User talk:R-41: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:33, 6 February 2012 editDragonflySixtyseven (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators87,909 edits →Oh dear: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:05, 6 February 2012 edit undoCarrite (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,998 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 598:		Line 598:

	Imagine a child who learns that a particular nonsense-word makes the adults very upset and fussy, and so the child uses that word at every opportunity, just for the effect it causes. ] (]) 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)		Imagine a child who learns that a particular nonsense-word makes the adults very upset and fussy, and so the child uses that word at every opportunity, just for the effect it causes. ] (]) 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

			:: R-41— This isn't the first time that Lihaas' "I'm a Nazi" userbox has been the cause of problems. Somebody has blanked the page, which strikes me as a bit extreme in itself. Probably the best thing for now though... But do try to wrap your head around the concept that the dude was attempting to say everything and thereby say nothing about himself with hundreds of userboxes as a political or artistic statement of sorts — and that that user box probably had as little to do with the dude's politics as a sharpied swastika on the shirt of Sid Vicious had to do with his politics (or lack thereof). It was designed to provoke a reaction and you reacted. ] (]) 23:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:05, 6 February 2012

Welcome!

(NOTE: I have recently removed a large amount of material dating back years from this talk page as it now seems irrelevant)

Your contributed article, Republika Srpska (1992–1995)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Republika Srpska (1992–1995). First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Republika Srpska. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Republika Srpska - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. maucho eagle _(c) 23:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated

As a member of WikiProject Countries, I'm seeking your opinion on a possible issue identified at List of sovereign states. If you have some spare moments, please contribute a comment at the Discussion of criteria. Best regards, Nightw 06:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Communist Youth Association of Germany

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Communist Youth Association of Germany requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — Finemann (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SPS-logo-red-background.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SPS-logo-red-background.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nazism

There is an open discussion thread on disruption by Darkstar1st on the article. I and other editors have tried various dispute resolution methods with Darkstar1st who edits disruptively across a range of articles, wasting everyone's time. I suppose that is his hobby. I thought he might be a reincarnation of RJII. It seems the way forward would be to set up an RfC/U, because every other approach has led nowhere. TFD (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you have gone to the WQA noticeboard. I brought the same editor to the noticeboard some time ago and you can read the case here. His recent comments to you seem positively gentlemanly compared with that case, and it went nowhere. Apparently, it only encouraged him to set up new discussion threads about another editor. TFD (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. bodnotbod (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal mediation at Nazism

Hi R-41, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the dispute resolution noticeboard. If it's not too much trouble, would you be willing to comment in the informal mediation thread that I started at Talk:Nazism#Informal mediation? As one of the main contributors to the article, we really need your input to have a good chance of resolving the issues there. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NORN thread on Nazism

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Nazism". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing socialism

This is an interesting article and I think it is good. for the footnotes, you should follow the MOS, where I have for example at Radical Right. Also, while the concept exists, we need to establish its most common name. The source you used was a libertarian text, and they have their own terminology which is not necessarilty shared by the broader academic community. But i cvannot think of another term. There are articles on Tory socialism, red toryism, One Nation conservatism, wets and State Socialism, but they are all specific to individual countries. TFD (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Switching the image on Template:Politics of Libya to a neutral map rather than a disputed flag was an excellent edit-war avoidance strategy. Kudos! LukeSurl 12:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War article: Violence between Popular Front government and UGT versus CNT/FAI

I don't dispute the information you've provided. My problem is that it's, IMO, bloating the infobox. That information could easily be added to the relevant subsections of the Republican faction article - explaining the initial goals of each group and the subsequent confrontations between the Socialist/Communists and Anarchists. 79.78.17.24 (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

show preview button

find it, use it, make the world a better place. hi R, i apologize for the unsolicited advice, you seem like a great person and an asset to wp. your edits come off as a stutter, a machine gun spewing 6-7 bursts of an edit. the edit result is often a well crafted edit or comment, however the process is gumming the works. you are proof-reading in public, your thought process is exposed and the 5 drafts you share destroy the image of a Socratic scribe sharing pearls of wisdom. PS, even though we disagree wildly, i think you are moving the nazi article forward, kudos! Darkstar1st (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazism sources

Hi again R-41. About this post - despite what you might have thought, I do see a constructive use for your post. The authors you mention (Payne, Griffin, Laqueur, and Sternhill) seem like the kind of sources I was asking about in this thread. We have the details for the Payne source, but not the other three. Could you let me know the titles of these? If these sources are neutral, as you say, then determining what they say will be the key to resolving the disputes on the Nazism page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 18:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello R-41, I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article British Fascism in the New Articles list-- The headings and sections seem appropriate. It's always nice to see users contributing to make Misplaced Pages better! Jipinghe (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Three-finger salute

And what, exactly, is your intention with Three-finger salute (Balkans) article? You're trying to connect two completely unrelated gestures, in an apparent original research, or at least a blatant WP:POVFORK. I plan to put it to an AfD. No such user (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well... Yes, I admit I did not assume good faith; seeing this kind of articles triggers some red buttons of mine. Anyway, I can not see the point for this kind of article, so I'm going to afd it. No such user (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Canadian Nazi Party

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Canadian Nazi Party requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Some tips to help you out!

Hi R-41, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Misplaced Pages manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Misplaced Pages prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:R-41/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How references work

Simple references

These require two parts;

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
He likes tea. <ref>  </ref>

b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";

== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:R-41/reftest and try it out.

Named references

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 
Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = ]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there R-41! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you had to create titles for your url links manually, or were using bare urls as references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User page

