User talk:Nirvana888/Archive 1

Regional Power Assistance
Hey Nirvana, I was just wondering, since I haven't worked on the regional power article, what you would consider irrelevent information? You mentioned that Mexico being part of the OCED and G8+5 would be OR, but that is in a way relevent. Where should the line be drawn? Are we go with the same standard as the potential superpowers page, where any synthesis aside from what the experts say would be removed? Please get back to me soon. Thanks. --Hobie (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just using that as an example. II mean in a general context where would the line be drawn. For instance, France's section. Reads as this:


 * France has been described as a regional power by the Global Policy Forum [15], and Samuel P. Huntington [16], and is described as a "core great regional power" in a report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments policy research institute. [13]


 * France has the third-largest economy in Europe.[14] France is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It is a NATO member, and has the largest defence expenditure in Europe.[17] France has nuclear weapons, inter-continental ballistic missiles, ballistic missile submarines, and is the only nation besides the United States to operate a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.


 * The first paragraph contain experts' assertations that France is a regional power. The second paragraph is information to back up the first paragraph, which depending on one's view might be OR or synthesis. On similar articles content like this has been removed. Where do we draw the line? Hobie (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed most of the OR and irrelvent facts. Once you take those out, there's really nothing left. If we keep them out, it will probably have to be as a list. Hobie (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nirvana, just so you know, I'll be taking a wiki-break (on vacation) for a week or so. I won't be able to help you improve the regional power article (neither will Species). Feel free to leave messages and I'll be sure to get back to them as soon as possible. I might be able to respond before the week is up, so don't wait for me. Best wishes. --Hobie (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HELLO
I am curious to know if you are named after the rock band Nirvana???????? it is my favorite band!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willydick (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Nirvana, I read the comment u made on Chanakyathegreat discussion's page, He has links to prove India is a super power so I just think that India should be included. I also suggest that we should write some points that can be used to determine if any country is or not a superpower, I guess the guidelines should be it should be economically strong, military wise strong and have influence, And by that Russia, China, France, UK and India satisfy that, another thing India does satisfy that, second fastest growing economy. 12th largest and 4th largest by purchasing power. India's military is the second largest and it has nuclear weapons and army presence in Central Asia, Suriname and Sri lanka. It also has influence, economic influence in central asia as Arcelor Mittal and tata steel have a lot have steel plants there and India has funded numerous educational and development projects, In Afghanistan, 7 billion dollars in aid doctors and teachers that work in remote areas. Trains Iran army and is funding construction of roads and other funding in Central Sounth America and Sri lanka. Enthusiast10 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Brazil
There are many other sources apart from that one, I ran out of time and couldn't add more specific ones, but Brazil is far stronger than India, far larger than it and its economy is self sufficient. Brazil is also one of the strongest countries in the Americas. If investigated more, Brazil fills the criteria. Brazil is also spotted on the map. I think that if India can become a superpower, so can Brazil. After all see history of Brazil, Brazil changed its foreign policy for foreign interests, meaning that Brazil is now imposing itself, just like the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoliras (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I finished, and I found two sources that support this claim. But one of the is a contradictory one. Cocoliras (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some other sources, do not leave this behind. We should continue reviewing these sources. All for now... Cocoliras (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Historical powers
Aside from the fact that this page needs major work there is also a long edit war going on at Historical powers I don't have time during the next few days to monitor the situation so I was wondering if I could enlist you and Hobie to watch this situation. Thanks :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

