User talk:Carolmooredc/Archive II

separatism

…4:02 p.m. e.s.t. I think Separatism can be linked to where separation is for it is the ism wich qualifies it to be still junctioned,though i think it would have to be a carefull method of discution and if so it would then be of greatness have a Great day D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass David George DeLancey (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer to evidence

Hi Carol,

I hope you don't mind that I placed an answer straight after your statement[1]. You asked for an explanation for jaygj's 15 edits per minute, and I believe I gave one. If this convinces you, you will probably go on and remove the evidence as you suggested you will. Feel free to take my statement with it. If not, I should probably place it in a separate statement. regards, Heptor _talk 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As you saw, I changed it. I've made small edits in couple tabs for different articles at once a few times myself, but didn't occur to me, since it IS risky and one can lose edits by closing wrong tab or even having editing conflict or Wiki hangup. Of course, J. still could be editing 4 or 5 pieces of others' work - but that is pure speculation. The fact he doesn't explain to people who wonder on his talk page does make one assume the worst.

Carol Moore 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I still don't understand

Re: this, I haven't reverted anything on the Israeli-Palestinian articles. All I've done is try to mentor someone and helped out in small ways in uncontroversial cultural areas. A Palestinian editor thanked me for a photo edit. How could that be construed as nitpicky or tag teaming? I just don't understand. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I got you confused with someone else and now I remember. I guess he thought whoever it was you were mentoring was either too experienced or too partisan to need help or to ask for help from a non-partisan. Hmmm, wondering if I should just delete my comment, though technically I shouldn't even have deleted what I did before. Maybe I should just keep my big mouth shut since it's just as important to get your facts straight in talk as everywhere else!

Carol Moore 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Second Vermont Republic

Hi Carolmooredc. Frank Bryan's book "OUT!" is more humorous than any kind of serious proposal for secession. His more serious Vermont Papers, written with John McClaughry is a proposal for making Vermont democracy happen on a smaller scale, decentralized from Montpelier, and closer to the citizen, but it makes no argument for a separation of Vermont from the U.S. Thomas Naylor may argue for a sort of return to the Vermont Republic, but should be mindful that the first republic was, from the start, a U.S. state hopeful. That sentiment is expressed in the motto Quarta Decima Stella (the fourteenth star) found on its copper coinage and in its flag of fourteen stars which anticipated Vermont becoming the fourteenth United State. Those who suggest the stars represented Vermont's fourteen counties will discover Vermont had fewer than 10 counties until well after statehood. None of this is to belittle the progressive Vermont Constitution of 1777, or detract from Naylor's movement. But I think Vermont State Archivist Gregory Sanford is wise to caution us not to confuse fact and myth. About Vermont's mythology — it's all true, and some of it actually happened. CApitol3 (talk)

I just went to my copy of the book and searched and see that there is no index item on secession. So should we just delete that reference? Of course, Frank Bryan himself is listed on the advisory board[2], so the alternative would be to mention that fact as well. I personally don't have a strong opinion.

Carol Moore 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

User page image caption

Hi Carol. Just a pedantic question: was it really a rally of "60 odd people"? Perhaps you should amend that to "60-odd people". RolandR (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is a double entendre :-) But you are correct.

Carol Moore 19:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Re:Editor Assistance

{carol wrote on Vox Rationis user talk page:}

==Editor Assistance on Content Questions/Disputes==

Found you at WP:Editor_assistance and have hopefully easy issues at Second Vermont Republic. Since editors on both sides seem to have some biases pro and con Vermont secession, need a third party to resolve two issues.

• 2nd paragraph under "History" Re: Bryan/McLaughrey book: In July when I was a new editor I put in the first sentence. Someone recently said it wasn't relevant cause book not about secession, a point they then put in the article. My question: should we leave that section in now that he's said and I agree it is not directly relevant? I've asked the person a couple times if he wants it deleted but he won't answer.
• 7th paragraph under "History" on Bryan and Baldwin: Another editor had a fit because I deleted the "Archivist" section as WP:OR (should have gone to talk first but didn't. mea culpa.) After he reverted, in talk I explained the problem a few times, which I'll explain in brief here: Two authors made several assertions in Washington Post article. The Vermont archivist then quoted the same verbatim assertions which he described as coming from "a news release by two Vermont supporters of secession." He does not name them, so they could be anyone. The editor obviously wants this to look like a direct response to the Washington Post article, which it may or may not be. I encouraged him to find another source on this but he was just hostile. A solution might be to have a section on the various pro and cons of Vermont Secession, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate and don't feel like working on it myself.

