Randroide

Bueno, pues me uno al club de los exiliados políticos del antro de la wikipedia versión española, esta vez de la mano de un tal Dodo, se supone que por esta discusión http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discusi%C3%B3n:Santiago_Carrillo&diff=prev&oldid=6761884 en fin, por mí que se pudran, no me extraña que la wikipedia:españa sea la décima en artículos teniendo la segunda población mundial más elevada, con bibliotecarios como esos, dentro de poco habrá que llamarla, Wikipedia:version_marxist_&_censored, menos mal que sé inglés--Ehrenritter 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) PD:¿No se podrá hacer nada para atajar esta situación?Reply

Hi. You're new to wikipedia, so I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles are not the place to express your own views - which is what the image does. It is unnecessary and gives no information to the reader whatsoever. I cannot be bothered going into an argument with you, but your remark about freedom was unnecessary, and also irrelevant. -- infinity0 17:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Btw, I can say freedom in those languages. :P -- infinity0 18:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good for you. Randroide 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Randroide.Reply

Well, the L'internationale comment is on my own user page - I'm not attacking anyone else. You seemed pretty fanatical that left-wing politics is anti-freedom. Why such a strong view? -- infinity0 18:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where you say "fanatical" I say "with clear ideas". You also said Why such a strong view?. Well, it is not a "view" (a "view" is something subjective), it is a constatation of reality. Look at what Communism made in the 20th century. Left-wing politics always means the subordination of the individual to the "collective" (i.e., to the group of individuals with the biggest club), and that always leads to

tyranny. Randroide 19:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just think making such a sweeping claim is unsupportable. Likewise I wouldn't say all right-wing politics is exploitative or coercive. As for subordination of the individual to the collective, you can argue individualism subordinates society to the individual. -- infinity0 19:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't say all right-wing politics is exploitative or coercive. You should say it. I am going to say it: Right wing politics coerces in different ways the individual (the draft, compulsory prayer, outlawing of drugs and homosexuality..).

you can argue individualism subordinates society to the individual. No, you can not. Individualism recognizes the rights of the individual, Period. BTW, "the collective" has no special rights, only the rights of the individuals that make the collective. The entity made by the sum of the individuals has NOT special rights. Moreover, if you want to enforce "collective rights", you would nedd to choose WHICH collective are you going to favor, and all that degenerates very quickly into tribal warfare.Randroide 19:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not only does it recognise individuals' rights, it makes the individual an end in itself. Since the world is made up of many individuals, they undoubtedly conflict - some individuals' rights conflict with others'. The winners becomes stronger - it is an unstable equlibrium. That degenerates much easily. -- infinity0 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Quiero ayudarle, pero no sé el método correcto de "upload" las imagenes correctamente. Lo siento. LaszloWalrus 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

En esta wiki no me afecta. El baneo es solo de aquella. Cada cierto tiempo aquella wiki me desilusiona; ya en el pasado una vez me autoexile yo mismo. Aquella no tiene las estricturas que tiene esta. Alli es facil que biblios mediocres abusen de su poder. Aqui el sistema carece de menos fallas pues los biblios tambien pueden ser disciplinados (y lo son) por otros biblios. Ademas hay otras instancias (arbitraje) a las cuales se puede apelar. Pero alli cuando regrese voy a denunciar a Taichi por mentiroso y por abusar de su poder. Saludos. Anagnorisis 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Randroide, no vale la pena que nos peleemos. Tenemos puntos de vista demasiado opuestos.

Un Saludo --Burgas00 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sé que me dejaste en mi página un mensaje, pero no he podido contestarte, porque me han bloqueado la IP. ¿Te han bloqueado también a ti en la wikipedia hispana? Has de saber, en ese caso, que formas parte de una larga lista. En caso contrario, ¿podrías informar en la wikipedia hispana de la medida unilateral y arbitaria tomada por Dodo contra mí? Basta con que pongas en http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Yavidaxiu, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Byj2000 http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n:Netzahualcoyotl&action=edit&section=new http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Xenoforme http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Ornitorrinco

o en cualquiera que quieras, el siguiente mensaje:

El usuario Visitante no puede participar en la wikipedia porque ha sido bloquado a perpetuidad por Dodo. Según él, por usar la expresión "sectario" para describir lo sucedido con en el artículo dedicado al 11-M. ¿Cómo debe calificarse entonces el intento de relegar y finamente suprimir un punto de vista relevante (son los diarios como El Mundo o cadenas como la Cope) para imponer un punto de vista único (el de El país o ABC por ejemplo)? En cualquier caso, el comportamiento sectario se reproduce aquí, ya que Dodo no actúa cuando él o sus protegidos (llaménse Hispa, Petronas o Igor21) se desfogaron en términos mucho más ofensivos contra los que intentan incluir otro punto de vista (y, notése, no suprimir el suyo, como intentan ellos) en este artículo (como puede comprobarse en el historial de esa página). Finalmente, el usuario Visitante no sólo ha sido bloqueado a perpetuidad, sino que su página personal ha sido borrada sin más miramientos. Se da la circunstancia de que Hispa, Dodo y demás ya habían intentado borrarsela organizando una votación de las suyas. No tuvieron éxito, y ahora han optado por las bravas: Borrarla y punto. Y bloquea al usuario a perpetuidad para que no tenga ni derecho a réplica. ¿Cómo ha de calificarse este comportamiento para no herir sus delicadas sensibilidades? Para más inri, la principal novedad que Visitante había incluido en su página personal (antes de que Dodo la elimase de un botonazo) era el siguiente testimonio (dirigido por Xocoyote a Luis María Benítez, un exiliado más en la wiki inglesa):

Primero supe de ti, cuando lei la biografía de Bjork, en donde hiciste un gran trabajo. Después empeze a tener problemas con usuarios como dodo, especialmente en la página Isaac Newton, en donde pedía que hubiera neutralidad ya que yo decía que Isaac Newton estaba interesado en la alquimia, esto sin tener la menor idea de la vida de Isaac Newton, ya que pude demostrar lo que ponía, y la pagina de Isaac Newton paso a ser un artículo destacado y en estos momentos se encuentra en la portada. Mi nombre de usuario en wikipedia en español es xocoyote. SIn embargo com tu, decidí retirarme con este mensaje.

La alquimia no forma únicamente parte escencial en el contexto histórico en que vivía Newton. Para Newton la alquímia era un posible puente entre la teología y la filosofía natural. Encontrar este puente es lo que se le llama el proyecto Newtoniano, y era en lo único que pensaba Newton. Teología-Alquimia-Filosofía Natural.

Me parece que hay muchos usarios (como Ascánder y Dodo) que prefieren que wikipedia sea una recopilación de datos importantes, mi intención no es insultarlos, es proponer un cambio. Si wikipedia no es lo que yo creo que es entonces yo, como Newton que no quizo publicar el Opticks hasta que Hooke muriera, me abstendré de participar hasta que esto cambie--xocoyote 05:49 16 ene 2006 (CET)

y quize buscar otros usuarios que tuvieran las mismas opiniones que yo. Fue donde te encontre. No se de que sirve mi mensaje, simplemente de apoyo me parece. Saludos desde Mexico.....Xocoyote.--201.138.124.107 17:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Como puede verse, en este mensaje Xocoyote criticaba la actuación de Dodo y su tropa, pero para nada en términos insultantes, sino muy respetuosos (más de los que ellos habían sido con él). Y ha sido precisamente en esta ocasión, cuando el susodicho Dodo optó hace ya varias semanas por borrarle su página personal y bloquearle la IP.

Gracias. --Visitante 15:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gracias por tu información, porque no sabía cómo se pedía mediación, ni siquiera qué era. Desgraciadamente, mi inglés no me permite tales ejercicios, y tampoco puedo intervenir asiduamente en este momento (me limitaba a revisar como iba la wiki hispana y vi lo que había sucedido con el artículo del 11-M cuando fui bloqueado). Ya tuve mis broncas en la wiki con algunos de los que mencionas. A Igor21 y Petronas no los conozco mucho (estaba ya reduciendo mi partipación en la wiki, cuando ellos hacían su irrupción, desde luego estruendosa). Supongo que enseguida optuvieron la condición de administradores (alias bibliotecarios), dados su méritos.

Hispa, Xenoforme y Ecenaml llevan algo más (no más que yo, desde luego) y ya han moderado sus formas (que no sus objetivos de monopolio ideológico) desde que aparecieron.

En cuanto a Dodo, es posible que no hayas tenido problemas con él. Creo que sólo usa los insultos típicos, como troll, etc, pero está claro de que lado está, a quien defiende y a quién persigue, su doble rasero en definitiva. Responde a la clásica figura del "poli bueno" en tantas películas.

En fin, ya probaré en el ordenador de algún colega, para intentar recuperar mi página personal y poder informar de cómo he sido bloqueado en la wiki hispana.

Suerte, en cualquier caso. Y paciencia, que las vas a necesitar. :) --Visitante 16:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Supongo que te habrás dado cuenta de cómo copie en la página de discusión de esta wiki, la última versión de las hipotesis alternativas del 11-M. En fin, ya puedes usar tal página de discusión (queda en el historial). En inglés, escribía como User talk:Gimferrer. Por si nos encontramos...

I read the talk page of Wikipedia and you had a big argument there. I was working on a long thread with regards to 9/11 and I think I've gone far enough and as a sidetrack I am trying to fit 11-M, Equatorial Guinea, Repsol-Oscar Fanjul-Marsh/Kroll in there, however my Spanish is too limited to understand 11-M and the wiki page is the usual lies.

I'm sure that it'll fit in there perfectly since the failed Equatorial Guinea coup failed and was blamed on Simon Mann, however that was not the end point the media made it out to be, since his company is ultimately owned by Marsh/Kroll who are in the literally in the middle of 9/11 as well and have Oscar Fanjul on their board as their biggest board member. It's very deep politics, but if you can explain 11-M a bit, it'll be much appreciated esp. with sources (5-6 paragraph limit per source though)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x97987#98201 (Warning: The 9/11 part is very deep politics and difficult and it's the latest theory)

Dr Debug (Talk) 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Official stories are always lies. No government will ever tell you the truth, since all the key people who did 11-M are still in place.

I don't think that most saw that Equatorial Guinea link and there was only a discussion about it on an obscure conspiracy site, so the point is whether you have links about the people who have connections with Spanish intelligence (you are talking 36 out of 40 as well) and maybe to Marsh / Kroll or any of their subsidiaries or mercenaries. Especially if there are stories about mercenary teams and what companies they work for.

The EG coup has an odd timing, because it was on March 10 that Obiang pointed to finger at UK, US and Spain and Spain wanted to grab $4B a year, US $1B and UK some extras and that news report was immediately buried by 11-M.

11-M could have been done to silence the news about that coup and was a desperate last moment attempt, or it should have been earlier on March 8 when the EG coup was supposed to have taken place and would have diverted attention away from the oil grab and ensured an election victory as well. Either way they can be connected events since everybody forgot EG and started to talk about it months later.

The thing which frustrated 9/11 research upto now was the fact that nobody thought of privatized mercenaries/ black ops teams and looked and I get the impression that that is the system of the new millenium, since those companies can be used by anybody. Instead of Spanish intelligence, CIA, MI6, there is probably a new system where you have one team to use for everybody hidden in corporations. We have found that Marsh/Kroll has the top US, top UK and the top ex-KGB teams in their company so it's the best team for these things and it's privatized so everybody can use it.

Another team of patsies is part of their cover up story and they are usually drug dealers in reality, because drugs is a major part of their own operations and they are the standard patsies in 9/11, 7/7 and probably OKC as well. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The short EG story. The idea was March 8: Coup d'etat Severo Moto Nsá becomes president and gives $4B of oil to Repsol and $1B to Marathon Oil and some other "favors."

The reality was: France snitched because it was Total's oil. March 7: The mercenaries are arrested in Zimbabwe and on March 10 Obiang accuses the guilty persons. March 11 nobody pays any attention to the story anymore. August 25 Mark Thatcher is arrested in South Africa and the story makes headlines again. Dr Debug (Talk) 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The drug dealers stuff is enough for now, because that's the standard patsies for every operations. 9/11 was financed with drug money, because it cannot be traced (See: Iran-Contra which was the first time such a construction was used and http://madcowprod.com ). If it was similar and it appears to be similar, then there will be no direct link to the people who did it and France/ Spain/ Marocco or whatever. That were the 80s operations, but everything is privatized now, because that's safer. Think of a sort of global GAL which everybody can use. It may sound far fetched, but I'm sure it exists. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

...un poco el apartado Controversy regarding responsibility de 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings para hacerlo más neutral. Tal vez puedas echarle un ojo para ampliarlo o mejorar mi pésimo inglés. --Gimferrer 19:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Más bien le he pedido favores a algún que otro angloparlante :p. En esta wikipedia hay algún que otro exiliado que domina el inglés (Zapatencas o Luis María Benítez).Tal vez pueda contactarse con los autores de este texto... --Gimferrer 19:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Contacta, contacta, sobre todo con los del foro de 11m.documental, que yo no voy a poder conectarme en los próximos días. Lo siento. --Gimferrer 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Echale un ojo, para ver como va quedando. Y, cuando yo me vaya, añadele algo más, que tú sabes más que yo (por lo que deduzco de la página de discusión). --Gimferrer 18:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hola, soy Visitante (otra vez, pero con el nick que usó aquí, que es el de User:Gimferrer. ¿Podrías enviarme un correo a la dirección visitantexiliado@yahoo.es? Seguramente te interese lo que tengo que contarte. --Gimferrer 11:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No va a favorecer en nada tus versiones en es:wikipedia. Una lástima. --Petronas 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hola Randroide. Thanks for for the note. No problems. Szvest 13:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}Reply

Please use this page User talk:FayssalF/11M. -- Szvest 13:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Randroide. Lo siento pero tengo un compromiso dentro de poco. Siguire con ustedes mañana. Vale? -- Szvest 20:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Si, he visto como ha evolucionado algo la cosa; aun cuando yo ya no me paso estoy pasando tanto tiempo por aquella wiki -cada cierto tiempo voy y leo algunas cosas. He leido sobre el tema en ambas wikis y hasta creo vote en alguna de esas votaciones o deje comentarios.

