User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 5

Fancy taking a stroll over to talk:automobile and commenting on my proposal to move the page? Mintguy

Could you take a look at the China article? A group of users is refusing to have China introduced as a "Communist state." One has called that tantamount to calling Australia a "Liberal Party-led state". It seems as if they do not have a fundamental understanding of what the Leninist state is or an understanding of the definitive government structure of Communist Party-led states.

It's no matter of controversy, after all, that China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and Laos represent a definitive regime-type due to similar structures of the ruling party and similar arrangements between party and state. There's no need really to argue a point so basic. I took it for granted that everyone knew what a Communist-state is as a government-type.

172

Prat is still confused. Please try to straighten him out again on the China talk page. 172

Is he confused? Or does he espouse a different POV? I'll take a look.

--cprompt

I'm utterly speechless. After finally reading the content of the abortion page and the talk page I'm finding that the article is much worse than I had imagined from your comments.

By the length of the article and the number of contributors unwilling to detail the medical procedure, the global history of this procedure, and laws pertaining to abortion outside the United States, I sincerely doubt that it's salvageable. One Vera Cruz dismembering an article like New Imperialism can be fought off (with a month of edit wars and endless appeals for banning), but the pervasive mindlessness of the abortion article is irreparable.

Your character is admirable for being willing to enter that zoo. 172

Slrubenstein won't stop reverting a version of the article that introduces China as a "socialist state."

Once again your assistance is needed on the China article. Slrubenstein, a well-read, educated, reasonable, and amiable contributor who has greatly improved the articles on the history of the Soviet Union and New Imperialism has for some reason that I've yet to comprehend simply degenerated into Lir/Vera/Susan/Adam/Dietary on this page and only this page. He's being equally as dense and is misinterpreting reasonable explanations by other contributors in much the same manner. 172

My God. User after user jumps into the China talk page, misunderstanding and misrepresenting what we have said at least a dozen times and making the same arguments that have nothing to do with the structure of the Chinese government. What is it about that page that turns reasonable users into Lir/Veras? 172

Do you think that this following passage in the China article is NPOV: "The Kuomintang fled to Taiwan, while Mao Zedong established a dictatorship that cost the lives of millions of people. After the death of Mao, China remained nominally communist, but has gradually loosened governmental control over people's personal lives and engaged in reforms to transform its planned economy into a market based one."?

I think that this passage should be reworded and expounded upon slightly. But I'd let you have the call on that since I've already been making too many contentious changes to that article as it is. 172

Next to the appeasement article, the abortion article is profound, well-written, and thought-provoking. Such egregious violators of the NPOV guidelines shouldn’t be appeased and their rants should be aborted.

Do you want to just remove the text of the article leaving only the introductory stub? We could salvage the facts from the polemic and stick them in other articles. 172

Your edits to the Papal Tiara page look great. I'm just using IE 6, so unfortunately I'm not privy to some of the abnomalities that occur when a page is viewed through an alternate browser. user:J.J.

Slrubenstein and the others still don't understand that this has nothing to do with Marxist theory, market reforms in China, or their dedication to communist principles. I really doubt that he grasps that we're just trying to desribe the structure of the government. Why don't we make a point and introduce Sweden as a "socialist monarchy". That would follow their standards. 172

The problem is that Slrubenstein is being unreasonable while 5 or so others keep jumping into the debate not understanding what the hell we're talking about (or bothering to find out) and saying crap like "communism is a loaded and ambiguous term" or "China isn't communist anymore" or "according to Marxist theory they're socialist."

So I'm going to insert an explanation stating that we're referring to the government-type, which shouldn't be ambiguous to a chimp, on the talk pages of everyone who has participated in this debate. Maybe this will calm the page down.

172

See reply re: HoC on my talk page Mintguy 10:29 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

JT, you and I seem to be more and and more on opposite sides of issues lately. -- Zoe

Fred's been doing this on the China page as well, but not in such a blatant manner. I'll keep an eye on him. 172

On the extreme left, users like Lir/Vera and on the extreme right users like Fred Bauder and the anonymous original author of the appeasement page not only purvey a really simplistic understanding of history, but the frightening thing is that they seem to actually believe that their propaganda is objective and appreciative of the complexities of history. Fred's ideology has diluted him into not only making sweeping generalizations (along the lines of contemporary China being tantamount to Nazi Germany), but things that are completely false (like his stance that China's not a republic). This really reminds me of totalitarian thinking. 172

I sent you an email a couple days ago - did you receive it? --mav

Nothing I can do about Fred Bauder. You've taken it to the mailing list, let them deal with it. Oh, and I think User:Mib might be DW. -- Zoe

Take a look at the user contributions of Shino Baku and compare them to those of the past reincarnations of Lir. Notice that they’re few comments other than (top) all over the page. 172