If you want to respond here, that's great. If you do so on my page, please bring over or copy the original details. Thanks! Carol Moore Carol Moore 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I would love to help. However, I am busy for a little while (hour or so) and I will look into it by then. Just letting you know that I got the message.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay, issues arose recently. I am not particularly busy, but an RfC might be better. I have looked in on the article briefly a couple of times, but I do not think that I know the subject well enough to help with the content dispute.Sorry, but I will still incrementally add to the article with symantic changes, and if anything pops up which should not be, I will correct it.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:IPCOLL invitation

Dear Carol, greetings! Glad to see your input at the page on I-P battleground statistics. Would you be willing to join the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration as a member? If so, please just go to the page and fill in your name. (Or reply to my Talk and I can do so for you.) Considering how these disputes run, it would be good to have more peacekeepers aboard the Project. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 08:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done ;-) Carol Moore 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

dispute resolution

I replied to you at the IPCOLL community lounge. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Russell Means page

Here's some more nonPOV for you

<A href="http://<A">The Lakota Situation, as it stands now

Following the (non-binding) UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September of 2007, a group of American Indian activists presented a letter to the US State Department indicating they were withdrawing from all treaties with the US Government, and began the process of contacting foreign governments to solicit support as of December 17th, 2007

They didn't get very good media coverage ([URL=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lakota_activists_declare_secession_from_US]but there was some, and [URL=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lakota_Freedom_Delegation_says_spokesman_Russell_Means_%27hijacked%27_organization]to make matters worse, their non-native webmaster went awol and implied Russell Means was acting without sanction. She has since been told [URL=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canupa_Gluha_Mani_speaks_about_Lakota_Oyate,_Lakota_freedom]to knock that sh*t off (and to cough up any money she has accepted as donations on behalf of the Lakota).

They're continuing to solicit [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah#Support_and_reactions]support, and it is not yet clear how many of the Indians support independence, but this is a continuation of their 30+ year [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people#Independence_movement]effort to assert their independence (beginning with a declaration of continuing independence.)

To anticipate one criticism which (astro-turf-like) was suddenly everywhere at once, once a few bloggers commented on the claims of sovereignty, Russell Means et al are not an elected government. Initially, nobody elected Gandhi or Mandella or Jefferson either, but these activists have been working towards this for about half of their adult lives.

Here is a map of the territory claimed by the Lakota:

A press release from Phyllis Young follows, which was sent to me in response to an email asking for clarification as to the [URL=http://www.republicoflakotah.com/]"Republic of Lakotah" and [URL=http://www.lakotaoyate.net/]"Lakota Oyate" website controversy.

Please share this information. Lakota Freedom.com was the website established for the original delegation. It was paid for by Russell Means and established at his direction. Naomi Archer was the website coordinator. Upon the delegation's return from Washington, D.C., Naomi was concerned about the funding, the integrity of the delegation and began to issue directives to the delegation to the media through Lakota Freedom.com. Since decisions by Lakota are made by consensus and none of us were contacted by Naomi, Russell Means assumed control of the website and changed it to Republic of Lakota.

Naomi Archer created her own website,calling it Lakota Oyate(people). She intensified her questioning of Means' integrity and did not want money or funding to go to him Lakota Oyate was created to circumvent the funding and donations from going to Russell Means. The Lakota OyateWebsite requested that all funding go to a bank in South Dakota made to Duane Martin. This website was created without the consensus of Lakota people . Naomi is not Lakota and cannot represent the Lakota People, let alone a website. It was the consensus of the freedom delegation to create the Republic of Lakota.

The Republic of Lakota and the Freedom Delegation understand the international interest and support that we have for our people. We appreciate your interest . Our struggle that began in l974 at the FIrst International Indian Treaty Council on Standing Rock was and is to pursue the rights that are inherent to our survival. We do not intend to detract from that. We continue to struggle to represent ourselves at every level. This includes this new technology which operates by electric airwaves. Many of us are still in awe of this technology.