No te des mala vida. Para que si al final te consigues con aquellos acomplejados que se sienten dueños de aquella wiki y se cabrean todos si no les salen las cosas como ellos quieren. Se escudan en una excusa de "political correctness" y en las normas para abusar su autoridad sobre aquellos que no les gustan. A mi hace par de dias tu amigo Petronas me bloqueo por un dia porque le acorte el nombre a alguien (me referi como solo bestia a quien se llama bestialgo).

La verdad que cansa ... al fin y al cabo, para que darse mala vida. Tenemos la ventaja de hablar bien ingles, asi que para que perder tiempo peleando en una wiki menos rica y con tan solo una 10% del contenido de otra mucho mas amplia. Con el tiempo, o se acomoda o empeora mas; lo uncio que hay que hacer es esperar ... para que desgastarnos? --Anagnorisis 23:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Por si no tenias este website: http://www.oikos.org/aids/people.htm#mulQuotations Anagnorisis

Thanks for the notice. It's on my watchlist now, even though I'm unfamiliar with the topic I'll help with the best I can. Kedi the tramp (talk • contribs • count) (Respond to me on my Talk.) 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to revert it sometimes as well, however I don't spend that much time on Wikipedia and this is not a good media to tell the truth.

The official 11-M story is clearly a pack of lies. The following link might be of interest to you: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html It is a method of demonstrating with mathematics that the 9/11 report was a lie. If enough fundamental allegations - like the explosives - are a false then you can invalidate the entire 11-M Commission report.

As far as the theory goes, keep the Equatorial Guinea variant in mind ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=97987&mesg_id=99116 ) because it can explain the motive part. The Socialist party variant is not correct IMO because they were mainly covering up. If Aznar is innocent then why wasn't allowed to testify and why did he destroy evidence (actually his whole 8 years in government). The same with Zapatero who didn't want to testify either and it is likely that he knows more about 11-M as well.

An event on this scale with this level of professionality is very unlikely to have been the work of amateur terrorists and would have been performed with preknowledge and aid of politicians, corporations and the intelligence community.

The similarities between New York, Madrid, London and recently Mumbai are such that a part of the core team would have been the same. A team which probably itself does not have connections to the Spanish government, because that would endanger deniability. This explains why they used the wrong false flag (al-Qaeda instead of ETA), because they didn't study the ETA in detail.

As far as the disinformation campaign goes. It's standard. The lion share of the investigation cannot be done on Wikipedia since it's the job of the disinformation crew to keep people busy and keep on pushing the official story.

P.S. I consider Madrid solvable as well, because it's smaller scale. It requires somebody with good knowledge of Spanish though... Dr Debug (Talk) 14:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Buenas Randroide. Soy alex, hablo Español e Ingles pero bueno te hablare en ingles para que la gente que lea nos entienda. I consider myself as centre-right wing, i've just seen oliver stone's JFK and i've realised that either left or right wing m is today's cancer. I know in the USA i'd rather vote for the democrats, but in Spain i vote for PP because PSOE is maybe the worst party ever made with the worst members ever born. I had yesterday an advise for vandalism because i tried to erase this paragraph from 11-M article:

"a number of Moroccans were arrested [59] and it became evident that ETA were not behind the attacks [60], and that President Aznar and his government had manipulated the media, asserting ETA as the head of the operation though there were a number of clues - like a cassette tape with verses of the Koran in a white van in Alcala de Henares - that pointed to Al-Qaeda, or at least an Islamic involvement."

what a whole bunch of lies. Those of the readers who read this must know that no al-qaeda was behind the bombings, and that the idea of conspiracy in 11-M is like JFK's ... but as in real life in america, it seems that spanish people are not interested in knowing the truth.

Where are you from? i'm from valencia... see ya!

Si, tienes razon, pero igual vas preso. ;-)

Me refiero al ultimo mensaje que me dejaste. Estoy de acuerdo en la mayoria de tus apreciaciones sobre la situacion aqui ... pero ... no creo la solucion valga la pena que nos demos mala vida. Yo prefiero ser hedonista y comodo. Si, soy un snob. Estoy cansado de tanta mediocridad. Soy un romantico, pero solo en los ideales. Cuando se trata de lidiar y pelear con la masa ignorante soy un snob. Se cansa uno. Ya mañana te dejare un mensaje con mas sustancia. Ahora es tarde. Chao chao. Anagnorisis 02:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Si, pero ... como te dije, se cansa uno. Y al final uno no puede ir peleando en todo momento contra cada situacion y circunstancia estupida que hay por ahi. Nadie se da a basto. A veces hay que buscar la serenidad con una actitud a lo budista. Por cierto, a mi Han Solo siempre me parecio mas inteligente que Luke Skywalker. Luke esta bien para el papel que hace. Es una pelicula. pero el que se lleva a la chica es el otro. Igual D'Artagnan, mucho heroe pero poco folle -sus compañeros gozaban mas. Si, el salvo a la reina, pero y que? Al final salio jodido igual. Bueno, mucho de esto te lo digo por echar broma. Los mediocres prefiero ignorarlos luego de un rato. Estan bien para jugar con ellos y uno entretenerse, pero al final aburren. Saludos. Anagnorisis 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No por la reversion. No te preocupes. Sil lo hice por fastidiar. El que si no me gusto mucho fue el borrado del mensaje en tu pagina, pero no importa.

Una cosa que si es verdad como esta escrito el articulo es que no suena NPOV. Hace falta bajarle el tono sesgado. Por eso te habia propuesto hace tiempo que trabajaran en el atelir y terminar y pulir el articulo alli sin atraer atencion hasta que estuviera bien terminado. Un biblio luego haria la fusion de los historiales.

Lo que fastidia ahora son los que pontifican y buscan argumentos de hombre de paja. pero que se hace .... Saludos. Anagnorisis 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have already made a warning. Wikipedia has a whole procedure with templates for dealing with that and using the templates below, you can state the position of the conflict and move towards rule enforcement.

Normal vandalism:

1. {{subst:test}} Warning
2. {{subst:test2}} First level escalation
3. {{subst:test3}} Second level escalation
4. {{subst:test4}} Last warning
5. Go to WP:AIV, read the instructions on the page and the administrator on duty will enforce the rules.

Blanking:

1. {{subst:blank}} Warning
2. {{subst:blank2}} First level escalation
3. {{subst:blank3}} Second level escalation <- Conflict is already at this stage
4. {{subst:blank4}} Last warning
5. Go to WP:AIV and ask for rule enforcement

Right now your conflict is at blank3 since it is not a single occurance, so blank4 is the last warning. If it goes beyond report the user for immediately rule enforcement.

Template:TestTemplates has a more detailed description of the Wikipedia warning system. Dr Debug (Talk) 10:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Every user in good standing can issues warnings and deal with vandalism. The only thing you and I cannot do is enforce the rules, so you can issue warnings with those templates and even proceed to the final warning stage and if it goes beyond that, report the user on the Administration Intervention board and leave it to the administrators to handle it. Dr Debug (Talk) 11:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lo siento lo que me quiero cargar no son tus edits si no los de otros usuarios que han metido (y borrado) cosas que dejan el articulo muy npov. Deja que lo borre hasta hace 3 o 4 semanas, tu añades tus secciones y lo dejamos protegido. que te parece? --Burgas00 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bueno, Randroide. La verdad es que no voy a tener mucho tiempo asi que no voy a contribuir ni borrar nada mas estos dias. Pareces un tío mas o menos independiente (no digo neutral) y entiendo que te guste el tema este de las teorías de conspiración. Con que no seas un papanatas del PP que se cree que wikipedia es un panfleto político, me vale. Eso sí, sigo pensando que estas un poco loco... Why do you oppose gun control???? --Burgas00 12:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I starting to reference the text a bit. I personally that spelling and style is less important, because my spelling and style sucks as well, so I prefer to leave that somebody else. You wanted to change that part a bit, so maybe you can try referencing that part and I'll continue with the rest. At least that way we have factual story. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The preparations of 9/11 started mid 1999 with the building of the Office of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor in WTC7 which was probably the HQ from which everything coordinated since that bunker was not needed during 9/11 according to Rudy Giuliani. Madrid appears to have been mainly a Spanish affair and somehow never leaked (unlike 9/11 which leaked everywhere). The point is that the plans had to be ready and that maybe the schedule was unknown at the time. If it was already being planned in October 2000 then New York - Madrid could have been part of a chain of terrorist events. (A messageboard poster also noticed a weird reverse alphabet game in those terrorist events and since July 11, 2006 we are at I). Dr Debug (Talk) 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Solamente eso, y gracias por los pointers. Seguimos con el 11-M.

Hola Randroide,

Mis respuestas a tus preguntas (son breves):

1.¿Aceptas en general a "EL Mundo" como una fuente válida (quizás con algunas excepciones sobre las que te pregunto más adelante) para el artículo sobre los atentados del 11-M en Madrid?.

Si

2. En caso afirmativo en la pregunta 1: ¿Estas en desacuerdo SÓLO con mi propuesta de inclusión de ALGUNOS artículos de "El Mundo"

Si

3. En caso afirmativo en la pregunta 2: ¿Con cuáles estas en desacuerdo y porqué razones?.

Cuando tienen información claramente incorrecta, o cuando tienen titulares que no corresponden con el contenido, o cuando tienen afirmaciones sin evidencia.

4. ¿Se extienden tus objeciones a noticias publicadas en "La Razón" y "The Guardian"?.

Si, también - aunque hay que distinguir entre artículos donde la información no estaba disponible en el momento (en los días despues de los atentados) y los que si han tenido acceso a datos correctos.

--Larean01 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

No veo nada particularmente controvertido en lo que escribo. Se trata de hacer un artículo, no un batiburrillo o una versión tan vaga de los hechos que nadie la entienda. Dime en qué "introduzco controversias". No dudo que alguna habré metido, pero estoy abierto a la crítica. Lo que no puedes es quejarte de que nadie escribe y cuando me pongo a escribir criticarme por hacerlo. Repito: creo que mi edición está justificada y creo que adopta perfectamente un NPOV, pero si crees que no discútelo.

---

--Larean01 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pero el problema es que yo no digo que la mochila haya sido encontrada en los trenes. Lee bien la frase: dice que la mochila fue encontrada entre los efectos personales sacados de los trenes en la Comisaría de Vallecas. Esto no lo discute nadie, me parece. Tampoco creo que el resto de mis intervenciones sean controvertidas pero, repito, estoy dispuesto a discutirlas una por una.

Independent account of Primal Therapy results

see Primal Therapy talk page for questions -GrahameKing 00:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Estoy de acuerdo. Disculpa, tengo un reflejo anti-randroide dificil de controlar.

Hello - you were absolutely right to demand a source for the quotes I mentioned from Bialy. I didn't mean to give you a hard time about that. You're right about Wikipedia as a tertiary source, and I agree it's very important to cite sources for the things that go on here. Anyway, sorry to sound harsh earlier; you were right to ask for a source, especially as I thought I had provided one, but had used the wrong link. MastCell 18:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Randroide : Lamento la equivocación y para compensarte te daré todo lo que tengo que es bastante poco porque es el típico asunto que a nadie le interesa que salga y yo nunca habría pensado que alguien pudiera investigarlo. Según mis notas, la famosa reunión Fraga Gonzalez debió ser durante el verano de 1983 lo cual cuadra con que la hicieran en el chalé. Poco después se formó el grupo operativo en el que estaban Cassinello y Manglano Después ellos dos (F y G) se reunieron dos veces más : el 25 de Octubre de 1983 y en Febrero de 1984 para seguir con el tema cuando el GAL ya estaba en marcha. Parece que en el Congreso de los Diputados el 3 de Noviembre de 1983, Fraga dejó entender a varios diputados en el parlamento que la guerra sucia era necesaria para la autodefensa del estado y que AP no debía oponerse. Aparte de la fuente misteriosa que te dije y que sinceramente espero que encuentres también hay menciones a todo esto en los libros de Julio Feo y Melchor Miralles pero son bastante critpticas. El problema del PSOE cuando Aznar y Pedro J empezaron a darles caña es que si decía "eso lo pactamos con Fraga" entonces estaban reconociendo la autoría. Si te fijas Fraga siempre se mantuvo aparte e hizo alguna declaración ambigua cuando su partido estaba volcado en cargarle el GAL al PSOE. De todas formas si al final quieres que lo borre lo borro porque está claro que son cosas que no interesa que se recuerden y por tanto son dificiles de rastrear.--Igor21 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hola Randroide, I would appreciate your comment on the request for undeletion for the article "Spanish Gibraltarians".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_16

Gracias. --Burgas00 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, I bolded your "undelete" on that DR. I hope you don't mind. If you do mind, please let me know and feel free to revert. - Francis Tyers · 17:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes I also copy edited it so that it would be under Proto's comment. Gracias por tu voto.--Burgas00 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hola Randroide, la pagina ha sido undeleted. Sigo necesitando un poco de ayuda. Si puedes, añade tu voto aqui: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spanish_Gibraltarians

--Burgas00 02:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, "Ced" is short for "copy edit", by which I refer to really minor changes. "Delink date fragments" means I have unlinked something like "Monday" or "1999" . In general dates should only be linked where the daynumber and month are present - see User:Rich_Farmbrough/FAQ#Why_did_you_delink_the_dates_in_.3Carticle.3E.3F for more detail. Rich Farmbrough, 11:11 29 November 2006 (GMT).

