Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 25 April 2005

Election irregularities

Thank you for your anti-vandalism of the 2004 Election Irregularities issue. (not sure if this is the correct forum for this). -- RyanFreisling

random suggestion, consensus is always easier in small groups than large. Want to discuss the article? FT2 02:40, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

It should be a hand. Someone is vandalizing the picture. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Zen - being new, I'm not certain whether or not I should be posting this. However, I'm going to fall back on the "I didn't know" excuse. I appreciate your arguments on the issue of the 2004 election controversy article. I agree also that I find the article remarkably unbiased, given the subject matter. This has been a great forum for me as I maintain a blog that simply tracks mainstream media press coverage on this issue. I reference Misplaced Pages frequently on my blog, as it provides me with great additive information. Just wanted to say that. RenaRF 17:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"electronic voting machines are actually not the root of the controversy, please stop saying that. They are just one part of the controversy from exit poll data disrepancies to registration percentage vs results. There are even plenty of non-electronic voting machines utilized in areas with suspicious results" - ZenMaster

Sorry if you got the impression I was saying that. I didnt think I was.

Quick summary where Im at: The underlying concern of individuals (those who feel there is an issue) is something like "Did the election results match the voting intentions of those who sought to vote?" The issue of the article is then "Show the evidence pertaioning to this". I haven't myself emphasised voting machines, although I've listed evidence related to them. My original write of the article showed this perspective. However there seems to be a consensus that voting machines are a big part of it. Every kind of evidence deserves its place. If I've excluded other kinds, then I take that back, it wasn't intentional.

By the way do you and maybe a couple of others working on this article want to meet on say wiki IRC, to discuss it, so we can try and mutually agree a consensus on its progress? FT2 00:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

If you continue to revert the article in an attempt to re-introduce unverifiable data, you will be held responsible for that data. If you can come up with a good source for it, you can replace it. The burden is on you. -- Netoholic @ 06:36, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

:Stop now. -- Netoholic @ 07:13, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Zen-master, I see you posted to my user talk page that you want help finding the NPOV stuff in the election irregularities article. You also said that if I'd look through the history I'd find that claims that changes to make the article less POVy were reverted were false. As a matter of fact, I have looked at the history and your claims are false. The page is controlled by an organized group of very biased people who go in and resist every change to try to make it even slightly neutral and encyclopedic in nature. Various people say they welcome comments but then completely ignore them and insult the intelligence of people who disagree with them. Specifically, User:Kevin baas should completely be taken off the article as a ringleader of obvious over the top political activism, and many others need to take a step back and really think if this can in any way be considered an objective description of the issue. DreamGuy 13:17, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Help request

Biblical inconsistencies is currently a messy list. Could you help tidy it up (it is huge)?

It will probably need to be cut into sections (e.g. by part of bible) and each section moved to a new page.CheeseDreams 00:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was more wanting help with readability and NPOV issues, rather than content. CheeseDreams 01:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That new section is a completely personal attack on your part, and I ask that you remove it in the interest of cooperation. Flaming me does not make any difference to the validity of your pet article. -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Sorry, edit clash on the VfD oage, hope I didnt screw up anything you did when I fixed it, I know the text's OK. FT2 06:33, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting

I did some calculations and found something interesting. Check out the last para in . Kevin Baas | talk 01:25, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

IRC when around :) FT2 23:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

I added a link in which Lynch argues that the Hubbert model is totally and completely wrong. Roadrunner 03:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason Hubbert's peak didn't happen was because of the input data, not because of the model,

That's a controversial point. Campbell argues this, but there isn't a consensus in the industry that this is the case.

I believe you may be missing the point. No one is disputing the overall hubbert model (the article of Lynch's you cited only takes issue with Hubbert's belief the model would look like a bell curve, it doesn't have to.

Actually Lynch does. He disputes the entire concept of peak oil.

The article is titled "Hubbert peak" not "hubbert curve" or "hubbert model" for this reason I believe. One main point of hubbert's model is that oil prediction will peak (again "peak" is the title of the article). Lynch is not arguing there will be no peak (oil is finite), just that the peak will be delayed.

Actually, he does believe that the peak is not due to the finite nature of oil. His belief is that oil production is going to be limited by economic effects and limits due to impact on the environment (i.e. greenhouse gases) long before the world physically runs out of oil. (Which is what he said when someone asked him about this.)

So be careful when you claim Hubbert's model is worthless because some might construe you as saying there will be no oil peak at all, which I believe Lynch would agree is very false.

In talking about what Lynch believes, I think I have the advantage that I've actually heard him speak. Also I should point out that I was once employed by a major petroleum corporation to program software for petroleum exploration (which is where I heard Lynch talk). Roadrunner 04:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I heard him speak in 1999 in Austin. Also, I think the burden of proof is to find something from Lynch in 2004 that argues that he has changed his mind. Also, politicians say a lot of stupid things about oil. As far as consensus, the USGS WPA Surveys, the IEA surveys are pretty much the closest thing that you have to consensus and they argue for a peak well after 2050 to 2060. Roadrunner 04:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Zen Master 04:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you asked. Here is a presentation that Lynch gave at the Society of Petroleum Engineers in September 2004

http://www.spe.org/specma/binary/files/2980156ATCE04Lynch.pdf

Here is another link

http://www.webcasting.com/houston/

The point of this is that the idea of a peak oil curve is *NOT* a settled issue in the industry. Roadrunner 04:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner 04:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1) Oil reserve estimates don't change that quickly. In the 9/2004 presentation which I referenced, Lynch specifically talks about the Saudi situation.

