User talk:Ultramarine/Archive 4

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say
Please take a look at Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop inserting rubbish
An article on a nation, like Cuba is not meant as an editoral soapbox to express your personal political opinions in every sentence. Almost every single edit you have made in the last day there has been destructive, and highly POV (there were a couple usable sources in the midst of it, but very little). Please just stop this nonsense. I'm sure there are blogs out there where you can rail about how much you hate Castro... but a WP article isn't the place for it. LotLE × talk 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All my additions have sourced, adding much needed opposing views.Ultramarine 01:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mostly they have not been sourced, not in any meaningful way. But even those that have have been gross violations of NPOV.  We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a sequence of sentences which each and every one ends with "...therefore Castro is bad."  I've seen you've made some decent edits in some other places like Race and intelligence (that I couldn't bear to leave on my watchlist after a while), but this nonsense is just pure destructiveness.  State facts don't engage in long, and barely relevant, editorializing on the moral readers are supposed to draw from those facts.  Or start a new article Why Ultramarine thinks that Cuba's current government is really, really bad.  But anything that would have no place in any other article on a nation has no place in this one... which amounts to basically everything you've put in.  LotLE × talk  02:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, all additions are sourced. Why should the article mostly contain false statement supporting Cubs's undemocratic regeime?Ultramarine 02:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look... the latest nonsense is an overwhelmingly clear example. You keep inserting: "Supporters argue health indices are good; critics argue that it doesn't count because they were good before 1959" or similar doggerel.  This isn't about critics or supporters.  The indices are such-and-such.  It's perfectly fine (as we do) to factually indicate what they were in 1950 or whatever.  And it's definitely relevant to indicate what they are currently.  But we MUST NOT force feed readers on what conclusion they are supposed to draw from those facts.  Almost every one of your edits is exactly this type of force feeding of conclusions.  Present facts, let readers judge what significance they have.  LotLE × talk  02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, if you'd stop spending so much effort on inserting POV-mongering editorials, I'd have time to do some investigation of the actual nutritional indices, which is not covered yet. I'm all for presenting that information, including if it is unfavorable as a description of Cuba (but not for us to argue the conclusion ourselves), as long as I can find suitable citations.  Some tortured and indirect argument that dishonestly plays with rates-of-change from different bases isn't the way to honestly present facts.  If WHO or the like can be cited about actual current nutritional shortfalls in Cuban diets, we should definitely present this (but not end it with "...and therefore Castro is bad" as you keep adding).  LotLE × talk  02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I presented the sourced facts, that these indicator were very high before the revolution or are now declining. You deleted this, force feeding the reader that Cuba's dictatorship have been succesful.Ultramarine 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Josef Stalin
I just wanted to confirm that with your edit summary here you were not trying to say that I was the one making seletive deletions or adding false material? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the relevant material was deleted and dubious unreferenced material was added earlier.Ultramarine 14:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You removed sourced numbers because you dont like what they say and you change the text to push your own POW. (Deng 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC))


 * Hello, I posted some data on the Stalin era population losses, I hope it helps you guys fix that article, also those links to the articles in Slavic review are a useful source of info.--Woogie10w 12:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeing
Hello. I am confused, did you block SuperDeng, as stated here? He is editing now again on Josef Stalin..Ultramarine 22:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears I told him he was blocked without actually blocking him. My bad. He is now blocked. Stifle (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba and democracy
Hi Ultramarine. We could do with some political science specifically arguing that Cuba is not a democracy if you have anthing to hand. To even up the bottom section of that article.--Zleitzen 08:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Democracy see-sawing
I notice that you and User:Drono have been reverting back and forth recently on the Democracy article. Perhaps you could use the Talk page to discuss this in more detail and hopefully either reach some agreement, or briefly set out your reasoning so others can help develop a consensus? Having the article continually flip-flop between two editors' wording is undesirable. David Oberst 16:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of democracy
I have provided a source for the definition I propose, and despite my repeated queries, you have failed to provide even a suggestion of an alternative definition. If you do provide a credible suggestion, I will reconsider. --Drono 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, what is the supposed definition of Democracy in DDR? What is your source? --Drono 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Losses
Please let me know if I can help you on the issue of Soviet losses in the Stalin era--Woogie10w 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just picked up a book today "A Century of State Murder?" by Michael Hayes and Rumy Husan. The book covers the issue of human losses in Stalin's USSR and its demographic background. The book has a left of center POV--Woogie10w 00:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that that concensus is not for a figure of 20 million. The official total is 1,713,419 million Gulag, Labor Colony and Prison deaths from 1929-1953. The number executed after a trial was 777,975. This is per the data published by Wheatcroft.
 * Ann Appelbaum in her appendix on the death toll does not accept this as being the final word on this topic because there is no data on deaths in tranist to the camps( in boxcars), nor is there data for deaths of persons released on the verge of death due to overwork or summary executations, also there is no data for the number of deaths of the 6 million deported persons from various nationalities. The demographic evidence in Andreev indicates 7-8 million excess deaths due in 1933 during the time of the famine.
 * I often cite a Russian author Vadim Erlikman. In 2004 he published a handbook of statistics on human losses in the 20th century. He has a format similar to Matthew White but using mostly Russian and Soviet sources. He is a critical analyst who is not an apologist for Communism. He estimates losses from 1923-53- in the Gulag at 5 million, Executations at 1,3 million, 800,000 due to deportations and 8 million in the collectivization of agriculture. These are his estimates of total losses including those not in the official statistics. The fact of the matter is that we will never know true the death toll in the Stalin era.
 * In 1923 the USSR was a nation in that era where most people had no access to safe drinking water or a doctor. In 1942 the Red Army sent troops into Stalingrad without weapons and cleared minefields using infantry. The average death rate in 1914 was 2.8%, from 1923-53(excluding WW2 deaths) it was 2.2%, but by 1953 it was reduced to 1% which was the same as the US. The USSR became a superpower in the Stalin era at a terrible human cost. --Woogie10w 02:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My knowledge of the work being done in the Soviet archives is limited, I could not make a contributition on this topic. When PBS ran its documentary on the new disclosures resulting from the research that has been done I had a real laugh. The Rosenbergs and Hiss were indeed spies for the NKVD, McCarthy was right when he said there were Communists in the State Dept and Gus Hall was getting a regular cash payment from Moscow. Soviet documents prove that they not the Nazis killed the Polish officers at Katyn. It can't get better than this.--Woogie10w 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Liberal democracy
How's 'the first nation in the world with complete universal suffrage' POV, when it's a fact? - ulayiti (talk)  19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Add your vote
On the deletion page Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2, please add strong keep to your vote.

