User talk:Nobleeagle/Archive7

Prosification
I see that you are active on the page - at exactly the same time as I finally roused myself to get some work done! Great minds think alike etc...

A few thoughts though, re your structural additions.


 * I would be strongly inclined to avoid the Past/Present division, the prose should be more than adequate to show which are no longer powers - this also avoids all the arguments about when a power started/stopped being a Great power.


 * You seem to have duplicated headings - doubtless there is a good reason.


 * Russia/USSR, encapsulating both entities, do you think that this is better than Russian Federation? (Tied up with the Past/Present division I suppose).


 * I've more or less finished the France section. I'd appreciate your thoughts; does it look too much like the Major power page is being reborn?  I hoped to put in references aplenty, but much of what I typed doesn't really seem to call for it.

X damr talk 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Inceidentally, I found http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472112872-ch2.pdf to be the most outstanding source - I essentially summarised it for the France and Austro-Hungary sections. It might save a lot of effort.


 * X damr talk 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. Re. your suggestion for using, I would urge against it.  In my view the citation of page numbers, both from 'When the Stakes are High' and other sources, is of key importance in establishing this article's academic credibility.  As it stands at present (bar the tables), I think that the article is as scholarly as it can be made.  That being so we should adapt the appropriate conventions, which includes citation down to the very page number, paragraph (if numbered), and table.


 * In a book, multiple consecutive references to the same source are dealt with by substituting Ibid instead of the source title. Barring the first, all consecutive references are denoted Ibid, p38, a neat solution.  However, given the fluid nature of the text this is not an option.  We could use Harvard referencing, but this is a system that I dislike, requiring as it does further reference to a bibliography in order to properly identify the source.  What we could do, a thought which has just struck me as I type, is after the first full citation, refer thereafter to Danilovic, op. cit. p33.  I think that solves most problems, although we would have to be constantly on the lookout to make sure that the first reference to the work was in the full form.


 * X damr talk 13:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff, op cit. it is then. Good work on China, will we have a division of labour on the rest of the prosification?

X damr talk 02:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can finish off the past powers and I'll work on the present ones?


 * Perhaps there is a difference in approach here that it might be useful to explore. My understanding of the evolution of the Great powers is that they originated at the Congress of Vienna with the original 5.  Austria-Hungary fell out of contention by the time of WW1.  The remaining nations (UK, France, Prussia/Germany, Russia) have remained Great powers - a continuity which remains even though the names might have changed along the way eg. Russian Empire -> USSR -> Russian Federation - essentially the same country/people, whatever the name.  By my reckoning therefore there is only one 'Past' Great power - Austria-Hungary (Which, of course, is now complete!).  Each of the others, along with more recent additions such as the US, India, and China, remain Great powers in the present day.


 * That's roughly my position, and my primary justification for advocating our dispensing with the Past/Present division (apart from cutting off one avenue of sterile debate - when did 'x' become/stop being a Great power). What did you have in mind?


 * X damr talk 16:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocides in history
Much as I agree with your sentiments, most of the historically more recent genocides listed do contain citations (49 of them), or they include main articles (like the Rwandan Genocide) so I do not think that global tags are appropriate. Philip Baird Shearer 11:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mexico
Hello, I came to warn that the user:AlexCovarrubias, is doing alterations like these:  He benefits Mexico ... is that correct? I find that not... João Felipe C.S 01:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hey Nobleeagle care to comment here? Your words may have some weight. Bakaman  Bakatalk 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian cricket team
What happened to the Indian cricket team for FA status? Want me to polish it? Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  02:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OIT still needs you.....
Please spare some time for OIT, I need help working with Dab's edits. He just goes and deletes all kind of relevent, properly ref material and keeps adding POV statement in the article. When I ask him for ref he just ignores everything. It is working well with Maunus and Paul. Their additions are acceptable and they are reasonable in discussion. But with Dab, personally I have reached end of line. I don't know what to do.

Please also let me know if the article is acceptable. I do have more relevent material in support of OIT, but the article is too big. Thanks. 198.96.180.245 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Die hard Indian cricket fan bordering on trolling
Talk:Rahul_Dravid, Talk:Sachin_Tendulkar Talk:Indian_cricket_team. GizzaChat  &#169; 06:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made a few replies, but aside from that, I wouldn't bother worrying as he is not in the mood to make any actual edits to the page. If he puts in OR about Dravid and Tendulkar being worse than Razzaq, then he'll be reverted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

penn or drexel
or temple? Do you go to any of them?--D-Boy 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi there! I just saw this, and I must confess I was really flattered. I hardly feel that it is true; I have a lot yet to do. Thanks for your faith in me, it truly made my day. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Nobleagle, could you please email at ambood[at]gmail[dot]com ? You can use a throw away account. Its really important. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical Powers Article
Just a couple of things, firstly could you change the references that I added in the Bulgarian section into the style that is in the rest of the article. Secondly, could you make sure anon. NPOV pushes in the same section don't add rants about Bulgaria in that section. Cheers--Aussie King Pin 09:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)