User talk:172/Final talk block

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I am troubled by your second unilateral removal of the neutrality dispute message in History of the United States (1980-1988), which I have restored. Should you find it imperative to removal the message again without the consensus of the other contributors to this article, I would probably be advised to move to Step 2 in the proscribed Dispute resolution. --Hcheney 20:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

172, I would sincerely appreciate it if you could leave the neutrality dispute on History of the United States (1980-present) until we can achieve a consensus on it's final form. --Hcheney 18:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, you had me worried there for moment. To be sure, this is a crazy place, but it will too fascinating a spectacle to miss if it eventually implodes from its own weight. Illegitimis non carborundum as we used to say in grade school. -- Viajero 22:54, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please see my comments on Talk:Aleksandr Lukashenko. You haven't justified your edits at all, and your unexplained deletion of masses of factual content - such as deleting any mention of the 1998 crisis - will not stand. -- ChrisO 21:36, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your comments regarding the list of names. It would probably be best to move that sentence to another part of the article, perhaps even rendering into a "see also"; it may even be best placed in an article on Famous people of the late nineteenth century

As for for the rest of my paragraph...

At some point in the article, we should note its relationship to World War I. We should also provide a brief summary of some coinciding historical trends; particularly, the Long Depression and the Second Industrial Revolution. We should also, probably in that same section, expand upon the article's intro (where it refers to colonialism) by specifically referring to which nations are most notable for their renewed expansionist and industrialist vigor (ie, USA, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc) and; at some point (perhaps not within the same paragraph), we should also have a list of the wars which were fought during this period (particularly wars over colonies, such as the Filipino-American War).

Such was the point of my paragraph, I am completely open to discussion of editing or rearranging the paragraph (to better fit into the article). For example, I personally think the list of names should be placed in a seperate portion of the article (if not an entirely different article). However, Viajero simply deletes my paragraph -- which is not a productive form of editing.

The wiki is a work in progress, you were quite correct that the list of names was "random". I merely listed as many significant people as I could think of, that were alive during the period. The point is that somewhere we should have a list of people which a student of this period should be familiar with; while it is arguable whether one need know of any particular person on the list, or whether said person is truly part of this historical process (such as, say, Cleveland) -- the point is that such a list has a place, somewhere on the Wiki.

It shouldn't be deleted simply because it is a work in progress. Furthermore, itll never improve if it is deleted before one can take the time to improve it.

Lirath Q. Pynnor

172, thanks much for your kind words at Talk:East Germany...I was stepping waters I am only moderately familiar with (made my studies largely in earlier periods in history than the 20th Century, I'm afraid), and just wanted to make sure we made decisions for the right reasons. Glad to see you're still around, by the way--you've made excellent contributions to many articles here, as far as I can see, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of them, as you have time. Thanks again, Jwrosenzweig 22:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Didn't you say you were going away?

"The only reason I didn't have my sysop privileges taken away" was because I did nothing wrong. And of course YOU would support the whitewashing of the East German government. They were dictators, your specialty. RickK 04:30, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, why should the Stalin article be more "NPOV" than, say, the Hitler article? "He was the principal instigator of the Holocaust and World War II, which together led to the death of an estimated 40 to 50 million people." Is that very NPOV? And how about casuality stats? I think, since Stalin killed about 20 million people himself, it would not be NPOV not to include that in the introduction. Zw 05:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Im afraid you lost me. I see no reason why the beginning of the article should not briefly mention such topics as the Long Depression and the Second Industrial Revolution. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Why did you move collapse of the Soviet Union to History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991)? The collapse is its own topic and thus should not be just a daughter of another page. --mav 00:46, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course, Im still interested in everything. I believe that the article should, early on, mention that the New Imperialism has a connection with World War I, the Long Depression, and the Second Industrial Revolution. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Sandinistas is under surveillance, and has been; it was on my watchlist, and I saw your lively commentary and reference to the Encarta text, which I did indeed check out. Yep, our article is unquestionably lame. So much to do here, and I squander far too much time in endless, fruitless debates on Middle East topics with indefatigable zealots... a task for which I don't think I temperamentally suited. Maybe I can lend a hand with here, but I would like to work on Shining Path first. As for the Fox School of Journalism, all too true, alas. I thank my lucky stars that I am able to exercise that particular vocation without ever having been subjected to "professional training" (read "ideological indoctrination"); just baptism by fire. Enfin, I have been meaning to ask you: if you have a spare moment, could you cast your learned eye upon population transfer, another one of our modest offerings? The term seems to be particularly in favor among the "Samaria and Judea" crowd (you know who I am taking about) for whom it is a clean & wholesome euphemism for "ethnic cleansing". Despite the trappings of NPOV, the text for me exudes a faint but lingering scent of ersatz scholarship, a kind of genteel exercise in stretching the terms of debate. Noticeably absent BTW is any discussion if Nazi Germany's not insignificant efforts in the bespoke realm. However, if the article looks ok to you, then my fears are probably nothing more than a twitch of paranoia. All the best -- Viajero 17:29, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Abe. Well, I've just blown my ability to protect Problems of land distribution in Zimbabwe. ;) No matter. What I wrote is hardly purple prose, and I don't claim any great knowledge of the area (I've never studied it, though I do have a broad familiarity with African history up to about 1940 or so), but it's a good deal less worse than it was. At least if someone protects the entry now, it will read a little better and seem less like a polemic. If Mr Anon reverts again, and makes a habit of it, then I daresay another admin will step in and protect it. Best Tannin

