Revision as of 15:16, 28 December 2005 editMailer diablo (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators55,576 edits RfC← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:32, 29 December 2005 edit undoKI (talk | contribs)3,497 edits →Chad-Sudan conflict: where are you getting these statisticsNext edit → | ||
Line 329: | Line 329: | ||
:Excellent. Strangely I have been unable to find any references to UN mediation... plenty to AU and Egypt though. ] 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | :Excellent. Strangely I have been unable to find any references to UN mediation... plenty to AU and Egypt though. ] 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
::I just noticed you've been attributing all of the externals links I added at the bottom of the page. Sorry, I didn't see this before. I'll do that for any future links I add. ] 02:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | ::I just noticed you've been attributing all of the externals links I added at the bottom of the page. Sorry, I didn't see this before. I'll do that for any future links I add. ] 02:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
You said 1-2% on the voting to move and 1-5% in your edit summary...can you provide a source for these statistics...? | |||
== Howcheng's RfA == | == Howcheng's RfA == |
Revision as of 03:32, 29 December 2005
This is my virtual food court - or more commonly, my talk page. Aiyah, just leave a message, complaint or suggestion ah, discuss frankly and casually no problem leh. Just like organisation though. Please leave new comments not related to existing ones by using sections. I will address them as soon as possible on this page, unless it exceptionally has to be flagged otherwise. I have archived the two sets of discussions at archive 1 and archive 2. I eventually want to be diligent and document them like how WMC does his, but I'll get to it...sometime. Oh, I generally don't mind most public complaints or suggestions, but if it really is personal and you just need to get my attention, just email me. |
Aetherometry
Hi Natalina. Sorry to see that you've gone over to the Dark Side :-) More seriously, I'd like to see the PS tag in; and I'm not sure why you've become so insistent on keeping it out. There is now a pretty fair consensus for having it in: if you ignore the anons, and the people that edit only Aeth, you're the only one who doesn't like it. William M. Connolley 09:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC).
- I removed the tag under the impression that if we removed the tag, the aetherometrists would be appeased, peace would exist and they wouldn't be incited to add additional POV. To me, this peace has lasted considerably, until the tag was added again. I mean, the last time peace wasn't achieved they added huge lists of links to irrelevant articles and categories such as "Natural Science". -- Natalinasmpf 16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeeeessss... but now you're part of the revert war. And I can't say I'm happy doing deals with these folks, even implicitly. Still it seems to be quiet now. I won't revert you over this. William M. Connolley 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (ps: moved here: easier in one place).
- I just hope you won't think I am an ignorant supporter of questionable theories and conspiracy theorists after this. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I thought you were supposed to be my sock puppet, anyway :-) William M. Connolley 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC).
Hi
I noticed this edit . Please abide by our policies against attacks. I know it has been a long time since it happened, but I thought I should give you some advice. Thanks : ). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Australian Anger
Hi Natalinasmpf,
Unless you do believe much in national pride, don't take the current arugements during this Van Tuong Nguyen saga too seriously - Note the fact now that there is Australian anger and you won't see too many rational additions for now, and they'll eventually go away when interest on the incident dies down (like Michael P. Fay). In case where you find your WikiStress boiling, try working on other articles in other topics of your interest. :)
- Greetings!, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Images
I cannot open the zip file you sent me last night. Please contact me on IRC asap. :D --Phroziac . o º 01:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- ...nevermind. i sent that at the same time you contacted me. haha. --Phroziac . o º 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Communism
Hi there. Please observe the Misplaced Pages Three-Revert Rule on this article. You have already reverted the same change four times, please stop and discuss the changes with the user in question before reverting again.
Many Thanks. --Intimidated 16:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like somebody got told. Ha. Mahalia56 04:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but beware that spite isn't very conducive to the community. -- Natalinasmpf 04:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
More on Communism
Hi there,
I also have issues with your repeated removals of my text, and your most recent removal of a "disputed" tag. Please read the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Communism#Under_the_Comintern and respond to it. Please let's avoid an edit war. -- 24.91.136.214
Well...
