User talk:Rgr09

Hello, Rgr09! Welcome to Wikipedia! We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soong Ching-ling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Guard (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) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wang Chen and Zhang Ping (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) 12:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Presidents of the People's Republic of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PLA (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) 09:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Heads of state

Some changes I might suggest to the new article for Heads of State of the People's Republic of China that is currently in your User:Rgr09/sandbox.

• In each section, I think we should have a one paragraph lead explaining the Changes in power and thus official roles, that the new constitutions brought in.
• In 1981 Soong was honorary president but was she head of state? Also doesn't that contradict the lead where it says, "None of these offices have been purely ceremonial." as Soong position then was not an active one and had no real power associated with it.
• Remember to bold heads of state of the People's Republic of China in the first sentence.
• Add an explanation of Mao's role through the 1960's and 70's as although he was not president, he was Chairman of the CCCPC right up until his death.

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The newly-established Central National Security Commission

Question (since you seem to know much about China), do you know if this is a state or party organ? --TIAYN (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

After creation of the Commission was announced at the 3rd Plenum in November, there was much speculation about whether it would be a state or party organ (a fine and perhaps not very important distinction). The latest official announcement I have found is here (dated 1/24/14), and it makes it clear that this is a party organ; Xi Jinping will chair, with Li Keqiang and Zhang Dejiang as cochairs. Number of standing and regular members TBA.

"[The Commission] will function as the Party Central's policy-making and "coordinating body" for matters relating to national security work, reporting to the Politburo and the Politburo Standing Committee, and providing overall planning and coordination for important national security issues and work."

"Coordinating body" is a technical term here, and is used for State Council organs such as the National Defense Mobilization Commission, etc., which have to deal with issues involving more than one state organ; such bodies are able to promulgate "temporary" administrative rules. Rgr09 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oswald LeWinter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Parry. 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) 09:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you glad you're helping out on this article?

[1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gawrsh! Thanks for tidying up, NeilN. Let me know if I should apply for asylum in Sweden. Rgr09 (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Jon Hand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air America. 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) 10:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Seth Rosenfeld

We must have our eyes on a lot of the same articles. A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon the Seth Rosenfeld and Richard Aoki articles. I have a concern that the article on Aoki now now states as fact that he was an FBI informant on the basis of a few articles authored by Rosenfeld. There is work to be done there, too, but the weeds grow up faster than I can pull them. - Location (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think the Seth Rosenfeld article is basically okay, but some edits to the article may have overstated things. Rosenfeld's original story on the Frogman case should figure in any real article on the CIA and drugs; ironically so far it doesn't. Although there are details in Rosenfeld's story that it seems were not correct, the most important claim on CIA intervention in the Frogman case was correct, and Rosenfeld deserves credit for being one of the few reporters to find a real CIA-Contra-Cocaine link. The Seth Rosenfeld article does seem to mis-state the conclusions of the DOJ/OIG report on this incident, but I'll wait for a response to my citation request before I try to revise.

I too was struck by the Richard Aoki story when I read the Rosenfeld article, but it looks like Rosenfeld is right here as well. The FBI vault recently posted 16 PDFs of material from Aoki's file. The PDF page summary says:

 Richard Matsui Aoki (1938-2009) was involved in a number of radical groups on the West Coast including the Socialist Workers Party and the Black Panther Party. At the same time Aoki served as an informant for the FBI (symbol source number SF-2496-R). This release consists of material from the period 1962 to 1970 and a record of the FBI file search for material on Aoki in 2009.  

I took a look at the files, but it's all raw primary source material, though no doubt useful as a reality check on Rosenfeld's articles if you have the time. As an example of this, the Richard Aoki article says that Rosenfeld 'accused the FBI of giving Aoki the informant code number "T-2"'. I don't know if this is Rosenfeld's mistake, or the article's mistake. The way this seems to work is that when an FBI report lists confidential informants, it numbers them T-1, T-2, T-3, ... etc. These people are then identified on a separate sheet, which can be removed from the file to allow it to circulate to people who are not authorized to know who the informants are. SF-2496-R is the real and permanent source number the FBI used for Aoki. Too bad this kind of stuff doesn't come up on Double Jeopardy. Rgr09 (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the pdf files. That might be as close to an official response to the allegations that we're going to get for now. Re: T-2, it appears Rosenfeld got this information from former FBI agents Burney Threadgill Jr and M. Wesley Swearingen. I don't know anything about Threadgill at this point, but Swearingen's reports on various things have me questioning his credibility. I've only peered through a few of the documents, so I don't know where they got this from. - Location (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Gary Webb

As you've noted, a one-sided view of Webb's allegations appears in more than a few Wikipedia articles. In most cases, it seems that there is undue weight given to the allegations that the most substantive of them were investigated thoroughly and rejected as baseless. I may put a better, formatted version of this edit together to tack on wherever I see reference to Webb's claims of CIA involvement. - Location (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that many articles get the Webb story wrong, but I think you've put things a little strongly in one or two places.

