Shorne

Hi Shorne,

Mosquito ringtone Andrevan/ –Sabrina Martins User:Andrevan/Andre (Nextel ringtones User_talk:Andrevan/talk)Abbey Diaz User:Andrevan/ 17:37, 28 Sep 2004

Good changes to Free ringtones Saddam Hussein. Majo Mills 172/172 23:30, 29 Sep 2004

Thanks, Andre and 172. Mosquito ringtone Shorne/Shorne 23:44, 29 Sep 2004



Do you take me and other people here for complete idiots? Do you think we have not seen these attempts to whitewash articles on Communist topics before? There has been a long history of attempting to rewrite the history of the Khmer Rouge, China, North Korea and related topics here, and they have been resisted at length, and usually successfully. I will continue to revert your edits, which are pure propaganda and garbage. Are we clear? Sabrina Martins Adam Carr/Adam 05:05, 2 Oct 2004

:I am not whitewashing anything. It is you who systematically roll back entire sets of changes, even corrections of spelling, without even looking at them, simply because they don't match your own opinions. Readers who want to see what is being discussed here are invited to see the talk page of Nextel ringtones Khmer Rouge. In the meantime, I am going to report Mr Carr's promise to revert all of my edits. It is obvious that he is just being obstructive, ideological, and impossible. Abbey Diaz Shorne/Shorne 05:14, 2 Oct 2004

To take but the first example: removing the statement "The Khmer Rouge's rule is generally remembered for its violent rule in which at least one million people were killed." is a whitewash. And it's Dr Carr to you. Cingular Ringtones Adam Carr/Adam 05:41, 2 Oct 2004

:The statement's history has been discussed separately on the talk page for reference biggest Khmer Rouge. There is no need to repeat the discussion here. Besides, I have already wasted far too much of my time on immature people and their antics today. glory remains Shorne/Shorne 05:50, 2 Oct 2004

::PS: I reported the incident at examined even Requests for page protection. attorneys hardball Shorne/Shorne 05:53, 2 Oct 2004



Your holocaust denial and atrocity whitewashing have been reported on at haragosha Requests for page protection, in response to your whitewashing on case prudie Holodomor2pac on Xed/Xed 10:52, 2 Oct 2004

Now that I have seen Shorne's truly disgusting edits at regulars settle Holodomor, I am even more determined that his efforts to wreck articles such as this one must be resisted. are law Adam Carr/Adam 14:13, 2 Oct 2004

:This deserves some comments from an outsider in this dispute. The edits made by Shorne that I have seen do not deny a holocaust - and Xed and Adam's comments appear to be unseemly and unnecessary slurs. All Shorne has done is remove figures and statistics from these articles, whilst leaving text that makes it clear that there was a holocaust. It is true that this has the effect of the reader not knowing how large/devasting a holocaust these events were, but it leaves the impression of holocaust.

:It strikes me that Shorne's position is not entirely unreasonable. Terrible events like these are often exaggerated and figures tend to be unreliable - and in my opinion figures in an article should be supported by a strong body of research before being included. out genocide Jongarrettuk/Jongarrettuk 18:41, 4 Oct 2004

Thank you for insisting

Thank you for insisting that at least a ''mention'' of the widespread and continuous charges against Kissinger be included in his article. Please let me know if you need any assistance in this or other matters.

assertively declaring LegCircus/LegCircus 23:19, Oct 6, 2004

Personal chararcteristic of yours

Dear Mr.Shorne, I should inform you that you're either an idiot (this is a supposition, not an insulting statement) or a shameless propagandist. Or may be you're a provokator in attempt to make angry every reader familiar with Soviet history.

deliberated for User:VeryVerily/VeryVerily and for council User:TDC/TDC
As I saw that you are also fed up with these guys who do not care at all about neutrality, I would like to ask you to help getting rid of the problem they cause by joining the talk at boasted thursday Requests for comment/VeryVerily2, access there Requests for comment/TDC, and or lower Requests_for_arbitration#VeryVerily. produce which User:Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 13:35, 7 Oct 2004

Gladly. farther brings Shorne/Shorne 15:15, 7 Oct 2004

Thank you. I can understand that you are frustrated with the slow process here. I however think that it is good to see three arbitrators accepting to work on VeriVerily. The only thing I see you could still do is encourage others to join in the complaint. Best place may be heavy clouds George W. Bush, an article with a lot of contributors where VeriVerily has flatly ignored consensus varios times. vista translator Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 21:01, 10 Oct 2004

Khmer Rouge Problem

I've tried to start some kind of structured conflict resolution here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khmer_Rouge#Oct._1st-2nd_Dispute]

If you could state your arguments under the appropriate header, it would help the move to some kind of meaningful mediation. GuloGuloGulo/GuloGuloGulo 18:58, Oct 7, 2004

Hi pal

Hello.

Don't let all this wolf pack of a few right-wing idiots yelling at you get you down. You're doing a good job on the edits. If we keep to the Wikipedia rules (as you are doing, you know about the 3-revert rule and so forth, right?) we will be OK. A handful of right-wing fanatics don't care about NPOV or the Wikipedia rules but other users do, so if we stick to the rules and they don't and we are reasonable and they aren't, we will get the neutral users on our side.