Hey! I arrived here from the article called "Right-wing socialism", which I have read some months ago, and at that time I found out that it had been written mainly by you. Then, I went to your user page, and I agreed with much of what you said there. Now, I returned to your user page, just for curiosity, and I see you have removed all of the brilliant text you had written there. I don't want to be kind of a meddler, I know it's YOUR user page, but, what happened? aren't you a right-wing socialist anymore? Respects, 190.48.102.76 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, I have never been a right-wing socialist, I am a centre-left social democrat who has historically been a centre-left social liberal. I am generally centre-left, though I am right-leaning on crime - I don't believe in the left-wing idea that repeat offenders can be rehabilitated - I believe they must be contained from inflicting harm on society. I thought that the page with that information I had written was too self-centred.--R-41 (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that either, I'm... well, I guess that I'm the equivalent of a Canadian centre-left social democrat, but I'm argentine, and then I mistrust the words "center-left" and "social-democrat", and I definitly reject the word "social-liberal", for historical and political reasons of my specific country and region, which is Latin America. I suppose that in other parts of the world, mainly in North America, I would be considered a "liberal". But in Argentina, there has never been a distinction between liberals and conservatives: they have always been literally the same thing. The argentine liberals *are* the other countries' conservatives. There have been little men *truly* liberal in the Argentine history, and probably the only well known example is Juan Bautista Alberdi, but only in his last years, or Leandro N. Alem, the founder of the Radical Civic Union, both men from the XIX century. And the argentine social-democrats (i.e. the Argentine Socialist Party), have always played a reactionary and elitist role, unconditionally allying themselves with the Conservatives and going against the interests of the working men, and against history. Thus, I'm a peronist, which I call the *real left* of this country (in contrast with the insignificant, hothead and marginal communist left, and the elitist or middling-class centre-left). And I'm not a left-wing peronist or something like that. I consider that the so-called left-wing peronists of the '70s were deeply wrong in many aspects, and that they violently tried to turn the peronism into something that it would never been. I consider myself a centre-peronist, but I guess that some far-right peronists (they are fewer than what it is often thought) would consider me a "zurdo" (a "commie"). I recognize myself in the tradition of the (so-called) Latin American Populism (that of the '30s, '40s and '50s), which includes people such as Perón, Gualberto Villarroel, Víctor Paz Estenssoro, Getulio Vargas, Jacobo Arbenz, Lázaro Cárdenas, Carlos Ibáñez del Campo and José María Velasco Ibarra. I do so because I consider that Latin American populism was the genuine (and the only effective) response of our poor and oppressed peoples against Imperialism and Oligarchy, looking towards the goals of social justice, economic independence and political sovereignty. Besides, I admire the third-worldist doctrine (especially the Third World Socialism), though I consider that nowdays it has completely lost it's reason of being. I also admire and praise the Welfare State and it's builders, Bismarck and Keynes (I'm kind of a follower of John Stuart Mill's humanist utilitarism, so I don't look at the political orientation or the alleged "intentions" of the statesmen: If it was useful and contributed to the well-being of humanity, then it's OK for me). I don't belive, like marxists, that any attempt of reform is evil as it aims to "perpetuate" the "decadent capitalism". Neither I think that the State is an evil thing expressing the rule of a class over another. On the contrary, I think that, in this times, the State is the real enemy of the bougeoisie, and that it is important to defend the State against the neo-liberal (neo-conservative, in North America) attempt to dismantle it and to destroy it. My country suffered too much from the "Austrian" wave of the '90s. We are hardly beginning to recover from it just now... Well, this was my cover letter. I'm afraid it did go too self-centered, I hope it doesn't bother you. Greetings from Argentina! 190.48.99.247 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I too appreciate the views of John Stuart Mill - he was the bridge between liberalism and democratic socialism. The best modern advocacy of democratic socialism in the English-speaking world that in my opinion is the book The Politics of Feasible Socialism by Robin Archer - I reccomend that you read it - parts of it are freely available on Google Books. Archer precisely and rationally describes the need of positive rights - including economic rights, and uses Mill's views as an example. He ignores the role of farmers however - bad for Canadian socialism because it was originally created by farmers. I don't like the New Left movement that began in the US by middle-class youth with far-left opinions rather than a moderate centre-left truly pan-class class collaborationist movement supported by the working class as Eduard Bernstein supported. I also don't like Third Way - I think it is a sellout to neoliberal ideas of free trade solely for the purpose of ex-labour and ex-social democratic parties attempting to become liberal parties in all but name. I have rejected liberalism as being too limited - even in its pro-social welfare form of social liberalism - it has no real intent of resolving the underlying issues of economic inequity. My opinion on Karl Marx is that he was a brilliant economist who addressed the brutal realities of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism of the Industrial Revolution era: poverty among workers combined with a super-rich bourgeoisie, abusive employer-employee relations, no safety regulations in factories, and child labour. His advocacy of a violent revolution by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie was extremist and uncompromising - as a politician he is a very low-grade extremist with black and white thinking.--R-41 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't find any version of the book available for reading, do you have any link? I agree with you about Marx. Marx did an exhaustive work on the characterization of the Industrial Revoution era. But he was, first of all, a hegelian philosopher, and choiced the proletariate as a content for his fatalist and determinist views on history. He thought that proletarians were going to destroy de bourgeoisie, just because this were the "laws of history". One of the things that I criticize from Marx is his sectarianism (the germ of the endemic sectarianism and atomization within the marxists parties to this day). Marx dedicates much of his most famous works (The German ideology, The thesis on Feuerbach, the Critic on the Gotha program, and parts of the Communist manifesto), not in criticizing the bourgeoise system or in looking for ways to overcome it, but in pedantically disqualifying his own comrades, the different german and european socialist currents of his time. That's why I agree with you 100% when you say he was a severe Black-and-white thinker. That's why I think of socialism more as a vast, diverse family of doctrines, and not from the marxist point of view and strict definition.

I have another question. What do you think about Latin American populism? 190.48.122.90 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if you don't want to talk just tell me, but don't just ignore me, that's bad form. 190.48.122.208 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I have been very busy. I gave you the wrong title for the book, it is Economic Democracy: The Politics of Feasible Socialism , unfortunately it does not have free preview anymore. I am not aware of the nature of Latin Populism, if you could give me a summary I could perhaps give a response, but my response would still be a very ignorant one, as I am not too familiar with it. In general I distrust populism as being similar to nationalism - it has much more to do with emotions and popular frustration than to do with a topic-based and ideologically-based response. For instance, nationalism started out as a left-wing populism of the concept of the "general will" in the French Revolution but devolved into the racist, social Darwinist, and supremacist (or far right) form of nationalism practiced by reactionary Maurrasian nationalists and later fascists. If however Latin American populism has some ideological basis with clear specific grievances and ideas for reform or change, then I'd be more sympathetic to it.--R-41 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don’t worry about that!

And, I’m sorry the book isn’t available anymore. I’ve tried to find it translated to spanish but it seems there isn’t any spanish edition. Anyway…

On Latin American Populism, well, I don’t actually try to convince you, I was just curious about your opinion because I thought that you knew a little more about it, as it is related -to some extent- to your opinions and interests. Maybe the first thing I should tell you is that there is not such a thing as “Latin American populism”. I use that term because it’s the only one to name it, but there has never been a Latin American political school of thought which called itself “Populism”. “Populism” is an imposed name from some academic circles, and brings with it an intrinsical derogatory charge. It actually existed, however, a recognizable phenomenon at a specific time and place, that undoubtedly had many characteristics in common from country to country, and this is what I talk about when I say “Latin American populism”. About the ideological basis of it, I’m not too knowledgeable about how was the thing in other countries, such as Brazil or the northern South American nations. But I do am knowledgeable about my own country, and others like Chile and Bolivia. And let me tell you that, at least in this countries, populism has surely had a clear ideological basis. For example, great intellectuals and social critics such as Arturo Jauretche, Homero Manzi, Raúl Scalabrini Ortiz, and the FORJA group, all of them coming from the Radical Civic Union and the yrigoyenist resistance after the coup of 1930, and who later joined peronism. Also the Revisionists of the ‘30s and ‘40s. Generally, it could be said that all the Generation of 40 was a precedent and an ideological basis for peronism. They carried out an intensive criticism of the oligarchic fraudulent republic (see Infamous Decade), imperialism, british neocolonialism, mental colonialism in the thought of the middle classes, and they embraced industrialist and german historicist economic ideas (for example, Alejandro Bunge). Later, with the emergence of peronism, a current called “National Left” appeared. It originated form a group of trotskysts who decided to support peronism with certain critic distance, and their intellectual contribution was decisive in the later years, for the formation of the national thought.

But, most important than intellectuals preceding or supporting peronism, it is the proper Peronist Doctrine itself, the most clear ideological definition of peronism. The oficial name of the peronist ideology is "Justicialism" (from "social justice"). This ideology is condensed in The Twenty Peronist Truths, and in books such as The Organized Community. The main banners of peronism are Social Justice, Economic Independence and Political Sovereignty. Also the international non-alignment stance, called The Third Position, could be added. The direct origin of peronism can be traced back to the political project of the GOU (United Officers Group), who staged the 1943 revolution (which Perón used to call the "Justicialist Revolution"), of which Perón was eventually appointed Labour Minister. I reccomend you to read this review for more detailed information: http://www.aporrea.org/internacionales/a114591.html.

In Chile and Bolivia the process was similar. It also started with the crisis of the oligarchic laissez-faire repubics, and the emergence of a national and popular thought. In Chile, it was expressed first with the Crisis of Centenary. By the time of the first Centenary (1910), the chilean oligarchy was impregnated of an arrogant optimism (just like the argentine one by the same time). The Westenhofer Report uncovered the real situation of the country's popular classes (compare to the Bialet-Massé Report in Argentina, performed by the same years). In that context, there appeared a group of intellectuals who started to question the real situation of the country. They founded the Nationalist Party, with a program of nationalizations and State intervention in the economy. They can be compared to the argentine FORJA group mentioned above. Just like in the Argentina of 1943 (and this feature can be traced along the whole Latin American "populisms"), the chilean military played a fundamental and progressive role which denotes the penetration of social reformist ideas within the military over the entire continent in those times. In 1924, group of officers bursted into the National Congress, which was in the middle of a session, and made their sabers rattle as a mean of protest to reclaim the sanction of important social laws long delayed by that Congress. Among those officers were Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (future president of Chile in two occasions), and Marmaduke Grove, who would later establish the short lived "Socialist Republic of Chile". This event became known in the history as Saber noise. Ibáñez would be, in his second presidency, a strong ally of Perón, and along with Getulio Vargas, they tried to carry out the ABC political union of the three countries (Argentina, Brazil and Chile), a goal which was only partially achieved, with the signature of the economical union between Argentina and Chile in 1953. The process was interrupted by the coup that lead to the suicide of Getulio Vargas, and the coup that ousted Perón en 1955 (see more here).

