User talk:CRGreathouse/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
By the way...
I saw your comment at Talk:Ubykh phonology, you might consider asking User:Thefamouseccles about it, as he seems to be the expert in that area. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 22:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on this AfD
Hi, I noticed that you made these comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Muawiyah I after the AfD was already closed. After the AfD is closed, there should be no more comments to the AfD. As such, I have reverted your edits to remove the comment from this AfD. If you wish to make new comments that may reverse the decision in the AfD, you may do so in WP:DRV, but only if your comments point out how the Deletion process wasn't correctly followed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- No harm done. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (in response to [1])
Greetings from Deathphoenix
Welcome!
Hello, CRGreathouse/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I noticed you haven't gotten a proper welcome yet, and wanted to correct the situation. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Perpetual motion machine
Hi, I noticed you removed the "Perpetual Motion Machine" from the "List of Holy Grails". I am extremely unknowledgeable regaring physics so you may be dead right on this one, but could you explain why? I thought the key to "perpetual motion" (unlimited energy) was a kind of mythical quest scientists would love to discover. Lawyer2b 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, your edit summary didn't mention there was any discussion on the talk page. I should've checked there anyway. No further explanation needed. :-) Lawyer2b 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am find with it being removed. :-) Lawyer2b 01:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Question for you...
...on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America.
Hi, I'd like you to elaborate on your statement that you could find "only one reputable source" on State terrorism by United States of America. There are dozens of sources cited in the article, which one did you find reputable? (My question is posted on the AfD above) Cheers, Self-Described Seabhcán 09:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's quite moot now; the article is little like it was when I made that comment. I think it was a newspaper to which I referred. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, perhaps you will reconsider your delete vote. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's too far reaching. There are more references now, but also many more unbacked assumptions. I'm going to try to edit the article to redeem it, but it's still making unfounded claims as the bulk of the article. As for its new referencs -- I'm going to have to look through them to see if they're quality references or not. They may be good, they may be bad, I don't know. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Integer.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Integer.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Schönhage-Strassen algorithm
I have commented on your additions to the Schönhage-Strassen algorithm, please see Talk:Schönhage-Strassen algorithm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfg (talk • contribs)
Hugo Chavez
Please stop removing references: they will need to go back. You might not find them necessary: they are all there for a reason. Thanks, Sandy 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- You left a comment on my talk page about referenes in the Chavez article. I did remove a few references, but as noted in the summary most were simply consolidations. As an example, there was a paragraph with 4 references to the same work; I removed the first three and expanded the page range on the last to accomodate. (All pages were within about 10 of each other, if memory serves.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Specific page numbers to cite statements from books are required, particularly for FAs, which Chavez once was, and may be again someday. It is never good policy to remove references. Within ten pages of each other doesn't help a reader locate the exact cite in a book: exact page numbers for books are the norm, particularly on FAs. It is also a bad idea to begin consolidating/working on the article during a day that Chavez got the attention of the world and the article is being vandalized. Until the news settles down, we'll have to focus on reverting the vandalism: not a good time to decide to rewrite the article. HTH, Sandy 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- PS, I also couldn't understand why you were deviating from WP:MOS on the changes you were making to dates. Sandy 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I would very much like for the real work to be undertaken to really correct the major deficiencies in the article, but losing references is not the way to go. Also, adding content on Economics that isn't referenced, or that refers to another Wiki article for references, won't help. (You can't reference Wiki with Wiki - that's circular reasoning.) We have tried to maintain the article well referenced. Although it has content and POV problems, at least what is there is well-written and well-referenced: we should try to preserve that, while waiting for others editors to agree to work on NPOV - right now, they won't. You are right that the article needs major work: references don't add to prose size, and should never be deleted. Specific page numbers are the norm for books. Perhaps you didn't realize the article would get hit by all the vandals who finally woke up to who Chavez is because of his speech at the