User talk:Batvette

Will you help me with an RFC for Nescio POV-pushing? Isaac Pankonin 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Nescio (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio. -- Isaac Pankonin 10:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on New World Order (conspiracy theory). Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that the comment was "shifty and dishonest arguments" which clearly addresses his contributions. This is in contrast to "I went to your user page and it sounds like you're a crank". Sound familiar? It was in his first reply to me. Welcome to earth.Batvette (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can participate in editing of the article. My experience over the last couple of years is that the article is terrible and it draws people to come and post protests against it, but it stays (more or less) the same, because no one except Mosaddegh devotees (people who will abide by no criticism of him) have the patience to stay and watch the article and defend their edits. Hope you will stick around and try to improve the article, not just vent and then wonder off. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

might end up being more of the latter I'll concede. I'm not a big fan of beating my head on the wall. However I will periodically check in there and try to be a voice of balance, seems the "America is evil" side often outnumbers the rest in this issue. I did want to bring that link to Ardeshir Zahedi's rebuttal, it seems that disappeared from the last site. Batvette (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help. I thought the article was making some progress on non-controversial areas but it was only because Kurdo777 had taken a break. Do you have any recommendations? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm trying to locate what your conversation was in the above article. User:Loremaster told me to look in Archive 3, but there were only two (2) there - by Loremaster about you. Can you please tell me where in this article's archive you had discussions? It's important in order to give weight to your position regarding your expressed desire to have a "See also section." Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some advice. Don't be so long-winded - few will be able to follow your arguments. And there is a good point (I'm not happy about admitting it, since he's so much into Personal Attacks), you must present an alternative source - though that may not get you anywhere - because there is this issue about ownership of the article - which neither I nor you do. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Provoked - don't be sarcastic. It weakens your position. The only way to respond, correctly by Wiki rules, is a demand that the party STOP. I learned that the hard way. Also, keep your comments brief - most x-people cannot read beyond a sentence anyway. And your humor, sarcasm, irony - sad to say, will not be understood - and you'll be accused (as you just have been) of Ranting. But don't give up through exhaustion. Just make sure you have an appropriate reference. That does not mean you'll necessarily will win in the short run - but look forwarded to winning the argument in the long run. May I say that you don't sound like a crank to me. It's just that you're not that good a tactician as Wikipedia requires. By the way, Loremaster mentioned your name previously, saying he missed you (you were better than me). But in reality I've done my best not to be provoked by the insults, humiliations, taunts, condensations, etc. You should do the same. Demand that the insults stop, and proceed to make your argument as, succinctly, precisely, and accurately as possible - and making sure that it's not your personal opinion. If you think an authority is inappropriate have an alternative ready. But above all - do not let yourself be provoked even into being sarcastic. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look for your remark(s). It wasn't on the bottom of a section. Unfortunately, the page is getting too cluttered or long - and I think nobody will read it. I think people don't bother. But I guess you needed to react to the Personal Attacks on you by User:Loremaster: to deny his accusations about you (I will not repeat them). And I don't believe them. From my experience it's quite the opposite - you must be of sound mind - just because you're the victim such personal attacks - the credibility of someone who does that to another editor - is very low in my estimation.

But don't bother with that anymore. Get back to the Content issues. And make very specific proposals. If I agree with them, I'll support them. If you look carefully, you'll see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel. But you must make your arguments brief, and to the point, and as specific as possible. Good luck. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this [1]? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please make your comments at the BOTTOM. Otherwise, we cannot follow the arguments in sequence. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

chill, dude... not that big a deal.Batvette (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, I hope, that Loremaster and I are discussing you on the Noticeboard below? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Batvette. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Batvette. You know, at Wikipedia not everyone is so smart that they will be able to figure out that you're talking about User:Loremaster instead of me. Your last comment is immediately below mine. And a reader who doesn't pay careful attention will think you are criticizing me, ant not Loremaster. Actually, I find the situation so disgusting, that I don't really care. But I wanted you to know that when you let yourself be upset, you have the danger of shooting yourself in the foot. I noticed - from your home page - that you like guns - so I thought maybe I should warn you to luck them up first too! (Ha, ha?) --Ludvikus (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oops. The guy who like guns is not you. Sorry. But my advice is still good, Dear Batvette - are you from Ukraine? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can clarify it. As for shooting myself in the foot, I actually don't mind being self effacing, my vanity is always the last thing I care about. Funny thing you mention Ukraine. I have lived in California all my life except for four years in the Navy I spent working on the fighter planes that intercepted Soviet Bear nuclear bombers from '79-83, when Reagan sought to provoke a dangerous mistake from the USSR. They did with KAL007 and I felt certain as we steamed north to go on station that we may have been close to much worse that what happened. As the years went by I and I've met a few Russians in the real world and on line I've been happy we didn't go to war as all have been exceptionally gracious and charming, with one person especially capturing my admiration from afar-[2] I know her original story was a dramatization with some embellishment but I have read her story several times over, shown it to countless people and find her wit and dry humor quite fascinating. Her story "serpent's wall" about the defense of Kiev is remarkable. Everything they brainwashed us in the Navy and in America in general in the '80's about those "evil russians" was a lie, the Soviet system may have been a mess but the people are not much different from us at all. If you are Russian, I salute you my friend, and apologize that much of the hardship faced by individuals in Russia even today was caused by US economic policies (particularly manipulation of petroleum markets in the 80's) intended to win the cold war by financial treachery. Not necessary to admit this but I didn't really know until a few years ago. Most Americans now finally realize who carried the weight in WW2, though Normandy was heroic for Americans, it was you that won the war. (if you aren't russian then show this to the next one you see- LOL) Batvette (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Batvette, you write better here - when you're calm, I guess. I'm an America since the age of 10, and very happy to be one. I was born in Czechoslovakia. So my name's root is "Ludvik" which is a version of the German, "Ludwig," or the French, "Louis." What made me wonder about you was your name, "Batvette." That sounds definitely Slavic to me. That's what I'm curious about - your name. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because I can ramble here all I like? Batvette is a name I gave to a car I owned (still do, not running now)when I got my first AOL account in '95? '96? and it stuck. I was all into my custom cars at the time, the vette is the first 7 or so pix here [3]though it's not as interesting as the one after it, the hearse I had for 4 years which I miss dearly as we approach halloween! Well if I can say something good about your former home I have an all ti mountain bike whose most prized components are rare Morati ti parts, I sought after Honeywell bought them and mysteriously closed the former Czech maker of Soviet ti aerospace parts. They far surpass any US made and of course Chinese contemporary ti components. The name's not Slavic but I understand I am. Never met my biological parents but "slavic/scandanavian" is all they'd tell me.

