User talk:Graculus

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

Hi. In order to do the "time thing", use tildes: ~~~ gives you your User name, ~~~~ gives you your User name plus the time. RickK 00:28 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi. I see you made some comments on the talk page of New Imperialism. You might be interested to know there is a vote on there at the moment on whether Pizza Puzzle's temp page should be linked to the main page or be linked to the talk page. As you have shown an interest in the topic you might wish to express your preference. The article is currently protected. I did so to allow the community to decide the issue, as all appeals to Pizza Puzzle to wait and let the community decide first fell on deaf ears. As soon as a decision is taken at least one problem will have been solved with that page. Thank you and happy voting. :-) FearÉIREANN 15:52 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit to your hearts content. Im not the one who protects pages. Pizza Puzzle

Why cut out so much important text? New Imperialism is essentially the trend in the late nineteenth century to convert the relationships of W. Europe's main colonial powers with the world outside Europe, which before had been largely "informal" (with missionaries, adventurers, and business establishing ties with the outside world), into a formal colonial one (characterized by military occupation, territorial claims, etc.). You were cutting out text that dealt with the causes of the transition from informal control to formal control and the motives of formal imperial expansion. Thus, it would be appropriate to propose ways of dividing the article (and the new table of contents looks great, doesn't it?) rather than hacking away at it until you get it under 32. There are many long articles (for instance, WWII is way over the length limit). Would you hack away at WWII or propose a way of dividing it? BTW, it would be best to restore PP's version on the temp page. I'm warning you, he'll have a fit if you don't. 172 08:33, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm willing to extend an offer that we tone down or frankly hateful exchanges on the talk page. I'm very willing to recognize that the article has problems. The section on Russia was almost entirely rewritten from my initial postings. And yes, it is horrendous and irrelevant. But a section on Russia is still necessary. The sentences that you also pointed out are awful. The section on the word "imperialism" isn't the best, but I thought that it was a good idea when a well-intentioned user added it. However, the fundamental difference between us is that I'm willing to spend time clarifying the problem areas rather than hack away at them. Please, be patient. Let's all take Tannin's advice. 172 16:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm not hateful at all, indeed I was looking forward to collaborating with you until the reversion episode. I now have nowhere accessible to put my version as the page has been protected yet again, most unwisely in my view. You seem intent on suppressing any version other than your own, with the support, regrettably, of some admins.
I've spent a lot of time improving the poor state of an article previously rendered all but unreadable by successive edits, while others debate a (temp) article that isn't even there at the moment, unless you've reverted that too. I don't understand how you can consider the present version superior in anything but quantity.
You seem willing to compromise, but exclusively on your own terms. The last thing I wanted was an edit conflict (I wasn't going to participate any further, but leave others to make appropriate amendments), but after your frankly offensive immediate reversion of my painstaking draft to one that I consider substandard, I'm not about to let it rest there.
As for "hacking", I'd like others to be in a position to judge which is the more hacked about and which the more informed and balanced, but you seem afraid of that. Graculus 17:00, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that much of your opposition centers on all your charges of advancing the "accumulation theory." The article presents the clamor for markets, but does so in a balanced fashion. However, economics must be included in any balanced account. After all, the leading promoters of imperialism, such as Joseph Chamberlain and Jules Ferry advocated colonialism from this standpoint. Among recent scholars, no one any more seriously doubts that capitalist pressures were the primary reason for Britain's imperial expansion in the nineteenth century. But the dominant recent scholars have moved away from crude neo-Marxist or Hobsonian reductionisms, reconciling economic developments with far more complicated realities of Britain's imperial record. The section on the theories offers an alternative to the neo-Marxist or Hobsonian-inspired scholarship. Porter, Hopkins, and Cain aren't Marxist historians, but take into account the drive for markets.

You know very well that Britain and the lesser powers built up their formal empires gradually. Much of the time, formal control was an effort to rescue adventuring entrepreneurs or protect major investments and loans in markets where investments were not secure. Egypt is a notable example of economic ties evolving into formal control when the Khedive couldn't live up on his loans. A key shift during this era, however, was the increasing interest among British officials in securing investments made when trading with 'half-civilized men.'

