66.248.83.157 (talk) |
Supergreenred (talk | contribs) →Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33: muhahahaa now you know my IP |
||
Line 502: | Line 502: | ||
:Ultra, I've added my evidence. I focused on edit timelines and linguistic tell-tales. Per your statement, it looks like you're going to focus on drawing the big picture - discussing account creation times, shared articles/POV, RFCU results, etc. (If you can, throw in a comparison to how Gio managed his previous farm of sockpuppets as well). Also, I didn't mention the bits of linguistic evidence already in your statement; hopefully you can find even more that my eyes missed. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] ([[User talk:Merzbow|talk]]) 04:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
:Ultra, I've added my evidence. I focused on edit timelines and linguistic tell-tales. Per your statement, it looks like you're going to focus on drawing the big picture - discussing account creation times, shared articles/POV, RFCU results, etc. (If you can, throw in a comparison to how Gio managed his previous farm of sockpuppets as well). Also, I didn't mention the bits of linguistic evidence already in your statement; hopefully you can find even more that my eyes missed. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] ([[User talk:Merzbow|talk]]) 04:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I got your message. I wonder, is it even possible for an editor to edit in peace here, anymore? Everytime I take a break, I come back to see more time wasting *&%%$# innane wiki-drama. Sheesh. This is a big waste of time. Wikipedia is seriously getting off-track. Maybe we need to borrow that legal principle double jeopardy: editors can not be tried multiple times for the same alleged offense (same sock puppetry charges). At least until there are new FACTS. From what I read there is nothing new. I've done nothing new. So why can't I be just left alone to prove myself? Don't you have better things to do, like write articles? This is not worth the trouble. I might as well go back to just using my dyanmic IP address. At least I had some peace then.[[ |
:I got your message. I wonder, is it even possible for an editor to edit in peace here, anymore? Everytime I take a break, I come back to see more time wasting *&%%$# innane wiki-drama. Sheesh. This is a big waste of time. Wikipedia is seriously getting off-track. Maybe we need to borrow that legal principle double jeopardy: editors can not be tried multiple times for the same alleged offense (same sock puppetry charges). At least until there are new FACTS. From what I read there is nothing new. I've done nothing new. So why can't I be just left alone to prove myself? Don't you have better things to do, like write articles? This is not worth the trouble. I might as well go back to just using my dyanmic IP address. At least I had some peace then.[[User:Supergreenred|Supergreenred]] ([[User talk:Supergreenred|talk]]) 09:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:32, 5 May 2008
Thanks for your contributions to Criticisms of capitalism. I've been working to clean the page up a bit, basically rewording and consolidating to improve flow. I'm also going to be sourcing material, since most of the current material is unsourced and I'm thinking that all future contributions should be sourced as such. It looks like we may be coming at it from two different angles, which is good, but I'd encourage you to consult the Talk:Critique of capitalism to discuss issues. Thanks! Njfuller (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I though you might want to take a look. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work
Sooner or later you'll manage to get that page cleaned up. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen while the current residents revert everything you do-- but still, getting the difs in there is worth doing.
Watch out for Stone put to sky. He's trying to put words in your mouth so he can run to WP:ANI with them. Jtrainor (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Graph on food production per capita
Hello, Im new to wikipedia and was wondering about your graph. Do the figures you used for the graph include corn production in the US? As a percentage of this is for ethanol ? I did follow your references but could not find the base data u used --Yendor72 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
World peace
Another editor has added the {{prod}}
template to the article World peace, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}}
template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of World peace
An editor has nominated World peace, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World peace and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Did this page get moved?
Who moved the page from allegations of to the current title of State terrorism and the United States?--MONGO 13:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha...no surprise...StonePutToSky did the move near the end of February and Dancewiththedevil took the quotes out....there was no consensus for making the title as POV as the text I can't imagine.[1], [2].--MONGO 14:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nicaragua v. United States
Please make sure your edits are wp:encyclopedic by keeping in mind the lay audience for whom you are writing. Copying text directly from court dockets does not achieve this goal because it is written in legalese and the doesn't have a news story or summery tone (plus it's written in the present tense). NJGW (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
SYN and other OR violations on you-know-what
May I suggest you pick one violation at a time, starting with the most obvious, take it to Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard for comments (with a note on the talk page), drive it through the process, and wait until it is removed before you take up the next?
