User talk:172/Talk bloc 2
|
|
133 doesnt have a user page to leave answers to. you seem to have some input in this debate. I would suggest you answer my question then as i have some degree of account. why does the word new, alone in combination with an expansive term like imperialism, combine to make a term that at some point or another can be called to be applied to something more recent? ---Sv
I should hope that I have some influence over this article. I wrote the vast majority of its content, after all. I agree with 131 since 3New Imperialism2 is a very commonly used term in historiography to refer to this era specifically. The introductory paragraphs, thanks to some additions to my original text, make this point abundantly clear almost ad nauseam. The term 3High Imperialism2 is popular as well in reference to this era, but is less common. The version that he keeps restoring also makes the point that New Imperialism had inextricable links the breakdown of Pax Britannica.
Comment on the articles sometime too!
well, attachment is a vice here, im sure you agree. And at least Vera cruz and zoe disagree with you in principle from what i understand, though vera notes that the dates are arbitrary. -Sv
i will add nothing more on it. its not a well chosen battle, and not all that interesting. ---Sv
I1m not emotionally 3attached2 to that article, if that1s what you1re insinuating. I simply disagreed with the redirect for the above reasons. I welcome all changes that are constructive.
I1ve had my differences with Vera Cruz only because he kept stipulating that the article remain a mixed-up, jumbled mishmash, and with Zoe for construing baseless, intuitive charges regarding bias while knowing little about the history of the topic or the historiography pertaining to the era.
172, your presence on Wikien-l has been requested (http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-January/000552.html) by the owner of this website Jimbo Wales. You can sign-up with that list by going here (http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l). You can read the Wikien-l archives here (http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-January/subject.html). Specifically, look for the threads titled: "172 :-(" and "It's time for 172 to be banned" --mav
- Is there such a thing as a 'request' where Wales is concerned? Remember, 172, if you go to this kangaroo court, to sign up only with a hotmail or yahoo account. Wales is a known 'outer', so do not trust him with any confidential data. It would be nice, however, if you could back up your stuff with more sources, and choose titles that do not themselves express a point of view.
- What is an "outer"? -- Tarquin 23:38 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
- An individual or group who believes they have the right to investigate, assume, and assert the identity of parties who choose to be anonymous or pseudonymous. Widely derided in legal and journalistic and gay circles, where 'don't ask don't tell' is the rule. Probably should be an article on this.
Those condemations were mostly from Ericd and Zoe. If you look at the articles to which I have contributed and the related talk pages, you1d see that the vast majority of these crticicisms have been discounted by other users who were more informed about the topics of those articles. You1d also see that the vast majority of all my contributins have survived dozens of revisions by some highly intelligent, expert contributors.
If those charges were anyting but baseless slander, why would the vast majority of my contributions remain intact, in spite of the fact that I stopped paying attention to most of those 3controversial articles2 weeks ago?
- Certainly, that should be the ONLY consideration in an IP ban. But it isn't. Wales and his gang (there is no other word, and keep in mind that contributing to wikipedia as a database and pleasing Wales as a little tin god sysop of his 'web site', wikipedia.com, aren't the same thing) have their own absolutely unchangeable w:groupthink, see the many debates on neutral point of view (and its inherent bias).
- In the History of Wikipedia you can find instances of others banned for political views and for insisting that the wikipedia follow its own rules even when those views differ from the cabal or gang or 'militia'. Also those banned for "one sentence". The process has no integrity, it isn't fair, and you won't get a hearing. You are best off ignoring that process of 'answering for your crimes', subverting it, and identifying the enemies who are wasting your time by pursuing it.
- Bad advice. May I call you 24? If any member of the community is disruptive - no matter how good their other contributions - they are working against the community and they should go if they don't change. Editing Wikipedia is not a right - it is a privilege. --mav
Thank you for the advice. I1m not worried about those charges of political bias anyway. I1ve been accused of every extreme of bias. That1s what I get for trying to balance biased articles, regardless of the bias. When you1re accused of every form of bias, you know that you1re doing something right. -172
- That's exactly right. No question about it. That's the best test: if you are accussed of every form of bias, you know that you're doing something right.
- Even better advice would be to simply say that you will try to change and then prove your accusers wrong by no longer being disruptive. --mav
- This is absolute nonsense, that proves Mav knows nothing about w:groupthink, and can't spot it even when he's the one primarily doing it.
