User talk:172/Talk bloc 4
|
|
It is absolutely mind-blowing. It is this side of wiki that gives me the creeps. Facts don't matter. People have their agendas, which of course in through wiki form, they delude themselves into thinking is NPOV, while everyone else is POV. AAAAGH. I know what my old political science professor would say if we had this discussion when I started studying history and politics all those years ago. This discussion would last all of two minutes in a tutorial, before he would announce "what a load of illinformed bollocks. If you want to get your exams, you are going to have to come up with something a lot better than this bullshit. Now go up to the library and read the Encyclopædia Brittanica, the World Book, etc. Get out your textbook. Read page 1 on definitions and don't deliver this crap again. Got the message?"
At its worst, wiki can be based on 5% knowledge, 70% opinion and 25% ego. This row sums it all up. Pathetic undergrad stuff that would not last five minutes of a college lecture. Bah! Humbug!!! ÉÍREman
Will do what I can. I just got your note. PS, as a historian, I'd like your opinion on two pieces I have been working on. Appeasement which was a dreadful little POV rant that I am trying to turn into something useful and I'm sure you could add a lot more. Also Papal Tiara which probably isn't up your street but I'd like your views anyway. Slán ÉÍREman 04:09 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
Heh, I was just thinking while I was working on my own most recent massive edit of appeasement about how the original author oughtn't be appeased. ;) -- John Owens 06:34 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood me, I'm very much in agreement with you on the quality of that article. ;) When I first came across it, I was really torn between trying to make a halfway decent article out of it, and moving it right to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Chop away, by all means. -- John Owens 06:45 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
I looked over that paragraph from China that you showed me and yes it needs dramatic broadening. It is overly simplistic and certainly not NPOV. ÉÍREman 18:40 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
That China discussion at this stage is getting nasty! SIrub has the wrong understanding of what we are talking abouth and no-one seems able to get him to understand it. BTW I created a stub on Communist state. Maybe you could take a look at it and do whatever re-writing is necessary.
O GAWD! This China nonsense is doing my head in. I feel like I am trying to teach sign language to blind people, or the Queen to rap. HELP! One of them now thinks nation=government. AAAAGH. And now they seem to be fighting among themselves. I'm heading off before I pull all of my hair out. And I thought dealing with politicians was bad!!! ÉÍREman 05:22 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure if you directed the comment on my talk page to the right user as I haven't really been entering any of the debate, my sole belief is that any reference to anything should be defined properly when introduced, and thus remain NPOV. (Especially in this case, 'cause of the party being officially capitalist-welcoming and all...) All this marxist whatever waffle makes no sense to me. If you were responding to a comment I made, please do it in context on the talk page or with a link, so I can (try to!) get my head around it! Cheers... -- prat
Poor niave Mav! We have a problem on the Communist state page. First of all I'd welcome your views on its contexts, which a lot of people have added a lot to, and you are better placed than I to spot the facts and the garbage. Secondly, User:Fred Bauder insists time and time again of adding in a distinct POV agenda, full of references to concentration camps, liquidations, etc. I have lost count of the number of revertions I have had to do. Is there any chance you could come on over look at what is there, and keep an eye out of any more Fred doctorings? I've put a note about his behaviour on the annoying users and vandalism page but he still keeps adding in his POV stuff, in the process screwing up other people's work (though whether that other people's work is good or bad I'll let you assess. ÉÍREman 02:27 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
A brief note to thank you for your message on my page. I think in part there was a major misunderstanding, at least -- I think -- concerning what I was trying to say. I also do really believe that scholars right now are divided over the definitions and applications of certain words; when there are disagreements among scholars, researching an encyclopedia article becomes a lot harder. In any event, I am swamped with other word right now but promise you I will go back to History of the Soviet Union. In the meantime, I appreciate the work you have been doing there.
