"Free Republic vs. Wikipedia???" - Debate at the Wikipedia FR article

Thank you:

That is most interesting do you know anything about "Colle" he seems to be taking the name of a Canadian politician Michael Colle. C could be same a comandante. Here is a list that I retrieved from my talk page:

Among a myriad things I was accused of was:

"Anon user is a self described Cuban counter revolutionary, who edits from an anti-Castro point of view. Claims his edits are "merely a penance for my youthful support of Castro in the mountains." [1] The user has made some valuable edits, but has shown no interest in ending his anti-castro campaign, or following NPOV policy --In fact, he takes offense from being asked to stop." Note I did not describe myself as counter revolutionary, the label I prefer is democrat (with lower case d)

These are the names of the "personas" who offered attack testimony at my Wikipedia "trial."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/205.240.227.15#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior

1. Doc glasgow
2. El_C
3. Splash, Curps, Pathoschild,
4. OwenX
5. Jossi
6. Master Jay
7. Lbmixpro
8. Shanel
9. Colle

These are the "personas"

who falsely "certified" the basis for this dispute

# Jay
# LBMixPro
# Colle (who is also the accuser

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:205.240.227.15

This is the block notice: "2006-02-14 01:35:05 Nlu blocked "205.240.227.15 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 days (3RR, edit warring on Cuba) William M. Connolley 21:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)"

One interesting thing is Colle is named further down this page

Hope these computer "personas" are useful to your list. Thank you very much El Jigue

41 posted on 02/17/2006 2:49:02 PM PST by El Jigue

Another thing only a bilingual person might notice is that the syntax and word order suggest that some of these "personas" are either copying Cuban government site verbatim or are not native English speakers, with a Latin Language background (takes one to know them (;>)).
I originally thought they might be coming fro m Cuba but perhaps a better guess would be that they were Francophones from Quebec.
What follows it something I wanted to post to the Che Guevara site, but cannot for now, it is still imperfect but readable. It is also intended for my book in progress:

=== Guevara’s military tactics ===

Guevara’s effectiveness in combat in Cuba but not else where is said attributable to his ability to delegate action to others. At El Hombrito the Che fired a BAR ([[Browning Automatic Rifle]]) at short range and missed (James, 2001, p. 97); the one dead enemy was probably killed by Francisco Tamayo Rodriguez (aka el Mejicano) with a single shot .22. At Úbero, assigned to an intermediate position, the Che did not participate directly in the assault (James, 2001, p 92 -93) unlike [[Camilo Cienfuegos}}, Efiginio Almeijeras, and Jorge Sotus with his urban fighters. This kind of command procedure came to characterize the Che’s tactics.

At Pino del Agua, the Che did not descend far down the more dangerous ravine side road of El Banqueo del Oro, where he would have been exposed to the [[B-26 Fighter bombers]]. Instead Guevara left actions here to his subordinates and [[Escopeteros]] who managed to take weapons from a fallen truck.

In the Buey Valley much of the action and capture of weapons can be attributed to the Mora Brothers. In April 1958 during the Che’s last encounter with his feared enemy Sánchez Mosquera, occurred near Santa Rosa, Buey Arriba. Here Guevara left his men to ambush Mosquera’s troops who were moving along a path on the east bank of the upper Buey River at very close range from beneath the cover of a grass covered bank of the east side. Guevara supporters infer that Che taken this position to snipe at Mosquera. However, this rationale does not seem accurate because with exceptions (see use of BAR which is usually a two man crew served weapon) above Guevara usually carried shorter range weapons such as 9 mm Madsen submachine guns, at this time a 9 mm Beretta submachine gun).

In addition El Che admits running away [http://www.radiobayamo.islagrande.cu/Che%20Guevara%20cerca%20de%20la%20muerte.htm], [http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/2002/ing/f300302i.html]. However, Guevara’s men held firm, and came out of hiding, firing at the Batista’s who were standing to fire in order to clear the long guinea grass at the distant hill side where the Che running away. Thus despite the departure of their leader, the rebels managed to cause causalities including. Mosquera it is said took rapid refuge in a nearby abandoned latrine.

During the Batista’s army assault on Sierra Maestra, Guevara did not support Rene Ramos Latour and as a result Ramos was wounded and bled to death as "Benigno" watched (Alarcón Ramírez, 1997).