FWIW and it does seem relevant to discuss the problem I have always had with the article is I am NOT a "NWO CT", I don't believe anyone seeks a one world government and don't think it's a small group of elitists. I think some things the article attempts (and fails to a point which insults one's intelligence) to dismiss are in fact rational concerns- (such as certain think tanks with military/industrial complex ties and government officials cozily hand in glove, the CFR for one) and one need not have these concerns taken to such an extreme that they think the CFR is forming a OWG and is right around the corner from global domination-to have suspicions that the CFR and similar groups do in fact have long term goals that don't appear in their press releases, that aren't to yours and my best interest- and when I see that concern ridiculed with the argument "they are 3000 members, far too large to keep anything secret" and "they have annual reports and press releases!" I stopped and said hey that's kind of naive here, what's up here? and before you know it I've got some guy telling me I and people who believe in lizard alien races are one and the same. He may point out that this is not about the real issue of globalism, that's here, or empire, go see that page there- which is damn right- but that doesn't address the fact that people with much less extreme views are coming here and being insulted either by lame rebuttals to their concerns or being pidgeonholed into a belief set that is absurdly not their own. I'm not promting a CT agenda but trying to say hey, give the reasonable person a place to understand the difference between conspiracies and real world issues, and don't try to invent conspiratorial beliefs that are either absurd or portray fringe beliefs as those held by reasonable people. I think loremaster and I are probably politically not polarized at all and may see eye to eye on this, but as an editor he is impossible to get a compromise with. He resisted tooth and nail several edits/recommendations I attempted (like the georgia guidestones) and only after he beat me up good and perhaps made it as if it were his idea did he seem willing to put them in- yet it seems now they fit, huh? In the end I really don't know what to say about a guy who has called me a crank a dozen times, and cites a "history of vicious personal attacks" on my part in return- and when pushed all he can come up with is me saying "it sounds like you may be a crank- LOL but that's not a personal attack" which was my attempt to be friendly with the guy using his silly label! WTF? Wouldn't a person with a lick of integrity come back and say "gee after looking at the archives I guess you're right, you didn't viciously attack me." and not also try to insult my intelligence by assuming I won't check the link? Batvette (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You made your point here better then you ever did anywhere. That's because I'm NOT attacking you. Loremaster's instinctive technique is to get a person so upset, that they do appear like a crank. That's what he did to you - and you fell for his trickery by letting yourself get upset by him. Now that did NOT work for him with me. I never lost my cool and never attacked him. So he pulled his last reserves (you're a military men, so you must understand what I mean by that). He called on his side-kick, Arthur Rubin, to get me banned. That's his last card. And as you can see, it did not work. Now what you should do is fine tune you well-put block of text above, and express that there. Because now, when you're clam, you don't sound so much of a "crank." Although I'm sure, if he could find something in your wording, he will use it against you. You should treat this as a great learning experience. Here you sound like a good-old-American. But when you're upset by Loremaster, you do sound a bit like, or write like, a Russkie Batvette right off the Boat of Red October, OK, Comrade Bolsheviki Batvette? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I like the curves by that Corvette better: [4]. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batvette dares you to leave this here.

you know, rude and abrasive treatment of me is one thing. ownership of an article is another. however a consistent, willfully dishonest presentation of my views and statements, particularly the distraction of always claiming I personally attack you (while you in turn blatantly attack me) is probably the most juvenile behaviour I've encountered on the internet. Some people in this world place value in personal integrity, and their word, others do not. I fail to see what in our exchanges I did to initiate this but if all this is amusing to you I guess I can take comfort I've provided whatever bit of joy it provides in your daily routine. For my part I find it at least as much fun as a barrel of monkeys, and since they have been known to tear a man's testicles off or remove his face with one swipe, I find such a comparison rather fitting. Batvette (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted this rant from my talk page and archived it. --Loremaster (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, User:Ludvikus has been indefinitely banned. During my conflict with this individual, I publicly confessed that I actually started missing our disputes because the only thing I respect about you is that, despite your conspiratorial mindset, you at least took the time to read the article in its entirety before critiquing it. My negative opinion of you will probably never change but I hope you can appreciate how good the article has become and that we can put the past behind us in order to start fresh. If not, I will do everything in my power to get you banned. --Loremaster (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you would do everything in your power to get me banned? for what reason would you do such a thing? sounds like something one user would say to another if that user had a long history of flaming them, defacing or vandalizing articles they had edited or had an interest in, or in general was doing things that made their wiki editing an unpleasant experience. I'm afraid to tell you that none of those things characterize my actions here towards you. You on the other hand have prevented me from ever actually having an edit contribution left intact at the NWO/CT article, only implemented proposed changes when you could beat me down and make them appear your own ideas, whenever my person came up in discussions immediately portray me as a crank with a misrepresented position, and bizarrely keep referring to some imagined history of flames and insults by me on you that never happened in any even minute way. I gave a summary of the events of Ludvikus' banning to the admin responsible for the banning detailing your very underhanded actions at the end. It took a while to compile and frankly I didn't do it for him or against you but because as I said, fairness and integrity and a man's word mean a lot to me and I feel he got set up on that deal. By you. I am objective enough to realize he is indeed a PITA but on the grounds cited by the admin, should not have been banned in that instance, but should have been blocked via another ANI as your and Arthur Rubin's complaints were not really fair.