- I know what groupthink is. My words above do not prove anything other than my own view. Lord knows I disagree with the group on many occasions - I do not just quietly disagree. --mav
- I know about groupthink and so what ? A group can made irrationnal decision. Of course : Hitler was elected. That's one of the major problems in democracy. Winston Churchill said something about it...
And What about anti-Chinese forces ? Ericd
I have probably contributed tens of thousands of words of text. I1ll be the first to admit that it wasn1t always perfect. More than a single sentence though is needed to discount that work.
--172
Hi, 172. You're generating a lot of controversy, but my preliminary assessment here is that you just need to pay a little bit more attention to community norms of politeness and explaining yourself. In any event, contrary to the claim by 142.177.99.163, there is no kangaroo court, and there is no gang. There's a bunch of people who are sincerely committed to making this a great project, that's all. You aren't being "summoned" to the mailing list, you're being _invited_, because I strongly suspect that with some explanations and discussions there, you can win over your detractors.
People aren't banned for their political views -- but it is strongly inappropriate to insert political views into any article. The Wikipedia takes no position on any controversial issue. We have established procedures for dealing with controversial issues, such that the wikipedia itself merely presents the facts and all sides of a given debate. Obviously, at times this can be difficult as partisans may have a hard time seeing that their own ideology does not constitute what all right-thinking people must agree upon.
Even so, please come to the mailing list. I think you'll find it welcoming and instructive. --Jimbo Wales
172, I don't think I can be much help. I cannot reason with VC once she takes it into her head to start "improving" an article with a thousand cuts and changes any more than you can. I don't mean that the task is difficult, I mean that the task, so far as I can tell, is impossible. It makes no real difference if there are dozens of other contributors bringing evidence and reasoned argument to the task: once VC has decided to "improve" an article it just becomes a mindless edit war until she either gets her way or makes a tactical withdrawl in order to concentrate on "improving" something else for a while. Sometimes, these really are improvements. I'm not sure if this is evidence of an intermittent desire to contribute useful information; a camouflage tactic for the real intent; or simply examples of the usual random changes which just happen to be useful ones.
The only two things you can do, so far as I can see, are (a) resign yourself to an eternity of filling up the Wiki database with endless reversions when you could be doing something productive, or (b) on VC's arrival, give up on whatever article she is infesting and go elsewhere.
Here in Australia there is a species of bird called the Noisy Miner, a type of honeyeater. When miners arrive in an area of forest, they aggressivily chase all other creatures out, even ones much bigger than themselves, and then settle down to eat the lerps. (Lerps are the sugary secretions of a leaf-sucking insect, they form little white spots on the eucalyptus leaves.) Unlike other lerp-eating birds, miners take the secretion but do not eat the insect itself. In consequence, the lerp psyllids multiply explosively. This provides the colony of noisy miners with ample food, but eventually destroys the trees that the lerps are parasitic on. The patch of forest dies and the miners move on to invade another area, leaving their former colony empty. Slowly, it begins to recover, other creatures are free to move back in, and life goes on.
The admins banned VC some time ago (under the name "Lir" and before I was here) but seem to have decided to ignore this renewed presence under another name. I have no idea why.