But I will reiterate a fundamental concern I have about both the China and Soviet Union articles. When scholars are divided, I think our job is not to choose a view (even a majority view) or to try to synthesize conflicting views; I think our job is to report that there is a debate among scholars. Slrubenstein
- moved to user talk:Shino Baku/ban
Thankyou for your kind words on my talk page, 172. Tannin
Can you guarantee it is an Adam-free space??? If so I'll be over there like a shot. :-) BTW Look at what Derek Ross said to Shino on the talk page to Communist state. You'll love it. PS: I wonder what is the Japanese for adam? (I'll take a quick glance tonight, but as it is 5.54am and I promised myself that sometime this week I would be in bed before dawn - damn it, too late! Just looked outside and there it is. Again. *sigh* - and I am back from the pub after after few drinks (Jeez, that was 4 hours ago. How long have I been on this thing???) I'll just take a quick glance and look more thoroughly later. ÉÍREman 04:48 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)
I am only on for a few minutes (already 9 minutes more than I had planned) because I am exhausted after the last few days and believe it or not have non-wiki things to do also!!! [You can tell how much of a wikiholic I am; I just got out of bed to check something and am about to get back into it and finally go to bed in darkness, not dawn!!!] I am not an expert of Greece either. I do feature a bit about the Greek monarchy in a book I am writing, which involved reading a bit about Greek history and it was just on the basis of that relatively short reading that I found myself looking at the history page and being deeply unimpressed. But then of late I am used to the in depth analysis of history you, I, Deb and some others have been producing on a broad range of topics from the Irish potato famine to Roman Catholic church history, China to the British monarchy and Australian republicanism. Compared to that in depth stuff, this page is seriously weak. But then we must make allowances and help however wrote it improve on it. Anyway, to bed (yawn) and what for me lately is the ungodly early hour of 1.15am!!! ÉÍREman 00:07 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
I know that jtdirl, mav, zoe, 172, jimbo and others view me as an "idiot cockroach troll from hell"; - words of supposed new user Like A Virgin Some questions & observations:
- Have you have any contact with them?
- Mav has been nice.
- I wrote a polite note saying that yes there were rumours that this is Adam VII but that as far as I was concerned I did not care and they would get no problems from me if they did not cause any Adam-esque problems. I got an earful in response.
- Nobody that I can see has called this new user a troll.
- As Jimbo doesn't edit much and is hardly ever seen, how come a new user seems to know of his existence? I didn't when I joined for weeks and weeks.
- The word Jimbo was mysteriously censored from a re-edit, as if it would look strange that this supposed new member had ever heard of him.
- On the wiki-list it was observed that this user has a strikingly similar edit portfolio to the various Adam family members, a similar edit style, (top) etc.
Just how many Children of Lir are infecting wiki these days? (And Communist state seems to draw them like flies!) ÉÍREman 11:20 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to be very busy for the next couple of weeks, so my contributions will be scant henceforth. However, I'll be online and able to respond if there are any concerns regarding the articles that I've been activly revamping. 172
[1] (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Zog/ban&diff=882594&oldid=882560)
In this edit user:Rosewood appears to be signing a comment as you
OK. I'm knee-deep in the Sugar Glider right now, but I'll take a break from that shortly (creating from scratch, as I'm sure you know all too well, is much harder work than copyediting and tinkering) and relax by doing some light copyediting and expression stuff on, oh ... the Stalin one perhaps. (Ohh my aching head! There are just not enough hours in the day to do everything I want to do!) Cheers -- Tannin
- Thankyou. Just a tiny bit. But I'll chip away at it in odd moments on the "change is as good as a rest" theory. :)
- BTW, to become an admin, you need to send an email to the mailing list. (Sing out if you don't know how to do this.) You were persona non-grata there in the early days. Indeed, the reason I originally signed up for the list was to (a) speak in your defence, and (b) make a plea to ban Vera bloody Cruz. (And I firmly believe that time has proved me 100% right on both counts!) But that was quite some time ago, and I'm sure your stocks have risen considerably since then. I'll certainly speak up for you: your contribution to the history sections here has been outstanding. Tannin
Thanks. I have been having major technical problems here. And it has been difficult getting on to wiki. I wrote something on a talk page at 3.30pm today but could only get onto wiki to put it on at 10pm tonight! I got a new digital camera so I spent a couple of days walking around Dublin talking pictures for wiki articles. (See Irish Houses of Parliament) God what so of wikiholic am I!!! I see the latest of Adam's trolls have disappeared. I think our 'no holes barred' attitude is working. Once he is rumbled, he knows the game is up and we will tolerate no messing! Anyway, thanks for the message. BTW you have my full support in joining admin. ÉÍREman 21:57 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
We've had our differences and I still think you are not able to see your own POV sometimes (especially by selective presentation) but I will not oppose your application for Adminship (however I won't support it either). If Fred can be an Admin I guess you can too. --mav
You have my support too. Danny
- Why is it inappropriate to move information on the People's Republic of China to the China page? 172
Because it's not the only country called China. There are two such countries - Republic of China and People's Republic of China. The same way as there are two Koreas, there were two Germanys etc., and it would be inapropriate to have article about one of them under Korea or (then) Germany. Taw 18:24 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
Opps. I meant to mention, well done on that bit about Fred and applying his approach. I went there, meant to come back to leave a msg, and got sidetracked. Oh the joys of wiki! ÉÍREman
em . . . I think we have our wires crossed. I just read your last bit and found myself utterly perplexed about it. Then it dawned on me. Did you think that comment about 'another person . . . ' referred to you? If you did then I should have reworded it better, it actually referred to The Cunctator, who has been adding in Fred's stuff to the article tonight. (I have been doing reversions, as have you, though I think you thought you were reverting Fred's work. It was actually The Cunctator adding in Fred's work again.