Since there is a small group of zealots who stick together and try to single out people like you and attack them, it's important we who want a neutral point of view stick together as they only win when they perform their very successful tactic of isolating and driving away users as they've done so many times before.

There are other wiki's out there but this is the big one so it's one to stick with. Of course each wiki, like each season, has its place. Ruy Lopez/Ruy Lopez 10:59, 8 Oct 2004

Not all right wingers are zealots and some who disagree with shrone are right.

Featured article candidates/Featured article candidates
Hello. You might not know, but we already have several Culture articles being voted for and I really think we should have some variety in the sort of articles submitted. Besides, as far as I know, submitting several articles as candidates shortly after each other is considered bad form. Maybe you want to consider starting a Culture Collaboration of the Week?

Thanks for your time. MacGyverMagic/User:MacGyverMagic/Mgm/User talk:MacGyverMagic/(talk) 11:14, Oct 8, 2004

Wack Job

Add me to the list of folks who think you're a revisionist communist apologist (yeah, that's right - 3 "ists" in a row).

*Actually, you should say ''a communist apologist and revisionist''. Also, it is ''whack job'', not 'wack job'. In hopes of grammatically sound personal attacks, user:El_C/El_C

You're a wack job who, in a short amount of time, has already become a cancer to Wiki. Keep up all the "right wing" rants and conspiracy talk, that does nothing but quell real discussion, which is what Wiki is really all about. You're not the first revisionist to discover Wiki, and you won't be the last. You'll be rooted out eventually.

November 10 2004 (JanSport)

Your aggressive editing
When are you going to start doing some research to back up the edits you are making. It is not enough to aggressively argue and revert. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 20:54, Oct 8, 2004

It's more than you know

Hi...you said some of this stuff sounds like a CIA press release. Well, you've hit it pretty close to the mark. Much of this stuff comes, no lie, from US State Department press releases.

Here's a sentence from the History of Cuba from the US State Department web site:

Batista's dictatorial rule fueled increasing popular discontent and the rise of many active urban and rural resistance groups, a fertile political environment for Castro's 26th of July Movement.[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm]

and here's the sentence in the History of Cuba from the Wikipedia web site:

Batista's rule fueled increasing popular discontent and the rise of active urban resistance groups, a fertile political environment for Castro's 26th of July Revolutionary Movement.

There is a difference between the two versions - someone thought the US State Department's characterization of Batista as "dictatorial" was too far left so they erased it.

The basis of most of these types of articles comes from the US State Department.

Ruy Lopez/Ruy Lopez 21:40, 8 Oct 2004

misc.

Yes, much of the facts and histories of countries, from Cuba to pretty much every other country is from the US State Department documents.

As far as deaths due to capitalism, a "White Book of Capitalism" if you will, I agree that tactical decisions should be made whether or not it's worth it to debunk the Black Book and create an alternate.[http://www.marxists.org/history/capitalism/white-book-capitalism] If they do, more power to them.

Ah yes Khmer Rouge. I actually have a copy of After the Catalysm, which is probably one of the best books to debunk what's in that article. KR is a good one to dive into, I dove into Great Purge since that type of thing seems to be the backbone of their whole construct. You start with that and all the peripheral stuff becomes easier.

I was just reading some stuff on the New Left, and it's mentioned how the New Left were anti-anti-communist. I think that's a good way to describe myself. Some people I know feel otherwise but I don't. I see these people trying to tone down anything capitalist regimes have done, and turn any minor problem in a socialist country into a huge thing. I'm from the US - I remember meeting a Hungarian boy when I was a boy and Reagan was president, and a ton of cold war propaganda was flowing around. I asked him what it was like to escape from his totalitarian, 1984-ish prison where the police were always over your shoulder and you had to stand in line for toilet paper. Meeting a living witness, I learned that a lot of what I had been taught had been hyperbole. It was one of the first steps to me realizing much of what I learned in schools and on the media here are lies.

The irony is easy to witness here, we want to add a bit of an alternative view to the articles, and make sure facts have a source, who can be examined, and they start acting like totalitarians demanding one party line. Any difference of opinion is from "Stalinoids" who are machines you can't deal with and must only battle. I guess if you live in a country where the Queen and CIA control the country (and the transportation unions) and can (and have) boot out the PM when they want to can give you that mentality as much as an American. Ruy Lopez/Ruy Lopez 00:46, 9 Oct 2004

Million+ Dead? Don't think so.

Too bad I don't have "competing" figures handy because the loudmouth who is spouting venom about a "Million" dead (whatever the ballpark figure) certainly doesn't want to hear me say I _think_ the number is far lower 400.000, say. Maybe even less.
Not to say the Khmer Rouge wasn't led by rotten people but it's pretty annoying to be constantly having to deal with vicious anti-communists on Wikipedia, when these people are complete loons and where facts are pretty much irrelevant when ideology is at stake. The Vietnamese were communists and FOUGHT the Khmer Rouge. The U.S. is capitalist and imperialist and SUPPORTED the Khmer Rouge!!

No semblance of balance with these people whatsoever. The truth WILL win out, however.