2) China and India growth has been factored into the demand estimates that ExxonMobil makes.

3) You are only seeing half of the debate, and not noticing that there is another side. One point that Lynch makes is that the chicken littles of the world are louder, but that doesn't mean that they are the consensus or that they are correct.

The fact that the SPE this debate as the first session in its annual convention suggests that the issue is not settled. There are fairly large numbers of experts in the field who think that technology will save us, and there are those that think that they won't.

I have no objection to stating both sides, but I strongly object to the implication that the idea of peak oil is without controversial or that the matter is settled. It just isn't so.

Roadrunner 04:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with GWB intro

Please help.

On the George W. Bush article there is a dispute that you might be interested in. Kevin Baas | talk 18:48, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

I still have some problems with the text underneath, but those aren't as serious as the intro. By the way, do you have any objections to renaming the article to "oil peak" rather than Hubbert peak.? Roadrunner 19:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request IRC chat

I am requesting IRC chat on #wikipedia. Kevin Baas | talk 23:13, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Stop the harassment. I'm not asking you again.

You've been trying to provoke me into talking to you both here and on IRC since the original issue started. Stop. I'm not asking you again. I don't have to prove or defend anything and especially not to you.

Any further inflammatory comments you make on my talk page will be promptly deleted. This is your warning. Reene 23:43, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Note: I responded on Reene's talk page with the following comment, she removed it 3 mins later with the change log description that my comment below was "inflamatory" which, in my opinion, almost proves she is uninterested in cleaning up a glaring error she possibly made in a VfD discussion. Since she had removed my comment from her talk page I will stop posting on her talk page since I am ok if she ignores my counter arguments:

Comments including a deleted one from Reene's user talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Reene&oldid=8194944

FYI, I just posted the folling on the parent election controversies VfD page in response to a comment you made:

"Also, Reene's claim against the previous vote as being "overwhelming" only if you include invalid user's votes is provable to be incorrect from just looking at the previous VfD page I believe. The vote 2 weeks ago was 61+ valid users that voted to keep, and ~6 voted to delete. 10 to 1 is certainly overwhelming in my opinion. Perhaps Reene is claiming the admin that counted the votes when this article was listed for VfD 2 weeks ago errantly included invalid user's votes? I think the previous VfD page proves her claim wrong, and I request that Reene defend or withdraw it. zen master 23:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

So please defend your claim the previous VfD vote was not overwhelming because of invalid user's votes, or withdraw it. zen master 23:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've been trying to provoke me into talking to you both here and on IRC since the original issue started. Stop. I'm not asking you again. I don't have to prove or defend anything. This is borderlining on harassment and if you don't stop I'll be asking someone to have a word with you about it. Reene✎ 23:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Asking you to defend or rectify a potential mistake you made in a discussion is not harassment. You certainly do not have to accept my challenge, that is your right, and am ok with that decision of yours. As a courtesy I was just making sure you were aware that I may have found a problem with a point you made in the VfD discussion, that is all. Again, you certainly can choose to ignore my counter point(s). zen master 23:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

zen master 00:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

clint affidat

Someone else posted it on current events, so I copied it to election controversy. Kevin Baas | talk 17:15, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

69.199.71.45 listed it on current events. Bev Harris doesn't like the story. I put some faith in it: he did sign an affidat. What else happened? The story is significant enough alone, as it is indicative of an ethical culture and therefore the probability of fraud, which some people have yet to be disillusioned about it. Kevin Baas | talk 19:44, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the non-conventional oil cleanup. I had something come up and had to drop pruning the article. The end result would have been the same. Thanks Amadeust 01:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

I reworded the listing. Apparently the election controversies article was much more controversial than I imagined. ] 07:13, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert peak

Would you be so kind as to discuss the problems on the talk page and stop the revert war? David.Monniaux 19:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as "revert war" goes it was the other party that ignored discussion (and logic), info was "moved" to a new article but then edit quality immediately decreased, seemed suspicious to me. I presented a strong case for moving it back (without deleting the new article) but the revert war ensued without discussion. Since then we've achieved either a semblance of consensus or at least civility on the talk page, one sub section will be removed with relevant info being placed elsewhere, and a new distinction proposal has been made regarding the scope of the two articles in question (the two article currently contain the same redundant info, but each approaches the issue from a different perspective or POV even). zen master 05:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC Netoholic 2

Hi zen master, Netoholic has challenged your verification of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Netoholic 2. Would you be so kind as to post the diffs of your conflict with Netoholic? Thanks. Vacuum c 02:53, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic is threatening deletion of the RfC, while lots of users wish to keep the RfC for reference purposes. I would be very grateful if you could post those diffs. Thanks. Vacuum c 02:00, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi zen master,

I removed the RFC on request by Netoholic because it showed that after 48 hours only one person had tried to resolve this issue. I had removed my own certification and removed my evidence of attempting to resolve because I've been talking to Netoholic directly about the whole issue. Sorry if the comments/contributions were lost, but many (not all) RFCs do get deleted after 48 hours if certification and dispute resolution has not occurred, and they most certainly get deleted if the user being complained about wants it deleted.

