User talk:Driftwoodzebulin

Welcome!

Hello, Driftwoodzebulin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the million/billion error on the Earl Amherst page, with 13 billion pounds they could've probably just bought out Burma outright in 1823 :) Karajanis 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1812 Casualties

Hi Driftwood.. Did a quick Google to look up causauties.

Geocities cites 5,279 British and 6,765 American without disease; 8,600 and 11,300 with disease. Neither number includes Canadian or American militias.
US Civil War Center cites 6,765 American casualties (not including disease).
Veteran Museum cites the same 6,765 US casualties.

Don't know if that helps a bit. Rather annoying not having casualties by diesase, and even more annoying that there are no numbers for Militias or Native Americans. Esseh 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found those too, but the article had a total for both sides of the war of 1812 and that is what I am hoping to verify. 16,000 total casualties is higher than I would have expected.Zebulin 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no idea, but the sources seem to concur. Esseh 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other interesting quote, from a US source:

The seat of anti-British fever was in the Northwest and the lower Ohio Valley, where the land-hungry frontiersmen had no doubt that their troubles with the Indians were the result of British intrigue. Stories were circulated after every Indian raid of British Army muskets and equipment being found on the field. By 1812 the westerners were convinced that their problems could best be solved by forcing the British out of Canada.
While the western "war hawks" urged war in the hope of conquering Canada, the people of Georgia, Tennessee, and the Mississippi Territory entertained similar designs against Florida, a Spanish possession. The fact that Spain and England were allies against Napoleon presented the southern war hawks with an excuse for invading Florida. By this time, also, the balance of political power had shifted south and westward; ambitious party leaders had no choice but to align themselves with the war hawks, and 1812 was a Presidential election year. (Boldfacing mine, text from Center of Military History, U.S. Army).

Seems a reliable source. Esseh 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more, from the same source:

The Strategic Pattern

The fundamental strategy was simple enough. The primary undertaking would be the conquest of Canada. The United States also planned an immediate naval offensive, whereby a swarm of privateers and the small Navy would be set loose on the high seas to destroy British commerce. The old invasion route into Canada by way of Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River led directly to the most populous and most important part of the enemy's territory. The capture of Montreal would cut the line of communications upon which the British defense of Upper Canada depended, and the fall of that province would then be inevitable. But this invasion route was near the center of disaffection in the United States, from which little local support could be expected. The west...,

Esseh 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

these are interesting finds but have you posted this to the war of 1812 talk page? I would think this may be of some value for improving the article but I'm not sure what kind of feedback you would like me to offer here. My interest in the article of late has been in verifying the total casualties on both sides and also finding more information about the diplomatic developments of the war.

for this new information I'd say the interesting follow up question is did these northwesterners just want the british expelled from canada or were they hoping to settle those canadian territories themselves?Zebulin 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on resolving issues on the Superpower page Daniel Chiswick 08:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

User: 128.227.43.42 is trying to get me blocked for the most petty reasons and saying I personally attacked him for saying he should sign in. You remeber on the superpower talk page that he insulted me and I need you as a witness, can you please back me up on here [[1]]? User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your efforts on improving the quality of the Superpower article and ressolving issues in a professional and non-biased way

Empires

As someone who took part in the editing of List of largest empires, you might be interested in trying to help in this case. Thank you. PocketMoon 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

Hello there. I'm rather confused by your edits at global warming and even more confused by your edit summaries. I'm not sure what your new sentence is supposed to mean. Your sentence states, "but as of 2007 most national governments have not accepted any treaty obligations to control those emissions." Are you trying to make the point that the non-industrialized countries who have ratified the treaty have no obligation to reduce emissions? Then, in your edit summary, you write, "obligated countries emit less than half the GHGs so not misleading." Are you saying, of the 35-38 countries that are required to reduce emissions under the treaty, they only account for less than half the total emissions? If so, this document seems to say that they account for 61.6 percent of emissions from annex I countries. ~ UBeR 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

given space constraints it is no wonder you're confused :)