First, I wouldn't say the Mercury News disavowed the story. There was at one point a controversy in the Gary Webb article over whether it was retracted or not. Jonathan Krim, the editor charged with checking the story, called the paper's statement a retraction, but Jerry Ceppos, the executive editor, did not say that in his final column on the series. The description of Ceppos's column in the San Jose Mercury News article might do for your purposes, though it's a little rosy. There should be a link to the column, however you decide to go; don't use Tina Daunt's article for this.

Second, I would be careful using the word 'repudiated' to describe other papers' coverage of the series. Their coverage was not as tough as some have claimed; it was on the editorial pages that the series got slammed. I think that it's fair to say that the big three papers' articles on 'Dark Alliance' all agreed its claims were 'overstated'. The most hostile reaction was to the series' claim that the CIA started the crack epidemic. If you want to use words like repudiate or reject, save them for that. Nick Schou thought this was where Webb lost his credibility, and I'm sure he's right.

The quotes from the DOJ and CIA OIG reports are good I think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgr09 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 31 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Regarding the first point, you are correct. Daunt wrote: "Later, his bosses at the Mercury News all but disavowed the piece, with a front-page editor's note stating that the series had largely overstated its provocative findings." [Emphasis mine.] Later in her article, she called it "a stunning rebuke of the series". Secondary sources should usually be used over primary sources, so that is why I used Daunt. There are other secondary sources, mostly tied to Kill the Messenger (2014 film), mentioning Ceppos' column that could be used: [2], [3], and [4].

Regarding the second point, that, too, can be toned down. In her article, Daunt quoted The New York Times: "'Reporting by the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times produced no clear evidence of any direct line between the drug dealers and the CIA,' the New York Times noted in a follow-up story." If there is some sort of conflict of reporting interest from those three papers, perhaps we should avoid them. I'm wondering what you think about using this article from the recently defunct American Journalism Review. - Location (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The NOLA story on Ceppos looks good if you don't want to link to the original column. On the major papers' coverage of the story, I think Daunt is okay, she didn't work on the LAT response to Dark Alliance. Overall, Nick Schou's biography of Webb, Kill the messenger, (the book the movie was 'based on') is the best source I have found on the journalism side of things, but it's not online. Susan Paterno's article at AJR is one of the best things on line. You should read the whole thing, its not that long. The version of the article you link to is missing several side-bar pieces that might be useful. Try searching for articles by Paterno at AJR archives to find the side-bar stuff. If you want a single source for all your info, Paterno might be a good choice. Rgr09 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When I have secondary sources discussing a primary source, I typically use both. The Paterno piece has "Related reading:" at the top that appears to link to the other articles you mentioned. Per some of the issues noted in Talk:CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking, I'm working on an outline here. Feel free to add material or comment on the talk page. - Location (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

References

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comments

Thanks for your response. I'm making a quick-response to your questions (and working on the rest of it later), but for questions about my interest in the article, you can email me at surefootedone2013@gmail.com Sure Footed1 (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Nugan Hand Bank

If you're still interested in Nugan Hand, I'm willing to email/post a copy of the Section of the Stewart Royal Commission report dealing with the CIA if you provide an address...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Thanks! I'm still very interested to see what the report had to say. I've set up a sendmail address for my wikipedia account, perhaps that would be the best way to get it to me. If that doesn't work, or is not convenient, feel free to post it here. Rgr09 (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I will email it. 1st I need to scan it, and that might take me a couple of days to do.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit war on the Gary Webb page

Rgr09, we have (what appears to be) an edit war on the Gary Webb page. (If you look at the history of the article, you will see what I am saying.) An editor is trying to change the intro. What do you think? See the talk page for comments.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy is still at it. But I've told him what to do.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

We could use your input again. The guy won't leave the thing alone. Sorry to keep bothering you.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rgr09. 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)

Iran–Contra affair

Not sure if you have much interest in Iran–Contra affair, but I thought I would run a question by you. I stumbled across Malcolm Byrne's blog here that points to this document released by the CIA that seems to state Syria, rather than Mehdi Hashemi, leaked word to Ash-Shiraa about the trip of Robert McFarlane et al. to Tehran which broke open the scandal. Do you have any more information or thoughts on that? -Location (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm very unfamiliar with the Iran side of Iran-Contra. I have Draper's book (he discusses Al-Shiraa 457-460), but have not read the whole thing. The SI article says Al-Shiraa was Syrian funded and Draper mentions a couple of people who claimed this. If Syria did control Al-Shiraa, the article's claims seem reasonable, even without knowing the redacted source mentioned in the SI article. Rgr09 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There are so many sources that attribute the leak to Mehdi Hasemi or his friends, but the only "official" story I can find is on the bottom right column of page 520 of the Iran-Contra report... and they said they got it from a NYT article! They Syrian-theory is likely a better explanation, but there is only that primary source and blog. -Location (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