However, the article isn't merely taking one side or looking at one trend. Changes in the continental balance of power, especially the unifications of Germany and Italy, are greatly considered. Right now, the article doesn’t merely present the Lenin thesis, but reconciles capitalist pressures with other realities. 172 17:51, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise, my terms or yours. Don't assume that I'm not unaware of the article's problems. But I'm sure that they can be fixed by copyediting for readability and clarifying sections that have been subject to far to many revisions than just chopping away at the text until it's no longer over the length limit. So far, the sections on Russia and alliances need the most work, but they shouldn't be removed. The topics of these sections are crucial historically, regardless of the awful prose. 172 17:56, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Let me clarify something. Most of the article is fine, esp. considering the complexity of the subject matter. The sections on Britain and Russia and the Anglo-French Entente are really the only horrendous ones. 172 18:09, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Im a bit confused. You didnt edit New Imperialism (temp) - you deleted it and replaced it with a bunch of stuff from New Imperialism -- I like the idea of tables of contents....but why did u overwrite the previous temp article? Pizza Puzzle

I reverted the changes to the temp because it was such a fundamental overwrite -- an essential deletion of my temp page. I tried to move the text but, it being over 32k, my browser has difficulties with such text. Pizza Puzzle

Since we are the two participants in the ongoing edit war, we can work this out between us. Do I have your permission to post a version edited for readability? If you dislike it, you can revert to the version being protected right now. However, I must warn you that I haven't had the chance to work on the Anglo-French Entente yet. 172 18:30, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Scholars continue to debate the causes and ramifications of the "New Imperialism"; most notably, the relationship this period has with the Great War and the Long Depression. The New Imperialist Era coincides with the rise of Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States; and, during this period, China and Latin America were beginning to industrialize. This is the era of Leopold II, Napoleon III, Wilhelm II, Chamberlain, Cleveland, Crispi, Disraeli, Ferry, Kipling, McKinley, Meiji, Milner, Rhodes, Roosevelt, and Von Bismarck. This era coincides with the beginings of Romanticism.

I believe that the article must have a paragraph such as this. A primary reason I reverted your temp version without reading it - was because it lacked this Pizza Puzzle

Thanks for the clarification: It tries to compress to much information into too short a space: the names are inappropriate here (and the Second Empire predates it while Cleveland is peripheral to what follows). I don't like personalising history: these men were all important participants but each expressed national phenomena. The thing about wiki is that links are highlighted in the text where they are in their appropriate context within the article: they don't need to be listed at the top unless they're broader subjects which provide the context of the article itself. Romanticism is a century earlier. And do read the whole before reverting, please. Graculus 18:57, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the comment regarding Romanticism - not sure where that came from. Why are the names inappropriate? All of these individuals were discussed at length in 172s version - surely there needs to be a list somewhere which lists persons associated with this time period. Pizza Puzzle

No, there doesn't have to be a list: Wikipedia is clogged with lists of this, that & the other: a link to a biographical article is far more valuable in its proper context within an article that refers to that person. The discussion in the old version was largely redundant, as the proper place to discuss a politician's views in depth is the biography entry. National policy is never the expression of one person, and historical articles should reflect that. Graculus 21:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So? What about the offer? Let's unprotect the page and agree to minor editing for now? 172 18:40, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As minor as your edit of my contribution, certainly. Graculus 18:57, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can I just say that you are not alone. I cannot stay cool. The outside temperature is around 30 C and I am sweating rivulets the size of an elephants testicles. It is also too hot to sleep here. And here I am watching from the sidelines a truly sad chain of events on the wiki. The worst that I really have observed up-close during my 3-4 month stint here. I cannot force myself to not follow what enfolds at New Imperialism, the best I can do is to try and not get myself so deeply embroiled that I can't get out... --Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 22:32, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

What bugs me is that there isn't even an ideological antagonism that I'm aware of (unusual here indeed!), except to the extent that I want it broadened out. I don't think it's as bad as you fear, but we need clear and informed heads and mine's not so clear as it was 20 hours ago... Graculus 23:52, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

All of the information that you added to the 34 K version of New Imperialism has been moved to the daughter articles of the New Imperialism series. The Russia section of the article has been clarified in the daughter article. The other very problematic section of the currently posted, on the Anglo-French Entente, is currently blank, waiting to be finished in one of the daughter articles.