As I wrote on the mailing list (you can find it by clicking here (http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-January/date.html), it would take only a week or so to turn New Imperialism into a truly excellent article which people from all sides of the political spectrum could agree with. But to do that we must be able to work together in a cooperative spirit. I cannot see any realistic possibility of that happening until VC moves on to another part of the Wiki forest. Tannin 23:41 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
A PS: I really do recommend that you take one of those links to the mailing list above. (Or just click here (http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-January/date.html).) You can read this month's messages there, and click "refresh" now and then to read the latest ones. If you want to contribute, you have to do it by email. (Yes, email lists are primitive and very user-unfriendly, but my guess is that this format is retained for a good reason, which I won't bore you with here.) If you do want to say something on the list at any time and find the procedure difficult to understand, just drop a note on my talk page and I'll walk you through it. Tannin
172, thanks for asking, but I just do not have the stomach for dealing with Vera Cruz. It is too upsetting. My best contribution is to go off to some other topic where I can be productive and hope that VC doesn't find me and decide to make a mess of that one too. It is the contention, the enraged response, the endless discussion, that feeds VC and I don't care to feed VC. I do wish you'd join us on the mailing list as suggested by several people above, including Jimbo Wales, who owns the server and originated the idea of the Wikipedia. I have just sent mail to the list pointing out that VC is Lir (as many others have) and that Lir is banned and so should be VC. I have defended you on that same list, perhaps not in ways you would personally care for, but vouching for your sincerity. Ortolan88
You are welcome. I also left a message for Mav who, despite some history between the two of you, has done a lot of work for Wikipedia and usually intervenes in edit wars constructively. Now, would you mind looking at the Irish potato famine article? there has been considerable debate between Stevertigo and JTD -- in part over whether or not the famine constituted genocide, and in part over what a history article should and should not include. Sv is more concerned with the former, and JTD with the latter. Although the debate has at times been acrimoneous, I do think it has led to a much stronger article. Recently, however, Two16 has intervened. I'd like to know what you think of the article as well as Two16's recent intervention -- if you think you have something constructive to add, you do not need to respond directly to me; just do it. Slrubenstein
Hi, I just reverted your revert in Botany, independently from Marj. We don't put all the flowers on the botany page, for obvious reasons (meaning, it would get too long). Please put that link somwhere else. Maybe on List of national flowers or something. --Magnus Manske 22:24 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the onservations on the Irish Famine page. After a pretty pointless and abusive debate there, it is nice to receive intelligent, thought-provoking commentary from someone. I haven't have a chance to read it through in detail yet, but I will do so. I might quibble with minor linguistic points; not in terrms of what it says but just in terms of keeping one linguistic style throughout the whole piece. But overall it is deeply appreciated and thought-provoking.
You know what it is like to be caught in an edit war. I know you have your Vera Cruz war. Maybe Bush should send them to Iraq, I think they could probably bore Saddam to death! I've had a nightmare on the Famine page, not least with one person taking a section, rewriting it to read the exact opposite of what the original said and what historians say, then plonk it in again. Even worse, then add in offence POVs (calling the famine a 'so-called' famine, calling the views of Irish historians the 'British point of view', etc) Then doing small 'minor edits' that really were major edits, in which dramatic changes were hidden as supposed spelling changes, meaning that to revert meant having to wade through four or five versions to find one that hadn't been chopped around and twisted. Hence I'm not even replying to your contribution on the famine page, but here. If I do, I'll be subjected to yet more abuse from the same two people. Or even worse, meaning ramblings that no-one can make head or tail of, all about 'tyrants', 'revenge' and bad attempts at poetry. JTD 23:15 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
Oh no. Stevertigo's at it again. If you thought the New Imperialism saga was head-wrecking, wait until you have Stevertigo and Two16 on your back over genocide and the Irish famine!!! You'll be sorry you ever got involved! You'll be wishing for the 'easy ride' with Vera again! I'll pray for you. I'll help you out in whatever way I can, but then, considering the abuse poor Mav got from Two16 for merely sticking up for me, you'll probably be labelled the 'agent of the PhD Brit-loving Tory Tyrant'!!! Cheers and best wishes on your task! :-) JTD 03:54 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
I'd like to start a new article on the history of capitalism. What do other users think about this ambitious project?
Too radioactive?
Excellent. One problem though, 172. The size of the whole article. It was already almost at maximum size to be read on many browsers. I fear it may now be too big to be accessed by some. It seems to be too large for mine, hence the lopping off of the end, when the tried to edit to add in one letter. And that is before PML adds his bits. One suggestion I would make is to remove the entire genocide section to a separate linked page, with a short summary left on the main page. Otherwise we are going to end up with an encyclopaedic article the size of an encyclopaedia, with the risk that a lot of people who hit edit to make a minor change may inadvertently wipe a chunk of the end, as happened to me. I mentioned that to Mav a moment ago. I know if I suggest everyone stop for a moment until we work out the size question, I'll get accused (yet again) of censorship and stiffling debate . . . yada . . . yada . . . yada. I think maybe you could suggest it (I've also suggested it to Mav). A temporary halt simply until we solve the size problem. (Though even touching the genocide bit could re-ignite the whole war again, over whose version forms the template. (aaagh!).) But good work so far! JTD 05:41 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
By the way I am with you on history of capitalism, but it has been a long time since I read Dobbs and Wallerstein and I don't know much more than what they wrote, so I am ignorant of what I am sure is a very vast field.
