User:172/Talk block 8

Hi 172. This is a Peruvian Engineer making coments about Fujimori. I think that is not very kind from you to block my IP. I think that in politics, there are many opinions; no one cam imposs an opinion. We have to make the efforts to agree in a political issue like Fujimori´s page. For my contribuitons I have received adjetives and insults from the user "viajero". Lets make the effort to be objetive.

I will appreciate unbloking any IP address on the Fujimori page.

Regards,

Agosto 14 2003, Lima Peru

What-ho... you might want to cast your eyes upon Boxer Rebellion. Hopefully your righteous anger will kindle into a mighty blaze which will cleanse it of the stain of POV. Graft 14:17 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I will sooner or later get around to writing a Great Depression (United Kingdom) article I'm still doing some research. Changing the subject, just out of interest 172 which country are you from. I've always assumed that youre a Brit G-Man 23:28 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah it is strange that royal pages seem to attract the weirdest of contributors. One thing I found strange when researching royalty academically is how well it works in terms of bonding people to a state.

Having started out as a republican, I found myself in my studies concluding that monarchies actually work better than republics! It is as if people personally have an emotional attachment with a monarchy that they rarely have with a republic's president. So whereas presidents tend to for the most part be boring ex-politicians, monarchs produce a personal bond and human identification that seems to transend political loyalties or intellectual reasoning. For example, when Prince William ascends the British throne, people will know him. Many will remember when he was born, his childhood, his dignity on the death of his mother, his first girlfriend, his wedding, his children, etc. They will see him as a friend (even though they never met him) in a way a President Neil Kinnock, a President Tony Blair, a President John Major can never hope to match. So as a personification of a state, a monarch works far better than a president. Put simply, a monarch feels like a friend for life, a president an acquaintance for a term of 5 or 7 years.

Indeed curiously, because it is a lifetime vocation, not a term of office, more people will meet a monarch that can ever hope to meet a president. Personally I know Irish presidents Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese because I interviewed them. But I have met the Prince of Wales, the late Princess of Wales, Prince William, the Duke of York, etc not from seeking them out but because I happened to be in the right place at the right time when they attended a function. And they aren't even my country's royal family! (Actually I have met Bill Clinton as often as I met Mary McAleese!) It is hard to explain but that human aspect seems to be the special something that presidents lack. I remember my grandmother, an avowed Irish republican who kept a picture of republican Padraig Pearse in her prayerbook, remembering hearing about the death of King George VI and the accession of Queen Elizabeth II, remembering the birth of Prince Charles, etc. I remember Ireland quite literally stopping to watch Charles and Chronicle reporting visits by the King and Queen of Spain to a local historic site, Newgrange the same week as a visit by President Cossiga of Italy. Cossiga got 10 people and coverage on page 19. King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia got page 1 and hundreds of cheering people!

Similarly while I have an academic knowledge of Mary McAleese's job as President of Ireland, I know far more about Queen Elizabeth; her superb mimickry (which apparently is genuinely first rate. I know that one top British satirist who, having seen her at a dinner party 'doing' Margaret Thatcher, said that if the monarchy was abolished tomorrow, he would hire her for her TV show, such is her talent). Though not very highly educated, 50 years of 'doing the boxes' (ie reading cabinet and foreign office papers. She has spent 3 hours a day, 365 days a year since February 1952 reading all the crucial documents, confidential briefings, cabinet minutes, notes from ambassadors, etc) has made her probably the world's most well-briefed person on international affairs, able to give Blair advice based on something Churchill, Truman, Macmillan, Thatcher, Kennedy, de Gaulle, Brezhnev, Trudeau, Gorbachev and hundreds of world leaders have said to her; she is for example very close to Nelson Mandela, has been briefed by Bob Geldof and Bono on African debt relief and has been doing the boxes since before Blair was born!) While she rarely intervenes in debates, when she does not merely Tory but Labour cabinets have been known to listen carefully and even do u-turns on the basis of what she says. (In 1976 and 1979, the Callaghan and Thatcher cabinets did u-turns on policy towards Rhodesia based on her advice. The Lancaster House agreement that created Zimbabwe came because of her role in reigning in (no pun intended!) Thatcher's pro-white opinions!)

Monarchy is really really strange in that regard. In theory it is undemocratic and out of date. In practice, with the right monarch, it works far better than any presidency, a conclusion in my studies I never expected to reach. It is unlikely, for example, that a Spanish president could have stopped the 1981 coup the way King Juan Carlos did. He was able to call on symbolism, history, personality etc to say to the coup leaders 'no' and have wavering army officers do what "the King" says. It is unlikely that any British president could draw the crowds to his lying-in-state that Britain's Queen Mother did (or keep working until after their 100th birthday, which that astonishing woman did. A journalist colleague of mine, an avoided republican, was physically exhausted trying to keep up with the Queen Mum (then 99) at a public function. He is 43!). Or draw the 1 million + that turned out for the Golden Jubilee celebrations in the Mall. (It is reckoned 10 million people were involved in some Jubilee related event. That's one in every five in Britain.)

You only have to look at the vast crowds drawn to the funeral of Empress Zita of Austria. She died in the late 1980s. Her husband left the throne in 1918!!! Or the public mourning for Queen Maria José of Italy, who died only a couple of years ago. The Italian monarchy was abolished in 1946! Or the crowds that flock to King Michael I of Romania every time he returns home. He lost his throne in 1947. The hundred thousand people who went to see the arrival home of Crown Prince Alexander to Serbia, the election of Simeon II to become his country's prime minister (by a landslide) or recent opinion polls that suggest 40% of Russians want a return of the tsar as a constitutional monarch. Even the incompetent meddlesome exiled King Constantine II of Greece is a live issue in his former kingdom, with 1/3 of people in 1974 voting to keep him even after he had provoked a disaster. Even after they stripped him of his personal property and passport, called him Constantine Gluckberg and 2/3 of the population voted for a republic, political leaders go mad at the prospect that as a former one time Olympian, he might visit Greece for the Olympic Games!