Am I to understand that your primary (and only) complaint against New Imperialism (temp) is that it has a list of people and nations which were prominent during the historical period in question? Why are you so strongly opposed to such a list? It is only one paragraph in length!!

That is the only complaint I have understood you to make. Pizza Puzzle

I have edited paragraph 3 to include text from your reverted version. I hope this will induce you to work on the temp page.

Pax Britannica and the Concert of Europe[edit]

The origins of the New Imperialism are linked to the breakdown of the British "Pax Britannica", which had its origins in an earlier form of imperialism. The American Revolution, and the collapse of the Spanish empire, ended that earlier era; which is sometimes referred to as the Era of Mercantilism. For a further look at why this period is said to involve "new" imperialism, one should read the article about imperialism. The decline of Pax Britannica, following the Franco-Prussian War, was made possible by changes in the world economy and the continental balance of power; particularly, by the decline of the Concert of Europe. Contending powers thus began to compete, with Britain and each other, over the global market. Pizza Puzzle

Thank you for asking, PP: no, that isn't my only reservation; I'm strongly in favour of keeping wikifiation to a level that preserves readability (especially avoiding linking every successive occurrence of the same word, as often happens), and I think your draft over-compresses to the same extent that other versions have been over-wordy.

Like you I prefer short articles: in my opinion discrete specific points should be covered where possible in related articles and linked to, rather than overloading the principal article. The smallest I could get the 50K version to without losing subject content was 35K, which means something had to go - my solution would have been to simply split the "Theories" off to a second article, then break up the remainder as and when any subsequent growth required. My preferred redraft otherwise remains pretty much as in your (temp) history. Graculus 23:17, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In my defense, "Mughuls" is an alternative spelling. However, it's best that you made the changes since the Wiki article is spelled the other way. I'm going to address your comments in the New Imperialism talk page shortly. 172 03:27, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't me, though I do sometimes forget to log in. Graculus 09:11, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have to go now. I hope that our positions are closer now after all the dialogue. 172 13:27, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In response to your complaint that my article is too short - I have no objection to your adding material into the article -- I simply don't want it entirely overwritten. I must ask, what is this material that u feel I have left out? My version has broken off one paragraph to imperialism, a number to theories of imperialism, several to places such as Congo Free State, Pax Britannica, and the like. If you can be specific -- you will see changes in the article. As for the over-linking -- thats a superficial matter which can be easily remedied at any time.

As another indicator of my willingness to work with you, I have modified the first sentence of New Imperialism (temp) -- to reflect changes in your version:

  • The term "New Imperialism" refers to an era of imperial colonial expansion which was adopted, by a number of nations, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries; approximately from the end of the Franco-Prussian War to the beginning of World War II (c. 1871 - 1914). Pizza Puzzle
Indeed, PP, that's an improvement: now the rest of the draft needs to develop a presentation of what the subject matter is (and isn't): at the moment the headings and condensed single-paragraph statements prevent this. I again refer you to my draft, whose principal shortcoming for me personally was that (for reasons of co-operation) it didn't go far enough in breaking away from the existing content. Now that that taboo is gone with the creation of daughter articles, you may wish to undertake something fresh. Graculus 20:35, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is hardly a specific complaint. The existence of headings could not possibly ruin the article. As for "condensed single-paragraph statements" -- topics like Otto von Bismarck are best discussed on his page, not on the New Imperialism page. Thus, I only made a brief reference. Pizza Puzzle

It's the absence of a clear relationship and course of development among the statements that's the problem. Just articulating the course of the analysis takes up space: a whole paragraph (f) may be needed merely to outline why paragraphs (e) and (g) are even in the same article. For instance your draft doesn't explicitly articulate the link between the slump and tariffs: you can't assume readers will do it themselves. Graculus 22:29, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So I ask again, what exactly are you having trouble understanding? Pizza Puzzle

I'm not having trouble understanding anything, having myself redrafted the whole subsequently: I'm pointing out that articles are there to be understood by as many readers as possible. I'll ask you again to read my draft and tell me where you find it unsatisfactory (apart from the length, which is now easier to resolve than it was then). Graculus 22:43, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So resolve it! Thats step 1. Pizza Puzzle