My second edit summary was in response to a revert of my efforts that had been summarized as "(Rv., misleading. Most _industrialized_ countries have, and they generate most CO2)". I replied that my edit is not misleading in that sense given that currently most of the worlds co2 emissions occur in countries that have not yet accepted treaty obligations to control their co2 emissions. Annex I includes countries that have not accepted treaty obligations (ie have not ratified the treaties and even have delcared no intention to do so). removing the US alone from annex I places the total at less than 45% of total anthropogenic co2 emissions. I hope that helped!Zebulin 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but these types of statements need to be sourced. Also, I'm not sure if this type of detail is necessary for the lead. Just as I opposed silly specifics about who is and who isn't a signatory or ratifier, I think this level of detail regarding the amount of emissions covered by the treaty ought to either be in the body (i.e. mitigation section) or left entirely in their respective articles. I therefore think it would be prudent to discuss this on the talk page beforehand. ~ UBeR 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

detail heavy leads are indeed bad news. Perhaps given the very complicated story behind kyoto it would be best to replace the entire statment with a general statement that nearly all national governments have taken part in negotiations aimed at reducing co2 emissions? It's hard to see how that could be misleading. For the record I've had this idea in talk for a few days now it was not really directly addressed.Zebulin 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Talk:Republic of Macedonia

It appears I deleted your comment on Talk:Republic of Macedonia, please not that it was an accident and I was never aware you even made the comment. Thanks Samuell 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Global warming

From the recent discussion, I think it is possible to form an interim consensus for that dispute now. Is it possible the article could be unlocked sooner than the 22nd?Zebulin (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a request for unprotection at WP:RPP#Current_requests_for_unprotection. -- tariqabjotu 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU entry

Hi Zebulin, you have reverted or deleted repeatedly several EU entries in the lists of countries. The arguments for the inclusion have been numerous, sourced and gathered by more than 13 users. Your edits indicate no answer to the raised arguments. Your reverting campaign can be considered as disruptive editing. Please refrain from repeated actions. Lear 21 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Your unclear stance is very confusing. Quote: "This (rationale for inclusion) could motivate editors to include it in their country lists certainly" Zebulin (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC) [2]. You seem to act on an arbitrary, provocative base. How can you revert with an insight of the stated quote ??? Lear 21 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointedly refuted your "raised arguments" and you do not respond to the points made. My stance is confusing to you because I don't object to mentioning the EU in country list articles. Rather I strenuously object to your stance that a blanket policy is now in place that the EU must be included unranked in all country lists. You drop it in get reverted and then refer the editors to the debate article as if some sort of decision has been made.Zebulin (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let´s resume: "I don't object to mentioning the EU in country list articles" But you revert or delete the entry? Do you think this is logical acting? Nobody has mentioned any policy. The debate about the inclusion has lead to a majority of pro-inclusionists, but this is one aspect of many in the argumentation line. So what is needed to see you acting according to your conviction? A cookie? A hug? Your discussion style is highly unpredictable. Lear 21 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's easy to explain. go back and look at my changes. I put the EU back in the article (but out of the list) for list of countries by area and in the other article (list of english speaking countries) where it had no previous presence I suggested in discussion the possibility of including it in the article (but out of the list) there if the editors were warm to that idea. I have no objection to editors mentioning the EU in list of country articles but I don't think it has any business appearing in the body of the list itself and I don't think some sort of blanket precedent for it's automatic inclusion has been established.

in the case of the list of countries article I noted that the annex to the article explicitly excludes associations of sovereign states of any kind from appearing in the list so I removed it from there as well.Zebulin (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest further discussions in the respective articles talk. Lear 21 (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lear the EU is not a country. You act like what you say is the law and all other users must obey, just because you start a discussion (Sometimes nobody even responds) doesn't mean that what you say goes. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Zebulin I suggest we contact a neutral admin to help fix this problem, because Lear and "the other users" he is talking about will not listen. They gang up on other users and make poor consensuses, even though the information is inaccurate. I assure you this is true, it runs in a pattern actually and all you need to do is a little digging and you will see it. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! but Lear at least seems willing to compromise since he has gone ahead and placed the EU information he wants in the articles outside of the main body of the lists themselves. I personally do not see a problem with that in most cases. Unless I see evidence of another blanket editing campaign on the country lists I keep on my watchlist I don't think we will really have a conflict that will need fixing. I honestly do not care if editorial notes appear in these list articles clarifying the current status of the EU.Zebulin (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Talk:Global Warming