Well, I think I made it too long. I will tell you about Bolivia the next time, if you want. I'm sorry that most of the links are in spanish, I hope you can understand them with the help of an online translator. Greetings! 190.48.102.101 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National Fascists (Ireland)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on National Fascists (Ireland) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — Abhishek 03:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic of Kampuchea

I took note of your two-flag concern in People's Republic of Kampuchea and have worked out a solution that is chronologically correct. Now the upper right corner of the box has the flag of the SOC and a redirection towards the section on the SOC period of the republic. The reason I undid your edit was that it looked as if the Democratic Kampuchea flag and link of the upper left corner of the box had preceded the SOC period. - Xufanc (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Arab Ba'ath Party (al-Arsuzi)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Arab Ba'ath Party (al-Arsuzi). First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Arab Ba'ath Party. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Arab Ba'ath Party - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. — Jean Calleo 21:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ba'athist Iraq

That their existed more parties then one in Iraq does not make it a dominant party-state. The definition of a dominant party-state is this "a category of parties/political organizations that have successively won election victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future". There was never held a democratic election in Iraq during Ba'athist rule, elections were not even held from 1968 to 1980. There is a reason for this. Another point, even if their exist more then one party in a state doesn't make that state less one-partyish. China and North Korea has more then one party; China has 9 (i think) and North Korea 3. It doesn't matter that other parties existed if they can't compete in free democratic elections. It's not much better when all those parties are vassals for the ruling party. The same case was in Iraq, all parties that were accepted by the regime became vassals. --TIAYN (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Ba'ath Party forced other organisations to join the front, if they didn't they would be politically exterminated. To say that the Ba'ath Party ruled Iraq through the coaliton government is false. The Ba'ath Party dominated all other parties. Coalition members had to, they did not have a choice, to have pro-Saddam leaders. The Socialist Unity Party of East Germany (they even had a coalition) had a very similar system, it was still a one-party state. The same goes with Poland. A dominant system would mean that other parties then the ruling party have different policies and views on the government's policies. The NPF in Iraq did not have that option. A one-party states means that either their is just one party, or one party that controlls all other parties. --TIAYN (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I must admit, I havn't read the Iraqi ba'athist era constitution (have you? :)?, so you may be correct there. But then again, the supreme office was Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council - that was the office of power, President and Prime MInister was not, however, offices of real power. But i'm willing to accept you're view on the matter seeing I have not read the constitution. --TIAYN (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but the Syrian regime, as current event shows, is not backing away from article 8 of it's consitution: that the Ba'ath Party is "the leading party of society and state". My question is the following, did the Iraqi ba'ath constitution have a similar phrase? --TIAYN (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That I know, ba'athist ideology has the very same problem as communist ideology - they are unable to put their ideas into practice. But again, I'll leave the choice up to you. --TIAYN (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that the regional general secretary was the "boss" over his own region, and that the national command leader was the leader of the ba'athist movement as a whole. Aflaq did not rule the ba'athist Iraq of 1963, he didn't even play a prominent role in it. You made a good point, so yes, just remove the general secretary bit. --TIAYN (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OKay. Question, do you know anything more about ba'ahtist ideology? I've just started working on the article ba'athism, and I need some help. I can't find any sources that discuss any of Aflaq's work, you do however seem to have sources which do. Could you help me with this tiny problem?--TIAYN (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I must say, that's impressive editing on the Marxism-Leninism article. I was planning to work on it, after fixing the State ideology of the Soviet Union article - since that never happened, I never bothered to do anything. But seriously, great work! :) --TIAYN (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD a lead does not need to be referenced: everything that is mentioned in the lead is always referenced in the body of an article. If you had read the article you would have known that none of that was OR. Again a lead does not need to be referenced. --TIAYN (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You do understand that the article ba'athism is about the ideology and not the Ba'ath Party right? Ideologically, the Afleq wrote of the need for establishing a vanguard party. No, the ba'athism should not be transformed into the muddle crap that is the Marxism–Leninism. The Marxism–Leninism is supposed to be about the ideology (meaning theory), but instead focuses on practice. The NKVD was not a component of Marxist-Leninist thought; no Marxist-Leninist book about ideology ever talked about the need of establishing the NKVD or KGB, but still its mention. Instead of discussing the ideology of Marxism–Leninism, the article discusses the practices and decisions of Marxist–Leninist regimes – that's not the topic, that information should be placed in another article - lets say, for example, the History of communism article, or even better articles that actually focuses on that topic. If you want to write about the practices of the Ba'ath Party write on the Ba'ath Party article, however, don't write about Ba'ath Party practices on an article about it's ideology (meaning an article about theory). Differentiate!

Secondly, you've missunderstood, Aflaq was not against dialectical materialism, on the contrary, he considered the discovery of dialectical materialism as one of the biggest breakthroughs in history. The reason why he criticised "materialistic communism" was that marxist and communist alike saw dialectical materialism as the only truth, all other ideas such as,for instance, spirituality were according to them nonesense. Aflaq disagreed with this, he was a spiritual person and believed in nationalism (something communists oppose because it was not materialistic). He was never an anti-communist, but he was against the view that the communists had gotten it all right, and that everybody else were wrong.

Its not a question of if, everything is mentioned in the lead MUST be mentioned in the body. So, for instance, adding information about the non-aligned movement in the lead, but not mentioning it again in the body of the text is not good writing anyway you look at it. --TIAYN (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was way to harsh (as always). We really should negotiate ourselves out of this problem, instead of me acting like a jackass, throughout the process. --TIAYN (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

ARBCOMM

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:HellenicState.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HellenicState.PNG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Romans (ethnic group)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Romans (ethnic group). First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Roman citizenship. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Roman citizenship - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your nice, peaceful and pleasant way of communication, despite different views. That is rare nowadays... All best, man! WhiteWriter 23:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the most important part is that you talked with arguments, so some agreements can be reached. Now we should just search some nice references for the infobox, or find some better wording for those. It is really questionable.. P.S. No barn for a long time? Than i am happy to give it to you, deservedly! :) All best! :) --WhiteWriter 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Border clashes talk

Hello R-41. I figured it would be better to speak on our talk pages rather than continue on the article space. You are a fine editor and I have the highest respect for your contributions, so I hope you don't think I was deliberately promoting animosity. I had only intended to raise an issue about KFOR neutrality and in all fairness, there were other editors - not just you - who advocated that position. You responded, a talk sprung from there.

You're no stranger to politics, that is clear. The problem perhaps both of us have is that we may allow feelings to interfere with the public points we make. This is evident by the way we do slaloms in and out of "official but blatantly false" and "unofficial but unequivocal", or maybe the age-old de jure vs de facto. It's hard to stick to one, I know.

I cannot think of an antonym for "nationalist" other than "unnationalistic" and if we looked at Serbia of the 1990s from that angle, we'll equally find that this too was far from true when indeed it was at the centre of the territorial battles its nation fought. The Socialist Party of Serbia article includes as its ideology Left-wing nationalism which is perhaps the best example to describe the party as we know it. Indeed you and I had been working on that page some years back to arrive at this thought and in no time since have we appeared on opposing sides. So yes it is a type of nationalism, based on left values, and unconventional in the sense of how we know the ideals.

I agree also that the border clashes article needs a lot of work done to it and should not be presented from one side, but so many articles on WP are like that and I have to be honest - I see Serbians negatively misrepresented in some and overvalued in others. My opening comments did have a soapbox effect but then talk pages offer this too easily. On record, KFOR isn't so much neutral or biased but commissioned to work on its mandate whether it suits people or not, so with that, I don't believe the article requires a combat infobox. Of course, there can be direct clashes between KFOR and Serb protestors but if this happens, Albanians can equally be kept out of it because this is merely an internal problem - police force vs citizens, not ethnic group A vs ethnic group B+collabotarors; so I'm not against you on this one.

For someone of your background, your knowledge is excellent. So I hope you don't abandon any of your projects even if some find it hard to detect your objective nature. Best regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

NPA

please discuss content not slandering other editors while claiming you have been slandered. CONTENT is for discussion not attacking other editors on presumption!(Lihaas (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)).

DYK for Ba'athism

On 17 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ba'athism, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the ideology of Ba'athism was developed mostly in Syria by Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and Michel Aflaq, who is considered the founder of Ba'athist thought, as a way to unite the Arab world into one nation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ba'athism.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Kingdom of Alba Longa

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Kingdom of Alba Longa. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Alba Longa. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Alba Longa or any of its already existing subpages. In general, for a topic in classical mythology or ancient history, it 's most often the case that we do have an article already , but not a very good one, and it could use expansion--especially from modern sources--much of our coverage in this area is from old Public Domain sources.