GDP: China note
I'm enquiring as to why you undid my revision to the IMF data table on the 'list of countries by GDP (PPP)' page. Please participate in the talk page before undoing well-meaning edits. 87.194.48.225 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Power- GA status
Hey Nirvana, good news! The great power article is being reviewed right now for good article status. Me and Axl have been working on getting the article up to snuff. Specifically, Axl suggested the importance of being a nuclear power should expanded. I was hoping you could help us. On a side note, Chankya has quit Wikipedia in a huff, so the article should be more stable from now on. All the best. --Hobie (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that I was hoping to get your help in making sure the article would qualify as a good article. There's a lot to be done and we need as many people as we can get. --Hobie (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay, I didn't realize, it's pretty much the same with me. We have six days or so to improve the article so no sweat. You can find all of the suggestions on how to improve the article on the last section of the talk page. I've already asked Phoneix and a couple of other people to help, but I haven't gotten any replies yet. --Hobie (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Superpower sources on Russia
I read your comment from yesterday about sources from user directinfo about new Russian sources about their superpower influence. I disagree with your comment simply because the content sources are overwhelming. I think this huge content of sources puts the article in 2 superpowers as one source follows the other but also several sources are very direct as superpower influence or status. If you look at the main article page on superpower, there is original sources which conflict even now posted a while ago, why aren't they taken off the main headline? Why are you bringing those sources or questioning them? I think there is a dozen or more good sources by directinfo which clearly can be used as a Russia in a superpower relation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.64.1 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Versace
Hey, me and Hobie have been talking about that new Ip, 209, and we think that it might be Versace, as he's from the same state and general area, and is pushing the same issue as before, even as everybody else left so far. So hobie is probably going to check that out. Deavenger (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Nirvana, Deavanger and I have come to the conclusion that we should reopen a sockpuppet case for Versace 11. He's been stirring up trouble on the superpower tlak page, by creating a new account. This new account speaks the same way and uses the same faulty sources as the other have. I was hoping to get your help starting the case up again for the good of the project. Hope you're doing well! --Hobie (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Yeah, I'll try to keep an eye on him. I left another post in hobie's page about this guy that you might want to read. However, some of the sources might be reliable, so I'm checking them out.Deavenger (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try checking all the sources he is adding tommorow. As tonight, I still have to complete homework for my classes. Also have hobie check the sources, and tommorow, we'll decide if the sources could be considered reliable or not. Deavenger (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should warn you that you are also creating a cabal openly on WP, engaging in joint edit-warring. In such a circumstance, your combined revert-warring can be taken in together, and an ANI and 3rr report will include all of your cabalistic edit-warring in toto. My references are quite impeccable and in peer-reviewed journals and books, unlike your self-published neocon cranks. In any dispute resolution, the former will be given more weight by enlightened wikipedians not mired in political extremism.Goingoveredge (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reporting you and deavenger for joint 3rr edit-warring.Goingoveredge (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't made more than 3 reverts. You and your meatpuppet Deavenger have made 4. I have proof that you canvassed his muscle to revert-war and that is sufficient for opprobrium.Goingoveredge (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Any talk of a cabal is ludicrous. First of all, Deavanger is an esteemed independent member and is not a meatpuppet. I know this for a fact. I haven't been too involved in this dispute, as I've had real life commitments, and have been monitoring the other edit war/dispute/whatever you want to call it. Parag Khanna is not a "neocon". If you did a little research you'd see that his has been advising Barack Obama, who everyone knows is such a neocon (sarcasm). He is an obviously qualified academic source, his writings should not be removed. That said, I find being called a meatpuppet incredibly insulting. I have been here for over two years and are seinor to both Deavanger and Nirvana. I single-handly got great power promoted to good article status. You yourself have been blocked multiple times for edit warring. We are simply concerned for the well-being of these articles, as they can be volatile and are a magnet for POV, unreliable source, etc. --Hobie (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Arjun MBT
Nirvana, if you are interested, i had replied to Ricky in his talk page. you can check it. I will paste it in Arjun talk page as well so that you can check it. Regarding great powers, my views has not changed. Anyway everyone has the right to express their opinion, right?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Hey, it's going good. There are a couple books I want to buy that talk about China as well as other potential superpowers or powers, but I lack money. I have this one book, but I'm not sure if it would be reliable as it's written by a journalist who spent a long time covering China instead of an International relations or Geopolitics or any other type of political science expert. So I'm not sure if I should use it or now. Also, it's good that you're going through the potential superpowers sources. Deavenger (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The China subsection is going to take longer then expected. I'm waiting for some books that talk more on the subject of potential great powers by other experts in the field, as I feel like we're using Fareed and Parag too much, so it would be nice to get more sources. Plus, school is proving to be challenging. So I'm going to try and aim for november to have China subsections done. I already found a nice thing on Premier Wen's opinion of whether China is a superpower or now. Deavenger (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * also, were you able to read both journals that you had on my profile page? I'm able to read the second source, and I'll probably use it in the Russia subsection and other subsections. But the first one, I'm not able to read at all, as I need a login for that. Deavenger (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * oh, thanks. I only have access to the first one for a couple more days before my limited thing finishes. Also, from the same site, check this source out Deavenger (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat...
Isn't Chanakyathegreat something? Heh, I admire his stubbornness. I think you are right, long-term intervention is necessary. By78 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support. I really appreciate it! By78 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