If you want to ammend a policy, there are other ways of going about it.

Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The crazy one

Hello, I am the crazy one who came up with the voting system at the bottom of Talk:Hubbert Peak, but I would like you to know, I have created a project page, which will eventually be renamed. That said, I invite you and others to join the project and begin editing the page, I started the page, but there has to be active discussion about the contents There still are the talk pages, to-do list, review board pages, and forums to set up. I invite you to come along and help at: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations. Ignore the inuse sign, thats just a greeting. Since your views on this project run against mine, I especially want your input, because then you can tell me when I am doing something stupid.--] 19:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) <--Have to fix this.

VFD vote

Your vote on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC is based on your misunderstanding. It is not about the RFC against me. Please read the page. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Fine, but your comments refer to a different RFC (" I should also note that the RFC was not closed because of a technicality (I provided evidence)..."). I thought you'd want to correct that. -- Netoholic @ 05:11, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Why do I want them deleted? First of all, RFC has one basic provision - the comments must be certified. Failing that, it means only one person has tried to resolve the complaint to with acceptable effort. That means it should have been relegated to user talk pages, not a wide-open RFC. If we allow people to keep their own copies, it means the "RFC" process losses focus. Imagine if a failed RFC is copied to user space, and the discussion continues. It leads only to an open flame war, which the subject may not be aware of, so cannot defend themself. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment loses cohesion, since RFCs will just be run on individual user pages.

The biggest reason is that today, the process says they are supposed to be deleted. These copies are being kept in bad faith, in defiance of the RFC process and for no reason other than to harass the subjects of the failed RFCs. They are meant to be damaging attacks, not anything helpful. -- Netoholic @ 05:47, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

subpage

I renamed this page as a subpage in your userspace, as opposed to where it was. You can keep it, or mark it for deletion, just didn't want you to lose it. -- Netoholic @ 05:36, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Yes, i made the table

Then make it 0-border. Regarding size, move the bottom sections to their own subarticles. Obviously, the top half of the article is taken care of w/subarticles. The problem is beneath that. I'm moving "2004 presidential election recounts" to "... controversy, recounts and contests" Kevin Baas 00:54, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Oh, and there should be a lead in the main article to this new subarticle. Kevin Baas 01:08, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Sorry Zen! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 03:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi parliamentary election, 2005

What exactly is this silly edit war about? David.Monniaux 17:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

please don't accuse me of vandalism/POV if I have attempted neither. I'd be much obliged if you'd read http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Natalie_Portman - it was an earnest contribution to the article, you doing a better job of it would be more than satisfactory for me. So edit my sentences instead of erasing them please? afterword 03:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Google Inc's deletion

Why do you think that the Google Inc. article should be merged into Google? The company is (and is growing more) indpendent of its main search engine. Google is Google Inc's main product, but they are not one in the same. Also inlcuding both of them together would make the article quite long and difficult to read. I agree that the distinction between them now isn't perfectly clear and that's why there is some overlap, but that doesn't mean we should delete the Google Inc article. Please respond on my talk page. BrokenSegue 23:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Why do you believe criticism cannot be accompanied by violence? - SimonP 21:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE

• Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of the proposal to run away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 18:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq election

My opinions on this are at the article's Talk page. Adam 07:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq election

I personally feel that what people say is not particularly important. Jacques Chriac's politically expedient praise of the election will have as little effect on the world as Gorbachev's somewhat embittered condemnation of it. The al-Queda quotes are of importance as they are less commentary on the election and more information on why parts of the resistance opposed the elections. - SimonP 07:15, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

What impact or effect will Buchanan's statement have? My guess is very little, but if I am wrong and it has an important effect we can then include it. In answer to your second question: if there are credible individuals that claim the election was faked we should definitely include a thorough examination of the evidence they have presented. It is far better to include all the facts and allow our readers to decide for themselves. Quotes telling our readers what they should think are far less useful. - SimonP 08:13, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tom

I took thew liberty of moving your comment on Energy development to the talk page. Keep in mind that a poll is simply a poll, and not a binding vote. In that light, of course the poll means nothing if only you, Ultra, and I give our opinions. (We already know where we stand :-) ). A poll is a concise way to hopefully get more opinions. Tom Haws 06:18, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

You can move the poll to the talk page if you think there is a lot more to be said. Generally, I'm sure you have seen that most people try to limit their "in-poll" comments, though I have indeed seen as you have that a few key lengthy ones are sometimes helpful. Do you think we are not ready for a poll? I can easily envision the poll stretching out into long discussions again. Perhaps you could distill the key points of the reason for your vote and put them back. Tom Haws 06:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Excuse you, that was not vandalism. Cburnett 22:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Date linkage