One wonders whether they will blow their remaining gaskets when they find out that Stalin didn't kill NEARLY as many people as their type have been claiming for 80 years...

:Thanks for writing. I share your frustration. There's really no telling these right-wing loudmouths anything: they're like religious people who won't let go of their creed even in the face of the most rock-solid evidence. And, yes, they're already blowing their gaskets over Stalin, too. See Stalin, Great Purge, and a number of related articles.

:I'm not going to let them get away with spreading imperialist lies on Wikipedia. Kind of sad to see them willingly serving as the mouthpieces for tired old Cold War propaganda, but we can't do anything about that. We can only prove them wrong. Shorne/Shorne 05:57, 9 Oct 2004

Ummm

Every time I turn around, you're on a new article, making new accusations. It looks like you've been on wiki for a little more than a week, have already made >500 edits[?], and you've already created a great deal of controversy. Are you a sock puppet? Stargoat/Stargoat 05:00, 10 Oct 2004

Referenced material
In a few instances you have changed the content of the article Great Purge in instances where the content was referenced to particular pages of Robert Conquest's book, ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment'', see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Great_Purge&diff=6459032&oldid=6459012]. The problem is that the cited page will not support the statement which you insert. The effect is that a statement is in a Wikipedia article which is not supported by its cited reference. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 15:58, Oct 10, 2004

Do you understand the problem and that you cannot make such changes without removing the references also, and hopefully putting a reference which supports the change? To do this well you need to have a copy of the book for reference. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 15:58, Oct 10, 2004

Kissinger
Can you prove that Kissinger was in fact arrested, accused or tried for war crimes by some recognized organization? I know VV is pushing your buttons, but you'd be better of in trying to prove your point than attacking him. (Please note that this is an attempt to help stop the edit conflict. I won't be taking sides.) MacGyverMagic/User:MacGyverMagic/Mgm/User talk:MacGyverMagic/(talk) 16:51, Oct 10, 2004
:Can you be any more specific of the people doing the accusing of Kissinger? Are they especially notable world leaders, celebreties or other famous people? MacGyverMagic/User:MacGyverMagic/Mgm/User talk:MacGyverMagic/(talk) 06:54, Oct 11, 2004

"Documenatation please"
With respect to the following paragraph you repeatedly removed certain materials [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Great_Purge&diff=6464571&oldid=6463475] with the comment, "I want documentation of those claims, if you please." I have now consulted ''The Great Terror: A Reassessement'' , a standard reference work and after a little searching found passages which support the generally accepted information which you deleted. See:

The '''Great Purge''' is the name given to the events of the late 1930s in the Soviet Union, when millions of people were arrested, about one million executed, and an estimated 12 million to sent to labour camps. According to On the Personality Cult and its Consequences/Nikita Khrushchev a significant part of the accusations were based on forced confessions and on loose interpretations of vague articles of Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code), which dealt with counter-revolutionary crimes. Due legal deliberation was largely replaced with express trials by NKVD troikas. The purge targeted all categories of the society: members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Communist Party, the government, the armed forces and the intelligentsia, as well as "anti-Soviet elements" among peasants (kulaks), in industry, and in transport. The height of the purge occurred while the Soviet secret police (the NKVD) was headed by Nikolai Yezhov, from September 1936 to August 1938; this period is often referred to as the '''Yezhovschina''' ("Yezhov storm"). However, the purge was carried out on the orders of Stalin himself.

It is rather obvious that you do not have a copy of this standard reference work available or choose not to refer to it. Furthermore you seem to be unfamiliar with generally accepted knowledge with respect to this area. I believe it is a reasonable expectation that you familiarize yourself with the subjects you chose to edit on and be able to consult standard reference works and understand them. Could you please remedy this situation. As it stands now you are wasting everyone's time. Asking that generally accepted information be extensively documented while simulaneously espousing information and positions that can only be referenced through fringe sources. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 16:55, Oct 10, 2004

Shorne, please look at these reviews (from Amazon), of ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment'':

"Library Journal
Upon its publication in 1968, Conquest's The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties ( LJ 12/1/68) received wide acclaim for its broad, well-documented portrayal of the death of millions in Stalin's peacetime consolidation of power. A generation later, the collection of samizdat literature and the openness of glasnost have permitted access to better information, thereby allowing a reassessment of the study. Conquest's review largely confirms the original work. In the new edition more recent documentation is incorporated and some portions are revised based upon new data. However, the substance of the text is much the same. Outdated appendixes have been removed. This remains an essential source, and any library without it should buy it. Larger collections will want the revision."

"Ingram
The definitive work on Stalin's purges, The Great Terror was universally hailed when it first appeared in 1968. In the last few years, with the advent of glastnost, an avalanche of new material has been made available. Now Conquest has mined this wealth of new information to write a substantially new edition of his classic work.

Book Description
The definitive work on Stalin's purges, Robert Conquest's The Great Terror was universally acclaimed when it first appeared in 1968. Edmund Wilson hailed it as "the only scrupulous, non-partisan, and adequate book on the subject." George F. Kennan, writing in The New York Times Book Review, noted that "one comes away filled with a sense of the relevance and immediacy of old questions." And Harrison Salisbury called it "brilliant...not only an odyssey of madness, tragedy, and sadism, but a work of scholarship and literary craftsmanship." And in recent years it has received equally high praise in the Soviet Union, where it is now considered the authority on the period, and has been serialized in Neva, one of their leading periodicals.