Most importantly, we all have to be accountable to each other. If money is raised on behalf of Lakota, the People have a right to say who is raising money for us. Again, pilamiya(thank you) for your interest.

Phyllis Young-Mni Yuha Maniwin posted by B. Dewhirst at [URL=http://afinerworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/lakota-situation-as-it-stands-now.html]12:37 PM

[URL]http://afinerworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/lakota-situation-as-it-stands-now.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawling Bear (talk • contribs) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Crawling Bear POV Here is the link at which you can verify that my changes are not POV at all. I am only trying to correct flagrant misinformation perpetuated by Naomi Archer who does not currently speak for the Lakotah Freedom Delegation in any way shape or form. I HAVE researched this subject, and have emails of Gary Rowland and Phyllis Young complaining about the articles posted by Naomi in Wiki news, which is where most of this misinformation comes from. They ARE members of the Freedom Delegation. I finally got so tired of the propaganda, I had to come in here and see if I could clear things up. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=lakotafreedom.com Here's som FACTUAL verification for you. How can Russell Means hijack his own website? Naomi Archer is NOT a reliable source. If you choose not to respect my research, please do some more of your own instead of reposting Naomi's propaganda. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawling Bear (talk • contribs) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First, sorry if have been impatient. I work with some very nasty people who play a lot of games on certain other articles and aren't very patient and one does get in bad habits!

If the last wikinews article had relevant info about Russell, then enter it and put in a reference. (If you don't know how to do them do the best you can and someone else will fix it; if it's too long we can cut it down to the meat.) Same with anything new and relevant on Republic of Lakotah. Also, personal blogs usually aren't accepted as reference unless by the person, by a well known person or have caused news to be made about a person. Using the Domain address as evidence would be "original research" and doesn't really prove a point anyway.

Wikipedia has certain rules. I don't make them. Read and study wiki/Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines They keep people from saying a lot of untrue things. That's why others also have reverted your changes and someone put a tag on the article that it is not neutral. (which I accidentally deleted and had to put back)

I have no problem with getting the truth out, but it has to be from a publication considered reliable. Encourage Russell to have an interview with a publication like Indian Country news or Rapid City publication to explain his side. Also I have added that he denies that he tried to take over the web site & to give you a chance to find a source I put in Citation Needed Notice.Carol Moore 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Jewish lobby article mediation

I have requested mediation on the Jewish lobby article. If you wish to participate, please sign up here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

See Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Freda in 1943.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Freda in 1943.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop

While I'm sure your comments are interesting and thoughtful, the case has closed and the final decision is published here. The arbitrators rarely (probably never) read the workshop once a case is closed. Thatcher 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dang! I wish there was a clear note on top of the page. Guess will watch final decision page.Carol Moore 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Can you Help me, Please

Carol, I spent a large part of the day composing a post with quotes for a new section titled 'Back to the (future) Split' in Talk: Jewish lobby; now I've spent a large part of the night trying to post it. This is my 8th attempt to post either there or on your page. Some damn 'spam filter' refuses me to post, likely because of my ISP's 'whois'. Can you find some 'powers that be' that can correct the situation? See the latest post on my talkpage. I will work on it from this end until you wake up. Thanks. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Found the problem, I think, thanks CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I often find that as soon as you ask for help - zing - you find the answer yourself! When trying to figure something out I just type in WP:____ and something appropriate like WP:TECH. I think it might be time to archive that page.Carol Moore 17:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Role of IPCOLL

Carol -- I've replied to your note on IPCOLL. Please read it. You are welcome to write to my Talk to discuss it further (though pls do not repeat allegations regarding any individual users). I would like you to remove or strikeout: ideally, your whole post, or, at a minimum, your accusatory wording But it is probably someone's inappropriate reaction to having to spend hours a week dealing with Jayjg's WP:Game - see the page and the games bad editors play that can just drive people away. But if you complain about Jayjg's behavior (currently for me in Jewish Lobby and Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom)you get accused of not WP:AFG and there are hints you'll be punished. (Jewish Lobby in mediation now about a couple of those games, but no mediation process even started after almost 2 weeks.) and Peer pressure from pro-Israel but more honest editors might help because this behavior does reinforce attitude that Jewish/Israel lobby is an evil conspiracy and not just a group of people working for their interests, just like hundreds of thousands of other groups of people do. Thank you. Please do so soon or I'm afraid it's my thankless role to do it myself. Thanks HG | Talk 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see you've copied it to the Lounge. Until you have a specific recommendation, that's a more appropriate forum for the general discussion of user conduct. However, you still cannot put forth accusations in this manner. Please amend your text there to eliminate accusations of bad faith etc. Or, maybe don't start a general conversation until you've cooled down and can engage it without drawing in your own or other folks various cross-accusations. Thank you. HG | Talk 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. Carol, even if there is a Jewish lobby which is an evil conspiracy, they are not using their time to affect Wikipedia.

