User talk:172

No complex project can be expected to yield satisfactory results without a clear vision of what the goal is – and here I mean what a worthy internet encyclopedia actually looks like – and a plan to reach that goal, which will include a careful inventory of the needed skills and knowledge and some meaningful measures of progress. That vision of the goal must do something that Wikipedia and Wikipedians steadfastly decline to do today, and that is to consider seriously the user, the reader. What is the user meant to take away from the experience of consulting a Wikipedia article? The most candid defenders of the encyclopedia today confess that it cannot be trusted to impart correct information but can serve as a starting-point for research. By this they seem to mean that it supplies some links and some useful search terms to plug into Google. This is not much. It is a great shame that some excellent work – and there is some – is rendered suspect both by the ideologically required openness of the process and by association with much distinctly not excellent work that is accorded equal standing by that same ideology. One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined. And another is that talent, whether for soccer or for exposition, is not equally distributed across the population, while a robust confidence is one's own views apparently is. If there is a systemic bias in Wikipedia, it is to have ignored so far these inescapable facts. Robert McHenry taken from User talk:Adam Carr Full article

Notes

Hey[edit]

It's *very* nice to see your name again. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to see you. I won't quibble about whether 172 is a name, exactly. >-;

Sovereign state[edit]

welcome back! Look, you need to read the article Sovereign state and all the talk on the talk page to understand where the opposition to your edits is coming from. I am not sure I agree with them, but they are actingin good faith and you better understand why and appreciate that fact. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted page State to its former use as a disambig page. See previous discussion in Talk:Sovereign state#Requested move. If you want that decision to be re-discussed, I will start another formal move request discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing the name of "Sovereign state" to "State (political)?" At least then we would be following the conventions of actual political anthropologists and political sociologists. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think the best solution is to merge the current article with a better one. Any merge will atract some controversy, the solution is to make the destination page (the new article) so clearly superior. My advice to you is to solicit a partnership with JohnK. Discuss what kind of State(polity) would do justice to the title. I have very little to offer and I will offer all of it in a subpage to my userpage, just hang on. Anyway, create a subpage to your user page and work on a superior article, I really urge doing this hand in hand with John K. Make sure it complies to the letter with NPOV, NOR and V, and make sure that it is well-written and scholarly. Then propose the merge and pray that people see the logic in merging an inferior article into a superior article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is the best I can offer you and I need to take a break:User:Slrubenstein/Hey 172!!.

My advice is to mull over this a few days and perhaps discuss it with John Kenney, I ask only that each of you think about it for a few days before any action. Then go ahead and make whatever changes you wish to the outline, and start writing. When he two of youhave an article you are both poud of I will comment on it. When it is clearly far superior, we for a merge. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute of Russian Constitutional Crisis of 1993[edit]

Hlleo, I just wanted to inform you of the discussion posted at Wikipedia's noticeboard regarding the edits you and User:Miacek have disputed. This link will take you to the discussion where you may wish to submit your opinion and reasoning to counter Miacek's argument. During this dispute, it would benefit both of you not to edit the disputed article so as to keep your names in the clear. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BigStick.jpg[edit]

Hi. Might you be able to add some info (eg description, date, source, anything else useful) to File:BigStick.jpg which you uploaded years ago? Thanks much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I thnk someone with your understanding of politics ought to participate in this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukraineworkersb041126.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ukraineworkersb041126.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

I do hope you find the material I left for you useful.

On another note: I am leaving this message at talkpages a fairly random sample of people who oftn edit policy pages. You care about good content, and policies, so perhaps you can make a constructive contribution here: wp:Areas for Reform? I created this project after an acrimoneous RfC. So far it seems to be working as a way to channel constructive an focused analysis of specific problems, and potential solutions. Few have your commitment to a great enxyxlopedia, and experience with the various challenges in sustaining an ongoing open collaboration. I really hope you will "watch" this and pick one or teo areas near and dear to your heart to try to work on. Slrubenstein | Talk

the state[edit]

Hey, did you ever read over the material I laid out for you - content as well as ideas for organization of an article? Any feedback? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

