I'm on a wikibreak at the moment. Try email if it's urgent.

But do feel free to add comments here, too

Khmer Rouge blocking

I have been trying to put an NPOV notice on top of the page. Adam Carr has been reverting me. As you said, this page has been protected multiple times, and there has been a major content dispute going back years, so I'm not sure how putting an NPOV notice on top is "disruptive", or something to be blocked 48 hours for. I also don't see where you can have the authority to tell me I can't edit a page, especially when all I am trying to do is put an NPOV tag on a page which is obviously contentious.

As far as Misplaced Pages, I see certain users who break the 3RR, make personal attacks, create sock puppets and that is not to mention insert POV, and it takes ArbCom months to deal with them. Yet on this page you are taking it upon yourself the authority to ban me for 48 hours because I simply want to put an NPOV tag at the top. And of course, in the midst of all of this rule-breaking which persists for months, there is no rule of course about adding an NPOV notice to a page.

Despite all of this, since you seem to have a problem with *me* putting an NPOV tag on top of the page, if it would make you happy, then I will let *you* put an NPOV tag on top of the Khmer Rouge page. Since you have arbitrarily decided I can not edit this page, I suppose I then would have to rely on you to put such a tag on. Ruy Lopez 23:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you put up the NPOV tag. If the tag remains there, and Adam Carr doesn't edit the article, I won't edit outside of the discussion page for the rest of 2005. I have been willing to compromise and work towards a solution for a year, Adam Carr has been the one who said he would not abide by a mediation committee decision and whatnot. I am willing to compromise, although Carr's intransigence has made that difficult. Ruy Lopez 00:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I strongly support your basic approach, at least for now. I don't think people who oppose it understand the situation right now too well. I made up a compromise version based on the latest ones that Adam Carr and Ruy Lopez were revert warring over. Although it of course moved towards Ruy's side from the majority's, it met with basic approval for CJK, who was "on Adam's side." Unfortunately Ruy has not made any comments on it, or any substantive matters recently. At this stage, it is not really a content dispute, as one can see by the smallness of differences between everybody's version. There are POV problems in the common core, you identified a major one, but those should be taken care of when people start talking and editting in a reasonable way, and sticking a NPOV tag on firmly for now is a good idea. At this stage it is much more a widespread Wikiquette problem. Everybody there should just cool off, and take things very slowly, and eschew personal attacks, and remember that etiquette is more important than content or neutrality. I think that you being adamant about violations of common courtesy or sudden tag removal or placement is a very good idea. John Z 22:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as my comments - a new (or very old rather) issue was introduced, so I just commented on that, about the 1970 coup. The GRUNK/FUNK issue I have commented a lot on in the discussion and archives, I could reiterate what I said if desired. Then there's the edits CJK put in in July, while the GRUNK/FUNK argument was going on, which is discussed in the discussion, which I could reiterate on. In the context of the past few months, the 1970 coup edits are the main new issue, so that is what I have commented on. But I am happy to give my opinion on whatever versions are out there. Ruy Lopez 04:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well it's good that you've been able to get some reasonable editing done rather than these revert wars. If you look at the protect log I am about the only sysop interested in getting this article back into a normal editable state. It's easy for us to say "oh, dispute, just protect and wait for things to settle down" but it's ridiculous when the thing can't be edited at all for more than one month out of three. Okay, I hope you will find yourself able to support this position by replacing the tag if it's removed without good reason. A little firmness, and lots of goodwill, we should get things rolling again. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge

This is a grossly unfair ruling. You are in effect saying that Lopez is free to wreck the article again with his ridiculous communist propaganda edits, but if I revert him I will be blocked. This is using your admin powers to take sides in a long-running content dispute, which I would have thought was an abuse of your authority. If you study the edit history (not someething I would wish on anyone), you will see that Lopez has been trying for many months to remove all factual statements which reflect badly on the Khmer Rouge, and that all other editors who are following this article oppose him, although most eventually lose patience and leave - I do not. His NPOV tag is just his latest ploy to bring the article into disrepute. There is no "NPOV dispute" at this article. Lopez is not interested in "NPOV" - he is interested solely in imposing his communist views on this and many other articles. I suggest you withdraw this ruling, and do some research on Lopez's history at Misplaced Pages before you penalise those of us trying to defend Misplaced Pages against ideologies and cranks. Adam 02:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

PS please archive your Talk.

Instead of discussing the content of the page, Carr launches into an ad hominem attack, what a surprise. As far as Carr's suggestion to "study the edit history" and his suggestion that I'm imposing POV on "many other articles", I could say the same of Carr. In fact he was admonished (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring#Adam_Carr_admonished) in a 6-0 decision by ArbCom for his "discourtesy and personal attacks" several months ago.

And Skyring was banned for a year, so watch out. Adam 10:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

He also keeps accusing me of being in a communist sect for some reason. My interest in this topic was actually spurred by a book by Noam Chomsky, an author whose work was banned in the Soviet Union, not exactly a communist hardliner. I also want to include material from American academics (who tend to be more conservative than European academics) like Michael Vickery. I should point out that I am not now, nor ever have been a member of a communist organization, Adam Carr has said publically that he used to belong to a communist group. So somewhere along the road he went from being a fanatic communist to fanatically anti-communist, and now I guess he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being in some communist sect like he used to be.