I truly and sincerely apologize for including material on a reference page that was the work of a troll, and not you. I have removed the offending material, and all that remains is Wikipedia texts that are properly related. As I mentioned in that private, un-linked page, "It is best to understand those that you have conflict and disagreement with so you can empathize with their viewpoint and achieve consenus." I look forward to putting this matter behind us so we can productively work together on Wikipedia. --Hcheney 00:58, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am very eager to hear about where you are coming from and your principal influences.
However, I do not feel comfortable removing the page at the present time. I use it for reference, and have never linked it from any other page - in fact, it would have been an orphan if you did not link it. I am concerned by your unilateralism, choice of words in certain articles, and manner of debate. I assure you, once my concerns disappear, the page will be blanked. --Hcheney 23:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion, thanks very much. Adam 23:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the East Germany article. It is very hard to keep cold war-era assessments out of the article. As I'm sure you know there is no consensus on how to describe these kind of states. I'm trying to avoid moral judgements but some US contributors feel the need to add "it was Bad" to these sort of articles. Secretlondon 09:12, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Your thoughts/advice might be helpfull over at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Thanks mate. PMA 09:22, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, no I haven't any email from you. Angela. 22:55, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Did you send it through the wiki? That seems to not be working. I just tried sending one to myself and it didn't come through. Could you try sending it directly? Hopefully that will work. I won't be around now until tomorrow evening though, so I won't reply instantly. Angela. 01:43, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I sent a reply and reported the bug about the emails not working through the wiki. It should be fixed later today apparently. Angela. 10:11, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Congo Free State[edit]

I went through and made some slight changes. Nothing drastic. I think the article is making progress, but still needs work. We should get some other opinions besides mine. I made specific comments on the talk page for Congo Free State. Sincerely, Kingturtle 10:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik vs the German nationalists and the "Fox News crowd"[edit]

I don't know whether you want to add anything to Wikipedia:Matter of Wik evidence - its very one sided as it stands. Anyone he's ever NPOVed is baying for his blood. Secretlondon 13:59, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed. But not for the lack of effort on your part, which was basically ignored as soon as the article was unprotected. I was impressed by your magnanimity and patience in trying to find a mutually acceptable solution and was sorry to see, but not entirely surprised, that it was in vain. Given that this has been going on for more than a year there can only be one word to describe this kind of behaviour: obsessive. I suppose we can give the votes a try, although I wonder how binding the first would be, given that there is no precedent for "freezing" an article, and without the second vote banning the current participants, it may not have much effect. I have to confess too that I would have difficulty voting to "ban" you from the article; you, IMO, are not the problem. But never mind, it is worth a try, given that the mediation process hasn't seem to come together yet, and it might set a useful precedent for dealing with other issues. I am concious of your warning against trying to centralize decision-making here too much, though I wonder at the wisdom of permitting users free rein here who appear congenitally incapable of adapting to collaborative editing conventions. Lack of hierarchy and minimal authority can only flourish with a measure of individual responsibility I would have thought. -- Viajero 12:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

PS: Never thought I'd live to see the day: [1]

I'm not sure it will do any good. He seems to be trying to recuse himself from such things lately and will probably suggest you go through the Wikipedia:dispute resolution process, but that could lead a lot more trouble than it's worth. Angela. 02:02, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hello 172,

I noticed you asked GMan about my 'Ah, Fascism is Alive and Well!' paragraph. If you check the history of his talk page, you'll find my request that he revert some changes he made to the BNP article which were totally undemocratic. Democracy cuts both ways, so I believe everyone has the right to add content to articles, even if people (like GMan) disagree with them. That's freedom of speech; a freedom I wish all people would fundamentally agree with, although I doubt they ever will! You can see the changes GMan made to the BNP article by looking at the history page. The things he removed have been there for a long time. I believe that as the article in question doesn't get updated much anymore, GMan thought nobody was watching and he could just tailor some of it to his point of view. His comment - 'remove c++p' - clearly shows his attitude. GMan simply deleted my request to him with a 'remove rant' comment. That is very poor show and very immature in my opinion. I wait to see if he simply does the same in this case, which I'm sure he will. I would appreciate it if you, 172, would look at the changes GMan made to the BNP article and give a (hopefully) unbiased opinion. Please remember when doing so that there is a lot of other biased opinion in that article, from both sides of the left/right divide, but in general it balances itself out. If GMan starts removing things he doesn't like, then someone on the right will come along and do the same with things they don't like, and they will be fully justified in doing so as GMan has created a precedent. Thank you for your time and good night.