Checkuser evidence has shown that you are the same person as User:Cognition, who has been banned since 2006. As a result, you have been blocked indefinitely. If you wish to appeal this block, please email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. 172, who was a Wikipedia administrator whose account goes back to before Wikipedia was 2 years old, had written much of Wikipedia's historical content in its earlier years. He was also involved in blocking pro-LaRouche editors. Cognition, a very pro-LaRouche nutter, is a banned user, whose point of view contrasts with 172's. This is impossible. -J 216.241.55.204 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that the account is compromised, because this seems impossible. If they are the same person, then Cognition would be a sockpuppet of 172, right? And why would 172 create that account anyway? So that he can have someone to paint LaRouche followers as lunatics? What?

Also, I use an IP address which is used by many computers as well. My ISP provides residential and public computer services at casinos, and it uses the same IP address. Could this be the case? Because the majority of contributions listed as made by this IP address are not mine... -J 216.241.55.204 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we'll find either that 172's account was compromised, or that the accounts in question were using public computers, though CU indicates otherwise. A number of people are looking into this, so I'm sure it'll get sorted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check user is not infallible. "A number of people" who believe this are not considering the potential for errors with the system. -J. 216.241.55.204 (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A point:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Cognition says that Cognition's first edit is 01:27, 29 June 2005 File:Kantportrait.JPG
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=172 says that 172's first edit is 09:46, 23 December 2002 User talk:172
  - I do not see how User:Cognition can have created User:172 as a sockpuppet. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. But 172, an anti-Lyndon LaRouche editor, could have created Cognition as a pro-LaRouche stalking horse in order to discredit other editors with similar points of view. Whatever the case, they edit from two IPs, one of which is obviously shared with a number of unrelated editors, and one of which appears by every available test to be a residence. Even if this IP really is shared as well, be aware that there are at least 4 accounts involved, not just Cognition and 172, and consider whether it is likely Cognition, 172, Mrs. Breedlove and Tha-HGIsrqNA would all, just by coincidence, 1) work at the same employer, 2) frequent the same coffee shop or library, and 3) never edit from their own residence. Also, check the times of day that the accounts edit; is it plausible that none of these accounts has a home internet connection and every edit made by these 4 accounts is made from a workplace or public access point? Whatever the case, either the account has been engaged in long term deception, or Cognition hacked into 172's account, or 172 hacked into Cognition's account. Either way, indefinite blocking is appropriate pending a satisfactory explanation, if it ever comes. Thatcher 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that I forgot it last year, but it is known that when 172 started in 2002 (and you probably know this, too), he was an AOL client with the IP addresses from the 172. ... block, hence his username of course (he listed those on his userpage).
If the addresses ascertained in August, 2009 (User:172, Cognition and co) where still of of the same block of AOL, the sock puppetry accusation would seem more plausible. If the provider had changed, we might consider that the account was hijacked by Cognition. (I noticed today an edit by an AOL user to an article in my watchlist, and this remined me of the 172 affair). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact ArbCom[edit]

To clarify: this account has been blocked pending confirmation that this account has not been compromised and is not otherwise involved in abusive editing. User:172 should contact arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org at earliest possible convenience. Cool Hand Luke 23:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Conspiracy[edit]

I am a long-time watcher of Wikipedia and other Wikis and I look at this case with great interest. Particularly users of extremist viewpoints are ones I have monitored most closely. What I will note is that some are saying this case of dual identity is unrealistic because they see Marxism and the ideology of Lyndon LaRouche as somehow polar opposites. Obviously this is not the case; for the first decades of his career in politics LaRouche was a Marxist if an unorthodox one, and during the period in which he shed the Marxist jargon the content of his ideas went nearly unchanged. We can note that LaRouche has in recent years attacked Karl Marx himself in somewhat severe terms as a British dupe (albeit possibly a well-intentioned one), but LaRouche has always from the 1970s until even recent weeks exalted the writings of Marxist Rosa Luxemburg in the highest possible terms: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11296

