User talk:Ultramarine/Archive 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hubbert peak[edit]

My intepretation of Maugeri's paper is that he is not criticizing Hubbert peak theory itself, rather he is criticizing the extreme "doomsday" supporters of Hubbert peak. So perhaps we should move Maugeri's criticisms to the implications of a world peak section to balance out the "catastrophe" section perhaps? Maugeri's paper was also written before August 2004 which, from the sources I've read and i think the article includes, was a watershed moment for peak oil because Saudi Arabia's largest oil field was unable to increase production. Also, we do already cover what Maugeri points out which is reasons why historical global production has not follow a bell shaped curve which was an asuption somewhat separate to the theory itself, it is not a bell curve because supply and demand change due to global politics , technology, and logistical constraints. I just got your talk page response, creating criticisms section is good.

I also just realized we should perhaps add another paragraph to the implications of a peak section that mentions recession, economic depression, and Energy crisis. zen master T 05:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to move the critique. I will add that those critical are not denying that fossil fuels will end.

A peak soon would indeed cause a depression and energy crises.

I would prefer to continue the discussion on the discussion page of Hubberts peak so others can follow what we are discussing. Ultramarine 06:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hubbert new technology[edit]

I am not against the new technology section you added but it's not just non-conventional oil that has the problem, it is conventional oil that is becoming non-conventional extraction energy efficiency wise. According to Hubbert's theory the peak is very significant because after that extraction of the remaining half of oil becomes increasingly inefficient, to a certain degree all the easily extracted and refined oil was done so long ago (so in that sense the peak is more serious than just a half way point). Also, that section should perhaps be moved underneath market solution as more efficient technology is basically the market solution? zen master T 14:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have some good points. Will try to change. Ultramarine 14:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that even a Communist state might use new technology so I do not see it as falling under the market solution, even though it is an important part of the market solution. Ultramarine 14:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Capatalism[edit]

I have blocked you for 24 hours on a three revert rule violation. ~~I see that you posted on the 3RR board that there is no rule against being involved in an edit war.~~ (my mistake I read too fast) The 3RR rule was designed to stop or slow down edit wars in progress. If you legitimately did not know about the 3RR or for some reason belive my ruling was unjust feel free to e-mail and I will reconsider or reduce the block. I am also checking if User:RJII can also be blocked for this edit war. I'm not doing this because I dissagree with you and if I have made a mistake I will gladly reverse this. Broken Segue 20:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism[edit]

Your creation of a page for "definitions of Capitalism" was a very constructive way to deal with the ongoing conflict with RJII. I am really appaled that s/he wants to remove that link. I am trying to figure out a way to call others' attention to what RJII has been doing (my own view is that s/he has done nothing but waste other editors' time). I don't want to ask for mediation, because I do not think the problem is about some dispute between me and RJII. Certainly, my main problem with RJII is not the dismissive way s/he deals with me on the talk page -- my only concern is the contents of the article. I have filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Request for comment; you should know about it. If you have any other ideas, let me know. I just do not want to have to spend the next year taking turns with you in reverting changes RJII insists on, despite the fact that no one agrees. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They will likely turn down a request for arbitration until you have first exhausted the mediation mechanism. However, understand that this mechanism is for conflicts between two users. You have to decide what you think is the basic issue: the way you and RJII interact, or what RJII is doing to the article. If it is the latter, you want a different mechanism than mediation, although I am not sure what it is (unless you want to argue that RJII is a vandal (look here for the policy, see this for action, but some might argue that what s/he is doing is not technically vandalism. Well, whatever you want to do, I will back you up. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "No censorship of Rothbard"? -- Anon.