This person obviously objects to changes I made to the British National Party article. I removed some parts which read like a press releae rather than an encyclopedia article and made some parts more concise, I was not attmpting to bias the article, but this person obviously objects G-Man 13:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So you know, I did find the precedent you were looking for. User:mydogategodshat was turned down for adminship with almost 2/3 of the voters supporting him, and nobody objected. I can say this honestly because I was one of his supporters: I'd forgotten he had that many votes when I entered the discussion earlier. Anyway, I'm looking forward to Jimmy's thoughts, of course, but we have a system in place, and it seems to be functioning. Thanks for your good work here. Jwrosenzweig 05:42, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I had been rather busy this past week with work and did not see BL's nomination. I would certainly vote for him if there was a recount. Danny 05:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. I thought I'd better point it out as you said you were having trouble with your email recently. Angela. 14:04, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Could you at least try talking to User: before banning him for 1000 days? He's only made 4 edits... Evercat 13:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the issue top "watch over the page". But it's excessive to ban someone for so long for 4 edits, which do not look like real vandalism. At least point him towards NPOV... or if you must ban him, make it for a shorter length of time. :-) Evercat 13:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your positively toned notes on the talk pages. I don't expect these users to participate in dialogue; Hector, though you may share some of his views, was simply one of many here to spread an agenda who will bore of it when their biased edits are not tolerated, while Wik is eternally persistent but not big on Talk. Perhaps you were around when I and others were battling with LibertarianAnarchist. He was almost daily accusing me of being a communist because I was removing his POV. He eventually left too. -- VV 21:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No worries. It isn't that important. I thought the opposers arguments were kinda lame, but whatever. :) BL 00:11, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

Could you take a look at North Korea? A new user has POVed it a bit... [2] --mav

To Cde 172,
in recognition of his services to the revolution,
from the Dear Leader

LOL! I'm still fed up with these charges of yours, but at least this is really clever. Good work! 172