Actually, if you check your Date format preferences, you will see that the date format layout can include moving the year. No, I didn't notice the header-less discussion that veered into date linkage discussion. I would imagine the best place to propose a change would be at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), with a summary of your proposal, with a link to the full proposal, in the Proposals section of the Village Pump (Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)), for awareness (if there don't seem to be enuf people joining the discussion--ever since the Pump was sectioned I know I, at least, check the bottoms of the various sections much less often than the bottom of the main VP page--you might also request input using an appropriate mailing list). If someone feels there's a better spot for discussion, or knows if there are any previous discussions of the issue that should be referenced, I'm sure they'll adjust/add accordingly. Also, FWIW, using as strong a word as vandalism in reference to a difference of opinion over how many things should be linked doesn't seem particularly civil or constructive, IMHO. Niteowlneils 23:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS I would agree that duplicate links of stand-alone years are probably unnecessary. Niteowlneils 23:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the word "all" doesn't appear in "Dates should be wikified so that each reader sees the dates formatted according to their own preference.", but I don't see anything that implies there are any exceptions, either. I'm not entirely unsympathetic with your point, as I regularly remove duplicate links during newpages patrol and other housekeeping tasks, as well as FAC copyedits, and used to do so with date links until I came across the formatting/prefs argument. Niteowlneils 23:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• she is a Mossad agent... -Mahomet Ismail Hussein

Image:BigChart.gif

This image isn't used in any article, so I marked it for deletion. LeonWhite 18:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 12 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 13:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

resistance vs insurgency

Hi Zen, I think you're referring to the change I made on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article? The reason is that Iraqi resistance itself moved to Iraqi insurgency, for reasons discussed here... Talk:Iraqi_insurgency/Archive_discussion_of_move. There is a fairly broad agreement that insurgency is the better general term, although of course a few people strongly disagree.

preemptively falsified

"Some supporters of CBS and Dan Rather claim that the documents were preemptively falsified by Republicans"

What does "preemptively falsified" mean? From context, I guess you mean some conspiracy theorists claim the documents were created and planted by Republicans, rather than by Democrats. —wwoods 18:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saddam

No, it's not. All it means is that he was rapidly rising up the ranks of the Baath Party. How is this POV? Is there any dispute about this? It's a factual statement with not explicit or implicit bias. Chaebol 19:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ack

Just a brief note to express my appreciation for your efforts to inject a note of rational discourse in the Ward Churchill article. That piece requires eternal vigilance to keep it from becoming a forum for sleazy, drive-by rants, as it was a month or so ago. I try to do my bit but I don't always have the stomach to deal with some of the folks there. All the best. -- Viajero 11:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kelly Martin, regardless of the comments of Viajero, I too appreciate the rational discourse if the focus is an attempt to present the information fairly and not allow it to become a defense of Churchill.-----Keetoowah 15:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Killian

Please don't lecture me. I am not doing what you accuse me of. 216.153.214.94 05:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOI and anti-Semitism

What does that have to do with NOI's statements about Jews? Jayjg 20:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all you'd have to find NOI's criticism of the government of Israel, then you'd have to find a Jewish group which actually responded to them by calling them anti-Semitic. Do you have any any example of that? Jayjg 23:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect; unless the material is quoted in the context it is original research, specifically the section that says it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article You have provided no evidence that Jewish groups have even noticed the statements made by the NOI about Israeli government policies, much less equated them with anti-Semitism. Nor have you provided any evidence for some sort of "context" for the "bloodsuckers" comment; exactly what context do you imagine there is for I don't know all Jews. If you can introduce me to some good Jews and find a good Jew that is not a bloodsucker, I would be happy to meet them.? And the section in question is about the relationship of the NOI with Jews and Christians, so of course it has a paragraph on Christians too. Jayjg 01:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you have mistaken a claim for a fact. Second, you have not cited it. Third, it has nothing to do with the Nation of Islam, or the relationship between the NOI and Jewish groups. One cannot "balance things" by inserting original research on a different topic. Jayjg 02:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you have provided no evidence of that claim, and since the examples themselves used in the related article have nothing to do with criticism of the government of Israel, it makes no sense at all. Jayjg 03:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments are mistaken, against policy, and repetitive. It is your mistaken contention that the lack of the word "allegation" makes an article POV, and Misplaced Pages specifically does not allow the kind of original research you are advocating. As well, I will no longer respond to arguments which have been made and refuted at least twice before; please come up with something new. Jayjg 03:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence for ArbCom

Thanks for confirming that my edit to your evidence was in keeping with your intention. When I want to cite the most recent diff like that, I make a trivial edit such as inserting a superfluous blank line. The diff that I want is then no longer the most recent, so there's a stable link to it. The same is true if you want to link to a particular version of an article. If it's the current version, then the only link you can make (at least as far as my technical skill goes) is one that will take the reader to whatever is then the current version. Here again, the solution is to make a trivial edit. The effect of the edit is that the version you want to link to is no longer the current one; hence, a link to it is stable.

I appreciate your chiming in on the Rex arbitration. It's very helpful in dispelling any misimpression that this proceeding is just my personal vendetta. Szyslak has now added some evidence, too. JamesMLane 05:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Old_Right adding "left wing" to dozens of actors/actresses bio articles?