fastest growing economies in the world
Thanks for your constructive reply on my talk page. I was actually educated as an economist and focused my degree on Chinese economic expansion. There is no bigger advocate of China's economic success, and I spent 6 years in China advising foreign companies on how to leverage this. However, I just don't think that the language in the article is precise enough for inclusion. Clearly, China's economic "miracle" is unprecedented. However, it is not the fastest growing economy this year, and the language as it is indicates it is. I don't see an accurate expression of China's economic expansion as a negative...just because it isn't the fastest doesn't mean it's bad or slow or not the best, for that matter. But the language is imprecise, and there is no need to make a statement that some economy is the "most" of something when there are too many measures, too many time periods, and too many other factors to make it an absolute truth.LedRush (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have changed the PRC article to more accurately reflect the data. I don't want to leave a warning about edit warring (I see you are already aware of the rule), but if we continue to change the article in the same spot, we both could be accused of it.  As per wikipedia policy, the burden of proof for inserting or changing any information is on the person doing the changing.  I suggest that if you don't like the current formulation we change it back to the original language (a fast growing) and ask some other editors their opinions.


 * I am quite surprised that this issue is so troublesome to resolve, but perhaps it is my background which makes me shy away from absolute statements unless they can be clearly supported. I just feel that there are so many ways to measure an economy, so many time periods to examine, so many ways to qualify which countries you're looking at, that once we qualify the statements enough almost any country can be defined as the fastest.  This is not to indicate that China is an economic pretender...I have tied my livelihood to it's economic success and strongly believe in it.  It is clearly one of the most amazing economic stories the world has ever seen.  But we shouldn't need to create a "we're the best" moment where it doesn't exist.  The facts speak for themselves, and readers of the article will see the Chinese economic miracle for themselves.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course honest disagreements happen. Let's just not edit the section for a little and see how people feel on the talk page.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tastycakes' idea was fine with me.LedRush (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety talk 03:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

Superpower
Hey, I understand. But personally, I don't trust the media too much. Personally, I would use only certain articles in the media, that are written by people who have credentials in the field. I took the issue to the [Reliable source noticeboard to see if we should keep on doing what we do, or start adding media sources in there. Their advice was that if we're going to add media sources, check the author's credentials to see if they have a degree in IR/Geopolitics/Polisci, or if they interview a person who's an expert in the field, then use the source. Here's the full conversation. [| Reliable Sources Notice Board]. Deavenger (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I know. I personally consider the EU a superpower and not a potential superpower, though some experts disagree with this. However, if we're going to add media sources, we should run it by hobie first. Also, say that while the media says x, the experts say Y. And not start adding 50 media sources saying how country B is a superpower because it invaded country. C Deavenger (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. But I seriously doubt that having the IPs look at the Russian superpower part of potential superpower will change their mind. As people like Versace came and I'm pretty sure you guys explained why Russia is not a full fledged superpower, and they still didn't believe it, and just pulled out more media sources saying Russia is a superpower. So, we should also discuss of the adding of new sources with Hobie and the other members on the Wiki project. As it seems to be just you, me and Hobie. By the way, can you do the Versace file. As Hobie already told me he's busy with other stuff, and you're more experienced with wikipedia and versace then I am. Deavenger (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah. I think that Hobie would also be the best one for this. Though he said to just copy past reports, and add the new stuff Versace has been doing. I think, since I haven't seen any IPs or users from that area made any edits since I brought this up, that we should wait to see if he edits again. If he uses a registered account, do the checkuser, see if he's from the same general area as the IPs and Versace, and file the case. I'll help you with it, and we can see how much hobie does also. Deavenger (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the barnstar. Deavenger (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
It's been really busy. IDK how many users/IP's I've reported to the admins, and it sees that there are no admins online to block these vandals...Oh well... Wysprgr2005 (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat...
Hi there, Chanakya has complained yet again to the administrators. Please give your opinion here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arjun_MBT). Thanks! By78 (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I really appreciate it! By78 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Hey. While I'm working on the other subsections, I noticed the past subsections and pages for our potential superpowers. I'm putting all the subsection I have done here

