User talk:RasputinAXP/Archive06

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Possible exceptions to no wars

The article you just speedied has been made a section of Democratic peace theory, which I find questionable. Removal by an admin is perhaps more likely to stick than my doing it.

BTW, what happened with JzG? he will he missed. Septentrionalis 23:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

All the added information is extensively sourced from several academic books. If anything is missing, then it can be added.Ultramarine 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with what you've done is twofold: first, you're ignoring the fact that it wasn't deleted because it was unsourced, it was deleted because it was a POV fork. Second, do not restore full copies of deleted articles, even as subsections of other articles. I have reverted it back to where it was earlier today. If you'd be so kind as to leave it alone, it'd be much appreciated.  RasputinAXP  c 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But the new article has two sections, one for arguments for and one for arguments against. If any critical arguments are missing, they can be added.Ultramarine 00:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG had a family emergency. Hopefully he'll be back soon.  RasputinAXP  c 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind if I add back the tables to the DPT articles? It is one of the main topics in political science and arguments for and against no wars is a central discussion. The tables contain sections for arguments both for and against. If you disagree, please state why I can make it more NPOV so I can add it. I have spent much time and effort reading and researching the academic sources for what I consider an important topic for Wikipedia. Ultramarine 00:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The title-juggling and rewording you've been going through has made it difficult for me to ascertain exactly what the subject you're trying to insert is. If you're synthesizing information that's one thing. If you're introducing a theory or original ideas based on the works you're citing, you're engaging in original research, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. What is the exact name of the topic you're trying to create?  RasputinAXP  c 00:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Many political scientists have studied the democratic peace theory. One topic is to study specific historic conflicts to see if there has been any wars between liberal democracies. Many academic books have been written on this, so it is not original research. How about "Arguments for and against specific military conflicts being wars between liberal democracis"? Ultramarine 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion. The article remains deleted. The tables from the deleted article are merged with Democratic peace theory, as suggested by one user in the vote. Possible objections regarding NPOV, accuracy and so on are discussed on the talk page of that article as usual. Does this sound OK? Ultramarine 02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No. That's just recreating the article. Real life has unfortunately barged in on wiki for me right now. I'm going to look at a few things later tonight and see what I can come up with.  RasputinAXP  c 02:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that there are extensive differences between articles. For example, regarding the Spanish-American War:

Spain had the Turno system and the monarchy retained important powers at the time of Spanish-American War.

Changed to:

For being a war between liberal democracies: This is one of Gowa's two claimed exceptions to the democratic peace. She notes that Spain received a score of 6 out of 10 for democracy in the Polity data set which in this data set is categorized as "democratic". p. 50. In Spain all males could vote and the constitution in theory protected many civil liberties. Another argument for Spain being a democracy may be that the failed war caused a change in leadership.

Against being a war between liberal democracies: There was the Turno system where corrupt officials manipulated the elections to return to office as many of their own party as they wished. Election results were often published in the press before the elections. Dissidents were jailed. 1/4 of the members of the Cortes were appointed by the King or had hereditary positions. The monarchy retained important powers like appointing the ministry. A military coup d'etat was feared if Spain would compromise in the negotiations. p. 111-115. p. 141-2, 204-205, 311. p. 19. A change in leadership due to a failed war has happened in undisputed dictatorships, like in Argentina that was ruled by a military junta before the unsuccessful Falklands war.

WWI:

For the First World War critics have argued that the German Empire was a democracy, (the Reichstag was elected by universal male suffrage and it did vote overwhelmingly to fund the war), or that Britain was not a democracy (only three-fifths of British males could vote, to say nothing of the Empire beyond the Seas, the majority of which had no say in the decision at all). Supporters respond that the German Kaiser had the executive power. He appointed and dismissed the Chancellor, the Imperial officials, and the officers. He could and did declare war together with the not democratically elected Bundesrat, 30% of which was appointed by the Emperor, and most of the rest by the German princes. The Reichstag had little control over the executive power and its legislative power was greatly limited by the Bundesrat. The Emperor's appointees in the Bundesrat could themselves veto amendments to the German constitution. In 1913 the Chancellor ignored a vote of no confidence and there were often threats of a military coup d'etat if the Reichstag should ignore the Emperor on important issues. In effect, therefore, especially in foreign and military affairs, there was little democratic control. The Emperor was also the King of Prussia which had 3/5 of the German population and the Prussian constitution gave him even greater power there. The landed aristocracy of the Junkers formed the officer corps of the army, dominated Prussia, and had strong influence on national politics as well.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} If Britain was not a liberal democracy, then this is another reason why WWI was not a war between democracies.