Sorry, I'm getting tired of being beaten on all over the place. Just stroll over to the Votes for deletion page, where I had the temerity to suggest that articles that contain only a picture and no text might want to be deleted -- I didn't just unilaterally delete them, I only suggested it, but yet that's just the latest thing I'm being attacked for, not to mention the hopping mouse fiasco. I am not about to get into another attack right now. Maybe mav could protect the page for you? -- Zoe

I see your problem, JTD. Fred's additions are highly biased in that they do not attempt to recognise any of the positive features of communist states (such as, for example, public health and education). But in this instance, it does not matter, as they are entirely off-topic. The entry could have the fairest, most balanced assesment of the Soviet Union (and other states) ever written, but it still would not belong there.

I am not sure what to do about it though. Right now, my desire to contribute to the 'pedia is practically zero. I have done a massive amount of careful research and writing in the fauna entries over the last month or two, and produced a fair body of stuff that is (I believe) of real value. Alas, a small number of people who never actually contribute to the fauna entries in any substantive way insist on constantly changing the carefully researched and correctly capitalised species names into all lower case, which is simply wrong, and I've had a gutful of it. I'm tired of having to re-edit and re-edit entries, and of having stuff moved to the wrong title all the time.

At the moment, we have the absurd psudo-policy of using the capitalisation for aircraft types (even V-1 Flying Bomb, of all things!) and dog breeds, but not for other species of animal! It leads to all sorts of ambiguities and, as a quick reference to any handbook or field guide will show you, is flat-out wrong.

This came to a head yesterday. See Talk:Spinifex hopping mouse for details. Everyone working on the bird entries feels the same way abut it. We all know the correct way to do things, and we all agree that the situation is unsatisfactory. Look at the massive amount of work User:Jimfbleak has done, for example. Ask him what he feels about it. Anyway, till further notice, I'm putting my energies elsewhere. This business of constantly interfering with the work of the people who are doing the hard yards and who have the expertise in the area has to stop.

Tannin 00:59 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

I just sent an email to the mailing list in response to yours. I should not have added the last sentence - it was not needed and is in fact inflammatory. --mav

Thanks for your support and kind words, JTD. I'm going to take a break and think things over for a while. Tannin

Do you want to take a look at neoconservatism? A non-US perspective is needed, especially to discuss parallels with Thatcherism. I was diverted to that topic after working on the appeasement page, which is on the topic that feeds these hawks.

172

Yes, neoconservatism's Adam-free. Come over while it still is. Such a controversial topic focusing on foreign policy, about which he loves to formulate uninformed conclusions, along with my presence, means that this article has a high propensity to attract Adam in the near future. 172

So, which ex-nemesis of ours is "Like a Virgin"? Deb 17:33 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

I totally concur with your comments on the talk page of history of Greece. However, my knowledge and understanding of Greek history is weak and I have practically no knowledge of recent scholarship (at least not pertaining to the Cold War, of course), but would you be interested in overhauling that article with me?

If you're not interested in a prolonged project, we could bring in some content from other articles since many pertain to the history of Greece. 172

Why are you talking to cockroach trolls from hell? Like a Virgin

A couple of times in the past, using Internet Explorer 5.2 for the Mac on wiki I have been hit by bugs whereby letters on the keyboard would mean different things to what they should. I ended up closing IE completely and re-opening and usually though not always this went away. Tonight, the same phenomenon has struck this time on the safari browser in wiki. (And true to form, as I write about it here, it has cleared up, but only after I had left wiki and opened up other pages using safari, where no such problem existed. Then, back in wiki, everything was fine. [[[[][][][]][ Yippee!!! I can type square brackets again. And yes, 'y' produces y and not 'z' ( and 'z' produces z not y.) This is not the first time this has happened on safari, and I experienced it on IE. And never ever outside wiki. It is making using wiki almost impossible. I just did an archive on the talk page of Communist state and I had to cut and page colons, square brackets, round brackets, etc. I could not even sign a contribution as the ~~~~ could not be typed, and my É in my name had had the fada (that thing on the top) on the bottom. I presume that there is a browser problem, but as it only ever seems to happen on wiki, there must be a wiki side to it. ÉÍREman 00:32 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

It happened again, when I tried to type in the talk page of Wilhelm II of Germany. I left, went onto a different screen, when into hotmail, typed there. Everything came out correctly and when I went back into wiki on another screen, hey presto, everything is working again. What is going on? ÉÍREman 01:24 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