Thus far there are 7 votes for delete, 4 votes for keep (with your added "strong keep"), and two votes for merge.Travb (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Elections in Cuba
Please address the issue of your revert without explanation on the Elections in Cuba talk page--Zleitzen 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of capitalism
Well you've just acknowledged your POV and oversimplistic meanderings. Try wikipedia simple version but do it NPOV. --  max rspct  leave a message  23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at Bolshevik
Perhaps you might be interested in this discussion. Input would be appreciated. Thanks. 72.65.85.60 08:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Review requested at Emancipation
An editor User:FredrickS is currently insisting on what appears (to me and others) to be an obviously eccentric entry on the Emancipation disambiguation page (diff). As you've made contributions on the Democracy page and others, perhaps you could swing by and provide another opinion. - David Oberst 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng
Ultramarine, do you happen to know what happened to SuperDeng? Did he get blocked or banned?

I'm just wondering because there is a guy who has just turned up on the Stalin page who is making edits to my fresh rewrite of the Death Toll section, in a way that is remarkably like Deng. I'm naturally rather peeved about this because I have spent weeks trying to come to a consensus with others on what would be appropriate for this section, and the minute it goes up along comes this dude and starts mucking it up with Deng-like apologetics.

So if Deng has been banned, I'm wondering if this guy Nixer might be a sockpuppet and if there's any way to get him blocked again. If Deng wasn't blocked, then I guess I'll have to find a way to work with this guy. Regards Gatoclass 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rushton
Hey Ultramarine, thanks for coming to join me on the Rushton article! I'm trying to work on making it more NPOV, but it's been difficult convincing the anonymous IP addresses from canada (perhaps Rushton himself? Pioneer Fund folks?) to discuss things first. I'm going to continue trying to engage them, and hopefully they'll come around. Thanks again for the hand! --JereKrischel 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism
Just so you know...I tend to be a conservative on some issues, but am trying to help out at the Capitalism article. Let's try to figure out what is best to do in terms of the wording and I'll do all I can to keep it neutral...which means I will ultimately end up pissing off everyone! What I am saying is that I don't take sides in this as I am neither knowledgeable on the subject or vested in it's outcome...but o course, would like to see it become stable...the end result will probably be something everyone hates...that's a joke, by the way.--MONGO 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect the Capitalism article on the condition that you do not edit it for at least 24 hours. Just politely discuss your concerns on the talk page, please. Can you agree to that?--MONGO 12:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll inform them, thanks.--MONGO 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole IEF business
I feel it is necessary to clarify my own position with regard to the Index of Economic Freedom, which - as far as I can tell - is also your position. In one sentence: You don't support laissez-faire capitalism, but you obviously support IEF-related research. Thus I conclude that you must also hold the view given above. The only thing I oppose with relation to the IEF is the insertion of claims that the IEF supports laissez-faire capitalism. It doesn't (or, at least, there is no agreement on whether it does).
 * It is possible to support the research related to the IEF without supporting laissez-faire capitalism.

As far as I can see, the IEF merely shows that Western-style mixed economy capitalism is superior to any other economic system existing at the present time. I completely agree with that. -- Nikodemos 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