UN today, but your edits were sandwiched among some vandalism and unsourced POV that needed to be addressed - just bad timing for making changes. On dates, the changes you made weren't according to manual of style: there is controversy about whether dates should be wiki'd, but when entire mon dd, yyyy dates are wiki'd, you don't unwiki just the year. I know, lots to learn :-) Anyway, yes, I hope other editors will eventually recognize the importance of NPOVing, balancing, and trimming the article size: in the meantime, it's very important to preserve references. Cheers, Sandy 01:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't watch it either. I can just play Standard Chavez Rhetoric Recording (pick a number) in my head - no need to see/hear it again. But it sure hit the news, and we got a lot of activity on the article. "It seems every other (or every third) sentence goes from promoting one POV to another, and the whole is not well put together." OK, well, yes, that is true. The original FA was highly POV, and it's never been fixed. But since the majority of the editors there refuse to NPOV the article, it's not a matter of no one having the skill to fix the article: the majority of the editors there are blatantly biased pro-Chavez, and simply won't allow for the article to be written in an encyclopedic tone, reflecting NPOV. "There are many refs which are to unreliable sources, and I haven't even had time to read through a quarter of them. If you have thoughts on this I'd love to hear them." All of the Chavez articles are based on Venezuelanalaysis.com, which is not a reliable source, and should not be allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.[2] But, it will take an Act of God to get the pro-Chavez editors to acknowledge that, and allow the article to be written from neutral, reliable sources. Until the editors there understand that the article has to be NPOV, it won't happen. There are not good sources of Economic data, because Chavez fiddles the numbers. And, other editors use that to their advantage, to insert original research. The best that can be done while we wait for consensus to NPOV the article is to prevent further damage to the article. Sandy 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- GMTA ?? Don't understand why it was added. Sandy 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Great Minds Think Alike. By the way, I doubt that VHeadline is a reliable source. Sandy 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- The whole mess will have to be sorted out after the dust settles: everything was added in two different places, also. The VHeadline quote has no place, either, but I'd rather wait til everything subsides to begin to fix things. Sandy 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Great Minds Think Alike. By the way, I doubt that VHeadline is a reliable source. Sandy 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- GMTA ?? Don't understand why it was added. Sandy 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't watch it either. I can just play Standard Chavez Rhetoric Recording (pick a number) in my head - no need to see/hear it again. But it sure hit the news, and we got a lot of activity on the article. "It seems every other (or every third) sentence goes from promoting one POV to another, and the whole is not well put together." OK, well, yes, that is true. The original FA was highly POV, and it's never been fixed. But since the majority of the editors there refuse to NPOV the article, it's not a matter of no one having the skill to fix the article: the majority of the editors there are blatantly biased pro-Chavez, and simply won't allow for the article to be written in an encyclopedic tone, reflecting NPOV. "There are many refs which are to unreliable sources, and I haven't even had time to read through a quarter of them. If you have thoughts on this I'd love to hear them." All of the Chavez articles are based on Venezuelanalaysis.com, which is not a reliable source, and should not be allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.[2] But, it will take an Act of God to get the pro-Chavez editors to acknowledge that, and allow the article to be written from neutral, reliable sources. Until the editors there understand that the article has to be NPOV, it won't happen. There are not good sources of Economic data, because Chavez fiddles the numbers. And, other editors use that to their advantage, to insert original research. The best that can be done while we wait for consensus to NPOV the article is to prevent further damage to the article. Sandy 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I would very much like for the real work to be undertaken to really correct the major deficiencies in the article, but losing references is not the way to go. Also, adding content on Economics that isn't referenced, or that refers to another Wiki article for references, won't help. (You can't reference Wiki with Wiki - that's circular reasoning.) We have tried to maintain the article well referenced. Although it has content and POV problems, at least what is there is well-written and well-referenced: we should try to preserve that, while waiting for others editors to agree to work on NPOV - right now, they won't. You are right that the article needs major work: references don't add to prose size, and should never be deleted. Specific page numbers are the norm for books. Perhaps you didn't realize the article would get hit by all the vandals who finally woke up to who Chavez is because of his speech at the UN today, but your edits were sandwiched among some vandalism and unsourced POV that needed to be addressed - just bad timing for making changes. On dates, the changes you made weren't according to manual of style: there is controversy