I'm afraid I must agree with the previous removal - do remember that the talk page is for discussing the article, not for discussing the article's subject. Please don't try to insinuate your personal views into talk page discussions. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone offers a possible relevant source that is inherently appropriate to the discussion page. deletion of such discussion is probably the worst sort of deletion that occur on a talk page.Zebulin (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the above sentences is not clear to me. Please don't repeatedly add back sections that have removed. If I count properly, you're at the limit allowed by WP:3RR - any further re-posts would be reason for a short block. Note also that copies of primary sources or other articles should not be included in talk page posts - that is what links are for. See Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now observe that I had removed some old material in addition to the large forum post that you had put up. In light of that, you may dis-regard my 3RR warning, as it does not apply. I apologize for this error. However, the remaining warnings re. talk page behavior remain valid. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclarity definitely seems to be part of the issue. You repeatedly refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FORUM#FORUM. What part of this justifies removing source material offered for comment on the discussion page? I'm actually referring in particular to the original discussion contributed by another user. The Armagh Observatory article. It was posted to discussion and repeatedly deleted from the discussion page. Are we to discuss the appropriateness of sources in the article itself? That can't be how you interpret http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FORUM#FORUM.Zebulin (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting links to sources is fine, discussing the sources is fine. Putting up 4k of copy isn't, unless some form of dispute resolution is going on - in which case a sub-page is probably in order. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I no longer see any problem with accepting that principle (large clutter should be avoided where possible) so I'd be happy apply it to future edits regardless of what the policies say.Zebulin (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1812

Thanks for catching some of that vandalism. With the constant vandalism and then anon's self reverting or reverting each other, I got slightly confused as to which version was good there. Narson (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first communications satellite

I didn't list SCORE as the first communications satellite because you couldn't communicate through it - it only broadcast a recorded message. So it is one-way communication rather than two-way communication. I assume that SCORE should be listed as the first communications satellite? Bubba73 (talk), 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messages transmitted by SCORE were received from a ground station not merely recorded and installed on launch. SCORE could be used to relay messages between two points over the horizon and as such was a true communication satellite.Zebulin (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was unaware of that. I thought SCORE ONLY broadcast the pre-recorded message. So SCORE it is. Bubba73 (talk), 20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a footnote to the ECHO entry about SCORE. Bubba73 (talk), 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Intelsat.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Intelsat.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want it to go away. it wasn't the file I intended to upload and now I can't seem to "un-upload" it :(Zebulin (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Editorial'

Your critique of other users is frankly, irrelevant to me. If you'd bothered to have a look at my account data you'd see I've semi-come back to active editing. Just because you don't like my proposals is not an open ticket to personal attacks. You seem to be under the impression that since I've retired I've somehow mysteriously shed all self-restraint and NPOV-y-ness. Non-regular Wikipedia editors are people too, and in many cases far better contributors than the people with millions of edits and a mop under their belt. :) Good day. Oh, and PS, If I were making a WP:POINT (which, I assume is the policy covering what you have accused me of doing), don't you think I'd be deleting an article with a little more traffic and a little more core and well written than Int Eng? Don't you think I wouldn't have outlined my concerns on the AfD and on the talk page itself? And no offence intended but get some mileage under your belt before throwing accusations left right and centre. Once more, good day. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fine fine. The real point of my message was that your user page (namely the message that occupies all of it) appears to be out of date in light of your activity here. That is why I mentioned it on your talk page rather than in any particular article.Zebulin (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little slip in communications, no? Many conflicts arise from misunderstandings and I take my hat off to you for not turning this into an argument. Fair enough, I will update it, good luck with editing! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superpower

Hi, you reverted my edit to the EU becoming a superpower. I wrote that this is not legally the case as for something to be a superpower it has to be legally soverign. Can you explain to me how the EU is a legal government over the whole of Europe and therefore counts as a country which can become a superpower like China, India or the Russians once more? I hope the EU will never become a Superpower because like most liberty loving Europeans i hope to see its downfall.

To see the corrupt bureaucratic nature of the EU visit: United Kingdom Independence Party The Better off Out campaign Bruges Group EU watchdog

Freedom4korea (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with the content of the edit I just haven't found a suitable source for it yet. We can't put any unsourced commentary into the potential superpower sections because those sections are magnets for original research bloat.Zebulin (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page or article?

Give 'em neither, I say. Sunray (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but in theory a lot of those trolls will be good faith pov warriors rather than insincere flame baiting "trolls". Trolls go away if ignored but pov warriors tend to take their frustrations out on the article if ignored.Zebulin (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. We shall see which this one is. Sunray (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venera .gif hassle

Hi there, I looked at the image page, and it looks to me like your comment on the Space exploration talk page is not going to save the image in itself, as there has to be a full rationale on each article's image justifying the use for that article. But it would be a pity if that great Russian work were forgotten. I'm newer to the Wiki game than you, and have no experience with templates and tags, so if possible it would be better if you could do it (also, I am supposed to be working.... :) ). My impression is that the rules have been tightened up so that what used to be OK no longer passes, and the Bot seems to be on the rampage lately. It would be nice if they would give us a month, as a lot of images must be threatened. Anyhow, hope you can attend to it, and do ask for help (on the talk page?) if you can't. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peak oil