Grácias. Conozco bién la problema de olvidar exactamente donde saqué un foto, aunque yo me acuerdo, de costumbre, en cual ciudad. Pero entiendo. ¿Conoce Vd. le película inglés (años 70) que se llama "If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium"? - Jmabel | Talk 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

What? 121a0012 13:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I did what you asked. --Silver Sonic Shadow 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tu bloqueado? Bueno, no me sorprende. Eres de los "demas", de los que no cuentan. Ha ha. Gimferrer? No se si el me dejo un mensaje. Pero me llego un email curioso. Y por curiosidad le segui la pista,y ha resultado interesante. Te sugiero veas lo que es. Puedes crear una direccion nueva de email. Y usar esa. O enviame un email a esta direccion: abc@bronti.com. Esa es una direccion que no uso para nada. Solo para darla cuando me registro en algun sitio publico; asi mantengo mis direcciones verdaderas libres de spam. Nunca la chequeo, pero si me envias un email alli, y me dices cuando, lo chequeo. Asi puedes hacerle seguimiento a esto que te digo es curioso e interesante. Por cierto, a mi un narciso con una sociopatia curiosa me bloqueo de por vida. Imagino el o que habra sentido al hacerlo -mejor ignorarlo; los narcisos que buscan llamar la atencion con acciones asi, prefieren ser despreciados que ignorados -por lo que es mejor ignorarlos totalmente. La verdad me hizo un favor, asi no caigo en la tentacion de ir a intentar editar y mejorar articulos. Ire a reirme leyendo porque te bloquearon. Ta ta. Sawadee kap. Anagnorisis 04:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Me gusta mucho esta pagina: User talk:Randroide/Trastero de Randroide/Página Usuario. No entiendo como tanto James Taggart que hay por aquella wiki, no ha venido a protestar aqui a pedir que la quiten. Saludos. Anagnorisis 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had modified it already and put it in my user page. BTW, this being the English wiki, perhaps we should leave messages to each other in English instead of Spanish -given that we speak both; this way if anyone wants to read what we say, they can. Anagnorisis 18:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ya, pero, ¿y qué pasa con el balsero que acaba de llegar a "nuestras" páginas (o sea, Florida) desde es:Wikipedia (o sea, Cuba) y que no sabe inglés?. Habrá que escribir alguna cosilla en castellano para confortarle y explicarle cuál es la situación en es:Wiki y qué posibles remedios existen, ¿no?.Randroide 12:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I read this in someone's discussion page in the Spanish wiki. It seems someone thinks way too highly of you -I don't, but you knew that already. Didn't you? ;-)

Quote

"La página de discusión está hecha unos zorros porque Randroide ha estado guarreando a sus anchas pero conociendo el tema y el personaje creo que te harás con el cuadro bastante rápido. Yo me he puesto a las ordenes del usuario Southwatford porque Randroide usa mis intervenciones para despistar del tema principal y no quiero facilitarle el trabajo. Te ruego que hagas lo mismo. Y vigila porque yo sin hacer nada ya tengo dos avisos de bloqueo por las malas artes de Randroide. Podemos pensar lo que queramos de él pero tiene una inteligencia extraordinaria, una tenacidad digna de mejor causa, un conocimiento de la letra de las normas exhaustivo y mucha picardía. Todo esto le hace peligroso en un entorno como el de la wiki inglesa en el que los folloneros estan muy mal vistos y la gente formal es muy aplaudida. --Igor21 14:02 30 nov 2006 (CET)"

Here is the link: [1]

What I find particularly interesting in that comment is how they say you are a danger (danger to what? their cause perhaps?) in a wikipedia where troublemakers are looked down and where formal guys are praised (isn't that the way ot should be?). I guess it means they think that in the English wiki they cannot control things the tribe likes to do it in the spanish wiki, where they can make trouble for guys that they do not like, despite those guys being correct and formal about their work. Otherwise, how do you understand that statement? Anagnorisis 23:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Randroide 11:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC) MY ANSWER.Reply

Ha ha ha. Chemically pure non-integrators! That is funny. I like your quote from Princess Leia. Did she really say that? Well, it doesn't matter; even if she didn't say it you have a good point there. Now, maybe for those guys we can start using as a reference for comparison counterparts from other works -if anything just for the fun of it. I am sure there are a few guys who act the way they act as resentment for what they see around them .... like ... is it Philipp the name? You know, Hank's brother. Cheers. Anagnorisis 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, you are being pursued overthere even for what you write here (http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n:Sanbec&action=edit&section=205]. This very interesting. I wouldn't miss this movie for anything. Watch out Bigor is watching, I mean Big Brother. Anagnorisis 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This time it is one week.

It is even more unfounded that last time. I paste here the text explaing the whole issue.

They are making my job easy: I have a new case against an admin in User talk:Randroide/Abuse allegations in the Wikipedia in Spanish.

Un saludo.Randroide 16:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Te escribo aquí porque he sido bloqueado (bloqueo 23:36 3 dic 2006) por Galio (...uno de los "KGB"istas) por "retiro de comentarios ajenos" [2]

Si te fijas, verás que sólo desplazo el cartel "trolesco", que fue añadido a posterior por Sanbec, rompiendo la continuidad de mi mensaje, en directa violación de w:es:WP:E:

"No modificar los comentarios en discusión de otros:".

De haber tenido que bloquear a alguien, el bloqueado debió haber sido Sanbec, por modificar mi mensaje, y eso sin entrar en si era ataque personal o no (a mí me la reflanflinfla: El que pone ese cartel es que no tiene argumentos).

Galio también cita WP:PU and WP:NOT en mi bloqueo, cuando resulta que yo ni he tocado mi página.

...y Galio es quien tiene en su página el cartel de la "KGB": NI se ha molestado en encargar el bloqueo a un tercero.

Es un bloqueo porque sí. Te sugiero que veas mis últimas colaboraciones para que veas qué tipo de ususario soy.

Me temo que me estan pinchando a ver si caigo en ataques personales o en usar un shockpuppett para protestar, y así bloquerame indefinidamente. Que esperen sentados.

Hola Randroide. He visto tu mensaje muy tarde y he estado moviéndome por es:Wiki. Me dirigí al bibliotecario Lin linao que por lo visto borró el troll. No es que yo comparta su punto de vista pero sí se ha dirigido a Sanbec. De alguna forma algunos biblios tienen que estar dándose cuenta de que algunos colegas no actúan tan ejemplarmente y algo hay que hacer. Por mi parte estoy cuidando al máximo el vocabulario y las formas porque esto está tomando tintes apocalípticos y mi máximo interés es que se restaure el buen ambiente (o algo lo más parecido a buen ambiente) y que se respeten las ideas de los usuarios, sean cuales fueren y, por supuesto, que no se actúe contra ningún miembro por su credo o ideología, así como el trato equitativo que debe existir. En este sentido, a pesar de tus oposiciones al grupo KGB, uno de sus miembros ha dicho cositas muy interesantes [3] Un saludo. --Iqlia 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

What a frikin mess! I am reading what is going on there and I notice that there is no need for me to be there to be blamed of stiring things up (something I was often accused off). You and a few others are doing quite well! Ha ha ha. What goes on there now is worse than when I was the one fighting with Taichi and Petronas and others. What has happened since I was kicked out? OMG! I see some biblios are material to make all of wikipedia proud. Anagnorisis 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

pero me temo que era inevitable. Es duro luchar contra un muro. Al final, el cansancio y la soledad nos derrotan. Parafraseando a Stan Lee en Silver Surfer: "Nadie escuchó nunca a una voz razonable si ésta es única". Otro día que tenga más tiempo (y un buen diccionario de inglés) tal vez te eché una mano con las referencias que has introducido en tu alegato, pero ahora no tengo mucho tiempo. --Gimferrer 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

No he "luchado contra un muro", Gimferrer. Simplemente he tratado de ser racional con los que han terminado por revelarse como irracionales. Es mejor que me bloqueen ahora que no dentro de varios años de trabajo wikipédico: Así me entero de en qué sitio estoy. Si los irracionales mandan en ese sitio y los dueños estan de acuerdo, es el momento de dejar de colaborar (a no ser que uno sea masoquista), lo mismo que uno no va a un restaurante donde esté prohibido fumar si quiere fumar.

La pregunta siempre es: ¿Qué dice el dueño?. Si el dueño decide que personas como Petronas, Galio, Dodo o Hispa (por citar algunos) tienen poderes ilimitados (que esa es la situación de facto en es:Wikipedia), es el momento de marcharse, o de reducir las colaboraciones a un mínimo absoluto. Yo no puedo ni debo obligar a Petronas o a Hispa a unirse a mi club de tiro, ni nadie me obliga a unirme a lo que, de facto, es su club privado: La Wikipedia en castellano.

En realidad los abusos no son totalmente culpa de ellos: Ellos hacen lo que está de acuerdo con su forma de ser. No dan para otra cosa. Es culpa también de los dueños del invento, que lo toleran.

Qué bueno es tener la guía del código ético de Ayn Rand para tomar este tipo de decisiones. Es muy simple: El dueño de una institución privada (hotel, bar, restaurante, o Wikipedia...) manda. Si no te gustan sus decisiones, nadie te obliga a tener tratos con esa institución. Me dan conmiseración los usuarios que se lo toma como algo personal o como un fracaso suyo: La única forma de no perder en un juego trucado es no jugar Última frase. Este sitio que nos acoje, es, me temo, un juego trucado. Hora de continuar con la propia vida en otra parte. ¡Hay tantas cosas estupendas por hacer!. Un cordial saludo. Randroide 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Randroide, suenas casi que como Hans Solo. Tu eras Luke. Recuerda lo que le dijo la princesa Leia! Anagnorisis 19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Tu eras el que me decia eso hace poco ;-)Reply

Que quieres que te diga Randroide... para mi, fuera parte de que lo estén haciendo o no bien (ahí no voy a entrar, aunque mi opinión... a quién le importa?) me parece que el poder de bloquear a alguien que tiene algo que decir, por mucho, mucho, mucho que viole una política determinada(que recordemos que es una ley y como tal merece ser interpretada en su sentido para "prevenir" y no aplicada en su forma para "castigar") es totalmente ilegítimo y con el debido respeto, por mucha dogmática eufemístia que tratemos de usar se llama censura. Claro, ésta podríamos decir que es buena o mala. Lo que pasa que para el Objetivismo la censura no puede ser ni buena ni mala, sólo censura. Y por lo tanto traiciona la propia Wikipedia (en mi opinión). Me duele el alma.

Y por supuesto, un saludo. Libertad y Saber 1:30 7 mar 2007

Wikipedia en español resulta ser bastante... irritante, a veces. Me entero que has sido condenado al exilio (no pudieron lograr que fuera ostracismo ;-). Tan pronto pueda voy a crear una campaña "para el retorno de Randroide" con banner y todo. Saludos. --Klausmeyer 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Muchas gracias por el apoyo moral, Klausmeyer, pero te sugiero que ni te molestes. Es:Wikipedia es un club privado en manos de algunos biblios. Yo no voy a clubes privados donde soy mal recibido. Mis intervenciones en es:Wikipedia van a ser homeopáticas a partir de ahora. Quizás lo mejor sea migrar a [4] o a la Libre Universal.

Es absurdo quejarse por las condiciones de servicio de una institución privada. Si a uno no le gustan, uno deja de tener relaciones con la institución privada, sea esta un restaurante, gimnasio, club o Wikipedia.

O Wikipedia empieza a ordenar su propia casa, o los forks la van a suplantar. Un saludo Randroide 14:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

A todo esto, en EL tienes ya algunos conocidos: [5] :p --Gimferrer 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Siempre queda lo que en Venezuela llamamos "el derecho a pataleo" (protesta o queja). En todo caso yo también he estado pensando, ya más a largo plazo, en apoyar más la Enciclopedia Libre Universal. Saludos. --Klausmeyer 13:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

...y mientras aún tengáis derecho al pataleo en Venezuela estaréis mejor que en Cuba, donde ni eso les queda.

Por otra parte: "Emigrar" en el ciber espacio es infinitamente más fácil que en el mundo físico, y eso es lo que yo he hecho: Dejar de colaborar con un proyecto que dice ser una cosa y en realidad es otra. Randroide 09:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Siento lo que te ha ocurrido, y me da verdadera lástima que wikipedia en español pierda a uno de sus miembros más brillantemente activos.

Un cordial saludo.

Antonio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.57.133.136 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

De lástima nada, estimado anónimo: Me he enterado de qué clase de sitio es:Wikipedia es. ¿Es acaso el ganar conocimientos algo digno de lástima?.

Más bien era lastimoso mi estado anterior de engaño sobre la verdadera naturaleza de la Wikipedia en castellano Randroide 09:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ja ja ja. No estoy seguro que pensar sobre ese "profundo y sutil"que mencionas. A lo mejor nuestro dictador benevolente no se lo penso asi. Por cierto, ese club del que hablas, yo si lo llamaria un pais, un pais donde hay un dictador blando que no ejerce su poder en todas las areas;se preocupa tan solo dela capital y una o dos ciudades mas. De los demas pueblos le gusta tan solo saber que existen y que crecen, pero le importa poco lo que ocurre alli,pues esta mas que contentoyocupado conel trabajo que le da su capital. Por cierto, son muchos los casos en donde un pais con un dictador blando puede funcionar mejor que una democracia dominada por una mayoria estupida (por eso las democracias solo sirven donde la gran mayoria de los habitantes estan bien educados como por ejemplo: Islandia, Finlandia). Animo, mientras uno no este obligado a quedarse en el pais, se aprovecha lo bueno mientras dura. ;-) Anagnorisis 14:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Por cierto, hace dias te debe de haber llegado um email de una cuenta que no conocias. Es de un interesante grupo que te invita a que te unas a los debates que alli se llevan. Porque no les visitas a ver si te parece interesante? Anagnorisis 14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Howdy Randroide! I've created this new blog, and even knowing how useless it's going to be for the greater assignment I hope you drop a few lines there. --Rolf Obermaier 02:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I explained at the summary box that I removed that content because it was redundant. A wiki link had been provided which included that info about the aftermath of Madrid's Airport car bomb (that had been copy-pasted into Zapatero's article). I actually did it for clarity's sake, and in the talk page asked for opinions about it. Sorry if it inconvenienced anyone, but that edit was done with the best intention. Cheers Raystorm 19:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you wanna put it in the article, could you please rephrase it a bit so it goes with the flow of the section (and doesn't look like something that was just copy-pasted there)? It clashes a bit as it is. And I repeat my apologies for any inconveniences I caused you, it was not my intention to make it look as though I was trying to deny that that had happened. I just thought that it was better explained at the Madrid Car Bomb article, is all, and as it had been wiki linked... Hapy New Year to you too :) Raystorm 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll get to it now, and if you don't like it you can suggest changes at the article's talk page? Cheers Raystorm 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Check it out! :) Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero Raystorm 19:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you like it! Listen, I just have one more question (and I'll leave you alone after that, I promise ;). Don't you think that:

...and yet others questioning the authorship of the 2004 Madrid train bombings with texts like: "Zapatero assasin: Who´s behind the 2004 Madrid train bombings?

is a bit redundant when you read it all together? Any objection to removing the example, so it reads:

Demonstrations across Spain followed the next day, most condemning the attack, others condemning the Government's policies and yet others questioning the authorship of the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

After all, the claim that the authorship of the March 11 attacks had been questioned has already been established, and a reference has been provided to check out the details of the demonstration. What do you think? Raystorm 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you think Aznar's article should be an example about what Zapatero's article should look like or aim to? As far as I've seen, Aznar's article is tagged both for unsourcedness and disputed neutrality. And I haven't found on the talk page a consensus or anything of the like regarding full quoting of banners, or Wikipedia's policy about it. How about a case-for-case compromise? I agree that quotes that add to the information provided in a section should be quoted. However, the quote I'm talking about is redundant in the context it's in, will you agree with me on that? I'm open to suggestions as to how to avoid this redundancy. Ideas?

