other inappropriate behavior on that page, such as protecting it when he was involved in a content dispute there. He should know better. --Ars Scriptor 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This argument is not a good one. It is like saying - "You once in the past did wrong, so we won't be fair to you this time.". Not the way it should be, imho. Why do you stand on the side of anonymous user, who's only contribution was having repeatedly inserted hoax tag? (while this tag has been discussed in the past on the talk page). SalvNaut 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was doing some research on an unrelated matter and found this edit which clearly shows the identity of the anon ip. Fred Bauder 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permission to edit and add too

You have my permission to edit and add too Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Travb as you see fit. Travb (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

There is a formal request made by Travb for Fred tor ecuse located here. Its a stronger statement if you post in each workshop proposal you agree with, that way it cannot be overlooked and use dif's if possible to show connection between Fred and Mongo if you feel such exists, it would help bolster your claim. If you can find suitable convincing difs let me know and I may change my view. --NuclearZer0 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm just back from a week away. Wow, you guys have been busy! It will take me a while to catch up. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you get railroaded but its already been proposed you lose your admin rights, and though Fred agree's that Mongo abused his, he doesn't think Mongo should lose his admin priv's. I am sure there is a completely non-bias reason for this ... actually I am not. I found numerous things odd and made a post on the workshop talk page and a request to cease proposed decision work until the workshop page is complete. --NuclearZer0 14:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Actually, I expected this. But it is interesting to see the process play out. Its a bit like "lord of the Flies" ha ha. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goodluck

I wanted a civility warning only...my "abuse" of admin tools a few times out of thousands of admin actions is a ratio of better than getting it right more than 99.7% of the time. You make a couple of errors in a year and a half and also get booted...that's not justice...it's a lynching...we make ZERO here and there has never been any guideline or policy which demanded that we be perfect...I recommend you not waste anymore of your precious short life on this website.--MONGO 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck to you too Mongo. Take a break and I think you'll want to come back and change things. See you then. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

You may never read them, but I wanted to apologize for my old comments. I only wish you the best. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 08:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You ARE Anti-American

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#I_hope_the_ArbCom_will_explain_to_us_admins_their_ruling_on_protection_policy

User talk:Seabhcan wrote:

Wow. I just noticed that the ludicrous 'anti-American' charge was found to be 'fact' [19]. This process really is a joke. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater dude, you were the one who stubbornly refused to apologize. Don't say the whole process is a joke because of one solitary sentence.

In some circles you would be considered anti-American, just as in some ciricles I would be considered anti-American.

You know the Arbcom represents conservative users, the voice of hundreds of Americans who voted for them to become Arbcoms, who don't take kindly to negative comments about the US. The Arbcom is the face of the US, representing the values and beliefs of the predominent wikiusers here, Americans. You shouldn't be surprised.

On a certain level, you are Anti-American. Just as anyone who criticizes the US in some circles is considered anti-American. You have heard that some conservatives in the US believe that those who criticize the US should leave the US, and don't belong here, correct? There is a large group of Americans, maybe a majority who don't take kindly to critism of the US. There is a small, powerful and vocal minority who don't take kindly to 'any critism of the Us.

There is a long, rich history in the US of oppression of those who openly and vocally criticize the US. United States presidental canidate Eugene Victor Debs who garnered almost a million votes (913,664 votes (3.4%)) was put in jail for 2 years for vocally stating his political views, in otherwords, for excercing his right to free speech, alledgedly guarnteed by the US Bill of Rights. I could go on and on with dozens, hundreds of examples of this.

Just don't be surprised man if people call you anti-American, because on a certain level, you are Anti-American.

You are naive, super-sensitive, or both to be surprised by this Arbcom ruling.

(For more on this facinating subject of Anti-Ameicanism, see my collection of articles: http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/23176.html, particularly: Anti-Americanism, the American left and the American right, From The Economist Feb 17th 2005.)

I am working on a statistical paper about the roots of Anti-Americanism, due on Tuesday. My graduate school professor says my research is publishable. I will post the complete article in a few weeks, if you are interested. Travb (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] (later) RE: Kafkaesque in your user name. Thanks for sharing this interesting word. But you got to be F***ing kidding me.

Kafkaesque states: "It can also describe an intentional distortion of reality by powerful but anonymous bureaucrats. "Lack of evidence is treated as a pesky inconvenience, to be circumvented by such Kafkaesque means as depositing unproven allegations into sealed files ...""