Singtel IP. It's shared. Someone may get caught in the block. I'll block for 15 min. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 06:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Done. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 07:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow! Brainy!
I hope you don't think I'm being patronising, but you strike me as being one brainy wikipedian! And in one so young! ;) Camillus 12:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
-I agree Patrick 16:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Communism, again
Sorry, I'd gone out for dinner, so had to leave off monitoring reversions to the article. There seems to be something of a lull at the moment, but I don't think User:KDRGibby is going to become a consensus NPOV editor any time soon, and I'm concerned by his edits to Liberalism as well. Ho hum... Mattley 21:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes I had to fight to get the editors of Liberalism to relequish a very one sided POV on the page and allow the original liberal interpretation of events to remain on the page. Much in the same way the communist page now has problems with allowing information to be "leaked" where they disagree with the basic principles.
There is nothing wrong with what I've wrote, especially after the multiple revisions. At least I have made an effort as opposed to any of you. (Gibby 23:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC))
What do you mean, "leaked"? We're not trying to deny that the People's Republic of China is in fact, very much market economic like - but this is already mentioned in the article, and covered in further detailed such as History of the People's Republic of China, economy of the People's Republic of China, and the People's Republic of China article in itself. As well as state capitalism. -- Natalinasmpf 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
much in the same way that the Soviet Union is covered elsewhere...and so is lenninsm and maoism......... yeah (Gibby 05:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
Yes, but they are linked. The whole point is to explain articles in context, link them, otherwise there would be no need for separate articles. When sections get too long, we fork them off to separate pages. The idea is that general pages link to more specific pages, so the reader can read the more general material and if he or she wants to continue, can click on a link to read something mores specific - that is how articles break down. This is the general guideline to writing articles on Misplaced Pages. You want to express the view that China has a free market and that this is ironic. This is a valid observation, but I must state that this is not yours. This view actually has been expressed a number of times by other people and is already present on many articles, including the Communism article, concerning state capitalism, and how many "Communist states" don't actually act communistically. The main problem is that the material you want to add is too detailed, and that it is already represented in other articles. You can rest content that your view is well represented already. -- Natalinasmpf 05:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Free Market Communists
You have not supplied any good reasons for the deletion of that section. I have edited with each deletion to make that portion fit better with each passing day. Please see the discussion page to discuss your dislike...or more likely disagreement with the facts. Please add comments there before deletion.
Thank you,
(Gibby 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC))
see the fmc discussion and the NPOV discussion.
seriously, see it, discuss it, and try giving logical reasons... (Gibby 00:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
I already am. Please use proper Wiki etiquette, as well. -- Natalinasmpf 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
3RR
Are you aware that you are in violation of WP:3RR? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
But that was merely to revert his fourth (and following) reverts - it was clear that consensus favoured a version without a huge "npov disputed" template at the top, especially since 172 et al had similarly done it. -- Natalinasmpf 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is no excuse to break the rule. I have protected the page for now, but I will be watching. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- You should practice what you preach. :) Mahalia56 04:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- This was a totally different dispute, which was about history, not some pop culture phenomenon. -- Natalinasmpf 04:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
"Consensus" by whom may I ask? And how did you determine what was "consensus"? (BostonMA 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
By everyone who posted on the talk page - it was ad hoc, and if in dispute, should be been raised by someone not just by him, especially since everyone else agreed there wasn't any real problem. -- Natalinasmpf 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Clearly "everyone who posted on the talk page" did not agree with you regarding the the "npov disputed" template. In fact the opposite, if you look at the discussion page, you will see that there is a section NPOV. To date, no serious arguement has been raised that there is no NPOV dispute. (BostonMA 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
- I have unblocked the other editor with which you had the edit war, for fairness. BostonMA is making good proposals, that I hope you all consider. Take advantage while the article is protected, because it is not forever. I will unprotect in a few days. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding the narrative in the section which is now titled "Soviet Marxism". I pointed out that the narrative was filled with "original research", which lacked verificable sources. I further cited sources which clearly cast doubt on the accuracy of that narrative. You resonded that verifiable sources would be forthcoming. I am still waiting. (BostonMA 14:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
Your new "dyoh" template
In your Template:dyoh, I wanted to fix the words "access to anyone to the total sum of human knowledge", but I can't quite see what you're trying to say. Steve Summit (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Still hoping
Hi, I'm still hoping that you will make a statement of agreement with the conflict avoidance guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. Adding your sig to the Proposal for moderating the edit wars on the Communism discussion page would be nice. (BostonMA 19:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
Hi, its me again. You were very active in deleting my edits as well as those of Gibby. I'm concerned that you have not been using the time available to discuss your concerns. I hope that you will not summarily revert other people's edits if you are not willing to use the current period to argue your positions. Can we come to some agreement about that? If not, should we seek the assistance of an outsider? Please let me know your views on this.