Of course, when Conquest wrote the original volume two decades ago, he relied heavily on unofficial sources. Now, with the advent of glasnost, an avalanche of new material is available, and Conquest has mined this enormous cache to write a substantially new edition of his classic work. It is remarkable how many of Conquest's most disturbing conclusions have born up under the light of fresh evidence. But Conquest has added enormously to the detail, including hitherto secret information on the three great "Moscow Trials," on the fate of the executed generals, on the methods of obtaining confessions, on the purge of writers and other members of the intelligentsia, on life in the labor camps, and many other key matters.

Both a leading Sovietologist and a highly respected poet, Conquest here blends profound research with evocative prose, providing not only an authoritative account of Stalin's purges, but also a compelling and eloquent chronicle of one of this century's most tragic events. A timely revision of a book long out of print, this updated version of Conquest's classic work will interest both readers of the earlier volume and an entirely new generation of readers for whom it has not been readily available."

Please look at the customer reviews at [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0195071328]. You will note a few reviews that say it is all a lie, but I think you would have to admit there is a consensus that it is an authoritative account. The point, whether you find it reliable, is that there is enough support for it that when cited it can be reliaby cited as a reference. I hope you will examine these reviews and admit that summaries of the matterial in it can be used extensively in the article. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 01:08, Oct 11, 2004

:So some miscellaneous comments from customers of a bookstore count as useful data? I find it interesting that even one or two of the five-star ratings admit that the data are flawed. I don't accept the "consensus" of a dozen or so English-speaking customers in the First World who grew up doing "duck and cover" drills at school and looking for reds under the beds. I can't believe you are seriously proposing that.

:Conquest's book has been discussed at Robert Conquest and its talk page. He always claimed that the opening of the Soviet archives would corroborate his claims. Well, it didn't. The Soviet archives are open. Why isn't he shouting from the rooftops about the purported corroboration? Check this set of articles for a discussion: [http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/lies/index.html]. Shorne/Shorne 01:29, 11 Oct 2004

Dispute on People's Republic of China
There are a couple of problems with the reversions you are making to People's Republic of China. You are editing an article when you are not familiar with the subject matter. This is evident in your quarrel with the proposition that living standards have improved due to economic reforms. It is not acceptable to edit an article in a area you either choose not to or are unable to master the basic facts involved in its subject matter. Here is another reference for you, from a Chinese source [http://english.people.com.cn/english/200009/24/eng20000924_51158.html]. Again, notice that the Engel index is mentioned. The Engel index which is mentioned about is a measure of what portion of a person's income goes for food. Here is a quote from the article:

"The consumption structure changed remarkably with reduced money on basic daily necessities and increased spending on housing, communication, medical insurance, education and entertainment.

The Engel Index in China's urban areas went down from 49.9 percent in 1995 to 41.9 percent in 1999. While the Index in rural areas decreased from 58.6 percent to 52.6 percent.

The index, representing the ratio of expenditure on food against the whole expenditure reflects the changes of people's consumption patterns. Experts here predict the urban and rural Engel index will continue to drop respectively to 40 percent and 50 percent by the end of the year."

The same problem exists with respect to famine. That the threat of famine was constant in the old China, then revived with the economic and social experimentation of Mao during the Great Leap Forward is general knowledge, and not just with China specialists. Here's a paragraph from our own article on the GLF:

"The Great Leap Forward is now widely seen both within China and outside as a major economic disaster. As inflated statistics reached planning authorities, orders were given to divert human resources into industry rather than agriculture. Estimates of deaths range from 4 million to 40 million people, with much of the uncertainty coming from defining what constitutes a death due to famine; it is widely believed to have been the greatest famine in history."

Yet you're asking for "proof" and claiming you havn't gotten it. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 19:50, Oct 10, 2004

What I would like you to do is to do some research on your own; familiarize yourself with the basic information and resources for any area you chose to edit in and not waste everyone's time by engaging in edit wars over generally accepted information. When proof has been put before you with links to resources, could you examine them and if the reference is there, let it go? The way it is you, despite proof being put before you, you either don't read it or understand it and keep arguing. How about it? Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 19:54, Oct 10, 2004

:This outrageous allegation was answered at User talk:Fred Bauder and Talk:People's Republic of China. Shorne/Shorne 01:32, 11 Oct 2004

Shorne, I think you are simply ignoring the data provided to you by Fred Bauder. It suggests that you don't want to seek the truth, but to spread your own ideas which are not based on facts. I think Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of activity. Please do not deny facts and if you want to put your own opinions in articles, please allow other opinions to be expressed. Best regards. Boraczek/Boraczek 06:56, 11 Oct 2004

:I don't know yet how serious the ideological problems are, here on the Wikipedia website. I haven't been active here long enuff. But just from a cursory going-over of a number of the political articles, I think it's pretty safe to say that the heavy, biased hand of western imperialism predominates, at least on the english-language site (and, of course, one of the first things imperialists say is that commies are trying to dominate everything, and therefore they need to "respond", yadda). I'd say, from long experience, and from reading these articles, that overall as usual IMO communists have shown the usual remarkable restraint in dealing with rightwing venom. Which doesn't mean that many people on the Right can't also "rise above" vested interests and in this lies the key to an eventual effective solution, if not harmony.