The only person in denial of reality is you my friend. All you had to do was apologize, and this would have never happened.

I know this is your way of coping, by lashing out, just like I compared myself to Ward Churchill when I was banned (people mocked this too). I know I am putting salt into your wounds, but man, you refused to apologize. I can't say this enough. All you had to do was say sorry to MONGO, thats it. Sorry. One word. Don't blame the "six sockpuppets" (this statment is so funny), for your refusal to apologize. Travb (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I know. Its just interesting to me that only in "The land of the Free" are you branded as an "anti-American" when you criticize the country. And it applies to even non-Americans living outside of the US. I should start calling people who disagree with me "anti-Irish". ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologize to who? And for what? Anyway, I take this website far less seriously and its judgments less personally than you seem to. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No you should stop calling anyone anything on wikipedia. I used to call patriotic Americans, jinogists and apologist, after I got booted a couple of times for WP:Civil and WP:NPA violations, I stopped.

I love Wikipedia:Taking it outside. Myself and another indefinetly banned wikiuser, who was banned for vandalism of my wikipage, took it outside to my livejournal page. I was so f***ing nasty to this guy. It felt so good, and there was ZERO reperucusions for my incivil and nasty comments here. If you want to go off on someone, Take it outside. You think I was nasty to CJK, here man: User_talk:Travb/Archive_2#Blocked_for_72_hours you have seen nothing yet. If you want the link to this argument, I can send it.

I advised Nuclear and Stone on here: Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Need_for_an_Amenable_Set_of_Definitions to take it outside. Sometimes you just need to vent, I am a sympathetic ear, if you ever want to vent man.

Anyway, I take this website far less seriously and its judgments less personally than you seem to Guilty as charged, guilty as charged. I love wikipedia, it teaches me SO much about life, and lessons about life.

Apologize to who? And for what? Your a really smart guy man, do I have to draw you a picture? That would insult your intellegence. Travb (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am no more 'anti-American' than you are anti-Wikipedia. You understand that there are problems with the way wikipedia operates, yet you support the bits that work right. Calling somebody anti-something when they are raising specific issues is irrational and counter productive. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I no longer call anyone any names, except, I guess yourself :( . I agree: "Calling somebody anti-something when they are raising specific issues is irrational and counter productive" Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar for you

	Barnstar of The Dissident Revolution
	For never bowing to defeat, always doing what's right despite criticism, - defying the trolls and statists, and surviving the pogrom - I award you this barnstar. -- F.A.A.F.A. 08:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll copy it to my userpage. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RIP Robert Anton Wilson, fnord!

Robert Anton Wilson, one of the great writers and thinkers of the 20th century has passed on. His seminal work, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, and other writings, taught me not only to question almost everything, but to honor the power of, and sometimes even embrace the outlandishness of certain conspiracy theories, while not necessarily believing in them. After all -- how far apart in terms of probability, are the claims that aliens from the planet Xenu terrorized the earth, that the planes which hit the WTC were actually holograms, that George Bush and Queen Elizabeth are really Reptilian Humanoids, or that a man lived inside the stomach of a whale for 3 days and survived unscathed? Robert (RAW) was a libertarian, founder the Guns and Dope Party, The Pope of the Church of the SubGenius and Bishop of Discordianism. If you don't know his work, (I bet you do) especially The Trilogy, you should. All Hail Eris! and fnord! - Fairness And Accuracy For Tom Delay 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I had heard of his book, but not read it. Sorry to hear he died. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:FAB City Limerick Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:FAB City Limerick Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ennis - subtle vandalism

Hi Seabhcan. I'm wondering if you'd be able to help me in preventing ongoing, subtle vandalism to the Ennis article, mainly by just putting it on your watchlist (if it's not there already) and reverting vandalism if you come across it.

Often the vandalism is pretty obvious, like this, but sometimes it's more subtle and it's not obvious even to me, such as this edit. It appears to me there is one person who is persistently trying to undermine the Ennis article by adding disinformation. Note that the vandal sometimes appears to be impersonating myself.

Before you suggest it, I have considered whether the article should be semi-protected. However, I dislike the "in-your-face" protection notice that gets slapped at the top of articles, and anyway the actual rate of vandalism is probably too low to be considered worthy of semi-protection.

Hoping you can help... cheers, A bit iffy 07:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)