User talk:Horhey420

Welcome!

Hello, Horhey420, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --EnzaiBot (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the Teahouse!

Hello! Horhey420, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again. I am so happy you're enjoying editing wikipedia. Remember, if you have any questions, just stop by the Teahouse as we'd be glad to assist. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through your recent contributions more or less at random (with a focus on diffs where you added material) and they frequently contained blatant copyright violations. For instance, I spotted the following problematic edits in the last few days alone:

• [1] - almost all the text here was lifted directly from the sources, or tweaked slightly. When I removed this, you edit warred to try to return it to the article.
• [2]
• [3] - quote from the New York Times lightly paraphrased
• [4] - includes material which appears to have been taken from http://www.understandingpower.com/chap2.htm with minor editing
• [5] - the material referenced to the BBC is taken directly from the BBC story

I note also that many of your edits have been to add block quotes of material which could be easily summarized or paraphrased (for instance, [6] and [7] - but there are many others like this). You also appear to be POV pushing: your edits have consistently been to add material critical of US foreign policy, often from what appear to be cherry picked sources (I'm no fan of US foreign policy myself, but it's quite possible to write about it neutrally, and there are lots of excellent references available). Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I should've looked at what you pointed out a long time ago. You charge that this is "lightly paraphrased":

"It was reported that Chávez was seen as an enemy by the Bush administration for his revolutionary posture and his moves to gear Venezuela's oil wealth to domestic needs."

From the New York Times article:

"Mr. Chávez has made himself very unpopular with the Bush administration with his pro-Cuban stance and mouthing of revolutionary slogans -- and, most recently, by threatening the independence of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, the third-largest foreign supplier of American oil."

Your accusation is False. Not even close. What am I or any objective observer supposed to think of this? How does one come to charge someone with copyright violation for this? I havent even looked at the rest of them. Authors frequently "tweak" paraphrase in their books and the quote above isnt even close to that.--Horhey420 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just got trigger happy buddy.--Horhey420 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying and that is what Ive been doing much of the time is "tweaking" and I didnt know that was forbidden as well. As you can see, TimesrChanging frequently removes my content on the grounds that it is my "commentary" when it's just a paraphrase of what the source says so I try to keep the wording as identical to the source as possible to avoid giving him a reason to remove my content.

As far as POV pushing. I like to complete something before I move on to something else. I go in order. Im just filling in the blanks of what's been left out. After this, I probably would've moved on to other subjects like video games, movies and comics. I have all this information that's not included in many of the Wiki pages and I felt that it shouldnt be left out. Like unfinished business. Something that just needed to be done before I could move on.--Horhey420 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make this about me. You've had me investigated by admins multiple times, to no avail. It's your turn now. Your large blockquotes are filled with POV commentary. I pointed out on July 16 that most of what you added to Indonesian killings of 1965–1966 "was either copied and pasted or excessively detailed". I should have realized that you could be banned for copying so much material. You can't say that you were not given numerous chances to stop.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're reasoning for removing relevant content from the US involvement section which was that the page was only about the invasion and not the occupation was a huge stretch. Then you said the "despite the country's human rights abuses" paraphrase was my commentary even though the Los Angeles Times article says "despite the country's human rights violations." Then you said that this paraphrase:

Clinton Administration officials told the New York Times that US support for Suharto was "driven by a potent mix of power politics and emerging markets." Suharto was Washington's favored ruler of the "ultimate emerging market" who deregulated the economy and opened Indonesia to foreign investors. "He's our kind of guy," said a senior Administration official who dealt often on Asian policy.[1]

was my commentary but if you compare it to the New York Times article:

Administration officials said the treatment of Mr. Castro, Mr. Jiang and Mr. Suharto was driven by very different litmus tests, a potent mix of power politics and emerging markets.

Mr. Suharto, who is sitting on the ultimate emerging market: some 13,000 islands, a population of 193 million and an economy growing at more than 7 percent a year. The country remains wildly corrupt and Mr. Suharto's family controls leading businesses that competitors in Jakarta would be unwise to challenge. But Mr. Suharto, unlike the Chinese, has been savvy in keeping Washington happy. He has deregulated the economy, opened Indonesia to foreign investors and kept the Japanese, Indonesia's largest supplier of foreign aid, from grabbing more than a quarter of the market for goods imported into the country.

