User talk:Nobs02

Re: Request[edit]

I've replied via email. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sayre[edit]

[1] [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nobs02 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Response to comment on Appeal[edit]

Do you think that's possible if you were called a LaRouchie, "appologist for fascist, Nazi's and anti-Semites", and accused of using anti-Zionist sources, when none of it were true, all is demonstrably false, and it all occurred in the midst of Arbitration? And the chairman has since admitted to errors in disallowing evidence to defend myself? Nobs02 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to come back here screaming injustice and try to revisit issues from over a year ago, be my guest... just don't be surprised if you get quickly re-banned for being disruptive and useless to the encyclopedia which is the whole point of this place Lost Kiwi^(talk) 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

limited review to a specific remedy and specific language; no punitive action against others.

I believe in forgive and forget. But its not possible to continue working having been made a target. Also, Mr. Bauder has graciously allowed me to begin this Appeal prior to the ban being lifted. I'd be happy to engage with you on anything, but for the next 10 days it should really be on user:Nobs02 talk page. Thank you. Nobs02 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration about what happened but nobody is targeting you right now. My advice is to move on Lost Kiwi^(talk) 03:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. Point being, 3 Admins can target me and add additional years without Arbitration. This is essentially a lifetime ban. If you are interested in reviewing an e-mail which has already been forwarded to Arbcom-1 [3], the issues are larger than my petty problems--they relate the proposed WP:ATT and perhaps the whole WP:DR process.

These policy problems won't go away if I leave. But I have some experience and willingness to stay and help with them. But then again, those endless discussion take me away from actually contributing to writing an encyclopedia. The e-mail forwarded to Arbcom-1, and these discussions [4][5][6] show some of the issues at stake. Thank you. Nobs02 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is true that 3 admins could target you and you would found yourself banned again but call me naïve, I don't see that happening unless some new major conflict arises in which you are implicated. I see no indication that any admin still harbours hard feelings toward you, would go on a witch hunt or try to have you re-ban as vengeance.

Therefore, due to the high level of incivility and disruptiveness from all that stuff last year, I don`t feel removing all parole or restriction is desired. An amendment I could be in agreement with that may appease your fears of being summarily re-banned would be that an RfC or ANI be completed to get feedback from the community as a whole and not only 3 admins. Lost Kiwi^(talk) 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be much more desirable ("whatever the substitional remedy the committee may deem more appropriate"). I don't want to go over all the past junk, the foolish actions that earned me a one year ban plus what I'm asking now to be removed, occured actually during the hearing, after feeling railroaded (see "unfounded allegations", "omitted evidence" etc.)

But to return to articles, I can see the battlelines drawn already, in short, my old sparring partners are waiting. And having been called "an apologist for Nazi's" by complainant, in the midst of a hearing, without complainant so much as remonstrated for incivility, implies ArbCom may have felt some justification for it. That's why I fear being targeted, and I'm just asking for fairness.

Any advice you can give will be greatly appreciated. Nobs02 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much more to say. What are your goals here? I don't see what you get out of this even if you are fully vindicated.

You should view the end of your ban as a new beginning, a chance to start fresh, having learnt from the experience and not repeating the same mistakes which led down such an unpleasant path. Lost Kiwi^(talk) 08:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept on it, I see where I was misunderstood saying "battlelines" and "sparring partners"; I maintain this was a content dispute--and I truelly respect the personal integrity of a few editors argueing a different interpretation of history then what I believe is supported by primary sources. My position is outlined in the omitted evidence, the Mediation Summary of Dispute [7] ("no less than invalid research methods"). I privately expressed to Flcelloguy it is pointless to continue disputes with the same users and same sockpuppets over the same articles.

My sparring partners, so to speak, have the upper hand: (1) they continue to use improper methods illustrated in the e-mail forwarded to Arbcom-1 which give the appearance of "scholarship" yet are nakedly dishonest (I have other examples). (2) They have successfully enshrined slurs against my integrity in (a) ArbCom rulings; (b) archived talk pages; (c) the community as a whole.

The content disputes have not changed--and probably cannot change til WP:ATT is elevated to policy--then we can "fight the same battles" so to speak, all over again. Having learned how my sparring partners demonize the messenger rather than write an encyclopedia or engage fairly in a dispute, I am not hopeful of being able to contribute, branded without foundation as a "LaRouchie, apologist for fascists nazi's and anti-semites, who uses anti-Zionist sources", with ArbCom turning a blind eye.

The end is a new beginning; as a target I am restricted to policy discussions and voting. Pity, I thought the idea was to build content and write an encyclopedia. Those of us who do the heavy lifting of research and writing in the humanities are one-by-one sidelined with a mass of spectators whose biggest contributions are argueing over AfD's and CfD's, in a game of mindless partisan warfare, many of us who never set out to be part of. Thank you. Nobs02 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: see unfair burden, "put in a position where a party has to prove a negative" (this article could be expanded). Nobs02 18:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Betrayal[edit]

> Have you considered this source information for Western betrayl. Thanks.
> http://www.oocities.com/Pentagon/6315/yaltabet.html

Apology for delayed answer. I can tell something relevant only about Czechoslovakia: the term was invented and used for propaganda purposes right before WW2 during nationalistic frenzy that followed Munich Agreement. It was also used by Czech Nazi collaborators to justify their activity. It got employed much less during communist regime (they really liked to put as much blame as possible on the West but didn't want to suggest alternate development as something positive). Yalta, Hungarian Uprising, Prague Spring, etc were never, AFAIK, associated with this term. It is not heard nowadays.

I skimmed through the linked text but I am somehow sceptical to see one person, a small group or single event largely responsible for this turn of history. It may be fine topic for alternate history (what if Roosevel died before ..., what is Roosevelt got tough) but, for example, the tendency of Czechoslovakia to move politically toward Soviet Union and toward this or that form of socialism/communism was a long term one, with some signs appearing even before WW2.

The article was and perhaps still is battlefield among few warriors misusing structural weaknesses of Wikipedia. I once rewrote the section about Czechoslovakia but do not have time or stamina to hang around the text any more. Pavel Vozenilek 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaesŏng Industrial Region[edit]

Wikipedia states,

" could create 725,000 jobs and generate $500 million in annual wage income for the North Korean economy by 2012. Five years later, another $1.78 billion would tumble in from annual corporate taxes levied on South Korean companies participating in the industrial project. [5].

CIA Factbook 2006 gives no state or military budget figures;

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

gives, Military expenditures

Dollar figure $5.2174 billion (FY02)

Percent of GDP 22.9% (2003 est.)

source?

Request for unblocking[edit]

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

Nobs02 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See [Facts & Summation] for short, concise explanation. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Abusive sockpuppet. -- Yamla 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cold War[edit]

Would it be possible to add your userbox on the WikiProject to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Warlordjohncarter/WikiProject_Cold_War_history. Thanks Crested Penguin 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War[edit]

The Cold War history proposed project is now active at the location above. John Carter 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence[edit]

Hello. In light of the fact that it is the first book the U.S. government ever went to court to censor before its publication(!), I was hoping you could help improve the The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article as part of an effort to make it worthy of becoming a featured article candidate? --Loremaster (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]