| Revision as of 21:10, 8 November 2005 editUltramarine (talk | contribs)33,507 edits →Unprotecting← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:18, 8 November 2005 edit undoUltramarine (talk | contribs)33,507 edits →UnprotectingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| *Older discussion in the ]. 00:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Starting fresh== | |||
| Okay, that was a lengthy dispute and a five-day list of proposed changes. I've archived it now, see above. Frankly I must say I don't know enough about this topic to have an opinion on whether the changes are appropriate. Also, the diff between the currently protected version and the last is far from helpful. Let's see if we can reach a compromise on this. | |||
| Might I suggest the following. Let's start with three points, 1.Environment, 2.Technology, and 3.Science. Whichever of you that doesn't agree with the current version should write a ''short'' paragraph in the sections below describing what should be changed, and add a few arguments. The other party should add a few counterarguments. Please don't go any further than that for the first couple of days. Oh yes, and both parties please ]. | |||
| Then, we request community input. Third opinion, basically. That's what ] are for. Do you think that's workable? ]]] 00:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The editors involved in this page have thoroughly discussed all of these points over and over again. There's really no reason to ask them to rehash all of them and play them out once again, at least other than to torture them. It makes much more sense instead to wait for the arbitration ruling. ] | ] 00:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *There's an arbcom case about this article? Ouch, that's what I get from being too absent these days. My idea was that if they represented their points in a comprehensible manner (as opposed to the a lenghty and confusing discussion I saw earlier) then other people may be able to understand the dispute and help out. Very well, I'll leave it be for now. ]]] 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **The case is ]. Perhaps this page should be reverted back to show the contents of the now archived talk, as evidence so that everyone is on the same page with regard to the staus of this article. Thanks for your reply and your intentions. ] | ] 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***Fortunately, the links to individual diffs from the Arb pages still appear to work. Presumably the links (and I believe there are some) to sections here do not. Can the archive be merged back until the Arbitration is complete? (This is why I have not archived this talk page, btw.) ] 06:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ****I'll go ahead and merge the sections. To anyone, if I make a mistake in doing so, just revert me. ] | ] 07:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *****Oh Christ. It's impossible to move ], the page with the full page history]] back to where it was (Talk:Criticisms of communism) before Radiant's move without first deleting the new ] created by Radiant's move. My attempt to undo Radiant's move then messed things up even more. Sorry. We'll need Radiant's help to get all the pages moved back to where the belong. ] | ] 07:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *** I moved things back to where I think Radiant had them. Talk through with him what you think should be done instead. --]] 19:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ****This is still problematic, as it leaves the prior page history of the talk page at ]. The pages should be moved back to where they were before Radiant's moves, though they were quite well intentioned and laudable. ] | ] 19:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Environment== | |||
| ===Proposed modification=== | |||
| ===Arguments to modify=== | |||
| ===Arguments to keep=== | |||
| ==Technology== | |||
| ===Proposed modification=== | |||
| ===Arguments to modify=== | |||
| ===Arguments to keep=== | |||
| ==Science== | |||
| ===Proposed modification=== | |||
| ===Arguments to modify=== | |||
| ===Arguments to keep=== | |||
| ==Unprotecting== | ==Unprotecting== | ||
| Looking at the history it seems mainly to have been some kind of edit war between two parties. This isn't a good reason to stop everybody editing an article, so after over a week I'm unprotecting. If I see a repetition of the disruptive ping-pong style edit warring, I'll deal with it by blocking the disruptive editors. Please feel free to edit boldly in the search for consensus. --]] | Looking at the history it seems mainly to have been some kind of edit war between two parties. This isn't a good reason to stop everybody editing an article, so after over a week I'm unprotecting. If I see a repetition of the disruptive ping-pong style edit warring, I'll deal with it by blocking the disruptive editors. Please feel free to edit boldly in the search for consensus. --]] | ||
| Line 39: | Line 7: | ||
| I don't appreciate Tony unprotecting articles I have protected without consulting me, for the second time. As ] pointed out, I've been following this dispute and I protected the article for a reason. --] ] 21:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | I don't appreciate Tony unprotecting articles I have protected without consulting me, for the second time. As ] pointed out, I've been following this dispute and I protected the article for a reason. --] ] 21:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :As admitted by himself, Ryan Delaney has willfully broken the protection policy because he dislikes me as a person. At the same time he made a personal attack: "To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the blocking policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Misplaced Pages editors I have encountered." |
:As admitted by himself, Ryan Delaney has willfully broken the protection policy because he dislikes me as a person. At the same time he made a personal attack: "To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the blocking policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Misplaced Pages editors I have encountered." | ||
| :He has also entered evidence in the RfA which involves this article. He should obviously not protect this page. ] 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | :He has also entered evidence in the RfA which involves this article. He should obviously not protect this page. ] 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==Economic Development/Comparison between countries== | |||
| I'm not sure if this has already been discussed before, so I'll just raise the issue: currently, the only comparisons mentioned are those between East and West Germany and between Cuba and Jamaica/Cuba and Caribbean. I agree that the second comparison is not really meaningful, given the embargo of Cuba, but also given that Jamaica is hardly a model capitalist economy. Actually I was wondering why there was no mention of North and South Korea: after all, South Korea was traditionally the poorer, agricultural part of Korea, while the North was the industrial heart of the country. Yet once South Korea started to adopt capitalist economics, its economy developped very fast (actually faster than even Japan). In the meantime, North Korea descended into mismanagement and famine. | |||
| Another example could be China: once China adopted pro-capitalist reforms (i.e. after Mao) the economy started to bloom and now is one of the economic motors of the world. Again, another comparison could also be made with Taiwan, which after all was a neglected and not very industrial island before the Kuomintang sought refuge there and became one of the Asian tiger nations (even though almost no country actually recognises it!). ] 20:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You can find these comparisons in the correct and referenced version. As it is usually immediately blankly reverted, I suggest that you look in the edit history in order to find it. ] 20:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:18, 8 November 2005
Unprotecting
Looking at the history it seems mainly to have been some kind of edit war between two parties. This isn't a good reason to stop everybody editing an article, so after over a week I'm unprotecting. If I see a repetition of the disruptive ping-pong style edit warring, I'll deal with it by blocking the disruptive editors. Please feel free to edit boldly in the search for consensus. --Tony Sidaway
- I announced that I would no longer be editing this article, as there is no chance of reasoning with Ultramarine when he asserts his ownership over an article. So perhaps my input no longer matters here. At any rate, I suggest that you hold off and consult with Ryan Delaney, the administrator who has been following this page and who imposed the protection, before acting unilaterally here. 172 | Talk 20:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW, does anyone want to place bets as to when we see that the "correct and referenced version" is restored? My bet is quite soon. 172 | Talk 20:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't appreciate Tony unprotecting articles I have protected without consulting me, for the second time. As User:172 pointed out, I've been following this dispute and I protected the article for a reason. --Ryan Delaney 21:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- As admitted by himself, Ryan Delaney has willfully broken the protection policy because he dislikes me as a person. At the same time he made a personal attack: "To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the blocking policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Misplaced Pages editors I have encountered."
- He has also entered evidence in the RfA which involves this article. He should obviously not protect this page. Ultramarine 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)