User:Deavenger/Potential Superpower finished subsections

I have the former subsections that you had before they were removed.

User:Deavenger/Potential Superpower former subsections

and

User:Nobleeagle/India as an emerging superpower.

If you feel up to it, do you think you could go through the the pages and clear out the non reliable sources, or stuff that doesn't matter in each of these. I figure, once I'm done with each of the subsections, I'll be going through the old pages looking for any more info to put up. If you feel up to it that is. Deavenger (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get started on that. Deavenger (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently some IP tried to add Pakistan as a potential superpower, though it was one of the worst arguments of how pakistan is a superpower I've ever seen. Deavenger (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Brazil
Hey, some user name Hector C Jorge tried to add Brazil as a potential superpower, and I know that Brazil is considered a Potential Great Power, but you and Hobie have had more experience of arguing about Brazil. Also, I'm going to bring this up with Hobie, but I'm thinking of recreating the Potential Great Powers page. What do you think? Deavenger (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah. The problem I had with the Potential Great powers article was that when the editor put it up, it has half complete basically, so it seemed like it was only about Brazil. I think, that we should find out of other countries besides Brazil, work on it on a special page that I'll create, then when we're satisfied, put start the article up, and improve on the article from there. I'll try to start working on it after I finish the sub sections and talk to Hobie. Deavenger (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And the Pakistan guy is back. Just look at the talk page. Deavenger (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Italy
Hey Nirvana. It seems we have people trying to push Italy as a great power again. Better keep alert! Colliver55 (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea I noticed that also, hope the page doesn't flair up again :-( Sorry about the absence recently, but real life has forced to be more of a dabbler on wiki... and it might have to stay that way for the foreseeable future. But I will try to be some help when I can... -- Phoenix (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah. Im thinking the same thing also. But Im assuming good faith, and after a few more edits, we'll see. Deavenger (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nirvana - I agree, and interestingly they never sign their comments - any of them! Very suspicious. Colliver55 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Colliver already agrees with you. Let's see what Phoenix thinks. Deavenger (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hey.. Obviously there must be a mistake.

I would like to thank ACamposPinho, Lorenzop, - Izzo, Hadrian1, Philip Baird Shearer, Kayac1971, Chanakyathegreat and many others for the important research material produced in these discussion's pages - Great powers. I would like to thank Viewfinder too for your reason.

Thanks anyway to everybody – in particular UKPhoenix79, Nirvana888, Colliver55, Deavenger (in Italian Language Commarelle) – for the kind assistance. I go to work.

Poti —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Great Power
Hey. I took the great power article for a community reassessment. However, I think the users think that Great Power has fell since the version on which it was listed a great article. However, they gave us some suggestions. [|GA reassessment]. And there is even more drama on the talk page. One of the IPs accused me of living in the past and to get back to reality. Deavenger (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you want to participate in the RFC, go ahead, but I think we should wait till outside editors come.Deavenger (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus. I don't know what to do with the IP. I have a feeling that he's just going to keep on arguing, not posting reliable sources, and it's going to go on for a long time. I already made a couple of uncivil comments, and ignoring the IP would be the wrong thing to do. Deavenger (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Hopefully, we don't have to bring in an admin. Otherwise, it'll be even harder to bring the article back up to GA status. I wonder what happened to Hobie. Deavenger (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hobie's back. I'd been taking a sabbatical from Wikipedia for a while. I just got busy, and then sort of lapsed. I'd hadn't realized so much damage had been done in my absence. I thought that I could take a break, knowing that I had sucessfully and nearly single-handedly brought a new good article into being. Nobody had said anything about the great power article being delisted. We neeed to immediately get great power back to speed. I'd like you all to know that I'll be more active from now on and I appreciate the concern over my absence. --Hobie (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi there NIRVANA, VASCO from Portugal here,