Guevara’s (columna 8) movements out from the Sierra to the west involved little personal contact with the enemy. The passage out of the Vegas of Jibacoa was said bought, the passage through the plains of the Cauto crossed territory already controlled by Camilo Cienfuegos (columna 2) and his subordinate Cristino Naranjo, elements of Column One technically under the command of [[Universo Sanchez]] but in reality lead by Orlando Rodriguez Puerta, and most of all by the veteran plains fighters “Los Muchachos” of [[Orlando Lara Batista]] [http://www.bohemia.cubaweb.cu/2003/sep/02semana/sumarios/historia/articulo1a.html]. In addition Juan Almeida’s, Huber Matos’, René los Santos, y Jaime Vega’s forces (columnas 3, 9, 10, 11 respectively) were also in movement in the area, while Raul Castro occupied, after “reorganizing about 500 escopeteros already in the area, much of the rural eastern part of Oriente Province.

When the Che crossed the Camaguey plains he moved moved slowly across swampy south of Camaguey. His Che’s column was screened by the Columns of Jaime Vega [http://freeweb.supereva.com/carlo260/najarro_preambulo.html?p] which took heavy casualties and that of Camilo Cienfuegos which was moving along a more northern route [http://www.monumentoalche.com.ar/che/php/1956.php]. When the Che reached Las Villas Province that area was already occupied by very diverse anti-Batista forces which included [[William Morgan]].

The Che’s greatest “victory” the assault on the armored train is reputed bought [http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:bV4N6uGg_uwJ:penhacubana.com/exibeArtigo.php%3Fcod%3D668+%22Rodriguez+Tamayo%22+Cuba&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1]. Without this kind of support from auxiliaries the numerous unsupported overseas adventures which El Che participated in/ and or planned were all failures.

42 posted on 02/17/2006 3:02:43 PM PST by El Jigue

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Rumored take over of Wikipedia by Google Did you know that Cuba is a democracy, led by a benevolent leader (who should never be called a dictator) and directed by a freely elected socialist, not communist, government? Well if you don’t know this you have not been reading the “correct sources. You should have been reading Wikipedia/Cuba especially the “discussion” and “history” sections. Well there you would learn hitherto unknown facts for instance Batista in 1952 was opposed by the Liberal Party. And I had thought the Liberal Party had disappeared 20 years before. Going back to in time to causes of the Spanish America War you would learn that the US was outraged by the deaths of mere hundreds, not hundreds of thousands of Cubans. Stupid me I had always thought that the argument was between 200,000 or 400,000 deaths en “La Reconcentraccion”. Well Castro’s father Angel was like his son a good guy and he would never have been involved is such terror. Seriously, Wikipedia has a right to conduct its business as it wishes. However, when Wikipedia proceeds to distort history others also have a right to know about it. Especially those investor of Google who seemingly want to incorporate Wikipedia into their business, perhaps because Wikipedia is one of the most cited sources on a given google search. However, it is wise to suggest to students, investors or anybody else you know that Wikipedia is not the wisest choice for research (or investment) on a given topic. Supposedly Wikipedia allows input from all sources. However, now it is going one step further it is now banning contributors who do not follow a certain ideological concept. In the Alice in Wonderland of Wikipedia/Cuba “Vandalism” is to have a different view point, and for this you can and will be banned.

43 posted on 04/14/2006 6:23:38 PM PDT by El Jigue

To: El Jigue; upchuck; onyx

Well put.

Wikipedia is a complete and utter farce.

Some of its administration consists of people who have not even graduated high school, let alone college, and yet they purport to be an authoritative source, on par with the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Give me a break!

Read the hagiography of Barbara Boxer if you want to see how well this "neutral," collective database of knowledge-more often, partisan prejudices, arrogance, and misconceptions about history, political science, etc.-works in achieving its stated goals.

Also, even those entries that focus on seemingly "noncontroversial" subjects are replete with errors, grammatical, syntactical, and all too often, factual.

The entry on "In Search of Lost Time" is a perfect illustration of how inadequate this so-called encyclopedia is in disseminating factual, empirical data and information.

Go to the "talk" section linked to in that entry, where a heated debate erupts over how accurate the information contained therein is.

After this volatile, contentious exchange, another Wikipedian-who is French-comes in and asserts that he believes their concern is misplaced, since the English entry-which had been flagged for revision-is actually better than its French counterpart.

Think about that for a second.

The French "explanation" of La Recherche du temps Perdu-which I can only assume is compulsory literature for French students at some time during their matriculation through academe-is actually inferior to its corresponding entry in the English version of Wikipedia, which is edited-far too often-by complete dolts.

What does that tell you?

44 posted on 04/14/2006 9:33:07 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

BUMP.
That site is bogus.
I never rely on it for information.
Not even for dates of birth.

45 posted on 04/14/2006 9:36:33 PM PDT by onyx (It's easier to indict a ham sandwich or Tom DeLay than it is to indict a Democrat.)

LOL.

They have been known to botch those too, believe it or not.

*prolonged eye roll*

46 posted on 04/14/2006 9:41:37 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I know!
That's why I wrote that!
LOL!