:As regards the PRC article (which I haven't read yet BTW! ;): clearly only some battlefield truce between bilingual partisans of both sides will "solve" this particular problem i.e. this article must include the efforts of China-born english-speaking communists TOO. Shorne is batting 500 already here not because he may be wrong, but because his POV can always be trumped by a bilingual native-speaker, who was both born and raised in China. Which doesn't imply in the least that that person is truly more objective than Shorne! Only debate like this would prove that.

:For the record: I'm a communist, but I hate stalinism, and AFAIC the workers and peasants of China should have another revolution ASAP. But in no way do I want to see the capitalists "capitalize" on any divisions inside China.

:Pazouzou/Pazouzou 19:25, 15 Oct 2004

keep it up

Keep up your good work. As far as VV goes, people know he is difficult to get along with, and if you make a complaint, I'll back you up. That doesn't mean anything will change, but at least you'll have tried.

In any dispute be very careful to be polite and assume, even against all evidence, that the opposed individual is trying to be helpful. This will help you win greater support and (hopefully) prevent people from distrusting your judgement. If someone assaults you 6 times and you lose your temper just once, the community will think, well both of them are behaving badly, but if you can continue to be both bold and cool, then we'll get some good work done.

LegCircus/LegCircus 22:11, Oct 10, 2004


World citizens
Welcome to Wikipedia! In view of most of what you have been involved in, I'm not a bit surprised to see you joining us at Wikipedians/World citizens. Keep it cool, as LegCircus recommends, and keep looking for documentation.
Robin Patterson/Robin Patterson 03:54, 11 Oct 2004


Chinese history
Shorne, you removed this entire paragraph, from the People's Republic of China article, terming it "Blatant POV nonsense:

"Following the dramatic economic failures associated with the Great Leap Forward, Mao stepped down from his position as chairman of the People's Republic. The National People's Congress elected Liu Shaoqi as Mao's successor. Mao remained head of the Party but was removed from day to day management of economic affairs which came under the control of a more moderate leadership under the dominant influence of Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and others who initiated economic reforms. Feeling sidelined, in 1966 Mao struck back, launching the Cultural Revolution which mobilized the youth of the country in support of his thought, purging the moderate leadership. Disorder followed but gradually under the leadership of Zhou Enlai moderate forces regained influence. After Mao's death, his widow, Jiang Qing and her associates, the Gang of Four, who had assumed control of the country, were arrested and tried and Deng Xiaoping succeeded to power"

Did you look at the reference given: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/prc3.html#cultural and the other information on that site? I wish you would and consider whether some part of the deleted paragraph could be included. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 02:58, Oct 11, 2004

:I removed the entire paragraph because I am tired of wasting my time when you '''persistently''' add stuff that you know damn well to be POV. I'm most willing to discuss changes with people who are serious about producing an accurate, balanced, and NPOV article. People who are out to wear me down with repetitive POV antics, however, I cannot take seriously. If you want to discuss a one-paragraph summary, I suggest that we take it to the talk page. I am tired of attempting to salvage atrocious POV stuff that you write on the basis of some stuff that you gleaned from the reviews at Amazon.

:Also, for your information, Jiang Qing was a member of the Gang of Four. Shorne/Shorne 03:08, 11 Oct 2004


Material removed regarding Western reactions to the Great Purge
Shorne, you removed the following paragraph from the article, Great Purge:

"Among many western intellectuals there remained a favorable view towards the Soviet Union which persisted until definitive proof began to appear after Stalin's death with, first, the relevations of Khrushchev, the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the publication of ''The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties'' by Robert Conquest in the late 1960s, release of Soviet records during glasnost and finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, publication in 1997 of ''The Black Book of Communism''. Resistance continues among historical revisionism/revisionist scholars in the United States who minimize the effects of the Great Terror."

Would you please look at the references provided in the comments? Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 03:05, Oct 11, 2004

:I'm taking this to the talk page for the article. Please do not try to hold these discussions on my own talk page. Shorne/Shorne 03:09, 11 Oct 2004

The Dispute resolution requires that attempts be made to discuss issues both on the talk pages of articles and on the user's talk page. Requests for comment specifically requires that attempt to discuss problems be made on the user's talk page. I am simply trying to discuss these matters with you the best that I am able. I hope that you would participate by also discussing the problems pesented. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 03:19, Oct 11, 2004

:Is this just your attempt to satisfy some bureaucratic requirement on the road to getting me expelled? Shorne/Shorne 03:37, 11 Oct 2004

Yes and no. I'd be happy to see you come around, learn how to apply the principles in Neutral point of view and be a productive contributor, which you could do and still be able to have your point of view represented in controversial political articles. How about joining me in a request for mediation? Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 12:55, Oct 11, 2004