There is no basis for comparing efforts on Wikipedia to the usual allegations of a Jewish conspiracy. Not even derogatorily. it makes no sense. anyone can edit wikipedia, so viery few people would see any parallels between the vision of a Jewish lobby and editing processes here at Wikipedia.

I agree completely with HG. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope there is agreement that it is not clear how to deal with the frustrating behavior of partisans. Carol Moore 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I admit I haven't recovered from the Frankness of Arbitration on the Collaboration pages and had forgotten about the intro on personal attacks. But on the issue of possibly paid people coming in with agendas to protect their favorite corporation or nation state, let's not forget the findings of WikiScanner http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ So it's hardly wild speculation to think SOME people might assume the worst about some others. I'm just frustrated and I am about to give up on editing or even watching I/P stuff. Should have known better than to even start. Plus have head cold that aggravates the frustration. Carol Moore 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Yes, this can be an exceedingly frustrating place, nobody's denying that. Still, our responsibility is not to use the wiki as an outlet for our frustrations, if you don't mind my saying so. IPCOLL's goal is to reduce, in effect, the frustration. Anyway, what shall we do with your duplicate comments in project Talk and Lounge? I think it is appropriate that you or I remove at least the version in project Talk. This'll give you a bit more time to figure out what you want to do with the Lounge version, right? Hope you feel better healthwise, too. Regards, HG | Talk 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can delete whole thing in collaboration, since I don't have permission to delete your stuff. Also, I made changes in Lounge where I merely report on what happened to jayjg which obviously related to I/P in general. And ask my question there. Also asked on WP:Game so that maybe they'll clarify how to use it properly there. Carol Moore 04:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Thanks very much. (If you feel stuff I wrote needs to be deleted, pls contact me first. If it's too egregious, or I am unresponsive, then it's appropriate to ask an uninvolved admin to delete it.) Take care, HG | Talk 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

carol, I am here to defend a particular nation-state (within reason, that is, or to at least to make sure that its side of some arguements is fairly presented). that is what draws me here. it is part of my feeling of connection to my community. With that said, because I know I feel a particualr interest in my own community, I do not mind that view when i see it in others, and in fact i welcome it. It makes this a better place. you need to realize that the fact that siome people have particular interests or affiliation does not detract from Wikipedia's quality, it heightens it. I do not feel uncomfortable with expressing the set of interests which drew here, and I do not disqualify that view in others as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with having a point of view or even being an activist, or I'd have to disqualify myself. The problem is when people constantly engage in bad faith behavior, twist the rules, use them in a double standard way, are always in mediation or arbitration on something, and are allowed to just frustrate and drive away people who dare to change articles that they have put their POV mark on. That's why I like the statistics and think they should be applied to editors because some editors should at some point be sanctioned for WP:Gaming the System or else wikipedia becomes a joke. Plus they teach us all bad habits to use against less experienced people in other articles that we then know how to make POV if we so choose. Carol Moore 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

that sounds reasonable. thanks for your reply. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments re Russel Means, etc.

Carol here is a recent article in the Rapid City Journal

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=18570

thnak you for your helpful advice. I still don't know how to make changes that won't be changed back. However, here is an article in Rapid city Journal.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=18570

Here is a recent video of Russell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm0JIgVHypQ

Here are emails to Naomi Archer by Garry Rowland and Phyllis Young concerning the wikinews article about Russell "hijacking " the site that was forwarded to me. I deleted the email addresses. Below that is proof that Russell means did not hijack the lakotafreedom site as it was registered to he and Pearl Means.