The blocked user was someone using a series of proxy servers to bait us... I expect that problem users will be updated eventually. Durig the "fun" several admins also ended up getting blocked while confirming what was happening. Jamesday 01:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was just checking that it was indeed an open proxy, by accessing Wikipedia through it. But by the time I got it set up, Adam Bishop had already blocked it. -- Tim Starling 01:53, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't the POV which got him blocked. It was the "bet you can't stop me" taunting in IRC as he switched IPs around baiting people. If you look at what I incorporated you'll find that I did remove the worst of the POV - and I agree that there's still more worth removing - Stalin was pretty nasty but he did a great deal of modernising in one generation. If you stop by in IRC I'll paste you the log so you can see what I mean. Meanwhile, how about leaving it for a while so I can do a more thorough rework when I have more time, likely tomorrow, since I do actually agree that it needs significant work. Jamesday 01:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have been compiling a List of United States firearms topics and noticed most of the articles have a very anti-gun control bias. Before I started the list, there was only one orphan article on groups that favored gun control. I was wondering if you knew of any user that would be willing to go over these articles to make sure they are NPOV. This is particulary important because gun control may become a major political issue in the US due to the sunsetting of the federal assault weapons ban. --Hcheney 16:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Replacing the photo on Adam's page was childish and in clear violation of our policies. If you want to be taken seriously you should behave in a dignified manner, even when your "opponent" does not.—Eloquence 16:03, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and support. I;ve been mostly retreating to the quiet of Wikisource and Wikipedia. I suppose if my work there were counted my article total would be noticeably higher. For me being a Wikipedia sysop is one of theose thanks-but-no-thanks situations. Adam Carr's carryings on at Kim Il-jung seem to be as amateurish as what you see from official DPRK sources, and differs only in expressing the opposing POV. I had thought of responding to your (at least I think it was you) comments about "tyranny of the majority" on the mailing list. It's very difficult to explain to those people who equate democracy with voting. Eclecticology 04:47, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Given the tone of your conflict with User:Adam_Carr, and as a neutral observer who has nothing to say about the article in question, may I suggest that you both seek mediation, rather than just slugging it out? Danny 13:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A truly inane edit to Karl Marx: ...many have concluded the Soviet Union's numerous internal failings and subsequent collapse is a direct result of the pratical failings of Marx's policies. [3] -- Viajero 16:01, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While I don't agree at all with the views of the troublemaker on the problems of land distribution article, I don't see why the page needs to be protected. Protecting a talk page is a a pretty extreme measure, don't you think? Surely he has a right to make his views known on the talk page? Then again, maybe he's done something worse elsewhere that I don't know about. Everyking 19:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) Venceremos 10:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What are you doing? The edit wars you speak of had already ended. "Venceremos" (and we all know who it is) was just going around reverting my changes all over. The imperialism article had already stabilized just fine; V was removing the word alleged repeatedly, an obviously POV change, but then he went away and others worked on it. (Incidentally, it was inappropriate for you to re-insert the long list after three users had explained why it was problematic, without addressing any of their concerns (your issues with J.J. do not justify reverting him without explanation), and after another user had a forked the list to a new article.) The Huntington article was just V reverting me, removing material I had added, and that conflict had already ended nearly 32 hours before you got involved (and what's more you restored to a much older version before V's attack). Similarly, a compromise had been hashed out in the Iraq article with other, sincere users before you interfered, and it too had stabilized. You should not be creating problems where none exist. As for my revert war with "Venceremos", I'm not going to tolerate a stalker who just reverts all my work; he is a sock puppet of a recurring problem user who should be banned, and I have no qualms about undoing his undoing of me, especially since it seems to effectively communicate that his "attrition" tactic will not succeed. You should remove the protections on all three articles and restore them to what they were, as well as unprotecting mass murder and probably Saddam Hussein. -- VV 23:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi 172, why did you protect and revert torture and murder in Iraq? I could not find it under the list of protected pages either. The silly edit war between VV and Venceremos had died down, and I had made some changes to the article trying to take VV's points into account as much as was reasonably possible. Since he had not responded in a negative way I was hopeful that the new version might be stable and acceptable to everyone (not sure if this is the "Iraq article" he is referring to above?). Especially reverting to the earlier version makes little sense IMO. pir 10:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your comment on my page indicates to me you do not understand the issues I raised. Where did I even bring up that he is a communist? That is not the issue; the issue is that he is a relentlessly misbehaving user who has declared war on Wikipedia and chooses to ignore the policies and disrespect the community. Many other users such as this have come and gone, and many have wound up banned; this is no different, except for your apparent fondness for him because of his views. I'm sure if he were a right-wing vandal he would have been dispensed with long ago, possibly by you. The issue is not me; he did not even mention me in his offsite screed. "Admins" did not "have to" protect the pages, you chose to; I know the policies as well as anyone, and I maintain that you should not have interfered (in this case, in an edit war which had already ended). -- VV 22:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your last note again does not seem on point. I never claimed 100% of his edits are wrong; contrary to your allegations, I do not revert him on sight, but give each edit a chance. His ratio, however, is poor. Anyway, the Venceremos edits were simply him deleting text and reverting my work (e.g., Samuel P. Huntington and Torture and murder in Iraq, which you still refuse to unprotect), which you can't expect me to have much patience for (I said this already above). Feel free to try to rehabilitate him, but the fact remains he has repeatedly been in gross violation of Wikipedia policies, which he clearly has no respect for, and I for one do not expect to change him nor will I put further effort into trying. I do not believe I have subjected him or anyone else to "blistering attacks", and I would challenge you to prove I have. Anyway, if he ever decides to become a productive member of the community, I'm sure he will be left alone. -- VV 10:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The user in question WAS inconvenienced by a 24 hour range block I enacted the first week of March; I cancelled the block after he/she complained to me. There aren't even any active range block BY me, and haven't been since at least sunday or monday. I really don't know what's going on, but I'd be very surprised if my range block is still impacting ANYONE. Pakaran. 17:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, I did actually poke around the Reagan years section, but got sidetracked by Isenberg's in-depth study of the post-WWII US Navy - a colossus bestriding the world but unsure what to do with itself, book is an interesting prism on the official ship histories that we've have been adding here... Anyway, I got two high-order bits of interest. First, I looked at Tyndall and Shi's two-volume US history text, and it only had a couple pages on Reagan years, didn't do much more than recite the bare facts and was not nearly as in-depth as what we have here. Encyclopedia articles really shouldn't be longer than textbooks, so somehow or another things need to be pruned and partitioned. Second, I noticed in the Reagan shelves proper that all the books were either contemporaneous polemics, by partisans or their opponents, or of more recent date, conference proceedings where the historians argue for various interpretations, and the post-presentation Q&A often includes Reagan people justifying themselves. So my takeaway is that for details of policy there is not yet a consensus that can be distilled into a neutral article. So what I would suggest is to move the detailed economics and policy material into dedicated articles, and start (informally) budgeting by word count. WP is not paper, but we still need to watch how we're consuming the reader's attention span. It wouldn't hurt to do a little word count exercise on Britannica's articles, use that as a general target. Stan 19:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your effusive support on RFA! It is much appreciated. Hajor 16:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for your vote and kind words on Request for Adminship. --Hcheney 23:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Featured articles[edit]

172, I'd like to point out that I'm not supporting the removal of the article from FA, but that the policies regarding that page are specific - an article is delisted until the objections are resolved. I also feel compelled to inform you that you have reverted said page 4 times in the last 24 hours, a violation of [[Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version