Nomination of Kingdom of Alba Longa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kingdom of Alba Longa is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Alba Longa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Racial policy of Nazi Germany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to Dutch, English and Subhumans

Marxism–Leninism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Hungarian Revolution

Socialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Egoism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Social Market Economy

Hello, the Nordic model has a lot of similarities but it has some differences too. It is a different model. Social Market Economy is a neoliberal idea (though 1940/1950 german neoliberalism was totally different from todays neoliberalism) with a lot of democratic socialist ideas added. --Pass3456 (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ontario flag

Hey, I came across your idea for a new flag of Ontario. Have you ever proposed it anywhere outside of your user page? CüRlyTüRkey_Contribs 21:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Start the User:R-41/my sandbox/Political ideology Misplaced Pages schematic page

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night 06:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R-41. You have new messages at Dipankan001's talk page.
Message added 06:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Night 06:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ba'athism

Hey..... I've just finished my expansion of the Aflaq article (i'm still working on the "Aflaq's thought" section however...) and I'm wondering if you have anything to add. Seeing that you have a couple of books which are out of my reach, It would be nice if you could add any missing information. Ciao. --TIAYN (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

He became a member of the ASBP one time in the 1960s; he even became a member of the National Command according to one of my sources. He was probably considered one of the ba'athist founders, albeit minor, alongside Aflaq and al-Bitar. But the fact is that after the 1966 split, the Syrian-led Ba'ath Party denounced Aflaq and even gave him a death sentence in absentia, and opted to go for only al-Arsuzi, and not Aflaq and al-Bitar. The Iraqi-led Ba'ath Party has opted for Aflaq – none of the sources say anything about the Iraqi-led Ba'ath Party's position on al-Bitar and al-Arsuzi, but seeing that there is no mention of them, I'm guessing them be either no importance or very little. --TIAYN (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need these pages; On the Way of Resurrection and The Battle for One Destiny? I can hardly find any information about the two books, or any other books. Really, what's the point of having two stub articles? The reader will only ask one question; were is the rest? My proposition is this, we merge them, OK? --TIAYN (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I must admt, I still opposs you're plans for the ba'athism article, and I won't like them to be added. As said before (i'm guessing you're planning to the same thing as you did with the marxism-leninism article), you're, for some reason, combing ba'athist theory (thought), with ba'athist practice, and making it seem to be the same thing, which it is not! There's a reason why some people are discussing, let's say, if Joseph Stalin really was a communist, or if North Korea is truly a socialist state. I have no problem with merging sections, making them look tidier, but I don't like you're programme. Of course, I'm not saying I don't want to contribute, cause I do, but I don't like you're layout and you're constant merger of theory and practice into one truth. --TIAYN (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The liberalism article (specifically it's philosophy section), which is a GA, is a good article; maybe we can try to copy its layout? --TIAYN (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Kim Jong-Il marxist-leninist? According to marxism-leninism, the party should be leading the organisation in society, is that the case in North Korea? No, a party congress hasn't been held since 1980, the first meeting of any kind for over 20 years was held in 2010, and that was only to give Kim Jong-Il's son various positions and titles. Another problem is that, of course we don't know for sure, several key organs don't meet any longer for meetings, such as the Politburo and the Central Committee. If this is true, North Korea is a weird example of a one-party state, the party is not very active.... Instead of General Secretary of the WPA being the ultimate seat of power, which it should be according to Marxism-Leninism, the Chairman of the National Defence Commission is the most important office. North Korea resembles a military dictatorship with heraldry tendencies, to call is socialist or even communist is pure nonsense. It doesn't really help either that they've replaced class conflict in the constitution with shogun, meaning the military first. When it gods name did shogun became communistic???? They even dropped communism from the constitution.... You can claim that all existing, and does that existed, have never fully followed marxist thought, but North Korea is the extreme.

When people discuss if Stalin or North Korea really is stalinist, they also discuss if Marxism-Leninism is communistic.... This is my opinion; while communism have proved to be a mess, North Korea should only be considered catastrophe, and nothing more. But this is subjective, but there is also debate on this. I've read several articles, since the death of Kim Jong-il, about such views. I'm not the only one who's holding them....

As for Stalin, I do believe that Stalin was a communist. My proof is simple, he threatened to resign from his post of General Secretary in the wake of the German invasion of the USSR in 1941. Stalin told his comrades that he had literally "fucked up" Lenin's project. The Politburo members, some very keen to see him go, decided to keep him at his post; he was a national symbol, and the person most Soviets knew who was (in that period). --TIAYN (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Another note, when it comes to Marxism-Leninism to be totalitarian, is Mikhail Gorbachev totalitarian??? He introduced pluralism of thought, introduced free elections he, in short, introduced democracy in the Soviet Union. Was Alexander Dubček totalitarian??? No, he tried to reform socialism, trying to make it more democratic. He wanted to introduce checks and balances in the system, he wanted to decentralise control of the system from the Politburo and the General Secretary.. To claim that Marxism-Leninism is totalitarian is false; Gorbachev and Dubček are just two examples, more exists... These people believed in Marxism-Leninism (Gorbachev still does) - only focusing on the totalitarian regime of Stalin, or let's say, North Korea, is completely wrong.. And even claiming that Marxism-Leninism is extremely controversial (even if most readers would easily accept it as a truth, but that's only because they know little of Soviet communism and the USSR). --TIAYN (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling Brezhnev's way of ruling totalitarian is highly controversial - historians such as Robert Service and Archie Brown are content of calling the Soviet Union under his rule authoritarian and highly authoritarian respectively. Its true he reverted some of Khrushchev's reforms, and some of the improvements that were made under Khrushchev were reversed. But a totalitarian regime is by definition a system were one-man rules. Under Brezhnev, in contrast to Khrushchev, there was a collective leadership which functioned - Brezhnev tried to oust Kosygin, the Premier, several times but always failed because the collective leadership always said otherwise. Some criticism was allowed; "constructive criticism" as the authorities called it, was allowed. Another, by the late-1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, newspapers even had articles about the ongoing economic stagnation - this would have been impossible under Stalin. Brezhnev was not totalitarian, and Stalin was never rehabilitated as some people think under his rule. Debate within the system, which had been introduced by Georgy Malenkov, Khrushchev and the collective leadership (which Khrushchev literally destroyed), was retained. Several figures were important Soviet officials were talking about the need of reform under Brezhnev; most notably Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia and Petro Shelest in Ukraine. To say that Brezhnev was totalitarian is totally POV; Brezhnev was one step backward, and one step forward. The rule of the individual was replaced by the rule of the collective under his leadership (not because he wanted to), but liberty was reduced (as you say).

Marxism-Leninism was also not totalitarian in theory, it did foster, by pure coincidence, the first truly totalitarian regime in the world... But that's pure chance... Also, this discussion really depends on what you define as totalitarian and authoritarian; the great majority of leaders in the communist bloc were authoritarian. Again, this is really how you define the words authoritarian and totalitarian, the definition of these terms are disputed, and that should at least be mentioned in the marxism-leninism article......

You're components section is rational in the present size you have it in; the ideology/theory section in the Marxism-Leninism is way to small + its lacking a Soviet perspective, which it should have... This is a Soviet ideology, created by a Soviet dictator, who was the leader of the Soviet Union.... For instance, you should check out, for instance, the Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism; I've never read it, but you obviously should since you're working on the M-L article... In short, if you want to include that other writers think Marxism Leninism was totalitarian fine, but then add a section about the Soviet ideological perspective; the true believers of marxism-leninism believed the CPSU, and the Soviet system in general, to be democratic, not a dictatorship, which many people seem to forget nowadays.... Get the Soviet perspective, and no, its not communistic to get the perspective of the socialist state which created the ideology! --TIAYN (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Social democracy

Hi, friend. I'm not positive we've crossed paths before but find it puzzling if we haven't. I made some massive changes to Social democracy this morning, then afterwards saw on the talk page that it's the subject of a hot content battle, in which you are one of the parties. I don't know if I have nuked your side or the other side, but I hope you give the new, short lead a chance. The 1000 word footnoted original essay that was in place of an authentic lead had to go, in my view. The page STILL has fairly massive content issues, in my view, but I will leave that to you. Sorry if I gored your ox with my changes. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, R-41. Your name has been mentioned in a discussion on my talk page. I consider the thread closed but am letting you know it happened, as a courtesy. Rivertorch (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Response

Are you finished yet? --ChristianHistory (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please see: WP:KETTLE. Good day. --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, R-41. You have new messages at Ian.thomson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Free press

Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Memel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

Hi R-41. I see a discussion has now started concerning the 'satellite state' issue. I hope this will eventually resolve the problem. Perhaps it would be a good idea not to make any further edits to the article on that specific issue until you and the other editors can reach a satisfactory compromise. I have asked the other editor(s) to do the same. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ba'athist iraq?