That way, you'll be less likely to exhaust and alienate other editors and more likely to establish a pattern of getting rid of those unsightly violations than you'd be by spreading the effort over several instances simultaneously.
Most importantly: Suggesting the inclusion of more SYN violations may feel satisfying, but it really is counter-productive, if you want to actually change the article. I'll be your ally if you try to get rid of OR, but if you try to include more, you'll find me an obstacle. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh sure, the article talk page is the number one place for discussions. But it's not the only one. Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard is frequented by experts on SYN and OR, and if there's any one thing we really need expertise on, that's precisely it. But that is not to say "go behind the talk page's back" here. Just inform the talk page whenever you post something on the noticeboard, and you can be sure, anyone who wants to get involved, will. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
After rewrites, that case is no longer obvious enough that I'm willing to make the call. Meanwhile, you obviously are not willing to drop it. So why are you so reluctant to bring the noticeboard into the case? If they make a call, I'll back it up. Promise! — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yo
What would you say to a proposal to merge Criticisms of communism with Communism? Criticisms has no sources or references and is extremely short-- I don't think it merits it's own article unless it's greatly expanded. I'm poking you about this since you seem to edit in the area of political stuff quite a bit. Jtrainor (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Church Committee
Thanks for your thoughtful edits on the Church Committee. I think your latest edits make for a better article than deletion alone. Cronos1 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning for Guatemalan Civil War
Please read WP:3RR. If you continue to revert you may be reported and blocked.BernardL (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't let Stone put to Sky intimidate you
We both know we've done nothing against policy, so let him threaten all he wants. Not like much will come of it, after all. Jtrainor (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
R&I article
I think that you can remove the separate Biotechnology section. I have made a slight word change that should allow the paragraph to be part of the Eugenics section. It is the "new eugenics". Barring that, I believe the biotechnology that Stock discusses will have to be moved from the Contemporary issues section, as it is more futuristic. Can we have a little cooperation on the article? --Jagz (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a waste of time
One of us should just report that IP for 3RR violation. It's obviously not there to actually do anything useful. Jtrainor (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I will stop, if you will stop. In fact I have stopped now and will no longer revert. But same to you, yes?64.118.111.137 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.118.111.137 (talk)
- You have not stopped. You have done 8 reverts. Self-revert to the version before you started edit warring.Ultramarine (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
RFCU perhaps?
I'm poking you since you're quite good at writing up stuff that conforms to the bureacracy. I think perhaps an RFCU is indicated for those two IP addresses that keep reverting, plus the "new" single purpose account User:Rafaelsfingers. I suspect that these IPs, along with Rafaelsfingers and everyone else who has been reverting to the IP version with claims of consensus (including possibly Giovanni33) are the same person. Given the language it might also be SPTS, of course-- that's for RFCU to decide, if they accept the case. Jtrainor (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
I shouldn't waste your time and mine with wind-ups but I couldn't resist it. I won't carry on any more I promise [3] --BozMo talk 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
kablammo
[[4]]
Well, that's the last we'll hopefully see of those two. Perhaps we can actually get something done around here now. Jtrainor (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikiquette notification
I'm writing this to notify you that I've started a discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts concerning the criticisms of capitalism page. I was interested in what other editors and administrators thought. Please have a look. Uwmad (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rafaelsfingers#Additional_evidence. Anything to add? Ultramarine (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. I think you have already made the point - it is a tad suspicious. John Smith's (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Small change
Nothing big, but thought it would be polite to let you know I made this edit. John Smith's (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.Ultramarine (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A question
Hi Ultramarine! You probably know this better. Did we ever had a Category:Communist repressions and article Communist repressions? How do you think, should we?Biophys (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you'll allow me to interject, I believe the article Criticisms of Communist party rule fills that role quite nicely. Having a category or article named after any ideology with the word "repression" after it is a violation of NPOV, since repression means, by definition, something unjust done to a person or group of people. It is not the job of wikipedia to judge whether any given action was unjust. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the reason why I'm here was to say hi, Ultramarine. I have returned after an extended absence and I wanted to let you know that I can help with any democracy-related articles and such. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Unpolite behaviour