And of course, you're not a nuisance at all either. :) I love finding a good wikipedian amiable to discussion and consensus that shares the goal of improving an article. Do you wanna try with me to get this article featured, with all the challenges this implies? ;) Raystorm 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you again! I just checked the reference, the full quote is (in English): 'Zapatero Assasin: Who's behind M-11?'. Now 'that' isn't redundant at all! Taking out the '2004 Madrid train bombings' will end the redundancy. I'm gonna go ahead and change it, because we're actually misquotating a source, something that I doubt Wikipedia approves of. Cheers! :) Raystorm 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I saw the edit and fully agree with it. Happy 2007! :) Raystorm 21:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

After 7 / 8 full talk pages you are still going strong. I know I left after I had gotten the information I needed for my research.

Anyway happy new year :) You gotta solve 11-M in 2007, y'hear. I'm counting on you :)

Dr Debug (Talk) 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Randroide, I offered a compromise solution in the article talk page. On a different subject, as you have previously edited Bulletproof vest, you may want to voice your opinion on the ongoing requested move survey. Regards and Feliz Año, Asterion^talk 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw this thing going on: es:Wikipedia:Comité de resolución de conflictos/Votación. At least you can still vote, unlike me. Go vote even if only for the sake of giving support to those that keep trying to change the politburo style of the way admins work there. Funny how one can say this here, whereas there one would be scolded, threaten, and then banned if the comment is not removed. BTW, notice that not many admins are voting for ed-up bird (FUB). Somehow surprising that in this case the other tribe members do not show their support by voting for FUB. Could they also be getting a bit tired of his tantrums? Maybe there is still some hope after all. Evolution eventually prevails. Anagnorisis 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

All your comments are very valid. And your arguments are good, and I tend to agree. However, one must never surrender. ;-) Nos vemos por alli. Anagnorisis 17:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment!... and your work! Sorry for all these horseshit-experiences or problems at "es:wikipedia". I'm trying to learn-speak english, hahaha, jajaja. U know. I have a new "mesetas.net reloading": �mesetas.net where I have posted -in frontpage- an article about "our stuff": "Una polémica importante: 1. Sobre las publicaciones científicas. 2. Lanka y Kremer: un caso polémico, el vih-sida.". In this article I stressed too the importance of the documentary: "The Other Side Of Aids". Thanks, from --Ivn 06:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Randroide 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

José Emilio Suárez Trashorras y su cuñado Antonio Toro Castro -dos de los imputados en el 11-M- [6] Búsqueda "Trashorras".

"Los 12 autores del 11-M" [7]

What's your point? Strictly speaking from a chronologically point of view, the narrative explains the attack, the claim by Al-Qaeda, the disclaim from ETA, the climb to power from the Socialists and the rise of doubts from the AVT. It not only fits perfectly, it is sourced and relevant, besides informative. Besides, saying that Al-Qaeda didn't have anything to do with March 11 is just your POV, since the only people processed for the attack are islamists members from an Al-Qaeda cell based in Madrid. I'm sorry you don't like the edit, but it's neither untrue nor irrelevant, and I think it should stay. Cheers Raystorm 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS: Regarding your Independent ref, nowhere does it say that Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the attacks. One thing is to find evidence of one thing, and another is to find evidence of the contrary. Cheers Raystorm 22:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Randroide, please do bother to read the edit again. It does not say 'Al-Qaeda did it and ETA had nothing to do with it'. It says Al-Qaeda _claimed_ it and ETA did not. End of story. And I'll thank you not to mess my talk page by using fonts of different sizes, the equivalent of yelling trying to make a point. It is completely unnecessary. Cheers Raystorm 10:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for changing it. :) Listen, I don't want to turn the AVT article into a 'who-did-it?' debate war like the March 11 page. If it really bothers you that much, you can add a line about how an Al-Qaeda connection hasn't been proven to everyone's (and especially the AVT's) satisfaction. I think that point is clearly made in the following paragraph, but as I said if you don't agree it has been stressed enough, another line (with a citation) can be added. But please, try not to add more than a line or two about it. That discussion (and all it implies) belongs to the March 11 page. A wiki link would be appropiate too. Cheers, and thanks again Raystorm 11:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The debate does not belong to the AVT page. However, _mention_ of the debate does. :) I've polished the sentence a bit, how does it look now? Cheers Raystorm 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for giving me all that time to check your sources. I should have been a little more careful in giving my reasons for reversion. It's something I don't often do. Actually I think the information about Arthur Janov's movements after he left The Primal Institute should go in the article on him. The only reason I put any reference to his marriages in the Primal Therapy article was for anyone wanting to check certification of therapists by him. I was naive about the date of his remarriage (see talk page on Arthur Janov article) - clearly what must have happened was that Vivian got the right to use his name on The Journal of Primal Therapy for five years as part of the divorce settlement.

As for him starting a center in New York, I don't know about that - you give no sources for that. Without a reliable source, I don't see how this can be included. If it is true, I believe this too should go in the Arthur Janov article. GrahameKing 22:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Correction: maybe that's not the best way to handle it either. This is complicated. I'm still thinking about it. GrahameKing 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Meanwhile: please talk to me on the Primal Therapy talk page where I put your work. This will give other editors a chance to contribute. GrahameKing 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I answered your question Alain10 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC). Out of curiosity, I would also like to know how and why you found my name.Alain10 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey thanks for the link, but I'm afraid I'm not an AIDS Dissident. Besides, I don't think it's fair any longer to establish a link between LGBT people and AIDS -it's not about sexual orientation, but hazardous sexual practices. Anyway, thanks for your interest.

About Manjon, I must admit I was as surprised as you by her supposedly association's interests. I don't understand why there was only a sentence about it at the very bottom of the article. I would think it's highly relevant if an association is taking steps towards something that could be construed as discrimination (not all arabs are terrorists, just like not all basques belong to ETA). Surprisingly, there's been little to none echo of this in the media. I wonder why. Maybe the journalist misinterpreted those interests (after all, how many people understand legalese well enough?). There should be a legal document about what her association demands somewhere....

Cheers Raystorm 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay in my response to your reasonable arguments in the talk page of 2004 Madrid train bombings. The situation there, by now, is, uhm, _problematic_

Hehe. You have a gift for undestatement I see. :) I just cruised the Madrid 2004 bombings' talk page, things are getting heated there. I saw you reverted Southofwatfords' edit, I imagine he'll do the same. It does seem the only way to stop an all-out edit war is gonna be a RfA after all. The sooner the better, I believe.

Btw, I'm not bothered at all by the link or the comments. I have been aware for years of this movement (I think I first heard of them in college). I just think that they discard too much info that doesn't fit into their hyphothesis, that's all. But I thank you for pointing me to it.

So you like your guns eh? :) Haha, why am I not surprised? Cheers! Raystorm 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't me. Someone else got to it before I could. Cheers Raystorm 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the future, please do post a standard template intended for new users to the talk page of an experienced user, as you did here with Template:test. Such postings are not constructive and can worsen already poor relationships. Thanks. John Broughton | ♫ 18:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You also have some reading to do Randroide [[8]]. Please tell me why you think you are entitled to ignore dispute resolution guidelines? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Southofwatford (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

I do not think that I am "entitled to ignore dispute resolution guidelines" Randroide 11:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I assume you knew this already. I think she will fit the role perfectly. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117950446.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anagnorisis (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

He, he. Yes, I knew. I hope they´ll do a film at least as good as The Fountainhead (film).

Yup, I agree with you: Angelina is the kind of strong woman who could play Dagny Taggart. Look a those lips, man...

Thank you very much for the link. I added the "Variety" link to the relevant articles in the Spanish Wikipedia (yes, I still do something there once in a blue moon). CU. Randroide 12:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I made a few comments about the diffs you provided to the Madrid 2004 bombing talk page. I hope you don't mind. My comments refer exclusively to the diffs you provided there, and in no way are intended or should be construed as 'judgement' or valoration of your overall editing capacity, ok? :) I just wanted to make that clear to you, in case any other user chooses to interpret them as such. Nonetheless, I believe my comments were pretty mild. Just in case. Cheers Raystorm 14:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Randroide, you cannot change history unless you start editing the discussion page without consent as well - it is something you do occasionally. Your remarks about the mediation and RFC procedures are quite wrong - the fact is you rejected my reasonable RFC proposal at the very last minute and before you had fully read it. That is borne out by the subsequent discussion. You never made a genuine RFC proposal, you rapidly changed a couple of lines of mine and tried to make it your own. Be careful here, I did not reject your reworking of my wording - I withdrew from the process without rejecting it. If it didn't proceed it is because you were unable to persuade a single user to accept your proposal. You have rejected the mediation process by making undiscussed, partisan changes to the main article - an activity that is entirely incompatible with Wikipedia dispute resolution guidelines. None of what I have said is false - if you ignore the disputed status of the article, and dispute resolution by consensus then you are breaking Wikipedia policy. Your reputation should be judged on your actions because they do not match your words. Southofwatford 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I changed slightly your sentence in the Aznar article, the Independent ref, so it reads they found inconclusive evidence about al-Qaeda involvement. The reason is that I found the report of that investigation, and it does mention al-Qaeda. I provided a ref. Cheers Raystorm 13:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excellent job, Raystorm. You wrote a perfect NPOV text including both sources. Randroide 14:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

That thing from Igor is funny ... and kinda sad also. "Entre lo sublime y lo ridiculo" some would say. Anagnorisis 16:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I first read Janov's books on primal therapy I was impressed. Unlike many of his followers I set out to find independent evaluations of his claims. I uncovered a lot of information about the history of primal therapy, but only two independent reports of research with Janov's patients. I noticed that the Wikipedia Primal Therapy article is starting to grow beyond a reasonable length for an encyclopedia entry. At present it is slanted in favour of Arthur Janov' claims.

I'm posting this on your talk page, Randroide, because verifiable sources of information I presented on Talk:Arthur Janov and User_talk:GrahameKing (History of Primal Therapy article) have been ignored -- possibly because most of them conflict with the picture presented in the books. I would be interested to know if you agree that my material represents legitimate content for a History of Primal Therapy article. -- Simon (81.174.211.241 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Please try to discuss things with other users rather than flooding their talk pages with accusatory templates. Four 'warnings' to Episodiod for one set of edits to a single page was beyond excessive. Particularly as he gave his reasons for the changes on the Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero page and you made no response there. Try discussing your concerns and preferences to see if agreement can be reached. --CBD 12:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, I made a mistake, I was not deliberately trying to do any deleting and dont know why these nasty accusations. Episodiod 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

These statements were taken from The early years of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (1960-2000) José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's years as an opposition leader and Foreign policy of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero --Episodiod 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

¡Gracias por los ánimos! La candidatura está siendo bastante reñida y minuciosa por ahora -de momento tengo 2 en contra, 1 a favor y varios que han pedido ciertos cambios, de ahí que esté hasta arriba de trabajo. Lo normal en una FAC. Es bastante raro que un artículo se convierta en FA a la primera, pero me dicen que las opciones son bastante reales. Aunque antes me haran hacer mil cambios. :P En cuanto pueda volveré a la página del 11-M a seguir debatiendo el asunto. ¡Con lo bien que me lo paso debatiendo allí! :-) No me dejéis mensajes ahí porque lo más probable es que no los lea. Si al final decidís ir a mediación, avisadme. Contad conmigo para lo que querais. Si te animas, pásate por la candidatura y échale un vistazo. Lo digo porque el artículo está relacionado con España, igual te interesa.

1 saludo! Raystorm 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Contents deleted by User:GrahameKing from his own TalkPage for reasons unknow [9]

I think that the discussion is interesting, so I pasted the text in my own TalkPage. Randroide 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I read through the recent discussions on Talk:Primal_therapy. I also added two more comments to the Talk:Arthur_Janov page. Did you send an email enquiry? The 1973 date for France D's marriage to Art is without credibility. After the divorce, to Vivian's great credit, she avoided the temptation to publicly humiliate Arthur Janov. After all, he wrote in the original Primal Scream: "It is instructive to note that married couples who have both gone through Primal Therapy have never separated." (chapter 12). And according to France D. Janov's own admission in the Primal Center's Video Series 2, she enrolled at the Primal Institute because excessive marihuana use had broken down her gates. So it's a fact that Art married a former patient.