One of the usual German keyboard layouts is pretty similar to the English/American layouts (QWERTY), except the 'Y' and 'Z' are switched around (thus it's sometimes called 'QWERTZ'), and of course there are some keys usurped to add the umlaut and eszets needed. If you're getting the 'Y' and 'Z' switched, it sounds like you might be inadvertantly switching to a German keyboard. I don't know about Macs in particular, but usually there's an option or setting to have some certain key combination switch among the keyboard choices; e.g., in GNOME, I use left ALT + SHIFT to switch, and it's configurable. You're probably hitting the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) key combination at some point and getting switched to the German keyboard. Check your internationalization settings, and see if it lists the key combo there, or just remove the German one from the list to avoid getting that one in particular. -- John Owens 07:23 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

P.S. What is "doing a Donald Rumsfeld on it", exactly? ;)

Did you have a reason for moving UK general election, 1979 (with a comma) to UK general election. 1979 (with a full stop)? It seems a rather strange thing to do and is inconsistent with the other UK general elections. I'm guessing it wasn't intentional. --rbrwr

Oops, mea culpa. Totally and utterly unintentional. ÉÍREman 21:25 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Just checking. I've moved it back now. --rbrwr

I take it you know that "I took the picture myself" isn't enough by itself to give you the picture's copyright or alternatively to exempt it from copyright? You would have to have at least an implied right to take a picture without encumbrances - and in many cases that isn't so, for instance when you are somewhere where they sell their own souvenir postcards. PML.

It is if there is no restrictions on the right to photograph. Whether they sell their own cards is irrelevant unless they enforce a 'no photographs' policy which was breached. None of the shots was taken in a location where photography was banned so they are 100% copyright-free.

That goes to the point of "implied", not to the principle itself. The things you mention are evidence that there are no stipulations as to copyright, but not (or so I understand) stipulations or exemptions in themselves. The thing is, there might be yet other evidence tilting the weight of it the other way - such as (say) ordinary practice in cathedrals; then the absence of enforcement in any particular cathedral would not amount to a waiving of that cathedral's rights in general, though it might well affect a particular instance of a person taking a photograph. The cathedral authorities might equally argue that the only implied waiving of rights was for photography for private purposes. What I'm getting at is, it's a lot more complicated than just "I took the picture myself". PML.

It is perfectly straightforward. If the picture is taken in a location where no restrictions exist, then there is no issue.

Compare and contrast that with "...isn't enough by itself" (emphasis added). The issue is determining that, i.e. whether there actually are any restrictions (as opposed to whether there are any restrictions you are experiencing directly, a subtle difference). I already noted that these things can indeed be implied, I am only drawing attention to the fact that a thorough check needs a look around to see whether you missed anything else that might affect the implication; that is, the mere fact of having taken the photograph will not 100% always be sufficient (though clearly that should be the presumption). PML.

Let me put it bluntly. There ARE no restrictions WHATSOEVER. None. Ziltch. I like everyone have been photographing these locations since I like everyone else got our first camera. In Dublin Castle I was surrounded by people taking photographs (as well as two Aussies who were playing football in the main courtyard. You can see them in the distance in the photograph of the main courtyard in Dublin Castle I put on the page.

None of the pictures I am adding on was taken in a location where any restrictions apply. In Dublin Castle restrictions only apply in the interior, not the exterior, which is a public space with complete freedom to photograph, where thousands of photographs are taken daily by tourists, the press, PR photoshoots, etc. Ditto with all the other locations. As to places where restrictions normally apply, when the reason for the request for the photograph is explained (ie, for a non-profit web-based encyclopædia) the response has been 100% 'of course you can', usually with the statement 'and if they don't come out as well as you hope, come back and we'll give you official shots.'

This rather shows what I was getting at; when you ask and get these things, you are indeed going that extra step. I was pointing out that the short statement that was appearing on your comments was not a full statement. "Do what I mean." PML.

In those locations, there were restrictions. They were interior shots. I spoke to the person there about them. They occured in four of the 170 shots I have taken so far in the last couple of days. In 166 locations there were no restrictions. (All were in churches & cathedrals BTW, and one man even offered to put on backlighting behind a stained glass window so I could get a better photograph of the window. Funnily enough, he knew about wiki because he had looked up two religious-orientated pages on it and was impressed. I didn't tell him I was the author of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Papal Tiara pages.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, my friend.

I'll get back to this later, once I've got a form of words that doesn't muddy the point I'm tring to get across yet further. Meanwhile, I think you'll find the new stuff now arriving at Constitutional convention interesting, deserving of clarification and spell checking etc., and in need of linking and being linked to - or of being moved around, if you know a better place. PML.