Which gets back to the fundamental point, why do the royal pages draw such weird contributors? I suspect it is because of that strange personal aspect of monarchy. People don't really care what Article x or y of the US, Irish, French etc constitution says about a president's powers. But because of the personal aspect of monarchy, whether you are for or against monarchy, you feel you know things about it. So Royal Prerogative isn't something to do with stuffy law, it is to do with royalty, and, sure doesn't everyone know about royalty, good or bad? Divine Right of Kings, ditto. Henry VIII and Queen Victoria were people not institutions and so you think you understand them and all about them. It engenders personal feelings in a way clinically cold republics rarely can do. Occasionally a president may indeed achieve that (Robinson in Ireland, Pertini in Italy, Weisacker in Germany, Havel in the Czech Republic) but it is usually a once off. Whereas it is constant in monarchies. From Elizabeth I (the faerie Queene) to Mary, Queen of Scots, Marie Antoinette in France to Zita in Austria, the personality response draws on human emotion. (How many songs are there about presidents, and how many about famous kings and queens? And through that, royalty, however much they make no sense intellectually, engender a response even on the pages of wiki, where pages on royalty draw contributors who think they instinctively know facts. Even when, as Hlavec's contributions show, they actually don't have a goddamned clue what they are talking about. Well, that's my theory anyway. lol FearÉIREANN 04:04 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I know. I just defended you on the vandalism in progress page. Just remember, don't let PP set your emotional agenda. That was Vera Cruz's trick. (Not that I'm good at following that instruction myself, mind!) It is all too easy for Adam to pull the "poor poor me" trick. Be clinically neutral, so that anyone coming to the page can see that. It is a deep pity that Adam, who is a bright intelligent chap, after weeks of good work as PP, is slipping back to old ways. (Is he bored being the good boy and wants to start some fights again, and have the fun of being banned, re-appearing, being caught again, rebanned, etc?) I'm disappointed having trusted him so much that he has let himself down again. Let him in his own time disintergrate. When it happens everyone will see it and it will be 'bye bye Adam' again, except this time for good. lol FearÉIREANN 04:26 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Abe - please email me so that I have your email address. I really need to send you a critical note but I don't want the world to read it if possible. Use the "email user" function on my user page. --mav

Yes youre right the British Monetary Crisis article is indeed POV dross, and the (obviously not British) writer has made several glaring factual errors. Perhaps it should be renamed something like "Monetarist explanations for the Great Depression" or something similar. That said, I'm sure most monetarists would wince at the content of that article. Have you got any ideas on what to do about it?.

Changing the subject, Tampa, Florida hey, I didn't think you were American (a Canadian perhaps) because political outlook/views like yours are hardly common in America, you must be quite a rare breed G-Man 18:20 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Very interesting comments! I'll get back to you about them. I've done a bit of a rewrite of the opening of the Catholicism page. The opening paragraphs were almost incomprehensible, not to mention monumentally wrong, and some new user came along and made them worse by far. It is hard anyone could do an article on Catholicism and not mention things like Apostolic Succession, the Vatican, etc. It is a bit like doing a history of the USSR and forgetting Stalin. Have a look at the rewrite and see what you think. I think it reads far far better and is far more accurate. FearÉIREANN 00:34 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I was putting this tongue-in-check bit on the Temp page when wiki went live again. Its about Fred-ipedia. You might enjoy it.

It looks so . . . so . . . wikipedian. What is it? Wikipedia for Reaganites? You know, it desparately needs an article on Communist state. What say you? Oh and as it likes opinion as opposed to NPOV, wouldn't a nice gentle article saying how Stalin was one of the greatest intellectual leaders in Russian history suit its acceptance of POV oh so well? Or an article on the People's Republic of China, liberation theology, Marxism for beginners, How Communist Intellectualism Benefits Humanity, Nixon was a Socialist, The Sandinista Revolution: An inspiration for America, Fidel Castro's collected speeches, Daughters of the Russian revolution. Maybe even New Imperialism/Temp and New Imperialism could find mutually accepting homes there. Yes, Fred's POV creation could prove such fun! And there we were all wondering where had be gone to? We missed him so terribly. FearÉIREANN 13:17 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected New Imperialism. The reasons are on its talk page. FearÉIREANN 14:43 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's a vote at the Village Pump (Jeez it sounds funny saying that, parish pump politics and all that!) on PP linking to the New Imperialism page. You might be interested in casting a vote.

Will you protect Chavez before you go? I would but I am a contributor to the text there and the text that idiot is trying to remove is mine so I cannot do the protecting. FearÉIREANN 15:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi - when you protect a page, can you add it to Wikipedia:Protected pages, please? There's no automatic log of protected pages, so this helps to keep track of them. Cheers--Camembert

I'll take a look when I get home, Abe. First, work. (Alas.) Tannin

About the imperialism thing[edit]

I have answered your comment on Talk:New Imperialism. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 08:43, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

Actually I'm no longer in the issue of the protection of the NP page. Another user took on the responsibility for its protection and I stepped back so other than voting I'm deliberately avoiding intervening so that the issue does not become PP versus me but PP and the page. I think it would be unwise for me to do anything right now as it would just trigger off a row by it being me that did anything and not help a longterm solution, people assuming it was some sort of a conspiracy. I'd suggest you ask Mav or Cam.

I'm amazed at just how everyone is ignoring PP's page. And I expected to be slated on the w-list. But not a peep. If Adam needs any evidence at just how he has marginalised himself on wiki. People aren't talking his page. Those that are voting for its link are in many cases doing so very reluctantly, with all sorts of qualifications and restrictions. And he did himself no good by running around wiki screaming his head off. :-) FearÉIREANN 02:41, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Editing on Internet-Encyclopedia, as it stands now needing articles on basic subjects, necessarily involves an extensive presence on Wikipedia which results in some editing here as you notice minor or major things which need attention. Fred Bauder 10:21, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just out of interest, whats all the fuss about the New Imperialism article about. I havn't been following it G-Man 18:23, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Edit wars are usually enraging and exhausting for those deeply involved. But if Wikipedia becomes so important that its history becomes a research topic, the researchers will find those edit wars "interesting", at least academically. I guess it is on most Wikipedians' wish list. :) wshun 18:28, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As the length of New Imperialism is now within the limit and the addition of the table, I wish the edit war will soon be coming to an end. I don't expect the edit war to be so lengthy, it seems there is no controversial arguments on the subject itself. Well, life is full of unexpected. Best wishes, Wshun