I write you this message because i saw you reinstated referenced stuff removed by idiot anonymous vandal in Mateen Cleaves article, which i visited by chance.

I proceeded to improve article, and also noticed that, although ref'd material is not to be deleted without explanation, some of those links removed where actually dead. I browsed the web and found "fresh" ones. Just hope the vandal does not "contribute" again here...Or anywhere else for that matter. All i know is that, mere days after you reverted his deed, he (i can only assume), with a new IP, removed ref'd stuff again...Pityful.

Salut, keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Brazil
Hey, the Brazil problem is popping up again. Go to the potential superpowers talk page and add your two cents. Deavenger (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Great power vote
Hey, there's a great power vote going on. Please come and add your two cents. Deavenger (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I saw the archives. Sigh, I had a feeling that he didn't have a good grasp of English, and that he's nationalisitic. If I actually knew enough, I would try telling him in Hindi to make sure he understood. But hey, while he's not too much of a big help on International Relations pages, he's a big help in military pages. Deavenger (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

IP Content Warrior in Great power and Middle power articles
I have started a topic at the Admin notice board about the IP user that keep on removing content from the Great power and Middle power articles. I was wondering if I could get you to comment about the situation so that we can get this situation resolved. Thanks. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hey again, I haven't seen you on the pages for a while. We're in the middle of bringing great power back to GA status, and we could use your help. Here is what it says so far. Also, a guy just tried adding Pakistan on the potential superpower article, with just like "A green revolution will happen soon, Pakistan has the most powerful navy in the world, and Pakistan hopes it will become a superpower." I just reverted his edits, and I'm hoping he won't start edit warring. But in case it does, can you try reverting some of his edits, as I'm Indian and an Indian guy reverting it could turn nasty. After reading it, I'm really hoping that it's a joke. Also, I think the entire potential superpower and regional power page need rehauling to make it like the great power page (talk about what is a potential superpower, historical uses, history of potential superpowers, etc. ) what do you think? Deavenger (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm doing well. However, I'm going to be out of the country for about a month and I'll have very little time to check the internet. So I'm hoping you and other members will help maintain the pages whenever POV pushers and vandelism come. And hopefully we can finish the GA review some time. Deavenger (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Great power GA review
Hey Nirvana, the Ga review for Great Power is to end this week. Phoenix was supposed to help after the article was put on hold, however, he has disappeared. Can you help me try to fix some of the problems that were identified by the Ga reviewer. Deavenger (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for helping out. BTW, do you know if we're considering the term major power = to great power? Deavenger (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As right now Felipe and another user want to add Brazil and India to the list of great powers. However, besides their sources are just little newspaper articles and are usually one liners, it keeps on listing the countries as major powers. I have some academic sources that atleast state India as a major power (and possibly great, though I'll have to read through it again to see if it says great), but I wasn't sure if I should add India and Brazil if the sources only say major power. Deavenger (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rising Powers
Hey, please come and add your two cents here. Deavenger (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye
Hey Nirvana. As of today, I'm retiring from wikipedia editing due to real life concerns such as my studies. I highly doubt that I will be coming back. However, I want to say it's been a real honor working with you. If you need anything for the potential superpower page or any other related pages, it should be on my user page. And if you ever want to talk, you can still email me.