about whether dates should be wiki'd, but when entire mon dd, yyyy dates are wiki'd, you don't unwiki just the year. I know, lots to learn :-) Anyway, yes, I hope other editors will eventually recognize the importance of NPOVing, balancing, and trimming the article size: in the meantime, it's very important to preserve references. Cheers, Sandy 01:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- PS, I also couldn't understand why you were deviating from WP:MOS on the changes you were making to dates. Sandy 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Specific page numbers to cite statements from books are required, particularly for FAs, which Chavez once was, and may be again someday. It is never good policy to remove references. Within ten pages of each other doesn't help a reader locate the exact cite in a book: exact page numbers for books are the norm, particularly on FAs. It is also a bad idea to begin consolidating/working on the article during a day that Chavez got the attention of the world and the article is being vandalized. Until the news settles down, we'll have to focus on reverting the vandalism: not a good time to decide to rewrite the article. HTH, Sandy 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the POV tag: after vandal-fighting all day, I didn't want to risk another revert. Sandy 01:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I keep meaning to ask you if you'd be willing to help review the WP:FAC and WP:FAR math articles: we can never get enough reviewers to come to consensus. For example, right now, we have:
- Euler (FAC)
- Ackermann function (FAR)
- You don't have to get involved in working on the articles: you just have to know math, and know the FA criteria, in terms of whether the articles should be promoted (FAC) or demoted (FAR). Sandy 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Tannim
To Greehouse, First with the exception of one of the poster, the lack of respect came from the other side, especialy Sadena. If I claim Fox news from 10/9/06 would that be acceptible. I think by definition if is reported by every major news outlet resports Chavez is meeting with someone and negotiating with someone that is a fact. Tannim 09:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)TannimTannim 09:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping you might give me some advice on this. I am adding info and edits which I am backing up, it seems the majority of the people who are unhappy are guilty of intolerance or political correctness. I am being threatened for blocking because they don't like to hear crticism. They come with the NPOV threat when these are facts. Thanks Tannim 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Vinogradov NPOV dispute
I am unsure if you were right to remove the NPOV tag over at the Ivan Matveyevich Vinogradov article. The tag remained there since the math achievements section remains a stub whilst the section on his Soviet system complicity is way longer. While I do despise I.M.V. for his behaviour outlined in the later section, I think that the imbalance mentioned above (and also is discussed on the talk page; b.t.w., I don't see how this has been addressed despite your check-in comment) is worth the tag kept. I suggest you either restore the tag, or, especially if you are good enough at number theory and history of mathematics, expand his math achievements/general bio. --BACbKA 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I did some minor fixes to your edit and posted my opinion on the article talk page; basically, I agree it should no longer be POV-tagged. My only request now is that you incorporate your book by Ball in the list of references as, if I got it right, you've just mentioned on my talk page you had your edit based on its contents. --BACbKA 07:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
OEIS improvements
Wow, you're right. I tried putting in "1, 2, 3, 4" and A27 came up as the first result. That wouldn't've happened as recently as a year ago. I think they've made the search engine give greater weight to sequences with the "core" keyword. Anton Mravcek 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My edit to Prime number
I wasn't quite sure how to label it...it didn't seem well placed, it wasn't cited, it was phrased as if it was a personal observation, and the wikilink to elements seemed out of place. Here's the sentence again:
- Drawing an analogy from chemistry, prime numbers can be thought of as the elements from which all other non-prime numbers are composed of.
The phrasing also struck me as misleading because "all other non-prime numbers" would include all other real and imaginary numbers, which aren't built up from primes. Possibly "all other non-prime positive integers" would be accurate?
Is there a useful thought in there that we want to retain in the article? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sock puppetry allegations
Based on some of the edit history and commentary on the Chavez talk page, I'm going to stay away from that one. Besides that, I don't know how to cite TV shows. I wish someone would come along to *really* help out with the POV there, with well-reasoned, well-sourced neutral edits that will help combat the POV-pushing there: I'm going to invest my efforts when that person appears. I'm busy trying to clean up the wreck that has been made of Joe Lieberman. Sandy 00:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- So far, I've spent hours converting the URL refs on Lieberman; haven't even begun to look at the mess in the text. It looks like a lot of almost deliberate destruction of the article, along with spin, POV-pushing, and neglect. Staying away from stinky socks :-) Sandy 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Tag Userbox?