I had the same thought. I think Adam is someone with a low boredom theshhold. Playing PP used to involve working with people while acting a persona and you can end up a bit typecast, to use acting jargon. I know there were a few occasions in the past when he all but screamed "guess who I am!!!" to get people to chase him, like the kid in the playground who wants to be the centre of attention. Then he disappears, comes back, does good work but get bored, so does the "boo! You can't catch me" lark, is kicked off and can start again unlike he gets bored. It is a pity really. He is a real bright kid and I don't doubt in the future he'll have a big future. It is just a pity that he acts so immature. I mean there are 12 and 13 year olds on wiki who act like 40 year olds in terms of maturity, and 20-somethings who act like 13 year olds just hitting the terrible teens.

I am really pleased about how the New Imperialism thing has worked out. We don't have a solution but the page seemed stuck in a rut over page vs temp, page vs temp, page vs temp. Not it seems the debate has jumped on from trying to agree what the problem is to trying to agree a solution. I did say to I think it was Eloquence that we needed to start forcing a solution to some problems, not in the sense of laying down a perspective solution, but simply in terms of what happened on NI - crying stop. Freezing the page and saying 'we've had enough over and back discussions, we need to make a decision. We have 24/48 hours to make a decision then that decision is made and we move the discussion on. Unless we move the discussion on we end up in pages that become like pantomines; oh yes you did, oh no I didn't, oh yes you did, oh no I didn't type debates that just stay at the same point like Groundhog day. What my freezing of the page did was effectively call time on the 'oh yes you did, oh no I didn't' and force the debate to move on and it clearly has. Now people are debating methodologies for solving the problem. They may not be agreed yet, but at least the temp or not to temp row is finished, which is the main thing I wanted to get over and done with, or else the page would be at exactly the same point a month from now, only with another 6 archives full of it! lol. Gotta go to bed. FearÉIREANN 07:14, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You will never work cooperatively with me? I hardly think that's fair just because you don't like something I did on my own talk page. I thought the stuff you put on my user page was over the the top, such as suggesting that my vote to add a link would be "undermining the integrity of the entire encyclopedia". My summary was not intended to mock you. It was meant to show how I felt about it. That was how your comment appeared to me, so that was my response. I'm sorry if you read it as an atack on you. It wasn't and I sincerely hope you will revise your views towards working cooperatively with me. Angela 18:57, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Gawd, those temps are breeding like rabbits! Now there are two of them! I think for the moment you should let PP's temp link stay. That was the vote and it is only for one week (well less now!). I know the changes to the page negate the need for it but that was the decision, something I advised against. Don't give Adam grounds to pull hie martyr act. It is pretty clear that he has little support and is skating on thin ice. It isn't worth you getting into edit wars that might make you seem the bad guy to those who don't know the full history. There is no support for his page replacing the main one. The agreement was only for one week and I think it was Martin who suggested that after that Adam's temp should be deleted. Most people have known who PP really is for a long time, but lived in hope that maybe, just maybe this time he would be a constructive not a destructive force on wiki. That had been my hope but even I am despairing of him at this stage. (It is almost funny the way he is convinced I am the enemy. Does he not know the number of times I have defended him to others, the number of times I have urged users to give him the benefit of the doubt, etc? I think Martin and I have been just about the only ones defending him, and now I am the enemy!!!! The guy is utterly paranoid!)

Good work, BTW on the page. The redesign is really working out well. I won't claim that it is a topic I have much expertise on and I do try to stick to thinks I know about. But as you are a longterm combatant, I would urge you to avoid clashing with him. He is his own worst enemy and is rapidly losing support (if he ever had it. But then I suppose alienating Martin and myself, his principal defenders, doesn't exactly strengthen his position.) You have more to lose than he has in battles because people may think you are being a bit hard on him, which risks damaging you and making people feel sorry for him. lol and keep up the good rewriting. FearÉIREANN 21:06, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You and I both agree, Abe, that the temps are irrelevant, as indeed perhaps was the vote, as it is now overtaken by events. But strategically it is worth respecting the vote even if in practice it has been overtaken by events. Most of those who voted to keep the link did so through gritted teeth. They may well swing into the anti-Adam camp on the issue of his temp after the week runs out. But ignoring their votes might alienate them. And Adam may well at some stage try to vote to get his temp made the main page. The chances of his page ever making it to become the main page are slim. Not alienating those middle ground might make its chances non-existent. My advice is to leave the temp link for exactly seven days and then delete it. Few if any by then would support its reinstatement and it would be killed off for good. If after seven days Adam still tried to reinsert it, he would have minimal support and could so annoy people they would call for his re-re-re-re-rebanning!!! But it is up to you. I certainly am not going to get involved in reinstating his temp. lol FearÉIREANN 21:20, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No. Leave it for the week before going down the VfD route and if possible leave it up to Martin or someone to propose it. You would be seen as carrying too much emotional baggage. A call by Martin would be much more likely to succeed. FearÉIREANN 21:24, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My advice is to leave the link and just ignore it. Then after a week put a note on the talk page saying - the week has expired. The link should go. I suspect you will get a clear majority. PP may even suggest that his page replace yours, a suggestion he'd have little chance of winning. If no-one else after a couple of days proposes it, then put it on the VfD but if possible leave the initiative elsewhere. Adam has isolated himself and pissed off a lot of people. Be careful not to make people feel sorry for him. BTW u got an email account or AIM connection? FearÉIREANN 21:29, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reversion strategy[edit]

Just a note: I'd genuinely appreciate it if you would explain first and revert second. I'm sure you have good reasons when you revert (of course, I have good reasons too!) - but when you just revert without explaining why first, then it just comes across as rejecting an edit without giving it much thought. It just appears.... a touch arrogant - and I think Graculus has said this out too.

By all means, be bold in making updates - I'm all in favour of that. I'd just appreciate it if you would be considerate in reverting pages. After all, you'd already left my version of the series box up for an hour - why not explain why you think it's a bad idea first, and then do your revert an hour or so later? It'd just keep the whole situation calmer, I think.