At least I think that is where we got our wires crossed. Otherwise I am totally perplexed. lol ÉÍREman 05:18 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
It's rude to shout (USING ALL CAPS). You also need to learn about the ownership of Wikipedia articles; namely, that it doesn't exist. --The Cunctator
You better look at China. Fred Bauder has 'done a Fred' there and littered it with POV stuff. Does this guy have a goddamned clue what the concept of Neutral Point Of View actually means? Or does he think it does not apply to him? Re the nonsense on Communist state - I moved Fred's stuff to a different page, called Communist government (I named it something slightly different but Taku changed it to that.) So now Fred has his own scribble box on which to 'develop' his theories see can he actually produce something remotely NPOV. Maybe that bone will give him something else to play with for a while, and he will stop screwing up Communist state. Here's hoping. I know I am going to keep well away from that page. I wouldn't claim to have enough knowledge to deal with factual issues there; my expertise is in the area of constitutional structures, not the practicalities of communism. You are far better placed than I would ever be, but if I was you I'd let him be for a while, just to see can he actually achieve elementary standards of academic accuracy or wiki standards of NPOV. Frankly going on his previous work I doubt it. Maybe left alone with his plaything he might just do it. It might be wise to give him space for a while. He could perhaps surprise everyone yet and actually produce a quality piece that doesn't sound like a Ronald Reagan 'evil empire' draft speech. ÉÍREman 00:49 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
In this file photo, Fred Bauder keeps track of his watchlist on Wikipedia for surveillance of Communist activities.
OK, you're starting to sound a little bit like Zog now. -- John Owens
Hey, it's satire in good fun. 172
- Do you think he'll look at it and think "Oh, light satire!", though? Meanwhile, see if you think the picture placement is better like this (can go as low as 263). -- John Owens
The only ones who can do the actual "grunt work" of making people administrators are the ones in italics on Wikipedia:Administrators. Yup, all five of them. -- John Owens 09:30 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
I reinstated the division between FB's page and the Communist state page which The Cunctator tried to undo. I also mentioned in the talk page that I won't be taking part in debates on the Communist government state. I think it is in everyone's interest to let the Communist government stay where it is. If Fred agrees, then the Cunctator cannot justify merging them, and by my not taking part in that debate, it may take some the heat out of the debate there. I know I disagree strongly with that page's contents, but I don't have the sort of factual knowledge that I do have on issues to do with political science definitions, whereas you and other do. Keeping the debate there is better than having a continuous edit war on Cs. One small bad page is preferable to a continuing edit war on a major definitionary page like Cs and if The Cunctator finds even Fred agrees to keep Communist government where it is instead of redirecting, it might calm things down on Cs. But I will still be watching Cs to make sure that no more POV stuff is planted there. I'll let you deal with Cg, which is more up your area of expertise than mine. (BTW, do you have an email address set up on your preferences page? I went to email you to go into more detail than I can here but I could get no response when I hit the email user button.) ÉÍREman 00:00 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
I was involved in an edit war ages ago where someone kept demanding and demanding and demanding sources. After I let him get to the point of saying 'obviously you have no sources, I produced a list of 21 which instantly shut him up and made him look a right ejjit. It might be worth doing the same with Stan. Bombard him with one hell of a list to shut him up on this ridiculous crusade. God, what is it about Communist state that seems to attract people with a barely passable knowledge of the topic who nevertheless think they are experts, even though not alone have they simply read one book, they have entirely misunderstood it! *sigh* BTW thanks for the comments on the Irish Houses of Parliament. I am very happy with the way it turned out. And it was all thanks to that new digital camera. I went on a walk around Dublin testing it out, walked past the Irish HofP (which is about 10 minutes walk from where I live in Dublin) and suddenly got the idea of doing it on wiki. I am very proud of how five or six articles in particular on wiki have turned out. The great thing is that unlike Communist state there aren't many people on wiki who even think they know anything about the topic so I could do a proper academic article without people who don't know what they are talking about jumping in to make idiotic changes. So topics like the Irish HofP, Papal Tiara, Oath of Allegiance, Michael Collins etc can be worked on to proper academic length and depth (and now, thanks to the camera, with decent illustrations and a proper layout). lol. ÉÍREman 01:00 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