Great work on the Policylistfull template. Ever thought of making a similar userbox? Ekantik 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify, a userbox for the WP:SPIDER article would be hilarious. Ekantik 19:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thx for your prompt, CRG, as to the latest response in the above. There is an online version of Arrow (1951): http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cm/m12-2/index.htm . The relevant pp. are 15, 23, and 27. If you have any reactions you'd like to share, I'd be interested. BW, Thomasmeeks 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Edited to include p. 23 SWF def. where he refers to the social ordering R. Thomasmeeks 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed (on the need to expand, rewrite, or disambiguate IIA making the relevant distinctions). On the 1st 2 possibilities the IIA article could a kind of self-contained Wikipedia: Disambiguation page or encyclopedic Wiktionary. I'll put a little more about the Ray article on the IIA Talk page. The new external link I put up on IIA mentions the distinction now flagged in IIA and has a clear discussion of non-Arrow uses in a voting context. It also goes some way to showing the overall similarity of objectives. The links to IIA in Arrow's impossibility theorem do no harm, b/c the difference in usage is now flagged at IIA, but I don't believe that they add anything either. BW, Thomasmeeks 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear CRG—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 14:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Re:Big O notation
Hi CRGreathouse. I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. How do you do the "autosign" thing? Paul August ☎ 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind about the "autosign" thing, I see that the HagermanBot, is doing this automatically, I thought this was some option you had turned on for your page somehow.Paul August ☎ 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've replied again on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Wording
Hi CRGreathouse,
I really appreciate that you spend some time correcting my somewhat loose English but in fact when I'm modifying a section I can change several times the same sentences. So in order that you don't spend your time in an useless task I suggest you polish another section than the first one. I have planned to change the introduction too so it is better not to change it in fact. Happy new year. --Frédéric Liné 11:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Great powers - multipolarity etc
Thanks for keeping an eye out and reverting those recent bipolar/mulipolar edits. We might have more or less finished off the article, but it will probably be a long-term job to keep it free of OR statements.
Xdamrtalk 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Saga (Singer)
I don’t want to persuade your vote in any way, but I would like for you to take a second look at the article Saga (singer), an article you recently voted to delete. I, among other users have vastly improved the article, as well as the sourcing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikischmedia (talk • contribs) 2007-01-02T21:59:00
Aleph_n
Responded on my talk. --Trovatore 06:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Great powers and tripolarity
Hello, CRGreathouse. I am responding to your message that you left in my talk page (sorry I couldn't do so earlier, but I was away.)
Anyway, the reason I wanted to bring up the whole multipolarity question is because if the world is indeed multipolar or headed that way, then the so-called poles would be composed of either great powers or of super-national groupings. If it's the former, then that should be mentioned in the Great Powers article.
It seems to me that the whole idea of a superpower became obsolete (at least for now) with the end of the bipolar world. As I see it, no nation in the world has the kind of overwhelming influence that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R had during the Cold War, thus the idea of a superpower no longer applies to present-day nations.
Essentially the point I would like to have in the article is that the Great Powers become more influential in a world that's not dominated by one or two superpowers, which is exactly what we have had since the end of the Cold War, IMO.
Of course, the whole idea of a multipolar world certainly bears more discussion that we can or should give it in the Great Powers section, though I am not sure if it's entirely appropriate to have exclusively in the superpower section either. I'll see if I can put something interesting together along with appropriate sources, which we can then discuss.
The tripolar world you mentioned is an interesting concept...I take you have the U.S., the E.U., and China in mind? I'd like to discuss this sometime as well. One of the things I'd be interested in discussing is how we would classify major powers that don't fall under the influence of those three poles?
Khelnor 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- First, some direct responses to your statements:
- 1. Super-national groupings, as such, don't make sense in the context of realism. Realists call entities that are united enough to present a front to the world and act in their own interest 'states'; other entities are essentially ignored. California is called a 'state' by its residents, but it does not act like a state in the realist sense. Similarly Germany calls itself Deutschland, "German country", but this does not stop realists from considering itself a state in their specialized sense. Once the EU qualifies as a state (making it a superpower, and one of 1-3 poles) its constituent countries will not be considered states in the realist sense. Both Germany and the US were once a collection of sovereign states, but just as surely both are states now.
- 2. The concept of superpower is not 'obsolete' in any sense. I think what you might mean is that you think there are no superpowers in the world today. Regardless of the correctness of that assertion, it does not belong on the Great power article but on the Superpower article.
- 3. The idea that superpowers are less influential outside of unipolar and bipolar world structures seems fairly obvious to me, and not worth mentioning. If it is, though, it would again belong in the Superpower article or a general article on Realism.
- 4. The "whole idea of a multipolar world" should not be discussed in either Great power or Superpower, but in an article like Multipolarity or Realist structure or something like that.
- 5. I agree that a new article is to be desired, and I stress the importance of proper sourcing. Speculation isn't welcome, as I've found, in Wikipedia.
- 6. Your last sentence shows a particular view of polarities that (while apparent at times in the literature) is not covered by the Wikipedia definitions I've read. The standard definitions of polarity speak of powerful counties, while you are talking about blocs. The Cold War bipolarity, for example, can be seen as the US and the USSR or as NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The first is more prevalent, more readily defined, and more supported by the evidence I've read in the case of the Cold War (particularly regarding the Warsaw Pact). Unfortunately I don't have either reference (to the general differences of the two definitions or to the lack of cohesiveness of the Warsaw Pact viewed as a group) handy, for which I must apologize. If I can track those down I'll post them somewhere.
- Now, for my own opinions: Yes, I was thinking of the US, EU, and PRC as the poles. Much evidence can be found to support this, though of course the difficulties of determining the actual polarity are great. The lack of military and diplomatic cohesion amongst the EU nations shows that at the moment the EU is still supernational, although I think the road to statehood might not be long. The most plausible path would be if a push toward greater centralization pushed separatist UK to leave the union, allowing pent-up pro-Brussels forces to move rapidly to combine the remainder now that the main opposing force was gone. Of course this would make the EU somewhat smaller, but still obviously superpower-sized (especially if it adds other nations by that time).
- CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- If we do a new article on multipolarity, I'd be for that. I'll try to do some research and when/if I find some good academic sources on this subject, I'll put something together that will hopefully be informative and non-biased. Then we will be able to see about creating such an article, or adding to an existing one, if appropriate. If you happen to come across something that you think is useful, please let me know on my talk page, and if you're interested, I will let you know when I have something put together.
- Khelnor 03:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Are my e-mail addresses tough for parsers to read?
I noticed you munged an e-mail address to prevent spammer spiders from spotting it. How effective do you think what I did on my user page is? I broke my e-mail addresses up such that people could read it but parsers would not see it. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Great power
It's been changed now. The Charles de Gaulle is, indeed, the only nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the world not operated by the Americans.UberCryxic 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
More Hugo Chavez
A dispute has arisen on the talk page (and unfortunately a bit in the history page) on the article on Hugo Chavez, related to two thoroughly sourced quotes I added to the "Criticism" section of the article from two editorials from the Argentine daily Ambito Financiero (www.ambitoweb.com) - An editor very zealously deleted and reverted and, on the history page, made some very political statements that were politburo'ey in nature. I was trying to improve the article -- it has, as I've seen on the talk page over why its FA status went in and out, been plagued with problems of imbalance in the past. I was trying to improve it, and feel that my addition was spiked for no good reason without a discussion. I could be wrong - I need help to see for sure.
Anyway - if you're at all interested, I'd appreciate your opinion back there. Thanks. NYDCSP 07:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please let me know why you edited my addition to the foriegn policy section of Hugo Chavez? Thanks.Reapor 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
MagicKirin
Reapor is a confirmed sockpuppet of MagicKirin (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Decato). I've already asked for admin intervention. JRSP 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Superpower
You might to be interested to know that the Superpower page now looks as if it is going to have a Great power-style rewrite. Things seem to be starting off quite nicely on the talk page—we'd be pleased to hear your views.
Regards, Xdamrtalk 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Check the sources
I quoted in Great powers an official speech of the head of state saying that Germany is a middle power. It is an important issue in German politics to deny being a great power, but emphasizing its role as a strong middle power, no matter what party. Wandalstouring 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Great power and Category:American conservatives CFD
Thanks for the heads-up on Great power. You are right, it will probably need a bit of looking at, but I think we've taken things as far as we usefully can at the moment. Before making a move perhaps wait a few hours and see what the likes of Nobleeagle and Brendel think.
On another matter, your recent vote on the Category:American conservatives CFD. I've raised a small query re. your delete vote. If you could perhaps see you way to taking a look at it (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 21#Category:American conservatives) then that would be excellent.
Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Emerging superpower
Emerging superpower articles are up for deletion. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)