Anyway, I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's meant - I'm not trying to attack you or make demands - just asking if you'd do me and Graculus this favour. Thanks for your time. Martin 15:48, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Textbook answer on my talk page.[edit]

Textbook answer on my talk page. --mav 21:42, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pizza Puzzle[edit]

I think you are right in your suspicion as to the 'new' identity of Lir. Lets hope this time he behaves himself but after the letdown of PP I don't hold out much hope.

BTW thanks for your comments about my user page. I have actually since added in some images; the Irish flag, the former Viceregal Lodge, Government Buildings, Trinity College, Leinster House and Report Number 2 of the Republic Advisory Committee. Oh such fun! :-) FearÉIREANN 21:58, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

IP[edit]

Re: your question to Eloquence, the IP seems to resolve to "VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD - INDIA" : so probably not Lir. :-) Evercat 14:49, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and a good website for lookups is http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/nbbc.cgi Evercat

I have made a start on the Great Depression (United Kingdom) article. There's an awful lot to write and I have a short attention span (I get bored after writing a few paragraphs) so it will be completed gradually in bits and pieces. Anyway what do you think of it so far? G-Man 23:03, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can you have a look to Talk:Metropolis (1927 movie). Ericd 20:48, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yup. I had strong suspicions about the msysterious Robert clone. Jeez, is this what Adam and DW have reduced wiki to, 'multiple personality zone'!!! Thanks for coming to Israel, BTW, Robert is being even more of an ass than usual. It never but amazes me that people like that do more damage to the causes they champion than their opponents do. And the irony is they never ever see it but stupidly think they are the cause's best protector. It reminds me of the Rev. Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland, who did more damage to the cause of unionism with his extremist rhetoric that all the IRA bombings. The bombs made people more, not less determined. But Paisley's extreme fanaticism frightened potential friends away in droves. lol FearÉIREANN 04:55, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You might enjoy an email I sent to the list about dear charming Robert, our farm pet. I was slightly sarcastic (hee hee!) FearÉIREANN 09:16, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The mind boggles at his twisted logic!!! I know the pope claims infallibility, but not RK!!! It is like an episode of Fawlty Towers! lol FearÉIREANN 16:03, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi 172 I'm going away on my hols tomorrow so I'll be away from the wikipedia for the rest of August (how will I cope?). I wont be able to finish the Depression/UK article until I get back, so feel free to make any additions G-Man 18:06, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I just checked my [talk]page history where you have mistaken me for someone else[ though later you had changed it]If you had taken the trouble to see what my contributions where, you would have known this was not the case.I was just giving a neutral point of view, not for or against any one person. It is highly likely that there are other points of view apart from one's, not necessarily derived from malice. I just got drawn into the debate on the day wikipedia failed and there was some interesting info in the berlios page on the edit war.Having newly found this site,I got a user account only recently and also didn't sign in always. Anyway, it was a real nice welcome for a newcomer, mistaking me for a banned user!!:-) KRS

P.S. Actually, you had in fact even appreciated and thanked me for my comments from another IP address where I had suggested a structure for the article. KRS

Hi 172, you'll love this. From RK tonight in one of his 'charming' moods.

00:12 Talk:Palestinian refugee (cur; hist) . . RK (Talk) (Please stop slandering all people you disagree with as racists.)

It is such a pity he is so bad at following his own advice, wouldn't you say? :-) wikilove, FearÉIREANN 01:12, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi 172, if you get a chance could you take a look at Roman Catholic sex abuse allegations. As you no doubt noticed it was an appalling piece of POV drivel that was barely comic standard let alone encyclopædia standard. I went through it to see what could be salvaged and the answer was, about three lines! So I started a rewrite and 7 hours and 31K later finished. I'd be interested in your opinions. I also changed the name. As it was about Roman Catholic not Catholic (including Anglo-Catholic) I added in RC, dropped 'priest' as many of the abusers were brothers, nuns, lay workers in church orphanages, etc, and as some of the cases were lost but I wanted to talk about them too I thought it more NPOV to use 'allegations'. lol FearÉIREANN 03:30, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hiya. Just checking to see if you got a chance to look at the above page. There is a bit of a disagreement on it. Eloquence has previously made known his views on the topic and wants to add into the opening paragraph something that I think is unwise, given the nature and structure of the article. Ironically for someone whose family has had direct experience of the predatory sexual behaviour of a catholic priest and who is a seriously lapsed catholic (even more so since the Vatican's latest burst of homophobia) I find myself trying to restrain in some rather extreme efforts at catholic-bashing all over wiki in the interests of NPOV and academic standards. At least this is one article hopefully that RK does not want to POV. Slán FearÉIREANN 19:59, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And you understand number three. All the more reason for us not to fall out. Graculus 21:14, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hiya 172. Many thanks for coming to Roman Catholic Church sex abuse allegations. Your advice was helpful and acted from, though Eloquence reverted, reverted, reverted, *sigh*. Now he wants to move the article to a POV name, after we fought an edit war when he tried to rename it unilaterally again and again and again . . . in the process losing other stuff I had added into the article, including a footnote. He has called a vote on his POV naming, so your vote is required. (What is it about my having to defend NPOV on wiki so often lately. It is wearing me down!!!) lol FearÉIREANN 02:28, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I do not appreciate snide remarks against me on other users' talk pages. Thank you.—Eloquence 08:36, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting. One of DW's IPs was 64.228.30.125, which is in the same range as Palestine liberator. BTW maybe you might take a look at talk:Israel. Efghij, supported by RK, is trying to remove a line with EricD and I see as perfectly fine, the only problem with it being that it does not fit some people's agendas. lol FearÉIREANN 17:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, if the Palestine guy's IP was 64.236.243.31 then that's not in the same range as 64.228.30.125 - starting with the same number is not quite enough. :-) The Palestine IP seems to be twi.com or AOL, I'm not sure, while the DW one is Sympatico, a Canadian ISP... Evercat 18:05, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm confusing myself because there are 3 IPs. Here they all are:

64.236.243.31 - Palestine guy, this one's unclear, I'm afraid. Seems to resolve to some non-existant ISP, or the AOL Transit Data Network, whatever that is.
64.228.30.125 - DW. This is sympatico.ca - a Canadian ISP.
212.137.33.208 - JoeM? This is xerox.com.

