Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:28, 21 February 2007

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say

Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop inserting rubbish

An article on a nation, like Cuba is not meant as an editoral soapbox to express your personal political opinions in every sentence. Almost every single edit you have made in the last day there has been destructive, and highly POV (there were a couple usable sources in the midst of it, but very little). Please just stop this nonsense. I'm sure there are blogs out there where you can rail about how much you hate Castro... but a WP article isn't the place for it. LotLE×talk 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

All my additions have sourced, adding much needed opposing views.Ultramarine 01:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly they have not been sourced, not in any meaningful way. But even those that have have been gross violations of NPOV. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a sequence of sentences which each and every one ends with "...therefore Castro is bad." I've seen you've made some decent edits in some other places like Race and intelligence (that I couldn't bear to leave on my watchlist after a while), but this nonsense is just pure destructiveness. State facts don't engage in long, and barely relevant, editorializing on the moral readers are supposed to draw from those facts. Or start a new article Why Ultramarine thinks that Cuba's current government is really, really bad. But anything that would have no place in any other article on a nation has no place in this one... which amounts to basically everything you've put in. LotLE×talk 02:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, all additions are sourced. Why should the article mostly contain false statement supporting Cubs's undemocratic regeime?Ultramarine 02:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Look... the latest nonsense is an overwhelmingly clear example. You keep inserting: "Supporters argue health indices are good; critics argue that it doesn't count because they were good before 1959" or similar doggerel. This isn't about critics or supporters. The indices are such-and-such. It's perfectly fine (as we do) to factually indicate what they were in 1950 or whatever. And it's definitely relevant to indicate what they are currently. But we MUST NOT force feed readers on what conclusion they are supposed to draw from those facts. Almost every one of your edits is exactly this type of force feeding of conclusions. Present facts, let readers judge what significance they have. LotLE×talk 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, if you'd stop spending so much effort on inserting POV-mongering editorials, I'd have time to do some investigation of the actual nutritional indices, which is not covered yet. I'm all for presenting that information, including if it is unfavorable as a description of Cuba (but not for us to argue the conclusion ourselves), as long as I can find suitable citations. Some tortured and indirect argument that dishonestly plays with rates-of-change from different bases isn't the way to honestly present facts. If WHO or the like can be cited about actual current nutritional shortfalls in Cuban diets, we should definitely present this (but not end it with "...and therefore Castro is bad" as you keep adding). LotLE×talk 02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I presented the sourced facts, that these indicator were very high before the revolution or are now declining. You deleted this, force feeding the reader that Cuba's dictatorship have been succesful.Ultramarine 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Josef Stalin

I just wanted to confirm that with your edit summary here you were not trying to say that I was the one making seletive deletions or adding false material? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the relevant material was deleted and dubious unreferenced material was added earlier.Ultramarine 14:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You removed sourced numbers because you dont like what they say and you change the text to push your own POW. (Deng 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Hello, I posted some data on the Stalin era population losses, I hope it helps you guys fix that article, also those links to the articles in Slavic review are a useful source of info.--Woogie10w 12:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeing

Hello. I am confused, did you block SuperDeng, as stated here? He is editing now again on Josef Stalin..Ultramarine 22:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears I told him he was blocked without actually blocking him. My bad. He is now blocked. Stifle (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba and democracy

Hi Ultramarine. We could do with some political science specifically arguing that Cuba is not a democracy if you have anthing to hand. To even up the bottom section of that article.--Zleitzen 08:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Democracy see-sawing

I notice that you and User:Drono have been reverting back and forth recently on the Democracy article. Perhaps you could use the Talk page to discuss this in more detail and hopefully either reach some agreement, or briefly set out your reasoning so others can help develop a consensus? Having the article continually flip-flop between two editors' wording is undesirable. David Oberst 16:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of democracy

I have provided a source for the definition I propose, and despite my repeated queries, you have failed to provide even a suggestion of an alternative definition. If you do provide a credible suggestion, I will reconsider. --Drono 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, what is the supposed definition of Democracy in DDR? What is your source? --Drono 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Losses

Please let me know if I can help you on the issue of Soviet losses in the Stalin era--Woogie10w 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just picked up a book today "A Century of State Murder?" by Michael Hayes and Rumy Husan. The book covers the issue of human losses in Stalin's USSR and its demographic background. The book has a left of center POV--Woogie10w 00:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that concensus is not for a figure of 20 million. The official total is 1,713,419 million Gulag, Labor Colony and Prison deaths from 1929-1953. The number executed after a trial was 777,975. This is per the data published by Wheatcroft.

Ann Appelbaum in her appendix on the death toll does not accept this as being the final word on this topic because there is no data on deaths in tranist to the camps( in boxcars), nor is there data for deaths of persons released on the verge of death due to overwork or summary executations, also there is no data for the number of deaths of the 6 million deported persons from various nationalities. The demographic evidence in Andreev indicates 7-8 million excess deaths due in 1933 during the time of the famine.