Hi, I reverted this dif as it is wp:OR. When you claim the lack of a sourceable statement, that doesn't mean you can claim the opposite. NJGW (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

np ill just remove the OR sentence it was contained in.Zebulin (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Brazil from Potential Superpowers

Hi, could you please clarify your vote at the Talk:Potential superpowers page on Brazil? If you are voting, please put your vote in the Support Removal or Oppose format that the other votes are in. This will help us tally the votes at the end. Thanks! --Mad Max (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my reasoning is so feeble that people can't even see which stance I'm supporting then maybe I haven't made my point well anyway. I've never felt that voting is a good way to arrive at consensus on wikipedia.Zebulin (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please clarify your vote at the Talk:Potential great powers page on Mexico? If you are voting, please put your vote in the Support Removal or Oppose format that the other votes are in. This will help us tally the votes at the end. Thanks! Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil isn't even a power. what more great power or superpower. perhaps it is a superpower amongst all its weak south american neighbours. brazil in the same league as India?? my foot. 100% Agreed with your comment in potential superpowers talk page. Army even smaller than Taiwan! --60.50.66.194 (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hey Zebulin, there's an open case for User:24.205.234.250 over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Care to give your two cents? It would really go a long way toward improving the great power, superpower, potential superpowers, etc. articles. Please come and comment. Best wishes! --Hobie Hunter (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading titles

Hi Zebulin, I found you created a section about use of sources with misleading titles (diff) at Talk:Potential superpowers. And it was removed by Versace11, possibly on accident (diff). Leaving you a message here as I'm not eager to revive the discussion over again.

I believe in this case the misleading title damages the reliability of the source. The statement that Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower simply doesn't appear to be true. And a good title gives a proper reflection of the article, in this case it's used for sensationalism. The page also tries to open two or three popups, I see that as violation of WP:EL. And was used in a month of edit warring by Versace11 and his IPs. For me that together is enough reason to draw a hard line, and keep it out. =Species8473= ^(talk) 11:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I don't think anything in the offending article is actually all that useful for the potentials article without resorting to original research by synthesis in any case. I was mainly concerned because we seemed to be leaving all of the material from the offending article in the article only now we are simply leaving that material unsourced altogether. hardly an improvement! Of course if we take a hard line and that material from the russian subsection we really ought to remove such material from all other sections of the article.Zebulin (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I search with Google on what, according to kommersant, are the words of Putin: the West "has few instruments of influence on Russia left". The only pages as result are kommersant, wikipedia, and pages that scrape from Wikipedia.1 The same goes for the words of Daniel Fried: "Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently".2 I personally prefer having something in the article with a fact tag, over presenting it as reliable while there are reasons to believe it is not. The soon to follow next step would be removal of the material. It may either be not accurately quoted by kommersant, or even be made up altogether. =Species8473= ^(talk) 16:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential superpower