KDRGibby's RFC
Have you seen my 'inside view' . I think it sums up the underlying problem fairly well. KDRGibby now seems to have taken up the constant refrain "you are not using logic" . This is a pretty good indication of what I mean. In this context, logical means logical from the point of view of KDRGibby. Mattley 23:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I also find the justifications offered for rejecting Gibby's edits logically incoherent. Regardless of his POV, I think there are double standards applied. (BostonMA 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
- I see that you suggested User:BostonMA mediate in the dispute with KDRGibby. I wonder if you might reconsider whether that is a good idea. With all due respect to the guy, he has hardly any experience of the project and is not well-versed in policy, procedures and so forth. He has also said that he finds the arguments offered by yourself, myself and 172 logically incoherent (leaving aside his suggestion that we are a Maoist cabal). Someone who cannot appreciate both sides in a dispute, and who dismisses clearly articulated objections by multiple experienced editors as logically incoherent isn't very well-placed to mediate said dispute, I would say. Mattley 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, First a note for Natalinasmpf. I watch your page, and so saw this note. Please let me know if it is inappropriate for me to respond to it here. Hi Mattley. I may or may not be a suitable person to mediate. You are correct, I haven't edited pages that had any active fighting going on. You are also right that I am still in the process of learning policy and procedures. Yes, I did say that I find the justifications given to be logically incoherent. No, I did not suggest that you are a Maoist cabal. I do believe that there is a group cohesion among you, but I doubt that it is based on a common political ideology. Whether one or more editors is Maoist I do not know, and I do not suggest that anyone is. You suggest that I cannot appreciate both sides in a dispute. That is quite possible. Is there something in particular you had in mind? I agree that the objections to various things has been clearly articulated. That doesn't mean that I will always find them reasonable. It may be the case that, because of your shared experiences, you have developed quite common reactions to things, and thus end up frequently agreeing on practical matters. Then when one or another of you makes a comment which supports your common practical aims, but which may have holes in it from an outsider's perspective, you may not notice those holes. Familiarity alters the way people communicate. Of course this is just musing on my part, and you needn't take it seriously. Mattley, perhaps when you cool down a bit, we can understand one another better. I'm sure you've had better days. (BostonMA 23:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
Main page FA
I'd be happy to help. Just tell me where I should be going to copy-and-paste the good version. What section is the problem? A quote on the main page talk will be fine. Thanks. Harro5 06:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Xiangqi images.
I ran the final upload run on these images last night. I got a few errors though...
Can't open file uploads/xiangiupload/xiangqi-edcdb.PNG: No such file or directory at /usr/share/perl5/LWP/UserAgent.pm line427 Can't open file uploads/xiangiupload/xiangqi-elca.PNG: No such file or directory at /usr/share/perl5/LWP/UserAgent.pm line 427 Can't open file uploads/xiangiupload/xiangqi-elcdb.PNG: No such file or directory at /usr/share/perl5/LWP/UserAgent.pm line427 Can't open file uploads/xiangiupload/xiangqi-elsd.PNG: No such file or directory at /usr/share/perl5/LWP/UserAgent.pm line 427
...would you confirm that all the other images are uploaded, and if these were actually supposed to exist in the first place? --Phroziac . o º 14:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, you're welcome. :) --Phroziac . o º 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar
Congratulations!!! You've earned yourself a barnstar! |
FireFox 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Mediation
Hi Natalinasmpf, I've taken the communism case on. I've notified KDRGibby and hopefully we can resolve this situation. If he accepts mediation, we can begin! Dan100 (Talk) 10:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Ancient Greek "Theory of Government(s)" . .