Is ba'athist iraq supposed to have been a client state of the Soviet Union??? are you kidding me???? Thats just totally ignorant. Just look up the numbers of communists the ba'athist killed.. The Soviet Union had never any control over Iraq's internal policies; never! Al-Bakr, and later Saddam Hussein, were both skeptical of Soviet influence. To say that Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union during the Iran-Iraq war because of arms deals is wrong; Iraq was also supported, massively that is, by the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the list keeps on going. This excessive thing of client and satellite state is a complete waste of time. Read more about the history of ba'athist Iraq before you claim it to be a client state. --TIAYN (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because the Soviet Union seeked allies, does not mean that all allies were client state.... Seriously, the US gave more support to Iraq then the Soviet Union ever did. Secondly, the state lasted until 2003, the Soviet Union lasted to 1991; you can't add such info in the infobox; its like me adding that Cuba was a satellite state of the United States in the infobox in the Cuba article... It may have had influence, yes; but it never had control, not even close.. Relations between Iraq and the Soviet Unions were strained; Brezhnev even stated that he disliked Saddam for killed so many communists. For a client state, the mother state had really little control over the situation. The USSR wasn't even able to end the mass murder of communists; they ended when there was nothing left. One of reason for the USSR supporting Iran, was that relations with Iraq were not good; during Gorbachev, the USSR's relations with Iran was actually better then it was with Iraq! How much have you read, two-three pages from a book? Maybe 10? Learn more before you add something as controversial as that. --TIAYN (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Id rather prefer you learn something, instead of adding shit! The matter of fact is, it was a client state (according to you) during the war; well for how long did the Iraqi ba'ath regime rule? Oh, it ruled until 2003. Wow. When did the USSR collapse, oh, in 1991; thats a gap in 12 years. Wow. You know what I'm gonna do now, say Cuba is still aclient state in the lead. I mean, according to you're logic, thats good editing. --TIAYN (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, but for the sake of arguement, the ba'athist regime lasted until 2003.......... Think. Add it somewhere in the text, but not in the freaking infobox than..... --TIAYN (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Even you are right (which you are not), its still the wrong place to put it..... --TIAYN (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given one, and only, comment which breaches Misplaced Pages guidelines (its the Cuban one). Only one, and you are accusing me of harassment?

The CIA helped bring the ba'athist to power...
In Saddam: His Rise and Fall; The USSr had taken a "dimm view" of the ba'athist regime (p. 82), guess who supported the Kurds, the Soviets did (p. 82), Iraq nurtured relations with the USSR only because it was better than the US (p. 105), they tried to harmonise relations but failed (p. 106-110) Iraq ditched them for France (pp 132-133), killed a dusin of communists, even when soviet protested and sent their ambassador to personally talk to Saddam, more people were killed because of it, Saddam own words; "they

Please, you and I have two very, very different views of what harassment is; do you have a problem with me not agreeing with you???

A History of Iraq The Soviets failed to improve their relations between Damascus and Baghdad, Saddam was paranoid of Soviet influence, and more often than not he would do the opposite of what the Soviets told him; so when the Soviets said, for example, don't kill communists, he killed communists, when the Soviets said, improve relations, he did improve relations; "he was the wilddog of the middle east". The USSR was the only nation who put up an arms embargo against Iraq during the war (at the beginning), the Soviets did not build Iraqs airforce, France did. France also gave them the nuclear reactors (pp. 202-202, p. 207 and pp. 229-231)

More? --TIAYN (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading through the messages that I sent you, and I can't see the swear word. Even so, sorry; you are a negotiator, a true diplomat, I, on the other hand, am an attacker not a negotiator... Again, sorry, I do have a tendency of being to overly aggressive which is a problem - but when I first get caught up in an argument (especially an online argumenter) I have a tendency of being a bit to aggressive :).. I didn't know you had problems in you're personal life, so again, sorry. Happy editing R-41. --TIAYN (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but when referring to Ba'athist Iraq, as you say, the writer (and authors more generally) are referring to the ba'athist ruled Iraq 1968 to 2003 period. + in 1963 was not pure ba'athist (even is someone historian make it sound like it), it was a pan-Arab (nasserists, ba'athists and independent Arab nationalist were members or supported the government). The Arif government was in many ways a continuation of the 1963 Ba'ath government (many ba'athists supported Arif in the power struggle against the ba'ath party in 1963). Its not a clear cut between 1963 and 1968. The counter coup of 1963 can in many ways be likened to the "second revolution of 1968", when the ba'ath party won the power struggle against Naif, the Prime Minister, and Doud, the Minister of Defence. --TIAYN (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Nomination of Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Your contributed article, Strait of Hormuz dispute

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Strait of Hormuz dispute. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Iran-United States relations##Threats_to_close_Persian_Gulf. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Iran-United States relations##Threats_to_close_Persian_Gulf - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

Disambiguation link notification

Pacification of Libya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Take no prisoners

Reich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kingdom

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Free press

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Move it back

The reason for the article on China being called Republic of China (1912–1949) is not to differentiate that period of history from the People's Republic of China, the reason is that the Republic of China government still exists, it was exiled to Taiwain in 1949; the history of China from 1912 to 1949 is Chinese republican history, not Chinese people's republic history - this is not the case in Cuba.... Moving the History of Cuba (1902–1959) article to Republic is thus wrong, because the exiled government has not escaped to another region and established control somewhere else, as was the case in China; the Cuban exiled government hasnt even got any international support.... What I'm saying is this, move it back. --TIAYN (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating anything; but the ROC government is in exile, thats why the ROC (1912-1949) history page is titled "History of the ROC (1912-1949) and not History of China - you moved the Cuba page because, in youre own words,"Title based on the title of the article Republic of China (1912-1949) of the pre-communist Mainland China-based state." I just tried to explain, nicely, why you were wrong. OK? --TIAYN (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Satellite state discussion

Forgive me if I'm barging in unasked, but I really hate that my attempt to pour oil on the waters had no apparent effect. You know what? Andy relates to everyone that way; his username is appropriate enough, and I don't suppose he is singling you out. You're entitled to resent it, of course, but your reaction is a bit over the top. Name-calling is never helpful—it just makes you look bad—and I've seen any number of editors get summarily blocked for less. Why not stick to the high ground? Take a deep breath, count to ten, go do something enjoyable for a while (on- or off-wiki), and when you come back just don't reply to him anymore. Lots of editors are watching the page, and you've made your point about the sourcing. I pretty much agreed with you, but the perfect is all too often the enemy of the good around here, and terrible fights happen because what should be acceptable compromise wording gets rejected out of hand and arguments get personal. Just a thought. Ignore it or blank it if you prefer. Rivertorch (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your treatment of me

I would like you to please quit implying or acting like I'm on ChristianHistory's side. I am not, but as everyone is so ready to play bad-cop with him, he's being given plenty to let believe that he's being persecuted for being "right," instead of being punished for being unacceptably wrong. By being polite, and playing along when he says he makes a mistake, I'm trying to leave him with no excuse and nowhere to logically go except that he was wrong.

At no point did I ever say that we should show remorse for ChristianHistory or that we should show him "mercy", I told him that he should show remorse if he wanted to expect any mercy.

At no point did I ever say or imply he did not accept the site he linked to, and I don't get how you got that impression. I gave him Catholic material identifying Jesus as a Jew and supporting Jews to give him a reason to quit accepting the material from that racist site. When I clarified that, rather than assuming good faith, you responded by asking me about the obscene flag comment, as if I have any view other than disapproval of that action of his. Will you just be open if you're going to accuse me of being an anti-semite? If you bothered to check out the talk page for the guy who reopened this mess, you'll see that I pointed out the Israeli flag mistreatment to him before you pointed it out to me.