My feeling is that despite being tagged as a stub, the content of the Arthur Janov article is just about right for an encyclopedia entry. It isn't really the place to dissect Janov's reputation. I know it happens in other Wikipedia biographies, but in many cases it has got out of hand. I agree with your suggestion on the Primal therapy Talk page that this kind of material belongs in a separate History of Primal Therapy article. The Conocer piece doesn't strike me as a sound source of verifiable information, so I put together some links to articles which can be found online:

• If you type Emotional Intelligence into Google the No.1 result is Steve Hein's eqi.org website. He interviewed a former patient who attended Arthur Janov's Primal Center in the late 1990's. You can find his interview notes here, labelled "cautionary note".

• Janov's bio on the Primal Center website states: "The latest research conducted at Dr. Janov’s Primal Center on the effects of Primal Therapy on the brain was performed by Dr. Erik Hoffman, former Professor of Neurophysiology at Copenhagen University." You can read what Erik Hoffmann, Ph.D., is doing now at Hoffmann's website.

• On this page you can find a transcript of Dr. E. Michael Holden's account of what happened to him after he left the Primal Institute.

Carol Mither's book, Therapy Gone Mad, identifies case histories from Janov's first two books that were written by defendants in the lawsuits against The Center for Feeling Therapy. -- Simon (81.174.210.118 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Thanks, Simon - Why can't you create an account like normal Wikipedians complete with a talk page? I don't think the History idea will come to much, There is just insufficient well sourced information to make much out of it - especially in view of Cgingold's latest analyses on the Primal Therapy talk page regarding derogatory statements about living individuals. I have already read the Michael Holden swan song twice - sad case. GrahameKing 00:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be applying two standards of evidence. The Primal Therapy article gives an outline of primal theory based on Arthur Janov's books alone, which were written to attract paying customers to his exclusive and expensive private treatment center. Last September, I wrote in the Primal Therapy talk page: Will the article have something to offer readers who want to know about Stettbacher's method, or the International Primal Association, or the plethora of copycat primal centers that flourished in the 1970s? There is sufficient well sourced information available for a history article -- for a start, two books about The Center for Feeling Therapy, Erik Hoffmann's bio, and the transcript of Dr. E. Michael Holden's audio tape which was played a number of times at the IPA convention in 1983. The books by Carol Mithers and Tomas Videgård are already referenced in the main article. I have a copy of Videgård's book, by the way. Also, Professor Steven Rose wrote a one-page account of his research with Arthur Janov in Lifelines:

"As Janov had hoped, it turned out that before therapy, the quantity of these particular receptors in his client's platelets was considerably below normal. Within six months of therapy, clients' depression had lifted, and the biochemical and immunological measures I was making approached the average for 'normal' non-depressed people of the same age and sex."

Further down the same page he added:

"I obtained similar biochemical results when, a couple of years later, I did a similar study with depressed clients going through other, less dramatic forms of psychotherapy, so I suspect that in such cases the therapist matters more than the therapeutic theory."

Having participated in the editing of articles in the past, I do not want to become like normal Wikipedians. In any article where there is the slightest hint of controversy the debates and arguments can become a colossal drain on time and energy. That's because no one actually "owns" any particular article and passing strangers can make edits too. I would only consider becoming a registered Wikipedian after there is a policy change to ensure that new edits are sandboxed until they are approved. -- Simon (81.174.208.243 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Another interesting post, Simon. The quote from Lifelines is clearly very important indeed. Thanks for that. Your other points and questions are more difficult to answer but clearly deserving of an answer.

You seem to want a standard in which anything called "primal therapy" by its practitioner is ipso facto Primal Therapy. I can not go along with this. If my treatment of the subject so far seems far from NPOV - i.e exclusively pro-Janov - it is at least in part because I have been trying to do justice to Arthur Janov's writings first of all (timewise). It's a huge body of work (I have all of his books except the 2 before his last, by the way). This is not because of any bias but because he invented Primal Therapy and has spent several decades developing it and training therapists and it seems to me to make no sense to address the subject from any other starting point. Your earlier posts had the effect of solidifying this approach because as I explored, for example, Alice Miller's experience with Stettbacher I found no reason to consider him as a Primal Therapist - it appears he was not only not trained by Janov, but not trained by anyone, had no relevent academic qualifications and had only a temporary government permit (which expired) to practice in his location and also it seems that he was later facing some kind of abuse charges if I remember correctly. I instinctively steered clear of all that not even mentioning his name because I was unsure of the sources and did not want to be part of a lynch mob (even long after the fact). Janov, on the other hand, has a PhD and, prior to Primal Therapy, had a long history of practice as a therapist (legally). If he has been up on abuse charges, I would be very surprised - it would have been a paparazzi paradise. It's like comparing chalk and cheese. I agree that Janov's books are probably written to keep paying customers coming in. But I also believe they are for his past patients from no matter how far back to keep them up to date and for anyone else who might get some help from them. If Janov was the author of the PT article it would not have lasted long at all - it would have been deleted as spam before I even had a chance to update it.

On the idea of sandboxing all edits for approval, if you mean one sandbox per article with its own discussion page, history etc. Then the collaborators would have to agree at some point to propose the sandboxed version for approval. In this case the approved version could be kept locked at all times (vandals could only mess with the sandbox which the average reader would not look at). All this might work in theory but I think it would still be too frustrating for most editors to deal with and not sufficiently gratifying for casual editors - so the whole process would grind to a snail's pace. (IMHO)

As for the History article - I was thinking of the development of Primal Therapy in terms only of theoretical developments and openings and closings of Janov-approved institutes. There is some mention of these Janovian spin-off centers in The Journal of Primal Therapy but that covers only five years (1973-1978), in which time there was one opening and one withdrawal of certification, so it's of little consequence now. While on this point, I should say I have avoided using my copies of this journal as sources because they are out of print and never had a very wide distribution. I may have used a double standard against Janov here in allowing Randroid's work on Tomas Videgård's book (or for Janov, depending how you view Videgård's conclusions). -- GrahameKing 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I realize it's no quick task to compose a synopsis of Arthur Janov's writings. It's true that all the available evidence indicates Stettbacher was not formally trained by anyone. My concern is not about redefining primal therapy. I'm trying to look at it from the point of view of someone who wants to find out more about the subject from an encyclopedia. It seems likely that the majority of visitors would fall into these categories:

1. People who already know the basics of Janov's theory from the books and want to find independent evaluations.
2. Fans of John Lennon or bands like Primal Scream and Tears for Fears.
3. People who've heard remarks about primal therapy on TV or seen a brief mention in a magazine or newspaper.
4. Alice Miller readers. All her books are still in print. References to Stettbacher have been expunged from current editions, but older editions can still be found on the shelves of public libraries and in second-hand bookshops.

For all but the first category, a brief outline of Arthur Janov's theory is an appropriate starting point. Beyond that, I can think of many questions visitors might want answered. These are just a few that come to mind:

• If Arthur Janov has been training primal therapists for nearly 40 years, why are there only two places -- both in Los Angeles -- where certified Janovian therapists can be found? If it's such an effective therapy why hasn't it been adopted by state-approved psychotherapy training programs elsewhere? I put this one first because it's a fundamental question. Janov wrote that he wants to give primal therapy to the whole world, but laments that it takes a very long time to train a good therapist. After nearly 40 years that excuse is wearing a bit thin.

• Why haven't any independent outcome studies been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Tomas Videgård's study is all that's available, and even specialist second-hand book dealers have trouble locating copies. Steven Rose gives one page of coverage, but no citation apart from a student's dissertation. Again, this is a basic question -- especially since Janov maintains that PT produces better results than any other kind of psychotherapy. Steven Rose says the results were similar when other therapeutic systems were investigated in the same way.
• Which primal center did Roland Orzabal attend? Did he go to Los Angeles or somewhere else? It's the sort of question a fan would ask. There's a Tears for Fears fan site which provides the answer. I didn't keep a note of the URL. He went to a primal center in London which is still operating to this day and has a website. I don't know if any members of the band Primal Scream experienced the therapy. It would be interesting to know.
• Apart from the case histories, with pseudonyms, is there any information about how life turned out for former patients in the long run? Where are the success stories? I mean from sources other than the proprietor of the treatment center. Dozens and dozens of biographies of John Lennon have been published. It's well documented that he and Yoko Ono split up for a year not long after they finished the 'primal' album. John Lennon relapsed into a drug taking binge that lasted for most of that time. There are many paparazzi photographs from that period showing him stoned out of his mind.
• Why is there so little information about the Primal Institute apart from a link to the website?

The primal therapists whose names were mentioned in Janov's early books remained loyal to Vivian. Nick Barton worked at the Primal Institute until he returned to England a few years ago. A patient who attended the Primal Institute in the late 1990s gave an account of his experiences online. His therapist was Leslie Pam. Barry Bernfeld and his wife are associate directors. What this means is that the Janov-trained therapists with the most experience continued to work at the Primal Institute until very recently, or are still there. Theresa Sheppard Alexander began her training at the Primal Institute in the early 1970s. When Arthur Janov opened the New York branch he appointed her as director. Subsequently, she went into private practice. I think it would be appropriate to at least mention her book in the Wikipedia article.

Art no longer conducts therapy himself. There are therapists at the Primal Institute who have more years of experience than any of the staff at Arthur Janov's Primal Center. To present Primal Therapy from just one point of view doesn't seem adequate to me. Vivian Janov contributed a great deal from the very beginning, although since the divorce, Art hasn't mentioned her name or given her any credit.

Is it an article of faith on your part that Arthur Janov, as the originator, is the only person who made significant contributions to the theory and practice of primal therapy? In 1977, Arthur Janov lost a legal battle with the International Primal Association over his exclusive right to make such a claim.

The Journal of Primal Therapy may only have covered spin-off centers from 1973-1978, but there are sources of information online, including the websites of several centers that continue to operate in the present. I'm not suggesting that their websites should be advertised, merely that it is historical information that's relevant and can be verified. They don't have to be named. I haven't linked to them. It's enough to state what many baby-boomers already know -- that copycat centers flourished for at least a decade and then dwindled in number. What will readers think if they can find this kind of information elsewhere, but not in Wikipedia?

I haven't attempted to insert material into either of the articles. As I said before, I think the Arthur Janov article is just right as it stands. The Primal Therapy article is quite long now. I didn't want to become involved with the Conocer debate. I added these recent comments because it took me a very long time to accumulate sources of information which answered the questions I was left with after reading Janov's books. Primal Healing is the only one I don't have. I know from the time when Primal-page.com had a discussion forum that many other readers wanted answers to the same questions. A separate History of Primal Therapy article would provide scope to add primal-related material which is not strictly Janovian. The Center for Feeling Therapy, the Stettbacher scandal and the Lennon sidenote are slices of history. -- Simon (81.174.213.187 13:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Some excellent questions and very good points, Simon. Have you tried asking the Primal Institute? By the way Nick Barton left the Primal Institute well over twenty years ago and set up a private practice in England.

You have made a very good case for some kind of additional article but perhaps something with a title more like The Primal Revolution after the book of the same name or maybe Whatever happened to the Primal Revolution?. But I don't think I will be writing it any time soon. If I do it will certainly be very negative on drug assisted therapy (LSD, Ritalin etc).

Nick Barton wrote an excellent article for the Primal Newsletter, which I think I have a copy of somewhere, entitled Why Primal Therapy Takes Time. I think this may contain the answer to some of your questions about the apparent dearth of Janov-trained therapists. Also the Primal Institute back then (post-Arthur), a training program of ten trainees might produce one or two trained therapists several years later. The problem though, I think, is when some of them get out on their own, all the pains that were implicitly held under wraps by their special situation as trainees have to be dealt with while they are trying to "be there" for their patients with no back up therapist.

I'm glad you like the PT article just as it is - you probably noticed that I used the Steven Rose quotes and I plan to get that book because it looks like a very good read and a refreshing change of pace. I also updated the PT article a little as a result of your comments above. I still think it could use some more work - especially about drugs (illicit and prescribed). There is the whole area of protypic responses to birth trauma which is difficult and I will probably never get into that because it is problematic and Michael Holden, I think, may be indicative of that - although, in all fairness, he was a very special case because, as I am sure you know, his heart stopped beating for 45 seconds before he was born. What "valence" of Pain would that be??? -- GrahameKing 17:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Simon, can you help me with the Steven Rose study described in Lifelines? Does the 2003 edition give references to the two reports on the studies in the scientific literature? There should be two reports - one on the double blind study on Janov's patients and one on the later study on the patients in some other kind(s) of therapy. It looks like it will be over a month before I can get a copy of the revised (2005) edition which is the one I've referenced. -- GrahameKing 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You asked if I put my questions to the Primal Institute. Yes. In either 1998 or 1999 Barry Bernfeld conducted a live Questions & Answers session about primal therapy in an online chat forum. I asked him if there were any primal therapists he could recommend in the UK. He said Nick Barton had returned to England but continued to provide individual sessions to former Primal Institute clients who had completed a three week intensive in LA. I can't remember why, but I assumed he had returned there not long before. I don't doubt that you are correct to say it was actually well over twenty years ago. I recall that Barry Bernfeld said the Primal Institute is still training therapists. He hinted that some of the potential clients in the chat forum might like to take it up as a career.

Training does take a long time. However, the questions that came into my mind were the same as questions other people have asked on forums and mailing lists. Apparently, Arthur Janov's policy now is to only issue conditional therapist certification. If they leave his employment the certificates are revoked. On the defunct Primal-page.com forum Réal Beaulieu said he was planning to take legal action against Arthur Janov because he denied Beaulieu was a Certified Primal Therapist -- on his website -- and accused him of unethical behaviour (an affair with a patient).

I wouldn't ask someone else to do the work of writing an article I wouldn't wish to tackle myself. The argument in favour of a history article is that it would get round the problem so many Wikipedia articles are afflicted with -- they seem to grow and grow until they exceed a reasonable length for an encylopedia entry. I can think of several Wikipedia articles which were split for that reason. I share your misgivings about the idea of drug assisted therapy by the way.

