Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:31, 28 September 2008

Regional Power Assistance

Hey Nirvana, I was just wondering, since I haven't worked on the regional power article, what you would consider irrelevent information? You mentioned that Mexico being part of the OCED and G8+5 would be OR, but that is in a way relevent. Where should the line be drawn? Are we go with the same standard as the potential superpowers page, where any synthesis aside from what the experts say would be removed? Please get back to me soon. Thanks. --Hobie (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just using that as an example. II mean in a general context where would the line be drawn. For instance, France's section. Reads as this:

France has been described as a regional power by the Global Policy Forum , and Samuel P. Huntington , and is described as a "core great regional power" in a report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments policy research institute.

France has the third-largest economy in Europe. France is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It is a NATO member, and has the largest defence expenditure in Europe. France has nuclear weapons, inter-continental ballistic missiles, ballistic missile submarines, and is the only nation besides the United States to operate a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

The first paragraph contain experts' assertations that France is a regional power. The second paragraph is information to back up the first paragraph, which depending on one's view might be OR or synthesis. On similar articles content like this has been removed. Where do we draw the line? ----Hobie (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of the OR and irrelvent facts. Once you take those out, there's really nothing left. If we keep them out, it will probably have to be as a list. ----Hobie (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nirvana, just so you know, I'll be taking a wiki-break (on vacation) for a week or so. I won't be able to help you improve the regional power article (neither will Species). Feel free to leave messages and I'll be sure to get back to them as soon as possible. I might be able to respond before the week is up, so don't wait for me. Best wishes. --Hobie (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HELLO

I am curious to know if you are named after the rock band Nirvana???????? it is my favorite band!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willydick (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Nirvana, I read the comment u made on Chanakyathegreat discussion's page, He has links to prove India is a super power so I just think that India should be included. I also suggest that we should write some points that can be used to determine if any country is or not a superpower, I guess the guidelines should be it should be economically strong, military wise strong and have influence, And by that Russia, China, France, UK and India satisfy that, another thing India does satisfy that, second fastest growing economy . 12th largest and 4th largest by purchasing power. India's military is the second largest and it has nuclear weapons and army presence in Central Asia, Suriname and Sri lanka. It also has influence, economic influence in central asia as Arcelor Mittal and tata steel have a lot have steel plants there and India has funded numerous educational and development projects, In Afghanistan, 7 billion dollars in aid doctors and teachers that work in remote areas. Trains Iran army and is funding construction of roads and other funding in Central Sounth America and Sri lanka. Enthusiast10 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Brazil

There are many other sources apart from that one, I ran out of time and couldn't add more specific ones, but Brazil is far stronger than India, far larger than it and its economy is self sufficient. Brazil is also one of the strongest countries in the Americas. If investigated more, Brazil fills the criteria. Brazil is also spotted on the map. I think that if India can become a superpower, so can Brazil. After all see history of Brazil, Brazil changed its foreign policy for foreign interests, meaning that Brazil is now imposing itself, just like the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoliras (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I finished, and I found two sources that support this claim. But one of the is a contradictory one. Cocoliras (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some other sources, do not leave this behind. We should continue reviewing these sources. All for now... Cocoliras (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Historical powers

Aside from the fact that this page needs major work there is also a long edit war going on at Historical powers I don't have time during the next few days to monitor the situation so I was wondering if I could enlist you and Hobie to watch this situation. Thanks :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Power- GA status

Hey Nirvana, good news! The great power article is being reviewed right now for good article status. Me and Axl have been working on getting the article up to snuff. Specifically, Axl suggested the importance of being a nuclear power should expanded. I was hoping you could help us. On a side note, Chankya has quit Misplaced Pages in a huff, so the article should be more stable from now on. All the best. --Hobie (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that I was hoping to get your help in making sure the article would qualify as a good article. There's a lot to be done and we need as many people as we can get. --Hobie (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I didn't realize, it's pretty much the same with me. We have six days or so to improve the article so no sweat. You can find all of the suggestions on how to improve the article on the last section of the talk page. I've already asked Phoneix and a couple of other people to help, but I haven't gotten any replies yet. --Hobie (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Superpower sources on Russia

I read your comment from yesterday about sources from user directinfo about new Russian sources about their superpower influence. I disagree with your comment simply because the content sources are overwhelming. I think this huge content of sources puts the article in 2 superpowers as one source follows the other but also several sources are very direct as superpower influence or status. If you look at the main article page on superpower, there is original sources which conflict even now posted a while ago, why aren't they taken off the main headline? Why are you bringing those sources or questioning them? I think there is a dozen or more good sources by directinfo which clearly can be used as a Russia in a superpower relation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.64.1 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Versace

Hey, me and Hobie have been talking about that new Ip, 209, and we think that it might be Versace, as he's from the same state and general area, and is pushing the same issue as before, even as everybody else left so far. So hobie is probably going to check that out. Deavenger (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Potential superpowers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Goingoveredge (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/superpower/potential-superpowers.html
2. http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/Open_Think_Tank_Article/Watch_out_for_Brazil,_Russia's_New_Buddy