Reading WP:AGF and back off of me. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:East Germany

Hi. I understand your enthusiam for wanting to bring the debate to a consensus. However, I deliberately provided the translation as a stand-alone section in order not to make it appear that I was offering an opinion. It no longer has that appearance. Please see WP:TPO. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Austrian nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Christian Social Party

German National Association of Commercial Employees (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anti-liberalism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Who cares??

This is a history artice; its a reason why history articles are titled history of (country) (year-year); For instance, you'll find more hits on the Brezhnev Era than History of the Soviet Union (1964-1982), buts its still labeled history of the soviet union (1964-1982).. Follow the norm, don't you're special and change the rules just because YOU want to (which you do all to often). And yes i'm being rude, so sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

To say it in another way, you're wrong. For instance, see the History of the United States template... Or, for instance, the history of Ireland articles. Most articles follow this naming convention; there is no point in changing this convention because you want to. + there is a problem, the Ba'ath Party ruled Iraq twice, not once. --TIAYN (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Now look at common wikipedia naming procedure for history articles...... Why do I even bother??? I know you wont listen, and you'll just accuse me of being rude, mean and harassing you... This is not up for discussion... + naming convention, that is normal naming convention, does not use the History of (country (year-year) title when it refers to another country or system of rule; Iraq was still a Republic, it was not distinct, as the Kingdom of Iraq is. Nothing radically changed politically under the ba'ath; Iraq was a dictatorship before them, they were ruled by small tribal cliques, who were supported by a constituency and so on.... The only difference between the ba'aths and their predecessors was that the ba'aths were actually able to hold on power for al ong time. --TIAYN (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for Iraq.... it was still a dictatorship ruled by small tribal cliques... Do you actually know anything about Iraq??? First you try to label it a client state of the USSR, and now this?? Come on! --TIAYN (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me??? Because of the previous regime a war nearly broke out! The Ba'ath Party inherited their predecessors problems - christ! Did you actually think that their predecessors cared about the Kurds??? They oppressed them, they took away their liberty, a war nearly broke out during their rule. Several skirmishes and military incurcions against the Kurds took place under the rule of the Arif family. --TIAYN (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

They made concessions, the Ba'ath Party also made some concessions during al-Bakr's rule. Even the Kingdom of Iraq made several concessions with the Kurds and the shia, but that didn't really change the political map. The Shi'a and Kurds were still inferior to the sunnis. The reason why most Kurds hate the Ba'ath regime is because of the Al-Anfal Campaign, and than the Kurdish Civil War in the 1990s, when Iraqi Kurdistan became de facto independent from Saddam's rule. You are right to say that the ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussein, and al-Bakr, were more repressive, but thats not enough to warrant a move to Ba'athist Iraq. Its a minor difference - the political system did not change (there was a new constituency (the Ba'ath Party and their clans), the same ideology (their predecessors were pan-Arab to, but followed the policy Iraq first, just as the Ba'ath Party did, and the same political system was in place; the only difference is that the Ba'ath Party survived for a mucher longer time span than their predecessors). --TIAYN (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The flaq was replaced by a pan-Arab flag in 1963... the ba'ath ruled in 1963 and 1968 to 2003... There is a gap. According to you than, we should make a separate article for the Arif government (which we are not doing) and the Qasim (which we are not doing) because their is not enough information on those eras for separate articles. From 1963-1968, a pan-Arab government ruled Iraq, just as a pan-Arab government ruled Iraq from 1968 to 1991; not even the governing ideology change much. --TIAYN (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That flag was adopted by the Ba'ath, I have no idea why the restored government did not remove it. Serbia retained its communist coat of arms until 2004, long after communism was abolished in Serbia, to suggest that Iraq was committed to Ba'athism under Arif in 1963-1968 because it had that flag is the same as ridiculous as saying that Serbia was committed to communism under Boris Tadic in 2003 because it stil had the communist coat of arms. Nevertheless, the government systems were totally different - one was a military-led government committed to Iraqi civic nationalism, the other was a single party state led by a specific party, the Ba'ath Party that was committed to pan-Arab nationalism.--R-41 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Arif was committed to ba'athism, rather, he was committed to nasserism.

Thats an extremely controversial thing to state; sure, many people probably think so, but many don't... I've never read a book (or an article) which states that Qasim symphatised with the Kurds. + For a guy who supposedly cared for the Kurds, he didn't really do much for them... The point being is this, Qasim collaborated with the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP), and the ICP was the only large non-sectarian party in Iraq in those days - many sunnis, shias and Kurds supported the ICP, and were leading members within it. The ICP's policy of unity amongst people is one of the reasons for Qasim's more, lets say, tolerable policy towards the Kurds. But you should note, nothing else changed; the Kurds were still a minority, and barely notable, in the political landscape - Qasim did nothing to solve this. + The only point you have for moving the History article to Ba'athist Iraq is their treatment of Kurds, which is not enough, considering that nearly nothing else changed internally in Iraq under the ba'ath party (Saddam was more brutal than his predecessors, but thats all). --TIAYN (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The constituency changed (from military to party), but nothing else - it was still a republic ruled by a repressive dictatorship which consisted of a small ethnic ruling clique. --TIAYN (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