Now some people objected to the references. Accordingly, I changed the text and reference to using only a book published by academic press.

For being a war between liberal democracies: The German Reichstag was elected by all adult males and it did vote overwhelmingly to fund the war. The United Kingdom is often considered a liberal democracy at this time but only approximately 60% of British males could vote. The British Monarch and the House of Lords was not democratically elected.

Against being a war between liberal democracies: The German Kaiser retained most of the power. All the appointments to the bureaucracy, the armed forces, and the diplomatic forces were made at his sole discretion. It was common knowledge that the army strongly supported him and would would arrest his opponents if he so desired. Open criticisms could and was punished as lese majesty. The German Chancellor in 1913 ignored a vote of no confidence, explaining that he served at the discretion of the Kaiser alone. The Reichstag was not consulted regarding the declaration of war, but only informed after the fact that its support was required to approve the allocation of funds for the defence against the Tsarist Russia. p. 142-145, 191-195, 311-312. The comparison to the United Kingdom ignores that the House of Lords and the Monarchy had lost most real power during the previous century. The Parliament Act 1911 limited the powers of the House of Lords to reject bills. Also, if the United Kingdom was not a liberal democracy at this time, then this is another reason for WWI not being a war between democracies.

This is just two conflcits, there are many other changes. I also added many new conflicts not mentioned in the earlier article. So I do not think that speedy apply. Ultramarine 03:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

People are already starting to ask questions about the conflicts [6], so the information is needed.Ultramarine 09:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is how one former Wikipedia Bureaucrat described an earlier version: [7]Ultramarine 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Add it back in, cite your sources and submit it for another peer review. That should take care of everything.  RasputinAXP  c 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say I'm unhappy about the speedy delete of this article. I had a hand in redoing the article, indeed it was my idea to use a table which could clearly list both sides of the debate. This was done to aleviate alegations of POV. From what I can tell having read some of the recient litrature on the subject is that it does reflect all the major sources from the field. Futher all the modern litrature does seem to conclude that for the most part the DPT thesis holds. Anyway I've listed the article on Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Salix alba (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete the theory of DPT, nor did I say that the information could not be recreated; as I mentioned above, I suggested Ultramarine re-add the information to the DPT article and submit it for another peer review. He's done so. If the point of the material is to say that there are possible counters to the Democratic Peace Theory then they should be addressed in the article itself. I'll admit that I'm handling this because JzG is on wikibreak and assistance was requested on his Talk page and as such I'm going into this without as much background on this conflict as I'd like, but peer review should be the first step in finding out what's a valuable addition, what should go into another article and what should be excised as POV or OR.  RasputinAXP  c 12:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. I regret that neither of these enthusiasts should have seen fit to tell you. Septentrionalis 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Salix informed me of it above.  RasputinAXP  c 17:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I apologize to him; my eyes must have glazed. Septentrionalis 23:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The golden age of hiphop

Hey Rasputin, can you check out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_golden_age_of_hip_hop and cast a verdict? The AfD has been around for weeks now and seems untouched by admins. There's also a lot of conflict and lack of civility going on there with accusations of vote fishing. I'm sure everyone could use some admin advice. Thanks. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All set. Thanks for the heads up, I haven't had time to go through AfD backlog yet. I noticed it was pretty hefty yesterday but real life's a pain, you know? ;)  RasputinAXP  c 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

07holsombd

Why are all you people attacking me for?????? What did I do to either of you. I did not write that. Please take those comments off of my talk page.--07holsombd 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to this comment, you certainly did make it. It's even listed in your contribution history.  RasputinAXP  c 17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert

Please don't revert large portions of text on Democratic peace theory You deleted my contributions in the process also. Thank you.Travb (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert any of your contributions. I reverted to the 16:45, May 31, 2006 version of the article. Your contributions were prior to that revision.  RasputinAXP  c 17:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The widget podcast

please list reasons for deletion the widget is affiliated with pcgamer all that was written was discused on the pdcasts forum as not to break any wikipedia rules please put it back up.

User:Almost famous

Thought you might find this (go to the bottom, html link in case of a revert) interesting. Note the email address.Econrad 22:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And here I thought he was gone. That's an interesting email he sent you.  RasputinAXP  c 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:X9nvidianx9

Excuse me, Sorry for bother you. I really want to say about this user. Because This user vandalized the article Israel many many times. When I checked the article to revert it back. Ahh, Raspuntin, Did this user User:X9nvidianx9 already blocked for vandalism on article Israel? If it's not you must block him. Because He only did vandalism, didn't provide good informations, and changed Israel into Palestine. Anyways, You must reply on my discussion's page. *Daniel* 06:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

He's been taken care of.  RasputinAXP  c 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million!