So Mr. Clinton made the requisite complaints about Indonesia's repressive tactics in East Timor, where anti-Government protests continue, and moved right on to business, getting Mr. Suharto's support for market-opening progress during the annual Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Osaka in mid-November.

"He's our kind of guy," a senior Administration official who deals often on Asian policy, said the other day.

Which is why your removal is without merrit. This is why I believe this to be censorship.--Horhey420 (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will resist the temptation to feed the troll.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is clear censorship. As to how you get away with it since you do it constantly, every day and night is officially a mystery imo. Censorship is a violation of the rules. The rules say to improve wording if necessary, not remove content, especially for fraudulant reasons such as this. I will be watching to see if any administrator warns you about this.--Horhey420 (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the only time I ever have problems with administrators is when TheTimesAreAChanging freely engages in his sanitation missions. Sanitation begins, administrators are sure to follow- always turning a blind eye and even reinforcing his censorship at times. I spoke my peace.--Horhey420 (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to use this talk page to attack other editors you will have your ability to edit it removed as well. Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging said this to me:

"I will resist the temptation to feed the troll."

And you warned me but not him. Then you said this:

"If any of the material this editor added is still in the article, I'd appreciate it if editors could remove it - it can be safely assumed to have been a copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)"

So it is good enough just to assume that everything I added is a copyright violation, warranting removal and not wording improvement? And still, nothing about the no censorship rule is mentioned to TheTimesAreAChanging.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read the WP:NOTTHEM. Im starting think it's not worth the trouble to try to get unblocked. Im tired.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given the scale of the issue here we do need to check what you added and assume that it's a copyright violation in cases where this appears likely: please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you said this:

"often from what appear to be cherry picked sources."

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Declassified US documents. Congressional Testimony. History books from historians, administration officials and reporters such as Walter Lafeber, Piero Gleijeses, Raymond Bonner, Robert Pastor, Thomas Carothers, etc. Tons of Corporate news reports. Those are many of my sources. Not Alex Jones and his ilk. I paraphrase and it gets censored by whats his name and the administrators come. I "tweak" paraphrase and its gets censored by whats his name and the administrators come. Now Ive been purged. Yeah, Im exausted from all this.

By the way, I was under the impression that copyright violation is when it's word for word, not a word here and there which is what it is, mainly to dodge a certain censor. Still no consistancy on rule enforcemnt.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picked means you take a source, and only use the bits that suit your bias. You don't use the bits that don't suit your bias. I explained this with an example of your own editing here, but you didn't respond to the issue. Rather you pretended it wasn't there, said something irrelevant, and made me think of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No doubt you will continue to pretend you don't understand. --Merbabu (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point of showing the article was to point out New York Times support for Suharto. Not whatever they said the PKI was up to. They urged Washington to send aid to Suharto and that was the point of adding it to the page.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How this concept is over your head is beyond me.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a section entitled "Foreign involvement and reaction", why not say what they thought of the previous regime? They were part of the story, surely? I suggest it didn't suit your one-eyed mission to provide condemnatory material against the US and the west. In 1965, Sukarno's authoritarian regime was a mess, and Indonesia was an economic and political disaster as a result. That was the (reasonable) assessment of the US. By not mentioning it, but mentioning stuff you do like, well that's cherry picking, and it shows bias.

And it was several experienced and uninvolved editors, and not me, who at ANI (ironically at a complaint started by you against me) said you have an issue with WP:COMPETENCE and/or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're just providing further confirmation - for me anyway. --Merbabu (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again. The point was to show New York Times support for Suharto after the coup. It was about media reaction to the coup. Sukarno was no champion of democracy but he was no mass murderer like Suharto. Come on now.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as about as specific an admission of bias as they come. Unless you want to go further still? --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didnt you ever try to work with me instead of just removing my content? Why didnt you make suggestions like you should do this or that with that information? Not very friendly at all to a new member. No, only removal of content was acceptable. This is why I keep screeming censorhip. I dont understand how anyone can feel comfortable with removing parts of history from view.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove your content. I spent many words explaining and trying to assist. The problem is not that people don't try and help, it's that you pretend you didn't hear it, argue against it, tell them to "go away", and in general stick your finger up at them. I'm not going to go over old ground again. You can re-read the volumes of stuff that have already been written, both on the talk page and by a broader and unanimous group of editors at your ANI complaint. Don't cry foul now. --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - The fact that you still do not know how to properly intend your comments after being told a number of times (I'm still doing it for you) shows you also have basic WP:COMPETENCE issues. --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did remove my content and what's his name removed a lot more as did an administrator for the sake of making the section a tiny sliver and you strongly supported it. One member agrees with me on the censorship issue but he does not want to get involved and I suspect there are others as well.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Merbabu (talk), I just realized that only when I added my content did that administrator all of sudden want to keep that section to an extreme minimum. Before I added anything that section was very large, probably the largest on the page. Remember? How am I supposed to interprit that? That administrator gave himself away by using the term "anti-American." Nah, Im outta here. I dont want to have anything to do with a place full of censors. It's too obvious. I will spread the word in the forums.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this copyright violation?