Capita...cake![edit]

I made the decision to withdraw from the article talk page. Sadly, I am rather confident that the intro will end up glowingly pro-capitalist, representing the views of the Right and Moderate Right, and underrepresenting that of the Left and Moderate Left (again, it should be expected under this socio-economic system called capitalism), as must be the case for such fundamental articles. I don't have the energy to fight a losing battle over this POV eventuality. Watch this flash video for further generic details. [this generic comment has been forwarded to User talk:RJII, User talk:Luis rib, User talk:SlimVirgin, User talk:Slrubenstein, and User talk:Ultramarine (that's you!) ]

Greetings, we have yet to speak, but I thought I should send and make you privy to the aforementioned forward. While I am withdrawing from the article talk page, feel free to engage me with specific items on my talk page (though we have yet to do so, I thought it would only be fair to offer this to you). Goodluck in being a major contributor to the article – you'll need it (and more than it) ! See the specific comments I left on SlR and RJII, as well as the lengthy one on Luis Rib's, for a more elaborate depiction of my position on this. Sorry for so abruptly intruding on your talk page space, thanks for taking the time to read this. You are under no obligation to respond. El_C 02:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

URGENT[edit]

Go here and make a statement: [1]

Then go to the "Evidence page" and follow their guidelines to put in evidence! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism[edit]

Hi. I don't want to have the page removed, but the current content does belong in Wikisource, as it can't really be said to be an encyclopedia article. So I'm not proposing to have the page removed; diffs will still be available for the purposes of arbitration. With that in mind, would I be able to re-add the transwiki notice? Slac speak up! 03:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

geothermal as renewable/depletable[edit]

I noticed an edit you made over on Future energy development that frames the issue of geothermal not being renewable because sites "cool down" eventually. More than technically that is not depletion and not unrenewable I believe. The overall energy "flow" of geothermal energy on earth remains constant, but various "hot spots" do move around on earth, right? What is the logical basis overall to say that geothermal on a total earth scale isn't renewable? Perhaps it's better if we say that geothermal energy is "problematic" or "inconsistant" because it may not be cost effective to follow the spots around (or something similar). Geothermal overall still meets the definition of renewable I believe, what do you think? zen master T 20:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thx. zen master T 20:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

I noticed you added something to the discussion on footnote style. I have been trying to use footnotes because I often try to thoroughly support my statements with citations (so future fact checkers won't have to consider deleting things they don't know if I verified or not), and I feel that using in-line author-date parenthetical style ends up busier than footnotes for readability in the case of my particular work.

Anyway, I am very confused by the four style proposals I've looked in at. I don't understand what exactly is meant by "automatic numbering" since every time I do footnotes in stories like Kristin Hersh or Tanya Donelly I have to manually adjust footnotes when I make changes to paragraph order or add a new citation. Maybe they mean numbers that automatically jump to the Notes section. I don't seem to be able to visualize how the footnotes are going to appear when I look at the style # 4 proposal that I think was just added, for example. If you look at the style I've been using, can you tell me what the main idea is of how I can differentiate between the style proposals and whether there is one that would be easier for me to use that would not completely change the gist of what I've tried to do? Sorry I'm so confused. Am hoping for a mentor on this subject. Emerman 02:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Compressed air for vehicle propulsion[edit]

In Future energy development you've put in " Several companies are proposing vehicles using compressed air as fuel." Can you give us a reference? Seems pretty absurd on the fact of it, to me, since compressing air is a notoriously energy-intensive process. --Wtshymanski 15:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thx for adding the images[edit]

Thanks for adding the ASPO image everywhere. The World Energy Council 1993 image on Future energy development seems to be "pessimistic"? Perhaps a little too pessimistic as it appears to have predicted an oil peak in the mid to late 1990s. Is there any source or moderate organization that is known to produce compromise estimates between the optimistic and pessimistic camps? Or are we stuck with extremes? Thx again. zen master T 04:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Energy directory -> Master List of Energy Topics -> List of energy topics[edit]