I saw that you reverted a nasty comment on my talk page. I'd like to thank tou for that. I actually had a chance to read it, but you beat me to removing it! Thanks again. Also, did you find the change from Special:Contributions/newbies? Because that's how I found his changes to the article. MichaelBillington 07:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. Actually, Daniel, above, dropped me a note and his comment to you was the last straw, so off he goes.  RasputinAXP  c 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:X9nvidiax9

Your monthlong block of X9nvidiax9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was followed up with a 24-hour block by another admin. Does the 24-hour block override your monthlong block? If so, can you reinstate it? Thanks--Zpb52 07:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Thanks anyway. --Zpb52 07:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rangers' nationalities

By that reasoning, shouldn't Rozsival, Malik, Sykora, Prucha, Rucinsky, Jagr, Hossa and Straka be Czechoslovakia, and Kasparaitis and Ozolinsh should also be U.S.S.R.? Those were the names of their countries at the time of their births. The U.S.S.R. became Russia in the same year the other countries became Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania.

They're all supposed to be, I haven't looked in a while; it's what's officially listed in the NHL Media Guide.  RasputinAXP  c 16:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nationalities

What are you doing? The U.S.S.R. doesn't exist anymore. If you actually asked these players where they were born, they wouldn't say U.S.S.R. or Czechoslovakia or West Germany. The NHL media guide only states that because no one has bothered to change it. In a few years, you'll have listings for both.

Possible wars between liberal democracies

Possible wars between liberal democracies has an AfD header pointing to a debate which is closed as delete. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hope everything's going well. The header looks fine to me; it's got the 2 on the end and it's pointing at the current discussion on my end.  RasputinAXP  c 17:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check

Finding A Solution = Living large = Finding A Solution = Nicole_Lynn = Katherinejohnson = SyossetMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = Eric_The_Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = LittleStinkNess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = J._Whales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fred Bauder 03:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot one dips**t. A Funny Thing Happened 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your assistance with abusive sockpuppets. Thank you! Econrad 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so agressive and attacking unsers in Wikipedia?

... what a joke!!! you are a threat to all that Wikipedia stands for. Better contribute. --Swedenborg 08:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone, though I've certainly been attacked myself plenty of times.  RasputinAXP  c 11:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: write the article in your userspace by linking to it before it exists,

You could also write the article in your userspace by linking to it before it exists, like this: User:KarenAnn/Frank Pais. I did that for several articles I needed more time to put together.  RasputinAXP  c 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain more fully how to do that, in a step by step format? And if I did that, the page would be protected from interference? That sounds like the solution if I could to it. KarenAnn 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Didn't you attack me aggressively somewhere? KarenAnn 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, your userspace is anything that starts with your User: heading, like I have User:RasputinAXP/Sandbox. All you need to do is put a link somewhere (usually on your User page) with the name of what you want to create. As an example, edit your User page and add [[User:KarenAnn/Sandbox]] (I no-wiki'd that so you can copy and paste it, if you want). It'll show up as a dead link, so if you click on it you can edit that page and then put whatever you want there. As long as you create things starting with User:KarenAnn/ (that slash at the end is important) then you can work on articles until you're ready to put them in the mainspace. I did the same thing for Crimson Route when I was researching it: see User:RasputinAXP/Crimson Route. And no, I didn't attack you. I told you "great work" and "thank you," but you took it as an attack. I'm glad to help you, though. RasputinAXP  c 15:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried it and it's definitely wonderful. Thank you for turning me on to that, else I never would have known. It's enough to overlook your aggressive attacks. Besides, I see you live in New Jersey which explains it.

I was wanting to added footnotes (which you did too attack me about -- although it's true you did apologize after talking to mensch • t ). KarenAnn 17:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think people take critcism far too personally around here. I'm always wililng to help, and though it's over-trumpeted, assuming good faith goes a long way to avoiding misunderstandings.  RasputinAXP  c 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do, but that's people for you. And assuming good faith goes both ways. That's why Wikipedia gives so much advice about never changing anything without discussing it gently, and accepting things you don't like for the sake of the other person's feelings etc.

You don't know what kind of Wikipedian situation that person is emeshed it, when you come down hard. I had spent the last three days before your post putting in hundreds of those footnotes on Fidel Castro at mensch • t's suggestion. We were both under siege there. Your posting was a final straw leading to my total withdrawal from Fidel Castro. I feel guilty about that, leaving mensch • t alone. Even he lost his cool on the talk page the other day.

In fact, I feel so guilty that now I think I will have to go back and help him. KarenAnn 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)