Hi Natalina—
Are you familiar with the ancient Greek Greek "Theory of Government(s)" which holds that the change in Government style is 'circular' (none of the ancients believed in "progress"— they were too impressed by the apparent cyclicity of things)? It holds that a Dictatorship will inevitably change to an Oligarchy which will change to an Aristocracy which will change to a Republic (which Plato liked best of all; not surprising, since suffrage was denied about 85% of the population in ancient Athens' so called Democracy) which will change to a Democracy which will change to Anarchy (your favorite?), but which will then change to a Dictatorship— and the cycle repeats!
normxxx 18:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have come across it, although I had thought of it before actually reading about it. However, I tend to think the current catch-22 system of repression is slowly taking over, which is of course, a bad thing. -- Natalinasmpf 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- >However, I tend to think the current catch-22 system of repression is slowly taking over, which is of course, a bad thing.< I think you may be right, but only because we have had a (brief?), but explosive, flowering of Democracy, which is not really such a nice form of Government (it tends to reduce things to the Most Common denominator— and to Hell with tomorrow!), which may yet continue for some time yet (even the Singapore government has 'adopted' some 60 of 70+ 'suggestions' on 'easing' the Autocracy). In my old age, I am in favor of a merit-based Republic (shades of Plato). Oh well; maybe Winston Churchill had it right when he said that Democracy is the worst form of Government— except for the alternatives! normxxx 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I generally find bashing the masses to be a tad cliché. Ideally, there should be nothing wrong with the lowest common denominator - however, there is a catch 22 that encourages ignorance of the masses, which means they are oblivious to insidious takeovers such as plutocracy. Which means bad education policy (because the people at the top favor ignorance for the masses). Which means they still stay ignorant. Breaking this catch-22 would reverse this somewhat. I actually dislike Plato, although I can agree with Socrates and Aristotle. After all, every individual has the right to voice his or her opinion to directly change the government through direct voting (as an anarchist, I am afraid I favor direct democracy over representative), after all, they are individuals with their opinions, and who are we as ivory towerists to usurp power and assert our superiority to them, for is that not our own bias? The key then, is not to disregard the opinions the lowest common denominator (if that is a neutral statement at all), but to raise the lowest common denominator and to sustain a positive cycle. -- Natalinasmpf 01:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a firm supporter of the free software movement . .
Do you believe that software creators should be left to "develop" software in a garrett, like the artists in La Bohème ? And what about access to the tools of their trade, which do not come cheap? I understand your intellectual sympathy with anarcho-communism (which I simply believe to be impractical in any society larger than a tribe— ~100 folk or so), but do not anticipate the advent of your society. In this society, free software is, at the least, unsupported software— of the nature of any "free" labor. Not many of us have an independent means of income whereby we can indulge in unlimited "free" work on anything. In the meantime, "free" software should be seen as in the nature of a charitable donation.
normxxx 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but often the tools of their trade become self-created, and can achieve self-sufficiency as a community evolves. I see free software as an altruistic movement for information awareness which cares nothing about profit and cares only about knowledge and intellectualism. And the joy of programming. I don't see how it's necessarily unsupported, it would work like any gift economy, including the drive to competency. -- Natalinasmpf 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Where I was coming from was the flowering and near demise of freeware in the '90s. Few such efforts have been so rewarded or supported as Linux.