I might be excessively conspiratorial, but I’m under the suspicion that Zog is Lir/Vera out for revenge. Is anyone else? 172

You'll probably want to take a look at Fair City when you get back, if no one else has gotten to it first. -- John Owens 16:33 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

JTD, Michael is very abrubt and can over-do the copy editing (as we have both discovered) but he does a tremendous amount of good work with his tireless weeding of the mistakes, misunderstandings, and newbie blunders that (if left unchecked) would overwhelm the 'pedia in next to no time. If I may offer a suggestion, I'd slip him a softly-worded note along the lines of: I appreciate the great work you do correcting newbie mistakes, but I thought I'd better let you know that I have some expertise in areas X and Y, so if you see a term in an entry that I have capitalised (or left uncapitalised), chances are that it's correct. (This is my field, after all.) But don't let this discourage you from your tireless weeding out of nonsense! Or something like that, anyway. Yelling at people is more fun, but softly softly catchee monkey. (Or is that phrase now politically incorrect? Whatever.) Once Jim let him know that he (Jim) and I knew what we were doing, Michael immediately agreed to leave the bird entries up to us. We have nearly got them sorted out now. So, a quiet word in his ear an you'll be fine. Cheers -- Tannin

I thought Michael was banned? --mav

I have expect some day Saddam Hussein will appear and start vandalising articles about Iraq. Or moustaches. LOL.

Of course, then we'll be stuck wondering whether the alternate personalities are actually body doubles or just the usual personality switching we seem to attract. -- John Owens

P.S. What would be your feelings on "German idealism"? I recently made a sweep through that and a couple of other related articles, changing "German Idealism" to "German idealism", etc. Do philosophical movements warrant caps, IYHO? -- John Owens

I realised that when I sort of 'missed' a couple of songs of a CD that was playing. I found myself saying 'that's not number 3 on the running order' and realising it had played 3 and 4 and was onto 5! I must have nodded off!!!

Perhaps you need to add yourself to either Wikipedia:Confessed Wikipediholics or Wikipedia:Wikipediholics in denial, then. ;) -- John Owens

JT, can I get your input on the ciscussion at Talk:Virgin Mary? I'm not Catholic (not even religious, though I lean towards pagan), so the distinction being made isn't clear to me. I value your opinion, and if you think the distinction between "Blessed Virgin Mary" vs. "Virgin Mary" as different concepts is correct, then I'll back out of the discussion. -- Zoe

Welcome back! 172

Please take a look at the top of Pixel. is it clear to understand? -- Tarquin 19:58 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

It's been improved even more by another user! (it's great when wiki does this ...) I've added a pic too. :-) -- Tarquin 21:30 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

BTW, Epopt created all the day-month redirs a while back, so you can do 19 June or June 19 as you like, no need for pipe. Stan 06:06 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

My goof, sorry, I read the diff in Sophie, Countess of Wessex completely backwards. Stan 15:51 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

So far criticism of Fred Bauder's contributions has centered on it being inappropriate for an article on a government-type. Thinking about that is frankly quite disturbing since that debate should have been resolved long ago with a single sentence! But anyway, I think that there's also room to criticize the sweeping nature of his additions, which is essential before he decides to branch out and spread his propaganda to other articles. So I decided to turn his additions upside down just to drive a point across on the talk page of Communist state, pointing out "characteristics of the Communist state" that are equally as sweeping from a different point of view. I'd like to know what you'd have to think. 172

Please see the talk page for Communist state. 172

Yeah, we did get our wires crossed. My mistake! 172

So is Fred Bauder a vandal for adding material to an article, or are you a vandal for always deleting it? It's pretty arrogant of you to act as if only you are the valid judge of what should be in an article. Since you're talking of banning, why shouldn't you be banned for repeatedly deleting his work? From where I sit, there's little difference between what you and he are doing, except that you're pelting him with large numbers of rude and disparaging comments. Stan 20:45 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

So you have a lot to say about the evils of Fred and his effect on unnamed former contributors, about which I shrug since I don't have any objective info, and your only comment on his content was "right wing propaganda garbage", which gives you away. The page as it was previously written struck me as being cleverly left-slanted via the omission of unpleasant details, so I welcome efforts to bring it into balance. (And before you react - if you've read my list messages, you'll know not to think I'm a Bushie. :-) ) Stan 22:45 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

While something along the lines of Fred's draft in the article on Communist government would be helpful, I think that it was a bad move to place that text in any article since it falls short of proper historical standards and Wikipeida NPOV guidelines. It's an incentive encouraging his bad behavior as well. But pragmatically, if he's going to be so obdurate, I guess we might as well accept his garbage in an article at least pertaining to the topic.