Since I can probably assume you don't, and I doubt anybody would, object to an article at List of energy topics, and that's where ye olde Energy directory has ended up, and since the VfD for the latter expanded to such bloated length and the whole VfD page is apparently choking on a lot of people... You might consider pulling it from the queue? Samaritan 15:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! It was under May 5, sorry! I meant going back to edit the VfDs for that page and remove {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of energy topics}}. Samaritan 16:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it from the queue. Ultramarine 17:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...I removed the vfd tag, so this long chapter should be over. :) Samaritan 17:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magic fairy wheel[edit]

Whoever wrote that article is off with the fairies. i concur with your vfd listing for Magic wheel generator, have indicated my comments there. I would appreciate your support by voting delete. Thanks, THE KING 12:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Hominem Attacks[edit]

Dear Anon, I understand you enjoy edit wars - I don't Even if an edit was more or less than you would propose. It is better to do something than sit on one's hands for fear. I have been threated with prison time for removing (illegal) advertisemnts from public roads and parks and telephone poles. If you think for a minute, that i'm going to worry about you and your capital letters and your editor friends who have already blocked you, you should probably think again. We should be civil here - first because we probably agree about far more than we disagree, and second because the alternatives are absurd. If you read the wiki guidelines - you're threats are clearly not porportionate even to the offenses you alledge. I'm curious about your proposed solution to the energy challenge - which in a nutshell is that we're hoarding it all, and there isn't enough if we stop hoarding, and there might not be enough even if we keep it all to ourselves and our hummer solists NASCAR worshipping friends. Benjamin Gatti 03:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 21:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing edits as "censorship"[edit]

Hi! I've removed some material from Religiousness and intelligence and Intelligence quotient that I thought was not in line with NPOV and no original research, or just wasn't useful article content; I wasn't attempting to "censor" anything and I ask you not to characterize it as such in your edit summaries, if you would be so kind. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 05:17, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism[edit]

Hi Ultramarine, I'm sorry that you think my actions on this page are an abuse of power. You can always ask another administrator to review my desicision, or file an RFC. --Duk 23:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power[edit]

I just want you to know that your efforts on Nuclear power are appreciated. I haven't had time to counter Gatti's ranting lately, so it's good that someone is standing up to him. It has been my experience that such supremely biased contributors eventually throw in the towel, so keep it up. I will be chiming in with edits from time to time when protection is lifted. --Yath 3 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Act[edit]

The battle on nuclear power has shifted into Price-Anderson, which is the insurance policy for American nuclear power plants. We're starting Mediation now. The key point of contention is "Whether or not the government has a POV and can verify assertions as fact" (the results of this Mediation will probably be cited in Nuclear Power by Ben) but we're going to mediate the whole article. Would you take a look? Go to the bottom of the Discussion for Price-Anderson and use the link in the box down there. Thanks for considering this. Simesa 7 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)

DDT[edit]

You have violated the Wikipedia:three revert rule on the article DDT. Any further violations of this rule may result in your being blocked from editing for a short period of time. Thank you, Gentgeen 21:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Communist State and have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this is unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

You are subject to an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine. 172 | Talk 00:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographies[edit]

Try to click at any "ISBN" link in the Joseph Stalin reference section to see what I mean. mikka (t) 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Victim of Lenin's Famine.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Victim of Lenin's Famine.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magdoff[edit]

If you have a moment could you look in at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff. Thank you. nobs 14:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. Let me know if I can be of help. nobs 20:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

172[edit]

As you may know, 172 of the Stalin article was recently blocked. What you may not know is that he attacked you and me in his defense. [2] Thanks for keeping Wikipedia honest --Agiantman 03:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer fund[edit]