:I'm afraid I'm unwilling to take lessons in NPOV from someone who thinks it proper to write disgusting rants about "concentration camps" in China and to make similarly blatant POV assertions. I told you yesterday that I'm game for mediation (separate from the request for mediation with VeryVerily that I have already made), but I'd prefer to postpone it, if you don't mind. You see, I'm tempted to leave this damn site, which is hopelessly dominated by right-wing POV-pushers and, what is worse, jerks like VeryVerily who ride roughshod over everything—with evident impunity. If I do decide to leave, there will be no point in mediation between you and me. Shorne/Shorne 13:04, 11 Oct 2004

:: When different views are conflicted, we should seek a compromise. In my humble opinion, the term "concentration camp" is fully justified. In your opinion, the term "concentration camp" is propagandist. I think we could make a compromise by using the term "laogai" (if it is correct) instead. But to arrive at a compromise, it is necessary that you are willing to make a compromise and you don't consider your POV the only acceptable one. Boraczek/Boraczek 19:59, 11 Oct 2004

:::"[I]f it is correct". You don't even know what ''laogai'' means, do you? Go away; I have no time for your type. Shorne/Shorne 20:32, 11 Oct 2004

::::I don't know what ''laogai'' precisely means and I don't know what the context was. I'm not an expert as far as China is concerned. That was meant to be an example, while what I wanted to say is not related to China in particular. Boraczek/Boraczek 20:41, 11 Oct 2004

I hear you, after all I "left" Wikipedia and established a fork due to left wing domination... To have mediation we have to agree to do it and more important you would need to set aside some time to actually make it mean something. I'll give you about a week and if you have not agreed by then I'll take the matter to arbitration. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 14:39, Oct 11, 2004

By the way, if you think VeryVerily opperates with impunity, check back. I've recused myself from his arbitration case, due to his "help", but the history of POV pushers like that is that they get banned, at least from the area relevant to their POV. That is what I will be asking for in your case, but I see absolutely no reason you can't turn it around and become a respected and productive Wikipedia editor. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 14:39, Oct 11, 2004

:The '''only''' reason that I cannot be a respected and productive Wikipedia editor is that people like you see an Evil Left-Wing Conspiracy (the most bullshit: almost all political articles here are grossly slanted to the ultra-right) and insist ''à la'' Goebbels on your party line. I have no confidence whatsoever in your integrity or in the kangaroo court of which you are a member. VeryVerily plainly gets away with whatever the hell he wants, and you know it. Shorne/Shorne 20:15, 11 Oct 2004

:: I don't agree. I would oppose any "ultra-right" POV-pushing as I oppose communist POV-pushing. It seems to me that you are so much to the left, that you perceive anything that is not communism as "right-wing POV" and anything that is not socialism as "ultra-right". And let me add that I think Fred Bauder is a very moderate and impartial contributor, so your accusation is clearly unjust and offensive. Boraczek/Boraczek 20:34, 11 Oct 2004

::: Anyone who thinks Fred Bauder is very moderate and impartial is out of their gourd. Relative to people like VeryVerily however, Fred Bauder at least usually follows the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia doesn't require people to be moderate, it just requires people to use a neutral point of view, and follow the rules, the letter and spirit of which is that problems should try to be worked out and compromised instead of warred over - something I see both Fred Bauder and Shorne doing. I think me, Shorne, Fred Bauder and others can work together and come to an agreement over articles like the Great Purge. If someone would just make Very Verily follow the rules as well (like the three revert rule, which he's been banned for breaking before), I think everything would come out amenably. Ruy Lopez/Ruy Lopez 21:08, 11 Oct 2004

: I think the paragraph referenced at top should have been removed as POV as well. I have no problem for Conquest being cited as a source for NKVD troikas, arrest numbers, execution numbers and so forth. I do have a problem with him and his cohorts as being described as "definitive", and those who criticize them then and now as "revisionists". Ruy Lopez/Ruy Lopez 20:27, 11 Oct 2004

::Exactly. This is what I said on the talk page. Anyone who doesn't understand that such statements are POV is completely hopeless, and I will not waste any more of my time discussing things with such people. Shorne/Shorne 20:32, 11 Oct 2004

Again

Now that we're happily at the talk page for User:Shorne rather than People's Republic of China, perhaps you'd like to consider answering this question again:

Are you Chinese, Shorne? I am and I'm proudly so, if you're wondering. Ran/ran User talk:Ran/(talk) 03:06, Oct 11, 2004

:I have answered the question at Talk:People's Republic of China. Shorne/Shorne 03:08, 11 Oct 2004

::Now you're not being fair. For one, I'm no longer asking this question in a place where it would be irrelevant; for two, I've supplied my answer to the question myself, without being asked (though a look at my user contributions list would probably answer that question well enough). Are you Chinese, or did you learn Chinese well enough to read Chinese articles? Ran/ran User talk:Ran/(talk) 03:13, Oct 11, 2004

:::I am under no obligation to answer these questions. It's perfectly fair for me to decline to answer the personal questions of the general public. Admitting people into my confidence is my prerogative, and you happen not to be high on the list of people with whom I'd like to establish a personal relationship. If anything, I would like to spend '''less''' time talking with you, for I have not found our exchanges heretofore to be especially cordial, gratifying, or productive. I'm sorry for not being willing to carry this discussion into the personal domain. I thank you, however, for sharing some information about yourself with me. Shorne/Shorne 03:34, 11 Oct 2004

So despite having thrown heap after heap of information after you, all I get is, "I have not found our exchanges heretofore to be especially cordial, gratifying, or productive."