Hey
First, thank you. 117.96.141.69 is for sure him. I know this because I've known this guy for months now on Wikipedia (that's why I said I knew he was a sock when I saw him editing the Priyanka Chopra article). His been adding POV for a long time. I started an ANI about him, could you please mention his other suspected accounts there? Or better inform me because I've just posted a complaint to a CU admin. Again, thank you. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reported him to the blocking admin. Thank you very much. Please keep either me or him informed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He's now blocked but I won't be surprised if he comes back soon. We have to keep an eye on these pages. Only then will he stop vandalising them. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe if we follow WP:RBI, this will end up soon. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi friend I'm so sorry for not having replied to you back before. I thought I did and only now do i realise I actually didn't. Yes, I think this user is a sock, and I immediatelly reported him to the blocking admin but he apparently chose not to block him, maybe because he the sock is no longer active. Have you come across some other accounts appearing to be created by him? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Power
Hi, it would be interesting to know if Lear and Johansson are two editors who happen to have the same points of view, or where there is something improper going on. Viewfinder (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regional power
About my removal of Pakistan from the Regional power article, I had assumed the IP editor was just pushing his nation in, I should refrain from editing while tired, my apologies. G. R. Allison (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. In fact, you did the right thing by reverting the vandal. Some Indian IP also added sarcastic comments about Pakistan and Bangladesh. This is to be expected because this pages are often targeted by nationalism or outright vandalism. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning 3RR
You are close to violate the 3RR policies at Great power a second time. KJohansson (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and has been given a long term block. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello and why?
Hello Nirvana. I do not understand why you reverted my work in Economy of Italy. I know that the World Bank and the IMF say that Italy is the world's 7th richest country, yet have you read the news? Everywhere (especially the Telegraph) are saying that the British Economy has, in 2009, fallen behind the Italian one.

What I would do is to write 'The Daily Telegraph predicts that the British Economy will be overtaken by the Italian Economy by the end of 2009' on both the Economy of Uk and Economy of Italy articles. As this is very important and recent news, and must be included on wiki as it is traveling on all newspapers worldwide, I would strongly advise you put what I wrote on the top in both articles. This is verifiable and if you doubt, just type in: 'Italian economy overtakes British Economy' and you'll get thousands of results.

Reply

--Theologiae (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Regional Power
I wanna notify you that the world map does not state pak as a regional power. This is wrong, and yes neutral contribution also should lie in you as the world map does not specify pak.The same world map used in regional power thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.40.69 (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC) --Theologiae (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

True it is unethical and biasness, need a reason, the map does not mention pak. You are posting wrong info.One source only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxer (talk • contribs) 05:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts in Asia
Hi freind since you have dealt with the chronic socks of Mrpontiac could you please re-add the info removed by the patriotic vandal he deleted important info regarding India section here is the diff to show what should be added back cheers 86.158.235.181 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vetting Articles
Yeah, I'd be happy to help ^^ I haven't really done it too much, so perhaps a brief rundown? Comics (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's okay ^-^ I see that it's going along nicely though. And it looks like we have an enthusiastic Brazil-fan at the potential-Superpowers page! Comics (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another sock?
We have another "new user" removing Pakistan from food articles and inserting Indian categories and Indian templates.

I've tagged it as a possible sock. Waiting to see if it makes more edits. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 10:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrpontiac1
You are invited to join the discussion at. nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 19:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) (Using )