I often cite a Russian author Vadim Erlikman. In 2004 he published a handbook of statistics on human losses in the 20th century. He has a format similar to Matthew White but using mostly Russian and Soviet sources. He is a critical analyst who is not an apologist for Communism. He estimates losses from 1923-53- in the Gulag at 5 million, Executations at 1,3 million, 800,000 due to deportations and 8 million in the collectivization of agriculture. These are his estimates of total losses including those not in the official statistics. The fact of the matter is that we will never know true the death toll in the Stalin era.

In 1923 the USSR was a nation in that era where most people had no access to safe drinking water or a doctor. In 1942 the Red Army sent troops into Stalingrad without weapons and cleared minefields using infantry. The average death rate in 1914 was 2.8%, from 1923-53(excluding WW2 deaths) it was 2.2%, but by 1953 it was reduced to 1% which was the same as the US. The USSR became a superpower in the Stalin era at a terrible human cost. --Woogie10w 02:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My knowledge of the work being done in the Soviet archives is limited, I could not make a contributition on this topic. When PBS ran its documentary on the new disclosures resulting from the research that has been done I had a real laugh. The Rosenbergs and Hiss were indeed spies for the NKVD, McCarthy was right when he said there were Communists in the State Dept and Gus Hall was getting a regular cash payment from Moscow. Soviet documents prove that they not the Nazis killed the Polish officers at Katyn. It can't get better than this.--Woogie10w 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Liberal democracy

How's 'the first nation in the world with complete universal suffrage' POV, when it's a fact? - ulayiti (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Add your vote

On the deletion page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2, please add strong keep to your vote.

Thus far there are 7 votes for delete, 4 votes for keep (with your added "strong keep"), and two votes for merge.Travb (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Elections in Cuba

Please address the issue of your revert without explanation on the Elections in Cuba talk page--Zleitzen 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of capitalism

Well you've just acknowledged your POV and oversimplistic meanderings. Try wikipedia simple version but do it NPOV. -- max rspct leave a message 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at Bolshevik

Perhaps you might be interested in this discussion. Input would be appreciated. Thanks. 72.65.85.60 08:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Review requested at Emancipation

An editor User:FredrickS is currently insisting on what appears (to me and others) to be an obviously eccentric entry on the Emancipation disambiguation page (diff). As you've made contributions on the Democracy page and others, perhaps you could swing by and provide another opinion. - David Oberst 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng

Ultramarine, do you happen to know what happened to SuperDeng? Did he get blocked or banned?

I'm just wondering because there is a guy who has just turned up on the Stalin page who is making edits to my fresh rewrite of the Death Toll section, in a way that is remarkably like Deng. I'm naturally rather peeved about this because I have spent weeks trying to come to a consensus with others on what would be appropriate for this section, and the minute it goes up along comes this dude and starts mucking it up with Deng-like apologetics.

So if Deng has been banned, I'm wondering if this guy Nixer might be a sockpuppet and if there's any way to get him blocked again. If Deng wasn't blocked, then I guess I'll have to find a way to work with this guy. Regards Gatoclass 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rushton

Hey Ultramarine, thanks for coming to join me on the Rushton article! I'm trying to work on making it more NPOV, but it's been difficult convincing the anonymous IP addresses from canada (perhaps Rushton himself? Pioneer Fund folks?) to discuss things first. I'm going to continue trying to engage them, and hopefully they'll come around. Thanks again for the hand! --JereKrischel 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism

Just so you know...I tend to be a conservative on some issues, but am trying to help out at the Capitalism article. Let's try to figure out what is best to do in terms of the wording and I'll do all I can to keep it neutral...which means I will ultimately end up pissing off everyone! What I am saying is that I don't take sides in this as I am neither knowledgeable on the subject or vested in it's outcome...but o course, would like to see it become stable...the end result will probably be something everyone hates...that's a joke, by the way.--MONGO 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect the Capitalism article on the condition that you do not edit it for at least 24 hours. Just politely discuss your concerns on the talk page, please. Can you agree to that?--MONGO 12:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll inform them, thanks.--MONGO 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole IEF business

I feel it is necessary to clarify my own position with regard to the Index of Economic Freedom, which - as far as I can tell - is also your position. In one sentence:

• It is possible to support the research related to the IEF without supporting laissez-faire capitalism.

You don't support laissez-faire capitalism, but you obviously support IEF-related research. Thus I conclude that you must also hold the view given above. The only thing I oppose with relation to the IEF is the insertion of claims that the IEF supports laissez-faire capitalism. It doesn't (or, at least, there is no agreement on whether it does).