Ultramarine, I think it is very unpleasant from you to sistematically remove all the adds you dont like. I put a section in the talk page of the article Talk:Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation but you, instead of taking the discussion, deleted all my adds, that were not personal points of view but translated from other wikis (in this case the italian one). I will, if u prefer, put more sources (you deletede posada's name by saying "according to relyable sourse without quoting, anyway, i suggest u to watch in the Luis Posada Carriles article. He was not graduated but still trained. So it was enough to change "graduated" in "trained" instead of pretestuosly delete it all. Cold war, according to Cold war article started in the mid 1940s, so i think it's absolutely pretestuous to say "not sure it was cold war", cause it was. about the reasons why the school was created, u deleted, again with no discussion at all, everything, by saying it was unsourced. I think u can understand by yourself that u'll never find official documents saying this. But asking for source for every word it's clearly an obstructionism tool for avoiding wht you dont like to be written. The reasons of creation of school are explained by common sense, if u just see wht was happening in latin america in that period. I see the whole article mainly refers to the official website of the school, that cannot be considered but a partial source. It seems from the article as u want it to look like, that CIA's aim was creating peace and prosperity in the continent...by training some of the most bloody terrorists. C'mon! On the other side, my add was from italian wiki, where it is not considered NPOV, why should it be here? has en wiki maybe different rules? Pls, if u want to be democratic, respected and avoid edit wars, discuss before deleting contributions.
- In march 1946 Churchill made the famous speech about the iron curtain in Fulton, Missouri, that symbolized the official the beginning of a process called Cold War. I do not know what more I should bring as evidence. I propose the mediation: "in the early years/in the beginning of Cold War" if u prefer.
- Posada "was trained in sabotage and explosives at the CIA's School of the Americas for an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs." according to sourced wiki article about him. Leopoldo Galtieri, Manuel Noriega and several officers of Pinochet were graduated, according to SOA watch, I even put the source. I think it is important to write it in the introduction, as example of famous graduated. I think it's euphemistic to use the words "participation in human rights violations" for people accused of crimes against humanity. I think it should remain "responsible for crimes against humanity", that comprends, in it's definition, the crime of massacre and persecution, as well as grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. Dont forget we are talking about people who performed mass murdering and torturing. I think a general "participation in human rights violations" it is absolutely inappropriate. So a mediation could be "Between 1946 and 2001, the SOA trained more than 61,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Some of them became sadly famous for being responsible of crimes against humanity, such as generals Leopoldo Galtieri or Manuel Noriega, as well as some Augusto Pinochet's officers. The terrorist Luis Posada Carriles was educated in the school in 1962, even if he never graduated.", of course with source and maybe putting the picture of posada in fort benning.
About the history of fort, I will make further investigations and add several informations missing, that are present in the italian one. Of course, i will look for sources. But please, next time use the discussion page a little more. Of course I am waiting for hearing something from you before performing the changes. I think that's how it should be done. --Desyman44 (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- All right with cold war. I will look for the specific events and movements in South America, even if i think it is gonna make the article a bit less flowing. About posada, the source is from National Lawyers Guild (used also in other wiki articles). Maybe you dont like the source but it still is a source, so if we copy whole texts from the FAQ of SOA website (with a probable copyviol, i'd say) I dont see why we couldn't quote National Lawyers Guild. There is even the archive pic, that i will put as a further evidence.
- All right with violation of human rights, u r right cause they still had no trial in Aja (or never will have, for Galtieri that is dead). But "participation" i think has to be replaced with "responsible for" since Galtieri was condamned twice, by militar and civil court, Noriega (apart from the farse-court in US), has been accused and extradicted in france.
--Desyman44 (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Posada
Good news! I found a second and much more reliable source about education of posada in SOA, from Washington University National security archive. [5]
I think that with this second source there are no more doubts and that your edit on Posada's article can as well be deleted.
I will add the source in both articles if u dont mind.
--Desyman44 (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I was wrong, that's another Posada, a officer in Guatemala. Keeep anyway the source, it's a good one.