Thnak you for taking time to read this. I noticed a picture of you in one of your pages stadning next to Russell. It is my hope that you like hime and that is why you had that picture taken with him. It is also my hope that you will make further edits in these two article to clear up the misinformation. I thank you for the few changes that you have already made. I do not know how do do these things in such a way that they will not be removed over and over again. Thank you in Advance, Crawling Bear if you would like to contact me please feel free to do so at Crawling_Bear@republicoflakotah.com

Following my words here are a message from Phyllis Young who is a memeber of the original Lakota freedom delegation.

Here is Our response to the recent actions of Naomi Archer and Duane Martin, who was/is part of the Lakota freedom delegation. Naomi Archer has created another Web site for Duane Martin, He has started to raise money for himself under the auspises of the Lakota Oyate, This is looked at as a scam using the Lakota Delegation endeavors and Our Lakota People. This Naomi apparently was with Arvol and Paula at the World Peace in Prayer day in Elk Creek in the Black Hills this last meeting there, This is what our sources can verify that Duane Maritn met her there. He has been doing Song and Dance rountines with Naomi Archer and a group she has created there in North carolina, They have apparently made a circuit in the east Coast recently raising funds for himself with nothing going to Pur local Indian endeavors and projects. Our members and Elders are sick and tired of individuals using and exploiting these issues which mean so much to many of Our Lakota People, We have asked Duane and Naomi to stop with the fund raising on behalf of all our Our Lakota Oyate(people) only to be ignored, because this is a lilve issue with $$$$$$ to be made they have ignored our Elders and Our request to stop. For those who know Duane will tell you he is fluent in Lakota as well as married to a non-Indian living off the reservation in Hill City, a short distance from Rapid City

Also, to mention the intent to show division and Naomi recent statements of lies against Russell Means. In one of the recent emails we have it clearly show where she was " adopted" by Duane Martin as a sister and into his strong heart warrior society. Which she is using to give herself some " authority" among people who question her. We have politely asked them to cease and desist their divide actions against the work of the whole Republic of Lakota delegations and the Lakota Indian People..

If there ever was a clear example of the actions of a detractor, this is one now. It has created confusion.

Word is gong out to our People of what Naomi Archer and Duane Martin has done, so Our People can deal with these negative actions, Naomi is very computer savvy and has been scamming before,

Naomi Archer claims to be from a indigenous New age white tribe from a European country, It is displayed in one of her web sites we found under a GOOGLE search.

The Republic of Lakota is the official site which Our People endorse,

We do not support or endorse the actions of Duane Martin and Naomi Archer in their hurry to gather donations and money scheme using our Lakota Oyate.

We also know that many out there want to see these good efforts of Our lakota Nation collapse, which won't happen, All this shows is some very greedy individuals who will stoop to any level to create dissension and animosity among our People, It is nothing new. Duane and Naomi only exposed themselves..

Please bear with Our Lakota People while this issue is being resolved.

Aho

Hecetu Yelo

Alfred Bone Shirt

From: Phyllis Young <.com>.

Naomi,

The article below has caused questions on who you are. You do not represent the Lakota People. I gave you credibility as a volunteer who assisted in setting up the web for Lakota Freedom.Com. I have been most gracious to you. Russell Means paid for the website and as such, had every right to assume control of it. You called me and questioned the integrity of Russell Means because you are concerned who is going to get any money. This has been a concern of yours since we left D.C. On January 5, 2008, you again were concerned with Russell Means' integrity. I responded to you that everything is trivial. My concerns are our struggle. Russell Means was shot on Standing Rock in l975 so I know about life and death.

If you have been involved with Paula Horne Mullen and raising money for her and on behalf of the Lakota People on Rosebud, then you need to provide an accounting to them. If you have been involved with Arvol Looking Horse and raising money for him and the Sacred Calf Pipe on Cheyenne River, then you need to provide an accounting to them. I was not aware of these efforts on their behalf until today. If money is your business on the internet, you cannot raise money in the name of Lakota. You must provide an accounting. The establish-ment and development of financial accounts may take time as all the things we are trying to do. Do you know that there is almost a billion dollars in the U.S.Treasury that we have never touched since l980. That's 28 years.

Naomi, you cannot and do not represent the Lakota. That is one principle established many years ago; that no one speaks for us. We speak for ourselves.It's a fundamental right we all fought for. I hope you understand that.We have many talented young Lakota who do website and computer technology, among other things.