About Race and Intelligence
Hello Ultramarine. I've been following the debates you've been having with Rikurzhen and Nectar on Race and Intelligence, and the more I follow them, the more I feel like these guys act as if they own the page, which is against WP rules. I was thinking about calling in the MedCab or even an RfC (on the subject of the article, so as to widen the audience and bring some more light to bear on the issue). Just wondering what your thoughts were on the subject. I'm having serious doubts about the objectivity of the two main editors on the pro-genetic side, and feel they sometimes wrap their views in a cloak of pseudo-scientific objectivity to get the article pretty much the way they want. Well, I'll stop my rant here. But your thoughts would be appreciated, whether on your page or mine. Regards, --Ramdrake 23:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree. They try to impose control by persistence. There have been many critics but they usually get tired after while and move on to other articles. If you look at their history you can see that they almost exclusively edit race related articles from a particular POV.Ultramarine 23:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which do you think is more appropriate? MedCab or RfC on the article? From what I understand of WP (and I've been here a mere few months) I would think an RfC is called for, but I think process-wise a MedCab is required first. If you have more familiarity with WP, I'm all ears. But I think it's time to stop the constant POV creep of this article. The only way I can think of is to attract enough people of the non-genetic persuasion (which I think are in the majority, contrary to all the surveys they can quote) to counterbalance their influence and the way they have of talking way over your head and blocking any pertinent objection by an objection of their own which they demand you answer before they will answer yours. I must admit my academic days are far behind me, though, so I'm often at a loss to defend against their tactics, although I think I can see through them just as well as the next guy. --Ramdrake 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See Requests for comment. The problem with both RfC and Mediation is that they do not produce anything binding. I am afraid that even if new editors get involved they will get tired eventually. Only a RfA can do produce something obligatory. But and that is a long and difficult process. Also, many of arguments are rather technical and will be difficult to understand for many editors who are not researchers. So I am a little pessimistic. But we could try mediation, if they accept it. I think it is easier to do than a RfC and this or something similar is probably required anyhow as you point out.Ultramarine 00:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Went in there, and explained at length my take on what's happening with the article. Slapped a NPOV tag on the article as well. Hope I can count on your support to keep the tag there and at the top (as opposed to moving it to after the intro where people don't see it right away). I guess I'll get a rather annoyed response (which I expect). Oh well, we'll see. If you know others who would like to weigh in this time, please feel free to spread the word. Not sure we'll get anywhere, but I think it's worth a try. This article is so POV while denying to be it's sickening (just my own disgust showing here, sorry!). --Ramdrake 01:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I will certainly support it.Ultramarine 01:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please count me in as well. I've focused mostly on maintaining NPOV on the Rushton article, but it is closely related to race & intelligence. --JereKrischel 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. Excellent work.Ultramarine 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though this is Ultramarine's page, I'd say welcome aboard JereKrischel, and thank you for joining. (Here's hoping Ultramarine won't mind too much :) ) BTW, I'm also keeping an eye on the Rushton article. I couldn't help but notice that since the Rushton article took a turn south (demonstrating rather heavily the bias of this researcher), Rik and Nectar seem to have distanced themselves from his stance. Well, maybe it's nothing. Forgive me for blabbing on. --Ramdrake 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin
The other editor is right, you know. There's going to be tons of [Communist propaganda] sources stating that there was an overwhelming majority in these two cities. In the end, it will turn out that no surveys or voting was conducted to verify this assumption, and that the "majority" observation is only a POV opinion. Your "according to Lenin" tag is fully appropriate, but best wishes convincing the Communists. Rklawton 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Followup: he's got one published academic source, so I'm surprised. Rklawton 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional republic
This was originally a POV fork created by RJII, and is now a stub kept alive by libertarians who have some inherent dislike for the term "democracy". I have tried redirecting it to republic repeatedly, but after being reverted every time, I put it up for deletion. It is essentially a content fork that should be a redirect to either republic or liberal democracy. But since there's no way to make the libertarians stop reverting, it has to be deleted first. I thought you might want to help. -- Nikodemos 10:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Of possible interest to you: AfD on Francisco Gil-White article
Hello Ultramarine. Just to let you know there is an AfD going on on the Francisco Gil-White article. I'm just bringing it to your attention in case you'd like to express your voice. --Ramdrake 13:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Hi. It would be nice if you would use the edit summary field more often. Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cold War Portal created
Hello...

I see that you've been fairly active with the Cold War article, and I would like to solicit your assistance with developing the Cold War Portal that I've created. It seemed necessary, considering the amount of material on just the one page. For example, I created a Cold War Bibliography page, to answer some critique I saw about too many references. I'd like to delete the whole thing from the Cold War page, and have it linked from the portal/article. Same goes for the Cold War Template with all the names and such.

What do you think?

Thanks for your help!

Hires an editor 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista article - security discussion
Hi. As an editor of the Windows Vista article, you may be interested in commenting or expressing your opinion on this discussion on the article's talk page at Security updates and patches --Peter Campbell Talk! 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


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 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Capitalism
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.


 * Eh, I have not reverted anything 3 times in 24 hours.Ultramarine 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation.
Hi, just letting you know I've initiated mediation on the Democracy talk page. Dev920 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin
I sincerely hope you are going to report what Slim did on the Talk page. For a person who has been here for years, Slim certainly knew that that is absolutely forbidden behaviour. I'm just dumbfounded by it. Wjhonson 05:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
It isn't that point that anyone *can* download Open Office. It is rather the point that the average wikipedian should not need to, and should not need to know that they can. Open Office, and Excel readers in general, are still the domain of technically proficient people, not the average person. That is why Wikiverification needs to be done using standard existing methods. Wjhonson 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There no such requirement. Many things can not easily be checed by simply clicking on an Internet link but are still Verifiable. Things like statements in scholarly books or peer-reviewed papers that must be bought.Ultramarine 15:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows how to buy a book. Not everybody knows how to open an Excel document. Wjhonson 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not everyone knows how to open a .pdf file and most peer-reviewed articles use this format. Using this argument we should exclude most of science as unverifiable.Ultramarine 16:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are being overly dramatic. "Most" of science is still, even to this day, in print form.  As for Pdf's, if someone challenged one as unverifiable, I might be inclined to agree that it should be in pure text.  The majority of cases that come up, are because of challenges.  Wjhonson 16:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For many individuals outside academia to only practical way to check a peer-reviewed study is to buy it on the internet as a .pdf file. More generally, there is no requirement in Wikipedia, or more generally in science or among journalists, that only certain files types are allowed.Ultramarine 16:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Office documents and PDF files have free readers. If a few people can't figure out how to use them, tough.  Some people can't figure out how to find books in a library (etc), but those aren't the people we need to accommodate.  Rklawton 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Note
Lulu of the Lotus Eaters has been a continuous disrupter on her page. I am trying to make sure this doesn't happen by watching her, and her Danny Yee not-notables, very, very closely. If you would like to involve yourself, my mission has been to make sure that her edits of her fellow Marxists are not themselves overly biased, and there is balanced criticism of the Marxist nutballs she endorses. -Kmaguir1 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


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 06:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilove
I love you man. Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . 3 08:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I love you man.