I've seen those other pages but I just simply thought some people might want to be informed where some of these people stand political upon going to their articles, especially with regard to those celebrities who are very outspoken. -- Old Right 06:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The additions are not at all POV. For many celebrities their political views are a significant part of their fame, especially with regard to such celebrities as Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. -- Old Right 06:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could place the left-wing phrase in different paragraphs of these articles. Hey, I'm genuinely not being POV, just trying to be encyclopedic. I thought that's what Misplaced Pages is all about. -- Old Right 07:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

Thank you, zen master! I appreciate that feedback. SlimVirgin 08:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

hey

hey, thanks for the comments in the arbitration case. Yeah, I am a "hothead." :) RJII 22:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hydrogen fuel

I didn't even notice the page for the hydrogen economy. Therefore I agree with you that it would probably make more sense for you go ahead and do a redirect of the hydrogen fuel page to the hydrogen economy page.

I may at some point then expand a little bit about renewable energies and hydrogen fuel on the economy page since I think it is important for folks to have a better grasp at issues related to hydrogen production. People, especially some environmentalists, like to tote hydrogen as the panacea for all the world's energy problems, however, they either ignore the fact that it takes an extreamly energy-intensive process to separate hydrogen or they may overstate the abilities of known renewables to produce hydrogen on a large scale. Now I am not saying that producing hydrogen using renewables is impossible, I just think that people should be aware that producing significant amounts of it using renewables, and doing this on a scale could make a real dent in the country's consumption of oil for example is by many experts considered impractical. Wikiliki 03:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)Wikiliki

A question

Just out of interest, what do you reakon is going to happen after the oil peak?. G-Man 20:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraq

It was the reference to socialist organisations in the linked page that motivated my edit - and you're right there are some non-socialist opponents but the organised groups are mainly socialist-backed. PMA 04:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response?

Just in case you missed this question from April 10.

If the new page was Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report would the other page titles be OK?--Cberlet 14:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The list of proposed page titles at: Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks

Geothermal as renewable/depletable

I made some changes due to your critique. Ultramarine 20:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why do you consider iraq election protesters to be "idiots" exactly? - reply

Well, what are they protesting exactly? The US? The elections? The US "orchestrating" elections? (just like we did in Germany, France, Japan, Korea, ...) Who would they rather trust with that job anyway, the Saudis? The Iranians? Or perhaps the UN, given the brilliant job it has always done in Iraq and elsewhere? (like Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, ...) Or is it the fact of the elections? And why? Perhaps because it would show exactly how little support the extremists they're secretly rooting for, both Sunni and Shia, really have? If there is anything to protest here, it is the fact that the terrorist insurgency has made normal political campaigning pretty difficult - well, protest the terrorists then - "ballots not bombs" "no to terror, yes to democracy" "zarqawi, let iraqis vote in peace" - I didn't see any slogans like that, did you? The election itself went off admirably well, I don't think there's any serious charges of irregularities. ObsidianOrder 22:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You say "after Germany surrendered the allies lost 0 troops", is not true, nice historical amnesia though ;) A year into the occupation, the insurgency and the "re-nazification" as I believe it was called were very serious concerns, the NY Times even called it a "morass" or words to that effect ("quagmire" not having been invented yet). And yes we were losing troops, but not that many since the Germans were rather more thoroughly defeated. Regarding your election math... nobody really knows the true percentage of ethnic/religious groups in Iraq. It is commonly thought that the ratio is Shia/Sunni/Kurds 65/15/15, but 55/10/25 is certainly possible (and a few percent Chaldeans, Assyrian Christians and others). Second, some areas with a mixed population did not vote due to successful intimidation, lowering the Shia percentage. Third, not all Shia voted for the UIA, the Iraqi List did well in some Shia areas. So, as a scenario to try, suppose 60% of Shia, 10% of Sunnis and 90% of Kurds voted, and the Shia vote split 75%/25% UIA/Iraqi List... a very simplified model, but you see how it can work, it already produces results close to the real ones. Also remember that the partial-seat votes are reallocated in a way that favors the smaller parties. This doesn't matter though, since the important stuff requires 2/3 majority, not 1/2. It wouldn't make any sense to fudge the results, really. ObsidianOrder 01:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"the Iraqi elections would at least seem more valid without an occupying force overseeing the situation" - I disagree vehemently. You have to look at the intentions and "trajectory". We may be an occupying force, but we are working pretty hard to build up a strong independent Iraq that can stand on its own. Sadr's militia was also an occupying force in Najaf and Karbala, and the various native and foreign insurgent groups were an occupying force in Fallujah while it lasted. Neither has absolutely any interest in holding elections, and both were really brutal towards the locals. If they held elections (as a fig leaf, probably just in their own area of control) those elections would be about as fair as the ones in Zimbabwe (i.e. not at all). A sufficiently powerful Iraqi force which is loyal to the idea of a democratic and free Iraq and which can counter them doesn't exist yet (although it is coming along nicely) so we have to fill in. Our premature pullout will result in the following most likely scenario: a few ING/New Army units hold portions of Baghdad, the Mahdi army and Badr militia duke it out in the south (Najaf/Karbala/Basra), the Mahdi Army and Sunni tribes duke it out in Baghdad, Sunni tribal warlords and Al-Qaeda groups control patches of the Sunni triangle, and Kurdish militia and Sunni groups duke it out in Mosul and Kirkuk. The neighbours are not exactly idle either: Turkey sends troops to "defend itself" against the Kurds, Syria sends troops to "help" the Sunnis and Iran sends in troops to "help" the Mahdi Army in the south. A bloodbath worse than Somalia results. Would you really like to see that? If you think if we pulled out prematurely the violence would magically stop and fair elections would be held under the eye of a few thousand UN troops, you're dreaming. A US occupation (which is not all roses) is nonetheless an improvement to many so-called governments, and of course what we're trying to do makes all the difference. ObsidianOrder 02:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. yes it's from DS9.