On the US side: The article on John K. Singlaub cites an AP report — that came out while John McCain was running for President — that states Singlaub's United States Council for World Freedom "became the public cover for the White House operation". There are lots of similar reports around the same time, however, the only "official" story I have on this is a brief mention on the upper right column of page 127 of the Iran-Contra report. I was aware of Richard Secord's "The Enterprise" linked to Iran-Contra, but I hadn't heard of any of Singlaub's "involvements" playing any sort of role. -Location (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

For most of Iran-Contra's basic facts and a strong analysis that seems to have stood up well, I suggest Draper's book. Draper's take on Singlaub is on p. 86-89: "He was a filibustering type, who had injected himself into the contra affair without anyone's leave and who operated without official status but not without the blessing and cooperation of some officials, especially North." The AP article on McCain is typical of election year journalism nowadays and is not a useful source for Iran-Contra. Rgr09 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

References

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rgr09. 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)

Oswald’s whereabouts?

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has pointed out in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.62 (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?

I just noticed that the Lee Harvey Oswald article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest. But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.72 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rgr09. 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)

DRN

Hi there, in case you didn’t see my ping, I’ve left a comment for you at the dispute resolution notice board where you posted a case. Cheers. Steven Crossin 13:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Dan Mitrione

Thank you for your valiant effort to improve the unconscionably shoddy entry for Dan Mitrione. Nicmart (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, Rgr09! I saw that you pinged me regarding a discussion about Operation Mockingbird, so I posted a reply and thought I would stop by to say "hello". I won't rule out the possibility of editing an article now and then, but I don't intend to get sucked into this futile endeavor again. Hope all is well. Cheers! -Location (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Location: Hey, great to hear from you! Hope you can edit in the future as your time (and patience!) permit; I'm looking forward to more of your improvements, corrections, and comments. Editing Wikipedia can often produce feelings of futility, but you've done a lot of good work, put in a lot of solid content and fixed a lot of messy stuff. That counts for plenty in my book. Rgr09 (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

William Northrop

In William Northrop, I read: "In 1988, after the death of William J. Casey, it was discovered that Northrop had an ongoing relationship with the Director of Central Intelligence when phone logs surfaced." I am skeptical of anything cited to Honegger and anyone attempting to link known fabricators to the CIA, so I looked for more information. This May 1988 article by Brian Barger states: "Another participant in the operation, William Northop -- an Oklahoma City resident with ties to the Israeli spy agency -- told investigators he was also brought into the operation by Mossad agents with whom he had worked for a number of years. Congressional investigators said phone logs from the late CIA Director William Casey showed Northrop was in frequent contact with the spymaster during this time." (I assume that these were investigators for the Kerry Committee, but I'm not positive.) In 1993, the House October Surprise Task Force said Israel denied an association with him(p. 224) and the footnotes say that Northrop denied the link, too(p. 229), so clearly the Congressional investigators referred to in the article received erroneous information from Northrop. Do you have any more information regarding this investigation or Casey's phone logs? Thanks! -Location (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

When you are looking for info on Northrop, remember he is often referred to as "Will" rather than "William", and his last name is sometimes mis-spelled "Northrup". Northrop is only mentioned once in the Kerry committee report (p. 130), which says "Brenneke first came to the Subcommittee's attention through Will Northrop, one of the defendants in the "Evans" Iranian arms sale case in New York." This seems to support the claim that the Kerry people interviewed him, but there are no references in the report to William Casey's "phone logs". Barger's article is apparently the only place where this claim occurs. I have more to say about the Northrop article, but I'll put it in the talk section. Rgr09 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Interested in what you have to say. I removed the sentence with an explanation on the talk page. Cheers! -Location (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

References

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rgr09/Sandbox/Subpage

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rgr09/Sandbox/Subpage requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKintelligence.htm and https://www.quora.com/Is-the-CIA-still-to-this-day-infiltrating-the-media. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Amkgp ✉ 11:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, I removed the tag. 1) The information that the bot thought was copied was actually moved a Wikipedia article. 2) The first link was citing the same report Wikipedia cited. 3) Quora copied the Wikipedia article (not the other way around). - Location (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I did not notice it was accidentally created in mainspace. - Location (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

what did I do wrong? Oh the disadvantages of a humanities degree instead of CS. Rgr09 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I know what you mean! Follow the following format: User:Rgr09/Sandbox, User:Rgr09/Sandbox/Subpage, User:Rgr09/Sandbox/CIA and the press. If User:Rgr09/ precedes the working name of the sandbox, you should be OK. - Location (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of CIA drug trafficking (Page)