"Indonesian death squads linked to the mass killings were trained in the United States under a covert programme sponsored by the Clinton Administration which continued until 1998. The US programme, codenamed "Iron Balance", was hidden from legislators and the public when Congress cut off the official training of Indonesia's military after a massacre in 1991. Under the Pentagon's JCET (Joint Combined Education and Training) project, the Kopassus special forces were more rigorously built up with American expertise than any other Indonesian unit, despite US awareness of its role in large scale atrocities. Amnesty International describes Kopassus as "responsible for some of the worst human rights violations in Indonesia's history".

From the article:

"Indonesian military forces linked to the carnage in East Timor were trained in the United States under a covert programme sponsored by the Clinton Administration which continued until last year. The US programme, codenamed 'Iron Balance', was hidden from legislators and the public when Congress curbed the official schooling of Indonesia's army after a massacre in 1991. Principal among the units that continued to be trained was the Kopassus Ð an elite force with a bloody history Ð which was more rigorously trained by the US than any other Indonesian unit, according to Pentagon documents passed to The Observer last week. Kopassus was built up with American expertise despite US awareness of its role in the genocide of about 200,000 people in the years after the invasion of East Timor in 1975, and in a string of massacres and disappearances since the bloodbath. Amnesty International describes Kopassus as 'responsible for some of the worst human rights violations in Indonesia's history'. The Pentagon documents Ð obtained by the US-based East Timor Action Network and Illinois congressman Lane Evans Ð detail every exercise in the covert training programme, conducted under a Pentagon project called JCET (Joint Combined Education and Training). They show the training was in military expertise that could only be used internally against civilians, such as urban guerrilla warfare, surveillance, counter-intelligence, sniper marksmanship and 'psychological operations'.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).--Horhey420 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvited suggestion...

Horhey, I notice below there is a current and drawn-out discussion between you and another editor. You might find that an administrator sees this as an abuse of your talk page while blocked, and that they remove your ability to edit your talk page. You’ve already confirmed you’ve read WP:NOTTHEM.

The only relevant issue at hand now is whether you want to be unblocked. Personally, I think any request you make to be unblocked will fail. But, if you want to at least try to get unblocked, you should immediately cease the argument below with the other editor (that’s not going to help an unblock request). Then use the unblock instructions in the block template above.

You need to either (a) show that the administrator has made an outrageous mistake in blocking you, or (b) convince administrators that you understand why you were blocked and that you will not cause the problems again. I can almost 100% guarantee that if you try option (a) you will fail, particularly given all the other numerous concerns raised by a number of other editors at the ANI section (provided again for you and anyone else here). And I suggest that any unblock request will need to show that you understand each of those concerns at ANI, and how they will no longer be a problem.

And just repeating, I’m not an admin, I offer this advice uninvited, and I think it will be very difficult for you to get the block lifted. But I could be wrong about your chances, and it’s not up to me anyway. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt even see this untill now. What's his name keeps coming back and Im responding. Im still debating wether I want to try to get unblocked. I know the errors I made. I've been reviewing some of the pages and they do indeed need to be rewritten, particularly the Contra and Salvador page. The Salvador page was my first so it's full of problems. I should've gone back sooner and fully corrected them when I reviewed the rules more. Lazyness on my part. I dont know man. Im gonna be busy so I'll probably just go do my thing for awhile and then come back and see if I can at least fix everything before it disappears.--Horhey420 (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report

The archive of the section on ANI opened by yourself can be found here. For your reference. --Merbabu (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

