User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Silverback and 172 talk about Totalitarian dictators on my talk page

I think my improvements would address the concerns that 172 raised. Probably not enough to satisfy his fanaticism, but enough to make his arguments seem hollow.--Silverback 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am 100% certain that no category with the suggested name could ever be NPOV, no matter what might be put in the category description text. I don't think caring about neutral point of view is "fanaticism", but YMMV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because there are holocaust deniers, for instance, doesn't mean you should give up. Perhaps there are deniers of Stalin's purges or Castro's brutal repression of attempts to emmigrate, but most people can agree that these are facts and use reason to apply the definition.  Properly applied it is not a pejorative, it is merely descriptive.  Some people may try to apply it to leaders who don't fits the definition, and they are using it as a pejorative, but that is not a reason to reject the catagory.  In fact, as you noted, I put my name in the catagory, and didn't feel any worse for wear.  The only people who fear it pejoration are those who fear the label might stick to some favorite of theirs because their behavior gives it some credibility.--Silverback 21:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that Silverback's comments Just because there are holocaust deniers, for instance, doesn't mean you should give up. are directed toward me. My entire family perished in both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, with the exception of my parents and a few distant relatives, so Silverback's comments border on being libelous. IMO he should be santioned for making such disgusting comments. 172 | Talk 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My family fought to liberate people from those countries. Unfortunately, one of them was also involved in the dangerous transportation of lend-lease supplies to Stalin's regime, helping him survive to wage the "cold" war.  I wish you would take the remarks actually directed towards and critical of you as seriously as these you go out of your way to take personally.--Silverback 10:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This response is disingenuous at best, given your long history of making bizarre accusations against me without the slightest bit of evidence (like the many posts accusing me of being the sockpuppet behind "King of All Paperboys" and now the charge that I was deleting keep votes in the CfD debate for totalitarian dictators). 172 | Talk 11:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I was mistaken in the sockpuppet accusation, we never did find that admin. I apologize.  But that isn't a long history.  You certainly don't think the apologist for dictators accusation was bizzare do you?  You should go back and look at the evidence. Yours is some of the most glowing writing about Kruschev I've ever seen in the english language.--Silverback 11:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it think the accusation that I am an "apologist for dictators" coming from you is bizarre. If I can recall correctly, you are referring to my writing about Khrushchev (that's the proper spelling) in History of Russia-- a featured article. I have written entirely or have coauthored a handful of featured articles on Russian and Soviet history that have come under extensive community peer review; yet you claim it is obvious that I am an apologist for dictators. If it is so obvious, is the community as a whole 'apologetic of dictators' for featuring my work over and over again? What about the dozens of other people who established a consensus for deleting Category:Totalitarian dictators? Your problems seem to boil down to the community's consensus for encyclopedic standards. Baiting me only serves to divert attention from the fact that next to no one is buying the substance of your arguments. 172 | Talk 12:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * History of Russia received 9 votes to become a featured article, hardly the community as a whole. You deserve credit for keeping the article above 32K bytes.  Keeping it under 32k bytes and pretty formatting are often the most stringent qualifications.--Silverback 22:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)