I don't know what conclusions to draw about therapy for birth trauma. Apart from followers of Otto Rank, I don't know of any therapeutic systems that address the issue. Neurophysiological evidence indicates that severe birth trauma can cause irreversible brain lesions.

Regarding Steven Rose, I don't know if the latest edition of Lifelines includes new material. I have the 1998 paperback edition (Penguin Books: ISBN 0-14-023700-3). There are no journal references related to psychotherapy. The central theme of the book is to debunk genetic reductionism. In the one-page digression, Professor Rose appears somewhat irritated by Janov's account of the research in New Primal Scream. You might be interested to know that there is a more recent book by Steven Rose, which, according to the reviews, includes a discussion of his research into biochemical correlates of psychotherapy. It's called "The 21st Century Brain" (2005). I haven't read it. I find Steven Rose's style of writing hard work to read. I don't know if the book mentions the Janov study specifically. -- Simon (81.174.216.161 10:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Simon, I haven't put your earlier points and questions out of my mind. I have found the Wikipedia editing quite demanding and am just not sure I want to put myself through another round right now. Also, I have grave reservations about the copycat therapies partly from personal experience though nothing like the horror story on Janov's webpage that you linked to above. If I was going to write anything along the lines you are suggesting I would recommend to anyone desperate enough to try a non-certified primal therapist that they trust their own feelings and do not allow themselves to be bullied or otherwise manipulated by the therapist.

Why is Primal-page.com defunct? Is it because I ousted it from the Primal Therapy article? Also what exactly was your connection to it?

You wrote "Apparently, Arthur Janov's policy now is to only issue conditional therapist certification. If they leave his employment the certificates are revoked." What is your source for this? - it doesn't seem to gibe with his latest exploit into training people who haven't necessarily even had the therapy.

-- GrahameKing 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the above questions are too challenging for you, okay. I can still view the primal page, so I don't know what you mean by defunct. Maybe this is what you might call a trojan horse link. -- GrahameKing 09:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

My, oh my! Aren't you the impatient one. There's no reason to make snide remarks. I have no idea what you mean by a trojan horse link. The name of the site isn't actually a link.

I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience with a copycat therapist or treatment center. You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. The inclusion of cautionary advice is fully justified. What I actually wrote was:

They don't have to be named. I haven't linked to them. It's enough to state what many baby-boomers already know -- that copycat centers flourished for at least a decade and then dwindled in number.

Primal-page.com isn't defunct, only the forum. Again, you appear to have misinterpreted what I actually wrote. The forum got flooded with spam. I don't think webmaster John uses php hosting, so he wasn't able to install a forum with CAPTCHAs and other security measures. I used to visit the forum to read accounts by former Janov patients and discover titbits of information that Art Janov keeps very quite about.

If you want confirmation that Arthur Janov's policy is to make certification conditional, email any member of the International Primal Association. Contact details can be found on the IPA website -- www.primals.org. Former 'certified' therapists who left Janov's center and joined the IPA spilled the beans on the forum.

QUOTE: "...his latest exploit into training people who haven't necessarily even had the therapy." Good grief! That's a major about-turn.

As you don't seem to have looked into the history of primal therapy, I can understand why you wouldn't want to tackle the subject. The German Wikipedia is currently undergoing a trial where new edits are placed on separate pages until they receive approval. If that policy is adopted here, I'm prepared to write the article myself. -- Simon (81.174.210.90 10:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Sorry about my misreading - didn't see the word "forum". You can't be seriously proposing that the IPA is an authority on what Arthur Janov does regarding certification. I don't know where you got the idea that I had not looked into the history of primal therapy (lower case). I just see it as an area that is so poorly sourced as to be virtually impossible to cover in a Wikipedia article that would survive a deletion challenge. Besides that it is an area that does not interest me. Even doing a similar article on Janov's Primal Therapy would be more than I want to take on just now - again mostly because of the sourcing problem. -- GrahameKing 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

HI Randriode, not sure this is the best place to message you. I would just like to point out that you debunking primal therapy website is not derogatory, I think you missed that when grahameking argued that, and then moonriddengirl echoed the complaint without checking or thinking about it. It is critical of primal therapy but not derogatory. It is also sourced in that the author proves attendance. It also concentrates on primal therapy and does not get into the biography of Arthur Janov. I know it is difficult to unpack the arguments put forward by grahameking or those influenced by him/her but be careful to to compromise too much if the arguments are essentially excuses to delete criticism. Aussiewikilady (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Posted on ANI: Randroide, has any administrator taken action about this yet? It would surprise me if someone could just delete 2 weeks worth of discussion from an article talk page without any consequences. Did you restore the posts that were deleted? Further, it seems to me that the policy he cited in deleting applies to articles, and not what is on the talk page. Since you were actively discussing the issue, it should have remained on the talk page, in my opinion. Jeffpw 09:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is interesting, both the synchronicity and that no admin has taken any action. Though I haven't read the article itself, it rankles me when somebody is ignored on ANI. I'm going to drop a line on a few admin talk pages, pointing out that no action has been taken regarding a clear policy breach. Jeffpw 10:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Glad to have been of help. Of course, it's completely up to you, but now that an admin has weighed in, it seems you are within your rights to restore the deleted comments to the Primal Therapy talk page. Jeffpw 11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Conozco y respeto tu posición respecto a la Wikipedia en Español, sin embargo, dadas las circunstancias te hago la siguiente petición.

Estamos luchando con todo el establishment wikipedista en español para impedir el borrado de un artículo. Después de despacharse otros similares pretenden hacerlo con éste, a pesar de que ya lleva más de un año de creado. Por eso quería pedirte que por favor consideres votar en contra del borrado (aunque estás autoexiliado creo que tu cuenta sigue activa, ¿cierto?). O si puedes ponernos en contacto con wikipedistas que podrían votar en contra.

La lucha es cerrada por eso acudo a medidas extremas de este tipo. Cualquiera que sea tu respuesta igual se agradece.

[http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consultas_de_borrado/Resistencia_Civil_%28Venezuela%29]

Saludos. --Klausmeyer 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (PD. En una próxima visita borraré este mensaje para evitar cualquier inconveniente)Reply

Ya he votado, amigo Klausmeyer. Si me pedías algo tan "in extremis", es difícil decir que no, máxime cuando está tan claro que el borrado es una cacicada. Ah, y no tienes por qué borrar ninguno de tus mensajes de mi página de discusión. Un cordial saludo. Randroide 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gracias, Randroide. Como pudiste constatar personalmente se trata de un obvio caso de abuso y prejuicio y la pelea es peleando. Saludos. --Klausmeyer 14:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Read my proposal for truce on my talk page. --GrahameKing 14:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a difficult area. I have enough trouble with it in English without trying to understand what took place at Spanish Wikipedia.

But be clear about this. There is a distinction made here (as at most places) between attacking someone's theory (or POV) versus attacking their character, reputation, body etcetera (personal attack). This is my POV of Wikipedia and as with my POV of anything it is subject to criticism by others whether I like it or not and I hope it is subject to some change.

As far as my warnings to you go. I warned you after all three reverts on the Primal Therapy talk page. If you are planning to argue to Arbitration that you were not properly warned because I did not use templates on your talk page, I don't think you'll have any more success here than you had with whatever happened at Spanish Wikipedia (my POV).

-- GrahameKing 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you please, GrahameKing, provide diffs of me attacking character, reputation, body etcetera.

You deletion of two weeks of discussion [10] was restored by me [11] per Administrative order [12]Randroide 13:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Reputation[13] - the diffs to the Conocer article posting (reputation attack) and your deletion allegations are explained (Reply to Proto) with detailed diffs on my talk page which got no argument from him, the admin you are claiming gave you an administarative order. Since then I have reverted you again and not been blocked - draw your own conclusion. See also my recent reply to you there.

You have wasted too much of my time already. Enough.

-- GrahameKing 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Randroide, tienes esta cuestión que resolver. Gracias. --Petronas 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reitero la cuestión por última vez. Gracias. --Petronas 13:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

- ¡Hola a todo el mundo! - ¡Hola Dr. Thanos! - Randroide, quería avisar, por las dudas de que no te hubieras enterado, de que en la wikipedia en español hicieron un debate en el café sobre tus denuncias, y citando alegremente lo de los ataques personales, la etiqueta y la mar en coche acaban de bloquearte. Creo que es el momento de que juntes todos los diffs que tengas recolectados, y denuncies a estas personas ante Jimbo Wales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perón (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Randroide:

Lamentablemente esta consulta de borrado ha sacado lo peor de algunas personas. Como mi solicitud de tu voto fue el detonante de tu expulsión solo me queda pedirte disculpas por un daño irreparable. Saludos. --Klausmeyer 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria Point 9, please do not inline Image:TankMan2.jpg in your user page, but you may link to it. Thank you for your cooperation.--Jusjih 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. A link allows reader to get around. Certain other Wikipedia language subdomains do not even allow fair use images due to having most users from countries not allowing the same thing as in the USA.--Jusjih 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, congratulations, you've just became the greatest threat for the spanish mafia, the are now suggesting to block you ad infinitum, I think that shows how afraid are 'em of you. Let's see for how long are they going to feel satisfied with this huge triumph. Greetings. --Rolf Obermaier 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh my! Oh the humanity! I agree with Rolf. It so absurd to block you in one wiki for what you write in another, that it is almost funny. It just show how small-minded Pontreas (ademas de cetrnio y gilpaollis) and his gang are. They manage without our help to continue making fools of themselves. I wonder what he will do when he reads this, as I am already banned there -several times I was frozen, but now it is for life. But here, I have never been blocked. Ask those resentful guys and they would say that because their wiki is superior to this one and there they can do as they wish. The guys who make up that tribe think they are the chosen ones. However, they do sound like chavistas. Anagnorisis 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, this was all caused by my ill-fated attempt to preserve RC's article. Maybe I should stick to writing about Basseball or Astronomy. --Lnieves 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Vas a la meta:. Cbrown1023 talk 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not possible to block some for etiquette or off-wiki actions. Cbrown1023 talk 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some es: librarian expelled me forever from there. They just wait till the deletion vote on Resistencia Civil ended and kick me out: w:es:User:Lnieves. My sin? to document all their actions during the deletion vote. --Lnieves 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Randroide. I decided to open a wiki to write about liberalism, libertarianism, anarchocapitalism, and such themes as economic theory or political philosophy. It's just a prototype, so to speak, but it can grow with the right people as collaborators (in which case I will think more seriously in buying a proper domain name). If you're interested in the project, visit http://wiki.liberal-venezolano.net/. Thanks, Lnieves 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Me gustaría pedirte que añadieras aparte del enlace al comentario de Dodo sobre mi informe, un enlace a la votación para salvar mi texto. Está en [[14]]. Habría que decir que ganó la votación por amplia mayoría, pero que a pesar de eso, el usuario fue bloqueado a perpetuidad por Dodo días después de la votación y su página blanqueada. Te pido que lo escribas tú porque mi inglés no es bueno. Perdona las molestias. Ah, la foto del userbox no funciona --Gimferrer 14:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not make allegations of adding false information if you are not able or unwilling to specify what is false about the information added. Southofwatford 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you want the dust to settle then we go back to the version of the article that existed until this morning. Otherwise I will revert again. The peones negros are busy running over Wikipedia this morning trying to impose a partial and sectarian version of events. The link was not provided by me. I do not agree with the abuse of what should be straightforward factual descriptions of explosives, but those who attempt to introduce conspiracy theories wherever they can are obviously not of the same opinion. The only consequence is multiple versions of the same thing in different articles Southofwatford 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

By your own criteria Randroide, all I need to do is add the ABC source and that is the end of it - how ironic to see you of all people starting to deal with the question of accuracy in sourced information. Southofwatford 11:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If we are going to wait then we return to an earlier version of the Titadyne article too - also subject to significant politically motivated editing. What applies to my edit must also apply to the others. Southofwatford 12:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The titadyne issue is the same - this is not Wikinews and the inserted text is very POV Southofwatford 12:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing that text. I still regard the article as unsatisfactory because I disagree with the use of articles about explosives to discuss the issues of whether they were used or not in the Madrid train bombings - it doesn't seem to me to be appropriate. I think what remains on the issue is POV - but I'm not interested in pursuing it because I don't believe the issue should be covered in any sort of depth in this article. Southofwatford 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am reverting your changes Randroide, as per WP:DR. Your claim that I am adding unsourced material has no foundation Southofwatford 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you continue adding unsourced claims, an administrator will tell you who´s right. Randroide 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am restoring deleted material on a disputed article - nothing else. I have added no other material.Southofwatford 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You restored unsourced material. You added that material. Read the policies, please. Randroide 14:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I restored, I did not add - this article is under dispute and subject to dispute resolution procedures. You cannot pretend not to know that. Southofwatford 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You restored unsourced material, and that´s against Wikipedia policies. Randroide 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• "absurd NPV" [15]

The way Randroide uses NPV to introduce minoritary conspirationist material in the articles without nobody being able to stop him, is what makes me doubt of it. E.g. he uses a mendacious local newspaper to contradict RAND and it seems that nothing can be done. --Igor21 12:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have posted your latest edit on the administrator's incident noticeboard. Your pretext for using my position on the RFC and your actions last week to start editing freely a disputed article is entirely invalid, one does not excuse the other or entitle you to overlook the disputed nature of this page. Southofwatford 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect: You do not know what you are talking about. Randroide 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Such a reasonable, well argued answer Randroide. The fact remains you are ignoring the disputed nature of this page and making the dispute worse - but then of course you know that. Southofwatford 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This message is to let you know that I have posted a request for arbitration on the dispute concerning this page. [[16]] Southofwatford 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Writing in response to your query about how much time you had to respond. (I'm sorry if you saw an earlier response on my talk page; at that point, I thought you were referring to a case already accepted, not one still on the RfAr page.) You should get a preliminary statement written within the next day or two. Please bear in mind that at this stage, the purpose of your statement is simply to present your position on whether the Arbitration Committee should decide the case presented. The relevant evidence is whether there is a serious dispute, whether prior dispute resolution has been attempted, etc. Your statement should not exceed approximately 500 words. Please bear in mind that if the case is accepted, you will have a complete opportunity to present evidence and proposals at that time. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the clerks email list.