He was Iraq's "Lenin" (in some ways), he removed the old and established the new; he had to do something; people had high expectations. Yes, Qasim gave the Kurds autonomy, but so did the monarchy, the Ba'ath Party in 1963, the Arifs, and the Ba'ath Party under Al-bakr and Saddam Hussein during their second rule.. He gave them it de jure, de facto Iraqi Kurdistan was still a province. Of course, we don't know If he would have gone through with his autonomisation of Iraqi Kurdistan if he had the change; Qasim was removed in a violent coup, just as Lenin died when the party needed him most. Just as people discuss if Lenin would have ruled the Soviet Union a different way, some people believe that Qasim actually gave a shit - which may be true. But the problem is that we don't know, and since all the Iraqi regimes from the Kingdom to 2003 have stated that they do care about the Kurds, its difficult to state (or believe for that matter) that Qasim was any different. This is a scholarly discussion, which probably should be included to the Qasim article. But its not a good enough reason to change the name of the history of iraq article to ba'athist iraq because of a theory which scholars cant prove. --TIAYN (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you're point, but there is a big difference. For instance, when Vietnam removed the Khmer Rouge from power, they established a new regime which clearly pursued a different Marxist-Leninist policy. The same can't be said about Iraq; the Ba'ath Party took power criticised Arif government for not upholding pan-Arab believes and for ensuing an Iraqi nationalist policy (the same criticism they levelled against Qasim) - when the Ba'ath Party took power in 1968, the Ba'ath Party quickly reverted to an Iraqi first policy stance (just as Qasim and the Arifs had done). While officially pan-Arab, the Ba'ath regime was led by an Iraqi nationalist leadership. There is a reason for why Saddam always talked about the "great country of Iraq" (he was an Iraqi nationalist). For short, the governing ideology did not change, it stayed the same, but with a different disguise. --TIAYN (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason for Nazi Germany and West Germany and East Germany not being included in one big history article can be explained by their different ideological outlook and practise. Ideologically, Nazi Germany opposed both communism and liberal democracy, East Germany opposed liberal democracy and fascism and West GErmany opposed fascism and communism. Not only were the ideological differences, but also the three different GErmaniies had a different view on organising society. Qasim, the Arifs and the Ba'ath Party were all similar in this view; they all believed in dictatorship, they all ruled their country through a small tribal clique and a constuency (Qasim had a military-party rule, the Arifs a military-party rule dominated by the military and the ba'aths had a party rule which dominated everything else). What I'm trying to say is that there was no ideological break between the Qasim Era and the Ba'ath Era, and the Arifs Era andd the Baath Era - they all believed in more-or-less the same thing, that is, Iraq first. --TIAYN (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats partially wrong - Arifs government were discussing the possibility of establishing a union state between Egypt (led by Nasser) and Iraq.. Pan-Arab governments controlled Iraq from 1963 to 2003, the Ba'ath Party is not the only pan-Arab ideology... The Ba'ath Party did not promote ba'athism as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union promoted Marxism-Leninism; under Saddam Hussein the Ba'ath Party had deemphasized ideology for organizational strength - neither al-Bakr or Saddam Hussein were particularly pan-Arab, they were more (Iraqi) nationalist than pan-Arab... You seem to believe that because the Ba'ath Party is officially a pan-Arab organisation, that Iraq under ba'athist rule from 1968 to 2003 actually implemented much ba'athist policy. The truth is that ideology was deemphasised because the Government of Iraq thought it more important to development Iraq (its own nation) than the Arab world. There is a reason why Michel Aflaq, the founder of ba'athist thought, lost his belief in Iraqi ba'athism when the Iraqi regime did not even bother to support the Palestinian "war of liberation" against Israel... The truth is, sadly, that the Ba'ath Party, from when it was ousted from government in 1963 until 2003 lost all traces of ba'athist ideology. + Arifs government also had a party, which was strong, the only difference was that the ba'athist were willing to use more force to get their way. Repression increased under the ba'aths, but thats not to say that the system actually changed much. The only thing that changed was how the system was governed. --TIAYN (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Republican Guard was established under the Arifs: we can't have to articles for the Qasim and Arifs years because is not enough information to actually have those to articles...... You've miss interpreted me, nothing should be moved, nothing.. This discussion has not enlightened me the slightest, the only thing you've said (falsely) is that the ba'ath rule was unique, which is totally wrong. The only reason why the ba'ath regime was unique was that Ba'ath Party rule lasted for over 30 years. There is nothing unique about it. You're belief that there is something unique about it is wrong. They did not establish a new system of governance (as Qasim did), their way of rule was no difference than Qasim and Arif (all of them ruled through family, tribal cliques, religious background etc.) that ba'athist Iraq was a single-party state does not really matter either since both Qasim (kind of, the ICP was the only party allowed in government) and Arif (the Arab Socialist Union) also ruled Iraq through one-party structures. The only difference is the difference between military involvement.... They are not two different states, the ba'athist, just as with Qasim and the nasserists, continued the Republic of Iraq. They did not establish a new state, or political structure, as Lenin or Nasser did.. You're view is entirely wrong (and I'm not mean now, or harrassing, or acting like a jackass in anyway, the view that ba'athist rule was something special and unique in Iraqi history is wrong. The only thing that makes ba'ath rule special is the length the ba'ath party held power.) --TIAYN (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying, its the same system, but since the Ba'ath regime was unique in one way (and one way only); its duration. We keep it like it is now. See, for instance, the History of the Soviet Union (1982–1991); its not a well written article, but forget about that for a moment. The article is about the rules of Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev, according to you're view, this article should be split into an Andropov and Chernenko one since the Gorbachev era was a break with earlier patterns of rule. The political structure was changed, pluralism of thought was introduced, a semi-democracy was introduced, and so on. The point is, since the article on ba'athist Iraq can become very very large (if I keep on working on it, or if another user takes over my work), there has to be a split somewhere. The natural split is, of course, when the ba'ath took power and when the ba'ath were removed. The Qasim and the Arif page can get a decent length, if someone starts working on them (which I have as a goal).... You're view, as I interpreted it, is that history articles should be split into era; for example, one article about the Stalin era, and another one for the Khrushchev era.... We are doing this in Iraq to; the two history articles has been split into two, the post-Kingdom era, and the ba'athist era from 1968 to 2003. --TIAYN (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You are simplifying Qasim and the Arifs rule over Iraq. They were not pure military juntas. The Arifs were able to overthrow the BA'ath Party, not only with military force, but because of desertion from the party... You are simplifying it.. The infoboxes can be removed without problem; if you want to, do it. I've left the infobox there because it makes it easier for the reader. Would you say that Gorbachev's Soviet Union was a totally different Soviet Union from that of Brezhnev? It was (elections were held, the party was democratised and the Communist Party even lost its monopoly ofpower), it doesn't mean that the article has to be split from the Andropov and Chernenko history articles. You're argument that the Ba'ath Party was special, because it was ruled by the civilian government is lost because of the following, the military ruled the same way the Ba'ath Party did; small tribal sunni cliques ruled the country, the shias and the Kurds were oppressed, and so on... Politically nothing change, and Iraq was more-or-less de facto from 1958 to 2003 a one-party state. That the military exerted most control over the party is another thing all together. But its not a good enough reason to say that the ba'ath party was something special, considering that tribals, religious, ethnic differenes and nepotism were still the major keys to rule the country. Lets say, if you were right (which you're not), it didn't help much that ba'athist iraq was a unique one-party state in Iraqi history because it was still ruled on the grounds of nepotism, tribes, religious and ethnic differences. Its the same thing really; the only thing that really differed than is the facade. --TIAYN (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a naming dispute, but you who are wrong.... Its strange how you havn't noticed that all other history articles only change name, as with the Kingdom of Iraq, when the political system was radically altered. The same didn't happen to Ba'athist Iraq - you are wrong. + Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, its built on facts. Either give me facts, or give up. --TIAYN (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Rise and Fall of Saddam Hussein and A history of Iraq (these are my sources, and I have more). --TIAYN (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not the way of naming History articles. I've given you proof, see the History articles of the United States, read the History artices of Russia and the Soviet Union - read, or is that to hard for you? I've never, never in my life met a person as stubborn as you. You always seem to force you're opinion on others (as you're trying to do as the East Germany article too). Either give sources, or give up. Misplaced Pages policy if verifiability, not what you like. Searching the internet is not really a good source; people still believe that the CIA brought Saddam Hussein to power, when they really brought Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr... But thats beside the point, either verify youre claim, or give up. --TIAYN (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have, for what, saying that you are acting in an uncivil way??? Not listening to user users, overruning and pressing you're ideas on others? Its not me whos being incivile here, its you! --TIAYN (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong there! :) But Qasim's rule ended in 1963, the Arifs ruled from 1963 to 1966. If you have not noticed, throughout most of our discussion, I've been talking about the Arifs... But again, good point. My arguement still stands, first it was the Kingdom, than a interregnum (Qasim and the Arifs) and than the ba'athist who ruled for 30 years. --TIAYN (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never said he was a hardliner, I've said that believing that he was more than he actually is, is wrong... Hardliner no, Saddam was a hardliner, but Qasim can't really be called the Gorbachev on the Middle East, can he? :P Even so, I've understood you're point. --TIAYN (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying its associated politically, I'm saying they are associated because of their short rules.. Secondly, how much information to do think exist on these two subjects? If that articles is to be split you have to prove, as I proved in the Leonid Brezhnev (History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982); I created it from the article History of the Soviet Union (1953–1985)) article, that the subject is notable enough to have an article about himself and his era. I proved this by expanding the Leonid Brezhnev article first.

The titoist thing is actually a good point.

The point being, as you seem to forget, is that the Republic of Iraq lasted from 1958 until, well, this day. The Russian Provisional Government ruled over the Russian Republic, but the Russian Republic ended with the Bolshevik seizure of power, and the republic was renamed Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.... The same thing can't be said about Iraq, since the same state existed, without debate, until this day - the only thing that change was the importance of pan-Arab ideology in day-to-day administration. Qasim was a devoted pan-Arab, but as with the Arifs and the ba'athists, Iraq was more important to him than the idea of Arab unity. Ideological change is not a good enough reason. --TIAYN (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

But that happened through the end of that particular system, which was forced by a near coup by the French General Jacques Massu which forced constitutional change. Another point is that this is how French history has been separated (categorised); First French Empire, First French Republic, Second French Republic, Second French Empire and so on..... Not all countries are so lucky (most are not) that history has been categorised into so big, but easy categories.... The French have an historical model, the Iraqis don't. But that's beside the point. I'll say it again, if you manage to prove to me and the Misplaced Pages community that there is enough information about there to warrant an article about Qasim the man and his policies, and the Qasim era, by improving the article on Qasim the man. I'll support you're split. --TIAYN (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never said it was a restoration, I've never come close to claiming that. I've said that the Ba'ath regime of 1963,and the Arif governments from 1963 to 1968 were practically the same thing...... But thats still not a good enough reasons, the only things you'll be doing is creating two stubs. Which we shouldn't! I've said to you, if you can prove to me that both the Qasim article (on the man) and the Arif articles (on the men) can be expanded to a suitable size (as I did with the Leonid Brezhnev article), I have no problems with you splitting the 1958 to 1968 history articoe (just as I split the 1953 to 1985 Soviet history article).. But to do that, you'll have to prove to me that the topic is notable enough to have two separate articles. Why should this be so hard to understand? --TIAYN (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course an article on Iraq under Qasim (1958-1963 or History of Iraq (1958-1963) could be made into a major article on its own. I've already included major material on the Iraqi nationalism article on the policies of Arabo-Kurdish fraternity under Qasim, including Qasim's alliance with Kurdish nationalist leader Barzani from 1959-1961 - in fact during that time Barzani officially became not a Kurdish nationalist at all - but a Kurdish autonomist in favour of Qasim's proposed intention to give Iraqi Kurdistan autonomy - Barzani professed his loyalty to Iraq from 1959-1961. As for Arif, Qasim made him an outlaw - he had arrested him and initially sentenced him for death but later reduced it to live in prison. Arif was an outlaw of the Qassim regime and he did not share the Iraqi civic nationalism of Arabo-Kurdish unity or Qassim's anti-Nasserism - Arif promoted Nasserist pan-Arabism. But like I said, there is plenty of information for an article on Qasim's rule from 1958-1963.