Culverin ? Talk 09:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


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 06:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotations you deleted from the Poverty article
Hi Ultramarine. I noticed you deleted the quotations from the article on Poverty. Sometimes readers do not make it over to Wikiquote. The "wooden bell" quote is quite pertinent. Many articles have quotations in them. I think some quotations, although not directly cited, should be in articles. Let me know your further thoughts. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)


 * Hi Ultramarine. Thanks for your comments. Well, sometimes there are very scholarly relevant quotes for an article which don't fall into the gnomic epigrammatic category and they must be in an article. This doens't quite fall into that category, as you point out, albeit a good quote about poverty in general. I understand your concerns and take your point. I'll think about it further or try to work it in another way. Also, Wikiquote doesn't seem to have a category for such a quote. It's a Haitian proverb, but I only had it in English. So it's not an English saying. I wasn't sure how it would get put categorically into Wikiquote. Also, I need to get an login id there in addition to Wikipedia ! Oh, please put comments on my discussion page (User talk:Wikiklrsc) and not my home page (User:Wikiklrsc) ! Bests and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


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 05:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


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 05:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


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 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Embargo
I'll let you off your lapse into uncharacteristicly adding an unsourced statement to the embargo page. The page is so poor anyway that it barely matters - and the point you make has some currency. Will return to Healthcare page with avengance when time allows ;)--Zleitzen 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Plea for help on Talk:Prohibition and Pharmacological dissidence
Hi! I´m trying to save Pharmacological dissidence from being deleted. And trying to redirect badly named Prohibition to Prohibition (disambiguation). Can you help me against the lot of prohibiotinist bullying on me? Drcaldev 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


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, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Energy portal
Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


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 17:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The_Commissar_Vanishes_1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The_Commissar_Vanishes_1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


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 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cuban parliamentary election, 2003
Ultramarine, can you point to a WP:V citation where the Cuban government asserts what you have claimed in Template:Cuban parliamentary election, 2003? Thanks BruceHallman 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that seems to be your claim. I have already provided sources for critics of this view.Ultramarine 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling
Hi. Just dropping in to mention that you seem to have misspelled "East Asia" in that you uploaded. You should probably correct it. -- Nikodemos 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Democracy
Hi Ultramarine, I quite pleased to find someone else interested in democracy. Thanks for changing some of my changes, missed the discussion on the talk pages - I've added most of my comments to the talk pages.

The one thing that really irritates me about the whole article is the way it tries to deny the Greek view of democracy! I don't know where this idea comes from because it is very clear from every book I have read on the subject that the greeks saw the unique part of their system as the allotment of officers (Herodotus) and that elections were an insignificant part of their government. I suggest you read "Athenian democracy at the time of Desmosthenes" which goes into the subject in some depth. Otherwise do a search for democracy and elections on any Greek text database!

--Mike 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


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 06:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For a coherent wikipedia
A significant amount of work in real life will prevent me from making any big edits in the next few days. I've done a rewrite of the Communist state article, but I'm not sure if 172 and the others will like it. It was the best I could do in a few hours. I urge you not to start a Communist regime article or anything like that, for the sake of a coherent wikipedia. If we cut out the history and criticisms from Communist state, it is inevitable that someone else will start adding that kind of information back into the article at some point in the future, and it will probably be of a lower quality than the information we have now. In brief, please stand your ground. I'm sure a good compromise can eventually be worked out, though it will certainly take some time. -- Nikodemos 08:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


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 15:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI
I restored your version of communist state in my last edit, reverting my own reversion. That's because I'm hoping that you'll be satisfied with my creation of the rew article criticisms of communist regimes. In turn, I use the material in the old version of communist state as a summary of criticism of communist regimes in criticisms of communism. 172 | Talk 04:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
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 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
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 23:32, 14 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 06:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism
Cheers muchly, the return to a more balanced def. I've been dying for soemone to step in and calm things dow, I'm happy to keep to that def. (it's not perfect but it's better than the one Improper Bostonion kept putting in) - you're a star.--Red Deathy 09:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cold War
Hi Ultra, I see that you added a new section about Gaddis to the Cold War article. Please note though, that information about the post-revisionist school already exists at the bottom of the article. If you wish to add more information about this view, please expand that section rather than create a new one. Thanks, TSO1D 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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 02:03, 29 November 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 05:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson's RfA
I too have had recent run-ins with Pmanderson, though he has not compromised in the face of overwhelming secondary and primary evidence. I'd ask you to take a look at my comments on his RfA page to see for yourself if you believe he is yet ready for adminship. Skyemoor 04:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

falsifying refs
Please do not falsufy refs. The Davies ref you added speaks about the number of victims Soviet-wide, not in UA only. Please start the article Soviet Famine (1932-1933) for that.