Oh well. I'll see you in the China minefield. Oh well. I'll see you in the China minefield. BTW, GREAT article on the Irish Houses of Parliament!!! So far it's the best history I've found online! 172

--

As you have a Ph.D. from history you may well know that post war Tito's Yugoslavia was not Soviet Union satelitte state and hereby I please you not to correct or deny something you might think it is not NPOVed. May I also ask -- is Ireland a British satelitte country? I know you'll be quite mad if someone answers yes. Have you ever lived in one communist state or you know everything from the fact books? I haven't checked all your reverts, since I have other things to do, ha, ha. Best regards. --XJam 00:48 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Addition 1: I've read your post to my user page and now I see you can distinguish 'some things'. I was a bit surprised that one Irishman would think in that way. But anyhow. In fact finally perhaps someday we might say that Yugoslavia was 'somehow' under SU superintendence all the same. On May 4 was Tito's birthday and still more than 20 years after his death here goes a debate in what country we really lived. International authority gives him a great respect because he led the fight against the Nazis -- but this is history. In fact after the war he act like one true despot, but on the other side he did not do so much things wrong. Yes, there are bad one of course (like Goli otok and such). Decisive was his "no" to Stalin in 1950s. Thank you that you've uttered a sound. My best wishes over to Ireland. --XJamRastafire 01:02 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

You're being a bit too complacent in this comment: "The great thing is that unlike Communist state there aren't many people on wiki who even think they know anything about the [Irish Houses of Parliament] so I could do a proper academic article without people who don't know what they are talking about jumping in to make idiotic changes." Believe me, if Lir/Vera ever found out about it he'd unleash his expertise on the subject or a least demand that the article include

one large heading

for every single sentence. And Fred Bauder would probably suspect some kind of pro-Communist bias. 172

I have put my proposal about naming of Emperors of Japan at Talk:Emperor of Japan. See it and please give me a comment. I always appreciate your expertise at political science. -- Taku 05:20 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Your wholesale deletion of my edits to integrate content from the various Communist state texts, which took a good amount of time and effort, was rude but predictable. --The Cunctator

You wrote: "Maybe if Fred is happy with his own page..." in reference to Communist government. You seem to be under the misapprehension that individual Wikipedians have ownership over Wikipedia entries. They do not. --The Cunctator

Re Sophie, Diana et al - please see my latest note on the Sophie Talk page. It might well be a good idea to check with Buck House (although you'll probably end up arguing with them too!) But I think, as usual, we all have the same objective - we just disagree about how to get there. Deb 10:45 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I realise that my asking this may possibly make your head explode but... what is the difference between a Communist State and a Communist Government? I've never studied politics and only the recent debates have suggested to me that their is a difference. Are they the same thing? Or are Communist governments subsets of Communist states but not necesarily the other way round? Or are they completely different? I'm afraid that my poor brain can't unravel the differences from the two articles. I'm not trying to wind you up with this question, I'm just genuinely interested. -- Ams80 12:25 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, it, and re-reading the Communist state article, has made things clearer. I'd never really noticed the thing about the person ruling from the party before. I think I was having trouble with the whole Communism concept because I had a somewhat simplistic (wrong?) view of Communism. My simplistic view was that a Communist party was just like any other kind of political party (viewing them as kind of further down the spectrum of Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems etc.) and that if a Communist party came to power in England that certain things would not change, i.e. we'd still have elctions and still have parliament as it is now, just say 55% Communist, 20% Labour etc. I thought that most real-life Communist states were examples of Communist gone bad, as in the ruling elite drunk with power, really harsh punishment for stepping out of line etc. and that real Communism was more like Wikipedia with, for example, everyone getting along, everyone equal and open debate!

Anyway, I think that's enough of showing my ignorance for one day! Thanks again for the explanation -- Ams80 20:33 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Noticed this on User talk:172 - "Bombard him [Stan] with one hell of a list to shut him up on this ridiculous crusade". I would love to get the list (although I'm not optimistic), but don't count on it shutting me up! I don't know how Irish academia is, but in my US academic career I learned not to be too sure that I knew everything, even in subjects where I was the acknowledged expert. Stan 20:42 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Don't your eyes get a bit tired with fag smoke from one direction and candle fumes from the other? Mintguy 23:10 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

You better be joking. --mav

I assume (perhaps wrongly) your misunderstanding relates to fag (British English). See picture on User:Jtdirl

JT, if you're having trouble changing image sizes, may I recommend Ifranview? It's a GREAT, FREE image processor that you can download from http://www.irfanview.com/. I use it all the time, it does a good job of image changing. -- Zoe

Yep that page has some issues at both standard (800x600) and very high (1280+) monitor resolutions. In addition to creating thumbnails with media links to the larger versions, I suggest that most of the interior shots be placed in an image gallery (see Yucca Mountain for an example). As it is, the page is image heavy and this distracts from the the text of the article. I'll do all this for you if you don't object (I'm also sure if you looked hard enough you will find some image program on your computer capable of downsizing photos). --mav

I don't know what to do with the last two interior shots. They are too big and too close to each other (that's why I suggested they be put into a gallery). --mav

I can't imagine coming back under any circumstances since Mav's new comments on the mailing list are even more damaging than ever. Once again, he picked out a handful of comments by me that would make me seem arrogant, condescending, and obnoxious. But you could do that to any user if he's said as much as I have on so many talk pages and user pages. I'm probably no terser than he is, you are, or most users are under certain circumstances. It's just that you're not going to be too congenial when the bulk of your contributions for two weeks deal with reverting changes by Lir/Vera or Fred Bauder. You know that a saint can deal with them if they have an opinion because they do not back off.