Oh well, you know what they say. 我听说过日本人不承认南京大屠杀，却没听说过中国人不承认南京大屠杀的。自己民族惨痛的历史都不愿意正视，真是国耻上加国耻，?锦上添花?啊。真希望你不是中国人或者华人，因为我觉得你不配。 Ran/ran User talk:Ran/(talk) 15:54, Oct 11, 2004

three revert rule

VeryVerily has broken the Three revert rule on several pages, make sure that you don't break it (more than three reverts on an article within 24 hours). Ruy Lopez/Ruy Lopez 05:11, 11 Oct 2004

: woops, I mean more than three reverts in 24 hours. Ruy Lopez/Ruy Lopez 05:15, 11 Oct 2004

deletion

I see you're very quick to delete material with which you disagree. However, that's not the right way to do things around here, especially when you're new and apparently haven't gotten the hang of working with people with whom you have disagreements. There's a policy page - I forget which - that points out that the right way to deal with POV text is to add more text that attributes it accurately. Our purpose as editors is not to announce TRVTH; no one here has sufficient reputation to do that on their own personal authority. Instead, you have to say that "X says Y, but Z says that X is an idiot". Just deleting Y is simply the wrong approach, and as you're no doubt noticing, you run the risk of angering enough people to get booted. Stan Shebs/Stan 05:57, 11 Oct 2004

leaving

Well, this place is run by people like VeryVerily and I'm not so sure that that is going to change. Plenty of good users have left after getting tired of this sort of thing, even good administrators like Secretlondon were driven off - she was driven off after Jimbo Wales, who runs Wikipedia, sent her e-mail telling her he was tired of her anti-Americanism or something like that.

Anyhow, you should definitely check out wikis like InfoshopOpenWikihttp://www.infoshop.org/wiki]. Disinfopedia is a specialized wiki - it is about PR firms, think tanks and that sort of thing. It helps people find out who is funding groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anti-labor, anti-environment groups and things like that. InfoshopOpenWiki is like Wikipedia, except it is run by an anarchist, and it is a much friendlier place except for anti-anarchists who edit articles on Kronstadt, the Spanish Civil War, Nestor Makhno and that sort of thing.

Wikipedia would wear out anybody. The deck is stacked in favor of those with VeryVerily's opinion, which is why attrition always helps his side. He knows he can flout the rules since no one will ever do anything about him (although he would have been banned months ago if he was left wing and used the same tactics), will probably give up and leave. Which is reasonable enough, but I hope you become part of the Disinfopedia/InfoshopOpenWiki/etc. community and contribute there, as we can always use the help. I spend most of my time over there, although I've jumped into the fray here a few weeks ago.

There's a need for a fair encyclopedia or wiki that covers politics, history and that sort of thing. I hope, whether or not you stop editting on Wikipedia, you stay within the community for that. Ruy Lopez/Ruy Lopez 06:10, 11 Oct 2004

You are in serious denial about how the world works, Ruy Lopez. Wake up to reality. Splash some water on your face. Get outside. Look around. (18 Jan 2004 (JanSport))

Moving to Arbitration

Mediation is the final step before arbitration, where binding penalties can be imposed. When mediation fails, you can move onto arbitration. VV has stated in your mediation against him, "at any rate, I'm not going to concede, so it's moot." I'm fairly certain that that means he is denying to agree to mediation, though you might want to confirm it with him. He has every right to do this, and it allows you to move to arbitration.

Requests_for_arbitration

VeryVerily is already involved in 2 other requests for arbitration, one which is one vote away from being accepted. So you are by no means alone. I would create a separate request, though the ArbCom might want to combine them... I don't really know how that'll work.

Good luck. GuloGuloGulo/GuloGuloGulo 06:35, Oct 11, 2004

Slandering

Shorne, please stop slandering other Wikipedians.

from User Talk:Ruy Lopez ''Now VeryVerily is fighting to propagandise United States, to which I added a section on human rights. (Evidently he's a racist, very eager to overstate laws against discrimination as "extremely harsh" or "extremely effective" or something of the sort.)''

VeryVerily is just trying to make Wikipedia articles NPOV and free from your biased and arbitrary changes. Calling him "a racist" for this is an unacceptable insult. I think you should apologize to VeryVerily. Boraczek/Boraczek 06:46, 11 Oct 2004

:I'm allowed to have private conversations on my own page. Shorne/Shorne 06:59, 11 Oct 2004

::Actually you're not - talk pages are just as public as anything else here, it's all indexed by Google, and this kind of thing will get you banned right quick. Take your slanders to private email. Stan Shebs/Stan 15:03, 11 Oct 2004

You are not allowed to publicly insult other Wikipedians. Please stop doing it. Boraczek/Boraczek 07:05, 11 Oct 2004

leaving...

