User talk:The Devil's Advocate/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with The Devil's Advocate. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |
Sign your posts!
Hey. In the future, whenever you add a post to a talk page, please sign your post. Read WP:SIGNATURE for more on this, but basically, all you have to do is add four tildes (~~~~) after the comment. There's also a button in the toolbar above the edit box that will insert this. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Identity check
Hiya, I hope you don't mind my asking, but are you also User:Kazvorpal? --Elonka 09:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am not. --The Devil's Advocate 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of material from Talk:Moneybomb
It is not acceptable to remove material from an article's talk page, except in an extremely limited set of circumstances. Your deletions constituted a violation of our norms of civility. Please refrain from such actions in the future. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Moneybomb
I undeleted it. However, if the POV is not corrected it will end up at AFD again. --Coredesat 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Moneybomb. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. --Elonka 07:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
moneybomb criticism section
I think you are wrong. The section may need some tweeking. But it brings to light the effectiveness of the concept/idea/mediation of a moneybomb. (The media coverage) As well their was only one direct recreance to Paul. If there is a section you object to like the polls remove it and leave the section. --So what you are effectively saying it is OK to criticize the supporters for choosing a date for a moneybomb but not the media coverage or the lack their off. What kind of bias is that? The point is fundamental to the origins of moneybombs to buy publicity. The section could also show the huge gap between the internet publicity and mainstreem media. --Duchamps comb (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)duchamps_comb
OK I am not arguing about the section I put together not being all quotes it was. So maybe some of you smart(er) folks than me can come up with something. My belief is the section is Needed, it does not have to be what I put in there. As well the one recreance you mention from the New Your Times said" The revolution, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." the revolution (Ron Paul supporters) So I changed it to, "The money bomb, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." to keep bias down. Some of my refrences would work for someone, NY times, Washington Post, Los Angelas Times--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
2008 wars of independence
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2008 wars of independence, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of 2008 wars of independence. Sandstein (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent
An article that you have been involved in editing, Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence. Thank you. Sandstein (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of 2008 wars of independence
An editor has nominated 2008 wars of independence, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Guy, if you had actual reliable sources, you should have actually cited them: citations from The International Journal of Because-I-Said-So don't count, and it was these unfulfilled promises of reliable sources Real Soon Now that prompted the second AFD. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Reality check #1: "look it up yourself" is NOT an actual reference. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Except one of these sources mentions him winning a Telly Award which goes directly to his notability
Reality check #2: not even close. He could proclaim anything he pleases about his notability in a self-published source, which means it's not a verifiable statement -- pretty much the entire point of excluding them as indicators of notability. Did you know I'm an Emmy Award winner? Let me go create a Blogspot blog attesting to that, and I'll be getting my own article soon. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Poll
If you weren't so naive you'd know why it was removed, see the talk page for gods sakes. Rodrigue (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Poll
As I said in other comments, the legitimate reason is that this was not a land-line phone poll, as traditionally conducted, like most if not all other polls on the page.
The link says the methodology was from American Consumer Opinion [1], which does online-paid surveys.reason enough I think. Rodrigue (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for Caring
So do you want a copy of the article so you can improve it? --David Fuchs (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for your many contributions to the hotly-disputed Kosovo issues. Your last change for the intro to "Kosovo", obviously, is far more neutral than the previous version. Thanks.Gkmx (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
North American Union
Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your deletion [2] of text and citations from the North American Union article. While I recognize and sympathize the fact that you do not feel the article is very accurate, Wikipedia's core content policy Verifiability is very clear that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As such, it is entirely appropriate that the article reflect the fact that virtually all reliable, third-party, published sources view "the NAU threat" as being a conspiracy theory or urban legend (as evidenced in articles such as "The amero conspiracy" in the International Herald Tribune, "Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears" in The Seattle Times, "Highway to Hell?" in Newsweek, and "Diverted by jelly-beans" in The Economist). As much as I appreciate your efforts to improve this article (which I genuinely feel you have done), deleting properly sourced content that is cited to a reliable source is, at best, highly irregular and really looks like POV-pushing. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Section
what your implying isn't even true, but don't know where your going with it.Anyway, unless you think its wrong I'm just going to remove the section, don't see the point. Rodrigue (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Re:Section
I suppose now your calling me a racist??.If anything the opposite of what your saying is true,but the only polls that were seemingly outlier showed him ahead, which is the ones I pointed out.Oh, and was hillary also not born within the contigious US?.[3], it questions his candidacy the same way john mccain was born in panama.