Hi Ultramarine. Please don't put the pioneer fund subsection back in the main article. It belongs to the subarticle Race and intelligence controversy, where it currently exists in two versions already. Keeping the notes and footnotes in order is a hell already, I really don't need a third version of these three paragraphs (and associated footnotes) floating around. (Or do you think the Pioneer fund section should be part of the History section instead? It wasn't before. It used to be section 2.3, and all of section 2 is now on a separate page.) Oh, and remember to assume Good Faith. I am trying to help that section by getting the references right. That doesn't work if I have to do it in three places and once. Implying that I am trying to hide critique is less than polite. Best, Arbor 11:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for all your recent work on race and intelligence and related topics. I have been adding a lot of information (biographies, historical context) to balance out the POV in these contentious areas, and I was feeling a bit set upon for a while. This is my first foray into a controversial topic, and it has been most intriguing. I am impressed you can get involved in more than one! Jokestress 20:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Burt[edit]

His name is Cyril Burt, not Cybil Burt. hitssquad 12:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request[edit]

Unfortunately I do not have time at the moment to investigate requests for page protection, but I note there is a large backlog. I shall mention this at WP:AN and hopefully other admins will have time to deal with it. Thryduulf 09:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acts 25:12[edit]

Yes, I see no workable alternative. I am filing an arbitration request. You are still welcome to suggest one. Septentrionalis 17:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mugabe and tyranny of the majority[edit]

My statements on this subject are perfectly consistent with the account given in the wikipedia article on Robert Mugabe, an article (as you can see from the page history) that I had nothing to do with creating.

"A peace accord was negotiated in 1987, resulting in ZAPU's merger (1988) into the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF). Mugabe brought Nkomo into the government once again as a vice-president.

"In 1987 the position of Prime Minister was abolished, and Mugabe assumed the new office of executive President of Zimbabwe gaining additional powers in the process. He was re-elected in 1990 and 1996, and, controversially, in 2002."

Are you contesting the freeness of the elections of 1990 and 1996? If so, on what grounds? That it created a tyrant doesn't makle an election unfree, or we would have settled the issue by definition, whereas I for one prefer to thinkof it as a question of fact.

--Christofurio 18:55, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your continued deletion of the Mugabe material from the democracy article leads me to believe you wish sources other than the Robert Migabe article Itself. What about the external refs that article provides? Like this one? http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2192&l=1 --Christofurio 19:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Items of interest[edit]

You comments about the Rfc page created to harrass me would be appreciated. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman

Also, you may want to vote on the the proposed wikistalking policy here.

Request for Comments[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon.--Agiantman 19:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of communism[edit]

I've been asked to investigate whether the ongoing dispute over the Criticisms of communism article is mediatable. From looking at the history and the talk page, it seems that there are two divergent versions of the article that differ in a significant number of ways. It would be in Wikipedia's interest to coalesce these versions into a single version. I would like to arrange a discussion amongst the editors in question with the goal of reaching a single, mutually acceptable article so we can end this dispute. Please get back to me over your willingness to mediate this issue. The four editors I've identified as party to this dispute are Ultramarine, Septentrionalis, Mihnea Tudoreanu and Robert A West; this message is being sent to all four of you. If any of you are willing to allow one of the others to act as representative (thereby reducing the number of parties to the mediation), or knows of someone else who should be included, please let me know. I am willing to act as mediator; if anybody is unwilling for me to serve in that capacity, I will instead help you to find another mutually acceptable mediator. Mediation is, of course, a voluntary process, and you are not required to participate in mediation. The page is currently protected, however; a successful mediation of this dispute will speed the process of getting the page unprotected, so I strongly recommend that mediation be pursued.

Regards, Kelly Martin 17:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Peace Theory[edit]

You may be interested in the edits I amde to the above page and my comments in its talk page. Robdurbar 11:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for Vladimir Lenin[edit]

Hi, I've just read your user page, I guess I classify as right-extremist. I'm really sorry for losing control in there when I saw something that looked like "old-skool" Communist stuff, from language to methodology, and trough incompetently trying to counter it, I've just discredited my cause. I'm guessing, I've sealed the fate of any productive discussion. I'm out to regain control of my POV issue, I've never knew that my anti-Communism can get me to act so blatantly. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 00:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm back, but now facts only. I've read about anti-communists and figured out I'm not one of them. I just dislike Communists, and take pain from seeing young educated people believe those people who perverted my motherland. Well, I wish you best of luck if your library can save those articles from going nuts.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 03:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it feels like I lack the commitment needed to carefully respond on on those pages, it is clearly better if I just go away, just being anti-communist (I am one, but not an extremist of any sort) is not enough to contribute.