God but Communist state is quiet. Could we actually have peace, now that Fred has his own page to work on? And if he is happy there, he is not likely to support efforts by The Cunctator to merge them. Well that was the theory, hence my withdrawal from that page, much as though I am sorely tempted to try to academise it! I'll leave that delight to you and others!!! Unfortunately we do have a lot of garbage on wiki, so loath though I am to say it, one more dodgy article won't break the bank, especially if we do get a good one on Communist state vandalism-free. Too bad when a page like Irish HofP is finished, you cannot lock them to stop someone else jumping in to muck them over. lol ÉÍREman 02:30 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Hi 172. Please don't abandon us. I understand where you are coming from and sympathise, but think of it this way: it would be foolish to throw in your hand because of what is, in the end, a very minor setback. What have you lost? Does anyone take these silly claims of "personal and political agendas" seriously? Sure they do. But those people who take that nonsense seriously already thought that. There are people here who think that I have a political agenda - hell, there are probably people here that think that User:Arpingstone has a poltical agenda, and I've never seen him make an edit that wasn't purely to add an image or lay an existing image out better on the page.
You can't change what people think, you can only change what actually is. In the long run, we all become known to one another in our true colours. Take a break if you want to by all means, but don't turn your back on this place. Your careful research and ability to take a balanced view on very complex and controversial mattters is not something we have anywhere near enough of here. Best -- Tony (Tannin)
I sincerely appreciate the support, but with Mav and Axel squarely against me on the mailing list I have no business here.
See:
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003150.html
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003153.html
I am sick to my stomach now after having these two respected contributors accuse me of reverting Fred's POVing because I have some kind of political agenda.
-User 172
- If I gave that impression then I'm sorry. My comments were about your general behavior and did not directly touch on the validity of Fred's material. In fact, I still agree with you that his "characteristics" material isn't really appropriate for the Communist state article. However, I strongly disagree with your and JT's reasoning why the material is not appropriate and also with both of your behavior in this matter (JT is often rude too but does apologize occasionally - he reminds me a lot of myself a year ago). --mav 05:29 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
Moi? rude? never! (*grin*) Anyway, 172, I understand your anger but please please do not give up. What has been happening on Communist state is a disgrace. The Cunctator has openly admitted his agenda - he disagrees with political science academic standards and so in effect is on a crusade to change them to his standards. Yet for some unknown reason those who should step in to protect the page won't, and indeed leaves it to people concerned with professional standards of accuracy, balance and relavance in an encyclopædia to continually have to revert the rubbish. To be honest, if I didn't care about wiki so much I would just give up and let standards slip. But if we give up here, we will simply be giving the message that you can stuff an article with any old irrelevant POV crap and it will be allowed. Please do not give up. Wikipedia needs you and your academic training more than it realises. Have a good night's sleep and come back refreshed and ready to defend the barracades. For what it is worth (and I admire Mav enormously) I think Mav's comments were wrong and deeply unfair. But we all have said things in retrospect we wish we didn't in this debate, sorry, war! When the history of wiki is written, this affair certainly should deserve a mention. Wiki has two choices. It can allow amateurish inaccurate standards that are way way belong encyclopædic standards, or it can try to achieve proper encyclopædic standards. You are needed to help the latter prevail. ÉÍREman 05:43 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, but I don't have enough energy to come back as a pariah. The comments by Mav and Axel, whom I respect as well (and that's why I'm troubled by the comments), cast a shadow on me, de-legitimatising the nature of all my contributions and the motivations behind them.
