Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mav (talk | contribs) at 06:47, 26 March 2004 (KR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks for reverting my user page! Angela 09:05, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that, in the weeks leading up to hostilities, the administration's stance was shifting and inconsistent, and that that should be made clear in the article. At no point did Saddam cooperate with the first demands made by the U.S., so there was no reason whatever to alter those demands when preparing to take military action.

As far as allegedly devious and considered sinister, I probably would have left that if that's what it had said, but it wasn't. - Hephaestos 22:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On PNAC,

The text was This quote (allegedly publishing their devious plans) is considered the "proof" of a sinister plot....

Right. That means the plans were allegedly published, not that they were allegedly devious. That it was considered proof, not that it was considered "sinister." Completely different meaning. "Sinister" and "devious" are POV judgments we shouldn't be making here in any case.

On the other article, I took a look at your new change, and I think we're pretty close, although it needs a tweak; let me know what you think. - Hephaestos 00:35, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your effort on the attacks on humanitarian workers page!2toise 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! :) VV 20:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, IMHO protecting 2002 Gujarat violence would just draw attention to it and achieve what the other person wants. There are about 5 of us who have it in our watchlist, so its much easier for us to revert it than for them to repeatedly vandalize it (its very likely that all the 3 new users are the same person). So I say lets not make a fuss about it :) They'll realize after a while that they're obviously wasting their time and either go away or start making useful contributions to other articles. -- Arvindn 04:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm duns0014, from the ancap turmoil. so who are you anyway? are you libertarian or what?

No, not libertarian (though not unsympathetic), just trying to keep up Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, defending against bad edits seems to be quite an undertaking, which is distracting me from tasks such as fixing existing misinformation (so much). Anyway, we'll see if this ancap thing quiets down soon or not.... -- VV 01:37, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re: Bush family conspiracy theory

It is not an opinion to state that matters surrounding the Florida election were the subject of fierce public debate. It is not an opinion to state that claims of wrongdoing over the US election are the most serious allegations.

You have been replacing a factually incorrect version of the article on Kashmir. I would refer this as an NPOV however the trouble is there is no "point of view" issue in question here. These are historic facts that are easily verified and acknowledged by everyone.

Firstly, the correct term for the entire region is Jammu and Kashmir, which comprises the southern Jammu region, the Kashmir valley(which is where the trouble is concentrated) and the Ladakh plateau region. "Kashmir" is used for brevity as it is the region where the trouble is mainly concentrated. However Kashmir in reality only refers to Kashmir Valley.

Secondly, Aksai Chin is NOT the same as the chunk in North Kashmir that was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1959. Aksai Chin is Indian territory in Eastern Kashmir that was occupied by China in 1962.

Again, before you start off, there is absolutely no question of "POV" and "NPOV" here, as these are well known and verifiable historical facts.

-conradx

Bravo verily, Verily Verily, for your very worthwhile IMHO recent addition to the Genocide page. Puts a lot of controversies in context. TonyClarke 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi VV -- I know you haven't been a major contributor to 2002 Gujarat violence, but I just wanted to let you know that Angela asked me to mediate, and I am in the process of reviewing (I would not characterize it as "investigating") the article, the edit history of the article and its talk page, the various comments linked to this page, and the email traffic here, here, here, here, and here (and a few other threads) on the mailing list related to it. Even though the page is unprotected, I would ask all parties involved to hold off editing this article voluntarily until I can offer a few suggestions, which I will do within a few hours. Thanks for your forbearance, BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

NOTE: See bottom of page for mediation proposal

Hello VV -- just wanted to say I understand your position (that you wrote on Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence), and of course I'm just following up on what I've been asked to do by the well-respected Angela. Perhaps you should write her a note on her talk page...but FWIW I think that it may be beyond the point that a temporary protection will work, and I don't think it's feasible to have the page permanently protected. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:50, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi again -- only one person has made any edits whatsoever to 2002 Gujarat violence/revision, and it was tiny. You are "officially" invited to take a stab at it. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:34, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for you note on my talk page. What can I say -- I agree, but I figure it's worth following up on this since it was put out there...and it's probably good practice anyway :-) BCorr ¤ Брайен 15:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi,