As far as the neutrality of the article, let's look at the photos instead of the text for a summary. The second photo says "Photos of young Khmer Rouge fighters, most of whom came from poor peasant families". Well, just like there was no such thing as the Viet Cong (they called themselves the National Liberation Front), there is no such thing as a Khmer Rouge, as is mentioned in the beginning of the article, they called themselves the Communist Party of Kampuchea (Cambodia). And the party had no army - the army fighting in the countryside was the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces, the head of which was Sihanouk, who had run Cambodia until he was thrown out in a coup in 1970. But let's put those things aside. The fighters mostly came from poor peasant families? Well how about, say, the USA, are the enlisted men and women in the armed forces from the wealthy families of the US, or even from upper middle class professional families? No, most enlisted are from poor and working class families, that's well known. Would such a caption appear on the US army page? No, it would be considered POV. Why isn't it here? The next picture is 24 people executed by the Cambodian government. One who has studied the history would know that most of the people in this photograph were probably medium-high level members of the communist party who were killed during a purge, thus they may have been "victims" of the "regime" (another POV word, would "Bush regime" be considered NPOV?), they had also been part of the "regime". That aside, do pages of the US Democratic or Republican party feature two dozen faces of the people who were executed in various US prisons while they were in power? It is POV. Then there is the "death toll" graph. This is the most laughable - it is a graph, which makes it seem like it is a scientific study of precipitation or something. Of course, the evidence for these numbers is scant, if existent at all. As far as Carr's accusations that I am trying to cover up genocide or whatever nonsense he is saying, this graph actually covers up a genocide. The US Air Force admits it dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of ordnance on Cambodia prior to 1975, a massacre which this chart helps cover up. Ruy Lopez 04:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of what you write is original research or red propaganda. While I agree there is a place for improvement to make the article sound more NPOV, I think the articles quality is above the average Misplaced Pages article, and is a disservice to kill it with a POV tag. I have read plenty of material about the Khmer rouge, as part of my readings on crimes against humanity, and what I can say, is that the article, from my own knowledge is accuratly represented and I can cite books if need be. And I will go further and say, that this article is near to be a featured article candidate, and can be prepared to be one. Also, reading your answers at the articles talk page, it seems that you have difficulty understanding that "proving" something doesn't justify doing what you want to do with the article, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it report what is said about a subject... The fact of the matter is that most publications about the topic goes in the other direction from the one you take. There are free internet hostings out there, if you want to defend a thesis you are free to take a host. Fadix 06:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Red baiting is the way to get elected, Willie Horton or will he not get elected on ~~Television~~ Misplaced Pages, the drug of the nation. El_C 06:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I won't really qualify my answer as red baiting. I don't think I have called him a Communist, or accused him of such. The material really seem to be red propaganda, not that he is a comminist. Fadix 16:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of what you're saying here is very vague. You accuse me of writing "original research" but cite no examples. Then you say I am writing "red propaganda". Since May I have had three issues - put an NPOV tag in, FUNK/GRUNK, and I reverted CJK's new edit while the FUNK/GRUNK edit was unresolved. So my one piece of "red propaganda" was the FUNK/GRUNK issue. I should add that all of the major American scholarship basically says the same thing I said in my changes regarding to FUNK/GRUNK, so I suppose they're "red propagandists" as well. Then you go into talking about the Khmer Rouge and crimes against humanity. I don't see how this pertains to the core dispute, which was the FUNK/GRUNK one though. You also keep talk about citing books, and how "most publications about the topic goes in the other direction from the one you take". Well, please cite them. A look through the archives shows me citing the major scholarship over and over, Fadix makes a lot of vague charges, then goes off on a tangent with a soliloquy about the crimes against humanity of the Khmer Rouge (I guess the US dropping hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs on Cambodia doesn't deserve mention as a crime against humanity), then comes back and says that there are sources that disagree with me. Disagree with me about what? What are these sources? I've cited mine on the discussion page. Perhaps you can tell us on what topics the anonymous sources you read "go in the other direction" on before you cite them. Is this sort of vague thing, interspersed by moralizing, supposed to help the content dispute? Ruy Lopez 04:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Who made you believe I'll keep this vague, I'll answer to Tony's request to my answer in the talk page of the article. I don't do empty talk, it's not in my nature. Fadix 05:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Jaques Brel and John Lennon look down at the foundering comparison to Biff Rose