- About the edit in Posada's article, it's the same as on SOA. Ok with source but there's no need to add that SOA hasnt it in archives, for the same reasons stated above.
Please reconsider this post
If you agree that the content of the page should be limited to discussing the actual article, I urge you to strike the non-content related part of this post [6]. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- It was Travb/Inclusionst who copied a more than 10 days old statement to the end of talk and then added his comment. Obviously not particularly relevant and the talk page should be about the article content, but if insisting on bringing this up, then the issue should be described correctly.Ultramarine (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It truly strains the ability to assume good faith when in the same post that you voice agreement to limiting comments on the article discussion page to be about the article - you also include comebacks about a non-article related issue, that as you indicate, is 10 days old. Your disagreement with Travb should have been moved to your account talk pages if you wished to indulge in continued discussion about that non-article related topic. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Travb copied a ten days old statement by another editor to the end of the talk page and then added his personal comment. Misleading and none of this regarding article content. My agreement was regarding such tactics. But again, if such tactics are used, then the issue should be presented fairly. If Travb had removed his copied material and comment I would not have replied further.Ultramarine (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
WHISC page changed
Please, take a look and participate in the discussion in thetalk page of WHISC. --Desyman44 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni
Ultramarine, the 3RR board is not for discussing violations of arb-comm matters. If you think Giovanni has broken his restrictions you need to post on the arb-comm enforcement page. I am telling Giovanni the same about yourself. John Smith's (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Elections
Hi Ultramarine - just wondering who you're supporting for next Pres in 2008? Are you a McCain supporter? Pexise (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have not decided anything yet.Ultramarine (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Waiting to see what the Democratic primary result is? What are the main issues for you? Pexise (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I find foreign policy particularly interesting.I will wait and see more concretely what they suggest and what they do. Here is a good webpage [7]Ultramarine (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you see the way the US is seen in the rest of the world as important? (The international image of the US) Pexise (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Obama as a black president would certainly have a large symbolic impact regardless of anything else. A woman as president also.Ultramarine (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obama also voted against the war. Pexise (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not support starting the war. Now there are only bad options. It will take many years before Iraq is stable if staying. On the other hand leaving could create anything from a genocide to a new Somalia.Ultramarine (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Quite - which is why Obama's position was right. Also looks much more respectable around the world as Iraq war was an international mistake. Pexise (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. So he had good judgement regarding this.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's an interesting article for you: [8] Pexise (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.Ultramarine (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's an interesting article for you: [8] Pexise (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. So he had good judgement regarding this.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Quite - which is why Obama's position was right. Also looks much more respectable around the world as Iraq war was an international mistake. Pexise (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not support starting the war. Now there are only bad options. It will take many years before Iraq is stable if staying. On the other hand leaving could create anything from a genocide to a new Somalia.Ultramarine (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Obama also voted against the war. Pexise (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Obama as a black president would certainly have a large symbolic impact regardless of anything else. A woman as president also.Ultramarine (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you see the way the US is seen in the rest of the world as important? (The international image of the US) Pexise (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I find foreign policy particularly interesting.I will wait and see more concretely what they suggest and what they do. Here is a good webpage [7]Ultramarine (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Waiting to see what the Democratic primary result is? What are the main issues for you? Pexise (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for Arbcomm on WMC
We're working on a Arbcomm case for user:William M. Connolley. Due to the sensitivey and size, it is currently in a sandbox User:HooperBandP/Sandbox4. You seem to be aware of his editing and I feel you may be able to support his side, and we want it to be as fair of a case as possible. If you have a comment, please feel free to add it. Hooper (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that my comment got in above yours on that page, Ultramarine. That was just some kind of editing error on my part. At least this time I think I got the right number of equals signs in the section header. ☺ I assume the order of the comments doesn't matter all that much so I'm not changing it, but if it matters to you feel free to either move it, or ask me to move it. Coppertwig (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Help request for Globalization