Ellman's 8+ mln number is the total number of victims of Soviet repressions, including executed, died in Gulags, etc., and also from famine. Please also note, that this number is Soviet-wide, not Ukraine only. --Irpen 05:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Jacob Peters?
I noticed that you and User:Jacob Peters have been having a discussion on Talk:Joseph Stalin in which Jacob Peters was desperately trying to prove that Joseph Stalin was not a dictator. I'm a part of the Wikipedia Israel Project and Jacob Peters has been spreading disinformation on our articles as well. He tried unsuccessfully to prove that Hezbollah does not target civilians calling the allegation that they do "a deranged Zionist POV which flagrantly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy" (Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 8). If you read the archived talk page, you'll notice the same kind of Alice in Wonderland logic that he uses on the Joseph Stalin talk page. Jacob Peters later claims that "'northern Israel' was in fact part of the Arab state in the ... 1947 UN Partition. If Hizballah wants to, they can fire rockets on what is rightful Palestinian territory under Zionist occupation" (Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 8). As any reasonable person can see, this is not only a lie, but also a contradiction of his earlier claim that Hezbollah does not target civilians. I thought you'd like to know. --GHcool 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not "Jacob Peters". Stop harassing me, thanks.

--Hu!tz!l0p0chtl! 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not stated that you are.Ultramarine 01:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
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 05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
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 06:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

power
Hi ultramarine. My name is Comak. I have been following your work on wikipedia for a while, I wanted to applaud your work specially on the democracy article. Your continuous contributions to the political conversation (a noble necessary but seemingly thankless task) are not trivial and must surely make a real (though immeasurable) difference in the battleground for ideas. With countless people, daily referring to this text (in which you have continuously been a major contributor) the content which you have helped create must have influenced the opinions of many readers.

The issues of democracy equality economics politics etc are among the most significant that people face and deeper understanding of such issues can make the difference between war and peace, justice and injustice.

Now... (sorry if im being too serious but I feel this is very important)

the medium of the internet and your own focus on these issues has given you the power to advance your perspective and to influence the global conversation on some critical issues.

my purpose in writing this letter to you is to encourage your efforts and to ask you to think about the responsibility that comes with this power, I ask you to continuously study and question all different ideas and perspectives on the subjects on which you write (even the extreme ones, they deserve equal consideration) this is not a way of saying you are not knowledgeable on these topics or that I disagree with or disapprove of any of your work, quite the opposite, your contributions speak for themselves as a reflection of your understanding and interest and (although this is irrelevant) my own views on these topics are roughly congruent to yours. I would not put in the effort to present a considered argument if I did not value your work.

My argument is this:

The articles on which you have the power of influence are important. This power comes with responsibility, to exercise diligence and care, to examine and re-examine your knowledge, paradigms and dogmas(*) as much as possible, and to do it with absolute objectivity with truth as the only value. That is all.

You may think that it is strange of me to ask this of you, but I would ask the same and nothing less of anyone with any degree of influence on the global political debate.

I hope you do take this request seriously and consider why it is important.

Thank you.

(*) dogma in the neutral sense: an educated guess about unknown things e.g. human nature

Comaknacon 13:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ps: Here is a program I just heard, I think it might interest you: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2006/1810904.htm

Comaknacon 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I certainly try to examine what I contribute and in general try to spread to a wider audience what can be found in academic literature. If the researchers re-examine and draw new conclusions, or I discover that I missed something, I will try to add it. Since I am only human, I am subject to various bias, but try to reduce this as much as possible.Ultramarine 21:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

cool.

my own general POV/dogma is that the most successful individuals and societies are the ones who embrace modernism and scepticism discarding all possible dogmas. it is impossible to be without dogma and live a day to day life, for example, If one wishes to be absolutely adherent to the laws of rational thought, then one cant accept the convention that the percieved first person reality is real and we are not infact in the "Matrix" or anyother scenario which undermines the validity of our perceptions. Logic tells us that were any such scenario true we would never know about it so it is possible (many add here:"though unlikely" but this is erronous as they have no external reference point to judge how often the "matrix" happens vs how often "reality" happens) the key is to question such beliefs, attempt to find a rational understanding and then if none can be found state clearly: I can find no rational reason to accept that "my perceptions are correct", or "language is a correct reflection of reality", "I owe unquestionable obidience to the institution called my country", but i will choose to act as though these were true, with a "dogma" tag on each one of these statements cautioning the user not to forget that these are choices made not cases proven and are thus more open to revision.

Now the individual has done all they can to be rational given their incarceration in the first person perspective. unfortunately gaps in knowledge are all around us especially in trying to understand societies (which are made up of indivduals whose behavior and intelligence are equivalent or superior to the observer AND are themselves aware of the general socialogical paradigms and discoveries AND are prone to alter their behaviours based on such understanding, anyone claiming to possess anything more than a vague incling about the dynamics of societies (and only of use in probabilistic explanations of the past) is either Einstien times ten, or (more likely) a liar or (even more likely) a fool) In anycase the way i see it deomcratic societies are less dogmatic than authouritaian or despotic systems and capitalism less dogmatic than communism, they make fewer irrational assumptions about humans as individuals and as groups and this can explain the success of the former over the later.