I've been rereading the talk page and those other guys look so convinced that any claims can be countered by small bona-fide policies of Lenin or compatively slight injustice happening elsewhere that I stand amazed. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 20:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy[edit]

If you need my help in any editing controversies, let me know. I think the article has moved in the wrong direction since Ruzmanci started editing it. I just haven't had the time to place into challenging any of the specific content this person has added. But I can vote in favor of any changes you make over his. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine has been accepted. Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence. Fred Bauder 20:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need help[edit]

Hello VSmith, Femto, Iain.mcclatchie, Skatebiker and Ultramarine. I need help with regards to the damage(in my opinion) done by user Theo Pardilla. Please look at his contribution page, and in the history of some the articles he contributed to, please look at my contributions, under Sillybilly. What is the correct way to proceed in such cases? I'm fairly new to wikipedia, and not well versed in the control methods, if there are any.

Sillybilly 01:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A personal question[edit]

There is one thing I find extremely puzzling about you, Ultramarine, and I would greatly appreciate it if you indulged my curiosity. You have stated your desire to defend liberal democracy from "various left and right extremists", and have invested considerable effort into a relentless attack on communism. But, as Matthew White [3] points out, no liberal democracy older than 3 years ever became a communist state. Communism certainly has threatened the foreign policy interests of liberal democracies in the 20th century, but it has never been a significant internal threat to the liberal democracies themselves. Fascism and military dictatorships, by contrast, have displaced numerous liberal democracies across Southern Europe and Latin America. Yet there are no articles dealing with criticisms of those systems - indeed, there are not even criticism sections in their respective articles! My question, then, is why do you concentrate so much on communism and not at all on the systems and ideologies that achieved the most success against liberal democracy in the 20th century? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The democratic peace theory is an argument for democracy only if one considers peace to be a good thing. Many fascists would concede the point that democracy leads to extended periods of peace, and then go on to argue that peace is a sign of weakness and decadence, since "every generation needs a war" and wars make nations stronger. But I am going off on a tangent. My question to you was prompted by the curious observation that communism is now the most heavily criticized ideology on wikipedia (i.e. has the longest criticism article), but you continue to concentrate on it and experience diminishing marginal returns for your effort. You might not realize this, but I personally agree with much of your POV - your utilitarianism and support for democracy, for instance. However, I like to build a balanced encyclopedia. I think you could be an invaluable contributor if you toned down the POV of your writing. Would you consider an email conversation to attempt to defuse the present crisis to some extent? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to indulge an answer to Mihnea Tudoreanu's question,

"it has never been a significant internal threat to the liberal democracies themselves"; See the published findings of
the Moynihan Commssion on Government Secrecy, Appendix A, The Cold War (1997) for this statement,

"proof of a serious attack on American security by the Soviet Union, with considerable assistance from an enemy within;"
or the Findings and Declarations of Fact in the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950,
50 U.S.Code, Chap. 23 Sub. IV Sec. 841, which reads,
"its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence", and
"its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States". Thank you. nobs 16:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you assist in certifying the dispute?[edit]