- Ah, but I think that is because Linux was an ideal operating system to lob all free software efforts into, so it's not that there have been few efforts, but most of the efforts have merged. Since freeware != free software, anyway. ;) -- Natalinasmpf 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
talk:architecture . . / . .
See the latest comments. Since this does not seem a frequented page, I have asked for mediation/arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normxxx (talk • contribs)
Uh, it's only a minor dispute. I hope we don't get any ill will out of this, I think this can be resolved with at most, an RFC. I'm sure it won't turn out anything like Gibby's. ;). -- Natalinasmpf 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the Barnstar! I am persuing this in depth because I take you to be a very serious person. (See latest additions to the architecture talk page.) However, I am very new to Wikipediua, so I appologize for the inappropriate highlightings, which I will henceforth allow free reign only in discusssions! Also, I asked for help on this from my Misplaced Pages welcome committee of one, who will probably also advise a Rfc, if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normxxx (talk • contribs)
- Acknowledged. Well, I certainly hope you mean an article RFC, not a user RFC. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- In the event, I went for a request for a third opinion. But, so far, only Stochata has responded. (He has contributed to architecture before, so his is a valued opinion.) Are you aware that there are in the neighborhood of 10,000 articles on various aspects of architecture, only haphazardly cross-referenced?
- I have been studying the architecture and content of the "architecture" articles in Wikepedia. It is vast! Much of it little coordinated. I know little about the architecture of the built environment, but I have extensive background as a systems architect (see the new write up for my resume!). So, I have undertaken some minimal cleanup, especially of the Main architecture page (I have abandoned all hope of changing it to the disambiguation page; there are probably several thousand references to "architecture" in Misplaced Pages, 90% of which are expected to produce something about the architecture of the built environment), the Architectural History page, and the disambiguation page. I particularly welcome any suggestions from you.
- Thank you for the "Exceptional Newcomer Award" (the Order of the Blue Butterfly?) But, I am still very much a newby and learning as I go.
- As an aside, I am retired; and very, very much older than you. So please, please excuse me if I ever seem condescending (I promise you I will not mean it as such). I also was a Psychology Instructor at the U. of Mich. in the U.S. for a time (I got a Ph.D. in Mathematical Psychology for kicks), and I am sure you are well aware from painful experience that teachers (even ex-teachers) tend to lapse into "down-speak" from time to time. Also, do not hesitate to ask me to clarify anything (I am not always altogether clear on my points as I am more creative than analytical; which is probably why I wound up as a systems architect)— I promise to do the same. (As a practitioner of the Socratic method, I sincerely believe the simplest and most fundamental questions usually reveal the major areas of collective ignorance. My students and colleagues hated it!) I am usually (but not always) more than willing to confess ignorance (I developed that habit when I found most people hated such confessions also— it's almost like Jujutsu (or, the Taoist, “in yielding there is strength”)!). normxxx 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes it is vast, and there needs to be some organisation. I will probably add organising the entire category (that's right!) to my long-term to do list. I have so many other things to do, and I am exhausted. I'm off to play some online computer games, no doubt a stereotype of my generation. I need a break. I haven't played America's Army in weeks. -- Natalinasmpf 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Huaiwei
When you had reviewed this RfC, I must admit that it was lacking in some respects. However, I have expanded it with relevant points (see the bits in green) - even if it will have no impact on your decision, would you be able to re-visit this RfC please? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ancient Greek phonology
I was interested to see your comments on this page. I don't know anything about Huaiwei, but I thought you were judicious in your comments. I would like someone with a little distance from the situation to take a similar look at User:Thrax's behavior on Ancient Greek phonology. From my point of view, Thrax has been a terribly uncooperative and disruptive editor, but it would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has nothing to do with the case. Do you think his behavior is acceptable? not acceptable but within the rules? deserving of some sort of action (if so, what)? Thanks. --Macrakis 23:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I will take a look at it as soon as I clear some other issues up. I will be glad to provide a third opinion, but I'm not much of a mediator, but I will try my best. :-) -- Natalinasmpf 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. No hurry, Thrax is quiet for now. --Macrakis 00:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC) PS But do let me know on my User Talk page -- I don't monitor yours. --Macrakis 18:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Edit police
The edit police brigade says hi :-) --HappyCamper 02:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed it...I thought you were being funny...I had such a great laugh. It's been a long time any Wikipedian managed to make me laugh like that! Cheers! --HappyCamper 02:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Christmas
A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. :D --Terence Ong 16:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Here You Go
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf, just in case you didn't get the link on IRC. Good luck, although you might not need it, I think you're a shoo in! karmafist 17:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- My congrulations to you in advance! I'm pretty sure your promotion is just days away. Merry Christmas too! :) - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Japanese assaults in World War II
Hi, thanks for the Barnstar :-) Sorry for the delay in replying but I've been thinking about your question. And I don't know if the Japanese success can be described much better than we have done in Battle of Singapore.