LaRouche as an economist begins from a Marxist perspective, but unlike the Marxists does not imagine finance capital as merely being confined to a historical process. Rosa Luxemburg's writings surpass and supplant those of V.I. Lenin on the topic of imperialism through her understanding that capital can only thrive through constant exploitation of "primitive" pre-industrial economies and the steady surplus advantage this provides the exploiters. Luxemburg however posits that during this process of exploitation, these "primitive" economies themselves industrialize (a process we have seen occur in the cases of China and India), leaving the entire world in the mode of industrial production, upsetting the prior power balance whereby imperialism could occur, and effectively ending it. Luxemburg may be forgiven for not understanding that the forces of the accumulation of capital themselves could look ahead through this process and attempt to thwart it so that their advantage may be maintained.

LaRouche, for all of his faults which clearly are a great many, is the only economist starting from the perspective of Rosa Luxemburg who understands the process through which imperialism may continue to prosper through thwarting and even reversing industrial progress itself, a progress which Luxemburg assumed could only steadily advance over time. Certainly we can note that various policies taken against the nations of sub-Saharan Africa have prevented the development of even basic industrial infrastructure in that region; conversely we can note that the United States and Britain have themselves largely de-industrialized. The United States presently has a smaller manufacturing sector than it did 65 years ago when its population was a third of its present size. Largely but not entirely this has occurred through the impositions of phoney environmentalist movements, some of which (like the World Wildlife Fund) are not terribly subtle about the British imperial role they play.

This is a bit beside the point regarding the case at hand of the user 172, however. For those that monitor other Wikis, we may note a promulgation of extremist political speech occurring on many of them. I would like to point attention here to the Wiki Encyclopedia Dramatica, notorious home to a great deal of pornography and hate speech.

One of the most notorious users on this site maintains something very suspicious on his user page. (I am unable to link to this due to what appears to be a server block, but I am speaking of User:Cardinal_Contarini on encyclopediadramatica.com.)

"I am a historian focusing on international political economy."

One can note that here on Wikipedia, 172 identifies himself in exactly identical language. We can also note that this Cardinal_Contarini, responsible for the now-infamous "Madoff dollar bill" ("symbolizing our entire fraudulent Jew-controlled debt/monetary financial system"), makes edits over his user history to pages on that server regarding Lyndon LaRouche ("the most successful long-term economic forecaster on the planet, and correctly predicted the 2008 financial crisis") and even Chip Berlet, and engages in among the most severe anti-Semitic attacks seen across the entire internet (a difficult act to accomplish) but particularly focusing on a certain historical narrative of Jewish financial control. We would all do well to re-read Marx's "On The Jewish Question." Through charting certain sequences we can note that certain "memes" originating from this user have already influenced less "satirical" anti-Semites operating on the internet.

I doubt any of you observing this case understand at all what's actually happening. One Who Watches (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am totally confused. Can you shed any more light on it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dictators[edit]

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Kingbeating.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kingbeating.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:YanayevBaklanovPugo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:YanayevBaklanovPugo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assembling-car.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Assembling-car.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Soviet Union: Part II listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of the Soviet Union: Part II. Since you had some involvement with the History of the Soviet Union: Part II redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mogism (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NixonandMeir.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NixonandMeir.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rick Baker (mayor)[edit]

The article Rick Baker (mayor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN and there is no other coverage that establishes notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I am One of Many (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NixonandMeir.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NixonandMeir.jpg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Have learned my lesson.

Decline reason:

To be unbanned, you must appeal to the community using your original account. See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Review_and_reversal_of_bans. As the ban is still in effect, this account is not eligible for an unblock. Yamla (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2016 (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.

I'm Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry for getting mad at you a while back.

CJK (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Filipinoinsurgents.jpg[edit]

The file File:Filipinoinsurgents.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:East India House, Leadenhall Street, London, by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd, circa 1825.jpg[edit]

The file File:East India House, Leadenhall Street, London, by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd, circa 1825.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Causes of the Civil War" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Causes of the Civil War. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#Causes of the Civil War until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nixon in Colombia.JPG listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nixon in Colombia.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 22:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ottomans" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Ottomans has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17 § Ottomans until a consensus is reached. Joy (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]