47 posted on 04/14/2006 9:43:58 PM PDT by onyx (It's easier to indict a ham sandwich or Tom DeLay than it is to indict a Democrat.)

Heh, heh.

Yeah, I guess I should have known that.

:-)

48 posted on 04/14/2006 10:05:52 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I saw Tom Cruise lose 3 years in age in a matter of minutes...lol.

49 posted on 04/14/2006 10:07:55 PM PDT by onyx (It's easier to indict a ham sandwich or Tom DeLay than it is to indict a Democrat.)

LOL.

He's certainly an odd fellow, isn't he?

50 posted on 04/14/2006 10:17:36 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Thanks for the ping.

Read my tag line. J

Since ANYBODY can edit ANYTHING on Wikipedia, the site is worthless as a resource. Mild amusement, perhaps. But nothing beyond that.

51 posted on 04/14/2006 10:36:18 PM PDT by upchuck (Wikipedia.com - the most unbelievable web site in the world.)

52 posted on 04/14/2006 10:57:36 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

What do you know about a certain Scott Grayban (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgrayban and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sgrayban) it appears that he is a retired Sargeant (US Airforce) and software developer who is also perhaps a hacker (http://www.acky.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t420.html)

Right now he is on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba) busy trying to prove that the Cuban government is a democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cuba), threatening to ban and banning to get his way. Such actions are inconsistent with his background.

Does anybody know anything about Scott Grayban

El Jigue 4-15-06

53 posted on 04/15/2006 2:01:12 PM PDT by El Jigue (Who is Scott Grayban)

I wish I could tell you, but the truth is that I'm not that familiar with the insiders at Wikipedia, and the things that I have learned about them I've gleaned from this website.

I do know that there are a few Wikipedians who are also Protest Warriors-I know most of them-who try their best to combat the lies, misinformation, and general ignorance that predominates over there.

It seems like a Sisyphean task, if you ask me.

I've edited a few egregiously wrong Wikis-one on Ralph Ellison, which was riddled with errors, including the absurd assertion that he was a critical part of the Harlem Renaissance-but trying to alter the ingrained Marxist tendencies of Wikipedia seems to be a fruitless endeavor.

I think a better course is to expose that website for what it is, and attempt to educate people who are misled into believing that it is the equivalent of a normal, standard encyclopedia.

54 posted on 04/15/2006 3:01:04 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

55 posted on 04/15/2006 8:08:20 PM PDT by El Jigue (Who is Scott Grayban)

Nothing.

But his biography, bi-sexual, for Hawaii sovereignity, part of the "anti-fascist," i.e. communist, movement, is all there for you to review.

56 posted on 04/15/2006 8:23:13 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Sorry for double submitting I had gone out for a walk with my wife and did not realize that the message had already been sent/

Here is an example of Wikipedia nonsense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cuba)

They are attacking "Adam" who is trying to tell them that Cuba is not democratic. Here is the end of one of Scott Grayban's attacks:

"Anyone realize this yet or not that there are only 3 words that is making this article POV ? Communist, Socialist, and Democracy. The same 3 words that comminusts and socialist use in there anti-american propaganda and the same 3 words used in American propaganda. Have we not learned anything at all? Adam is bent on labeling Cuba as a communist state just like the US. Government does. Cuba use the samething in order to provoke hate towards the US. See anything wrong at all ? No one will be happy until 1 is dead and the other wins. Samething for the opposite countries. --Scott Grayban 02:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And I 100% oppose that Adam be allowed to edit on this article seeing that his post on my talk page[18] absolutely proves his willing to do anything to hurt the colabrative NPOV working on this article. --Scott Grayban 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"

Agreed exposing them is the only way.

57 posted on 04/15/2006 8:24:33 PM PDT by El Jigue (Who is Scott Grayban)

Does anybody know anything about Scott Grayban

Sounds like a lunatic to me.

58 posted on 04/15/2006 8:59:23 PM PDT by Dashing Dasher (I feel like a fugitive from the law of averages.)

It always astounds me when someone who's lived in the United States his/her entire life-and therefore, has no appreciation of the freedoms that he or she enjoys-venerates totalitarian dictatorships that they have never been to, and castigates the opinions of others who have actually had to endure those sorts of autocracies firsthand.

I could go on all day recounting the humorous-but sad-anecdotes involving conversations I and a friend of mine-from CommunistsforKerry/The People's Cube-have had with brainwashed leftists at various moonbat congregations in this city.

Keep in mind, he actually grew up-and spent the vast majority of his life-within a despotic one party state behind the Eastern Bloc, so it's not as if he approaches this subject from a state of ignorance.

59 posted on 04/16/2006 1:12:03 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794