---

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 19:34:44 -0800 From: .com Subject: Your recent article on Wakinews To: fourdirections@riseup.net CC: oahelands@hotmail.com; huhoogle@gwtc.net; sacrcir@aol.com; cante13@gwtc.net

Naomi,

The article copied below has just come to my attention. In it you have grossly misrepresented the Lakota Freedom Delegation. In this article you are telling flagrant lies. I am deeply offended by what has been written here and find it ridiculous that you are now taking it upon yourself to speak for the Lakota Freedom Delegation as well as all Lakota people. Stop this outright lying immediately! You are underminding everything we have worked for all of these years and playing into the hands of the oppressor. You've deliberately tried to sabotage our efforts. I demand that you do the honorable thing and remove yourself from all involvement in the Lakota Nation.

Ho Hetchetu, Tegheya Kte

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/05/lakota-freedom-delegation-says-spokesman-russell-means-hijacked-organization/ >wikinews >Lakota Freedom Delegation says spokesman Russell Means 'hijacked' >organization >January 5, 2008 at 11:17 am · Filed under NewsLog, North America > >Wikinews has learned that the Lakota Freedom Delegation, also known as >Lakotah Oyate, an organization of activists fighting for the Sioux >Indian Nation to withdraw all treaties with the United States, was >"hijacked" by its spokesman, Russell Means, an activist for Native >American Indians. > >On December 19, 2007, Means and the "delegation" went to Washington, >D.C. and hand-delivered a letter, signed by the Delegation, to the >U.S. State Department claiming that the Lakota Indian Tribe was >declaring that all treaties between the tribe and the U.S. have been >withdrawn or canceled. They also held a press conference declaring >their freedom. > >"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all >those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are >free to join us. This is according to the laws of the United States, >specifically article six of the constitution," said Means during the >press conference. > >Since then, Russell Means has gone on to announce the formation of a >"provisional government" of the "Republic of Lakotah" with himself as >Chief Facilitator, as well as to promote the establishment of a bank >and a utility company for the country. Despite the claim Means has >made, Naomi Archer, liaiRE Your recent article on Waki.ems son of Lakotah Oyate stated to Wikinews that >Means took control of the organization and hijacked it and its website >on December 29. Archer also said that Lakotah Oyate or the delegation >are not a government entity and do not make decisions for the Nation. > >"The legitimate actions of the Lakota people are not determined by one >person (referencing Russell Means) or even one group, but by the >people themselves," added Archer. > >Other signers of the withdrawal letter are all still involved in the >movement, including Canupa Gluha Mani who heads the Strong Heart >Warrior Society which will "probably become the paramilitary force" of >Lakotah, said Archer. Wikinews asked Archer if Means would still be >involved in the movement, but she refused to comment. > >The Bank of Lakotah and Provisional Government of Lakota are not >supported by Lakotah Oyate; Means is acting without having consulted >the other elders of Lakotah; Means is himself, at age 69 [sic], an >elder, and "people need their elders to set better examples than >that," said Archer. > >While the idea of establishing a power company, bank, and other such >institutions was an idea that had come from Means and the rest of >Lakotah Freedom Delegation knew that he was going off to Washington >D.C. on his own to conduct negotiations, they did not know what the >negotiations were going to be regarding. Lakotah Oyate hopes that this >dispute will be resolved in a few weeks because this "all has to be >about the people". > >Since the Delegation's press conference, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and >the Cheyenne River Reservation have rejected Means's and the >delegation's declaration of secession. > >"They're individuals acting on their own. They did not come to RE Your recent article on Waki.ems the >Rosebud Sioux tribal council or our government in any way to get our >support and we do not support what they've done. We do not support >what Means and his group are doing and they don't have any support >from any tribal government I know of. They don't speak for us," said >Rosebud Sioux Tribe president, Rodney Bordeaux. > >Despite those rejections rejection, Archer said that the Pine Ridge >Reservation's council will "consider the proposal." A representative >for the Standing Rock Reservation's council has said that that >reservation is also considering Lakotah Oyate's proposal. Lakotah >Oyate have also been holding discussions with "about 150" other >indigenous organizations in the U.S. and mentioned particularly the >Native Hawaiians. > > > > > >

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=lakotafreedom.com

Notice who owned the Domain. How can Russell Means steal his own website?