Ultramarine, Could you certify the basis of the dispute on the RfC that I have filed? I need someone who also attempted to resolve it according to one interpretation of the rules, please recall that you did attempt to do so on the page where we request unprotection. Here is the location [4] for certification.--Silverback 08:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine, are you available and willing to certify at this time?--Silverback 13:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored it, I wanted to know I had a certifier before I did. -- thanx, --Silverback 14:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need the help on the arbcom case, maybe later, thanx. Right now I need you to certify your attempt to resolve the dispute at the protect page at the above link. thanx, --Silverback 14:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one paragraph that you have to read. It is marked with ULTRAMARINE SIGN HERE. I purposely set off the certification section, so that the certifier would not have to sign off on tons of evidence. Keeping it simple. Please assist. --Silverback 15:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind, that the RfC is not about the fact that he protected the page. That was a judgement call, a poor and unnecessary one in my opinion. It is about the fact that he commited the violation of reverting before he protected. --Silverback 15:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to sign on to my whole reform program. I just needed someone to certify that we actually tried to correct the violation. That is the limit of your participation in this one. Best of luck. -- thanx--Silverback 15:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CfD[edit]

If you got a minute can you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This is a direct attack on the sourcing of Venona project. Thank you. nobs 20:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Contribution By Anonymous User[edit]

Hi there from http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CostinCozianu . I'm a fellow wikizen in the world wide wiki, and funnily enough I stumbled upon your troubles at Wikipedia while trying to document a pattern called http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WoodenLanguage, in its "neutral point of view" variety. I remember the wikipedia from some time ago which was heavily baised towards wooden language as the easiest way out from conflict and towards the mtyhical NPOV, but recent articles of general interest looked much better. So the logical place to document this pattern was in contentious pages.

Although from my perspective the main articles to which you tried to bring some balance are an embodiment of wooden language -- albeit in a less conspicuous form, I was almost shocked to see the egregiously wooden variety in the pages dedicated to your "trial". So I extend my deepest simpathy for your generous efforts. I don't know if this helps much, other than to reinforce your conviction that a little more balance would do much good to some really funny bias masquearading as NPOV, but as a Wiki contributor I was often motivated by gestures of appreciation coming from the most unexpected places.

Also this situation looked like a matter of history repeating himself. I started at c2 more as a wiki on wiki discussion and currently as a software effort a thing that might be of interest to you http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiChangeProposal as way out from the broken or at least stucked (see TragedyOfTheCommons) AttentionEconomy that is currently the world of wikis. It looks to me that you are spending an inordinate amount of effort (emotional, intellectual and otherwise) towards very little effect because of the root economical causes that WCP is trying to address. So this seems paradoxical for somebody with pro free-market views to get stucked in a tragedy of the commons :)

I would very much value some comments/observations on this meta-wiki subject given your experience and perspective as a contributor of wikipedia.

I will confes my bias, having never believed in the Church of NPOV -- it may be like communism "nice in theory" but unattainable in practice, nevermind the fact that I observed the "benefits" of communism much closer than my younger compatriot (Mihnea). His observation that communism is the most heavily "criticized" subject on wikipedia can hardly be surprising given that a non-trivial part of the intellectual ellites (and that would arguably be the largest part in countries like Romania and other places that experienced it first hand) view the communist ideology on par with fascism. Yet comparing parallel articles related to fascism and communism on wikipedia one would think that communism is kind of a walk in the park.

Yet, I don't care how noble the cause is or how idealistic are the principles involved, but from what I can see, the disgrace of being subjected to the kind of painful BS that happens in Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine is way more than is worth for any kind of "intellectual" cause. Yet I feel this is inherent/unavoidable in an economy (wiki as economy) that is essentially built on communist principles.

Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation)[edit]

This article is clearly POV, terms like discredited, or extensive uses of popular web material(excluding other materials published in peer reviewed journals), which suggest google work, rather than impartial research to write it. This is not limited to this article, but others directly or indirectly raising the subject of intelligence and "race." Fad (ix) 02:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roylee pernicious vandalism[edit]

You moved one of Roylee's his contributions from Utilitarianizm to Jeremy Bentham. I have removed it pending confirmation. Can you confirm it with a reputable source? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Hearing Against Benjamin Gatti[edit]

Hi, I'm one of the principals in the ArbComm case against Ben.