I just thought I will intervene because of the back and forth reversions.I want to clarify what I think is a wrong notion you have. Aryans did come to the sub-continent from outside, this is not disputed by serious academicians.However, though the Aryan invasion theory is widely known, it does not mean that it is widely accepted. It is known well because it is quite old. The present dispute is not over whether the Aryans came from outside at all( which is a pseudo- scientific speculation), but whether the influx was through an invasion or gradual(which is a legitimate academic subject). KRS 14:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yup. Agree with KRS 100%. Arvindn 16:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand these comments. The "back and forth" thing you mentioned ended three weeks ago, and has not recurred. The user doing so was one who'd been cited on Misplaced Pages:Problem users at least twice for Hindu nationalist POV, and so reverting the biased changes seemed natural. You are not correct that that that is the present dispute, either. The user in question is promoting the idea that the IVT is continuous with Vedic culture, and there was no Aryan immigration at all. See The Anome's apt summary on Talk:Aryan invasion theory. -- VV 19:24, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, Please check back the page history ;what you reverted happened a few days back and it is precisely the theory about gradual migration that you deleted. In fact, even the theory of the horse being brought by the Aryans is correct(which you deleted) but that much detailing is not necessary for a general history, so thats OK. KRS 05:31, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see now that you're referring to the article India, not Aryan invasion theory, which indeed had not been edited in weeks. AIT is taken to include the possibility of slower migration, and thus the term invasion does not mean it has to be a violent and sudden, rather it means an outside force coming in and taking over, however gradually. I think having those qualifiers is important b/c it sets up the contrast better, and the way it is written makes it sound like AIT is being discarded, when the key idea is that migration occurred. Most of the attacks on these pages have been by those who disbelieve in the migration at all. -- VV 22:08, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I too thought KRS was referring to Aryan invasion theory. I didn't notice the dates, but the comments made sense in the context of Astavakra's edits. This user does seem to disbelieve in a migration, but makes a few valid points. As it stands, the first paragraph seems to imply that most modern historians accept what Max Muller proposed, which is not true. The phrase "Tamil, a very distinct language in its own right, with literature and tradition at least as ancient as Sanskrit" is also not supported by evidence. The Rig Veda is much older than the earliest known Tamil literature. Of course, the present version is far closer to NPOV than the other one (in particular, references to communists ring a bell :-) Arvindn 16:03, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity, I forgot to mention the crucial part! Anyway, the same argument applies to that page too if there is a similar edit there... BTW, I will now direct my attention towards the Aryan invasion theory and see what the dispute is all about:-) KRS 17:28, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding your edits in India, why do you want to remove the reference to the Sindhu-Saraswati tradition? We are not archaeologists here trying to prove whether some theory is correct or not. If many people choose to believe in a particular version of history, however tenuous be the proof, it is upto a neutral analysis to present this also and not turn a blind eye.In any case history itself is always teleological. KRS 16:02, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit to Bush family conspiracy theory: Oh, yeah, sure, go and bring evidence into it. What a spoilsport! ;-) -- Cyan 05:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lodar, VeryVerily. Good suggestion on not yanking paragraphs out of an already contentious article without first going to the Talk page. By the way, I had already seen that the passage had been deleted, so I could figure out what your comment meant. Other people may be puzzled, however. Good luck, and keep on trying to talk sense to people. P0M

On the "Multi-regional origin" page, you added:

"Nevertheless, proponents of multiregionalism such as Wolpoff believe the molecular data can be reconciled with the multiregional origin hypothesis, and may even support it."

Could you please give one or two citations to support the last five words? (I'm not sure whether you're saying that there is molecular data to support multiregionalism, or that some have argued that the molecular data that is usually taken to support the single-region hypothesis actually supports multiregionalism. Also, I'm not sure whether you're saying that Wolpoff has used molecular data to support the multiregional hypothesis. Thanks. Peak 04:26, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Multi-regional hypothesis

Multi-regional hypothesis

Thanks for your response. My responses to your response are inserted with a leading Peak.

You asked for citations on those believing molecular data supports multiegionalism. A well-known recent such paper is this one ...

Peak I am familiar with that one and many others, but the particular one you quote is ancient (accepted 1999) relative to the recent evidence. I was genuinely asking for a RECENT paper - one that responds to the supposedly "nail in the coffin" evidence.

... and you can look at other papers by Wolpoff, Hawks, etc. Anyway, I'm bothered by the fact that every link you've added to this page is anti-multiregionalism.

Peak If you think additional citations are needed, then by all means add them. This article has always had pointers to the pages by Coon and Wolpoff, which provide further discussion and pointers.

Peak By the way, are you suggesting that a scientific hypothesis can never be rejected? The multi-regional hypothesis was proposed as a scientific hypothesis, and as such should be viewed from a scientific perspective, especially in an encyclopedia that purports to be about knowledge. Yes, history is important, but that doesn't mean that every proposition is eternally merely a POV. As you know, some scientific hypotheses are confirmed and become generally accepted theories; others fall by the wayside; and still others that fell by the wayside are later vindicated in some way or another.

Don't you think that's not very appropriate for an entry about it? There should be at least one pro-link, and probably the majority should be pro-.