Oh, and as for the IP Heph banned, JoeM's edits continued after that, so probably not the same guy.

Evercat 18:30, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Jiang quote. That has been removed. I'm talking about the "Conclusion" section, for reasons I have mentioned in talk. Please learn to debate and discuss, rather than blanket reverting the edits of others. My actions have been supported by others. Please justify your content. --Jiang 09:08, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please look up wikipedia:NPOV dispute. A NPOV dispute is defined as being perceived as biased by one user and NPOV by another. Since you think it is NPOV and I dont, this qualifies as a NPOV dispute. --Jiang 09:09, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

wikipedia:NPOV dispute specifically says that a dispute warning does not necessarily mean the article is POV, which it is. This situation fits the description of a DISPUTE. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to flag it.

If you want it gone, you should either defend your statements on the talk page (on which another user has just supported my stance) and convince everyone it's indeed NPOV, or change it to an acceptable format. I'm going to sleep and will not change it now. Maybe tomorrow... --Jiang 09:26, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that Wikipedia dispute warnings will inherently attract trolls, the please argue that at wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute. Also comment on splitting the article. It's getting too long. --Jiang 21:42, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey, don't let your anger fool yourself. Just leave Nostrum alone for few days, try to concentrate on other articles, and see what will happen. you can always revert, right? Don't let your desire to ban idiots become your crusades, it wastes too much your energy. Ask somebody to watch him, try to make yourself a outsider for a while. --wshun 03:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do you really want to give up the fight with a troll?

When you are under personal attack, you counterattack immediately. Because your status as sysop, your foe can easily make himself look like the victim.

When you suggest a ban, you already speak out your reason. You should then step aside and let others deal with it. Any further argument could be turned around to hurt yourself. See what happens!

I don't know if you listen. I don't want a good historian be under such attack, simply because he is too eager to get ride of vandalism.

But as a historian, do you really want to run away from a fight just like that? wshun 05:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. Just wish that you do not leave for good. wshun 05:50, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PLEASE don't leave, Abe. Professional academics are badly needed here. Trolls having driven away Julie and Zoe, I've been so close to leaving. I don't want to be left upholding academic standards on my own. Wiki needs you. Wiki would be a far far poorer place without you. Trolls will win if people like you and I don't hang in there. ... FearÉIREANN 16:37, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Trolls will win, anyway, because trolls must win. However, the real answer is for Julie, Zoe, and you User:Jtdirl, to become trolls. Abandon the search for reputation! Let your inner troll loose! You will note that very much history and philosophy and political stuff here was written by the trolls.

...We cannot let trolls ruin wiki, which unless they are challenged, they are in serious danger of doing. PLEASE DON'T GO. FearÉIREANN 16:37, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please see my defence of you on the administrators page. FearÉIREANN 19:07, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Re RK as sysop. I wouldnt talk if I was you. :l -戴&#30505sv 20:00, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't even recall the situation you are talking about regarding User:Paektu. It obviously resolved itself just fine. マイカル (MB) 21:29, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I just reviewed the case you are refering to, and I never held any ill-will against you for it. マイカル (MB) 21:34, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Regarding remembering the issue: I forgot the issue becuase I got over it a long time ago. You are being paraniod to think that I am leading a crusaide against you. I wasn't the one to initially ask that your sysop status be removed, Tim Starling was. I just so happened to agree that your actions were inappropriate. Then I found out that this wasn't an isolated incident, after doing a little research. This is why I decided you shouldn't have sysop status. Even the people that work with you say you are rough. The only difference between then and I is the think it is acceptable, and I don't. This isn't personal at all for me, I don't take things personally. You however appear to take things personally far too often. It really is upsetting the way you act. I am quite serious, and this isn't abuot a personal vendetta against you. マイカル (MB) 21:55, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I like you comment on the nomination of user:RK. I think things have gone too far (concerning both Nostrum, and you). I am going to suggest that we warn Nostrum that he is on a thin blade, and ask that people involved in conflicts with him try to understand that he is still learning, and try to be constructive, and point out his errors. He seems to be getting much better to me. I would understand you watching his actions closely (as will I), since he seems to have problems with opposing POV's to his own. I am confident that we can teach him to stop this though. Just give it a try? マイカル (MB) 23:04, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I was just running a senario by you, to see if it sounded do-a-ble to you. What do you think? I'm quite serious about this, I think it could work, but it won't work if Nostrum feels he is under attack by you (and others). I'm just asking that you try and be nice to him. If he continues to be an asshole, after you and other are nice to him, then I will conceed that he is a vandal, and drop the issue. マイカル (MB) 23:18, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Honestly, I know Nostrum personally. So, I am trying to help him out, b/c I know for a fact he isn't trying to cause harm. That is why I am going out of my way. I don't know about others, that is just my position. マイカル (MB) 23:31, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Wow, well I didn't expect you to respond this way. The fact is, since I know him personally, I know that he wasn't trying to harm anything. You however, assumed he was. So I really don't see your point? I knew he wasn't a vandal, you thought he was. Now, you know why I was so confident that he wasn't a vandal. Until someone else requested that you sysop powers be removed, I was just going to ask that you lay off Nostrum for a bit. But, after a little research into your past, I realized your clashes with others was nothing new. I also saw that you were being, as what I see, a little over-protective. I was hoping you could see that you aren't going about things in the best way, and have a change of attitude. Obviously you have, since you say you will let others take care of it. I am glad you are able to back-off finally. マイカル (MB) 23:56, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