I thought you'd like to know about it, but I have a request - Ben once tried to re-direct the "Nuclear Power" article, and I need some help in remembering just what happened then. Do you know the details, like where he tried to redirect it to? "Nuclear Debate"? What happened to the "Nuclear Power" page then?

Thanks for your help, . . . . Simesa 21:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I received the following message late last night: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Fred Bauder 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to say anything it might be best to contact user:Woohookitty first by e-mail for examples of what ArbComm is looking for. Thanks for letting us quote you on the article forking - Woohookitty (an admin) found the history.

Simesa 10:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

limited[edit]

An arbcom decision limits me to one revert per week. Unfortunately, that puts me at a serious disadvantage on pages such as "Criticisms of communism". I just wanted to let you know that I am failing to assist due to necessessity, not out of lack of consideration. best wishes. --Silverback 18:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DPT As A Featured Article[edit]

I don't see why not, yeah Robdurbar 10:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made the application now, you can follow the link from the Democratic Peace Theory page Robdurbar 11:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine case. Raul654 17:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to your user space of December 27[edit]

Hi, I removed a number of edits on this day from your user space page. Though they appear to come from your account, they clearly don't read as if you've created them. To be honest it's quite worrying (unless you've got a mate who thought he'd have a bit of a laugh) that someone can get into your account like that; if I were you I'd take it up with Wikipedia.

Anyway, I won't past them here, but they'll be in the history of main your user space Robdurbar 20:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive editing[edit]

I have restored the images you deleted in the Joseph Stalin article. It seems to me you deleted them in a fit of pique because other editors rejected images that you had added. In my opinion, some of these images could only be described as anti-Stalin, which makes me think that your deletions were not rational.

Also, looking at your contributions, I feel that this shows that your edits are excessive - a couple of minutes here, a couple of minutes there. Over 100 edits in the last 24 hours! How can you give measured opinions in such a short time? Particularly problematic is your habit of making multiple edits, which makes it very difficult to keep track of changes. Please slow down and let your edits have a chance to be discussed. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 16:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Forex scams?[edit]

Hi, I liked the material you put under retail brokers in the Foreign Exchange Market article. But I think that retail trading is such a small part of the FX market that it shouldn't have such a large %age of the article. To deal with this issue I'd earlier created an article on Forex scams and hoped that everybody would put similar material on that page (but nobody seems to want to). Maybe it should be retitled "Forex fraud" or just "Retail Forex trading" (together with a section on how not all retail brokers are scam artists - at least some of them are registered). In any case the new article needs some work and some new blood, and I'll just suggest that similar contributions go over there. Thanks.

Smallbones 11:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving material from one article to another[edit]

Please do not copy material - particularly disputed material from an old revision - from one article to another. Resolve the POV and accuracy disputes in the original article first, then write a summary of the material in question into the second article. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

(posted to 172 and Ultramarine). Please be very careful of the 3RR on Holodomor. I'd hate to have to block either of you. -- Pak aran 07:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm[edit]

I challenge your arbcomm claims: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute & thats just the first one :-) William M. Connolley 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, case 2 is now closed, but I see no-one has updated it. I'd better do that! William M. Connolley 13:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Will you please do me the favor of READING my edits?[edit]

I did not delete any of the material you added to Criticisms of communism. What I did was move some paragraphs around, merge a number of sections and rephrase some text. You seem to assume that any modification of your text represents a "deletion of well-referenced material", which means that you instinctively revert it (or, in this case, move the original text to another article). Will you please do me the favor of reading my edits, commenting upon them, and, yes, editing on top of my own edits if you object to something? You say you will be accused of revert-warring if you edit (which is entirely untrue), but do you believe that moving your material - and hence the revert war - to another article will reflect more positively upon you? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read IQ and the Wealth of Nations?[edit]

You have been editing the IQ and the Wealth of Nations article since 09:05, 23 January 2005. Have you read that book? --hitssquad 02:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]