With reference to this please read WP:SOCK --Merbabu (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% confident that that's not Horhey.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is Stumink. His writing style is the same. There's proof in his edits on July 5 (on my talk page). He has actually edit warred with Horhey multiple times.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Same article choice. But I see he uses edit summaries unlike horhey. :) --Merbabu (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging is correct (and I'm about 100% certain of this as well). Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you dont have to worry about me anymore. I wont be able to contribute no matter what I do anyways because if a use pure paraphrases, my content is removed on the fraudulant grounds of "commentary" (source isnt even checked for verification) by what's his name-backed by administrators. If I "tweak" paraphrase to avoid this, my content is removed for copyright violation and then get banned. You would think this place is run by Langley. Im out.--Horhey420 (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horhey--a response

• "I just realized that only when I added my content did that administrator all of sudden want to keep that section to an extreme minimum. Before I added anything that section was very large, probably the largest on the page. Remember? How am I supposed to interprit [sic] that?"
• "One member [Jrtayloriv] agrees with me on the censorship issue but he does not want to get involved and I suspect there are others as well."-Horhey420

This is largely unrelated to the copyright violations, despite the fact that most of Horhey's edits to Indonesian killings did violate copyrights (nobody really emphasized that at the time, as we were still trying to get along with Horhey). But this is a fascinating point, and one that I considered days ago. To my knowledge, that section had indeed been long and disproportionate for some time, and Horhey's edits stood for awhile. If I had not rewritten that section, it might have remained that way indefinitely. As I mentioned during the discussion, even I would have ignored the problems for fear of an edit war--if that part of the article had not grown into such a ludicrous joke. (And it ended up being cut more drastically then I initially proposed.) All articles should be written in the manner that one currently is. Horhey’s point, however, demonstrates that there are still very profound issues of bias on some corners of Wikipedia. Imagine if every page strictly followed Wikipedia’s rules about not using editorials for facts and avoiding undue weight and eliminating excessive quotes and so on. I believe that vandals and editors with a strong POV hold some pages hostage, by citing an endless amount of worthless sources, or by joining together, or by making threats. The result is that some contentious or obscure articles "compromise" on fundamental Wikipedia policies. Who wants to get in a heated debate and be called a "censor"? The fact that Jrtayloriv encourages Horhey to view me as a "censor" is unfortunate, because this dispute truly opened my eyes to the reality that (if anything) I've been too generous with editors like him. Sometimes articles require mass deletions and wholesale revision, and I guess that I wouldn't be doing my job as an editor if nobody with an agenda ever accused me of being a "censor". The fact that Horhey got away with his behavior for as long as he did, and that there are surely editors with comparable behavior who have gone unnoticed, is the real story here. Horhey should have avoided scrutiny and been a little less obvious in his copyright violations and POV pushing; he might have gotten away with it. Merbabu didn't want to touch that section; even I was willing to compromise to avoid an endless debate filled with personal attacks. But Horhey pushed his luck much too far.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "I dont want to have anything to do with a place full of censors. It's too obvious. I will spread the word in the forums."-Horhey420

Please do so. We don't want people coming here unless they can maintain a neutral point of view as best as is humanly possible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, as for cherry picking: Refer back to the distorted claims you ascribed to Reston in Indonesian killings and Livingstone in Salvadoran civil war.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book burning at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contras&action=history

Your work includes a lot of quotes but noone will mess with them. Every page has plenty of quotes. Note that none of the deletions had anything to do with copyright violation. All on pretext of quotes and it just so happens it's the entire section on imperialism- the internal version of the "domino theory." Imagine if that section was paraphrased entirely. What a joke. This will not go unnoticed.--Horhey420 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You TheTimesAreAChanging said the Time Magazine article on Suharto was "factual" even though it said Suharto enjoyed the "popular support" of the people and his coming to power was "scrupulously constitutional" (not even Henry Kissinger agrees with you) AND you use La Prensa as a source even though both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International dismissed their allegations against the Sandinistas, which is why you were so adamant about keeping that out of the page. You delete my work on the pretext of the source not supporting the paraphrase when you dont even bother to look. Furthermore, many of your sources cant be verified at all because there's no link and no way to read about it on the web. You dont care about the truth. If you dont like the information you get rid of it. Plain and simple.

I dont know who you are but I have strong suspicion that you are on the job. Not exactly unheard of here. Wouldnt be the first time I encountered people like you. The spokesperson for the International Republican Institute joined a political forum just to defend the NGO against the New York Times article I showed and the moderator told her she needed to leave.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Showing one of the sources used by the TheTimesAreAChanging:

FrontPageMagazine.com: Remembering Sandinista Genocide (Really now? Sandinista Genocide huh? I had no idea)

What is FrontpageMagazine.com? Could it be what is called a right wing "fringe" source?

