Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zleitzen (talk | contribs) at 06:48, 22 April 2006 (→Cuba). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• /Archive 1: Ruth Kelly, Chomsky, Feminism

Um, so confusing with the archive, I just want to leave a message

lol.

Antelope, would you mind casting your eye on a disagreement between myself and Lao Wai on the Politics of Noam Chomsky page, would be interested to hear your take on this. I have also requested mediation to avoid an edit war. Thanks. --Zleitzen 11:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Sorry for gettin' all shotgun spray like. I agree, there is relevance for that State Capitalism line....... .

later....

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

My Turn?

I'm having a lovely conversation with another editor on the Bill Moyers talk page, regarding some possible original research. Could I trouble you to have a look? I have taken some mediation steps, but I wonder what you think? Am I perhaps confusing the man? Maybe I have failed to present my side? Thanks much.  :)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 09:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for coming. I think I'm going to take a short break. My fear is that he will continue to dump things that Moyers has said into the criticism section just because it supports a critic's point, even if that critic has not referred to the "Moyer material". And that he will continue to dump links to unrelated claims of criticism in an attempt to support that particular claim in the criticism section.

-sigh- This is tiring. Am I making any sense?

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

I agree with your edits Antelope, though it might be worth waiting a while to see how things pan out and if things calm down. Making a tactical withdrawal, so to speak --Zleitzen 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Just a sanity check.

Also wondering if I could be approaching my points in a way that is more understandable.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Personally I had no problems understanding your edits and reasons. But it seems that an unusual degree of patience is required to contest edits with that particular editor! Something I've noticed: one of the more successful tactics to employ is to span out edits over a longer time rather than change a whole lot at once. For some psychological reason this seems to reduce the friction. The same works for the talk pages, writing less and posting less frequently can lower the temperature. There is the chance that the other editor will simply find the slow turnover dull and move on to another challenge. If they're not showing particular commiting to wiki-values then that's quite likely. But it certainly is a trial of patience! --Zleitzen 14:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I get a little carried away sometimes. It is also a challenge to find the most succinct way to make a point. But then, as you might have implied, less is more. Balance can be tricky. :P

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

Hi Antelope, that's a great response from the user below.......... Read the talk page, but avoid entering the tedious edit war. Yuk! --Zleitzen 19:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.... sometimes after things die down, everything comes out in the wash.

"Read the talk page, but avoid entering the tedious edit war. Yuk!"

Yeah yeah, I know I've been prone to edit war participation.  ;) ;) lol.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

moyers compromise

Apologies Osbojos, I didn't see your compromise version until after I'd edited my compromise version over the top. --Zleitzen 01:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

don't worry about it, I wasn't particularly happy with what I'd done anyway. I don't really have the time to contribute properly to wikipedia at the moment (finals time at law school doesn't leave much free time), I was just trying to stave off the headaches of revert wars and arbitration. --Osbojos 03:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My reverts on Cuba

I do know the policies on reverts. Reverting his rude comments are well within the policies when they are meant to start more problems and the user has already been warned about there attitude on WikiPedia. WikiPedia is not a war zone to take out name calling in talk pages when something doesn't go there way. I'll revert as long as that goes on. You can appeal to a admin if you wish. --Scott Grayban 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You removed paragraphs referring to the article, much as I disagreed with that editors behaviour I don't believe that it is appropriate to do this and damages attempts to find consensus, you removed a users entry that read this

can't believe that somebody is citing such deeply derived sources such as Funk and Wagner. There are endless published scholarly works on Cuba use the D... things. Most of your (I do not include myself) accept Cuban government data as factual; it is not. Such data is not reviewed, nor is it challenged because it is an official monolithic artifact generated by the Cuban government. The Cuban government does not admit any scholars who are critical. Pro-Castro scholars are presented with government generated material so the material has to be gleaned from all kinds of other sources, including satellite imagery (which on occasion I use myself for formal articles). The trouble is that few if any of you read Spanish, you believe Cuban government data, and do not even try to demonstrate that you possess the background to critically evaluate the circumstances involved. There are serious text reads Thomas, 1998 and the rest on the list that I provided; go to university libraries outside of Cuba such as University of Miami, Coral Gables or that of the University of Florida in Gainesville, read the reports of the British Embassy, read the proceedings of Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy, go to the Google earth site and observe the imagery, etc. El Jigue 4-14-06.

--Zleitzen 16:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the one that he called people idiots in the talk. Not this one. But I really don't care anymore. You guys can war revert until all are blocked for fighting. I was trying to keep to noise down so productive editing could go on. But I see no matter what I do it doesn't matter. --Scott Grayban 16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Issues with Adam

You should read my talk page and see what he left about how he is going to make the editors see that Cuba is a Communist country and revert defeat all anti- communist talk for Cuba. --Scott Grayban 01:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Grief! I for one appreciate that at least you have been trying to reach consensus on that article, which is rare in that environment. Thanks for helping out with certain editors. --Zleitzen 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I tried but I went back to just patrolling the article for violations and revert warring again. Since Adam and a couple others seem to be hell bent on using there POV that article will never be right and NPOV. Even after my suggestions which were pretty good compaired to what has been there I still got slammed for it. Oh well blocking users is fun though :) --Scott Grayban 02:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As stated, I am not opposed to mediation, although based on past experience I don't have any great confidence in it. If a formal mediator is appointed I will of course cooperate with him/her. I have no objection to text from the EU report or something like it being used in the article, provided the essential points are clear. Adam 03:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. --Zleitzen 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:RFM-Filed

"United Nations" term

Seemed like there was a bit of controversy about that and you were the one who changed "Roosevelt" to "Churchill". User:VashiDonsk was asking about that change in the discussion page. He references his claim, however: http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm. Take a quick look here. If you are still not convinced, go to the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:United_Nations. Colonel Marksman 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention Colonel Marksman and I happily concede. --Zleitzen 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I Understand

It's just that after a long battle over many years, i am wary of people like Bruce. PMA 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba NPOV project

I'm about to move home, may well have time to join in when I settle. Should be interesting, in itself at least, I doubt it will have any effect on the way the Cuba/Castro pages are edited. MichaelW 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Hello! I see you are a powerful wikipedian! Do you know if anything is being done to return the Cuba article to its former glory? I would be willing to help (and register!) if that is the case! Thanks, 24.68.192.76 06:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another editor trying to seek consensus on the issues you highlight, 24.68.192.76. See long talk page history on this! --Zleitzen 06:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

it was more the obvious POV pushing that caused me to revert - even Adam Carr says i mean well - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999

PMA 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings of course! Is there a certain way I should interact with you? Excuse my ignorance towards your unique personality! (sorry, Zleitzen if this is an inapropriate place for discussion.) 24.68.192.76 06:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No problems PMA, or 24.68.192.76 --Zleitzen 06:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am confused, PMA reverted my edit again! How does one defend themselves from all these accusations at once!24.68.192.76 06:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Phrases such as "ripped from a Miami dissident site" etc gave an impression that you have a firm pro-Fidel/communist POV. as i said on the talk page of Cuba i try to defend the 'pedia from both right and left wing ideologs. PMA 06:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the "non-multiparty" is more accurate PMA. And thanks for changing that. --Zleitzen 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)