172, you couldn't be futher from the truth. First of all, I'm not the only one who thinks you are abusing your powers. If anyone is leading a lynch-mob, it is you, against Nostrum. Secondly, Matt asked for my help, because he didn't understand why he was being attacked, so I agreed to try and help. I didn't realize it was a conflict of interest to help out someone you trust? People that trust you are helping you out? If my friendship with Matt is a conflict of interest, than so is you friendship with Jtdirl. My "attacks" on you are no different than your attacks on Matt. At least he has been willing to admit his faults. You however haven't. マイカル (MB) 00:05, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Your right, JoeM was unlucky that no one stood up from him. You kicked him out for his incompitence real good! マイカル (MB) 00:21, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

right now, don't. Take a break tonight and come back tomorrow with a cool head. Quite understandably but perhaps counterproductively you are getting quite emotional. Sv's comparison between you and RK will make Sv look an ass (not hard, sometimes. I think Sv is basically a good guy but he does do some exceedingly foolish things!). Let people think through the fact that MB basically deceived people about his motivation for defending Matt. If you jump in it may undermine the importance of what happened in the eyes of the middle ground. Just stay calm and measured. (We all are bad at doing that in our own wars!) And be careful to present your case calmly and logically, not emotionally and agressively. Having Sv attack you is very good news. Sv is like that general of Lincoln's who could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. An OTT comparison between you and RK helps your case. lol FearÉIREANN 01:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I was never part of MB's "lynch mob" as you have called it. As I stated before, my vote was based on the fact that I felt you did not attempt to get on with users that disagreed with you. This was not based on anything MB and his 'friend' Nostrum had to say. Perhaps I was taking things personally after the comment you made about refusing to work with me. I asked you about this on your talk page a couple of weeks ago and you never responded. I took this to mean that you were going to have a negative attitude towards anyone disagreeing with you. However, your latest comment on my talk page leads me to hope that perhaps this need not be the case. As I said on Sv's page, Jtdirl's comments on how we do need people to be harsh against vandals made me realise that my comment here earlier about ignoring them was probably misguided. I appreciate your efforts in dealing with vandals and I hope that in future you are able to do this without taking out the frustrations they cause you on regular Wikipedians. I do not, at present, intend to follow up my vote to the mailing list or to JW. Just go easy on the non-vandals. Angela 01:08, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be taking a break from Wikipedia for the weekend (I think). This whole thing has made me realize I am way too involved in Wikipedia, and I need to take a break. マイカル (MB) 01:50, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Don't do that, 172. Don't make it a you-vs-MB or Nostrum issue, even if you think it is that way. When you first get the "news", you should simply ask (calmly) MB to disclose his friendship with Nostrum. If he refuse, then ask somebody to do that. Your first response to the news is not the wise, I should say.

Anyway, JT already put it on the ban page. You don't need to run around and tell the news yourself (I refer to your talk to mav). Just step aside and see what happens next.

My idea maybe naive, but naive way may work.

I am thinking about guidelines of ban proposal so that ban proposer will not become a target himself. Nobody, except the target of the ban, should become emotional. wshun 02:05, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think you are doing the wise thing, 172, as is MB is taking the weekend off. I can perfectly understand your emotional reaction. You and I can both be rather too blunt for some wiki users' likings; maybe that flows from our academic background. Academia can be almost as rough as the Roman Catholic Church in terms of sharp criticism of others' work. You are too good to lose and I hope that the de-sysoping stuff can be disposed off amicably in the end. Now that we know that Nostrum is a friend of MB's, we can understand his passionate defence of him, while not agreeing with it. And if we knew at the time that he could vouch for the fact that Nostrum was not a vandal, just a seriously misguided newbie, then we might have handled Nostrum differently. I don't think MB realises what we faced when wiki was facing a simultaneous assault from DW, Adam's identities and Michael, not to mention Zog, etc. It tends to leave us less than trusting, particularly when a newbie no-one knows anything about adds in intellectually incoherent farcical nonsense to articles, something which is usually a tell-tale sign of the latest wave of troll attacks deliberately and provocatively vandalising an article.

Maybe the good thing about the row about you is that it may well do what all the best rows achieve, a full clearing of the air and the appearance of a degree of trust and respect that misunderstandings had destroyed. I was going to say "have a good night's sleep" but I don't know what time it is where you are. (Where are you, by the way?) It is 3.26am here. Anyway lol and take care. And well done, BTW, on catching Zog, that repulsive rascist bigot. I'd almost forgot about him but even the mention of him gives me the shivers. I hope my comments here and elsewhere have helped calm the situation and defend your reputation. FearÉIREANN 02:29, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, I will be slightly more than a month short of my eighteenth birthday on Oct. 7, so I will not be eligible to vote in the elections. I was against the recall effort (waste of money, etc), but since it succeeded, they might as well carry it through...As for who to vote for, I'm not sure. Hmm...vote for a porn king? Oh well, it won't matter for me unless they delay the thing. --Jiang 07:16, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Opps. Mea culpa. It was only after I sent the message that I remembered where you are. BTW you might like to contribute to a debate on Talk:Head of State. I don't know what it is about Australian constitutional affairs that seems to draw wacky theories, but the lastest one, this time from PML, a self proclaimed monarchist, claims that the suggestion that the Australian governor-general is not the head of state is debatable; ie he might be the Aussie head of state right now. It is a wacky nutty theory which I thought I had blown out of the water, but PML keeps revisiting it, though it appears he has a pretty poor understanding of constitutional law, and a pre-occupation with seeing republican conspiracies everywhere. (Previously he concluded that I am part of an Aussie republican conspiracy!) Now he is talking about redrafting 100% factually correct paragraph to include his own wacky theories. I am at this stage running out of ways to say 'this is complete bullshit.' Even the collective might of HM The Queen, the (pro-monarchist) Prime Minister, the Governor-General, two past governors-general, the Australian constitution, the Republic Advisory Committee, two of Australia's top legal and constitutional academics, etc all of whom have made it unambiguously clear the GG is not a head of state, seem incapable of shifting PML from his wacky and nonsensical theory. It is so weird. Your comments would be welcomed. lol FearÉIREANN 18:30, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry. Davis is in much greater trouble than you are. I think the debate simply was people letting off steam. I doubt if much will happen. I suspect the issue will simply die. A couple of people did mention your 'hard cop' role in dealing with vandals and said it made them realise how useful you are in that role. I think reference to you and Mav as the 'hard cop'/'soft cop' may have helped. My advice is simply to let the issue die and don't make any passionate responses. One wrong word could re-ignite he controversy, without it I am almost certain it will die and be forgotten. FearÉIREANN 18:50, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it clear, that I am sorry for any damage I have caused to you feelings, ego, or reputation. I can understand now the heavy-handed stance you take. I hope this experience will not be one that you forget when dealing with perceived vandals in the future. Feel free to ask for my assistance in situations like this in the future. I would be more than happy to play the good-cop, and try and get the culprit on the right track. This will help your cause, because it will be clear in these such cases, that the user was given a chance. This should keep you from being charged of unfair treatment. I really have no problem with your strategy now that I know more about it. However, in the interest in not scaring off potential contributors in the future, I think other strategies should be explored. I think a good place to begin is the good-cop bad-cop idea, since you already seem to have the bad-cop role down ;). I really have come to respect you from this whole experience. I feel I understand you much better now, and I feel I can trust you now. I hope these feelings can be mutual, and that my new found trust in you is not misplaced. Thanks for your understanding. マイカル 18:58, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Consider it done :). マイカル 19:22, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I seek your advice. I recently created a small file under resistance techniques, you can get there through my page. I was wondering what you thought of the article. Either it's a how to, or it's extremely POV, and I don't want that. I thought you might be able to give me an example, or insight on how to write this if you thought it needed improvement. I was thinking, and I know it would be much more NPOV if I merely used examples of existing data and modern day resistances to teach this section. However, that information I believe is extremely limited. I thought this how-to approach would serve more interesting and more divulging in terms of direct information gathering. I'll check back with you tomorrow. ThanksNostrum 10:15, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my page from that vandal. :) --mav 04:29, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey - you might find this either disturbing or funny but at Talk:Nikola Tesla and the Village pump there is a debate about whether or not history should be written in the present or past tense! Please add your respected opinion to this before our history articles become a laughing stock of inconsistent tense. --mav