"FrontPage Magazine (also known as FrontPageMag.com) is a conservative online political magazine, edited by David Horowitz and published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC; formerly, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), a non-profit organization in Los Angeles, California.

Editors, columnists, and contributors: David Horowitz (Editor-in-Chief), Jamie Glazov (Managing Editor), Bat Ye'or, Lawrence Auster, Tammy Bruce, Phyllis Chesler, Nick Cohen, Ann Coulter, Alan Dershowitz, Larry Elder, Steven Emerson, Fjordman, Daniel J. Flynn, Sean Gannon, Billy Hallowell, David Harsanyi, P. David Hornik, Oliver Kamm, Lee Kaplan,

Martin Kramer,

Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris, Ion Mihai Pacepa, Walid Phares[5], Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes, Steven Plaut, Patrick Poole[6][7], Dennis Prager, Dan Rabkin, Ronald Radosh, Michael Reagan, Stephen Schwartz, Robert Spencer, Bruce Thornton, Kenneth R. Timmerman, David A. Yeagley, Walter E. Williams",

He uses sources fom the hard right and removes solid sources simply because he does not like what it says. He removes Chomsky citations because he says they are "fringe" but then he uses this? He called this "good information."--Horhey420 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you couldn't cite Chomsky. Far from it. Chomsky can be cited, but on controversial topics it is better to list him as the author so people know what they're getting. Editorials are reliable only for the opinions of the author that wrote them. Because you added large editorial blockquotes from sources like Time, I added an editorial response. I could have just used something the author wrote in book form if you found the website objectionable, but you raised no objections. However, I drastically cut that quote and many other soures I added once you were banned and I was free to restructure the article. I never cited any of the other sources you listed, so it is nothing but a list, irrelevant to me. The sources you listed also vary in credibility; Timmerman is an expert on the Middle East who is often cited by leftists for books like The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, and Walter Williams is a reputable economist and syndicated editorial writer. I would appreciate it if you stopped going off-topic: The Contras page is not being touched by me. Tell Jrtayloriv if you don't like what the editor there is doing, but I have nothing to do with it. When I asked you on the talk page of the Reagan article what sources you objected to, you gave me this list:

"Chamorro Cardenal, Jaime (1988). La Prensa, A Republic of Paper. Freedom House. p. 23. 38.^ a b c Williams, Philip J. “Elections and democratization in Nicaragua: the 1990 elections in perspective.” Journal of Interamerican Studies 32, 4:13-34 (winter 1990). p16 39.^ Cornelius, Wayne A. “The Nicaraguan elections of 1984: a reassessment of their domestic and international significance.” Drake, Paul W. and Eduardo Silva. 1986. Elections and democratization in Latin America, 1980-85. La Jolla: Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, Institute of the Americas, University of California, San Diego. Pp. 62. 40.^ Martin Kriele, “Power and Human Rights in Nicaragua,” German Comments, April 1986, pp56-7,63-7, a chapter excerpted from his Nicaragua: Das blutende Herz Amerikas (Piper, 1986). See also Robert S. Leiken, “The Nicaraguan Tangle,” New York Review of Books, December 5, 1985 and “The Nicaraguan Tangle: Another Exchange,” New York Review of Books, June 26, 1986; Alfred G. Cuzan, Letter, Commentary, December 1985 and “The Latin American Studies Association vs. the United States,” Academic Questions, Summer 1994. 41.^ a b John Norton Moore, The Secret War in Central America (University Publications of America, 1987) p143n94 (2,000 killings); Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction, 1993), p193 (3,000 disappearances); Insight on the News, July 26, 1999 (14,000 atrocities). 42.^ The Catholic Institute for International Relations (1987). "Right to Survive: Human Rights in Nicaragua" (print). The Catholic Institute for International Relations. 43.^ Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company 2007, 89 44.^ Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company 2007, 90 45.^ Gareau, Frederick H. (2004). State Terrorism and the United States. London: Zed Books. pp. 16 & 166. ISBN 1-84277-535-9. 46.^ Blum, William (2003). Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II. Noida, India: Zed Books. p. 290. ISBN 1-84277-369-0. 47.^ "Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration". The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406c.asp. Retrieved 2006-07-30. 48.^ Nieto, Clara (2003). Masters of War: Latin America and United States Aggression from the Cuban Revolution Through the Clinton Years. New York: Seven Stories Press. pp. 343–345. ISBN 1-58322-545-5. 49.^ Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, Nicaragua v. United States of America – Merits, ICJ, June 27, 1986, Factual Appendix, paras. 15-8, 22-5. See also Sandinista admissions in Miami Herald, July 18, 1999. 50.^ Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction, 1993), pp116-8. 51.^ Humberto Belli, Breaking Faith (Puebla Institute, 1985), pp124, 126-8. 52.^ Robert S. Leiken, Why Nicaragua Vanished (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), pp148-9, 159. See also Robert P. Hager, “The Origins of the Contra War in Nicaragua,” Terrorism and Political Violence, Spring 1998."