Peak As already mentioned, the "Proponents" section already had wikilinks to Coon and Wolpoff. Someone deemed that sufficient before I was involved with the page. Please think about your remarks in connection with other Misplaced Pages articles on topics such as racism or the Aether.

I also believe your reading of the style guide is not correct; in general external links should be collected together rather than scattered uselessly, but if it's simply to provide a footnote reference for a portion within the text, that is not necessary.

Peak I gave an exact quotation from the Style Guide. If you wish to do likewise, please do so.

I also don't agree with the undoing of my other changes:

Peak I would of course be happy to try to justify or explain the changes I've made. At the same time, please remember that the changes you make to someone else's work may not always be agreeable if the author has invested quite a lot of time and thought in the work they've done.

...splitting the examples of recent research back across two paragraphs, and removing mention of Wells' anti-multiregionalist stance. I actually don't see the point in the Wells' quote anyway; it's not very encyclopedic, just his opinion. -- VV 03:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak Wells is a scientist and co-author of one of the papers. He gave a succint summary for which we should be grateful. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a set of links to external articles.

Peace. Peak 05:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak 05:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): Thanks for your responses at User_talk:Peak#Multi-regional hypothesis. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I will post some responses there rather than here, but in the meantime, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the general tone of your response, and hope that we can resolve any remaining points of misunderstanding amicably. Peak

Hi there, just a note to let you know that Tannin has just set up a vote for the Sep 11 attacks talk page about whther the word "terrorist" should be included in the title or not. Arno 09:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

USA PAT RIOT Act

Will you stop reverting my changes to the USA PAT RIOT Act and labelling them "Vandalism"? Jor 02:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for labelling you a vandal in return. I will refrain from changing all occurances to USA PATRIOT Act to the equally valid USA PAT RIOT Act, as soon as the page is open for editing again I'll add a link to a page which explains the alternate spacing of this acronym. I do not believe you and I were involved in an "edit war" no matter what Finlay thinks, but please in the future don't just revert with "vandalism": all users have talk pages, as have the articles. Cheers, Jor 02:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Patriot act revert-war

(cc to Darkelf and VeryVerily) Ok, you guys' editwar on USA PATRIOT Act has gone quite far enough. You need to get together and work out a compromise that you can both live with. Either that, or you should both desist from editing the article and let calmer heads work it out for you. I've protected the page (in accordance with the generally-accepted "three reverts" rule on Misplaced Pages talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version). I'll unprotect it when you show me your compromise (or, lets face it, someone else will unprotect it in a couple of days, hoping you've both calmed down). Don't come to me arguing a case or trying to get me to decide who is right or who is wrong - I really don't care one iota. Oh, and whichever version it's stuck on right now isn't the "winner" (i'm sure y'all are busily reverting one another while I type this). And please quit calling one another vandals. Oh, and I'm going to bed now, sad. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Edit wars

Please stop edit wars over link names. It is silly esp since direct links are better than redirects. --mav 00:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have unprotected Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Please don't get into another edit war over the link names. -- Viajero 16:41, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

172

I've been having a little back and forth with User:172 in History of the United States (1980-present), and noticed that you are having the same problem. Do you have any words of advice on how I may settle this in a friendly and civil manner with 172? --Hcheney 23:08, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See my comments on User talk:RickK and Talk:Mass murder. You owe me an apology. BTW, the protection was lifted. 172 08:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good job discussing content issues on Talk:State terrorism. If you have time, please take a look at Talk:Manuel Noriega. It seems that you finally have a serious user with whom to discuss content issues on that page. Also, you can altert me whenever you find someone attempting to use Micahel Moore as a source in an article, which would turn Wiki into a laughingstock. I'd set them straight and direct them to legitimate sources on international relations. BTW, if you keep up the good work, I'll nominate you for admin. 172 03:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. From experience I know that working on controversial subjects can be maddening around here! Let me know if you need a page protected or unprotected, or help stabilizing the libertarian anarchism page (sounds like a magnet for troublemakers.) Page protections seem to repel the trolls, who disappear mysteriously when forced to explain themselves on the talk pages. Also, with the problem users gone, perhaps it's time to lift the protections of Manuel Noriega, Mass murder, History of Panama, Saddam Hussein, State terrorism, etc.

BTW, sorry for not making it clear earlier that you weren't the guilty party in last week's series of edit wars. Your only mistake was falling into their trap by playing their game of auto-revert, thus letting them pull you into their ideological proxy battles. 172 23:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

22:04, 3 Mar 2004 . . VeryVerily (fixing double redirect; also, i don't like this change, the new article is poorly written, while this one was clear)

Regarding attoparsec, I wasn't the one who caused a double redirect.

And as to the article being "poorly written", would you pse specify (I thought I'd left "attoparsec" almost unchanged). --Palapala 22:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not dare doing that with the GWB National Guard accusations.