Problems again over Fujimori[edit]

Hi 172, I am having problems again at Alberto Fujimori and I made a post about this to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles. Could you please have a look? I don't think a Page Protect is called for again; rather, I would prefer that I wasn't the only one that keeps reverting his changes. Can you help out? Thanks. -- Viajero 10:32, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are you serious? I thought you thought he was Adam? Is there any reason you no longer think this or are you happy to nominate someone who is under a hard ban? Angela 17:05, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I am too suspicious but I still have too many doubts to second it. Angela

Continuation War[edit]

You reverted Continuation War to some unspecified version. Instead of just saying "Reverted to last NPOV version", could you please tell us all which version you reverted to? As you can see there is a NPOV dispute going on so just calling a version NPOV is not going to help us. -- Jniemenmaa 16:19, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with my comment[edit]

I am not sure what the problem with my comment is? Regarding my opinion about the relationship between using an inappropriate user name and the GFDL? What is the problem with that. If you don't agree with that, well then just state so, aren't we all allowed our own opinion? This is about open content after all, no? If you are making a reference to my joking about the references to Saddam Hussein's torture and murder of individuals who did not agree with him, I can't imagine that such a statement is in anyway more than an demonstration why the name Saddam Hussein should not be used because it brings to mind these kinds of autocratic totalitarian acts that are totally against any international human rights norms. Now what problem do you have with my post on User talk:Saddam Hussein? Alex756 20:10, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do you still believe Nostrum should be banned? See User talk:Nostrum/ban. Martin 11:07, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ack[edit]

Thanks the nomination! Only just noticed it last night. -- Viajero 14:40, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, if you get a chance, have a look at a dispute *sigh* at Talk:Catholicism. Eloquence and Martin want to do an 'article' on the history of Catholicism. I'd love to see such an article but I've been trying to explain just how difficult doing that would be, how complicated it would be, etc but Eloquence (who own anti-catholic bias he admits to) thinks it will be easy. He is also miffed because I moved an irrelevant add in on the Church and fascism to a new article on Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships, he thinking I am trying to 'silence' criticism of the Church. Someone wiki, or rather some of the people on it, can be sooooo frustrating, with their POV agendas and paranoia. lol FearÉIREANN 23:07, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Operetta. I am a bit new to wikipedia and I don't yet know how to revert things. I was going to just copy-paste the previous entry, but that would take a long time. Tjdw 18:06, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on the Talk:Catholic page. I think Martin finally realises the sheer horror of the undertaking involved in doing a history of Catholicism. But Eloquence has shown a rather one dimensional understanding of catholicism that shows little grasp of complexities and sees any mention of anything other than an anti-catholic polemic as some form of pro-catholic cover-up by burying 'the truth'! I don't doubt but that he is genuine but his grasp of even some of the elementary facts about catholicism is shakier than California in an earthquake.

I agree that the title Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships is a problem. The article is one the important issue of RCism's perspectives on governmental structures, from divine right of kings to democracy, dictatorship, etc. It is a fascinating topic but it is difficult to find a short title. Any suggestions on an alternative title are more than welcome. Knowing, you can grasp what the article is about. Typically Eloquence has gone the wrong end of the stick and talks about incorporating it into a general history article, not grasping that it is a specific article about a specific aspect of RCism, not a bit of history that should be moved elsewhere.

Oh the frustration of dealing with well meaning people with fanatical 'chip on their shoulder' agendas, who know much less than they think about a topic. What is it about the inverse proportionality of knowledge and opinion. The more people think they know, the more they should about it, but with in many cases those who shout the loudest actually knowing the least. (Adam and New Imperialism, Fred and communism, Eloquence and Roman Catholicism. A case of 'I have an opinion therefore I must know what I am talking about'. Erik's comments on the whole issue of clerical child abuse was a classic case of, as we sometimes say, 'putting the cart before the horse', reading documents to find evidence to bolster one's opinions, rather than using documents to educate oneself and develop opinions. The weirdest thing I find on wiki is when writing is seeing so much genuine, well meaning but blatent bias, whether it is Fred with his Reaganesque view of communism, RK's fanatic pro-Israel viewpoint or Erik on catholicism. Given that I am a lapsed catholic who is gay, who has had people very close to be abused by a catholic priest, I find it weird to find myself NPOVing articles on catholicism to take out catholic-bashing. Or be told having produced a proper encyclopaedic article on clerical abuse, providing piles of links to websites about clerical abuse of children, footnoted texts, quoted studies and built up a large detailed article in place of a barely pass-level high school essay, I end up being told that I am burying the evidence to protect the Church. There are too many people on wiki whose standard of academic excellence is based on the Alice in Wonderland principle of things are what I say they are, or don't expect evidence, listen to my opinion. Curiouser and curiouser! FearÉIREANN 18:27, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is there something in particular you didn't like about my changes to German Confederation? At first glance it seems you simply reverted my work completely instead of "restoring a little", as your comment suggests. I'm just wondering what bothered you because even the grammar and spelling mistakes that I corrected are back. djmutex 18:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello there 172 I'm back again, what have you been up to on the WP whilst I've been gone G-Man 19:37, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. The intention was to help.[edit]