I would summarise their advantages as follows:
1. Tactics. "Encirclement, isolation and flanking" was a large part of it.
2. Organisation. The Commonwealth forces were structured, trained and equipped mainly as heavy infantry, to fight the Wehrmacht in Europe and North Africa. They relied on mobility through trucks and trains, and the use of artillery and heavy machine gun units, to deter frontal assaults. However this doesn't really work on a battlefield which is dominated by thick forest, as the ability to move and deploy is restricted to roads and rail lines. And the Japanese used classic light infantry structures. This meant that even if they they didn't have the mobility of the Allies, they could more quickly change attack plans at both the tactical and strategic levels to refocus attacks when they were met with obstacles. They weren't slowed down by elaborate supply lines, as was the case with the Allies. These lessons were eventually learnt by the Allies. For instance, even the Australian 9th Division — which had been much praised by British commanders for its efforts in North Africa — when it was deployed to the Pacific in 1943, in addition to significant retraining in jungle warfare, was stripped of many of its transport, artillery and tank units.
3. Experience. The Japanese had been fighting a war on and off in China for ten years. Few, if any, of the Commonwealth soldiers had seen battle before December 1941. Grant65 | Talk 01:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Communism References
Thanks for that, I didn't know how to do footnotes. Your edit is great, but I think I jumped into the middle of an ongoing edit war... Pages are Schaefer, Richard T. "Sociology" 5th ed. pp. 123, 343. You may want to include some of this text from pg. 343 to further defend this:
"Marx believed that each socialist state would eventually 'wither away' and evolve into a communist society. As an ideal type, communism refers to an economic system under which all property is communally owned and no social distinctions are made on the basis of people's ability to produce. In recent decades, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Cuba, and nations in Eastern Europe were popularly thought of as examples of communist economic systems. However, this represents an incorrect usage of a term with sensitive political connotations. All nations known as communist in the twentieth century have actually fallen far short of the ideal type." Patrick 16:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
---
Also, what could be done about GMB's continued reverting of the text? It seems like everyone agrees on this version... Patrick 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
He will eventually be blocked for violating the three revert rule. I am trying to come up with a discussion of his points but he refuses to discuss it. Anyway, about the book I don't think there's much to expand on from the book, because it's already mentioned throughout (although we could reword), we just need as many references as possible for the existing test. Thanks for the concern! -- Natalinasmpf 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey thanks!