What you did as I describe in that summary- marginalizing me, his sole supporter as concensus was being gathered based on posting in triplicate an allegation which right underneath appeared the disclaimer it was false, was one of the most dishonorable things you could have done. It's just sad you felt you had to do that and I fully expect this kind of thing to continue, but am big enough to give the future a shot and give you the kind of respect one gives a wild animal in the jungle when one leaves his gun at home- you are a very formidable editor whose work is so good you get away with some very outrageous personal behaviour towards others. Since I cannot have my way of outright shooting the animal I give it a wide berth and am wary of its jaws as I pass. Yet as a hunter with his pride stand fast and declare with utter certainty you cannot get me banned, ever, go ahead and try, I dare ya.

Why is that? I don't contribute here often or deep enough that any admin is going to be able to look at my history and say "he's a problem", don't care enough about you or the article to let you get my goat again, and now that you've made the threat will only have to stay away and keep my account open- not stand and argue to the death with you- to have won this challenge. One thing you still misunderstand about me is that politics would ever drive any editing, that's simply not true at all. Some of us have a simpler purpose you may wish to share, and I hope you someday join me in my quest for Lux et Veritas, Batvette. Batvette (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I consider that barrel of monkeys line one of the funniest things that's come off the top of my head in awhile. I laughed again the third time I saw it. Batvette (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming conspiracy theory, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 14:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notice with comment?, a recently started discussion on these notification messages to which you may want to contribute. Perhaps the wording needs to be made clearer so as not to mislead or even drive away new editors. --TS 14:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating your account with an email address, so that you may receive private messages through Wikipedia.Zzzmidnight (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some anonymous user recommended that I read this book concerning NWO and conspiracism. Instead of fighting, let's both read it and share our thoughts on the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page. Age of Anxiety --Loremaster (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission are essentially lobbyists for a transnational capitalist class that can and will try to consolidate their power though treaties, like the (failed) Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which threatened national sovereignty and democracy, and force participating nations in a "race to the bottom" in environmental and labor standards. Such treaties establish a new body of universal investment laws to guarantee multinational corporations excessive powers to buy, sell and undertake financial operations all over the world, severely diluting national laws, e.g., on environmental protection, regulation of labour standards and human rights established in developed countries.

When trying to wrap their heads around the changing factors in the world brought on by the globalization of capitalism, paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists make two mistakes:

1. They argue that this is some kind of secret plot when in reality the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission have always be open about these goals despite public relations spin to make it all seem as if what they want will contribute to the common good,
2. They accuse these corporate internationalists of conspiring to create a socialist authoritarian one-world government when it should obvious to any rational and well-informed person (whether he is left-wing or right-wing) that a world where multinational corporations can do whatever they want wherever they want is the furthest thing from world socialism one can possibly imagine. The great irony is that not only did Marx, Lenin and other communist philosophers predict almost a century ago the changing factors in the world we are currently experiencing but they would roll over in their graves at the absurd notion that any of it is leading to the establishment of a socialist authoritarian one-world government by rich capitalists!

That being said, how can you read the following passage from the Alleged conspirators section of article (which I actually wrote in reaction to the Alex Jones gang's criticisms of the article!) and seriously argue that the article gives the impression that people have nothing to worry about in regards to changing factors in the world and should simply move along?

Progressives, who are skeptical of right-wing conspiracy theories, also accuse the global power elite of not having the best interests of all at heart, and many intergovernmental organizations of suffering from a democratic deficit, but they argue that the superclass are plutocrats only interested in brazenly imposing a neoliberal or neoconservative new world order—the implementation of global capitalism through economic and military coercion to protect the interests of transnational corporations — which systematically undermines the possibility of a socialist one-world government. On the other hand, Marxists and anarchists, who believe the world is in the middle of a transition from the American Empire to the rule of a global ruling class that has emerged from within the American Empire, point out that right-wing conspiracy theorists, blinded by their anti-communism, fail to see is that what they demonize as the "New World Order" is, ironically, the highest stage of the very capitalist economic system they defend.

American intellectual Noam Chomsky, author of the 1994 book World Orders Old and New, often describes the New World Order as a post-Cold War era of super-imperialism in which "the New World gives the orders". Commenting on the 1999 US-NATO bombing of Serbia, he writes:

The aim of these assaults is to establish the role of the major imperialist powers--above all, the United States--as the unchallengeable arbiters of world affairs. The "New World Order" is precisely this: an international regime of unrelenting pressure and intimidation by the most powerful capitalist states against the weakest.

--Loremaster (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments on my personal talk page were very much appreciated and I will try to take them into account in my future editing of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gang Stalking. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Could you please give me a reference for the Justice Department information you referred to in the AfD? -- The Anome (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your comment [[5]] regarding my remarks [[6]] on the NWO/CT article. As is evident from the >1 year duration that it took for me to see your comment, I heeded Loremaster's advice not to waste my time being rational, since I can count on conflicts between reason and Rational Skeptic dogma to be resolved invariably in favor of the latter. Nonetheless, revisiting the discussions pages as per your recommendation, I did come across some interesting debate between you and Loremaster.