"banned weapons" - WP is not banned, it is an effective incendiary and obscurant .

"100,000+" - Lancet study, I assume? first, this is not the claimed number of deaths directly caused by US troops, and certainly not the number that US troops can be held responsible for. second, it is not a count of civilian deaths, since all military and ununiformed combatant deaths would be included. third, you'll permit me to doubt their analysis of the numbers. obviously, they do not have enough data for a workable estimate (between 8000 and 192000, yeah right). even if you accept the after-war data in the study as gospel and extrapolate from it, looking at violent deaths only, you get 25000-28000 combatants (in uniform or not) killed by US troops, 5000 civilians killed by US troops, 7000 killed by insurgents, and 25000 killed in criminal violence (a lot of which may be politically motivated as well). this is in line with (although on the upper end of) most other studies. "equivalent to the brutality"? well, you don't measure it that way, the intent matters, both in law and in moral judgement. nonetheless I'd say that it is quite likely we have killed substantially fewer people who didn't deserve it than the insurgents have. (also remember that the Russians managed to kill ~25000 civilians just in the siege of Grozny, a city the size of Fallujah; the usual ratio in war is 3-5 civilians killed for every combatant, whereas our ratio is 5-10 to 1 the other way).

"in Iraq for the oil"? hmm, you tell me, how many years of oil production will repay our costs? even if we could somehow skim that money, which by the way is going to pay the salaries of everyone working for the iraqi government now? assume a reasonable profit margin. if that is what we wanted, I fail to see why we couldn't simply buy it from Saddam, just like we buy it from the Saudis. there is every indication he would have been willing to deal.

"people have a right to protest"? of course, and I have a right to call them idiots.

regarding the comparison with Germany... read Werewolf! The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement 1944-1946. There was a fair guerilla war going for a while, I don't have a total number of casualties but it was roughly 40 in the first couple of months. Bear in mind the Germans simply didn't have many able-bodied men left, and also that the US on numerous occasions completely levelled with artillery any towns which housed enemy troops. Also, 5.7 million civilians died in Germany after the surrender from a combination of crime, disease, starvation and exposure (basically a total breakdown of society), which thankfully did not happen in Iraq due to our outstanding efforts. The tone in the papers from that time seems familiar . While there are similarities, there are also huge differences: the Nazis prepared a guerilla resistance hastily, whereas it appears that this was the primary Iraqi war plan , laid down in advance, complete with meticulous dispersal of weapons caches and evacuation of funds and top leadership cadres. the Nazis did not have a sanctuary to operate from, while the insurgents have two (Syria and Iran). finally, the charismatic leader that the Nazis fought for, and in some sense the idea (of the master race), were dead, while the islamist fundamentalist idea appears alive and well despite the massive defeats they have suffered. ObsidianOrder 04:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

let me throw my two cents in - i don't know any of the specifics behind said protests or the criticisms of them, but i can think of two relevant philosophical concepts: 1. "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed" (pro-democracy), 2. self-sovierngty & self-determination: the people of a soviergn nation have the right to erect whatever form of government they chose, whether they prefer democracy or theocracy, or what have you. this is not just there as a theory of human rights, but as a practical consideration - what is feasible and what is not, from a historical, economic, and cultural perspective. for instance, if their economy is based on a single resource (such as oil), it will have a strong tendency to centralize, which will tend to lead to an oligarchy, regardless of what measures are in place, short of a strong and constant military presence. things like that will have a strong pull on the evolution of a civilization, including its form of government. you can't just stop the wheel and turn it the other way with brute force. You've got to examine the system and discover it's dynamics, and work with those dynamics to make change. whoa, this point got kinda long. point was: right of self-sovierngty & self-determination Kevin Baas 01:50, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Ward Churchill / Fred Bauder

While discussing Ward Churchill recently on his personal talk page, Fred Bauder said this: "However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory".. I am part Native American (Mi'kmaq aka Micmac), most certainly more so than Mr. Churchill and I don't like to be judged by my appearance. I think Bauder's comments are offensive racial stereotyping. I think he ought to apologize and have basically said as much on his talk page. What do you think? Rex071404 08:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

raq election quoting

You misjudge my intentions if you read them "criticisms require quotations". The issue is more about using excerpts of quotes directly, specifically the term "orchestrating". That term is a pretty strong term with negative connotations and if it is to be used in place of a word like "administer" with neutral connotations, then it should be clear that the line is from a quote taken from a source directly. Similarly, if a claim was made from officials that the election was "a grand experiment in democracy" or something along those lines, they would need to be quoted as well. --Bletch 13:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Killian documents