While I applaud your efforts to raise the subject of our debate up to the level of wordsmiths such as Jaques Brel, and John Lennon, a single listen to the later works will acquaint you sufficiently to the lacking stylistic qualities included in Rose's later work. The comparison falls far short of relevance considering the level of ingenuity and intellectual sincerity of Lennon and Brel versus the angry hate fueled ditribes of Biff Rose. What is of note is that when people like David Duke and those of the White Power movement use the same kind of language in similar situations, it is referred to as hate speech. But when apologists try to slip Rose into the role of a linguistical and theatrical creator who shouldn't be bound by any guidelines, I myself have a hard time disagreeing. Artists should be free to speak as they please, everyone should be...but when someone is unable to separate bitter anger from clever wordplay supposedly promoting thought through his "conflict" theater, in the words of john Lennon, "don't you know you can count me out." The important thing here isn't the sentiments Brel used to power a larger work, but the larger workt of Rose's later career, totally imbued with his racist and anti semtic idealogy. Bypassing those issues would be akin to ignoring Lennon's pacifism, and heroin addiction, or Brel's ebullient songs, or his portrayal of the seedier elements of life with a harrowing honesty as well as an honest appreciation of their purpose. Rose on the other hand mostly pokes fun at people less fortunate than him, or merely different. Kike and nigger, words he uses with an alarming regularity, do not impart wisdom. In some cases, as with Patti Smith in her excellent Rock and Roll Nigger, there is the ability to devalue those words. Biff Rose's usage is not akin to that kind of interpretation. Instead, his songs during his later period exterpate any of the hippie ideaology his earlier works prescribed. And it might due you some good, Tony, to check out Brel's career- he expressed manyu views concerning the people of his hoemland- many not so flattering to them. In his[REDACTED] entry, this is noted. And Not by me.Jonah Ayers 04:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to the expectations of the community. I felt really nice that you still continue to watch me, and I will surely look forward to you for suggestions, and I shall free to come to you to have the benefit of your experience. --Bhadani 10:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Tony Sidaway/Emergency archive

Sorry to archive your Talk in your absence, but the page was so humungously long I couldn't open it otherwise. Adam 10:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for taking the initiative. I moved it to the right place and it's now accessible as 09/18 on the top nav. --Tony Sidaway 11:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Expansion theory

I only reverted because I was doing RC patrol and I instinctively hit rollback when I saw the top had been made blank. So I assumed the article was blanked. Then I scrolled down and saw I was wrong, so I did the courteous thing and reverted myself, not wanting to get involved in determining which was the better version. Everyking 12:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes, that was the safe thing to do. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Bagrationi

Why did you unprotect this? It was originally protected because Levzur was removing the dispute tag, and he'll probably go right back to doing that now. What do you mean by "no discussion in three weeks"? There has been plenty of discussion since the article was protected. More discussion, in fact, than I'd been able to drum up in the entire history of the article up to that point. Perhaps it is indeed time to unprotect now that it's not just me vs Levzur, but it would have been better to ask the participants beforehand. Isomorphic 05:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, just read your correction. Regardless, it would have been nice if you'd asked rather than decreed that the article should be unprotected. If an edit war ensues, I will not be surprised. Isomorphic 05:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Asking isn't really a good idea. I was going to unprotect anyway. Even two weeks is pushing it, this was well into its third. --Tony Sidaway 06:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, why isn't asking a good idea? I don't particularly like leaving articles locked either, but the issues that led to the protection aren't resolved. I doubt they'll be resolved without banning Levzur, a fate he has only narrowly escaped in the past. Isomorphic 06:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If that really is the case, then protecting articles is not the solution. --Tony Sidaway 10:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Academics and notability

I have seen a number of very dubious nominations on AfD of academics with prestigious positions and numerous publications (Ian Lustick, Jacob Klein, Marshall Poe, and probably others), and some of these have just barely escaped speedy to reach AfD (Lustick was actually speedied while on AfD, but recreated by me). We really need to get some consensus on this. I think a problem is that some Americans can't get out of the mindset that a "professor" (or "college professor" as they tend to call it) is an occupation rather than a position. Your suggestion, OTOH, that anyone who has published anything in an international journal (which would include a large number of postgraduate students, even undergraduates) could be included, is unlikely to be acceptable to a majority; I would suggest starting from the "top" and begin by agreeing what we can easily agree on, then work towards the relatively more obscure. If we can agree on a few things, some other things may be possible to extrapolate from those. Tupsharru 16:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Trouble @ the Biff Rose corral

Sojambi Pinola and Willmcw seem to be trying to bend the rules to their desires. Sojambi posted someone's email address, and willmcw was posting smarmy attacks that maligned editors. I removed them, as well as alerted other admins and yourself about their work. See Willmcw's talk page in regards to his attacks...216.175.112.9 03:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

VfU mechanics

Tony,
Are you planning in weighing in on round two of this discussion? The first bit was really semantics, the "how will it actually work" section is the real meat of it. DES, for instance, has summarised his views as follows (the bits I've bolded are where he and I agree, and added comments intended to inflame you into contributing to discussion):

DR should treat keeps and deletes as nearly identical as possible.
If a majority thinks process was violated, some action must result.
Thus a Keep could be overturned at 51%.
DR should be as final as possible.
The DR mehanics should be as explicit as possible, leaving little to implication.
"Process not content" must be enshrined as a DR principle, in general.
I don't think I even need to prod you here.

I'm pretty sure that you'd be unhappy with this outcome, while being equally sure I'd be unhappy with the outcome you'd be happy with. ^_^
Now through poking you with sharp stick,
brenneman 04:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)