User:Everyking/Talk Archive

Talk from February 13, 2004 to June 6, 2004:

Thanks for the revisions on Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., chief. Really appreciate it. - Soup

---

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 00:18, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you for editing page Ara Gaya. It looks a lot better. - Caffelice.

---

Regarding Robert Conquest

Re Robert Conquest: On what grounds do you dispute the accuracy or neutrality of the following statements?

• That there have been many attacks on Conquest's integrity and reputation.
• That the accuracy of Conquest's work on the purges has been vindicated by history.
• That Conquest showed (not "claimed") that the trials and executions of the former Communist leaders were a minor detail of the purges.

Adam 04:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't dispute claim 1, but I felt that, if claim 2 was to be removed, it looked awkward left over in the introduction.

Claim 2 does not take into account the fact that many people believe Conquest's work seriously exaggerated and misrepresented some events in Soviet history. Given that this matter has not yet been settled to the satisfaction of many people, I feel it is best omitted for the sake of neutrality.

"Many people" also dispute that the Holocaust happened, or that evolution happened. Do we modify all our articles to take these views into account? Do we write that "some people say there was a Holocaust?" No, we make a historical judgement about what is true and what is not. I don't know of any reputable historian who disputes the general accuracy of Conquest's description of the purges. Adam 00:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nobody denies that the Purges happened. Many reasonable people, however, question the claims of Robert Conquest. There are several points of dispute: the purpose of the purges, the numbers of people executed or imprisoned during the purges, and the question of the organization of the purges and how they were generally carried out. These are big questions, and many people dispute Conquest's assertions on these matters, regardless of their political affliation (I, for instance, am not a communist, yet I believe that Conquest's work is largely Cold War propaganda with minimal academic merit). The widespread doubts among Russians alone as to the sorts of claims made by Conquest should be sufficient to warrant withholding final judgement on their veracity. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for unrestrained praise of one's personal heroes. Everyking 01:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• "numbers of people executed or imprisoned during the purges" If anything, Conquest's estimates on these points have been shown to be conservative.
• "the question of the organization of the purges and how they were generally carried out" I've never seen any disagreement on this question, which was in any case no great secret.
• "Conquest's work is largely Cold War propaganda with minimal academic merit." No-one familiar with the post 1991 writings on the Stalin period could make such a statement.
• "widespread doubts among Russians" Most Russians are still living in a state of denial and fantasy about their own history. They are the last people who can be cited on this debate. Adam 01:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Conquest, along with some other rather disreputable historians, was more interested in inflating death tolls under Stalin than in documenting what actually happened. That is what I think, anyway, and that is what a great number of people familiar with his work think.

I was under the impression I was debating with a reasonable person with some historical knowledge. But having read the above statement I see now that I was mistaken on both counts. I don't know why you have protected the article (if it was you), since I have been happily discussing the matter and not engaging in a revert war with you, but it can stay protected as far as I am concerned. Adam 07:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't protect the article. You can plainly see the page history yourself. And it's not protected now, anyway. Everyking 17:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you insist on making such unreserved and adulatory claims about him in the article, then you can expect to be perpetually reverting the edits of people like me who happen upon it. On the other hand, a relatively neutral perspective is easily defensible -- and is also the way an article is supposed to be written. (As for your hostile opinion of the Russian people, I think it raises questions about your ability or willingness to write an objective article on any subject pertaining to them.) Everyking 02:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Claim 3 is not at all factual. Even many people who accept a great deal of Conquest's work do not accept his ideas about the nature or purpose of the purges.

On this one I would settle for "he argued" rather than "he claimed." Adam 00:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Everyking 01:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Think about it like this: if enough people come on to Wikipedia and write or edit articles which treat claims 2 & 3 as something less than absolute historical fact (like the original article that you deemed "shameful"), then perhaps it should be written in such a way as to accomodate those people. It is not like we are talking about the spherical shape of the earth here; it is a point of real controversy.

Notice that I did not attempt to significantly rewrite the article, because I did not want to offend you. I would think that you could accept the minor NPOV revisions that I made, though. Everyking 18:53, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks

First, thanks for dealing with the Lukashenko article -- Cantus has been really getting under my skin. Second, I'd invite you to weigh in at the new discussion of related matters at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)#Transliteration_of_Russian_place_names. And (coincidentally? ironically?) I just asked Adam Carr to do the same (see his talk page for why).

Also, I'm going to bed now, but if you haven't already do so, please take a look through Cantus's contributions. Someone needs to watch this character.

Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:25, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yet another thanks for properly Englifying RC and other articles. As to your comment: (might as well add another... or should we substitute Jewish Autonomous Oblast?) -- I'd say it doesn't matter, they are "rootless" remember? :)). Seriously, either way is fine IMHO. --Humus sapiens | Talk 00:30, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Help with Infobox of Haiti Rebellion

Check out the infobox, 2004 Haiti Rebellion. Need some help with the section of opposing parties. Some reference would be nice. --Maio 02:05, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

I do think a break would help. It'll still be there in a day or two ;-) -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:30, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I note you sent me a friendly warning but said nothing to the instigators of this dispute. What's that about? I'm the one who has stepped back from the editing to avoid an edit war, but I get the blame? I'm the one who has tried to resolve the issue and sought compromise, but I get attacked. This is rather ridiculous, BCorr. Everyking 23:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Everyking -- I'm sorry that it sounded like I was trying to give you a warning -- that was not my intent. I was only responding to your message on the Talk:Vladimir Zerjavic: Interesting for you to note that, BCorr, because I actually declared my intention to quit editing this article a few days ago, except for minor edits and cosmetic changes. I did that for the explicit purpose of not getting into an edit war. But as you can see, I am still having to defend myself against insults here on the talk page. Maybe I should just quit responding? Everyking 22:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And I intended my message on your talk page to sound friendly: I do think a break would help. It'll still be there in a day or two ;-) -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:30, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it sounded different out of context -- I just wasn't sure how other people editing that article might respond to a note that said "yes, it might help if you did," so I left it at your talk page.

I'll crosspost this message at your page too, and I'm sorry to have sounded like I was picking on you. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:15, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again, BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:29, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

Dates: OK well I don't really mind, I agree they ought to be consistent. Adam 05:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Everyking, excellent work on Godric of Finchale...one of my little babies. :-) I didn't know he wasn't formally canonized -- good catch on your part! Are you familiar with the book on Godric by Frederick Buechner? It's what led me to write the initial article. Anyway, excellent job: keep it up, and happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 16:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

He has. He's been vandalizing that talk page, the article, my user page, Hcheney's user page, and Daniel Wright for many weeks and we can't get rid of him since he has a shifting IP address. This guy's a real nutcase. 172 19:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Everyking, why did you move "List of Indian female actors" to "List of Indian movie actresses" ? Jay 06:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See List of female movie actors and discussions at Talk:List of female movie actors and see if you can get your point across. (btw I support your rename.) Jay 14:40, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looks like you have not taken initiative in forwarding your "female actor" > "actress" terminology change to the Talk:List of female movie actors page. In which case I'll be reverting your title change for List of Indian movie actresses for sake of consistency. Jay 07:13, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

hehe no, I just don't have any points to argue for the name change. Since you've made the change and you have an opinion, you can discuss better, which is why I said I'll support you. Jay 07:21, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

purges and cosmopolitans

• I owe you lots of apologies and several kegs of beer for sitting on my tail and fixing my English and (what's probably most annoying) numerous typos. Mikkalai 03:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Purges: I intentionally put it on top, since I noticed there are several links to Great Purge done like "Great Purge|purge". In some cases the usage is not related to this very period, therefore I decided to make a kind of *preface*, bearing in mind that a simple "purge" was before and after the great one, so historically the Great purge is "inside" the simple "purge", not vice versa.
• I took the notice on your change of "cosmopolites" into "*-tans" and went thru wikipedia to correct accordingly everywhere. It turns out that the term is used in quite a few articles. Does that mean it is time for rootless cosmopolitan to be written? Mikkalai 04:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

From Votes for Deletion - you posted regarding Kosova: "Delete, propaganda". In what respect do you consider it propaganda? -- ChrisO 20:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fenno-Russian issues

I'm going to bed, and wish you a good night.

(Maybe it would be a good idea to ask some Finn?)
--Ruhrjung 01:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See: User_talk:Kosebamse#In_need_of_a_second_opinion.
Kosebamse is not a Finn, as far as I know, but living in Sweden where Finnish matters are comparably better known than in most other parts of the world.
--Ruhrjung 01:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Haitian history

Thanks for correcting several of my over-hasty edits.

Also, do you know which happened first? US troops arrive on the island (20,000 of them) -- or Aristide re-assumes power? I don't know whether to say that a UN resolution threatening force caused the junta to back down, or to say that 20,000 US troops + 1,000 other foreign troops invading the country caused the junta to back down. You seem to know more Haitian history than I do, and I'm getting tired of googling for links; it's better just to ask someone who knows. --Uncle Ed 20:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Molotov

I put some constructive proposal in the talk page. Plaese read and then we can make edits. Cautious 10:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

On VfD, you wrote "I guess if you think it's silly, that's grounds for deletion, huh?" I know that VfD makes for very thin skins but please try to give others the benefit of the doubt that they are making suggestions with good intent. It's healthy to disagree, but when we can stick to facts and logical arguments and avoid what might be interpreted as emotional attacks, I believe the community will get to better answers. Please help to keep the discussions civil. Thanks. Rossami 22:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

William of Norwich

Re the above page, the anon who created it does not appear to appreciate other people adding stuff to his page. I've tried leaving a message on his talk page but have received no response, and have reverted stuff he's added to other pages as well. I guess he just likes to be left alone... -- Graham  :) | Talk 17:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, no problems. I have a source taht says 19, but I guess it is confusing. Danny 22:04, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Edwin & Edinburgh

Nice edit about the etymology linking the two; I suspected that this was a local folk etymology of the name, but I didn't have quick access to a reliable reference. My personal library isn't as complete as I would like. -- llywrch 17:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

J. R. D. Tata

Kudos on improving the J. R. D. Tata article, including adding his full name. Back when I created the article, I couldn't find it on my web search! I started that article after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, because I read Kalpana Chawla had been inspired by him. Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 05:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Birth dates

Good job on getting the birthdates of everyone. From where did you get them ?! Jay 08:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you!