Hi Natalinasmpf, thank you for your edits on Ursula Rucker. The article as it used to be was not from a NPOV, I didn't fully see that, because she is one of my favorite poets of all time. Again thank you, the article is improved ten fold. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't used a footnote section as of yet. When you say to "bring sources of what the critics say", do you mean to provide links to reviews from sites such as amazon, and BBC Urban Review? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- How much of the comments from critics should be provided after providing the footnote link? For example, this is a review from a music critic from BBC Urban Review, as is this one, like I mentioned above, I've never provided footnotes to an article. I would be obliged if you could take the reviews I've provided and insert one or both in as you would want them to be. After seeing the additions you'd make I'll go and find more reviews from different sources and add them in. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
BostonMA's updated comments
I wasn't sure what BostonMA was trying to do when he duplicated that whole section. Thank you for fixing it! Owen× ☎ 04:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, thank-you. I'm not sure how it got screwed up and I apologize. I tried to fix it myself, but by then, I kept getting change conflicts. (BostonMA 04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC))
ROK Barnstar
Congratulations!!! I hereby award a Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Natalina for random acts of kindness in editing and politeness beyond the call of duty! |
Response to your message
Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, I still feel that this article is rather pointless. I would like to see what you perceive as the cultural link between (for lack of a better example) Singapore and Israel? Or Afghanistan and Thailand? I still feel that Misplaced Pages would be better off without the article, but if that's more or less a pipe dream than it should at least be a redirect page for more culturally specific articles. --RyGuy17 06:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but there is also a common link, despite the distinctions, and the distinctions after all, does press the article to have sub-pages, which is already done. For example, there is a huge difference between all the native peoples of the Americas, but we still group them as one (Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Native Americans). -- Natalinasmpf 06:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Joe McCarthy, GMB and page protection
G'day Natalina,
you asked why I protected the Joseph McCarthy article on the dodgy version. Simply put, GMB's changes, extreme though they may be, are not vandalism. As such, it's inappropriate for me — well, any protecting admin — to choose my favourite revision of an article and protect to that one. We're supposed to be neutral when protecting pages, and as long as the current revision doesn't contain vandalism, it's the one we should protect. GMB certainly seems to have very extreme political views from my humble Aussie POV, but that's no reason to discount his opinion more than the opinions I prefer. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: No External Links
Just saw your edit to the Warhammer 40,000 page. I'm not saying you did the right or wrong thing here, but would like to know where it says that you cannot include external links in the body of the article, unless they are references. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- A fair reasoning, but can you point me to where in the various Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines it states this? Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
COTW
Hi, if you haven't notice the Singapore COTW, you may like to take a look here. Do make a vote or nominate articles for COTW. --Terence Ong 10:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Incomplete article
Hi Natalinasmpf,
I'm going to pass you (and fellow SGpedians) an incomplete work to hopefully continue on, which is at User:Mailer diablo/Sandbox. The MRT FAC is running into very serious problems, and from next year onwards I'll probably have very little time to devote into the project. I do hope to eventually see National Kidney Foundation Singapore scandal become a featured article one day as well. :)
- Best reagrds, Mailer Diablo 14:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Chad-Sudan conflict
Until Wikizach has concrete source, we're fishing. We must wait until sources can be cited. I think "Ongoing" is much better than "Undecided." As far as we know it isn't even a "war" yet. KI 01:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent. Strangely I have been unable to find any references to UN mediation... plenty to AU and Egypt though. KI 01:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I just noticed you've been attributing all of the externals links I added at the bottom of the page. Sorry, I didn't see this before. I'll do that for any future links I add. KI 02:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You said 1-2% on the voting to move and 1-5% in your edit summary...can you provide a source for these statistics...?
Howcheng's RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 07:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Help against some POV-pushing
I would greatly appreciate your help against the Objectivist Reductio ad Hitlerum being pushed into the altruism article, and against some libertarian POV warring at positive right and negative right. Thanks in advance. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
2nd-person language rewording of 3D Monster Maze
I've tried to do some <subj>, see that article's history ;-). You're welcome to help further in the task — I feel that the new phrase "run for one's life" sounds a bit worse than the original "run for your life"; also, I didn't reword the strategy advice that uses the 2nd-person lang. as it would be in striking disharmony with the cited in-game messages. If you have a good idea how to reword that smoothly, please go ahead. --BACbKA 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I suppose!
I see you reverted someone else's hostile remarks on my Talk page. Very neighborly of you. Tell me, what exactly IS that guy's problem? I can't remember calling anyone on wikipedia a "moron", "lunatic", or "fanatic" in weeks at least. ;) -Kasreyn 11:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
RfC
A RFC has been filed for User:Monicasdude's questionable user conduct. Please join in at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2.
- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)