That's what I'm doing, if we can avoid getting bogged down in other matters on that page. The discussion has raised new points which I think need incorporating into the article, and that'll take time. Like I said, I'd like you to raise any points about my last redraft - and the next (I've already supported your point about the "Imperialism" article, and I've no patience with unsupported reversion - view past tirades) - then we can look at incorporating them too, which in no way detracts from your right to offer alternative proposals later. Let's just keep this thing moving forward to a resolution. Graculus 15:26, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I assume you're named after Noggin the Nog's avian friend, are you? Deb 20:40, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm impressed! I didn't think anyone else would remember him! Graculus 20:49, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What I really want to know is whether you see him as a role model. Deb 20:51, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, though he's much better behaved. Graculus 21:00, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regarding New Imperialism and the daughters, did you want specify certain areas on which we could work? Would it be possible to specialize our focuses to be more efficient? 172 21:46, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the balance remains crucial: my immediate concern is with the central article. If you'd like to concentrate on the daughters I'm keen to revise the intro to reflect and hopefully unravel the complexity of the whole issue, the usage etc. I'm always willing to contribute comments on the daughters if you want, but it seemed premature at this stage (hence my proposed "non-interference"). Graculus 21:59, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think you improved it actually G-Man 17:21, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I love pleas three and seven on your user page. 172 19:49, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm really astonished that you seem unaware of the importance of providing references; it's such an elementary principle of scholarship, and a key part of a useful encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Cite your sources goes into more depth. Contentious claims about history especially need authoritative references to back them up. Stan 13:49, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not unaware at all: I just don't do it. I'll strive to support any statement I've made that you find contentious, but like I said, I'm not a free bibliography. Graculus 16:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
So you're aware of the importance of references, but insist on not adding them anyway? That's just poor encyclopedia writing then. And here I was hoping you were going to be better than the average. Stan 18:07, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I am. If you expect to have decades of reading distilled into a couple of handy references, forget it. It's better to find it yourself, if you're sufficiently interested. I'm not here to create a plagiarist's paradise. Graculus 20:35, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Real authorities on a subject are able and willing to reel off a long list of their sources when anyone asks; it's the crackpots who "have read too much to remember where they got their information from". Professional encyclopedias always have references for their articles, and an extensive list for the important articles. The idea that this somehow creates a "plagiarist's paradise" is simply bizarre, and pretty much destroys your credibility. Stan 00:26, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
People can judge my credibility from what I contribute and how I support it when they offer reasoned counter-arguments. It's nothing to do with remembering anything: I've simply neither the time nor the inclination, and I didn't just "get it from a book". Do your own research if that's want you want, and spend the time like I did discovering the sources that you find useful. I don't spoon-feed. Graculus 07:20, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You can accept your nomination and support for admin status on the Requests for adminship page. 172 16:50, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, 172: most kind. Graculus 20:26, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just want to drop you a note to compliment you on your reworking of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Much, much improved. Cheers, SpeakerFTD 01:57, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Continuation War[edit]

The edit war is going nowhere. I am going to revert to Tuomas last edit, can we continue from there? Hopefully we can take this to the talk page? -- Jniemenmaa 09:16, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about how the adminship nomination went. I guess that you wouldn't want to deal with all the pointless bickering and politicking. Oh well, it's the community's loss. Good job on the Continuation War, btw. 172 01:58, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't worry: what that pair don't realise is that I'm now left far freer to act against their kind of chauvinist bias. I've more to go into the article now, but I'll leave it out unless they try turning it into another hymn of hate - at the moment they don't even seem interested in discussing it, which I'm not planning to do when any concession I make for the sake of co-operation is attacked as a recognition that my previous wording was a lie. Thanks for your support. Graculus 09:49, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's a shame, though, that you wound up with a barrage of baseless accusations for nothing more than a scrupulous instance on proper balance and historical accuracy. Please note that you can reconsider your decline. But nevertheless, I can see why you made such a decision. You've made it clear that adminships can be sacrificed, but content cannot. 172 03:41, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I have just moved 172's nomination for your adminship to your user talk subpage as I didn't want to dump the whole thing on this talk page. Angela 01:12, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello there Graculus, if you return, seem as youre the only other person to work on it. You might like to know that I've finished the Great Depression in the United Kingdom article. I thought you might like to have a look at it and possibly make additions etc, I'm sure it could be improved G-Man 19:33, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)