Your POV as I see it is the mainstream POV among modern intellectuals that is one of support for democracy and also capitalism, and a progressive tax, and (I'm guessing here) the view that a global spread of democratic capitalist nations with social welfare as a priority is the best that can be achieved taking into acount the apparent nature of man and societies let me say first that I share all these view. The one thing that puzzles me is your apparent enthusiasm for capitalism, as I said most thinkers including me accept the superiority of the free market over any limiting form of economic system, but we do not like capitalism as it is a force for inequality injustice and is generaly anti-democratic as it necessarily concentrates power in to fewer and fewer hands. In my view capitalism is like a powerful extremely useful but wild and slightly dangerous elefant which moves society forward but is always attempting to go its own way and sometimes succeeds, we all know we need it but what we really want is to better control it lest it throw off its driver (the people), we understand its usefulness but we are reasonably uncomfortable with having to put our fates in its hands. Now noone is suposing we get off and start walking, but the number one worry of all the passengers is how to keep the beast under control and make it go the right way we don't like it but we have to live with it and when a passenger speaks enthusastically about the elefant and points out how strong and fast it is and how we would never have made it this far without it, we all have to accept that he is correct but we don't share his enthusiasm because we are scared! if anything we wish the elefant walked a little slower was a little less strong and a little more tame. anyway I hope this helps to shed light on the source of some of the unfair and crude scepticism that others have shown you in the past, In their defence I'd say do not assume malice where ignorance will suffice. I do not know whether you are a nationalist, but if you were I'd certainly strongly disagree with you as nationalism is just a way to exclude certain people from ones circle of sympathy which is morally reprehensible.

on a differnt note, do you ever watch the daily show on comedy central? its very funny.Comaknacon 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
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 07:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
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 08:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin
What are your thoughts on this matter? It seems we've got someone with a very biased POV using multiple IPs and a WP:SPA to make the same edits repeatedly in this article. I've reviewed edits make by this user's various IP addresses in other articles, and they all appear to be oriented around white-washing the Soviets. Given this user's persistence, I'm at a bit of a loss. Therefore I'm hoping to learn from your experience. Rklawton 19:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Happiness economics
I am not sure if you are aware of the existence of this article. I've just think you'd be interested because of your User:Ultramarine/sandbox Economics and happiness. I also suggest that we move the article to "Happiness and economics" instead. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  19:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
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 07:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the Cold War
I am interested in logging off Wikipedia at the moment. I'd rather avoid spending the time watching the 3RR discussion thread, and, if the wrong decision is made, appealing it.

So, I am willing restore your version of the article and not edit it in 48 hours if you withdraw the report. Agreed? 172 | Talk 07:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will withdraw the report if you restore the earlier version.Ultramarine 07:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Now, please help me understand your objections to my clean up on the article talk page, so I can figure out how to address them while cleaning up the article in the coming days. 172 | Talk 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. By the way, there is no need for you to worry I will not live up to the agreement even though the result was no block. The content doesn't bother me enough to weasel out of my word. Also, it's 2:30 AM here in the eastern U.S., and I'm tired! I'm logging off now. Talk to you later... 172 | Talk 07:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, please don't remove legitimate reports from WP:AN3, you edit has been reverted. Regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Medcab case: Criticism of Marxism
You have been named as a party to the mediation in the Criticisms of Marxism MedCab Case. If you wish to participate in this voluntary, informal mediation with me as your mediator please Edit the Discussion section and state that you accept me as your mediator and wish to proceed with the case as submitted. Alan.ca 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI: user:Dialecticas requested Alan.ca to ask me not to participate in this mediation.  Don't hesitate to ask if there's anything I might do to help out in general.  Rklawton 21:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, your Hoffer citation in the Criticisms of Marxism article is a dead link, at least on my computer. It goes to an error page. Please fix it; though I disagree with it, it might as well be there for others to see. --Dialecticas 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me.Ultramarine 23:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Rklawton 01:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It works now for me, too. I shouldn't have said anything in the first place. Sorry. --Dialecticas 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

race and intelligence
you could help stop the nonsense claims about re-created figures. based on the number of figures you've created from data sources, i have to imagine you disagree with jk. --W. D. Hamilton 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, this guy has inserted some highly questionable material in to the wiki. His sources all write for the national review. I'm working on cleaning up one of his gems here Talk:Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) futurebird 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please stop deleting sourced material

 * Nothing was deleted. You're removing improvemts to the references every time you revert the article. Can you show me what is missing... or simply put the missing items back in?
 * I can't seem to find anything missing at all.futurebird 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Maps of historical forms of government
While there are several maps of current forms of government across the world being used on Wikipedia, I noticed a distinct lack of maps showing the forms of government that countries had in the past. So I have taken it upon myself to draw such maps and upload them to the Wikimedia commons. I'm mostly using information from the Historical Atlas of the 20th century, which has a lot of maps showing the status of various forms of government worldwide decade-by-decade in the 20th century. I am also checking some of the information on Wikipedia, to make sure that the maps accurately reflect a certain definition of a form of government (for example, not every "traditional monarchy" is an absolute monarchy, and not every one-party state is an autocracy).

So far I have uploaded the following:
 * Map of absolute monarchies in the 20th century
 * Map of historical autocracies in the 20th century
 * Map of present-day autocracies (some of those African nations need fact-checking to ensure they are indeed autocracies and not oligarchies)

I'm letting you know about this because you might be able to put these maps to good use, or make corrections if necessary. -- Nikodemos 03:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a general principle, I would like to once again point out that you put far too much trust in sources that have an official seal of approval, without giving adequate consideration to the possibility of systemic bias that might exist for one reason or another (e.g. a research institution funded by a certain government or private organization is not likely to publish information contrary to the interests of its benefactor). I'm not talking about your use of sources in wikipedia so much as about your use of sources in forming your own personal opinion. I think you could benefit from more skepticism, and you could also benefit from the realization that, in the social sciences, there is no such thing as a researcher without a vested interest. In particular, you should be far less trusting of historians who also happen to be passionate ideologues.