As far as I can see, the IEF merely shows that Western-style mixed economy capitalism is superior to any other economic system existing at the present time. I completely agree with that. -- Nikodemos 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

About Race and Intelligence

Hello Ultramarine. I've been following the debates you've been having with Rikurzhen and Nectar on Race and Intelligence, and the more I follow them, the more I feel like these guys act as if they own the page, which is against WP rules. I was thinking about calling in the MedCab or even an RfC (on the subject of the article, so as to widen the audience and bring some more light to bear on the issue). Just wondering what your thoughts were on the subject. I'm having serious doubts about the objectivity of the two main editors on the pro-genetic side, and feel they sometimes wrap their views in a cloak of pseudo-scientific objectivity to get the article pretty much the way they want. Well, I'll stop my rant here. But your thoughts would be appreciated, whether on your page or mine. Regards, --Ramdrake 23:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree. They try to impose control by persistence. There have been many critics but they usually get tired after while and move on to other articles. If you look at their history you can see that they almost exclusively edit race related articles from a particular POV.Ultramarine 23:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Which do you think is more appropriate? MedCab or RfC on the article? From what I understand of WP (and I've been here a mere few months) I would think an RfC is called for, but I think process-wise a MedCab is required first. If you have more familiarity with WP, I'm all ears. But I think it's time to stop the constant POV creep of this article. The only way I can think of is to attract enough people of the non-genetic persuasion (which I think are in the majority, contrary to all the surveys they can quote) to counterbalance their influence and the way they have of talking way over your head and blocking any pertinent objection by an objection of their own which they demand you answer before they will answer yours. I must admit my academic days are far behind me, though, so I'm often at a loss to defend against their tactics, although I think I can see through them just as well as the next guy. --Ramdrake 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. The problem with both RfC and Mediation is that they do not produce anything binding. I am afraid that even if new editors get involved they will get tired eventually. Only a RfA can do produce something obligatory. But and that is a long and difficult process. Also, many of arguments are rather technical and will be difficult to understand for many editors who are not researchers. So I am a little pessimistic. But we could try mediation, if they accept it. I think it is easier to do than a RfC and this or something similar is probably required anyhow as you point out.Ultramarine 00:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Went in there, and explained at length my take on what's happening with the article. Slapped a NPOV tag on the article as well. Hope I can count on your support to keep the tag there and at the top (as opposed to moving it to after the intro where people don't see it right away). I guess I'll get a rather annoyed response (which I expect). Oh well, we'll see. If you know others who would like to weigh in this time, please feel free to spread the word. Not sure we'll get anywhere, but I think it's worth a try. This article is so POV while denying to be it's sickening (just my own disgust showing here, sorry!). --Ramdrake 01:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I will certainly support it.Ultramarine 01:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please count me in as well. I've focused mostly on maintaining NPOV on the Rushton article, but it is closely related to race & intelligence. --JereKrischel 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Excellent work.Ultramarine 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though this is Ultramarine's page, I'd say welcome aboard JereKrischel, and thank you for joining. (Here's hoping Ultramarine won't mind too much :) ) BTW, I'm also keeping an eye on the Rushton article. I couldn't help but notice that since the Rushton article took a turn south (demonstrating rather heavily the bias of this researcher), Rik and Nectar seem to have distanced themselves from his stance. Well, maybe it's nothing. Forgive me for blabbing on. --Ramdrake 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin

The other editor is right, you know. There's going to be tons of sources stating that there was an overwhelming majority in these two cities. In the end, it will turn out that no surveys or voting was conducted to verify this assumption, and that the "majority" observation is only a POV opinion. Your "according to Lenin" tag is fully appropriate, but best wishes convincing the Communists. Rklawton 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Followup: he's got one published academic source, so I'm surprised. Rklawton 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional republic

This was originally a POV fork created by RJII, and is now a stub kept alive by libertarians who have some inherent dislike for the term "democracy". I have tried redirecting it to republic repeatedly, but after being reverted every time, I put it up for deletion. It is essentially a content fork that should be a redirect to either republic or liberal democracy. But since there's no way to make the libertarians stop reverting, it has to be deleted first. I thought you might want to help. -- Nikodemos 10:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Of possible interest to you: AfD on Francisco Gil-White article

Hello Ultramarine. Just to let you know there is an AfD going on on the Francisco Gil-White article. I'm just bringing it to your attention in case you'd like to express your voice. --Ramdrake 13:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. It would be nice if you would use the edit summary field more often. Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cold War Portal created

Hello...

I see that you've been fairly active with the Cold War article, and I would like to solicit your assistance with developing the Cold War Portal that I've created. It seemed necessary, considering the amount of material on just the one page. For example, I created a Cold War Bibliography page, to answer some critique I saw about too many references. I'd like to delete the whole thing from the Cold War page, and have it linked from the portal/article. Same goes for the Cold War Template with all the names and such.

What do you think?

Thanks for your help!

Hires an editor 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista article - security discussion

Hi. As an editor of the Windows Vista article, you may be interested in commenting or expressing your opinion on this discussion on the article's talk page at Security updates and patches --Peter Campbell Talk! 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

--JereKrischel 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Weekly Delivery