  1. Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert guideline)|the three revert guideline]]. Is the listing or nonlisting of one article on Featured articles while it's merrits are discussed really worth a possible 24 hour ban? Gentgeen

I'm kind of a hardliner on guys like Yassin - threaten to kill somebody, don't complain if your intended victim takes you out first. Doesn't matter about age, handicap, etc. There are Palestinians who want to live in peace with Israelis, but all I've ever saw from Yassin was that his idea of living in peace involved all the Israelis being underground in graves. Anyway if it's OK for a Stalin or or a Mao or a Kim Jong-il or a Mugabe to execute their enemies, then surely it's OK for a Sharon to do likewise, eh? :-) Stan 14:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"this is not a debate forum"[edit]

You might like to re-read what I said ;). I am so aware that this is not intended to be a debate forum that I suggested (not for the first time) that one be created for the express purpose of allowing debate amongst wikipedians. Sam Spade 22:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

testimony needed[edit]

We are having a debate on my page on whether rickk uses Junta and mcCarthyist tactics please participate.GrazingshipIV 02:57, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

reverted Fascism[edit]

Would you believe I actually reverted your NPOV edits? I'd better explain.

I think we can always edit for NPOV later. Right now I think it might be interesting to see if we can actually subvert Wheeler to the Wikipedia side. ;-) Lets let the wise wikipedians try to work out a consensus for Facism with Wheeler. If they fail (let's hope not!) , then hmm, say a week from now I'll put the NPOV edits back in again myself, or you can do it if you like.

Kim Bruning 11:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're at it, a head's up on some of the recent Nazism edits by Sam Spade. I reverted twice yesterday, but it is getting frustrating. Danny

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Done. ant

Please check Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Hcheney so you can make an informed decision on my vote --Hcheney 17:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

re: grazingship[edit]

Hcheney has come clean with some truths regarding GrazingshipIV. You may want to reconsider your Quickpoll vote. Kingturtle 23:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah it seems we are both engaged in the seemingly endless task of keeping the WP safe from loopy right-wing conspiricy theories. If its going to be kept then I think that the Nazism and socialism article should be re-written from scratch, although I'd much prefer it was deleted.

Actually I created the page to remove the "Nazism is Socialism" dross from the main Socialism article, in the hope that it would sit in a dusty corner where no-one would notice it. But that doesnt seem to have worked.

BTW the dissapearance of User:jtdirl is rather alarming. I hope nothing bad has happened to him, have you tried e-mailing him? G-Man 23:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I've rewritten Nazism and socialism, to attempt to make it, you know, an actual article, as opposed to a list of nonsense. My version was probably fairly POV, but I tried to trace the contemporary thoughts on the relations of Nazism and socialism (by Nazis, by Socialists, and by supporters of the center-right parties), and then to discuss Nazism in practice, and finally arguments after the war about this question. As I said, it was pretty unsympathetic to the notion that Nazism is socialism, but I think it was infinitely better than the article before. I was, of course, immediately reverted by User:Sam Spade (so you'll have to check in the history), but I'd like the opinions of others about this. Obviously, any weaknesses in my version could be improved upon by further editing, which cannot be said for the current article... john 07:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No worries. I think this is the sort of subject that we have to work really hard on to make sure that we simply report the bare facts. "Critics claim XYZ." Bang. Next topic. Otherwise it gets really messy. But I rarely do political subjects anymore. Cheers - Tannin


Could you respond at Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/categorization so that we can work on getting out of this nasty situation? --mav 20:51, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I put a sample division of the page here; please take a look and tell me what you think (on the categorization talk page). Note that right now no other parts of WP link to this set of 4 pages; passing users will still see the current single article. +sj+ 08:19, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
Glad you like it. One last change made: I renamed "OotACW (1/4)" to "OotACW", what all external links point to; it has a full TOC for the entire article (by hand, not auto-generated). Please see what you think. (Since we don't have tranclusion working yet, there's no way to present a long- and short- version of an article without duplicating information, in which case the two versions might get out of synch; once we have transclusion, these presentation issues will be moot points!) +sj+ 21:44, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

and to think I trusted your claims on request for comments. You can take your POV link and study it yourself. Sam Spade 21:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

