User talk:Antispammer~enwiki/archive1

List of dictators to date
The issue is not that I disagree with any particular entry on your "list." There is alreay an entry entitled "list of dictators," which happens to be a very problematic page itself that barely survived an AfD poll. "Your "list" is a classic case of a POV fork. It serves no purpose other than making a clear political statement. Stop recreating it. 172 | Talk 02:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"C'mon leave my work alone" is not a sufficent justification to keep an article. You should know that. You're not a new user. 172 | Talk 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have some concerns about the image you uploaded for the article. While well-done and attractive, it suggests that the judgment call concerning whether a national leader is a "dictator" is more simple than it really is. The term "dictator" is often problematic because not all authoritarian regimes are "dictatorships." On one hand, there are problems with some of the countries excluded from the list, such as the authoritarian regimes with collective leadership structures, such as China and Vietnam. Some critics describe figures such as China's Hu Jintao as a "dictator." On the other hand, not everyone agrees that all the countries you marked in red are dictatorships. In sum, I think this issue is too murky to represent with something as clear-cut as a map. 172 | Talk 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * not everyone agrees that all the countries you marked in red are dictatorships If you don't agree then please use the list of dictators talk page, which is where im getting the information from.--Antispammer 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unlike your article, "list of dictators" features a discussion of who the commentators describing certain leaders as "dictators" are and why they use the term. Your article cites Wikipedia, which is inappropriate. Avoid referencing Wikipedia in other articles; for an explanation as to why this is necessary, see Avoid self-references. Whereas "list of dictators" at least maintains the pretense of following the "no original research" policy, your article is clearly a violation of the policy of 'avoiding self-references' and appears to be a 'POV fork.' 172 | Talk 09:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this at all. Surely the same references could just be used from list of dictators to show that a dictator is an unelected head of government with executive/legislative authority in a constitutional republic.  With that as a reference, it would be easy to add or remove China as appropriate.  I can't particularly understand the opposition on this one and I'm traditionally a deletionist but it does look like quite a lot of opposition. MLA 15:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Mauritania
Hi Antispammer. According to the latest events in Mauritania, many govt's and NGO's are witnessing a shift toward democracy in Mauritania. Have a look at the following links:


 * Reuters - FACTBOX-Mauritania moves towards democracy
 * CNN - Democracy sends out shoots in Mauritania
 * Reuters - A year after coup, Mauritania heads toward democracy
 * Angola Press - Germany pledges support to democracy in Mauritania

See also Politics of Mauritania. -- Szvest 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What we have to do is to put Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya (the former president) on the list of dictators and remove Ely Ould Mohamed Vall from the list as he's preparing the country for a democratic hand-over of power to the nation thru democratic elections soon. -- Szvest 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Regarding this. Please do not use uncivil words in your comments and in edit summaries. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As for your question, AFD is not a vote but a discussion in which editors comment on the article's suitability for inclusion, and in some instances the closing admin may decide not ignore the discussion, as it was done in this case. You can contest this at Deletion review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad deletion
It was definitely incorrect and biased to delete List of dictators based on the AfD. I have been inactive in WP of necessity (way too much work), but I very strongly recommend that you raise the issue on deletion review.

I probably would have voted keep if I saw the AfD, but that apparently would have made no difference to the closing admin. It's just plain abuse for the admin to ignore the actual votes in order to do what s/he decides is "right". LotLE × talk 15:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I and Lulu of the lotus eaters were instrumental in the debate on the article around a year ago. The discussion was extensive and the consensus was keep.  Since then the article has been improved greatly and has been very very stable.  I and many others put many hours of work into improving the article providing some 120 sources.  It was an invaluable resource, was in no was OR or POV.  I am simply shocked that an admin would behave like that ignoring the consensus to keep, both recently and last year, ignoring the great improvements made.  I very much hope that this admin is striped of his privileges.  He is clearly very childish.  juicifer 17:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

List of dictators
I'm really annoyed.

After I and you and many others worked hard to make this article truly excellent and indeed an exemplar list on wikipedia, the same people that tried to get the previous list deleted come along a pull a scam like this.

I don't know if the deletion was marked at the top of the page, but I check the article from time to time and didn't notice it. They picket the holiday season when no one was looking, lost the vote, deleted anyhow using the same argument that was explicitly rejected by the community now and before. They gave no notice to the people who were watching the article. Doc Glasgow had previously been involved in the article and should have recused himself anyway. Hundreds of hours of people's time have been deleted on the whim of a admin with in axe to grind.

Carefully worked out criteria, methods of discussion, 120 references, dozens of articles linking in, a fantastic resource.

Again to refute the silly argument made by some that dictator is an "inherently POV" descriptor, simply search wikipedia for the word dictator and notice how many people are described that way. Britannica, Encarta etc all do so, as do all news outlets.

What can we do?

juicifer 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)