But I suppose your already made up about your judjement of me, so nevermind. Rodrigue (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't even support Hillary anyway, but I guess I see where your coming from with your POV theories.Though your views seem obvious. Rodrigue (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Serbia is irrelevant
Anyways dude, who cares about Serbia, they are irrelevant. Kosovo is independent, and neither you nor Serbia will change it. Bosniak (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Devils A, I hope you will get over it, before commiting suicide, so dear Devils A., get help, please, I am really worried about you. --Tubesship (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Assassination of Raul Reyes
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Assassination of Raul Reyes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Assassination of Raul Reyes. bd_ (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Page Source
I've userfied it to one of my subpages. Enjoy! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Might be interested..
...in this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you think it's OR?
- Also not all are pro-Serb - I'm also working on the UN Charter's support of self-determination, but since you did this, I'm no longer sure where/how to add it..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also I think a lot of data is missing - including the very crucial UNSCR 1160 and the Contact Group statements. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- That wasn't my intention. Secession of indeed is legally hampered, so even the very best neutral whole article on the question, would be pro-Serbian; that has little to do with myself as a person.
- Well then what should I do? End my quest (see the second sentence in my previous post)? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Serbian reaction...
Greets. Relplied on my talk page for others' sake (to keep the info in one place). --Mareklug talk 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I was naive
I was actually retarded to be blunt. I thought all these editors agreed with my idea to merge to achieve NPOV not their twisted and biased POV. What can we do now? Beam (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
Assembly of Kosovo
Hm, turned out you were right. The SRS, SPS, DSS, G17+ and DS political leaders in Kosovo made an agreement and scheduled for 15 June 2008.
The Assembly of the Serbian People of Kosovo and Metohija shall have 45 Deputies. 43 are elected by municipal parliaments, while the remaining two are reserved one for Romani and the other for the Slavic Muslim minority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated the above article for deletion. Feel free to add your comments about the article here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
userbox relocation
Hi, just a heads-up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho'd/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids
Cheers. Drywontonmee (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
:)
Its amazing how you are updated with Georgian-Russian tensions. :) Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk interruptions
While I recognize that your many interspersed replies to Talk:North American Union were an attempt to keep the discussion focused, WP:TALK states that these sorts of interruptions should generally be avoided. If you feel that you absolutely must insert your own comments into others' replies, please use the {{interrupted}} template before your message so that other reads are able to clearly understand who authored which comment. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
South Ossetian War 2008 - Map
Hi, I've changed the map after your feedback. Maybe you could have a look on it and tell me whether it's better now or not? Thanks -- DanteRay (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
New Cold War
Aloha,
I hope all is well. I've been keeping an eye on New Cold War and fear that it will be deleted. As such, I copied the original onto my user page. Please feel free to contribute to it, as I find it a rather interesting subject. Thanks, and
Best Regards,
Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I'm interested in stopping these deletions, I really don't find them constructive. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I may have been less than completely clear in my closure. While I used the words no consensus I did not mean that was the result of the debate. What I mean is that the debate did not have a consensus to change the status quo. I see the the debate ended largely endorsing the deletion. All debates on wikipedia, whether deletion, undeletion, RfA and so on use consensus to change something...without consensus we don't enact the requested change. Perhaps I was not expansive enough in my closure - I did feel that enough words had been expended by all involved parties.
What I see from both the debate and the preceeding AfD is a consensus, as based mostly in the original research policy, that the article should be deleted. After reading your message I've read the deleted article and see that it is is a combination of original research, a synthesis of ideas and an overused journalistic cliché. The term is widely used, seemingly as a snappy catchphrase, but there is no consensus anywhere on exactly what it means. It has been used by authors since the 1970s to mean many different things. Mostly it seems to reflect the same journalistic laziness that has resulted in "Mother of all xxxxxx" being abused to describe everything large for the last 20 years. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you or Coren properly evaluted the substance of the article. While the term was used during the Cold War that was more to describe a new phase in that conflict or another aspect of it. As such the article had properly noted it had another use for a period in the Cold War and directed readers to that article. Any claim the older usage of the term impacts the article itself is illegitimate. Also original research only comes into play when the subject itself is a product of original research. However, many articles and books discuss it as a concept and idea with a clear definition. The particular areas touched on in the article are all tied together in several articles on the subject, which I pointed out, so while the article itself may have used synthesis, the subject itself was not. This argument however, is simply unaddressed in both the decision to delete and your decision. You haven't given a good reason to dismiss this argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have spent an instructive few hours today at a library and on the internet reading up on the topic - I have read and reread the article, many news articles and parts of at least 10 books with the subject prominent in their title or subject matter. What is patently clear to me now is that there is no agreement in the wider world of what a "New Cold War" is. I can see it variously used
- to describe any conflict between Russia and anyone
- describing the relationship between the USA and China re: Tibet
- variously used in reference to the Strategic missile treaty dealings between the USA and USSR during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
- Used often to describe other US/Russian tensions post Jimmy Carter.