 * But none of that has anything to do with the issue at hand here. It was just some personal advice I wanted to give you. I see nothing objectionable about the Polity IV Project and I intend to use it for my maps. Thank you for pointing out this source to me. -- Nikodemos 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
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 06:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Poverty - please vote
I think the poverty article would benefit from this This week's improvement drive --since you have help a lot with it please cast your vote.futurebird 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Race & Intellegence
I saw your comment preceding the Appendix table. I think that you make some very valid points. However, you might want to tone down the POV a bit, and/or move some of the information to a footnote. Personally, I don't have a big problem, but I'm sure that others will have objections. I won't fuss with your comments, but would like to discuss alternatives with you. I think that it is important for all views to be presented.

Thanks.

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Health and intelligence
Awsome article. Great work! It's well written and well sourced. I'm so glad you're here! futurebird 19:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Religiosity and Intelligence
Hello Ultramarine. I see you restored the Older studies section in this article, and in fact restored (or copied from somewhere) an ancient version without the corrections and caveats that the more recent versions contained. As noted on the talk page, since this is a controversial subject, you are encouraged to engage in discussion on the talk page before making major edits. Would you please explain your reasoning for restoring this material, which had seemingly been established as critically flawed in the talk-page discussion? Thanks! --OinkOink 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
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 06:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
I'd love to know your thoughts on this new outline I've proposed for this highly problematic page. Any ideas or feedback? Thanks! futurebird 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 0 Intro


 * 1 History
 * 1.1 Race
 * 1.2 Intelligence testing
 * 1.3 Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race


 * 2 Contemporary questions
 * 2.1 Race
 * 2.1.1 Genetic hypothesis
 * 2.1.2 Validity of "race"


 * 2.2 Intelligence testing
 * 2.2.1 The psychometric approach
 * 2.2.2 Multiple forms of intelligence
 * 2.2.3 Cultural variation
 * 2.2.4 Developmental progressions


 * 2.3 Average gaps among races


 * 2.4 Explanations
 * 2.4.1 Environmental factors
 * 2.4.1.1 Test bias
 * 2.4.1.2 Characteristics of tests
 * 2.4.1.3 Socioeconomic factors
 * 2.4.1.4 Culture factors
 * 2.4.1.5 Public debate and policy implications
 * 2.4.2 Genetic factors/Groups and intelligence
 * 2.4.3 Intelligence as a function of race, contemporary views
 * 2.4.3.1 Significance of group IQ differences
 * 2.4.3.2 Public debate and policy implications

PS. You seem to know a thing or two about economics. ;) the article improvement drive this week in the Stock market crash of 1929-- thought you might like to take a peek. It could use some of your well-sourced economic facts. futurebird 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Liberties
Thanks for your attention to "liberties" at Illiberal democracy and Democratically elected government. I'm particularly interested in the relationship between democracy and liberty and I often wonder how much influence elections have on this. --Uncle Ed 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Added a link to liberal autocracy at the Illiberal democracy article. However, as noted at the start of the liberal democracy article, some argue that liberty and democracy are both necessary for the real existence of each other and that both arise from an underlying concept of political equality.Ultramarine 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
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 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
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 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

IQ and the Wealth of Nations and Health and intelligence
You're doing a great job staying on top of these and improving them. I really appreciate you work here. Do you think you could weigh in on these issues at the race and intelligence talk page? futurebird 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Media_portrayal_section
 * 2) Utility_of_research_section
 * 3) RFC:the_first_sentence

Thank you.
Thanks for taking the time to give a little feedback on this contentious and messy topic. futurebird 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Confused by your edits
We're trying to figure out where the "Public controversy" page went. You managed to confuse both me and WD. Can you come over to here can just explain what you did? I think you edits probably make sense, and I'm glad you're working on these articles, but since you didn't tell anyone what you were doing it's just confusing... so could you just make a few comments to clear things up? Here is a link to the place on the talk page  Thanks! futurebird 20:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
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 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