As for the matter of turnover that you brought up, this might be the case, but there is little turnover when it comes to active contributors. I'm generally communicating with the same people with whom I was communicating last December when I found this site.

Mav's charges that I'm uncooperative are not deserved; his hints that I have a POV agenda are even more damaging and offensive. Once again, he brings up his misunderstanding of my edits to the Saddam article to bring that point across, which is pretty much the only article on which I worked with him closely. Both Mav and I are Americans and he must certainly know how damaging his charges on the mailing list that I was selectively adding "pro-Saddam" content to an article can be. These days that charge is probably worse than being labeled a neo-Nazi in the United States. After all, if you express admiration of Hitler in the United States, your patriotism is not automatically impugned. After September 11, 2001, you're not too popular if you're accused of praising some kind of force in the Middle East hostile to US interests. How am I supposed to function when people have this impression? Don't you think that a lot of those trolling the China and Communist state pages came over because they heard these kinds of misrepresentations of my contributions? You lamented the fact that opinionated users come over to controversial historical articles because they have strong opinions and mistake their familiarity with subject with expertise. While that's a factor, I also wonder if they're deciding to come over due to rumors that I have some kind of leftist or anti-American bias.

Not only are the charges deeply inflammatory, but utterly bewildering. When I found the Saddam article, it was in an intellectually shallow state, lacking an assessment of Saddam’s impact on Iraqi society, his nationalization of the oil industry, land reforms, Baathist ideology, how he sought to stem ethnic, class, and religious conflict, the cause of the Iraq-Iran War, and possible underlying causes of his conflict with Kuwait. And why is Mav including all these subjects under the blanket category of "good things", saying that I only added all the "good things that Saddam has done"?

Do most Americans think that state seizure of productive assets is a "good thing"? If anything, the past two decades seem like a decade of privatization and not nationalization, and this shift has been led by the United States. As an aside, I myself generally agree with privatization theory, but wonder if state-ownership of extractive industries in developing countries is a good source of state revenues, because industries such as oil can be value-adding despite great inefficiency. But then there's the Modernization Theory to take into consideration, and is linkage between poor records of democratization and oil in oil-exporting Third World nations. Anyway, why is Mav making the blanket assumption that readers will assume that nationalization is a "good thing"? And what about land reforms? Do most readers assume that the forced and often uncompensated seizure of farms is a "good thing?" As an American, I'd assume that this is certainly not the case. Due to our country's history, there is a sentimental image associated with the "small farmer" and the "family farmer", and I doubt many Americans would react favorably to the state-seizure of farmland owned within a select family for generations. Look at the generally appalled reaction by Americans and other Westerners to Mugabe's land reforms? Remember the strongly adverse reaction by the American public to the Sandanista land reforms in Nicaragua? I doubt that most readers will view Saddam more sympathetically when he's portrayed as a dictator who seized family farms and seized large sectors of the economy without compensation.

What about Saddam's efforts to stem social divides in a highly fragmented society? Is this automatically pro-Saddam? This would seem like a more complicated question, drawing values into question even. It seems like there has been a divide in Western political thought pronounced since the 16th century between those from whom order is more important than justice and those for who justice is more important than order. Not to be too general, but it seems like the West has moved in one direction decidedly, taking political rights very seriously. Whether or not you see any justification for Saddam's carrot/stick approach to social conflict within Iraq thus comes down to a fundamental question of political philosophy. I'd take a middle position, agreeing that Iraq probably needed an autocratic ruler and that the US can't spead democracy by force, but think that Saddam went so far that his regime had many destabilizing effects, like Stalin's. Stalin's collective punishment of certain ethnic groups certainly heightend ethnonationalist sentiment that would be unleahed when the coercion was loosened under Gorbachev. While this anaysis is speculative, it is a good idea in a short article to link Saddam's autocracy to class, ethnic, and religious conflict. And as I've just illustrated, this claim is made by people hostile to Saddam's dictatorship as well. And what about the suggestion that Iraq was a bulwark against the expansion of Islamic fundamentalism in the Iraq-Iran War? This could be perceived as a tacit justification of US foreign policy in the Middle East under Reagan. So why is there the assumption that my additions had an anti-American bias and not a pro-American bias?