I know how misdirected comments on the mailing list can have a tendency to snowball against a well-meaning user. If I don't leave, other contributors who would've never worked with me would read the comments, interject in the dispute, and infer that I have a political mission to blank Fred Bauder?s quality NPOV piece.
As a flagged POVing pariah exposed by Mav (and if he isn't creditable, who is?) and Axel, I would attract more negative attention. While I might relieve you and other contributors who understand academic standards of a small share of the burden, I'd just attract so much negative attention due to my infamy that would just force you and others to deal with more Cunctators. In short, I'd do more harm than good. If my presence is gone, however, the trolls would declare victory and probably go away, the decent users would no longer misjudge the motivations behind Fred's opponents, and the controversy would die down.
I can only imagine being able to come back if both retract the bulk of their recent statements, namely the charges of POV.
Oh grow up 172, just create a new account name like I do, itll be good for about two weeks or so until it becomes apparent to everybody thats its you because we all know what you write about and how you write it. Zxcvb
Thanks for the advice, Lir, but it's more like 20 minutes instead of 2 weeks. 172
20 minutes since I let you know, that is... : ) Zxcvb
It seems my words carry far more weight than is actually warrented.... That is the main reason why I waited so long to say anything about your sysoping request.
I would not use the "infamy" or "pariah" to describe you at all; My last post to the mailing list makes it clear that I'm opposing your Admin request based on your apparent difficulty working nicely with others (and apparent inability to realize that there is such a thing as a POV of omission when you are inserting large chunks of text into articles). These are important traits to have as a Wikipedian but they are even more important for Admins. --mav
I know that you would not use words like "pariah", but since your words carry a lot of weight, as you admitted, even when you don't feel that they're warranted, users could infer that I'm not only terse, but have a Communist POV agenda. I can't feel comfortable coming back until it's clear on the mailing list that I don't.
My perceived problem with niceties stems more from the circumstances that confront me than personality. It's hard to be nice when the bulk of your contributions for a protracted period of time pertain to edit wars with Fred Bauder, who has an obvious political agenda, and Lir/Vera, who's able to put aside his anarcho-Communist values for his personal agendas (he's probably even more hostile toward me than you!). As for the 'chunks of text', you've accused me of this many times but that's another misconception stemming from me either having to balance an article by introducing another perspective, which may or may not have been mine, or adding some content without being finished. This explains my additions to the Saddam and Mugabe articles, which I recall troubled you in particular.
I hate to even address these charges, but take a look at the History of the Soviet Union page, which is largely my text. You'd see that your charges aren't valid.
172, two points:
- There is a constant turnover of people on wiki. People will have joined since Mav wrote what he wrote and won't know a thing about it. And more will join tomorrow, next week, next month. How many people have you had disagreements with in the past on wiki who seemed like guaranteed fixtures on wiki and who haven't been heard of in months. I know people who were here when I joined and who to me personfied wiki but who have disappeared. So even if everyone read Mav's statement took the most negative interpretation out of it, within a short period of time, most of those are going to have left and be replaced by new people.
- All people are not going to take the most negative meaning out of it. Some will. Most will have forgotten by the time they sit down to dinner today. And if not today, then this day week. And only a minority of wikipedians receive the list, and I suggest only a small number of people actually read everything on it. I know I don't. Much of it is erased en bloc (mainly because it jams up my account and is repetitive.) So what was said may have damaged you with a minority of the people who read all the list, who are a minority of the people who get the list, who are a minority of current wikipedians, most of whom are transcient and will be replaced in a short space of time by more.
Oh and BTW The Cunctator has made only one change from my last reversion, and it ain't too bad. Maybe the 'Nightmare of Communist State' is nearing an end. So please hang in. Wiki needs you, if only to challenge it out of its western complaicency and to give it an alternative perspective. lol ÉÍREman 07:51 May 11, 2003 (UTC)