;-) -- VV 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the terror word at March 11, ...Madrid. I was getting very angry. Pfortuny 08:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The last three edit wars between you and User:Venceremos were disappointing - esecially in light of the constructive and civil discussions that ended the edit wars over Mass murder and State terrorism. I figured that the users involved had already made enough progress so as to avoid these kinds of spectacles. It's a waste of your time to automatically revert his edits repeatedly. Just leave the page alone and request a page protection from a sysop. Please take my word for it - this is how you'll be the most efficient and effective. 172 18:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course Venceremos is Lance/Hector/Richard. But isn't this getting old already? Just deal with him directly. So what if he's a Communist? What's the big deal? You could make the effort to communicate with him. He's going to keep playing games with you until you start treating him seriously. Figure out a way to meet him halfway whenever he has a valid point to raise. When you quit treating him like the devil admins won't have to protect pages. 172 10:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm only trying to help. "Venceremos" isn't misbehaving because he's the devil - that's all that I'm saying. I've had a few words with him and it is my strong impression is that he's waiting for people like you, RickK, Robert Merkel, Ed Poor, etc. to tone town the blistering attacks a notch and give him a chance. He's just having a hard time finding a niche in the site for a leftwing user. After all, he's always under relentless scrutiny and attack. It's unfair to subject him to what is effectively auto-revert in practice. While he does need watching, 100% of his facts aren't wrong in 100% of his edits. If I were you, I'd ask him what would it take to get him to become more cooperative. Chances are that he thinks you're unreasonable, while you think he's unreasonable. But I think that you're both wrong. 172 23:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Kevehs

I am considering placing a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment in regards to this user, not so much in regards to their edits, which I don't think are so very bad, but in regards to what I see as violations of wikiquette on the article talk pages. I have noticed he is not civil in regards to yourself. Have you discussed this with him on his talk page, or otherwise considered implementing the Misplaced Pages:Conflict resolution process in regards to this user? Sam Spade 05:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For starters I think I have experienced far less than you, from what I've reviewed in the page history of AC. Anyways, if you'd like a look at my joys of communication with Kev, you can review talk:Anarchism or talk:Libertarian socialism where there has been recent squabbles. I suppose I might be thinner skinned, but I really don't find his tone or communication style acceptable nor utilitarian. On the other hand I doubt I'll take any action if I'm the only one who thinks it necessary. Sam Spade 08:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not really saying that you're in any way at fault for what's been going on with the "red faction." I'm just saying that Lance/Hector/Richard/Venceremos probably feels quite inundated, given the intense criticism and scrutiny coming from a select circle of contributors, and that his behavior probably stems more from a group dynamic than him being the devil that you're making out to be. Sooner or later, you ought to admit that the anti-Communist POV of the community as a whole has been at the root of his behavior.

You'd also be better off if you stopped lodging complaints about him over and over again, to different user to different user, and from page to page. Instead, find a better strategy. Keep in mind that you have the power to determine his behavior; by defining the conflict in terms of "Lance/Hector/Richard/Venceremos versus the community," you're putting him in an awkward bind. For him to get whatever the hell he wants out of his foes, he's been forced to campaign against his circle of critics - so to speak. But if you react to every individual dispute as a separate incident, and drop all this chatter about how he needs to be banned, the conflict will deescalate. Believe me, after working with you on US history (1980-present), I understand firsthand where Venceremos must be coming from. I wasn't too happy when, e.g., you decided to lodge a series of complaints about me on a series of different pages. This only made me less willing to try to interact with you on a positive basis at the time. 172 11:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV: do you feel that the latest version of 'torture and murder in Iraq' before protection by 172 is acceptable? pir 13:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV: the repugnance of torture and murder does not depend on who comitted them - do you agree to this view? Misplaced Pages should provide information about such facts in a NPOV manner no matter who committed them, and then let readers draw their own moral conclusions. If we are selective in having articles about only atrocities by one side (which ever it is) then we (Misplaced Pages) become propagandists for this side. Do you agree to these?

I am not interested in pushing a particular point of view, such as that there's a moral equivalence between the state repression of Saddam's regime and the measures the current occupiers of Iraq use to stay in control. I'm (genuinely!) interested in providing the facts, and put readers in a position to make up their mind.

The reason I added information about torture and murder committed by occupation is that the article seemed to fulfil a propaganda purpose (probably created in the run-up to the Iraq war) which I wanted to balance with a more NPOV picture.pir 10:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to violate the revert policy, please join me in discussion on Talk:Americanism. Thanks. SV(talk) 06:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

KR

User:Hanpuk is busy trying to whitewash the Khmer Rouge article based on topics we have went over there and other places before. I've run out of reverts for the day. --mav 06:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)