race and intelligence
I have semi-protected the Race and intelligence article so you can now edit it. If you do not mind, I would like to give you some advice that I believe is important if you want your improvements to the article to last, and that will protect you from unfair conflicts. I apologize if any of this sounds patronizing. And if you question my motives all I can say is I really am trying to be practical and strategic. I think if you do not follow this advice no sustainable progress will be made in the article. If you do follow this advice, I think the article really will get better, even if at a slower rate than you'd like. I am sharing this with JK; please share this advice with anyone else you closely collaborate with. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Accept RIK's tremendous, if partial, knowledge. He is almost always rigorously careful about adhering to WP:V.  I ask you to keep in the front of your mind the Wikipedia dictum that we are about "verifiability, not truth."  It does not matter whether whether an edit by RIK is true or not.  What matters is that it be verifiable and in my experience, RIK's edits always are.
 * 2) RIK like all editors (including you) must comply with WP:NPOV. ALL "facts," no matter how verifiable, no matter how many sources can be used to support them, reflect some point of view.  The safest way to protect your own additions is to be clear about the POV (from a scholar?  What field?  Natural science?  Social science?  Humanities?  Or a journalist?  What credentials?  Or a politician?  Or a civil-rights leader?  What organization do they represent).  If you ever feel RIK is unclear about the POV of his edits, politely insist that he make the POV explicit.
 * 3) Beyond the above two points, here is my really BIG piece of advice: as long as RIK provides his sources do not delete or even bother to edit what he writes. I do not mean forever.  i just mean for now.  My advice is strategic, i want to suggest to you what would be a more constructive path at least for the time being, which is:
 * 4) my other really BIG piece of advice which is to instead focus on adding what you think the article lacks. Let RIK add his stuff.  Of course it is biased.  All facts are biased.  And his bias will always be a part of the article.  WP:NPOV however demands, that other POVs be included too.  My advice is, for NOW, focus on making sure those other POVs get in.
 * 5) You MUST be rigorous in complying with NPOV (see above)
 * 6) You MUST be rigorous in complying with WP:Verifiability - always provide a credible source. Credible does not mean correct, truthful or articulate or eloquent.  It means someone that even your oponents must accept as an authority on the topic - some part of the topic, and in some way.  A professor of journalism or political science writing in a book published by University of Chicago Press is a good example.  A stanford University psychologist publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is another.
 * 7) I URGE you to restrict the sources you rely on to those that explicitly address the relationship between race and intelligence. I realize you believe you have a reasonable argument for including material from sources specifically on "race" that do not explicitly address race&intelligence, and maybe your case really is reasonable.  But I am trying to be practical.  If you use a source that is not clearly about race and intelligence, some others can accuse you of violating WP:NOR which prohibits us from making our own generalizations or synthetic claims.  So if you use such a source you are inviting a conflict.  No, it does not matter who is at fault or who is right.  What matters is making edits that are unassailable and will not be deleted or, if someone deletes them, you can with confidence revert the deletion.  This will ensure your edits stick.  I am advising that this - making edits that stick - be your priority.
 * 8) My final and really really really important BIG piece of advice: If you add content that is accurate and relevant, from a verifiable source, that in no way comes close to even kinda sorta violating NOR (because you are not making ANY synthetic or general claims, only citing a verifiable source that does and that is directly about race and intelligence), and you are painstakingly careful to comply with NPOV, and if another editor deletes what you added, then make a record of that editor's deletion immediately. Also, document any violation of the three-revert rule (and be sure you never violate it ever ever).  And document any personal attacks. Just keep a record, keep it to yourself.
 * 9) If after two weeks you can document a pattern in which your fully NPOV/NOR/V compliant edits are consistently deleted (whereas you have not been deleting that person's stuff), and someone else has violated 3RR (and you have not), and someone else is guilty of personal attacks (and you are not) ... you then would have a very strong case to take to ArbCom. Very strong.  Use the record you have been keeping.

Google
Thanks for the tip!futurebird 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice job!
Thanks for the poverty article cleanup. The refs were just terrible, and I did not have time to fix. Thank you for your efforts. /ClintonKu 11:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For adding those sources to Race and intelligence (potential for bias)! futurebird 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Ultramarine 01:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin
Thanks again for your diligence on this article. Keep up the good work. Rklawton 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

NOT 3 reverts
I have not reverted three times only once. I have been working with compromise editiing in all other cases. I reverted you only. Returning text is not reverting. --Kevin Murray 20:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

rfm
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --JereKrischel 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this?


futurebird 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin and WD reverted everything
It's back the way it was when the page was locked. I just don't understand how they can do this? The article was finally starting to improve. All of the work has been lost. Now they page is "locked for mediation" or something. This isn't fair. futurebird 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Hey, you need to watchlist this page. There is no guarantee someone will actuall step up and mediate, so you need to watch that page to see if someone does. For more information, read this. Good luck, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fun
I had a lot of fun tonight adding all of the great new information with you to Race and intelligence (explanations). I think you've done a great job of doing real work on pages, rather than just blathering on and on and on the the talk pages. I think it's important to remember that's what this is really about, adding information and making these articles comprehensive and balanced. I hope we can work like this more often in the future. -- futurebird 08:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

murray quote
WRN may have a point, please weigh in [

futurebird 06:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
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 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

about to archive ...
Before I archive it, will you make sure there is nothing here or in the following section - chock full of citations - that you want to put in one of the pages you are working on, but have not yet? best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Health
Nice addition of a graph! I've been looking for way to balence the visuals in these articles for a long time. futurebird 20:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House
Hi Ultramarine, I just would like to let you know that User:Vlad_fedorov who recently edited Freedom House is currently under review: Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. He did wikistalking of all my political/history articles for months. Best regards, Biophys 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lovely, Biophys. Could you look here though? Requests_for_comment/Biophys.Vlad fedorov 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

R&I explanations
Just to clarify, you mean topic #19? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove it when there are sources given!
Re: Universal suffrage in the world - This is still incorrect, also for example Myanmar has no current elections.

If you followed the links, you would have seen that only Brunei still does not have universal suffrage & that Myanmar(Burma) still has it on the books. It may not be holding elections now, but when they do, every adult is eligible to. Do your research & back it up as to the facts before taking it out please. That-Vela-Fella 10:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all the work you've done on R & I I think that page is starting to look better... slowly. JJJamal 11:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
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 08:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy portal & future selected articles
Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so. The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work. With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome! Please make any comments on your Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Race and health
Thought you might be a good person to ask for help with this new article I started pulling together today. futurebird 04:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)