Hey Rgr09. You recently edited the article in the subject line by leaving the POV tag on it. Could you elaborate a bit further? I noticed on the talk page some comments (by you) on the Mexico section and so on.....but I'm not 100% sure what the issues are. I probably shouldn't be asking because I am only knowledgeable enough about the CIA/Contra/Gary Webb allegations to edit that aspect of the article. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33:Hi! I will respond on the talk page of the article. Rgr09 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rgr09:I would try to do something with the article as far as the Golden Triangle deal goes.....but I am not that knowledgeable on those allegations. I know a great deal about the Webb/Contra allegations.....just not those. I can always take a crack at it if you want.....but i wouldn't be 100% comfortable on those points.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is good time to pawn off this project on someone else (i.e. Rja13ww33)! - Location (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33:@Location:Although I've edited a fair amount in the last few weeks, I'm actually in the middle of a summer project which takes up most of my time, so the stuff I've been doing is mostly quick fixups. If Rja13ww33 is interested in the drug allegations page, go for it. Location was working on a big revision of the Laos/Air America part of that, if his notes on that are still around somewhere, reading those might help Rja13ww33 get up to speed on the history of the allegations. I probably won't be doing any substantial revision work again until September. Revisions are needed, go for it! Rgr09 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I placed then removed the material on his talk page, too. I enjoyed working on that with you (I learned a lot and I have much respect for you!), but I am not a historian or scholar with any expertise in the subject matter who could do it justice. And I would not expect you to do it for free here without any credit if you could write a book and make a few dollars off it. Cheers! - Location (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Based on the info provided.....and what else I can find, I might go for it. But it may be far from perfect.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am intending to get to this. Have been a bit distracted by stuff both on and off of wiki. It is on my "to do" list.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rgr09: Earlier today I logged on to Wikipedia the first time in a year, and I see you just about did the same with your edit on the talk page there. - Location (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Location: Hello! Very pleasant to see you back on line. This is the first time I've edited in over a year, not sure where I can contribute anything useful at this point. If you have any suggestions let me know. Rgr09 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been 4 months since I made a talk section about a lone sentence in question. I can't thank you enough for changing it, and I can see that there is enough evidence that the contract killers were hired by the cartel to kill Seal. Again, I can't thank you enough for changing it, and I, pretty much, didn't saw that coming until 4 months later. Emotioness Expression (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena

I noted the facts you laid out on the Kiki Camarena page and may add them to the Felix Rodriguez page. (In addition to the denials I've already added.) The Vince Bugliosi comments I think are important.....but I originally held off on them because it seemed to awkward to put in. (I.e. all the sudden to stick in a bunch of stories about the Kennedy assassination.) But I will give it some thought. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I created Elaine Shannon if you feel like giving it a quick review. - Location (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Location: Looks good, but would like to have more sources in addition to the CNN link. I have some other reviews of Desperadoes that I can add when time permits. This remains the most thorough treatment of the Camarena case. Wish she had done a more thorough revision on the 88-92 U.S. trials is all. In sum, Shannon is a solid RS on the drug trade. Her work is accurate and has good annotation for journalistic works. Shannon is especially good at getting quotes and info from people who don't usually talk to the press, as her recent story on the Amazon pseudo-documentary shows. Rgr09 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rgr09: Could you check this edit when you have a moment? The passage is cited to Shannon. Cheers! -Location (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked the Elaine Shannon book at the page cited. She says, "Growers in California and Oregon had pioneered a technique that yielded extraordinarily potent marijuana, called sinsemilla, 'without seeds.' ... Sinsemilla pioneers in the United States worked tiny plots and sold exquisitely manicured clippings for $2500 a pound, eight times the price of Mexican commercial-grade pot." So Shannon certainly believes it was an American innovation. The point of the passage is that Caro Quintero was an entrepreneurial talent who recognized that he could apply the new technique in Mexico and significantly enhance his profits. I'm sure that Shannon had a source for this claim, but it is not listed in the notes. The editor's objection seems to based purely on the use of Spanish for the varietal, and no source is offered for the counter-claim. Rgr09 (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That is as much as I could tell from the GBooks view, too. I'll change it back. -Location (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

John Watkins

Hey! Whenever you get back 'round to these parts, I'm wondering if you might review John Watkins (diplomat) and make changes that you think are appropriate. Cheers! - Location (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)