Can you keep an eye out for Cocoliras? The sources he's references are garbage and I've asked him to find some reliable sources and develop consensus before adding that bit on Brazil. Thanks Nirvana888 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to call his http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/Open_Think_Tank_Article/Watch_out_for_Brazil%2C_Russia%27s_New_Buddy source garbage but I do have some concerns about the authors credentials and the publishers selection process.Zebulin (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically the the Wikipedia copy source but when I was screening the op-ed source, its usability seemed suspect as well. Best we make sure that sources completely check out and the Brazil section is properly written before adding the section and modifying the map on the page; otherwise it could greatly undermine the article. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as long as the section properly attributes the prediction to the person who made it, I don't mind if the Potential superpowers article is temporarily undermined. I just don't want the Superpower article to be the battleground for contentious sourcing debates.Zebulin (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The section should, as you say, "properly attribute the prediction to the person who made it" for now. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hey Zebulin, as you probably seen the latest attempt at adding Russia as a superpower. However, me, Hobie, and Nirvana have reason to believe that one of the IPs is another sockpuppet of Versace, due to recent topic, we're talking about this issue at Hobie's talk page. Deavenger (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zebulin, I noticed that you undid my last edit to the superpower talk page. There haven't been any messages for a week and any meaningful discussion for more than two weeks. I consider this to be grouds for archiving. You weren't very involved in the discussion and don't understand the damage this has caused. It has been a magnet for sockpuppets, POV pushers, name calling, etc. If we leave up this dormant discussion it will only be rehashed and waste ou time and energy. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to fo through this again. They haven't used any reliable sources and it has just basically degenerated. I hope you now see my reasons for archiving it. Best wishes. --Hobie (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally nothing would ever be archived. it serves no useful purpose in and of itself. Archiving is simply used so that it is easier to find the most recent discussions. You were removing the most recent discussion from the page. in fact you removed *all* discussion from the page. All this did was basically create a new empty page and move the old one to a different location. How is that useful?Zebulin (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have different perspectives on archiving. I thonk that we should archive any dormant discussion. In addition, they could be fast tracked in they're harmful. As I've said before, there is no reason to keep a harmful discussion that is bound to attract more POV pushers and sockpuppets and nationalists to the page. --Hobie (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles are even slower than the superpowers article. There is no point in most articles having blank discussion pages. Furthermore, here is nothing harmful about discussion being 'a magnet' for sockpuppets, POV pushers, name calling, etc because in the absence of such a discussion 'magnet' the article becomes the 'magnet' instead.Zebulin (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still plenty of discussing, just the current sources on Russia were not given a chance, Hobie Hunter among this anti superpower except the US, chooses to not allow any new nation as the superpower on the billboard and that is what we see here, that is why Hobie wishes to achieve the discusses page but on other pages where discussions are much older, Hobie doesn't complain at all, only on the superpower page he does, all the time. Nothing to achieve, just continuing to discuss the topics on Russia as the possible new superpower as the media is now saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.64.201 (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, another IP with only one contribution. The sources were given a chance and as I have explained before, are not reliable based on the guidelines for the nproject. In addition, what the media says doesn't matter. P.S. I've been an ardent supporter of archiving regasrdless. --Hobie (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if that is your position, you have pursued old articles as currents such as this one dated in 1999 http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm (which should be removed) but you just take no consideration on anything new in 2008 as you have tried to achieve new articles on the discussions (saying everything doesn't your meet your standard but then you defend articles that are related to same media sources as if don't like what the content says but you like the other source (same publisher), that is called flip flipping) then you some how appear to be protecting the older articles specifically on the main page then you run to inform everyone about an anonymous IP's, run get the Sheriff I don't like these sources, tell the town about the new superpower. I think as much as 16 articles are truly way way outdated, more than 5 to 18 years old, you defend them, saying the US is a superpower when in fact today Israel just made a statement the US follows as and is placed as a great power right now (I can hear you saying how dare Israel, they can't say that about USA, that article can't be used according to you and I haven't posted it yet, not the source as I can you to saying the last same thing again and again, it is you who is choosing to refuse particular articles but from a group of you; about 5 of you patrol the superpowers page 24/7 as if your being paid by the USA gov't here) . I will forward the article on the discussions topic to show your intentions as playing the superpower cop flip flopping the content out of your month but I take you spend more time being the US superpower cop only; not giving any article or any sources between China, India or even Russia. I think you have spent too much time blocking anything that comes to mind, record shows you do. You play the cop above the law, I can read your reviews everywhere and I can highlight your comments and take snap shots of you flip flopping like Obama and McCain where you change your views. You hate youtube but if CNN uses Youtube, what is CNN's creditability then, shall we call CNN not creditable anymore? Obama uses Youtube but I forgot, you support Obama, so Obama is exempt according to you, probably so). I can go on but I will forward your history like a movie on youtube as the conflict is stirring of lying editors who just want to know who's controlling the edits on Wikipedia, I will provide the youtube link Hobie in the next few days, your name will be starring it as star always get the attention. Now should we achieve the old sources Hobie or shall I will post them to view or maybe your superpower friends have something to say, we know who they are too? You seem not to think so as I can read your mind, I think so but this is why I can't trust you, that's ok. Now are you going to tell your superpower friends Hobie that Mr. Ip is reading about me? What would Obama think Hobie, a young inexperience democrat.

I did not vandalize the article

Hello, it seems to be a problem with my IP and vandalized articles because first of all, honestly, I would never vandalize any articles because i respect Wikipedia as it a online resource to me. Second of all, I have never seen any of these articles before. I think that you have mistaken my IP or it was a coincidence. It is all a misunderstanding and I just wanted to point that out. 68.120.193.186 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still interested in working on the Corporation (video game) article with your PC version?

Hey Driftwoodzebulin,

I've been working on the Corporation (video game) article, gathering information from the Sega Genesis instruction manual, and two Genesis Tip books. I was thinking it would be great to get information purely about the PC version. If there are any differences in the story line provided, or if there are more items or better graphics. Also, I have the original box, wanted to know if you think it would be a good idea to add a scanned image of it?

DethariusXXX (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)DethariusXXX[reply]

Good article reassessment

Peak oil, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Beagel (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plus please do not link a term more than one in an article. You for example linked HIV 12 (twelve) times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]