I am posting this to both 172 and Sam Spade. I do not want to see you two get into an edit war over the content of the listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I have taken it upon myself to rewrite the listing so that it simply states, "Allegations of incivility, edit wars." I think this should communicate the substance of the complaint well enough, while being reasonably neutral. If you object to this phrasing, please _do not_ take it upon yourself to edit it further. Instead, contact me on my talk page, and we can work out a suitable alternative. --Michael Snow 21:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam, as far as I can tell, is trying to follow the dispute resolution guidelines. I also only see one edit that he has ever made to the Fascism article, although he's obviously active on Talk:Fascism. I only intervened to prevent an edit war from continuing on the Requests for comment page; I have no opinion about your disagreement with him otherwise. I don't know anything about Wheeler and TDC. If you think it's appropriate, you can consider listing them, or the Fascism article itself, on Requests for comment. --Michael Snow 22:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I can appreciate that there's reason for skepticism, but the processes are what we have. In part, I'm trying to keep them from being abused too much. If I may say so, Sam can be a little "belligerent" (his own words) sometimes, but he does believe in following the process as he understands it. Knowing that can be useful when interacting with him.
As a historian, you're braver than I am - I generally spend little time on such hotly contested fields, even though I have some training in the subject. --Michael Snow 22:22, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The article is now protected thanks to TDC's imbecilic insistence on putting the Soviet Union on the list of fascist countries. Sigh...any ideas for how to proceed? john 23:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, could you help out with talking to Andy about why we don't need a lengthy discussion of how conservatives helped the Nazis into power in the Nazism and socialism article? As Wikipedia's fiery stalinist (or whatever), perhaps he'd listen to you. john 00:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Just to note that I don't think you're actually a stalinist. That was a joke.) john 00:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New Imperalism[edit]

Hey hows it going just wondering if New Imperalism is going to come out of page protection soon I think I have info to contribute, I don't want to get involved if it's going to be a real hassle what was the reason for protecting? GrazingshipIV 06:53, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Intervention in TheBam[edit]

A user known as thebam is attempting to discredit and smear me on wikipedia this user was created after my exchange with rickk which MAY be a coincidence eitherway I do beleive he is a sockpuppet created by someone who wants to discredit me as he has no other contributions other than trying to pretend I "struck" a deal to get at rickk to make myself an admin. Please intervene in this matter. GrazingshipIV 17:20, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)


Sam Spade has requested mediation with you. Would you be agreeable to that? If so, do you have any preferences about who should mediate? Please reply at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Tuf-Kat 20:31, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)


Patience, indeed, seems to be necessary for dealing with contentious issues on talk pages. But repeated bludgeonings with actual knowledge don't seem to be enough to hold back the likes of Sam Spade, who has, I think, rather revealed his true colors at Talk:Nazism and socialism with his proclamation that any form of government intervention in the economy qualifies as socialism. I'm kind of at a loss as to how to deal with such issues. Spade seems to mostly go about adding extreme libertarian POV to articles, and I have no particular ethical problem with just reverting his nonsensical "NPOVing" attempts. But just reverting nonsense from someone who's seemingly perfectly willing to continue spouting nonsense for all eternity (and is, in fact, quite patient and clever about it - he didn't intervene while Andy L and I were disputing over how much should be said about conservative support for Hitler, waiting until we'd pretty much finished arguing before he started on his obnoxious editing) doesn't seem especially effective. And Spade's not really done anything that ought to merit him being banned, either. I'm trying to see if there's any way to incorporate his views, but a statement like "Some libertarians feel that any government intervention in the economy is socialist, which would make the Nazi regime, like most other governments throughout history, [Spade has himself said that he thinks Eisenhower republicanism, feudalism, and mercantilism are all forms of socialism] socialist" would simply be completely ridiculous, and embarrassing for wikipedia. At the same time, Spade is constantly demanding that we provide sources for completely uncontroversial statements about the Nazi regime, and citing undergraduate history papers online as sources for his arguments. What the hell is to be done about stuff like this? john 08:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't get anything from you, although I'm not sure where I would get it. john 18:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New user?[edit]

Not sure where you got the idea I am a "new user" from, unless you count everyone here under six months as one. I've made my first logged-in edit at Katzenelnbogen on 22:04, 17 Dec 2003, and have since become quite aware of Wik's love for revert and edit wars. I won't be drawn into one again. — Jor (Talk) 19:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Would you be more or less agreeable to mediating with Lir instead of Sam? Tuf-Kat 20:39, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Origins, Resource lists[edit]

Looks like it will be featured again soon. Great! Thanks for raising the bar around here. Thanks also for the lovely resource list on your user page; I've snagged a copy and am trying to integrate it into my own... Let me know if you successfully carry that template over to any other long articles. +sj+ 05:17, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

It looks like in your last (or second to last?) edit of Talk:Fascism you deleted a comment of mine. If this was on purpose, why did you do it? It is poor etiquette and you shouldn't delete what others write. If this was an acceident -- don't worry about it, but please restore what I wrote. Slrubenstein

Thanks for the response, I'll sort it out, SLR


I add new QUCIKPOLL for JOR POV Pusher. Please vote!!