For the Arbitration Committee,The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

New sources located and pasted By Randroide Sixty two sources in forty five edits

3 sources [17] 2 sources 4 sources [18] [19] 2 sources 2 sources [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] 2 sources [27] [28] 2 sources [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] 6 sources [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] 3 sources [53]

• • New sources inserted by Randroide (me) but provided (at the talk page) by other users: Three sources.

Provided by Igor21 [54][55]

Provided by Southofwatford [56] Believe or not, Southofwatford protested "his" source being added [57] and asked me to "leave the article alone", and that after me adding "his" source, a source defending Southofwatford´s positions (!!!???).

Randroide, jpgordon has requested evidence that RFC was started. I believe I read somewhere in one of the archives where you and Southofwatford had a long discussion in trying to get to RFC. Given that you are extremely capable of finding references, and that it would be most helpful to convince a "monster admin" that he should take this case, and that he won't take this case unless he sees that RFC was attempted, I urge you to respond to jpgordon's request with *1* or *2* appropriate links to the talk archives. (Hint, no offense: try to not to flood him with links.) --Otheus 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ($)Reply

Well, under my understanding about the exact meaning of "starting a RfC" such evidence does not exist. That´s the reason I was reluctant of going to the RfM. Southofwatford decided to shorcut the issue to the RfA.

He,he. No offense with your "flood" remark. Rather, it´s a compliment. ; ) Randroide 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the late reply, but I am willing to accept being listed as involved party. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

queria pedirte como un favor, si podes bien si no podes tambien esta bien, a ayudarme a expandir el articulo, si bien en ingles se entiende bien quisiera expandirlo para esa gente que de ingles no tiene conocimientos previos o tiene dificultades con el idioma. bueno eso solo, saludos Nachomanco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.49.170.44 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Sorry for that, I restored it. There is a lag between versions and, while wikifying, I accidentally took out the link. Again, sorry.--Orthologist 15:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

See discussion at http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=218&topic_id=2244 for more informaton

N313P (cn 33010/1037) This is one of the aircraft involved in the CIA Flights affair as reported in international press media. After that mess the aircraft changed its "owner" to Keeler and Tate Management and was re registered as N4476S. This photo is unique as it was taken the day after the Madrid terrorist attack in March 11th 2004!!!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0798841/M/

This is not any plane, it is a totally rogue CIA plane which happened to be in Madrid. Dr Debug (Talk) 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This plane is related to the 9/11 terror team. This is not for wikipedia, because it's original research. This is more to fit the total puzzle.

CIA is just one of the American agencies in which they have a stronghold and under whose protection they operate. It's the same team which was always going to Guatanamo Bay, who are very into drugs and who owned Hoffmann Aviation. AA11 (WTC) and AA77 (Pentagon) were owned by the same trust as this aircraft.

If 11-M was outsourced this would have been the most likely group since there are many links to 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not just an American group but also has former SAS and former KGB members and is literally the best of the best. They are probably the expert mercenaries. Not only was this plane in Madrid; it was their main plane for Guatanamo Bay Express. As it is under CIA protection, it would have been able to take off and land at Madrid airport without going through customs etc. so this plane could be used to get their people in and out of Madrid without any trace.

As said this is not for Wikipedia but more for your own understanding. This plane belongs to a group which is very capable and able to do 11-M and could have been hired since it cannot be traced back directly to the Spanish government / secret services. Dr Debug (Talk) 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The CIA had the specialists for operations like this. The key issue is plausible denial: All links should be indirect, so using Spanish Secret Services is stupid and they will less eperienced in these things. What you need is a team which has plenty of experience and which can enter and leave the country unseen (except for one plane spotter). This is such a strange airplane which seems to land all kinds of weird places and is owned by entirely fictious companies. So it could land in Madrid, get the team and equipment off the plane, do 11-M and leave the next day and nobody can find real evidence that they did it. It's outsourcing of the terrorists which seems to have been done during 9/11 as well. And that probably resulted in the al-Qaeda / ETA confusion, because they had no idea how to do an ETA and did their al-Qaeda style attacks. Dr Debug (Talk) 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just discovered a statement that the company who owned the plane did "government contracts," so this could have been a Spanish government contract. Dr Debug (Talk) 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are confusing the reaction with the expected reaction. They expected the Spanish people to stand behind the government just like what happened during 9/11, however the reaction was the complete opposite. So the expection was to stay in Iraq, continue depravity like their failed Equatorial Guinea coup which was supposed to be performed by an outsourced team as well. The most important reason is that Spain was one of their buddies just like what you see right now with Iran where the UK has to take the lead.

As far as this site goes, it's just endless discussions filled insults and will lead nowhere except a huge waste of time. It's a clear indication that there is far more to 11-M than the official story, because the effort to stiffle the truth and just 9/11 the number of nay-sayers will be matched 1 on 1 with the number of conspiracy theorists. That's how important it is to maintain the lies. The page looks terrible BTW They are already making great progress for their Lite story with little of no information. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok but now that conspiracy theories are finally and conclusively falling apart, the time has come to make a separate article for them.--Burgas00 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia templates are not intended to be used simply because you do not like something someone has said on a talk page. I wish you would read at least some of the policies and guidelines you constantly cite to other users. Yesterday you gave me an entirely misplaced and inappropriate lecture on content forking and then went off and drove a big hole in the Wikipedia policy on the very same subject. Southofwatford 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your edits were reverted for the reasons explained in the talk page. Please don't leave vandalism warnings for good-faith edits. Doing so is disruptive and violates WP:POINT. I see that you have been previously warned concerning this.--Mantanmoreland 15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I do not see the application of WP:POINT to my case.

• If the warnings are well placed or not, an administrator would (eventually, I hope not) tell us. Randroide 16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia templates are not intended to be used simply because you do not like something someone has said on a talk page. I wish you would read at least some of the policies and guidelines you constantly cite to other users. You have repeatedly breached Wikipedia policies on sources, content forking and dispute resolution. Your arrogant and intimidating tactics are being ignored. Southofwatford 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

IMHonestO I used properly the templates. Have a nice day. Randroide 09:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi randroide,

I'm having problems copy-editing a certain article about Peru. The trouble I'm having is with a word "punas" that I think got mistranslated -- or not translated at all. Can you help me out? Ancash_Region#History. --Otheus 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ($)Reply

I have no clue what this was about so I reverted it. Could you explain what you were doing? Picaroon 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is Schwartz notable? What do you think about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Schwartz_(writer)? --Otheus 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Randroide! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule fencecheck\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 11:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you too are against gun control. If you are a NRA member, perhaps you may want to add yourself to the category Category:Wikipedians who are members of the NRA and be counted there. --Kimon^talk 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion of using a different term, though I'm not sure I like "armed victims". The whole purpose of being armed is to avoid becoming a victim.

As for a hoplophile's userboxes, you can use the one I created User:Kimon/userboxes/nra and set the member parameter to support. --Kimon^talk 20:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

From what I can see at User talk:Igor21#Blanking 3, Igor21's edits do not appear to be a clear case of vandalism. Please do not use the WP:AIV process to attempt to settle content disputes. Krimpet (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you feel he/she is introducing inaccuracies into the article, I suggest using the dispute resolution process. Krimpet (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Randroide. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:German Soviet.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Randroide/Trastero de Randroide/Página Randroide. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Randroide, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:German Soviet.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Randroide/Antigua User:Page en castellano. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 12:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

hola. es toda una sorpresa encontrar objetivistas por estos pagos, y sobre todo uno tan desidido. me tranquiliza saber que la tia Rand llego al menos a aclara algunas mentes. me he leido muchas cosas tuya, y me agradan pero necesitas calmarte un poco, pasa por la discusion de ayn rand español que escrbi algo, no hago los cambis yo por que me interesa tu opinion.TOLERANCIA 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hola, estoy de Wikivacaciones, TOLERANCIA. Unas largas Wikivacaciones. Un saludo. Randroide 08:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Randroide. Many of your User talk subpages and User subpages do not seem to meet the Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Subpages guidelines. Would you please look into this? Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Randroide. I nominated various subpages for deletion at User talk:Randroide/Trastero de Randroide/Carrocería MfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Randroide. I nominated various subpages for deletion at User talk:Randroide/Trastero de Randroide/Ayn Rand MfD. -- Jreferee T/C 01:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hola Randroide, realmente fue un placer leer tu discución en el articulo de los disidentes del sida. No he tenido tiempo de leer todos tus articulos y saber porque te han expulsado. Creo que debiste de haber esperado esto, es lógico que no puede permitirse la libre expresión en uno de los sitios mas visitados de internet, es ahí donde creo has fallado por inocencia y supongo esperanza. Me da igual mucha tristesa y rabia tu expulsión, por mas que uno se encuentre acostubrados a estos actos de autoritarismo contra la libertad, cada uno nuevo es igual de molesto y agobiante... es algo que creo nunca se pierde :-(. Wikipedia es un medio de comunicación más, y como tal, fuertemente controlado, google optimiza sus busquedas para que wikipedia quede en las primeras posiciones, y google... bueno... creo que ya debes saber de google. Se que estas de Wikivacaciones (yo también), no me expulsaron pero me auto exilie temporalmente.

Ya que conoces sobre los disidentes del sida, y tienes una mente objetiva (veremos cuanto) te invito a investigar sobre el Dr. Hamer y la Nueva Medicina Germánica. Es un tema controvertido pero detras se encuentra una de las investigaciones y descubrimientos mas grandes (creo yo) de todos los tiempos. Lo que te pido: 1)Se neutral, objetivo y no te bases en ad-honimens que encuentres.

2)Este blog está elaborado por un biologo conocedor de esta medicina, es un biologo muy riguroso, objetivo y crítico, debes leerlo sin falta: [58]

3)Este es un foro no oficial creado y en el que participamos unos pocos, pero con fuerte crítica y esceptismo (no seudo-esceptisismo). Hemos llenado de preguntas "fuertes" a este biologo que tambien visita frecuentemente este foro. [http://nmg.creatuforo.com/index.php?mforum=nmg ]

4)Vé esta discución entre este biólogo y otros "científicos" que trataban de refutar sus afirmaciones. Es una discución sin desperdicio. [http://100cia.com/opinion/foros/showthread.php?s=f6a77f109468835cdbd255023abb1b7d&t=6763&page=1&pp=10 ] Un gusto de nuevo y espero que tomes en serio mi sugerencia. Un fuerte abrazo y no pierdas fuerzas.

Hello. I've seen the last comment you've left on the talk page of ETA, I fully agree with you. La voz de su amo does similar things in the article he created of Segi. I suggest you to look at it, at the "reliable sources" he says to have put and the discussion about them I'm having. Please help me out against that guy. Gracias. Escorial82 (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I re-reverted your edit on Mini - please read my comments there. A section on the safety of the Mini would be interesting - but it needs to be much more carefully researched. The car changed a lot between the 1959 version and the 2000 Mini and a broad-brush treatment such as you attempted simply doesn't cut it.

Oh - and incidentally - I see a lot of non-English posts here on your talk page - please note that WP:TALK says that all discussions on talk pages in the en: Wikipedia need to be conducted in English:

• "Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, it is your responsibility to either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy."

SteveBaker (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please talk at Talk:Mini. Thank you very much for your informative WP:TALK reference. Randroide (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Randroide.

I don't know you much, but over the time I've noticed you are quite familiar with the topic, that is why I would appreciate it if you paid a look here. I dont know whether you see it my way or not, but for sure it's worth it hearing people who is familiar with the topic.

Thanks. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 13:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Glad to inform that consensus has been reached. Thanks anyway. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Randroide, thanks for your opinion with regard to the recent "Primal Therapy" dispute. I realize that you're an opponent of what Janov has written, but nevertheless you spoke against the attempt to suppress source material which was accurate and highly relevant. I just wanted to say I appreciate it.Twerges (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Que el comunismo es lo más y que te perseguirá por más que intentes escaparte de la realidad una y otra vez. Olvida a la rusa traidora y comprendelo, El COMUNISMO es la solución a todos los problemas que padecemos hoy en día.

Saludos, camarada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.90.59 (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know, I asked for additional input on some of the issues on AIDS reappraisal and zidovudine at the fringe theories noticeboard, to avoid these discussions turning into back-and-forth between the two of us. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the notice and for the impeccabily neutral language used there Randroide (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome, just trying to make a little less work for the gnomes. Two tools I find useful when generating references are Magnus' reference generator], which generates a wiki-coded reference from a series of form fields, and Diberri's template filler, which generates a reference given a PMID (among other functions that I have not yet had occasion to test). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear Randroide, Thanks for your message. What is going on in this and other AIDS and 'safe sex' related sections is nothing short of shameful. In effect they are saying that anyone who questions 'AIDS' is an untouchable, 'life unworthy of life' and anything said against them is thus justifiable, no matter how devoid of truth it may be.

Even if I fully ascribed to the current AIDS hypothesis I would be shocked and aghast at this blatant and fanatical abuse of editorial neutrality.

I intend to fight this all the way to the top and even organize petitions if necessary.

What is going on here is just plain WRONG.

Your support would be greatly appreciated. We should talk by phone some time. My number is 323.656.2185.

Aimulti (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for noticing. And thank you very much for letting me know you'd noticed.

In terms of self esteem (we all like to think ourselves useful) it's a pleasant surprise that a habit which even I always found a bit geeky bordering on self indulgent has provided an unexpected opportunity to communicate outside the family to an audience of >1. But yes, while I'm not too sure about the adjective 'priceless', some of these pictures do indeed seem to fill an otherwise too little covered wiki-niche. I guess if I was 20 years older (and so had started photographing cars 20 years earlier) they'd be a whole lot more valuable to The Project. (So 'priceless' is relative?) But for other reasons I'm quite glad not (?yet) to be 20 years older. Thank you again. Happy Day, my friend. Charles01 (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have a small favor to ask of you. Two people joined Wikipedia about a week ago with the sole purpose of attacking me. They both joined to attack the dissident thread and then proceeded to target my bio page. They have hounded me for years now. If you check their edit history and talk pages you will see this contention is in no doubt whatsoever.