On another note, ff you have a chance can you look at Colonialism: shock or meeting of cultures? I deleted the article, as Vicki Rosenzweig I think did once before, and she moved it to talk and I explained why I deleted it again after someone reverted her change. I think there is another Lir or Sv out there and I'd like to nip it in the bud -- I hope you'll have time to add your two cents. Slrubenstein
Hey are you around? Given your interest in the history of capitalism, perhaps you have something to add to the recent discussion on the talk page (involving a revert I did today), Slrubenstein
Love the pics on the top of the page. JTD 00:01 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
Please take a look at the most recent exchange on the capitalism talk page, and political economy, when you have a chance, Slrubenstein
In the Great Depression article, you use the term sociationalism. I wasn't able to dig up a definition for this term. Could you define it? thx -- RobLa 04:36 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
172, this is dated news I guess, but i still felt compelled. You wrote a nice little rant a couple months ago on the user page of Roadrunner. You were disturbed by the use of "layman" to project people's feelings on the supposedly uneducated masses. Your argument affected me. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks. Arthur 20:13 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
I haven't seen you in a while - Welcome back! :) --mav
Many people less argumentative than you have PhDs and they don't even care if you know. You should try to avoid squabbling, it only leads to war. Try being more peaceful. Dietary Fiber
- Very good advice! --mav
A response is on my talk page. --mav
You are being argumentive. Just yesterday you said I dont know anything about history. You are condescending, belittling, and argumentive. Dietary Fiber
As you know, all edits to the wiki are recorded.
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Robert_Mugabe&diff=786710&oldid=786709
Re: your exchange with Danny concerning Mugabe. You ought to know by now that ad hominem attacks are never effective here; when one makes them against someone as well-respected as Danny, they can only backfire. I sympathize with the complexities of the article on Mugabe. Personally, I am glad -- no matter what -- that ZANLA won. I am also heartbroken by the economic collapse and state-supported violence in Zimbabwe. I know it will not be easy to craft an accurate and fair NPOV article. Fortunately, since wikipedia is an ongoing project, we have all the time in the world to achieve that goal. You didn't ask for my advice, but I have appreciated your contributions in the past. My advice is: more patience, and les vitriol, and you may actually end up with something you and others are happy with. In the meantime, I do not believe that anyone faults you for taking an unpopular position -- only for using insults to promote it. Slrubenstein
Thanks for the vote of confidence, 172! The history of Brazil and of modern Russia are both areas about which I know very little, so I'll be restricted to plain vanilla copyediting, and I am way overcommitted right now, but I'll take a look at them over the next few days from the point of view of clarity and accessability for the non-technical reader. Tannin
I'll be glad to, though I won't claim to know a lot about the area. Great to see you back. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:55 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)
I liked your edit to kimjongilia:
- According to North Korean sources, the flower symbolizes wisdom and good human feelings such as future loving, justice and peace and possesses strong great man bearing.
You have the makings of a superb contributor. Keep up the good work! --Uncle Ed 23:14 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)
WHY DON'T PEOPLE EVER DISCUSS THE EXTERNAL LINKS WITH ME?
I kinda fixed it. Maybe... --PY
It was rambling until I edited it. Don't talk to me anymore. Dietary Fiber
The width problem is caused by the picture being too wide. You need to download it, decrease its width, then re-upload it. -- Zoe
Its Vera all right. Even the denials are almost word for word what all of Adam's various personas say when challenged. The 'I don't know any Lir/Vera' line is exactly the phrase used by Vera about Lir, and by others of the Adam fan club about Vera and Lir. You'd think think having done this resurrection act so many times he'd have come up with a different form of denial, not the same one every time. But then look at Michael and Weezer. Jeez, we've spawned our own Wiki Dr.Whos!
Maybe we should call this latest apparition Lir IV - or if we include Adam, Adam V of the Kingdom of Lir. :-)
I see our latest member of the Adam's Family (I like that one!) has now edited his/her talk page to remove all the criticism and speculation. Poor dear. Funny enough, Susan did exactly the same a few days ago. And wasn't that one of Lir/Vera's stunts. Oh dear. Are we to expect Adam VI soon? (At this rate, move over Pope John XXIII. You'll be outnumbered soon!!! :-)
PS: I see Tannin got the wrong end of the stick. I put a note on his page trying humously to correct him. Then got caught in an edit conflict with yourself. Great minds think alike, eh (as I'm sure Adam, Lir, Vera, Susan and Dietary Fiber would agree!!!) STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:55 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
To answer your question on my talk page...