All of those sources are clearly reliable and about half of them (from authors like Grandin and Blum) are condemnations of US policy. Are Killing Hope or Empire's Workshop (sources I also added) less biased than FPM? You're desparately trying to "catch" me make a single slip-up. I never said that everything in the Time article on Indonesia was "factual"; I said that Suharto had popular support in 1965, and he certainly did. The killings were an outburst of collective insanity largely carried out by ordinary people. Finally, a quick look at the edit history will show that I never called FPM "good material". Your habit of combining unrelated quotes is showing. And who would pay me to write about Indonesia in the sixties?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

05:47, 24 July 2012‎ TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs)‎ . . (84,790 bytes) (+2,440)‎ . . (Restoring good material)--Horhey420 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll school you in foreign affairs. That's why you resorted to censorship instead adding or improving. Better get back to your sanititation missions.--Horhey420 (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your revision. You deleted my Human Rights Watch citation which was:

Human Rights Watch rebutted the administration's allegations, stating that:

"Whatever the sins of the Sandinistas -- and they are real -- this is nonsense. Between 40,000 and 50,000 Salvadoran civilians were murdered by government forces and death squads...during the 1980s. A similar number died during Somoza's last year or so in Nicaragua, mostly in indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population by the National Guard. The number of civilian noncombatants killed by the armed forces in Guatemala during the 1980s cannot be known, but it is probably the highest in the hemisphere. As to Nicaragua, taking into account all of the civilian noncombatant deaths attributable to government forces in the more than seven years since the Sandinistas consolidated power, it is difficult to count a total of more than 300 of which the largest number of victims were Miskito Indians on the Atlantic Coast in 1981 and 1982. [Furthermore], Americas Watch knows of two cases of [Nicaraguan] political prisoners in the sense in which that term is used in the United States. [one of these] had been arrested for evading the military draft. He was subsequently released without charges and is not presently serving in the military. Also at this time, Amnesty International has no currently adopted "prisoner of conscience" in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas."[2]

To this by Alan Dershowitz's Front Page Magaine:

Author Jamie Glazov denounced Sandinista atrocities:

Numerous human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Commission, have documented the atrocious record of Sandinista human rights abuses, which stood as the worst in Latin America. Political prisoners in Sandinista prisons, such as in Las Tejas, were consistently beaten, deprived of sleep and tortured with electric shocks. They were routinely denied food and water and kept in dark cubicles that had a surface of less than one square meter, known as chiquitas (little ones). These cubicles were too small to sit up in, were completely dark and had no sanitation and almost no ventilation."[3]

You are either an extremely dishonest right wing reactionary or you work for an NGO or the government.--Horhey420 (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And all those sources cant even be verified but then you remove my content on the fraudulant grounds that the source does not support my "commentary". You lier! Hipocrasy!--Horhey420 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lies and personal attacks

This is the edit Horhey mentioned earlier. Here is the text I called "good material":

For decades, Nicaragua had experienced some of the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Within a few years of Sandinista rule, wages had been fixed below poverty level and there was mass unemployment. There were shortages of nearly all basic goods, with inflation at 30,000%. Government studies found that three-quarters of schoolchildren suffered from malnutrition, while living standards were lower than Haiti. The World Bank found that Nicaragua was on the economic level of Somalia.[42]

However, Time Magazine did not blame Sandinista policy for the economic hardship: "Since 1985 Washington has strangled Nicaraguan trade with an embargo. It has cut off Nicaragua's credit at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The contra war cost Managua tens of millions and left the country with wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations and ruined farms. The impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua was a harrowing way to give the National Opposition Union (U.N.O.) a winning issue....At least 30,000 people had been killed in the war, and 500,000 more had fled".[43]