They have gone as far as to claim my very own daughter and (despite full and exaustive references) almost every other thing I have done in my life is false.

They have nominated my bio page for deletion.

If after checking my references and my contention as to the very personal motives of those objecting to it, if satisfied, you would give it a thumbs up I would appreciate it greatly.

THE DELETION PAGE IS: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Hanau

I would like to know more about your interests and contributions and am always here to help in any way I can in making a positive contribution to your edits and Wikipedia in general. Aimulti (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is blatant canvassing Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This thread from Talk:AIDS_denialism#Please_flesh_out_the_details. Randroide (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was a figurative statement (maybe he was thinking "worth knowing," at the end there...). We have policies/guidelines like notability, undue weight, what Wikipedia is not, and almost every acceptable reason for the deletion of articles as proof that no one is taking it literally. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am. And I think that Jimbo Wales meant it.

If "no one is taking it literally" the "no ones" are lying to Jimbo Wales, or Jimbo Wales would be lying to the non-Wikipedian world. I buy neither option. Randroide (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since we're out in hypothetical land, where do you draw the line on "the sum of human knowledge"? When do you decide that something is irrelevant? Here's an example: it is a fact that I, Antelan, chopped down a tree when I was 10 years old. The tree was 7.5 feet tall. While chopping, I intermittently felt excited and bored; more than once, I was annoyed at the bugs flying around me and swatted at them, unsuccessfully. After chopping the tree down, I noticed that I had left an 8 inch stump. That was satisfactory to me, so I then proceeded to thin out the branches of the tree I had just felled. All said and done, the tree produced 0.55 cord of wood. This story is a part of human knowledge. Should there be an encyclopedia article about this? Antelan^talk 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you become relevant and proper sources tell your chopping tale as part of you biography, I shall volunter to add that history. For a similar example please read Parson_Weems#The_cherry-tree_anecdote Randroide (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. If something is relevant, and if reliable sources verify it, then it becomes a candidate for inclusion in this encyclopedia. We also have policies, such as WP:UNDUE, guiding what belongs. Since AIDS denialism is a fringe standpoint, it would be providing undue weight to list every argument that AIDS deniers make, even if these were then fully rebutted. Antelan^talk 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, but some sources think the issue is relevant: Talk:AIDS reappraisal/Data mining at PubMed about the topic. Sources determine relevancy, not editors. Randroide (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have responded to your request here. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just now read your message. I seldomly login here. And seldomly check something in the Spanish wikipedia. Dodo retired? Good! He iss a real asshole. That guy has some serious problems. The way he behaves makes me wonder about how it must be for his family (if he has any) to deal with him. I do not want to go back to that wiki unless I do it with my own identity. The neo-communists with nazi attitude there banned me for life; while the good mods did nothing as they fear the radicals. They just couldn´t deal with opposing views. Until that wiki changes and gets back to a more balanced condition ... I do not want anything to do with it. Still, my articles have survived the test of time ;-). Cheers. Anagnorisis 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Randroide,

It's me Asinthior. I just came across this webpage and thought you might find it useful or at least informative:

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j38

Cheers,

Asinthior (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Randroide, I've replaced the section on the Center for Feeling Therapy with a link to a new article on that subject. Let me know what you think.

Thanks.Twerges (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you had actually studied my edit a bit closer Randroide, you would notice that it contains a fresh source from a senior foreign policy specialist at the Brookings Institute. He has this to say on the issue:

Had Aznar right away characterized the mass killing in Madrid as an attack on democracy itself, perhaps not as many voters would have allowed themselves to hand the terrorists the political change they apparently wanted. Instead, the government appeared to try to use the attacks to strengthen its political hand, and outraged voters made it pay a price. The government, after all, already had a reputation for political "spin" after its handling of other high-profile events in Spain, including the oil spill from the tanker Prestige off the Spanish coast in 2002, an airplane crash that killed 62 Spanish soldiers returning from Afghanistan in 2003, and the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Whether or not the government really did seek to influence the vote through its handling of the attacks is less important than the strong perception that it did. The government appears to have paid more of a price for misleading the public than for its policy on Iraq.

I found that source at the second or third position on my Google search - if you insist I will look for more, but stacking sources that say the same thing hardly seems useful or necessary. I think that this source clearly establishes that the issue has wider acceptance than just El Periodico's analysts, and quite clearly supports the wording of the article. Two minutes was what it took me to find it, two weeks is indeed a long time for such a simple task. Obviously, the will to find the source in the first place has to exist. Southofwatford (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Randroide,

Would you mind commenting on this issue.

Thanks, Twerges (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hotel_Corona_de_Arag%C3%B3n_fire&diff=238769139&oldid=238768959

Sorry, that was probably just habit, but <ref> tags within the text would help. My bad! Dmwiki (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, forget I was ever there. TheMolecularMan (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

fyi wp:wta is a style guideline it is not like when someone uses a word in there it is vandalism. You should not accuse people of vandalism when it is a content dispute. The word terrorist, very well sourced on ETA, EU spain france us all say it. You can disagree ETA is a terrorist org but its what every one calls it so pls stop fighting on your pov and also pls, remember, this is english language encyclopedia do not assume every one knows spanish. Pls reply here i will watch your page and ETA now. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 17:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Uh, a "style guideline". Gosh, I thought it was like a law or something like that. In fact I agree with ETA being a terrorist organization. I shall stop reverting that kind of edits because the matter of calling ETA "terrorist" or not bores me to death. If there is no clear-cut WP policy about the issue I drop the subject. Thank you for your attention, RetroS1mone. Randroide (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, please always communicate in English on the English Wikipedia, unlike you did here. Thanks. waggers (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the spur of the moment (an ETA bombing took place hours before) I thought it would be a good idea to leave the message in Spanish. It was obviously a bad idea. Randroide (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You should improve this page in namespace. Please read How do I create a user subpage? for helpful information. Dynablaster (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have gone ahead and created User:Randroide/Sandbox. You can work on the article in namespace until it is finished. Dynablaster (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Simply because, being La Cierva a flaffy "historian", the source that he allegedly comments, doesn't say what he pretends it says. Mind that I've got in front of me both books, Carrillo's memoirs and La Cierva "de cargo" testimonials. It's up to you to proof whether what La Cierva claims in page 92 is supported by Carrillo's memoirs or not. --Ecemaml (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

while I appreciate the good intentions with your edit, you actually removed a huge section yourself (while commenting on my removal of a huge section) I looked at the edit history of the article, and a while ago a vandal removed a large section - my edits put that section back as well as removing what I consider to be undue weight. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Strange to say, but thanks for making a constructive ANI report regarding my edits. I realise that my recent edits have consisted of a lot of removal and because I edit using an IP, this is sometimes viewed with some suspicion, but I am trying to only remove sections/details that are uncited AND contain original research, BLP issues, undue weight, non-notability etc.

Just removing something because there is no citation is not always needed, however when there are any other issues regarding an inclusion on wikipedia, no citations should be grounds to remove it on most occasions.

Anyway, thanks for the first constructive ANI report filed regarding my edits - all the other reports about me have had some agenda, either someone trying to win an edit way, get their own back for me making a 3RR report etc - yours seems to actually have some good intentions, which is a pleasant shock for me considering that most people automatically see an IP and think I am a vandal.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am glad to make you feel you have attracted some positive attention. I try to be impartial.

I must confess you that I am terrified (yes, that´s the word) by some of your edits. I would never, ever remove sourced data based on undue weight or non-notability. In my personal book of rules, if a valid source tells this or that fact, then that fact is automatically notable.

Please also note that you have removed other editor´s work. Maybe you find non notable the rather obscure subject of the history of BMW during the nazi era, but some sources and some Wikipedia editors (me one of them) found that history Notable. Editors get pissed off and discouraged if they find that someone removed well sourced data and no one cared, no matter what obscure the issue is. I care. That´s the reason I wrote that some of your edits are just bad for Wikipedia.

Look, we have an article here about the Springfield Elementary School. Is that really more important that the history of BMW during the nazi era?. I beg you to think about it. Wikipedia is not on paper, so we have here the opportunity to create a really in depth collection of knowledge.

BTW, could you please tell me where do you think that should be posted in Wikipedia the fact that it is recommended to do not use ATV on paved roads?. It seems to me a useful piece of information. Don´t you agree?. CU Randroide (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, lets deal with these two issues, I don't know if we can agree, but at least we can understand eachothers point of view.

I removed certain parts of the BMW article (and in the end moved them) because I didn't consider them to be relevant to the article, they didn't refer to BMW as such, but just refered to the WW2 actions of a since deceased share holder - this information is notable on the article of the person concerned, but I don't see how it is relevant to BMW's article. I think that quite rightly 99.99% of people are disgusted by the actions of the Nazis in WW2 - however this should not be reflected on edits related to Germany or German companies. From what I can remember the edit had nothing to do with BMW's activities in WW2, they only reflected one shareholder's activities.

I removed the guidelines for ATV use, because wikipedia is not a list of guides, a guide to ATV use is more suitable for wikihow (i think that is what it is called) but a link should be provide to the guidelines.

Oh and as the BMW article currently stands, I have moved the Nazi history section to the BMW history section, it has not been removed, it has just been moved to a more suitable location.

But, please do give me feedback, I will not automatically agree with you, but I am far from perfect and do really appreciate advice that could make me a better wikipedia editor

119.173.81.176 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems we are still not in agreement regarding this article. I think the links should be placed at the bottom in the external links section, as with most other articles - having a line of text explaining that a website exists is not enough to warrant those links being in the safety section. The text accompanying the links had some original research and the image was no longer relevant. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Je suis actuellement une thérapie priamle à Geneve. Je suis tout d'abord allé en Amérique au centre de LA, il y a 5 ans. J'ai été très mal suivis, j'ai du arreter de nombreuses drogues et le centre de LA n'a pas su me suivre, ne m'a pas proposé de médicamencation. En a résulté une surtension, une totale dépression, je suis reparti et me suis remis à boire, durant trois ans.

Cela n'a en rien affecté mes convictions face à la thérapie primale et son efficacitée. Je suis donc aujourd'hui une thérapie à Genève, ou je suis très bien suivis.

Cette thérapie n'est pas un miracle, elle n'est pas non plus pour les gens qui "fonctionnent" comme pourrait laisser entendre les livres de Janov. Malgré tout, elle est salvatrice.

Je n'aurais jamais pu continuer à vivre sans cette thérapie, du moins sainement au niveau mental et physique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.161.106.175 (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on Primal therapy. However I notice that you may be unfamiliar with a couple of small points in the manual of style. First, footnotes should follow the punctuation, like this.[1] Not like this[2]. Second, it isn't necessary to place quotations in italics and in quotation marks. One or the other, used consistently, is sufficient. Cheers,   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There may be a couple of typos here and there, please check and correct, still I have proofread the Wikipedia page several times and I do not see anything any longer at this point (fatigue perhaps).

I am disappointed that El Pais, where I imagined that I would find most of the information about her, actually carried very little, as if the newspaper didn't wish to remind its Socialist readership that La Pasionaria was alive and kicking.

An amazing lady full of vitality to the very end, neither a saint nor a devil. A fair amount of interesting stuff is left out of the article for it would stray into the realm of speculation (e.g. I don't believe that she wore black "to look decent," as she remarked).EduardoFreireCanosa (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hola Randroide, he visto que has hecho contribuciones muy interesantes en la discusión del artículo sobre el sida en la wikipedia española. Sin embargo, el artículo no se ha modificado sustancialmente desde hace mucho tiempo. Yo formo parte de una editorial donde hemos publicado un libro titulado "Desmontar el SIDA" (http://www.cauac.org/?p=1521) y me gustaría retocar muchas cosas en este tema. Supongo que, igual que yo en otros artículos, te habrás desanimado por la actitud de los editores y por supuesto, por haber borrado tu página personal (ya me explicarás cómo ocurrió eso). ¿Cual es tu disponibilidad ahora? --Porcharisedisa (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Capitalism Byelf2007 (talk) 15 September 2011

Hola Randroide, mi nombre es Iván Robaina Bychkó, tengo 17 años y vivo en Cuba, estoy desde hace algún tiempo muy interesado por la vida y obra de Ayn Rand (sé que es difícil de creer viviendo yo en Cuba), no sé mucho de ella, de hecho todo lo que sé se debe a la wikipedia en español y wikipedia en inglés, pero lo que he leído sobre su filosofía me ha interesado tan poderosamente que me gustaría establecer contacto con usted para discutir sobre su filosofía. Si usted lo desea, puede escribirme a mi correo electrónico: nayesda.daria@medired.scu.sld.cu Si se decide a escribirme quisiera pedirle que nos limitemos al intercambio de ideas sobre cualquier cosa menos Cuba y su política interna o exterior (esto podría traerme serios problemas) Saludos, Iván — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Estimado, no tengo ningún interés en perturbarlo si decidió retirarse de lo que a mi también me parece una lucha casi ahogada. Pero si existiese la menor posibilidad, debo aferrarme a ella. ramiro_lnr@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.210.49 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

.50 BMG does indeed have armor that can protect from it. As early as the Vietnam War, the Chicken Plate could stop 30.06 at 50m standoff, and .50 BMG M33 at 500m. SARVIP armor plates, issued to aircrew, can protect from .50 AP at point blank. It is notable that they are rather heavy, but they can do the job. There was also the North Ireland plate, issued to counter the Armagh Snipers, who used M82 AMRs, and the AA4UP, which could also counter M33, once, while being relatively lightweight. SkynetPR (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Randroide,

Are you still alive? I added some history information and a link to the article about Primal Therapy. It includes a link to a video of the first meeting between Arthur Janov and Raphael Montanez Ortiz. They talk for an hour or so about the early days of primal therapy. I thought you may find it interesting.

Best, Twerges (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply