User talk:Nobleeagle/Archive2

My RFA

Hi Nobleeagle/Archive2,

Thank you for supporting my RFA! Unfortunately it did not succeed mainly because most opposers wanted me to spend more time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your faith in me & looking forward to your continued support in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 08:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat

Hello, Nobleeagle, nice to meet you. I see that Anwar saadat has left hate messages on your page. I have just left a message on the ajith discussion board regarding the behaviour of Anwar Saadat, I noticed your hate for him as well. I believe that he is a vandalist that must be stopped for the good of wikipedia articles.

Thank you for your time. Jath16 17:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Enjoy your Barnstar, you deserved it!

Jath16 18:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

superthanks

Hi Nobleeagle - I'm very sorry to have disappointed your expectation in me, but it had become impossible for me to compromise my principles. I don't covet adminship at all, so it wasn't a difficult decision - I simply cannot accept misrepresentation and nonsense. However, I cannot tell you how greatly joyous I feel at the enthusiastic, wonderful support you expressed for me. I don't know how hard it will be to understand that your supports means extremely a lot to me. I thank you from my heart, and please let me know if I can ever be assistance or help in anything.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs)

Potential Superpower: China

Hey,newbieeagle. It seems like you are relatively new to Wikipedia. Just let you know this place is not for expressing your political views. I don't know why do you hate China so much. But if you keep reverting things without explanations and adding your opinions without citation. This might get your banned from wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.64.132 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is also not the place for airing your personal comments. And unless you sign your anonymous (bordering on threatening) comment we'll say no more on what you think eh, User:12.35.64.132 Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

*Those* Articles

Thanks for notifying me of the start of the crusade. This is heading straight for an edit war, I can see it now. *sighs* Told you I'd hit the roof. Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Start of the crusade? Are you saving the world civilizations by editing Wikipedia? It is just amazed me how people like you are so consumed with wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.64.132 (talk • contribs)

Latest News: User:Anwar saadat is back as user:212.32.85.221

What do you suggest we do about this vandalist. Find him on the ajith article history! Check out his history, he is purposly putting the days vijay films ran down, so they will look like flops. We must stop him, for the neutrality of Wikipedia. Jath16 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Powers/Regions

In response: yes, I was actually thinking India should be a separate region. It surely did have contact with China and Persia, but it very much formed its own "power region" from what I can tell.

Like the whole dating thing (and I'd agree with the current tag on the article that it needs lots of sourcing), regional boundaries are a dicey subject. But what would you think of these divisions pre-1500: East Asia, South Asia, Middle East (from Persia to maybe Morocco?), Europe, Central America, the Andes, Sub-Saharan Africa. In truth, my knowledge of the last three is rather limited, and I don't know if the last should be further divided and if the Americas should have more regions noted (I only know of big, powerful states having existed in Central America and the Andes).

Unfortunately, I'm quite tied up with other matters and won't be able to plow ahead quickly on any of this, but it seems the article's getting more attention, so that should help out.--RemiCogan 23:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou Nobleeagle for the comment on my editor review. It was much appreciated. I didn't reply directly as it is usually considered poor form for the subject to argue. Thanks again, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dia Mirza

Hello, Nobleeagle, I noticed you are active in the Indian Cinema Project and I'm desparately seeking for your help: There is a problem with several anons over at the Dia Mirza page who keep adding stuff, like endorsements and fansites. Things have gotten blown out of proportion in a really big way, as you can see on the discussion page. I had a lengthy conversation with both of them, the article got protected once and when things seemed to get betters, an admin who helped me, User:GraemeL, un-protected it again - that's when everything started to get out of control. User:GraemeL suggested I'd either ask people from the project for help or go to RfC, but I think that's the last resort, so I'm asking you and a few others for help. I'd be eternally grateful if you have time, to just drop a comment there and even, if it's just a tiny one. Best regards, a desparate Plumcouch 16:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood channel

Hey, on Talk:India as a emergin superpower, you said that there was a channel devoted for month showing Bollywood films. Whats the channel? It may not be broadcasted in Sydney. :) Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Anwar

Hi Nobleeagle - I request you to see user talk:Gurubrahma#Need your advice regarding user:Anwar saadat. Rama's Arrow 16:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please don't be so hard on yourself. You don't become a troll just because someone calls you so. Stay cool. WP has enough procedures such as RfC and RfAr to take care. --Gurubrahma 09:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at what he did to User:AmiDaniel's comments. He claims that the creator of VandalProof is "arming vandals". He also bolded Nirav's comments selectively.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_Troll_supports_Vandal_and_takes_over_my_talk_page. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to make any further points at AN/I now. I think he should have learned his lesson by now. All other users who have posted there agree with you. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to have a chat. Do you have a Gmail account. If yes, meet me on Gchat, my address is srikeit at gmail dot com. If not mail me & I will send you a gmail invite. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi NobleEagle, I wouldn't post any further on WP:ANI regarding this issue. Let others do the posting. I'm sure you will find that many support you. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 08:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

China as an emerging superpower

Thanks for the note, I've taken a quick look at the page. Broadly speaking I agree with you, a note as to relations with other countries/powers is merited. However, having looked at the article, I am left in some confusion; exactly what is this article trying to say? Both structure and substansive content seem a little confused. I don't say that any of the content is necessarily incorrect, but so much of the content strikes me as unnecessary (eg, as you have pointed out, cultural factors).

Structurally, I don't care much for the article's separation of factors for China's rise and factors against. Reading through it from the start it begins to look like a non-NPOV Chinese love-fest - only half-way through do we begin to see some of the factors weighing down on China (of which there are a number). I think that we should group China's rise under three heads, political, military, and economic. The article should deal with each, with points for and against in one place, providing a balanced analysis of each element. The factors for and factors against structure is not one which I have ever seen from any reputable int. power source.

It's comprehensively referenced, but I'm not too sure that many of these are appropriate sources. The People's Daily, for instance - I wouldn't trust it as an impartial source any more than I would have trusted Pravda in the old Soviet Union.

What do you think? Fundamentally I think that the topic has validity but there is simply too much irrelevant detail here.

Anyway, I haven't been following the article too keenly so far but I'll put it on my watch list and follow the movement over the next few days. When I get an idea of the general 'article dynamic' I'll weigh in with a few of these points.

Regards, Xdamr 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, understood.

Xdamr 14:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, but it seems that you are back with you new ID: user:203.214.5.45 right? Keep your promise and stop pushing Indo-POV :-> 219.79.29.47 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of CheckUser? :->219.79.29.47 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:My User Page

Hi, I was wondering why you categorized my user page as a stub??

Ach... Sorry about that. Incompetent mistake. I'll try not to do that one again. Sorry again... Beno1000 11:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

please see this

Hi Nobleeagle - please see this [1]. Rama's Arrow 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also see [2] Rama's Arrow 22:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pls see Mizoram. User anwar saadat is continously adding seperatists flag in the fatcs n figures subsection.Bharatveer 08:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

India as an emerging superpower

Hi! I perfectly understand your interest in the page (I'm a victim too ). I think the article is now well referenced, and the Original Research tag can be taken off. What do you think? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 12:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody took it off for us. : ) -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 09:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Smile

FellowWikipedian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Great Power - Italy

Thanks. I've taken a look but it seems to be in quite some disarray; a lot of verbosity and intermingled edits, not the easiest thing to make sense of.

Instinctively I say no. Certainly Italy has some things going for it; its economy gets it into the G8, for instance. The thing is that Italy does not exercise global influence, the Italian viewpoint matters little. Unlike France and Germany which shore up their somewhat diminished influence acting with the UK as the EU 3, Italy has no such role.

From what I've managed to make sense of on the talk page, many of the pro Italy arguments seem to miss the mark. The point isn't that Italy contemplated a nuclear deterrent, nor the fact that they do not have a weak navy (do not have a weak navy, not that they have a strong navy, emphasis intended - Italy falls far short of the Royal Navy, a navy that is strong by all quantifiable measures), nor that their government has the 6th highest expenditures, that their merchant fleet is comprable to France's (that is to say pretty small) etc, etc. These points really make the case against Italy rather than the case for; Italy is shown to be relatively (relative to the UK, France, China etc) mediocre.

I must say though that I am somewhat uneasy about the criteria we are using to judge this. The whole Major power fight has left its mark on me; I would really like some sort of source for this topic before it simply becomes the Major power article under another title. If so then we are just going to attract the same trouble as before. Frankly I am still rather annoyed at the redirect; Great power is a historical term, how often do you hear reference to contemporary 'Great powers' in the media? But the problem is that I cannot provide an answer, my backround is not in int. relations theory.

So the difficulty is that without an academic basis it becomes difficult to refuse Italy. We have the top group, those that we have consistently acknowledged as Major/Great/whatever powers - where or what is the dividing line between them and a modern, prosperous (albeit one without any international clout) nation like Italy? If Italy is added then why not Spain? Why not our old friend Brazil? Without a clear boundary then there is no justification for refusal other than the fact that 'we know it to be so'; in terms of realpolitik we are possibly right but we've seen the results of that approach in the Major powers article.

Xdamr 00:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My god! I just tried to print the talk page out, 21 pages! How on earth did they come up with so much?

Xdamr 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• First of all,there isn't such institutionalized think as EU3, its only a lobby group inside EU working about the Iran Nuclear question. France and Uk, but specially France are on it because of their Nuclear Power status and UN Security Council Permanent Seat. Germany is there for three mains reasons: 1- Its the major economy of EU, 2-Makes part of the Franco-german axis inside EU, 3-Because wants very much the UN Security Council Permanent Seat has to get involved in International Politics and when ones want a good with all its will, one has to play all the cards it has. Its important to Germany to get heard inthe Iran Crisis. But as matter of fact,its the world who wants Italy to make diplomacy inthis case too,its Russia, the US and Italy is also involved.

As fact of not existing suvh thing as EU3, I mean as de jure, de facto it exists but only for a temporary thing. Its not like the G8, EU, UN, OECD, IMF, WTO, WorldBank, EFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUL, UA or even G4. That institutions you can't deny their existence.

For your point that military,geostrategic, nuclear ability doesn't matters for being a Great/Major Power, I don't think that way and its not my self opinion only, it was the atributes of each country that was in the Major Power article-much of the atributes was military, strategical and related topower projection.

---

Why not Spain or Brazil? If you think Italy viewpoint matters little, Spain and Brazil doesn't matter at all. And India? It was a country considered Major Power in the article and its a member of G4. It a country near Iran. And what is the voice and opinion of India about Iran Crisis?None or almost it. Even China talks about this crisis but more for maintaining its commercial power and its growing influenec. If its economy was not growing like that, do you think China voice would be heard? And about Japan? Another G4 member and Major Power- Its position is the same of India. The countries really involved are the 5 Permanent Members of the UNSC. And this is other reason of China involvement. The other country mostly involved is Germany, for the reasons I gave. Besides all this, Brazil doesn't have such a great economy,only important in South/Latin America. And inmilitary terms it is very inferior to Italy. Its culture is a bit strong, but its also a mixture of portuguese, african and indigeneous culture, its not a proper culture inthe real sense, the same applies to USA,but USA created its own sense of cultureand was sucessefull in implementing it inthe world, for reasons well known. As for Spain, its economy size untill a few years ago was more distant of the italian one,then the italian in relation to the german one. And in world influence, UK nad France altough having a smaller economy than Germany, are more influent. The same apllies to Italy, even if its economy is a smaller than that of Germany,in peacekeeping actions and influence inthe UN, the difference its not so big and of course Italy is years ahead of Spain and Brazil in that. In what missions are Brazil or even Spain involved?

User:ACamposPinho!ACamposPinho 01:06, 6 June 2006

Probably best if we don't clog up Nobleeagle's talk page with this, I'll respond on your talk page.

Xdamr 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello Nobleeagle. Thank you for your strong support and defending me at my request for adminship to enable that things could run smoothly. Of course, I feel that your defence statement in my Editor review was also highly influential, as it was quoted by many RfA participants and strongly contributed to the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0) was in large part, and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need any help with tasks requiring admin powers, feel free ask me - and of course, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. Of course, I look forward to working with you in the future. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Quick Note

Thanks for the smiles. You could do something about the Indo-Pak conflict I suppose, but it could touch a nerve somewhere. ;) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Great power - Italy

Thank you for your invitation into the discussion. The question is rather difficult and unclear. Now I have no opinion on the subject, but will try to determine. First of all, there is no clear definition of a great power. But I think, if France, Great Britain and Germany considered great powers, why not Italy? On the other hand then, if Italy, why not Denmark, Sweden or Turkey? So I can suggest some additional criteria:

1. Independent scientific research, world-leading and famous universities.

2. World-leading multinational companies in financial services, machinery, software, chemistry or consumer goods having origin or headquarters in the country.

3. Research and hi-tech facilities such as particle accelerators, cosmodromes, research fusion reactors, large telescopes, Antarctic research stations etc.--Nixer 09:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• What is this? A joke? Or are you all part of a complot against Italy and for the status quo?

If Italy, why not Denmar,Sweden or Turkey? We must be joking, that's the only reason I can assume.

And you only speak of scientific research, multinationals and fisichs, in that case Turkey is light-years of being a Great/Major Power. As for Denmark and Sweden I will tell you why if you are so really dumb to compare such countries to Italy. Denmark- Population: 5450000, GDP-$188 Billon. Sweden- Population-9040000, GDP-$268 Billion;ITALY- Population-58600000, GDP-$1645 Billion. And only for this two criteria. If we speak of military, industry, size in the world, world influence, world top organizations membership like G-7, UN participation in % of budget and in missions,we would be writting for a wild.

ACamposPinho 0:42,4 June 2004

My RfA

Thanks

Nobleeagle/Archive2, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

OK, no problem. Thanks. Saravask 03:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

-- Natalya 05:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Regional Power - Italy

Well I thought since you asked to expand that section, I thought better to contribute than to let someone else do it. I'll be keeping tabs on the debate, and keep supporting the yes side. --Hadrian1 14:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NPA from Hadrian

NobleEagle, I was not referring to your name when I said I come from a wealthy family so if you took as a shot against your username, it wasn't. Also I never said I was from nobility, even though I am, just from a well-off family. So the point I am making is it was not a personal attack on your being, just your apparent stance on the topic, and fact that things looked like there was collusion going on. Be Well John Spartan, er I mean NobleEagle.--Hadrian1 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:ER

As I told Dwaipayan, I was just feeling low with my recent lack of activity and the impending exams, and thought I'd get some feedback on what the community thinks of me. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 08:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)