Everyking, RE: Keep -- VfD should not be used to settle scores. Everyking 00:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC), Dr Waniek has asked me to say the following on his behalf:

• Thank you for the kind words! While they are perhaps not quite true, their sincerity, sense of fairness and fairplay honor the spirit of truth which made the Wikipedic ideal so generous.
  

Sincerely, irismeister 18:05, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

unidiomatic English

I would like to express our (collective) great gratitude to all Wikipedians who correct grammatical errors and unidiomatic expressions from pages where ESL-wikipedians have put their mark on the prose. Some foreigners' English is worse than others' — this is not politically correct to state, but I do it anyways — and that of Finns belong to the worst. Thank you! Thank you very much!

If your work on the Presidents of Finland wasn't enough, or if you would like more praise, take a look at: User:Tuomas#Articles_in_need_of_a_check_by_a_native_English_speaker ;-))

/Tuomas 08:07, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VfD

We've agreed with each other three times in one day on VfD. I'm going to go start preparing for the apocalypse. -- Cyrius|&#9998 05:04, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Falcon Kirtaran

Are you deliberately hounding me? It seems whatever I do, you try to get undone. Falcon 03:22, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Kaganovich/Molotov

As Kaganovich and Molotov were right behind Stalin in terms of raw power in the Soviet system, "how" he engineered the Holodomor is beyond question. Let it rest. --Ezra 01:01, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

NPOV

I've seen many articles on this site that don't adhere to the NPOV, yet they're not questioned. Shall I point them out?

They were high up in the system, so they were responsible?

Robert Conquest documents it well in "Harvest of Sorrow". It was also documented in "The Stalin-Kaganovich Correspondence 1931-36", released by Yale University Press last year.

It's accepted history that ol' Lazar was little more than a mass-murdering thug.

Seriously, give it a rest. History is immutable.

Further

What if the Joseph Stalin article was nothing but the line "He was a mass-murdering thug."

Diversion. That's not the entirety of the article, though Stalin and Kaganovich were amongst the worst that history has to offer. You're not actually defending Kaganovich, are you? It's akin to defending Nazis and Mao.

I don't play tit-for-tat and I don't delete the work of others. You do what you like and I'll fix whatever vandalism others may do to my contributions.

--Ezra 01:26, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

Please fix the redirects

Hello. I notice you moved a page to Ferdinand von Lindemann. If you click on what links here, you see a bunch of redirects pointing to the old name of the page. When you move a page, you should fix those so that they point directly to the new page. Michael Hardy 21:25, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

You have been nominated for admin status at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Nominations for adminship. 172 22:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela. 00:07, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Do you want to make some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll? 172 15:20, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Chaim Herzog

Good catch ;) Thanks! jewbacca 05:53, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Do not blank VfD votes

Hi. I assume your blanking of MediaWiki:VfD-Robert Kyle Wilson was a mistake. Please don't blank votes in progress. In addition, we retain all votes afte they are complete, either linked to VfD archive or moved to the talk page if they are kept. Thanks - Tεxτurε 16:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why it blanked; it took 10 minutes to post and then when it did, it had blanked the page. Everyking 16:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

In need of community support

I'm in need of community support.

Right now, I am on the verge of being driven away from Wikipedia through the relentless efforts of a single problem user on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172 vs VeryVerily.

The same user who refuses to accept the results of the Augusto Pinochet poll (see also [1]) goes through my user history every time he logs on and then starts reverting things that I've written arbitrary. He manages to divert attention away from the articles onto ad hominem attacks, thus poisoning the well against me. [2]

He has been doing nothing else for the past couple of months, other than making some minor changes to pages that he finds through the random page feature. Meanwhile, I've been working on articles such as Empire of Brazil, Dollar Diplomacy, and Franco-U.S. relations. I'm tired of letting a problem user define my contributions to the encyclopedia, as opposed to my work.

I may have said some regrettable things in the past, but my editing practices are scholarly and methodical. When I make an edit, my choice is based on a consideration of the quality of the encyclopedia. Unlike the user who avowedly admits to trying to escalate a personal feud (see, e.g., [3]), I do not decide which pages to edit and what changes to make on the basis of personality feuds, emotional POV whims, or a desire to get attention.

Although this user shows little evidence that he understands the content of the articles, I have shown considerable restraint, given my professional expertise. [4]. Only through community support (i.e. lobbying the arbitration committee)will this user be stopped. Otherwise, Wikipedia will die unless we stop vandals and clueless POV-pushers from running rampant and driving away valued contributors.

Please feel free to direct questions and comments to my talk page or e-mail at sokolov47@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

172 01:45, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

VfD

To return the favour, can you delete the redirect Sir Clive Woodward? he should be at Clive Woodward. Cheers, Dunc Harris | Talk 18:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)