As you can see, Horhey was blatantly lying about what I wrote. He was knowingly lying, and intentionally conflating different edits. He has called me an "extremely dishonest right wing reactionary", suggested that I "work for an NGO or the government", and called me a "lier [sic]". The above material, on second thought, should be removed from Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration; it's about the Nicaraguan economy. But if Horhey persists in these attacks, I would suggest banning him from talk page edits.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently removing this part: "Washington stumbled on an arm's-length policy: wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves. Since 1985 Washington has strangled Nicaraguan trade with an embargo. It has cut off Nicaragua's credit at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The contra war cost Managua tens of millions and left the country with wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations and ruined farms. The impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua was a harrowing way to give the National Opposition Union (U.N.O.) a winning issue....At least 30,000 people had been killed in the war, and 500,000 more had fled".[43]

And it doesnt matter. That Front Page Mag source was added by you to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration and the Human Rights Watch report was removed. Sandinista Genocide? Really? Pol Pot-like? The Reagan administration didnt even go that far.--Horhey420 (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence wasn't there during that edit. Do you want me to add it? I'll add it, if you want.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want anything except the termination of your ability to edit. I dont even want to contribute here. Only for you to be held accountable for censorship. It has to be done or Wikipedia will be tainted. Removal of content without first improving it if necessary. Meaning, discussing with me what you think should be done. I went to bed after we had a constructive night working together on the Indonesia page only to wake up to everything being removed after you said you would keep it in there. I though to myself, "omg, he just couldnt resist. He cant help himself." I felt betrayed by you. I actually thought we could a long even if we didnt agree on these issues. You wanted to play dirty and you got away with it over and over again. Do I need to go through your record some more? How about I lay it all out?--Horhey420 (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that's why the administrators never remove content untill you and your buddies form your "consesus" because they know it's wrong. Nice loophole.--Horhey420 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't even want to contribute here". In his own words, Horhey admits that he doesn't deserve the privilege to edit here. Yes, Horhey, I tried to compromise with you on the Indonesian page, and an administrator you helped attract removed far more than I ever suggested. I didn't remove it, nor did I get you blocked. I treated you nicer than most of the editors you dealt with. I have apparently only encouraged you to believe that your arguments are legitimate and worthy of response.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, the loophole I just mentioned. You do the dirty work untill you and your buddies reach a dubious consesus and then that administrator reinforces it and goes even further on the pretext that the section should only be 1 inch tall after it had been the largest on the page before I added anything. Now it is the smallest section I believe. Dont tell me politics has nothing to do with it. Political people contribute here. Authors, politicians, columnists, commentators, activists, think tank members and so on. It may not be a conscious deliberate political act but everyone has their own views and that is the lens in which they see these things. It influences their decisions. That administrator used the term "anti-American" to describe my edit to that page which was declassified (anti-American I guess) US documents and Congressional testimony on the US role in the PKI massacres. You dont have to be engaged politically to know that only the right wing uses that term . So he was essentially saying I was anti-American for showing internal documents detailing Washington's involvement in those events. The implicit message is they shouldnt be shown at all. Im bored. Please stop responding so I can just go.--Horhey420 (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing Crisco 1492 of being part of a right-wing conspiracy? If so, please remember that he is an admin and that you are not supposed to use personal attacks. I assure you that he, Merbabu, and I are not part of a "censorship" cabal on par with what you described. Far from being "buddies", I had never interacted with Crisco prior to this dispute. Finally, you took documents out of context, for example by citing the embassy's request for arms but not the State Department's refusual. The amount of quoting was excessive and WP:UNDUE. We've been over this.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. For one thing, I wasnt aware of that part. But if you want to go there, you went even further. You left this part out:

U.S. Embassy staff reported Indonesia’s request for "communications equipment and small arms to arm Moslem and nationalist youths in Central Java for use against the PKI" and sought "more explicit guidance as to how this matter is to be handled here." The State Department stonewalled the request, replying: "There was to be no implication of providing anything more than medical supplies already authorized, but the US officials could ask questions to clarify any Indonesia requests for additional aid."[4] The CIA concluded that "Early assessment of the political direction and longevity of this military leadership must be accomplished and, before any overt or readily visible assistance could be offered, its legal authority as well as its de facto control must be confirmed." However, "We should avoid...being too hesitant about the propriety of extending assistance provided we can do so covertly, in a manner which will not embarrass them or embarrass our government." The CIA report acknowledges "covert credits for purchases delivering any of the types of material requested to date in reasonable quantities." Although, the report states that requests for small arms should not be granted "at this time", due to the danger of "incurring political risk", it concludes that "these risks, however, must be weighed against the greater risks that failure to provide such aid which the Army claims it needs to win over the PKI might result in reduction of the Army's future political position and concomitant erosion of what may be a unique opportunity to ensure a better future for U.S. interests in Indonesia."[5]