Please be advised, I intend to create a sub-page off my user page and therein document your continued, non-discussed reverts of my good-faith edits here - especially those where you label me "POV". When the page is up, I will supply a link to you. If and when I feel that I have enough proof, if you have not desisted from your unilateral non-dialoged reverts, I will seek assistance from various Admins regarding you. Rex071404 21:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi...I don't think my edits really justified reversion, but see the talk page and please engage in discussion over it. My version is more factually based and in better chronological order than the previous, as well as making the major contribution of removing POV conspiracy theory from the opening paragraph without denying that Democrats have a valid view of the issues raised by the (probably fake) memos. Please reconsider your revert. Kaisershatner 20:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Sorry, misplaced my comment in the wrong section. Kaisershatner 20:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words (I reposted to the killian talk page because I had replied to you there). Let's try to focus on objective facts rather than our differing interpretations of the facts, we'll make more progress that way. Kaisershatner 21:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

say what?

Howdy, just a question about your comment editing iTunes. I'm not disputing the sentence, I think it's fine, but where do you see that Linux's market share is higher than Mac's? I've read a lot of articles stating that Linux will overtake Apple for 2nd OS by market share by the end of the year, but I haven't seen any numbers indicating that this has happened yet. Do you have a source for that? A Wired article from last August has Apple still at No. 2. If you have newer information I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem with the line staying in the article, I was just surprised by the edit summary. I've heard so much buzz about how Linux is supposed to overtake Apple, and I was worried that it had happened and I had somehow missed the whole thing. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Make your case on the talk page. I imagine that some compromise can be reached there first that can accomodate both parties. Be careful with the article content though, as I will have to enforce the WP:3RR if people keep editing the article without discussion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting without explaining why

I note others have already told you not to unilaterally revert their work. I don't really care if you do or not but don't expect to win me over with your lack of persuasion! I agree with those who have expressed concerns about the integrity of an article that misses the obvious:

• Ward Churchill is a rich white guy of privilege
• He made some incredibly hateful remarks about the victims of 9/11, including the cleaners, the bankers, the taxi drivers, the fire fighters who were murdered that day.
• He is a plagiarist.

Any attempt to cleanse the article of these undisputed facts will be contested. Johnnyio 21:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WC article

Hi, FWIW: by the similarity of the edits to Ward Churchill this evening, it looks like Johnnyvio is a sockpuppet of Carlshooters. I reverted the latter a number of times this evening, and it looks like you are having to do the same to him under his new user name. Good luck with it. I am off until tomorrow. -- Viajero 21:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Johnnyio

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Carlshooters

-- Viajero 21:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Churchill changes

Hi, I replied at Talk:Ward Churchill. I do think the claim that he's not Native American needs a mention in the second paragraph, because it was very part of the follow-on controversies that came after the initial essay controversy, and it's definitely in the context of Churchill's opponents wishing to discredit him, tying in closely with allegations of academic fraud. So it does really need a mention there (in the second paragraph) to put it in its proper contenxt, I think. -- Curps 22:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Curps, for proving my point. The issue about WC's ethnicity is relavant to American Indian people but it is NOT relavant to you. You make it clear in this post that you simply believe that Indian people are complaining about WC fake Indian pose because they are "opponents wishing to discredit him." You have made it very clear that you have a deep and complete bias. You completely ignore that fact that American Indian people have been complaining about WC's fake Indian fraud for 30 years.-----Keetoowah 22:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article says Churchill is co-chair of American Indian Movement of Colorado. This suggests that some Native Americans, at least, do accept his claims. I don't think any one person, including yourself, represents American Indian or Native American viewpoints on Churchill; I'm doubt there is any single viewpoint. The controversy over his ethnic origin, like the controversy over academic fraud and plagiarism, is one of the controversies that surfaced in the wake of the large publicity over the essay, that's all. That's the context it ought to be presented in, describing the way the controversies unfolded. Please stop trying to find bias everywhere... everyone involved in this article seems to have some sort of siege mentality, looking for enemies everwhere. -- Curps 22:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added a bit of detail about what the essay controversy was about, and maybe addressed your redundancy issue. See Ward Churchill/Temp, I'll edit there instead of changing the main article. -- Curps 22:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: your comments on my talk page. I think saying "those killed weren't innocent victims" is a pretty fair one-line summary of what he said, not at all out of context or misleading, and summarizes why some took exception to his remarks. Yes, he does go into detail about why he thinks they weren't innocent victims; on the other hand, he uses fairly inflammatory language in doing so, which some others would wish to add to the intro. Throwing both of those things into the intro would be a bit much... really the entire rest of the article is about this. -- Curps 23:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi elections

Hi, I read through the talk page and found the general tenor deeply troubling, confirming many of the things you said to me. The article as it now stands, gives no impression that the elections were at any way controversial, the comment by Ritter notwithstanding. Also, I found the intro particularly weak, and, as you will see, I just rewrote the opening paragraphs to at least present urgently-needed context. But the larger problems remain. All the best. -- Viajero 13:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

iTunes

I just wanted to let you know about my removal of iTunes compatibility from iTunes. Since I could not get a reply from you, I have to assume that you agree with me or you leave the issue to me. Please just make your position clear at the talkpage. I am still happy to debate on the issue. -- Taku 20:40, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Japanese textbook demonstrations in China

Exactly the right direction - that may be better, though whitewashing is the central issue. I dont know exactly what it should be called. See talk page. -SV|t|add

Agreed and I support your title - but gov should be lowercase, and Japanese should just be Japan. You move it or should I? -SV|t|add 21:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. Prefer proper and awkward than improper and elegant. May change my view later in the day, though. -SV|t|add 21:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Killian documents

Kaisershatner has a talk: page full of issues with the version you prefer; you haven't dealt with any of them that I can tell. Jayjg 02:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV?