Yes, I'm interested in collaborating, in fact since you know so much about East Asian culture, I wonder if you would help me recruit a friend of mine, Kim Setton. He was a professor at Stony Brook University on Long Island, and he knows a heck of a lot about Confucianism.
By the way, about the 'sysop' thing. I think you have the makings of a good contributor. If you'll try harder to be cooperative (as I do :-), and avoid Edit Wars like the plague, that will go a long way toward earning the trust of other contributors. Also, at some point a name change to something a bit more, shall we say, "confidence-inspiring" than part of your IP address... For example, user:LittleDan changed his name. We don't like having two tiers of membership here; but you DO have to win others' trust. Anyway, you have my good wishes! --Uncle Ed 16:27 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
I think you have to use either REDIRECT or redirect for it to work (Redirect doesn't seem to work). -- Notheruser 06:43 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
- I think I finally figured it out, you can't have a space between the pound sign and the 'r'. -- Notheruser 07:15 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
I just read your comments regarding Fidel Castro on my talk page. The recent trials in Cuba had no doubt been planned for some time, and it is probably just coincidence that they happened while the Iraqi situation was hot. Of course, Castro has lots to worry about with the Bush administration, but so do a lot of other countries. These sort of imprisonments have happened before in Cuba, so another handful doesn't make a big difference. Cuba is a persistent irritant to the United States, but it hasn't been a threat since the missile crisis in 1962. The Cubans are not apparently involved in terrorist activities, and are as hostile to the drug trade as the Americans, and even more hostile against organized crime. At 77 Castro is getting on in years, and his time is limited. I'm afraid that the real problems in Cuba will start when he's gone, and a wave of expatriate Miami thugs start thinking that they can turn the clock back to 1958. For now the Americans have more pressing issues to deal with.
Libya is not an imminent target; it appears to have been behaving in the last few years. In some respects North Korea seems to be waving a red flag and saying "me next!". The Americans can avoid that conflict very easily. All it would take is talking directly, and fulfill its part of the bargain from the previous agreement to build safe nuclear power plants that would give North Korea the energy that it needs.
The fall of Saddam Hussein will pose an interesting new problem for the Americans who have probably forgotten why they supported him against Iran in the first place. The Iranians never forgave him for his attack on them. With Saddam out of the way relations can warm up again with the assassination of any American puppet that may be installed in Baghdad. Syria is a likely candidate to join that axis that could focus its attention on Israel. Jordan could be dragged into the mix or risk the overthrow of its goovernment. The Egyptian people are very restless as well. How thin can the Americans spread their occupation? Many other countries could also come into the mix, often for conflicting reasons.
For all his faults Saddam Hussein has been in a key position in the area. Taking him out is like pulling the pin from the grenade, and having no place to throw the grenade. ☮ Eclecticology 07:54 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
about the Palestinian hotel bombing (and al-jazeera): this will shed some light on motivation, if you had any doubts. the u.s. warned beforehand that they would kill journalists at will. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29750.html
As you did not delete the material from the World War II page, then my sincerest apologies for suspecting that you did. Danny
If SM tries to do anything to that page, I will simply revert her changes. I have had enough of that troll. In fact, I believe strongly at this stage that both she and Dietary Fiber should be banned. Everytime Adam comes on with a new persona, he shows no evidence of learning. We all should call in the wiki-list and on the pages here to have SM and DF banned. They are nothing but trouble-making trolls with minimal knowledge and maximum attitude. They have to go. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:39 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)
Adam's family is trying to garble the opening paragraph of the history of the SU article. They seem intend on chopping up the opening paragraph so that it says something else to what it was meant to say. *sigh*. What a monumental asshole Adam and his minions is!!! STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:23 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
I am stuck in an edit war with Adam at the History of the USSR page. I could use some help to deal with that troll. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:50 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
The troll SM is now vandalising James I of England. This is fucking ridiculous. STÓD/ÉÍRE 06:41 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)