Registrant:

Russell Means

 PO Box 110 
 San Jose, New Mexico 87565 
 United States 

Registered through: Go Daddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)

 Domain Name: LAKOTAFREEDOM.COM 
  Created on: 10-Dec-07 
  Expires on: 10-Dec-08 
  Last Updated on: 29-Dec-07 

Naomi Archer was the first web page designer of the very first web page Lakotafreedom.com. She was a entrusted as an admin to this website. To be able to post the site into the the alloted web space for publishing.

Naomi Archer moved this domain from Go Daddy.com to a new hosting site without any express or extended permission to do so, Thus hijacking the site from the other delegates.

On Dec 29, 2008 after contacting Go Daddy, this domain was moved back into the control of the delegates. (Go ahead and enter www.lakotafreedom.com into your browser you will be redirected to the www.republicoflakotah.com.) This would never have happened if infact it was not owned by Russell Means.

Naomi Archer is the weaver of lies and deceit.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lakota_Freedom_Delegation_says_spokesman_Russell_Means_'hijacked'_organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawling Bear (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange-seeming request

Carol,

This may seem strange since we have been editing on the same side on the Jewish Lobby page (both of us wanting to change its highly POV nature to NPOV), but I would appreciate it very much if you would temporarily self-revert out the change you just made to that page.

It will seem even stranger when I tell you that I considered making some of the same changes you have made with that edit. But there is a method to my madness, if you care to consider it.

I spent a LOT of time on my edit making sure that I was removing none of the existing text. It was not because I thought the existing text was perfect or sacred; it is because when you remove someone else's cited text, you have to justify that VERY well, and it is generally hard to argue for it if there is an opposing editor. As we both know from editing that page, there is VERY likely to be an opposing editor, and frankly I want to have the easiest argument possible. To do that, I need to argue that no text has been removed, and I can't do that if you remove cited text.

Trust me, I know that the Antisemitism section is too long, and I know that the text that is hidden in the citations does not belong there and should be removed. But I have learned from experience that the best way to get changes accepted is to do it a step at a time. Unfortunately I had to make a large step, since reorganization necessarily moves text, and I would like to get that change accepted before throwing other changes into the mix.

I would like to point out that you were the first contributor of some of the large portions of cited text that I added back (after being improperly deleted based on false claims of WP:NEO), and I greatly appreciate your help in finding them. And I hope that you will be satisfied with this improvement for a few days. Patience is a virtue at WP. Please take a few days, let your arm heal, and then make your edits once things have quieted down.

(P.S. John Nagle seems to agree - see his note to you on the Talk page).

Thank you, Jgui Jgui (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I just re-read your comment on the Talk page and I appreciate your comment about "supporting my change". But in fact adding additional changes to mine at this time work against what I am trying to do, by making an edit war more likely and by making it easier to oppose my change. You were not sanctioned the last time, but Nagle and I were, and I do not want that to happen again. And I also want my changes to stick this time. Which is why I am again asking you to please self-revert your changes for a few days. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't that be gaming? Seems like would look fishy. Plus i didn't revert any of your recent changes, but made one set of new changes and two changes previously discussed on talk. Didn't notice sanctions against anyone. But otherwise will control self. Carol Moore 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I don't see how it could be considered gaming. It is just separating out different edits that have different rationals, because when edits have mixed rationals (e.g. this sentence is POV, this one is UNDUE) it is very hard to prove a point and reach consensus when dealing with relentless POV-pushers. Just something I've concluded from being attacked for making NPOV edits. I'll retract my request for you to self-revert, though, since your change was discussed before in Talk and does not seem to be generating any heat. BTW, I've noticed that your Talk page edits above does not include a date stamp - do you know about the four tilde's that puts both your name and the date? It makes it easy. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need WP:Strange-seeming request ;-) Forgot tildes. Carol Moore 18:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

voluntaryism article

Hi Carol,

I'm writing you to call your attention to the discussion page for the article on Voluntaryism, which I believe you either wrote or edited significantly.

Carl Watner, editor of the journal The Voluntaryist and himself a prominent proponent of that philosophy has written a new article. I have copied it on the discussion page of the current article, along with a proposal about how to proceed. Would you please take a look at Carl's article and share your feedback on the discussion page?

Thank you,

Peter DillardPsdillard (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually wrote the voluntarism (action) article and am not sufficiently familiar with voluntaryism nitty gritties on work on article. And have other priorities now. But will keep in mind. Carol Moore 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}