This page, especially the section describing the impacts on culture needs a lot of work. I am willing to put in the requisite changes, if you would help me with the process. In other words, would you back me up in deleting the portions regarding a "global culture", more unification, etc.? The only cultural aspect of globalization is the imposition of Western culture on the developing world. Blueelectricstorm (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Come back and clean up the references to all of the text you dropped in the article. I give you two days, or I delete it. Please see discussion page.Kgrr (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
I have added your name to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:William_M._Connolley as you seem to have knowledge of the situation. Feel free to comment. Jehochman Talk 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
3RR
Thanks for the reminder. Any particular reasonyou cannot show the same courtesy to me that I gave to you and wait until the matter has been discussed?Cronos1 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Your view of democracy
Hi Ultramarine - I was wondering what your understanding of democracy is? How would you define democracy? Pexise (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can be defined in many different way. I favor the common interpretation. A representative government also having rights and liberties to protect individuals and minorities against government abuse. Empirically shown to be the best form of government for reducing poverty, preventing repressions, increasing living standards, and for preventing wars and democides.Ultramarine (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so we agree that democracy is a good thing - but representative government is a difficult concept. Also, there are examples of governments that are not democratically elected that have done a better job of increasing living standards than similar countries with democratic governments. As well as this, there are many examples where countries have democratic elections but living standards are appalling (many countries in Africa would fall into this category. What part do you see human rights playing in a democracy? Pexise (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- "examples of governments that are not democratically elected that have done a better job of increasing living standards than similar countries with democratic governments" Which examples? Not that a few examples contradict an overall trend. Democracy is more than elections. It includes real protections of rights like freedom speech, assembly, etc. Those counties in Africa that have had democratic governments have done better than those without. See [9]Ultramarine (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I guess my point is that the quality of the democracy is what is really important. This takes into account, as you say, free speech, assembly, etc. But what about economic freedom, and economic and social rights - do you see these as important for a democracy? Pexise (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Difficult to have a democracy with illiterate peasants who get all theír info from the outside world from the local priest/feudal lord. So some education and literacy are probably necessary. As well as sufficient economic development to allow people to be able to afford to buy books, newspapers, radios, etc.Ultramarine (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course. What about control of the media? Do you think there should be public or part-public owned media? Pexise (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly not only public media. Public companies always have many unfair advantages if they compete in the same sector. They cannot go into bankruptcy so they can loan easily and attract employess who want a safe job. They can possibly easer get info from the government who see it as their channel. Risk of being influenced by the ruling party. Also difficult for them of doing any commentaries without being seen as biased and state propaganda by some party. State control of the media is always among the first steps of any aspiring tyrant. Today it is easy for a small cost to create a website that can reach the whole world. Which will be successful if people find it interesting. While I see a role of the state in many sectors I am not sure that media is one of them. Do you have any arguments for public media? Ultramarine (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course. What about control of the media? Do you think there should be public or part-public owned media? Pexise (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Difficult to have a democracy with illiterate peasants who get all theír info from the outside world from the local priest/feudal lord. So some education and literacy are probably necessary. As well as sufficient economic development to allow people to be able to afford to buy books, newspapers, radios, etc.Ultramarine (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I guess my point is that the quality of the democracy is what is really important. This takes into account, as you say, free speech, assembly, etc. But what about economic freedom, and economic and social rights - do you see these as important for a democracy? Pexise (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- "examples of governments that are not democratically elected that have done a better job of increasing living standards than similar countries with democratic governments" Which examples? Not that a few examples contradict an overall trend. Democracy is more than elections. It includes real protections of rights like freedom speech, assembly, etc. Those counties in Africa that have had democratic governments have done better than those without. See [9]Ultramarine (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so we agree that democracy is a good thing - but representative government is a difficult concept. Also, there are examples of governments that are not democratically elected that have done a better job of increasing living standards than similar countries with democratic governments. As well as this, there are many examples where countries have democratic elections but living standards are appalling (many countries in Africa would fall into this category. What part do you see human rights playing in a democracy? Pexise (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
My view is that there can be no real democracy under capitalism.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- User:Pexise and User:Giovanni33, please stop arguing with this user over political views. Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Take this discussion to Usenet instead, if you wish. Jehochman Talk 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk?