Fascism and Communism[edit]

The page is Ed Poor's creation. I was going to put it up for deletion as redundant but I ended up trying to rewrite it instead. AndyL 06:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quickpoll and Red Scare[edit]

Hey, I see that a quick poll has been started about you for your reverts to Red Scare. While I would agree that you were basically right in your changes, I don't think you necessarily went about it in the best way. The appearance, at least, of cordiality and desire for consensus, can help tremendously. That said, I think this is an example of why the three revert rule is problematic, and an example of procedural fetishism on Wikipedia - it matters not who is right about a content dispute, but rather who is more impolite in pushing their views. john 07:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172, I think you misunderstand me on Talk: Fascism. First, I know what Sam Spade is trying to do. He said that you need mediation and my comment did two things. First, in the summary I pointed out that mediation is not about one person but between two people (i.e., him); in my comment I pointed out that mediation involving him and you is up to him and you. If you look at the mediation page, you will see that they rather not have only one person request mediation -- they prefer all involved parties to agree to it. The point is, Sam Spade shouldn't have requested mediation without your agreement. If you don't agree (as seems to be the case) then it's unlikely there will be any mediation between the two of you. I was implicitly criticizing Sam for not getting your permission. I didn't do this explicitly, because I think that is for you to decide (all you need to say is, "I don't agree, and the mediation committee prefers requests where both parties agree").

Second, I was asking about mediation between us and WHEELER/TDC -- my request (or rather question, to you, John, and Adylehrer, as to whether you want to request mediation) doesn't concern Sam Spade at all, and certainly isn't suggesting that you are a problem -- only WHEELER and TDC are problems. But Iwon't make the mistake Sam Spade made, and unilaterally put in a request on the mediation page. All of us have to agree first.

If you think mediation is a bad idea, what do you suggest? If the main page is unblocked, you know WHEELER and TDC won't quit with their garbage. If we revert them three times in one day (which I bet would happen), we can be temproarily banned! We need to bring other people into this. Besides, even if this doesn't happen on the main page, they are consuming far too much time and energy on the talk page. A couple of days ago I suggested we all just ignore them, but some people can't resist responding to them. Such responses are thoughtful, detailed, and informed, but only feed the trolls. I really think something more is needed. Slrubenstein


Could you please take a look at the Bolshevik article. It's awful as it stands and desperately needs work. AndyL 05:58, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the American Civil War[edit]

Those changes to part one are good- it's much clearer to me now! I still have questions on parts 2,3 and 4 though. ;) Markalexander100 07:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Two and three are good now too. Four? Markalexander100 10:37, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for comments[edit]

If you have evidence or any remarks to add at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nico, please do so.Halibutt

I will go on the Marx page 10 times a day to undo any vandalsim you cause. Please dont make me write a script to do this automaticly. TDC 06:09, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really qualified to comment on the Marx article, esp. since that looks more like it's a move of text rather than phrasing changes. I'll keep an eye on Fidel Castro, though. Meelar 21:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS You might want to watch out--that last revert was your fourth in 24 hours, violating the policy. Don't get yourself tempbanned. Yours, Meelar 21:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did you reply to my last e-mail I sent a while ago, cause if you did I didn't get it. G-Man 18:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

re: back me up[edit]

You wrote:

Things would go a lot more smoothly if another admin backed me up next time, instead of dragging me on this page...

I reckon things might go more smoothly if you didn't revert TDC quite so hard, allowing another editor to back you up by reverting TDC with you. In a way, by reverting so hard, you're kinda preventing people from backing you up in the most obvious way possible - by editing the page in question.

Just something to think about. Also, I guess you might want to vote in opposition to the stuff on wikipedia talk:revert, if you find the time. I can do it for you, if you'd like. Martin

172, do you need other people to help you fight your fights? TDC 00:07, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yo, number boy, I gotcher back. Don't be wasting yore 3 reverts a day on trash, but gimme a holler! --Uncle Ed 20:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


172, I need help with white seperatism I tried reasoning with people on the talk page that white seperatism is racist but they refused to budge. I added that it was to the page but I doubt it will stand for long. Please review the talk page to see the debate but I would like some sort of process if the page continues to be distorted by white supremacists trying to hide from their beliefs. thanks. GrazingshipIV 19:22, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the clearifcation 172 (im a little intoxicated so a cant spell) Comrade Nick

True or false??[edit]

True or false: you are someone who is trying to take the word "American" out of the English language. 01:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

False. I'm trying ensure that we match the meaning of the word "American" with its definition(s) as precisely as possible. When the meaning of another adjective fits more precisely than "American" in a given context, we ought to use it and recognize an encyclopedia's goal of clarity, precise usage of the word "American," and the English language. BTW, I say this with humility. For the sake of full disclosure, I have a little egg in my face saying this now. The day after I'd made those changes to United States, I logged onto Wikipedia and found that my article Origins of the American Civil War was the featured article on the main page. So, as I try to encourage users to use "U.S." as an adjective when it fits better than "American," everyone who logs into WP now sees how I've made that mistake in an article title! Talk about unfortunate situational irony! 172 21:27, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting - I assumed "American Civil War" was a proper noun, and the "official" name of the war. Similarly, the Battle of Britain is not the only battle to have taken place in the UK. :)

Btw, ik is in arbitration again. You supported him last time (IIRC), so if you have comments or evidence, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2. Martin 21:52, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No problems. Danny 00:26, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've unblocked Wik. I would like your support on this. Danny 14:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't the "official" name "the war between the states"? AndyL 17:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Left-Right Politics[edit]