Perhaps he got the impression that all these developments would have to be "good things" because I gave a brief synopsis of Baathist ideology in the beginning of the article. But as a historian, you know that it's critical to illuminate where historical actors are coming from. When I was an undergrad, I had a professor who went to a theological seminary before going on to get his maters and PhD in history at Harvard because he felt that historians were paying too little attention to how seriously the historical actors took the theological debate of the Protestant Reformations in their cultural traditions. Perhaps looking at Baathism in an Iraqi context in that brief section threw Mav off. But I'm sure that many who looked at the content that I added would see the actions of a tyrant who has exploited rather than resolved the tensions of Iraqi society and not "good things". Perhaps you could turn Mav's charges upside down by charging that he has the leftwing bias, and not me, because he automatically associated the nationalization of productive assets and land as "good things"!

You've worked with me far more often than Mav. When am I ever uncooperative with valid NPOV contributors? When do I ever fail to accept alternative interpretations? When do I ever push one single interpretation? Maybe on the Mugabe article, but I openly stated that I wanted to add a perspective that was overlooked and one that many didn't want to include. But did I refuse to have the other perspective included? No! I just didn't think that it was appropriate to introduce him as a 'totalitarian leader bent on staying in power who persecutes racial minorities, homosexuals, and is rejected by the international community.' I would want that to be an introduction to the Hitler page and he had my relatives in the ovens since it is not up to academic standards and NPOV policy. Probably because of the fast pace of an edit war, I was making shoddy additions that would later embarrass me (like Britain's Commonwealth). Yes, Britain is the most influential member, but I can't believe that I made an addition that was so idiotic. Oh well. I backed down once it was pointed out. However, the vast majority of my edits do not deal with controversial subjects like these. And I probably have one of the best records when it comes to NPOV in those! And what about the articles on really overlooked areas, like the history of Brazil? In those talk pages you'd find me begging for help and thanking users individually on their talk pages for even just copyediting those pages.

Mav knows me from hearsay and the context of misunderstanding my additions to the Saddam article. But now all know me in the context in which Mav presented me. So I have no business even considering coming back. The damage has been too great. 172

When I said "good thing" I am not stating that I agree with socialistic practices (I am in fact for free markets and private ownership). What I am saying is that in one sentence you state that Saddam did X (whatever - but often something socialistic) and the result was Y (good thing such as economic growth). I'm sorry you think that me expressing my opinion automatically makes you a pariah. You, on average, have been a great contributor but I have seen instances where you have caused more harm than good and have steadfastly refused to budge. That is why I was opposing your Admin application and was not advocating for you to be sanctioned as a user. I do hope that you will return (maybe even with a real user name next time - it is hard to be sympathetic to a number). --mav 20:52 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I responded to the above on Mav's page.

I am very appreciative of your nice comments on Mav's page, especially since they come from someone of your caliber.

If I come back, I'd have to focus on less controversial articles. Maybe I could take a little time to learn something about Ireland and work with you on some articles intelligently, since I know so little about Ireland other than what I've learned in the context of British history, US history, literature and music, the news, Northern Ireland, economic journals, and your pages on Wikipedia. I've never looked at Ireland's fascinating culture with Ireland at the center, always Ireland related to something else. That's unfortunate, since the periphery (sorry, I know that this wasn't always the case!) can often be more interesting than the core, especially noting how shifts in Britain affected Ireland's development, and how Ireland adjusted to this or responded to this due to local conditions and concerns. Any good sources that you'd recommend?

Actually, finding out about your phone bill on Slub's page is actually making me reconsider coming back. You've spent a gross amount of your time dealing with what amounts to about four paragraphs by Fred Bauder and the antics of Lir/Vera. Maybe I could pick up that burden for you (since those are my areas anyway) so long as the influential contributors (like Mav) know that my intentions aren't bad. My bills, after all, are very low (God bless America and unlimited internet access at flat rates).

172

Your comments on my page have been too nice, especially coming from you. I'm so embarrassed! Sure, I'll come back. Quitting this site's seems just as hard as quitting smoking anyway (I'm guilty of that too).

I said that people wouldn't have 172 to kick around anymore in my allusion to Nixon, whom I actually do admire (I wonder if Mav would read that and think that I'm sympathetic to authoritarian types), after having lost the race for California governor in November 1962, which occurred after having narrowly lost the presidential race in 1960. But if he backed out and made a comeback, why shouldn't I? I just hope that this doesn't foreshadow my banning and ultimate resignation from Wiki. Oh well. I'll try to do better than Nixon. 172

Please, I couldn't bear a Wikigate scandal. :) Tannin

You might be interested in my comments on Talk:Car bomb - PML.