- Used as a catchphrase (not a proper noun) describing "a renewed struggle for influence between Washington and Moscow" over the politics and control thereof of the former parts of the USSR in the recent book by Mark MacKinnon
- Used to highlight certain assertions as part of a portrait of Putin's "ruling class"'s mindset in the recent Edward Lucas book.
- Used in a book by Edward Crankshaw in 1970 for one use (possibly regarding USSR and China) and by Noam Chomsky much later for another.
- As you can see, and I could read on and find many more definitions, there is no consistency except that the term primarily involves either Russia, the USA or both. The article pulled together various, recent, news articles and from this asserted a definition and structure that my investigations show me are original synthesis. While some sources mirror what was in the article, many more do not and there is nothing clear on which to have an article. While there is no consensus definition, the article will fall into the mire of not being ever able to be neutral by having to selectively chose from the available sources. At the deletion review I judged that the consensus decision was for it to remain deleted as original research. My feeling now, after some research, is that the subject is bereft of clear definition and as such, and as the article was framed, will fail to have a neutral point of view. If someone can find that, on balance, reliable sources over time say "The New Cold War is xxxxx" a neutral article may be possible. As it stands the reliable sources say "The New Cold War is <issue of the day involving Russia/USA/China/Whoever>" - not a single thing to write an article that is not a synthesis on. You would need an entire article to simply define the term by noting all of the varied uses of it - rather than the latest effort to focus on Georgia alone. I do note also that the term has been used as far back as the 1950s and perhaps we are beset here with recentism. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- The article was hastily deleted after a consensus for merge was opened. It amounts to nothing short of censorship and individuals following their own agenda. The article was poor, but should have been merged and improved, not deleted. I think the contributors of those articles deserved more than what can only be described as a partisan and unfair deletion of their articles. This matter was grossly mismanaged and, while I was not necessarily against deleting the article, I believe that the users should have at least been given a moratorium for improvement of Neo/New Cold War articles. However, when two particular users saw that this might occur through a merge, they ensured it could not go forward. What you saw were a series of people who had nothing to do with the articles appear, as if by magic, to support two users who, in my opinion, acted dubiously. Either way, the article will be back. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. :) Mathmo Talk 09:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just a little update: A nice reference to the "| New Iron Curtain" 62.72.110.11 (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Consensus
A quick review of this talk page has revealed that the following users want the multi-coloured map to be removed, and replaced either with a map that shows only states that have recognised, or with nothing: Bazonka, Tocino, Tone, Hapsala, LokiiT, 195.98.173.10, Pocopocopocopoco, 141.166.152.145, K kc chan, Riva02906 and Mactruth. And the following users want the map to stay as it is: Avala and 195.98.173.10. Therefore, by the powers of democracy, the map must go. Sorry Avala. Bazonka (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) LokiiT (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
RE: SOB AfD
Taken care of. :) GlassCobra 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Votestacking
Are you familiar with WP:CANVASS? Messages such as these ([4], [5], [6], etc.) may be viewed as an attempt at votestacking. In future debates, please consider using neutrally-worded friendly notices to nonpartisan audiences. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless, canvassing and votestacking are verboten as per WP:CANVASS. Please use friendly notices in any future instances. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Renaming
I made renaming/move of Russian-Georgian war as you and others suggested. Now please help with modification of the content. I have to run right now, unfortunately.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any clarity on this issue. I suggest starting a fresh page move request, per the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, with just two alternatives: the current name and the most popular other name (perhaps "Georgian–Russian War"). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on 2008 Ukrainian political crisis, but don't you (also) think the article is getting a bit long. I do :). I suggest we wait till there is a new government or election and then start cutting it, we should/could(?) know what events where really important then... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Financial and economic crisis merger
A template suggesting a merger had been up for a long time and on either talk page their were no objections. Also, I did a text dump merger so it was almost guaranteed there would be incongruities. I placed a section-cleanup tag for that. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I had seen the template for a long time, mabye someone removed it and then someone replaced it. --Ipatrol (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)