Hey, could you check out Left-Right Politics? TDC's been, IMO, making mush of it, but I'd like other opinions. Thanks. john 01:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An old friend...[edit]

I think someone "new" is really someone old... if you catch my drift. If you have similar suspicions, let me know. If I sound like some sort of raving lunatic, ignore me. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:41, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

And would that be me Dante Alighieri? TDC 21:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What on earth would make you think that? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:14, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, just realized what it probably was. The last edit I made before the one to 172's talk page was an unprotection of TDC's user page. I had accidently clicked protect instead of discuss and immediately undid the protection (check the logs). While we're at it, those two buttons should REALLY not be right next to each other. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oil for food allegations[edit]

I put it on vote for deletion: [4] Get-back-world-respect 00:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Be still my beating heart! You put in a VFD? TDC 21:03, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet[edit]

I have create a poll at talk:Augusto Pinochet on how to describe the CIA's role in the coup against Allende. Please vote and/or comment. --Uncle Ed 14:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

scumbag (sorry) etc...[edit]

Although 66.2.156... may be vandalising etc... I think using harsh words does not help you or the project. I gather you must be really annoyed, but may I suggest you a bit more coolness when writing?

I assume that Cantus' removal of your message at Wik's talk page doesn' have your approval, right? Perhaps Cantus needs to "sit in the corner" again, hmm? -- Dissident 23:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's OK. Removing my message means he got it. -- Dissident 01:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Quickpoll requested on you and Veryverily over your revert war on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. — Jor (Talk) 02:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I am not particularily interested in whatever you two are fighting over, but seeing a constant (rv) on the top of my watchlist was getting annoying. Since I am unwilling to side with either of you I therefore request a ban of both or neither. — Jor (Talk) 03:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I have no intention of getting involved. RickK 02:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the American Civil War[edit]

Thank you for pointing out the more stable edit. The page has been reverted to the edit you mentioned and remains protected. --Flockmeal 03:45, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

If it were only about the American Civil War article, I'd certainly vote in your favor. But those other two edit wars are utterly bewildering to me, and I'm not sure I really want to get involved. And you really shouldn't revert a page 12 times...I hope you don't get banned, but I'm not really sure I'd be acting in good faith in voting no. john 04:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I know getting banned would be a bitter pill to swallow, but please consider staying even if the worst should happen. Though we are not ideological soul mates, Wikipedia needs a balance, and users like you to be neutral. --Hcheney 04:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

172, please don't threaten to leave. These people are stupid, but that doesn't mean it's worth leaving the project over. It's also a bit unfair to kind of blackmail people into voting against the temp ban by threatening to leave forever. I don't think what you've done warrants a temp ban, but it certainly seems to be a violation of the current rules, and you certainly knew that at the time. So why not just sit out the temp ban (if that's what occurs), cool down a bit, and think about where you are? In terms of dealing with these people, yeah, it's extremely frustrating. But going off and reverting twelve times doesn't actually get things any closer to where you want them to be, does it? A bit of patience, and decent periods of time either away from Wikipedia or ignoring the various conflicts you are involved in, can do wonders, I think. At any rate, if you feel you have to leave, I for one will think that Wikipedia has lost one of its best contributors. john 04:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Statement on my involvement[edit]

Here is a copy of what I've written on VV's talk page and how I feel about the whole issue:

My Revert to Ed Poor's copy of Talk:Augusto Pinochet and protection (as well as the protection of Origins of the Civil War) of that copy was simply to stop an on going edit war, not to make any statement on who is right or who is wrong. Continue to make your case on the Quickpoll page and I wish you the best of luck. I think both you and 172 should be banned for 24 hours due to your revert wars on multiple pages for whatever reason, I see that as a violation of the 3 revert rule. I'd certainly hope that both you and 172 would choose to stay contributing to Wikipedia after whatever result comes from the current quickpolls. This is my statement on the whole issue to both of you. I am trying to remain as neutral as possible and follow the rules of wikipedia in my duty as an Admin. I take no more action on this issue other then to continue to revert and protect any further edit wars I come across. Thank you, I hope you can both settle your differences and wish you both the best. --Flockmeal 04:36, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the situation's as bad as all that. You were provoked, and responded badly, in a way that made you a target. You'll note that if you get temp-banned, VV will also, so it's not as though anybody's particularly siding with VV against you. Just try to edit a bit more calmly, and not allow yourself to get provoked, and VV will have a much harder time getting a rise out of you, and will probably give up the whole endeavor. john 04:45, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well Beard, of course, is now used by right wing racists who want to argue the Civil War wasn't about slavery, so that's not all that crazy. john 05:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've voted for you on the Quickpoll now. Since RickK has voted against you, admittedly not on the basis of the actual question at hand, but because he wants you to leave, I figure I may as well balance that out. And now to bed. john 05:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)