Your Contributions
I have been reviewing your past contributions and I would appreciate if you would avoid making changes that are unwarranted. For example, the IMF Datasheet gives no mention which country attained Trillion Dollar Status first. The list is ranked alphabetically which is why Australia is at the top of the list and the United Kingdom appears at the bottom of the list. Unless you can provide some proof to the contrary please don't change the entry without consensus. Some of your past edits do trouble me such as your modifications to Chindia (which had an Anti-India bias and might as well have been written by someone working for Xinhua), Smiling Buddha (where you repeatedly re-introduced a controversial sentence into the introduction) and Philosophy of war (where you essentially supported a Troll's uncited removal of claims). I'm sure you understand the importance of not subtly introducing your own POV into an article just because you may not personally like a country. Vedant (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, all three reverts were banned sock situations so not intended to be biased on my part. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you did not revert my edit on the Trillion Dollar Club. Perhaps going forward it might be prudent to verify that revisions are actually incorrect before reverting them?
 * This ofcourse still leaves the matter of the other edits.
 * Chindia - I'm sure you understand the importance of not combating bias with bias. I'm aware that PistaVista was a sock of Mrpontiac but as you no doubt know the Chindia article was teeming with bias and uncited claims which no one made an effort to rectify. Here are some direct quotations from the article
 * "Culturally, China is connected to the developed East Asian nations of Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. India's political instability is coupled with the fact that it is culturally associated with poor South Asian countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka engrossed in internal or external strife". May I ask what relevance this had to Chindia if any?
 * "The commonly-cited complementary nature of China and India's economies is also being questioned as the service sector in China is rapidly growing and threatening to match or overtake India's within a decade, while India's manufacturing sector has seen tremendous growth in recent years." Were any citations provided here?
 * Philosophy of war - You just labelled Happyears a sock and apparently proceeded to revert edits and did not make any attempts to review them properly. Perhaps you should also note that the user who made the initial edits to the article was also a sock of another user who in the past has been guilty of sockpuppetry, disruptive edits and racist/inflammatory attacks on other users.
 * Smiling Buddha - Yes it was an edit by Mrpontiac but again the content of the edit was not reviewed. Apparently Smiling Buddha was the only crude nuclear test performed? What about this, this, this, this, or this? All of which ofcourse would be considered crude by today's standards though curiously enough, the word crude is not even mentioned in any one of those articles?
 * Perhaps most importantly I think it is important to accept that we all make mistakes from time to time and as such if I have misinterpreted your actions then I am truly sorry. However, those were my conclusions at the time. That being said, I hope these issues will not boil over into anything serious and that in the future we can all make productive edits.
 * Regards, Vedant (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I frankly have no interested in these topics and don't question your judgement; my main area of expertise is international relations and economics. This sock happened to have interests in both the articles I edit and and other India-related articles and thus they were all reverted. The issue as I have explained is not whether the content reverted was well-written but whether the egregious sock should have edited in the first place and here the answer is no. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the policy of assuming good faith and I still believe that you act in good faith which is why I never actually levied any accusations against you. I only left a message on your talk page so as to caution you as to how your reverts could be misinterpreted. The intent of my messages was not to engage in any form of aggressive posturing but I am dismayed to see that you took the message in the wrong context. Vedant (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless that was not my intention and as per your request I have crossed the offending sentence out. I think I can keep a pretty cool head though (assuming that was directed at me) so no worries there I hope. Perhaps we were both operating under some mistaken impressions? I do hope however that our future encounters will be more productive. Vedant (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, no hard feelings then. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hyperpower
Hi there, I was just wondering if there is anything that can be done to contain Zhonghuo and his/her constant addition of China to a list of examples. G. R. Allison (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've recently come across and been concerned at Zhonghuo's POV edits. I've rv several of them. I would suggest engaging with the user and explaining policies in particular WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. If the user still does not heed these policies, I would seek intervention. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In Re User:KJohansson