You can e-mail me privately at ruylopez@mail.com so we can discuss VeryVerily's Ku Klux K- attitude without upsetting Boraczek's sensibilities which he talks about further on up this page. I don't read that e-mail a lot but this week I will be checking it a couple of times. After you send me an e-mail, tell me what the subject of the e-mail is on my user page here so I know it's you (or at least a wiki admin pretending to be you).

Yes Wikipedia pretends that it is fair and unbiased and it is not. As Mr. Hammer or Sickle might say, it is all dependent on the means of production. A millionaire like Jimbo Wales puts up a wiki and it looks like Wikipedia. A liberal like Sheldon Rampton or an anarchist like Chuck0 puts up a wiki, and it looks like Disinfopedia or InfoshopOpenWiki.

As far as the other wiki sites, well, each site has its own deal. Wikipedia is run by a bourgeois millionaire, and thus has a lot of money behind it and is tilted politically in the direction you'd expect a site owned and run by a man who is a white, Western bourgeois millionaire. Disinfopedia is a different site, and InfoshopOpenWiki is a different site. InfoshopOpenWiki is limited compared to Wikipedia in terms of content, but at least you can write articles in peace without some idiot coming along and wrecking it. In fact, the guidelines state that they don't truck with conservatives coming on and doing that.

I think Wikipedia has its place - for things like scientific articles. For historical or political articles, it is hopelessly, and I stress *HOPELESSLY* biased. I think InfoshopOpenWiki has the best potential currently to fill that gap.

I think the best way to look at it is as a corporate newspaper. You know what kind of junk they're going to print. If you start a letter-writing campaign, they might decide to print a letter to the editor about what you want to say. Or they might not. Wikipedia is like that, a lot of effort might nudge them in a certain direction, but that's it.

You're right about InfoshopOpenWiki's limited selection, but the choice is the sisyphusian task of battling it out here, or trying to form the structure of the new society within the shell of the old over at InfoshopOpenWiki. That old slogan is apt, because one of the positive features of Wikipedia is that the articles are GFDL, which means we can copy any of them, paste them over at InfoshopOpenWiki, and edit them to our liking. Legally, it's actually encouraged.

I think it's just a matter of perspective. Wikipedia is good for scientific information. It is crappy for historical information, especially modern history, which is incredibly biased. Wikipedia's GFDL licensing is good as well, as anyone can just legally, and with their blessing, grab all of Wikipedia's content, go off, and start their own wikis with their own rules. Of course, it takes a lot of money to start something like that, but InfoshopOpenWiki has already done so. Ruy Lopez/Ruy Lopez 09:17, 11 Oct 2004

Request for mediation
:Is this just your attempt to satisfy some bureaucratic requirement on the road to getting me expelled? Shorne/Shorne 03:37, 11 Oct 2004

Yes and no. I'd be happy to see you come around, learn how to apply the principles in Neutral point of view and be a productive contributor, which you could do and still be able to have your point of view represented in controversial political articles. How about joining me in a request for mediation? Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 12:58, Oct 11, 2004

:See above for the answer. Somehow your question got posted twice. Shorne/Shorne 13:22, 11 Oct 2004

By the way, Ruy Lopez is so wrong. I don't know if you noticed but user Adam Carr quit editing all areas in the communist area because Everyking and I stood up against him regarding an edit of Ruy Lopez. It isn't including a POV that offends, it's insisting on one point of view to the exclusion of others. Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 12:58, Oct 11, 2004

:I thank you for standing up to him. Again, however, you are not listening to me on the subject of POV. Pardon me for being unwilling to repeat myself. Shorne/Shorne 13:22, 11 Oct 2004

=Users Shorne and Fred Bauder=
Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. I know he must agree to mediate and set aside time for mediating, but the destructive effect of his constant edit warring mandates that some action be taken. User:Fred Bauder/Fred Bauder 21:59, Oct 11, 2004

Update on mediation request with User:VeryVerily

The section /*Request mediation with User:VeryVerily*/ at Requests for mediation was moved to Requests for mediation/VeryVerily due (only) to the size of this section. Please continue all discusion there.

Thanks,
Congratulations, the candidate you voted for, Underground Railroad, is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please help edit the article to bring it up to feature standard.

Join Russian wikipedians' notice board/RWNB!

Hello, Shorne! Though you might be interested in the Russian wikipedians' notice board/Russian wikipedians' notice board. Come check it out! KNewman/KNewman 04:27, Dec 13, 2004

please take a look at the diffs on this page.
Requests_for_comment/Carrp. Kevin baas/Kevin Baas / User_talk:Kevin_baas/talk 22:54, 2004 Dec 14

Fred Bauder

If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others.

Current surveys/FrBaArbQuality

COTW
Congratulations, First Indochina War has been voted this week's Collaboration of the week. Please edit it to help raise it to featured article status.

Arbcom case decided
Your arbitration case has been decided. You have been banned for two weeks, following which you will be subject to several paroles. Raul654/→Raul654 10:27, Dec 23, 2004

Arbitration committee case closure
The arbitration committee has officially closed Requests for arbitration/Shorne and Fred Bauder, subject to reactiviation should Shorne return. Raul654/→Raul654 17:32, Dec 27, 2004