You probably didnt know about it. I didnt untill I did more research into the State Department's "stonewalling".--Horhey420 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is the CIA's analysis. Whoop-de-doo. The article shouldn't read like a court document. The CIA's analysis doesn't matter. A brief summary of US actions (not actions the CIA proposed or suggested be considered at some later date) should suffice. The Chinese and Soviet role wasn't scrutinized with long blockquotes. And I see that you didn't back away from your claim that Crisco, Merbabu, and I are part of an imaginary right-wing conspiracy. You may be blocked from this page due to these personal attacks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By your standards I should've just removed your content on the stonewalling.--Horhey420 (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "The article shouldn't read like a court document."

Have you seen the United States intervention in Chile page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#1973_coup--Horhey420 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I didnt do it."--Horhey420 (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. But that may be a bad article. If not, remember that it is about American intervention in Chile, and American involvement there was more substantial. The article you were editing was about Indonesian killings, in which several foreign powers played a miniscule role.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about this one. Look at the US role section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat--Horhey420 (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a 1 inch tall section?--Horhey420 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Brazil coup page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#CIA_involvement--Horhey420 (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt--Horhey420 (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right. The first page (which you linked to incorrectly) requires cuts; it's not a good article. The second is far more concise than anything you've written.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third one is horrible, but a lot of it was written by you and it has multiple tags. That you would cite your own work as a precedent is shockingly dishonest. Everything you added to that page should probably be removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I added some bombshell newly declassified documents they would've been removed.--Horhey420 (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By your standards, this editor's work should have been removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt

"Because of the allegations, an investigation conducted by the U.S. Inspector General, at the request of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, requested a review of U.S. activities leading up to and during the coup attempt. The OIG report found no "wrongdoing" by U.S. officials either in the State Department or in the U.S. Embassy.."

This person left out a significant part of the report which is clear "cherry picking" because they should have known about the second half which is what I added: "but it also concluded that:

It is clear that NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government."

It should go both ways, no? Im sure you would've removed that person's work had you known about it. Sure, of course.--Horhey420 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not omnipotent. And by saying that "it should go both ways", you are admitting that you have cherry-picked quotes that support your agenda. However, I believe that conclusion was the most important part of the report, and indeed the reason it was cited. It doesn't contradict the Bush administration's claim that they insisted on using constitutional means to oust Chavez (despite his violations of the constitution).

I don't like to let arguments go unchallenged. You have called me "extremely dishonest", a "right wing reactionary", a paid agent of "a NGO or the government", a "lier [sic]", and a "hypocrite". You have also suggested that Merbabu and Crisco are my "buddies" and that we have formed a conspiracy to "censor" you. In addition, you took issue with an editorial I used to counter the editorials you added, suggesting that its right-wing bias proved my moral corruption, despite the fact that I also cited far-left sources like Killing Hope. These are very serious accusations. I know that I am foolish to respond. But, as I said, I never like to let an argument go unchallenged. I feel a need to explain to you why you are wrong. That you remain unrepentant is perhaps the best evidence that you should never be unblocked.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access removed

Horhey, I warned you earlier that if you continued to use this talk page to attack other editors your ability to edit it would be revoked. As you have continued to make personal attacks on others, I've turned off your access to this page. If you would like to appeal this block, please use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. However, any request for the block to be lifted which does not address the reason for the block, and its subsequent extension, is almost certain to be rejected. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

1. "Real Politics: Why Suharto Is In and Castro Is Out" The New York Times, October 31, 1995
2. "Human Rights in Nicaragua: 1986, Volume 1986" Human Rights Watch, Jan 1, 1987
3. Glazov, Jamie, Remembering Sandinsta Genocide, FrontPage Magazine, June 5, 2002.
4. Telegram From Embassy in Thailand to Department of State, November 5, 1965; reply, November 6, 1965; available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxvi/4446.htm
5. "Foreign Relations 1964-1968, Volume XXVI, Indonesia; Malaysia-Singapore; Philippines" U.S. Department of State, November 1, 1965