I come here today to file a protest against you for threatening to block User:KJohansson when he has in my opinion done nothing wrong, but someone else has marked YOU as being the person guilty of violating the legal doctrine that says "He who comes into Equity must come with clean hands." You certainly are not one with clean hands. So, consider this my order to you to cease and desist your threats against User:KJohansson or this matter will be taken outside the Wikipedia dispute decision system and a case could be filed against you in a legal forum, be it an arbitrational tribunal or more to my liking, a court of law&equity. I have no confidence in the ability of Wikipedia's administrators or other officers to resolve this matter, so hence I will suggest to that user to take his case outside of Wikipedia, and take it to a forum that has the force of law to compel you to conduct more in his favor. 67.246.40.144 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As to the Wikipedia policy against legal threats, piss on that. I have no doubt a court would strike it down because it is so poorly written. Notifying someone of intentions to initiate legal action if a situation doesn't change, in the view of my lawyer, is not a legal threat. In most judicial systems, one has to demand a change from the accused before a case can be filed in a court, ie a Demand Letter. 67.246.40.144 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Say what Johansson/Lear? Has it finally struck you that your unilateral edits and personal attacks have lead you nowhere? Nirvana888 (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A while ago KJohansson contributed the following: Its pretty exhausting to talk to people who neither are able to read or to comprehend. I almost come to the conclusion that Phoenix just doesn´t have the intelligence to understand what pictures like the G8 can transport. Whatever. KJohansson (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC). (See Talk:Great_power/Archive_12). Imo this was a gross violation of WP:CIV and a contribution that is not compatible with having "done nothing wrong". If it were up to me KJ would have been blocked for this incivility. Anyway the discussion tone at Talk:Great_power has now taken a more conciliatory turn and, apart from the need to investigate all parties involved for possible sockpuppetry abd meatpuppetry, the issue should now be considered closed. Viewfinder (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is closed, Viewfinder. As to Nirvana888, I am NOT either KJohansson OR Lear 21. But I am taking the side of both of these men in this case because I find it hard to regard you with any seriousness since you have the same charges of sockpuppetry laid against yourself. Viewfinder, I thank God the power to block or ban a user is NOT in your hands. Since I see this not being able to be resolved, one of two things I propose should happen now. Either take this straight to the Arbitration Committe for an immediate emergency hearing, or failing that or if the committe rules against Lear or Mr. Johansson appeal above them and Mr. Wales to the judicial system outside Wikipedia. Either way, this matter should be decided NOW. No more waiting or stalling. 67.246.40.144 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A Checkuser will weigh in on the SPI soon. In the meantime, you must know you have absolutely no standing for any legal action, and the idea that Nivana might be frightened into giving you a free pass is absurd. -- King Öomie  20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To Kingoomie111 and whom it may concern: I reiterate I am NOT either KJohansson or Lear 21. I am simply one taking sides with both men above, especially since I noticed in my research of this issue Nirvana is guilty as sin himself of being a sockpuppet user himself. His alter ego as told to me is User:Zhonghuo. And use English, what is SPI? I do think these men, especially Mr. KJohansson have standing to sue Nirvana and I think you too now that you have taken sides with Nirvana against the innocent accused. And I so encourage them to do so. Either the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales himself better do something about you miscreants or I think Johansson and Lear should proceed to file a legal action against Nirvana, Wikipedia itself, and you for taking sides against the plaintiffs. If you want to head off a possible judicial Hell-In-a-Cell combat, I would cease and desist further actions against Lear and/or Johansson, end the investigations, stop the CheckUser queries, and apologize to them PROFUSELY while also giving them the proverbial "free pass". Either you do this, or a court will compel you and Nirvana by force of law to conduct firmly in their favor, placing you at their mercy. 68.236.155.30 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, you seem to be of the opinion a court will take such a case? There have been no precedents for this and frankly I find the notion of legal action against Wikipedia editors absolutely hilarious. "a court will compel you and Nirvana by force of law to conduct firmly in their favor" I'm sorry but no... just no. G. R. Allison (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken from Sockpuppet investigations/Lear 21
 * ✅ that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor.
 * User:KJohansson has been indefinitely blocked and tagged as a sock of User:Lear 21.
 * User:Lear22 has been indefinitely blocked but has been left untagged. This account is clearly a disruptive sock puppet of someone, but we don't know of whom.
 * User:Lear 21 has been blocked 6 months for sock puppetry in an attempt to gain an upper hand in discussions and to edit-war.
 * So by your logic Nirvana now has a legal case against them in the German courts, or would that be in the Florida courts since Wikipedia is based there??? -- Phoenix (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

GoonerDP asks
This is GoonerDP. You have casually deleted my contribution claiming that I contravened the neutral bias policy. Could you care to elaborate how I violated it? Or is your power just to delete without bothering to give explanations?
 * I'm sure you know why your contributions are inappropriate. Even not knowing much about India-Pakistan conflicts, your edits are quite extreme and certainly POV. Creating articles like Worst Genocide in Human History is patent nonsense are egregiously violates Wikipedia's article creation policies. Please stop forthwith or you will be reported for vandalism. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)