I assume POV means point of view which means biased.

My suggested draft is designed to include the main facts, which I guess do make him look more controversial than the average tweed wearing prof. I have been most honest about my bias, which is very strongly in his favor on the question of defending his right to say practically anything, except for racist or sexist statements. That's the whole point of tenure and that's important. But he also faces charges that go beyond his views and that should be acknowledged as well. As should th counter view (which I also suspect is true) that he's being investigated about the plagiarism etc. only because of his controversial views. The issue isn't whether the introduction should be +ve or -ve it's that the most pertinent information should be summarized at the start of what is a very long article. I don't have time to edit that down and suspect others would resist such a move. The question I have I guess is why do you want the material that makes him interesting and topical removed? No one has answered that question so far. TonyMarvin 08:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you like the slimline version? I prefer as it was but I took your advice about DeLay and thought it not a bad model. TonyMarvin 05:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

W.C. redux

Hi, I have removed most of TonyMarvin a.k.a. AcademicIntegrity's ill-informed changes to the Ward Churchill draft. What do you think of the intro now? If you want to add anything, go ahead, but if it creeps back up to three paragraphs, then it is probably too long. -- Viajero 13:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The way that you Viajero and zenMaster talk to each other it is clear that you both have an agenda and you are going to ignore and crush anyone that disagrees with you. This is an example of what is wrong with Misplaced Pages. You folks (Viajero and zenMaster) are poster children for the short-comings of Misplaced Pages. Neither one of you give a flying flip what those around you think, you talk among yourself and you make only the changes that you want to see. The style of both of you is not concensus, it is dominance.-----Keetoowah 20:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful when you tweak HTML codes; I found your changes made things worse. Browsers can all handle the <b> tag; I wouldn't worry about that kind of thing. -- Viajero 15:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Completely fixed the impossibly tiny font problems for me, what browser are you using? I am using Firefox on Linux. What is broken for you? 15:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, Firefox under Linux. I didn't study the problem closely but it looked like </sup> tags got deleted. -- Viajero 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "native american" is to be preferred, I don't know. But at least acknowledge Chip's comment on the Talk page and say you disagree with him, otherwise it looks like you aren't paying attention to the discussion there.-- Viajero 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make wholesale deletions of my work on the WC article without explaining yourself. If you persist I will ask for the article to be protected again which would be disappointing I think. TonyMarvin 02:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should explain the reasons for your changes, as I repeatedly have. Referring to past discussions and other articles does not justify leaving factually incorrect information in the article. Nor does it justify editing out highly relevant material. Very disappointing. TonyMarvin 02:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am happy with it as it is but am willing to discuss, of course. That was the whole reason I was distressed by what you were doing which seemed most counter-productive. It took me a while to formulate a good summary of his controversial views. I think that should stay and is a much better summary than the Eichmann reference for example. I doubt you'll agree but am hopeful others might. TonyMarvin 05:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"lacks context nor good prose", if being critical of prose best to be careful of one's own. ;-) TonyMarvin 05:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

I agree that TonyMarvin's recent edits appear to have the intention to introduce a strong POV bent into the introduction to the article, which is why I have reverted them. I (along with several other neutral parties) will continue to monitor this article for inappropriate edits from either side of the aisle. Kelly Martin 06:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Greeting from a sock puppet

I don't appreciate your ugly tone in the Invasion of Iraq article. Be calmer and raise your concerns in understandable language. I speak six so try whichever you feel most comfortable in. UDoN't!wAn* 00:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Don't interrupt the major edit though.

"ugly tone"? Ha! You are a confirmed sock puppet making obvious POV vandalism on numerous articles. zen master T 00:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Dbraceyrules

I don't know why House of Blues bothers you, Zen, but I have had a real spat with DreamGuy. I suggest that HouseofBlues immediately starts vandalizing him instead of you. Take care.

User:Dbraceyrules

You are banned from editing my talk page, be advised. Zenupassio 04:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You've been blocked again for violating the 3 revert rule. ugen64 04:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eh, just kidding. I unblocked you - those edits were vandalism. My mistake. ugen64 04:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AQSH

Sorry for the unintentional interruption. RFM is just to request admin help anyway, which I happen to be. I saw the title and think its clumsy: Alleged links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is more straightforward, IMHO. SV|t|add 05:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:) SV|t|add 05:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Long term predictions

The WEC scenario did not assume an early peak but that in this particular scenario humans voluntarily would phase out fossil fuels. Of course, an early peak would have a similar effect. The WEC is generally considered a reliable source and this was one of the very few attempts for long term predictions I found. Most organiations do not attempt to forecast longer than at most 2050. The WEC graph is also good since is shows the proportions of energy use since the industrial revolution. Ultramarine 13:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)