If I have had any problems with some of your contributions, it was only because I thought you were being too rigid in your appeal to political science; nevertheless I have always admired your(and 172, for that matter) committment to scholarship and scholarly standards. That said, please look at the article Prime Minister of the United States and the talk page, to which I recently added a comment. Thanks, Slrubenstein

It's going to be awful around here without your presence for a week. When you're back, would you interested in a long-term project on the Industrial Revolution page? You'd be shocked by just how superficial it is. If you decide to come over when you get back, do you want to focus on a special area? I'd be interested in its relation to politics and changing economic and social structures, which I'm sure is no surprise. We could focus on specialized areas to save time and so that we could all share the burden of writing what should be, in the end, one of the most detailed articles on this site. Tannin's also interested in completely revamping it, and I'm also encouraging Slrubenstein to come over, so you'd be in good company.

Do you think that Mav might be interested in this article as well? As a natural scientist well-versed in history, he might contribute to a good interdisciplinary approach needed for an article like this. 172

The aerial picture of dublin is quite small and does not cover a particularly interesting area. Since the photographer has given permission, could you procure a larger and better picture.

user_talk:hfastedge

I would have said Saint James of Pedia is qute often rude, but that aside I can endorse Abe's comment. :) Cheers, mate. Tannin

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I hope you manage to dig up those books at some point, as I think they would provide the basis of some valuable contributions. Personally, I think the article needs it, as I have doubts about it in its current state. Frankly, I thought you would hate it -- given your insistence on the precise use of "communist state" by political scientists, I though you would insist on the same precision with "prime minister." It seems to me that we should take a consistent stand: either make room for non-technical uses of "communist state" in that article, or delete the very non-technical and even misleading article on the prime minister of the United States. At this point I honestly am unsure of my own position -- as anyone can see in the talk pages I have taken an inconsistent position, calling for inclusion of non-technical material on the CS page, and deleting non-technical material on the PMUS page. I do believe in conisstency, so I have to change my mind about one of these -- but am not yet sure which! Slrubenstein

I just saw your Nelson Mandela story on TUF-KAT's talk page: maybe you should look here (scroll to "Lee Malvo is Not African American!"). I also saw your comment about music writing cliches, and fully intent to look over basically everything I've written here in light of it :) -- Jimregan

I agree with the first paragraph of you wrote at the bottom of your userpage, but not the second. As a white, middleclass American as you describe, I am somewhat offended, but I agree that that describes many Americans (not me: I've never been to Europe, nor own a credit card, and if I ever had gone to Europe, I'd never say I'd "done" it). I am isolationist on the Palistine issue as an idealist (despite my Judiasm) but pro-israel as a realist. I became an isolationist when Rachael Corrie was killed, but not because she was she was a White American Middle-Class Woman, but because of some of the background I learned from the news reports: the Israelites were BULLDOZING the Palistinian houses, and had previously KICKED OUT all of the Palistinians. I've always wanted to move to Canada or Iceland to escape my fellow American ignorami, but, alas, I am still just 13. LittleDan

I just wanted to thank you for standing up for me in some of these recent disputes. I now understand why you're so popular :) user:J.J.

...Now that I've finished chortling at the above comment... Why do you keep changing your name? Every so often I think I'm talking to the wrong person.

I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm fixated with going back to the name I originally gave the Sophie article. I actually think "Sophie, the Countess of Wessex" is quite reasonable. It just troubles me that I can't think of anything better. It feels like - you know, there should be a correct answer, and it's frustrating when there isn't. Deb 22:41 16 May 2003 (UTC)

RE Georgian Dublin: Your image layout and formatting skills are growing grasshopper! Much improved (still a bit heavy on image use, but at least they work for both low and high res users). Nice article BTW. --mav 06:14 17 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you didn't like my corrections to the capitalizations at communist state. A capital letter is used on a proper noun. The word Communist is only capitalized when it refers to the title of a specific Communist Party; if it's not about a specific party it's in lower case. See R. W. Burchenfield, The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, p.128. ☮ Eclecticology 11:29 17 May 2003 (UTC)

On the same subject, I now have my CMS (13th ed) at hand, and it says (p. 185) "differences of opinions arise over just what is a proper noun, other than the name of a person or place", and goes on to say "no set of rules in the area of capitalization can be universally applicable". So you should go easy on the disparaging of people who disagree on the capitalization of first past the post etc. Wrt communism, Chicago (7.56, p. 202) agrees with Fowler - no caps. Stan 22:12 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Red alert! You have a problem - or maybe I do - differentiating between wikipedia and real life. My latest comments on the royal naming conventions talk page are not about our previous discussion re Sophie. They are about how the official use of titles conflicts with our requirements for article naming. I'm an ex-librarian, you see. Deb 22:02 17 May 2003 (UTC)