Mail me. If you like William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33 ArbCom
You've suggested that several other accounts are merely sockpuppets of Giovanni. You still need to inform those accounts that they are being accused of being socks on the ArbCom page so that they have a chance to defend themselves if they so choose. Really they should probably all be parties to the case. We can't operate under the assumption that they are Gio's socks and thus we don't need to inform them of what's going on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- They are socks. There is no need to inform them, G33 already knows William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please. None of them are currently blocked, as I would expect them to be, if they were confirmed to be socks. — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- But we all know that they are William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, we don't "all know that they are." If we did Jehochman would have kept the block on Giovanni in place, but he had doubts, as apparently did a couple of other admins who talked to Jehochman (not including me, I wasn't even an admin at the time). A full case should be made at WP:SSP as would normally be the case. I'm not sure WMC how you are so certain that all of the accounts in question are all sockpuppets of Giovanni (as opposed to one or more than one of the accounts simply being one of 100,000 or so people (at a minimum) in the Bay Area who would somewhat agree with Giovanni's position on the article) but if you have specific evidence you might want to post it somewhere instead of wasting time arguing against the posting of courtesy "hey you're over at ArbCom" notes on user talk pages (actually I wonder if anyone has argued against that before—it's a rather remarkable position to take given the relative triviality of the issue and the fact that the opposite position does absolutely no harm and actually conforms to Wikipedia policy). Until such time as the users are confirmed to be socks by some process, yes, we do inform them that they are accused of being socks. So again to Ultramarine, please post notes on these users talk pages as the ArbCom rules require given that you have clearly filed a complaint against the accounts in question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree with WMC I will regardless make a notification.Ultramarine (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, we don't "all know that they are." If we did Jehochman would have kept the block on Giovanni in place, but he had doubts, as apparently did a couple of other admins who talked to Jehochman (not including me, I wasn't even an admin at the time). A full case should be made at WP:SSP as would normally be the case. I'm not sure WMC how you are so certain that all of the accounts in question are all sockpuppets of Giovanni (as opposed to one or more than one of the accounts simply being one of 100,000 or so people (at a minimum) in the Bay Area who would somewhat agree with Giovanni's position on the article) but if you have specific evidence you might want to post it somewhere instead of wasting time arguing against the posting of courtesy "hey you're over at ArbCom" notes on user talk pages (actually I wonder if anyone has argued against that before—it's a rather remarkable position to take given the relative triviality of the issue and the fact that the opposite position does absolutely no harm and actually conforms to Wikipedia policy). Until such time as the users are confirmed to be socks by some process, yes, we do inform them that they are accused of being socks. So again to Ultramarine, please post notes on these users talk pages as the ArbCom rules require given that you have clearly filed a complaint against the accounts in question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- But we all know that they are William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
interesting...
I'm wondering if you think I Write Stuff (talk · contribs) (and his prior account, N4GMiraflores (talk · contribs)) is a reincarnation of our old friend SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs). Outside of Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, his primary interest seems to be creating articles about Latin American drug gangs, just like Seven. Per here, N4G is from the same city as prior (assumed) Seven socks TenOfSpades and ElevenOfHearts. However, many of the tell-tales like what MONGO presented here are not present, although I've only looked at edit summaries and not text itself. And RFCU info for Seven is likely stale. In other words, I'm certainly not ready to make an accusation yet, but I think this should be looked at by others as well. - Merzbow (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I actually was thinking this same thing a few days ago, but like Merzbow was not really sure. What struck me as most similar is that the accounts both create a lot of new articles on very similar topics, and seem to adopt similar formats for creating the article, citing the references, etc. One of the things about SevenOfDiamonds is that user did write a lot of articles, they were just violating a previous ban under a different account. Even if I Write Stuff is SoD, they seem to be making some positive contributions, though there seems to be some possibly vexatious litigation as well which could be a straightforward reason to indef block based on the past ArbCom decision (I'm really not paying enough attention to the "Allegations" article to know what is going on with that or how I Write Stuff is behaving). It's worth looking into a bit further, and probably would need to be brought to WP:SSP or WP:AE since there was a previous ArbCom case. If this is the same user as the SoD account (and more evidence is definitely needed, I think User:Proabivouac helped MONGO with the SoD case and might be of some help on this issue, though Proab does not really edit here much anymore) I'd personally like to see the user admit it, be topic banned from articles like the "Allegations" article, and allowed to continue creating new articles as they have been (though a simple indef block is the more likely outcome and certainly wouldn't be unwarranted). In the last ArbCom case though, SevenofDiamonds denied being a sock of NuclearUmpf until the very end. Regardless, I would not make any direct accusations until more evidence has been compiled as Merzbow says.