When I edited the page, I was aware that you had contributed to it extensively. But the only motivation I had for editing it that had anything to do with you, was to help with a page that you seemed interested in. You have on some occasions referred to my not having worked with you on a page as a reason for our possible misunderstandings. I thought it might be a good idea to work on a page with you. And Cold War happened to be a page which had problems (that I could perceive) with it which did not require detailed expertise on subjects I had none on, so I thought I would have a go. A shot to nothing, as it were. I doubt we will ever edit a good deal of pages in common, but I may well edit that particular page further, as I still think there are logically unsound constructions in it, as well as clearly POV statements. But if my perceptions of the form of arguments cause me to edit it into a form which is either misleading, inaccurate or poorly phrased, please correct me most stricktly. My only wish is to fix that which I feel confident needs fixing, but that is not a guarantee against being wrong... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 19:11, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

Privatization[edit]

The article privatization is not for the discussing of nationalization. LirQ

In case you hadn't noticed, the privatization issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Village pump#Privatisation. Just thought you should know. Angela 23:21, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

lol LirQ 02:47, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you ever want to revise New Imperialism, you just let me know. LirQ

Thanks for the kind comments! Yes, economy is an interest of mine, I especially find "real" socialist economies fascinating. For example, take the fact that most Russian families had several annual salaries in saved money. And still they were poor! It's certainly a fascinating topic and due to all the propaganda from both sides it is still today left unexplored. Sorry for the hasty and incomplete answer, I will try to respond to your points in more detail later and contribute as much as I can about economy to History of post-communist Russia. BL 20:44, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Privatization -- I would reccomend bold to highlight key statements. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hello there 172 I was wondering if you could do something for me. There is a bit of an edit war going on at the British National Party article. Basically User:Tails and others are trying to remove/tone down criticisms of the BNP, and me and others keep puting them back, and it's turning into a ping-pong match of reversions and counter reversions, which is becoming somewhat tiresome.

Seem as you're entirely neutral in the matter, I was wondering if you could take a look at it and consider protecting the page for a few days to cool things down. G-Man 18:37, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(ps I'll complete the great depression UK article at some point hopefully soon, i've been somewhat sidelined by other things)

Why were resolved issues promoted to the bottom of the page, where the most recent comments belong?

I expect just because it takes enough effort to clean up the village pump as is, let alone add the extra effort of trying to keep everything in chronological order. Thanks for fixing. Martin 12:56, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I had no idea what the current situation on that matter was as no-one involved the dispute had chosen to comment on it on it further at the village pump, or remove it from there so I simply moved it to the appropriate page so that it could be dealt with by those interested. It was not meant to say that the issue was still current. It just needed to be moved from the pump, along with 11 kb of other stuff. Angela 15:05, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

Re: Privatization, PP-1 -- What is a "night wathers state"? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hello there 172, I've finally gotten round to finishing the Great Depression in the United Kingdom article. What do you think about it? it could probably do with some improvements. Any feedback woud be appreciated. G-Man 13:36, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been making lots of edits to articles relating to China, is this an interest of yours or something. BTW I made some additions to the gold standard article in he interests of balance, I'm not sure if I got all the details right G-Man 18:08, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Favor to ask[edit]

Hi 172, Can you help me out if you have a moment? It concerns the article Shirin Ebadi. I've added a paragraph indicating that this Nobel Peace Prize (like the previous to Jimmy Carter) is interpreted by some as an implicit criticism of US foreign policy (I've supplied two citations), and that Ebadi herself declared upon receiving it that "The fight for human rights is conducted in Iran by the Iranian people, and we are against any foreign intervention in Iran." Two other users are trying to delete the paragraph for reasons you can read Talk:Shirin Ebadi. I would be most grateful if you could take a look and either back me up or suggest a compromise (or, I suppose, agree with them). Thanks in advance. -- Viajero 08:55, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dear 172 (do I gather from the above that your name is Abe?), Thanks for your comments on Léon Blum: I too was surprised that he had no article - I only discovered it by accident when I wrote that Bruno Kreisky was the first Jewish European head of government, and then I remembered poor Léon. I am finding some interesting lacunae among all these thousands of articles.

From reading this page I see you have been having lots of good arguments with people, which is one of things I like about Wikipedia. I think this is a brilliant project and has the potential to create something really worthwhile. Its main weakness seems to me to be that nothing is ever finished - every article has to checked every day to see whether it has been tampered with by people who think they know better. Of course, sometimes they do, but usually they don't. In the long run, this is not sustainable - contributors to the Britannica don't spend the rest of their lives defending their texts against revisionists and cranks.

Having said that, I intend continuing to contribute on history, politics and geography. Wikipedia is weak on history, and very weak on acdemically respectable history. I would be interested in seeing a page along the lines of Wikipedia: History articles needing writing or rewriting where we could have some historian-chat about various topics.

PS, why does your User page consist only of external links and not a list of articles you have written? I would be interested in seeing what you have done. Adam 04:04, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wow...am I really that good? I'm quite suprised by your comments...

Anyway, in case you were wondering, I plan to minor in either Chinese studies (learn about Chinese history/politics) or Public Policy. Berkeley doesn't have poli sci or history minors, or I would have considered those too. --Jiang 20:14, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)