User talk:Logicman1966

I know that there are errors and inconsistencies in the Gerstein Report and as such I have provided a more reliable/verifiable reference to them, however, when reliable sources say XYZ, Wikipedia is entitled to say XYZ. Mattogno and Roques are not reliable sources accordingly their material has no place on Wikipedia. This is summed up quite neatly by "doctoral degree—later revoked their material". WilliamH (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Bacque is right or wrong regarding POW numbers. Postwar reconstruction and the beginning of the Cold War were one of my own PhD fields, and the only error I can see at first glance is Bacque's claim that there was no food shortage in Europe in '45-'46. It depends where you were, how much food you needed, and the state of the local transport infrastructure. There was some food, there was some surviving railway and canal infrastructure, but there was almost no coal to fuel transportation until the summer of 1946, when the mines finally started getting pumped out and some labor brought in (the slave laborers having left in the spring of 1945). I have no way of checking whether the Western Allies kept good records and/or mistreated German POWs. However, I think Bacque has made an interesting case that deserves better than to be dismissed out of hand. I have taken out much of the Ambrose material because of Ambrose' own problems and because much of it is opinion. I also took out the Keegan remark because it was nothing more than a backhand during a speech made for entertainment. I've added Joan Beaumont and expanded Jonathon Osmond. None of these people have actually re-tilled Bacque's ground, so we're left with a lot of opinion about what could or couldn't have happened. Help me keep an eye on the entry, please. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider my recent input on the Other Losses talk page which references your earlier comments. Zerosprite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First of all removing the entire section or adding duplicate photos was entirely accidental I didn't notice that and thanks for adding it. As the founder of WikiProject Tibet I seriously doubt I would ever try to vandalise an article, quite the opposite in fact if you examine what I have actually done for the project and wikipedia. However that human rights section is potentially highly problematic and severely affects the balance and tone of the article. It gives the impression that it is "pro Tibetan" by emphasing the unpleasantries of the Chinese and is likely to be subject to edit wars and trouble with the article in the future. I'm not saying we should ignore human rights issues but writing it neutrally is very difficult to do in the circumstances. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think you are completely aware of the current situation in cuba. the statement you made of food and housing achievements is completely inaccurate. i doubt you would call food rationing a good achievement with food. and as for housing, although there may not be homeless, the homes they do live in are in terrible conditions. this is my personal experience with people i know who have come from Cuba. i would appreciate it if you did some research before speaking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.255.80 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even bother to read everything that I wrote - I lived in Cuba for 12 months, staying in the homes of ordinary Cubans. I am COMPLETELY aware of the current situation there, and what I said is ABSOLUTELY accurate. You haven't been to Cuba so you have no idea what you are talking about. You and your clueless buddies in Miami (AKA the Cuban Mafia) should stop spreading mis-information, and trying to deceive gullible people. Go do your own research, knucklehead. Oh, and stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Logicman1966 (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are the ones vandalizing wikipedia with your "mis-information" so please lets drop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.38.159 (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:6 axis motion platform.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry about my late reply - I have been on a Wikipedia: WikiBreak. If you wish for mediation on the page you requested, please file a case with the Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal and I will take up your case.

Thanks, Wikipedian2 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shroud has been poured over for years. I believe the STURP team spent over 25 man years on the study. No one spends that much time on an "easy fake". The method of fakery you spoke of was tested and failed due to the complex evidence found on the shroud. The book, "The Resurrection of the Shroud" is a good thesis on its authenticity with over 700 references to authoritative proof. You might want to read it. And you might find it interesting.

I left you a challenge: list the frauds, physical evidence and proof of fakery, witnesses than confirm fakery, peer review of fraud findings, etc. See discussion on Shroud of Turin.

In a science debate, it's about hypothesis and PROOF. Critics are NOT exempt from this process and must meet standards of proof to give credence to their viewpoint. Otherwise it's armchair science. JimfromGTA (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2014 (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) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Logicman1966. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Hello, Logicman1966. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Logicman1966. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]