(Caution: unsolicited editorializing follows)

Apparently, certain Wikipedians are more aligned with a "proper Marxist analysis" of social issues. This is revealing since, upon reflection, a primary activity of the left-wing intellectual community in preserving its status as the establishment-endorsed critical school is the active derision and dismissal of all other, more radical strains of dissent. Think of a cat earning its keep by killing mice. For all its venomous rhetoric, conventional left-wing thought shares virtually all the values of the "capitalist" modern establishment. In fairness, so does most conspiratorial-POV activism - in a way, "conspiracism" is a harmless outlet for the very disenfranchised, just as the Marxist community is for the somewhat disenfranchised. These groups seem to have a merry time sparring with each other, but I have grown tired of it. I have no idea if this rant is at all welcome, so I'll stop here. Thanks again. Zinbielnov (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your note to me. Sorry it took so long. Thank you!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 Google search result for an unusual phrase like "persecutory delusions" is, as usual, the Wikipedia entry.

And check out one very active contributor to that page, and what kind of edits he's been making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecutory_delusions&action=history

It's interesting that User:The_Anome seems to like to create text in psychiatry-related articles to support his position that TI's are suffering persecutory delusions. I left a complaint on his talk page. Somehow, I doubt he's interested in reforming his POV.

The more you know!

Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 05:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Organizational_retaliatory_behavior

Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 02:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(From the Nano-thermite talk page)

• "the editor who resigned from that journal] provided a statement saying she felt they could be promoting a political agenda" - Public statements of this kind will not resolve a scientific issue. If the editor (or anyone else) is uncertain, they should take it to the laboratory; not the soapbox.
• "could be promoting a political agenda and you revealed yours" - Tell me, what is my political agenda? I'm interested in knowing what causes buildings to fall. Especially when they fall in a (claimed) manner which has never happened before that date.(ref) Politics won't resolve the issue; science will.
• "you are a conspiracy theorist here to promote your conspiracy theory about nanothermite" - And what is my conspiracy theory about nanothermite? If you think that I am asserting that there is nanothermite in the WTC dust, you are incorrect. My position is: I don't know. That's not a theory. Is NIST correct? I don't know. NIST (apparently) won't release enough data to reproduce their results, so as far as I am aware, their results can not (and have not) been independently verified.(ref) Reproducibility (per its Wikipedia article) "is one of the main principles of the scientific method."
• "Powdered aluminium is used in paint" - Correct (for some paints), and I never said otherwise. The aluminum article also states: Aluminium is one of the few metals that retain full silvery reflectance in finely powdered form, making it an important component of silver paints. Was paint containing powdered aluminum used in the construction of the WTC buildings? I doubt it, and I haven't seen any sourcing to indicate otherwise.

Ultimately, this matter can only be resolved by scientific investigation; not by editors typing at keyboards or anyone else making unscientific public statements. Wildbear (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to this editor on his talk page (where he suggests I keep my replies to his remarks here instead) in a new section entitled Conspiracy Theory hiding behind a facade of science.

1. this section's title should first address why not many editors will heed your advice they keep their comments to your condescending remarks limited to their own talk pages. I for one have left all the comments ever left on my talk page intact, other editors select which they keep. Your comments on mine suggest a dressing down of me on your part without the reader being presented the entire discussion from the article, which would show the context of muliple editors criticizing both the factual errors and tone of your contributions. Frankly your comments on my talk page are out of line anyway, you have no business implying I do not understand the scientific process, you should keep the discussion in the article's talk page. So now you have some mud on your page too, wasn't this fun?
2. Promoting conspiracy theories about 9/11 controlled demolition = poliical agenda. Nuff said. There is hardly enough evidence to feign some interest in science for doing so. Batvette (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things. First, you may have the idea I have a negative view of/criticize people as conspiracy theorists regularly. This will probably shock you, when you have a few minutes scan this archive starting with this section Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)/Archive_3#NPOV_violation.3F and see the efforts I pursued for over a full year- that's right over a year, I fought with him all the way through the next archive as well- to do anything I could to bring balance of truth to that (still) absurd article. My problem with 9/11 CT's? Is that since it is still such a far out possibility argued by so many morons (not you, apparantly and I did look through all your talk page entries- except for a passage about blasting caps I saw little to pick at) with such ridiculous talking points all they are doing is proving this apologist Loremaster and the bulk of academia like Domhoff who suck up to the elite, that they are right. It's turning off the general public and reasonable people from scrutinizing less sensational activities by similar people. They are tuning out completely.

To be clear I believe controlled demolition is so unlikely it borders the absurd, yet if someone told me tommorrow they had a cancelled check from Cheney to Bin Laden and a tape of h8im soliciting this massive "hit" I'm on board, that is reasonable.

And then I am going to have to take you aside and look you deep in the eye and say brother I have spent 9 years now debating the Iraq war and ME WOT policy with some heavy people, including Noam Chomsky and academics on both sides of the aisle and while I have no degree I was reading over 1000 wpm in 4th grade and remember most of what I scan at that speed and I tell you this why?

I've taken it all in and debated so many war critics who complain they were lied to by Bush but don't even want the facts now, if that's the way it went down, if the PNAC needed another pearl harbor, with what I know about the conditions and maneuviering of various parties around 2000 or so.... they did what they had to do and had they not you and I and 99% of America would not recognize the world we would see outside our doors right now.

The American public would never have supported a full scale invasion and occupation of Iraq with anything less nor would we have gotten away with it before the UN or the world. Our long term competitors Russia, China, and France, allied with Saddam AND Iran AND Venezuela were about to accomplish what most of the world has long wanted and still may be in the works doing now- remove the dollar as world reserve currency, and at that time shut American interests out of the middle east and its energy resources. I have sat back flabbergasted watching war critics talk about Saddam not being a threat but ignore he was about to do what we did to the Soviet Union-destroy our economy by using oil as a weapon with the help of nearly everyone we in turn have screwed to get on top. I don't pretend to think for a minute you will buy this but I have plenty of facts to build these assertions on and many analysts have long agreed about Iraq being over petrodollar hegemony. Americans are too ignorant and immature to have supported a war for our own very survival. Do not take this as approval for an inside job if that is what happened. I would have supported a war to retain dollar hegemony tied on to real physical threat by Saddam to attack allies we agreed to protect. (instrumental would be his invasion of KSA and inciting overthrow of the royals as the dollar collapsed and internal unrest occurred. We would lose KSA's exports to us overnight with fundamentalists making it permanent out of spite. In addition imagine China being given sole access to the world's last high pressure light sweet crude oilfields, imagine what they would extract with their available drilling resources! Their expansion would swallow us whole in that region- these contracts were about to be consumated, fact)

In April 2002 after seeing Saddam appear on Al Jazeera inviting terrorists to wage suicide bombing attacks against Israel with increased cash rewards, and then organizing emergency summits with Arab leaders attempting oil embargoes against the US and Israel after Israel's expected harsh reprisals, I knew exactly what he was up to and started frequenting forums supporting his immediate annihilation even before Bush did. If nothing else then for his defiance so close to 9/11. However it was apparant he knew what he was doing. Saddam was going to play the number 2 of a 1-2 combination off 9/11 to rid us from his hair for good. We were falling into his trap by alienating all his neighbors by seizing their assets over terrorist activities. News reports showed even moderate nations' capitals with thousands of anti american protestors marching in contempt for Israel with their pro-US leaders warily watching them-read this article and understand this was all Saddam's work and no accident. Iran was onboard for the Arab embargo, willing to forgive their differences with Saddam and join him in switching to the Euro as he had over a year earlier, but luckily the Saudis and Kuwaitis balked and the others soon followed. Yes, Saddam was instigating Israel into doing what he could not, uniting the Arab nations as one to repel the US and our interests,with Russia, China and France waiting to compound the damage to their own benefit. . (it is important when analyzing all these factors not to isolate each and dismiss one by one as meaningless. such as what could Iraq do to its neighbors, or how could Iraq's oil affect the US dollar? No, it's how could Iraq's oil affect the US dollar when the combined drilling assets of 2 superpowers and a third equally proficient in exploration tap unexploited fields equal to the Saudis and topple the Saudis as top producers. This turns the world energy market upside down and completely against US influence and the dollar becomes near worthless in a matter of weeks or months. Add a rearmed Saddam walking into a weakened by dollar crash KSA out of revenge and we are as good as out of the middle east and trying to restart a failing economy with worthless dollars- I **** you not, we'd have had gasoline in the $30 gallon range.)

I am disgusted by the childish naivity of my fellow Americans who actually believe Colin Powell should have told the truth at the UN, or that we should have given Chirac 5 minutes of our ear as war loomed and his banks in Paris hid $13 billion in Saddam's personal skimming of the oil for food revenues.

It would have been irresponsible for these elected leaders to not do anything they possibly could to stop this coordinated attack by other world powers to destroy our way of life in a similar way that we had leveraged it from them since '73 and even earlier. Realpolitik is a bitch, ain't she? But next time you look at a bill of US currency think of what a unique instrument it has been. The US treasury has for decades, been the only entity in the world that can print money out of nothing with no value behind it other than other nations' resources- oil- and we give it to other nations in return for real goods and services they give us as fast as they can use OPEC oil. While America's actual output of anything the world cares about has plummetted we remained rich and prosperous. The darkening of our fortunes now is the slow burn we are afforded by heading off a catastrophe in the early part of the decade. I don't know what happened on 9/11. 3,000 americans may have been sacrificed so 3 million did not starve or murder each other in a year of hyperinflation and social unrest. I can state as factual not going into Iraq would have had unthinkable and disastrous consequences. It is no surprise the world resents the current dollar hegemony situation and wants to screw us in the worst way- amazingly by playing their "get Bush" politics, doing anything to discredit the war, American war critics have only further encouraged these players to resent us more and put America on the trash heap. Do they WANT to live like Haitians? Really!

Ask yourself would you support a full war in the ME to protect US assets and energy supplies with no altruistic pretense. Not steal anything but simply protect the status quo. If not, examine your pursuit of this matter to seek the truth and realize those reasons were between the lines back then and still are. If you wouldn't support it you had better accept your own complicity in this alleged crime. You needed to be lied to. Sorry to put it that way, and while some folks will scoff at this as conspiracy theory, I usually challenge those with basic economics education to simply describe what the inevitable result of an ever increasing supply of fiat currency MUST be. I always get silence.

I do have bad news. We didn't prevent all that, we only postponed it and softened its speed and depth. Our economy is tanked now and as I said we're in a slow burn. Those same players are still maneuvering into alternate world reserve currencies, some experts say they are already in the process of implementing it. I don't know that yet but it is possible. You will not see any admission of this shocking transition by our government or big media until it has frozen our ability to withdraw our personal assets from the federal reserve. In other words long after it's too late. It was inevitable anyhow. Sorry for the length, this is obviously a complex situation. Anything I presented as factual I can substantiate upon request, much is common knowledge of the hush hush kind tho, isn't hard to find on google. Batvette (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm soliciting active editors in coup article for a poll on this proposed change --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm notifying contributors to the 1953 Iranian coup article about a proposed change in the article posted on the talk page, that adds information about events leading up to the coup. Only a couple of comments so far. Am planning to request comments WP:RfC later. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was little discussion and no resolution to my proposal to add a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ to the 1953 Iranian coup article, I'm doing a Request for Comment on the issue as well as polling editors active on the 1953 Iranian coup article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of cleaning up the article to fix duplication, contradiction and bad chronology. Here are my proposed changes. Please leave a comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comments on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état, good work and I am glad that you are here helping us to fix this article. --Tondar1 (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your edit summaries here and here, please, along with your comments here and here, please? From where I'm sitting it looks like, regardless of the content dispute, you are being unacceptably uncivil. Ironholds (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow you but it helps to recognize we were discussing something this user is still in denial of over the serious nature of policy violation. If you mean the "troll" thing well I felt the condescending nature of reminding me about wiki policy on my user page coming from someone who so readily violates it a form of vandalism. Rest assured that it not my normal response to wiki editors who don't engage in such patronizing tactics. Batvette (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Spam" as well, yes. If you've got a problem with her, take it to dispute resolution. A no-holds-barred fight between two editors to the lowest common denominator is a bad thing to watch. One of my coworkers has a West Virginian aphorism of "you wrestle with the pigs, you all get muddy" which I quite like - applies here. Ironholds (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% both with the philosophy and your (assumed) aversion to get involved in refereeing over it but where I think you may be mistaken is thinking it's a no holds barred fight... I'm over it. She won't let it go. Perhaps that wasn't apparent by the length of my posts, but that's where I'm at. Thanks for your input. Batvette (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Np; yeah, I don't want to get involved. My role isn't to say who's right or who's wrong in matters of content. Ironholds (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the following comment by you:

"I think it's problematic when the page is ambiguously straddled between being about stalking as criminal behaviour by the perpetrators and a psychological issue by alleged victims. It really can't be both as it becomes offensive to victims and even encourages the perpetrators' behaviour by believing what they are doing may be okay because their target may deserve it or "hey, they're crazy anyway".

My comment may be philosophically vague but also warning of treading into dangerous territory. You don't want a stalker who is escalating his activities to come here and get the message his actions are anything but criminal in nature, and certainly no fault of their victim."

I fully agree with your accurate assesment of the situation Please be aware, that as long as the "Gang Stalking" section is not up, and the selective (Highly selective) anti-stalkingvictim entry titled with "Delusions of persecution" is up, pPersecutedChristian (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)eople are clicking on the Google search result looking to find some solace in information about their dilemma (not to mention their concerned friends and relatives) and finding only this hateful slander..

Note: It allows the term "Gang Stalking" to appear in seach results, drawing people to this page.

Therefore, if we have no good sources for Group, or Organized stalking and harassment, yet, then we should not allow people to be drawn to this page to be exposed to such entrenched hate.

Gang Stalking is a phrase misused by victims of Organized Harassment, and it hur†PersecutedChristian (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to give you some small citations that may help with your gang stalking page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Intended_effects I personally believe that Gang Stalking is a bastardized version of the above being abused by common citizens and gangs/groups of people who believe what they are doing is legal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_weapon gives enough evidence that the weaponry cited as being used against Targets is realistic and exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System if anyone has any real issue with the second item, the above is a much bigger project of the same type that we know for a fact exists and works it was taken out of Afghanistan without seeing use I think I read somewhere that the UN declared the ADS unethical if you can substantiate any of this, you should be able to cleanly add information regarding the "possible root of the problem" as well as a section that gives credible reference to the weapons used by stalkers as well. Also, look up the patent for the ADS which is clearly HERF technology if anybody cares to read about it. I have been a target of this mess since April 2012 I just happen to be lucky enough that I can point to the people that began this horrible treatment of myself and am working towards a nice legal resolution. Sincerely with respect, 68.70.225.35 (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

funny to me that this made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting it onto the wiki as did the pages above, I mean, there is enough between all these pages and most targets accounts to support each part. Sincerely with respect, 68.70.225.35 (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is taking me some time to catch up on all of the road blocks you are experiencing with getting the page up so be patient with me as I give you the source materials regarding HERF weaponry. I wonder if the wiki-gods will allow video evidence showing an item in use to be considered evidence to its existence, the police do not, I am certain a court would. Ok, over the next couple weeks I will be filtering to your page here all of the credible research I have found that might be of help to you with this page. They have accepted the parts of Group stalking(we ought to just call it that from here on as group stalking tends to have a less stigmatized appearance than gang or organized or cause stalking. Let me know that you are reading this so that I can continue to give you what research I can, also allow me to proof read over your work on the page so that I can help with correcting the cadence of the language used so that it fits with the clear unbiased format of the wiki. Sincerely with respect, 68.70.225.35 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Active Denial System. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0TFxMTL1kw Sincerely with respect, 68.70.225.35 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, though I'm not sure if we're on the same page or not regarding injecting gang stalking entries into wikipedia. As far as wiki is concerned there has to be reliable sourcing to document its existence before they would accept it to be presented as a real phenomenon, and up to this point I don't believe there is any. There is a short news piece run by a Salinas, CA television channel with commentary from a Santa Cruz PD officer but that isn't up to wiki standards. It does present gang stalking as real with little critical view. Several other similar references exist (such as one from a San Antonio news broadcast, which backs itself up with a written piece on its website) but they present it with enough skepticism to add weight to the argument it may be a group belief system of people with delusions.

In contrast there are a significant number of credible news pieces that describe it as, to the best of their knowledge, claims by people who appear to be suffering from some form of delusions. They admit that declaring a person to be delusional is impossible from a precursory analysis, the NY Times piece referenced in the Stalking article makes that point several times. Reflecting the available reliable sources wiki thus does present the issue as accurately as it can.

As for my personal view and experience, I was in fact stalked in the more traditional sense 3 times in about a year, around 2007. This was by unknown individuals in vehicles, late at night, and it was pretty blatant and lasted from 30-60 minutes each time. Puzzled, I went on the internet looking for answers and in time found lots of websites trying to "educate" me about this global conspiracy waged by alternately (depending on the source) government, organized crime, nazis, jews, christians, satanic cults, etc which would permeate every hour of my life with trivial little things I would only notice once I looked for them. With enough looking sure enough they began to happen. I saw six red cars in one hour, well those red cars were put there to torment me. Which of course it did because I was told they were there to torment me. People treated me a certain way, I thought "they must be perps", and thus I treated them differently...

I also began to blame things like headaches and sensations of heat on weapons only distantly related to anything I could confirm the existence of. (see below)

After awhile I began to notice that I was allying myself with some truly stupid and/or crazy people. I started looking for more reasonable explanations to things I had been "educated" to blame on a conspiracy against me, and usually there was one.

This does not mean I was not stalked when I clearly was, and does not mean everyone who claims to be gang stalked is crazy or stupid. However I have concluded the vast majority are, and this creates a problem because if I tried to have my stalkers arrested and claimed it was related to gang stalking, nobody would ever take me seriously. If there is some program of community vigilante action going on, it's going to find cover and interference for itself from all the clearly delusional people who believe that their own faulty perceptions and social awkwardness amount to them being gang stalked- and most "activism" waged by people who believe they are targets amount to recruiting as many people as they can to join them, believing strength in numbers will help them. What they've accomplished is to convince a lot of people with mental issues to call themselves gang stalking victims instead, not helping either.

After all is said and done I feel a little contempt for those who mislead me and solely to validate their own delusions, "educated" me to make a lot of foolish assumptions and get so immersed in nonsense. Some of the most high profile activists, note that they have little to say about their daily experiences and are solely focused on promoting the group belief that it exists. Some obviously just want sycophants to encourage their beliefs, and don't care that they are spreading disinformation which is actually harmful.

On that note, whatever you believe is happening to you, focus on that and documenting it-don't worry so much about convincing the world about what allegedly happens to strangers is real- and understand the best thing that could happen is that you were mislead about it. Easier than allying with scores of nutters around the world to end some global conspiracy that may or may not be real.

(As for that little EMP device that kid made on youtube, notice how he's got to put it right next to the clock to affect it? Do you know how much power in watts an active denial system puts out? What frequency it operates at? The large truck mounted system sent to Iraq was something in the range of 500,000 watts. ALL "pain ray" devices run in the bandwidth centered around 95ghz, to only heat moisture in the skin. Lower frequencies penetrate the whole body and you wouldn't feel it. It takes exotic components to generate RF in that high frequency, and bulky power supplies. It takes very little RF energy to affect a clock like that and almost any frequency will do. You've got to watch what you use for technical references, you may win over the ignorant but not much more. Worse, if you believe a next door neighbor could do all manner of evil upon you with a couple batteries and a coil of copper, you will begin blaming that and not go to a doctor when an enlarged prostate causes you to get up and urinate at night, or similar maladies)

In summary, I don't know what's going on with you but don't let these "gang stalking victims" send you over a cliff of self imposed ruin. They are more than happy to do it and it's all to coddle their own vanity. I had no problem admitting I may be wrong and if you are like minded you will find your situation will improve. Good luck. Batvette (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sanest reply to my plight I have ever received. I do not ascribe to some of the more out there theories about this. My situation is simple, my landlady felt I did not pay enough rent so she hired someone to illegally move me out so she could charge more rent and have a clear consciousness about her actions. She got very worried when I pointed out to her that the patriot act requires all text messages and emails to be logged stored and saved(I had previously worked out that she was contacting the group attacking me via text messages because one had been mis-sent to a telephone I was holding currently in my hands. She used my name, apt number and indicated what she wanted done to me in this text. So in an effort to figure out the truth I started digging. They in no way used any technology on me that was portable. HERF technology exists. The Active Denial System IS that technology. There are many discourses written about the behavioral effects of RF radiation (electromagnetic = Microwave)several regarding studies done since the mid to late 70's I agree with you I am not after letting the world know I am however looking for the most realistic answers while I prepare a lawsuit against my landlady for OS-like actions on her part and parts of her employees and other tenants regarding her defamation of my character(running around town calling me a pedophile and racist [by quoting less than accurate information as evidence to her claims] - which I am not - which caused me to become homeless and attacked by an hostile public). This appears to be my situation in a nutshell. 68.70.225.35 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to tell you that I appreciate your frankness and honesty. I have been obviously distracted by the fictions that were laid in front of me yet now I seem to begin to see them for what they are. Wow. Apparently I have a long way yet to go. 68.70.225.35 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What surely happens to a lot of us is that something happens to us that is real- in your case an antagonistic landlord who would go to some pretty nefarious depths to profit by evicting you-but when you looked for answers for real issues you became educated by people who have no interest in anything but validating their own silliness, and promoting "gang stalking" as this huge epidemic and having capabilities to do impossible things. Whatever this landlord IS doing, would it help your situation to multiply this by having you believe she is doing things she can't, or having you believe everyone around you is in on it when they are not?

Of course not, and you could even posit if you like that whatever IS going on would greatly benefit if it did get you to believe it did things it couldn't. Since I can't really say WHAT is going on I do find it may be helpful to state when we can ascertain ISN'T going on. (which gets me attacked by some overly enthusiastic or paranoid TI's as a "perp" but whatever). They can freak themselves out if they like. In that respect though this is why I think it's counterproductive to promote gang stalking here at wiki if it only feeds the nutters- in the end all it does is validate to the public, that people who claim to be gang stalked are in fact nutters. Batvette (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see a content dispute regarding Stalking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Stalking.2C_Talk:Stalking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Directed energy weapons, and the Talk page". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sprint Cup Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diversity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you and I seem to be reverting each others edits, so I figured it may be best to just explain my point.

You wrote: "Industry watchers have noted "Google+ is nowhere near as popular a social media network as Facebook.""

• In the Google + article, the lead paragraph states:"It is the second-largest social networking site in the world after Facebook."

You wrote: "it’s essentially being forced upon millions of YouTube users who don’t want to lose their ability to comment on videos."

• In the Google + article, in the "YouTube comment section", it states: "On November 6, 2013, YouTube began requiring that commenting on its videos be done via a Google+ account."

The word "requiring" basically means "forced", but I removed the word "forced" a few weeks ago because nobody is being "forced" to do anything.

I hope this helps. Richard Apple (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this covers the matter well, but thanks for engaging me. As I just indicated on your talk page I'm going to wait to see how user user:w163 tinkers with it on the youtube page (see its talk page) and will refrain from editing any of these three articles until then. I do believe the way you are presenting it here does obfuscate the matter rather than directly present it on the specific issue of the youtube comment conversion- it presents the conversion as only for positive effect of cleaning up youtube comments, not as we can see reliable sources have noted (the Forbes source which gets right to the point with- "while this is being presented like a goodhearted attempt by Google at cleaning up YouTube, it does come off as kind of a cheap way to get even more people to sign up for Google Plus when they wouldn't have voluntarily done so otherwise. I'm sure they'll go on to spout numbers about the dramatic growth of Google Plus over the last few years but there will be no mention of how many of those users signed up knowingly or willingly." ). Again, thanks for the dialogue even if we disagree on content presentation.Batvette (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Please check out the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnluckyClover77 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Batvette. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for chiming into that crazy talk page. In order to avoid treating that talk page like a forum, I thought I'd leave a note here instead. I tend to agree with your opinion that not every false thing Trump says is a conspiracy theory. However, the NYT has reported--absurdly in my view--that Trump's spygate theory is a conspiracy theory, and so, even though you and I think that's mistaken, Wikipedia must report what they say, since NYT is deemed a reliable source by the community of editors here, and you and I are not. I get why Wikipedia has to work that way. The problem, though, is that page is written with a focus on NYT and Vox (lol) over all other RSs, such as Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CNN, and so on. I'm pushing to just incorporate all the mainstream RSs, in which case the whole page will need to be rewritten. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

its pretty clear there is some pov pushing going on there. I dont edit as much as I used to so not gonna worry too much about it. Batvette (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. R2 (bleep) 05:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the September 11 attacks. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have closed the recent request at WP:AE concerning you with the following sanction: Batvette is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. This has been logged at the Arbitration Enforcement log for 2019. If you wish to appeal this TBAN, you may do so by following the procedures found here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is it standard procedure to close an AE, ruling against me, just 47 minutes after presenting my side of the case? With no further input or judgement from any other admin? Including one who said he wanted to wait until he saw my statement?Batvette (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions don't require consensus at AE. They are done on the individual discretion of a single administrator. Seeing as your response was to deflect and defend your blatantly racist conspiracy peddling, the options I was debating between were an indefinite block from the entire project and an indef TBAN. Considering that everyone who commented thought you should be topic banned, the majority indefinitely, and you doubled down on some of the worst behaviour in defending yourself, I didn't think El C would mind me closing it. If they disagree, however, I'm willing to defer to them. Also, re: Astrofilm, they are a long-term blocked editor evading their block, which is why I blocked them. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind, Tony. I would have closed it the same way, you just saved me the bother. El_C 20:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I’d encourage you to read WP:TBAN. You are not just banned from articles about post-1932 politics. You are banned from talking about anything to do with it on any page on Wikipedia. WP:TBAN explains it further and is the standard you are being held to. I don’t mind initial venting but comments like this, with clear American political references would be a violation. I’m not blocking for that comment, because I get venting, but you do need to know what your ban covers. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you answered my question about the procedural issue and thats fair. In retrospect perhaps I should have furnished a better defense or been more humble but whats done is done. However I would add, and this is not to discuss politics but the comments that led to your decision, I was not engaging in racist conspiracy peddling. Firstly Islam is not a race nor ethnicity, it is practiced on 6 of the 7 continents and anyone can convert to it. More importantly it was user O3000 who introduced that to the discussion not I. He used it as an example of the Presidents false statements and I never argued it wasnt but provided RS to show that later reporting in media revealed it was much less conspiracy theory than originally reported and a matter of exageration of details. The media failed to update the story as new info came to light and that was relevant to the discussion as that article is heavily weighted to year old sources and ignores new developments. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/whatever-happened-those-post-911-jersey-city-arrests-jim-geraghty/amp/ Trump claims he saw on tv reports of thousands of muslims celebrating on rooftops, the media originally reports all aspects of his claims were false. Later its found there were news reports on this and the only thing wrong with his statement is the quantity of celebrants. But Im not here to argue that subject but present to you why it was being discussed at all. I didnt even bring it up but found it a good example of the RS used in that article not updating their coverage of evolving stories. Here I am getting wordy again I apologize. Thanks for reading.Batvette (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment on wookians user page, thanks for clarifying the policy. Obviously crossed the line, it wont happen again.Batvette (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]