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it really is him and he is willing to admit it, I wouldn't argue against just a topic ban against the articles that perennially get him into trouble. I will point him to this section and highly suggest that, if so, he email an admin asking for terms instead of forcing us to do the entire song and dance again, with the inevitable result. - Merzbow (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, he denied being Seven on his talk-page. I looked at how they create articles, they do it in a very similar way - articles are born fully-formed, and scrupulously formatted, with multiple references to the same source always numbered like "Times1", "Times2", etc., among other similarities. Is there a tool which people use to facilitate the creation of articles that generates them in this way? Because that's the only benign explanation I can see. - Merzbow (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I must eventually chime in, I pick the names depending on what the majority of sources are, for instance most articles from websites are thanks to the Associated Press, so they lack author names, and are tagged if I am dealing with multiples, as Times1, Times2, etc. If for instance the majority of sources are books, I use AuthorYear as a format, you can see an example: Arturo Lona Reyes. Someone provided me with a code to add to a section of my preferences, it created a "cite" box at the end of the normal edit box, I can try to find the name if you need. I normally write articles in notepad, however lately due to a discussion on the policy proposal page, I have decided to allow the edit count to flow. I have been informed that it can be seen as important to some. If you have questions, you can ask me directly. This way it prevents this odd situation where people are whispering in plain sight. --I Write Stuff (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The points made by Merzbow are striking. Right now I do not think I have the time to help look into the details due to others tasks like the Giovanni33 RfA. But I agree with the general suggestions made by both Bigtimepeace and Merzbow.Ultramarine (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I must eventually chime in, I pick the names depending on what the majority of sources are, for instance most articles from websites are thanks to the Associated Press, so they lack author names, and are tagged if I am dealing with multiples, as Times1, Times2, etc. If for instance the majority of sources are books, I use AuthorYear as a format, you can see an example: Arturo Lona Reyes. Someone provided me with a code to add to a section of my preferences, it created a "cite" box at the end of the normal edit box, I can try to find the name if you need. I normally write articles in notepad, however lately due to a discussion on the policy proposal page, I have decided to allow the edit count to flow. I have been informed that it can be seen as important to some. If you have questions, you can ask me directly. This way it prevents this odd situation where people are whispering in plain sight. --I Write Stuff (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, he denied being Seven on his talk-page. I looked at how they create articles, they do it in a very similar way - articles are born fully-formed, and scrupulously formatted, with multiple references to the same source always numbered like "Times1", "Times2", etc., among other similarities. Is there a tool which people use to facilitate the creation of articles that generates them in this way? Because that's the only benign explanation I can see. - Merzbow (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it really is him and he is willing to admit it, I wouldn't argue against just a topic ban against the articles that perennially get him into trouble. I will point him to this section and highly suggest that, if so, he email an admin asking for terms instead of forcing us to do the entire song and dance again, with the inevitable result. - Merzbow (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ultra, I've added my evidence. I focused on edit timelines and linguistic tell-tales. Per your statement, it looks like you're going to focus on drawing the big picture - discussing account creation times, shared articles/POV, RFCU results, etc. (If you can, throw in a comparison to how Gio managed his previous farm of sockpuppets as well). Also, I didn't mention the bits of linguistic evidence already in your statement; hopefully you can find even more that my eyes missed. - Merzbow (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I got your message. I wonder, is it even possible for an editor to edit in peace here, anymore? Everytime I take a break, I come back to see more time wasting *&%%$# innane wiki-drama. Sheesh. This is a big waste of time. Wikipedia is seriously getting off-track. Maybe we need to borrow that legal principle double jeopardy: editors can not be tried multiple times for the same alleged offense (same sock puppetry charges). At least until there are new FACTS. From what I read there is nothing new. I've done nothing new. So why can't I be just left alone to prove myself? Don't you have better things to do, like write articles? This is not worth the trouble. I might as well go back to just using my dyanmic IP address. At least I had some peace then.Supergreenred (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)