What does that have to do with three-Iraqs being "different" countries? Just because two people vehemently disagreed, doesn't mean they ruled two different countries... I mean, Einar Gerhardsen and Kåre Willoch ruled Norway two entirely different ways, it still doesn't mean that Wiloch's Norway was another Norway..... --TIAYN (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never said it was one... You do know right that there is no WP rule which says history articles should be split into regimes right?? From 1958 to 1968 three short-lived regimes ruled Iraq. That's the truth. + different regimes is not synonymous with different countries (the infobox former countries is not used for the right reasons; the Qasim regime is not "a former country"). Because of that, the infobox should be removed; the Qasim era is not a distinct country. Its no more distinct than the Gorbachev era... Just because it was a new era, the Gorbachev era is not a former country.... I'm saying we should keep the two articles together because of the article size (they are both small articles).... There is no reason to have two stubs, is there? The French thing again... Nope, that argument won't work. For one reason, France is categorised into constitutional eras, not regimes.. And yes, some amendments were made to the Iraqi constitution from 1958 to 2003, but it wasn't radical. And writers, political scientists, and historians barely mention them. Constitutional change in France however, is of upmost importance if you want to learn about French political history. Iraqi history does not place constitutional importance as high (not even close) as France. --TIAYN (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The only reason Hitler's regime has gotten another article is because Hitler's regime started World War II and killed 6 million Jews, 27 million Soviets and so on..... + Hitler's regime had nearly nothing similar to the Weimars Republic - Hitlers regime changed Germany drastically. And while its true that he never de jure ended the Weimar Republic, de facto he did. Liberal democracy, the political system and so on was replaced with a pure, and naked dictatorship. The Republic of Iraq was a dictatorship from 1958 to 2003; the only real political change came when the Americans led the 2003 invasion of Iraq. --TIAYN (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Drastic onstitutional changes, is sometimes interpreted as the establishment of new states. France is an example of that, the Roman Republic is to. Legally, the Roman Empire was the Roman Republic, the form of rule had however changed.... It seems to me that you think that I am belittling the Qasim and Arif era by squeezing them into the same article, am I right? --TIAYN (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Have I denied that?? Nope, not really... I just don't see that as a good enough reason to have two stub articles. --TIAYN (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, you do know that I've told you to expand the articles for how long now? If you are able to expand the Qasim and Arif articles (and prove to me that two separate history articles about the respective eras will not be identical), than yes, I'd support such a move. But expand the Qasim and Arif articles first before you get hanged up in splitting up the History (1958-1968) article.. First A so B, not B so A. Get it? :) --TIAYN (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I did was to fix the references. My edit was not awful. it made it look better. Why in gods name should somebody decide to block the page because of that? I changed nothing of importance.... --TIAYN (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks more tidy. Each source (or "mini-ref") is now clearly separated from other sources (or "mini-refs") --TIAYN (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hi, I've noticed that you made several recent edits to Revision history of 20 July plot and did not include edit summaries when you did this. It is helpful for other authors if you do this so we know what you were doing with the edit. If you could use this in the future, I would appreciate it. 0 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

You should avoid canvassing other individual editors as you did Please see WP:CANVASS. Note too that the editor you canvassed is a sockpuppet of User:Chaosname, who is banned by the Misplaced Pages community. TFD (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not canvassing. Asking for an opinion is normal and its done all the time on wiki. R-41 just ignore FourDeuces, it appears that he is giving you a hard time on Talk:East Germany where he has attacked you personally. To be quite honest, his behavior is horrible. Caden 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile that editor is not about to appear in the next year, so cavils over canvassing a non-editor are pretty non-utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are Heonsi, Collect, Cavil and you are in the same league? TFD (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have almost no intersections with any of them - though I have been opposed a couple of times to R-41. The concept of "holding a grudge" is not part of my background, and I find your post here fully inexplicable. I suggest you simply stop worrying about me, TFD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I thought you should be aware of this . Caden 21:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Caden, fyi: . All is well. Writegeist (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

1RR

You are now in violation of 1RR on Fascism and I suggest you revert your recent edits. TFD (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

I have simply re-protected the page until the dispute is resolved, but I will not protect it again. The moment the current protection expired, it was being edited again. I took no notice of who had last edited it. Please see the disclaimer on the article page. And please note that I have now withdrawn from Misplaced Pages and will not be responding to new messages. If you would like any action, please consider the still unresolved ANI, and make a request for unprotection or for page edits in the recommended procedures. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Anti-democratic thought (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Iron law

Authoritarian democracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Maxim

Fascism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Iron law

Iron law of oligarchy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Iron law

Majoritarian democracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Winner take all

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Greater Yugoslavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carinthia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Yanar Mohammed.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yanar Mohammed.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.flickr.com/photos/47964510@N02/4767472776/in/photostream/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones 00:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The New Canada.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The New Canada.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones 00:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Grumpiness

Each editor may delete stuff from his own user talk page - even if they are grumpy. All you know is that he read your post - which should be sufficient in most cases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

black pot?

Just curious on this as laughable after you did this. Hypocrisy in a matter of days is astouinding.Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid sexist and ageist statements about elderly maiden aunts, also. In view of your criticism of another using WP as a political blog, you may wish to reduce the soap-box like content on your user page, per WP:Not a soapbox. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

You are requested to provide more info in the thread that you started on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Lihaas, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This is unacceptable. Next time you will be blocked: believe it. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have any understanding of the sympathy I have held to the Jewish family that I have known whose grandfather was a Holocaust survivor suffered torture, slave labour, starvation, witnessing his friend be beaten to death, watching people die from starvation at Treblinka, and his suffering from PTSD - perhaps then you would understand my concious and subconcious (that I cannot control) disgust with National Socialism and a desire to not associate or talk with anyone associated with that ideology - I cannot help feeling disgust towards National Socialism and what the National Socialist regime in Germany did to the Jews and what neo-Nazis continuet to spread hate about Jews. If I am thrown off of Misplaced Pages for not wanting to talk to a National Socialist due to my morality that supports the victims of the Holocaust and that I do not want to discuss with someone associated with an ideology known to be responsible for creating the Holocaust, that speaks badly for Misplaced Pages, not me - you don't have to block me if he comes back posting on my page after I told him not to, I will leave Misplaced Pages.--R-41 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Calm down a sec

The editor with the tasteless userboxes has some which conflict with each other - they are probably there as a slightly sophomoric gibe at some too-serious editors around. You are able to see through the facade, I trust. Cheers - and get rid of the CAPS on your userpage <g>. Collect (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear

I have no wish to downplay or otherwise minimize the horrors which your friend survived at Treblinka; several branches of my family tree ended at Belsen.

However, in your interactions with Lihaas, I believe that you have been -- in the vernacular -- "trolled".

Lihaas has a wide assortment of userboxes espousing a wide variety of controversial political opinions, many of which blatantly contradict each other. He does not actually espouse these opinions; the purpose of the userboxes is so he can upset people without actually misbehaving.

Imagine a child who learns that a particular nonsense-word makes the adults very upset and fussy, and so the child uses that word at every opportunity, just for the effect it causes. DS (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

R-41— This isn't the first time that Lihaas' "I'm a Nazi" userbox has been the cause of problems. Somebody has blanked the page, which strikes me as a bit extreme in itself. Probably the best thing for now though... But do try to wrap your head around the concept that the dude was attempting to say everything and thereby say nothing about himself with hundreds of userboxes as a political or artistic statement of sorts — and that that user box probably had as little to do with the dude's politics as a sharpied swastika on the shirt of Sid Vicious had to do with his politics (or lack thereof). It was designed to provoke a reaction and you reacted. Carrite (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)