User talk:Ultramarine/Archive 5

Cold War
All the numbers come from that list (which is easily verified) so stop blanking it; count, recompute, and verify it. If you don't know how to do that, stop until you learn how. MBHiii 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Separate issue: how do we convince MBHiii that he should stop reverting the simplistic cold war map? Hires an editor 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are from Roy's list, and the map in question is to the right. -MBHiii (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (explanations)‎
I really need some help with this article. I've added a ton of evidence against the genetic explanation, but now WRN is trying to frame the whole thing in terms of "well you never know it might be genetics!" --It's the idea that no matter what you do, I mean, even if there was no test score gap, until you have proven there is NO genetic link you ought to assume that there is one. He's invoking Occam's razor and I think that's ABSURD. Occam's razor says choose the obvious cause: RACISM. duh duh duh. I've just about had it with this article. How many years will it be before people simply realise that (a) Jensen is a nut (b) we ought to have been spending all this time and research money trying to help people live better lives rather than trying to prove that people are inferior because of some 19th century vendetta in some circles of the academic community against africa.

I'm just really angry and sick of going in circles. I need some help. I don't want to just give up and watch as all of my hard work is slowly obliterated. futurebird 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) futurebird 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And thanks again for keeping an eye on things. As soon as I move away WRN starts deleting sourced material.... Thanks again. futurebird 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 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 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Please visit Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence and add your position. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 15:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Race and health
Can you help with the wording and content of the opening paragraphs? futurebird 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm asking you because I know anything I write will read the an issue of the final call :P


 * If you make it "too neutral" we can discuss that on the talk page.


 * The serious goal in the end, is a balanced article. I need some help to make that happen. futurebird 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! The new intro is so much better. futurebird 13:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Coatchecker
Are you honestly telling me you can't follow the basic math I presented in the article? What dubious assumptions are you talking about? Coatchecker


 * Yes I am going with assumptions that favor the genetic argument but the whole point of the left half is to present the most genetically friendly interpretation just as the right half is for the most environmentally friendly assumptions & interpretations. I'm not presenting a new argument. I'm just holding their argument up to mathematical scrutiny.  You are being too picky about original research.  If you honestly think I am misrepresenting the facts than that's one thing, but to insist that we have no liberties to summarize and put things in our words is counterproductive I think. Coatchecker

Signpost updated for March 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 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine This Program is For You
The American conservative Libertarian P.J.O'Rouke analyses Adam Smith and his works in depth. An unmissable discussion for any curious homosapiens.

download Audio from:  http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2007/1872839.htm

Esmehwp 06:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP living person violation
Please do not use unreliable sources to add assertions that libels living persons to wikipedia articles as you did to Rushton in the pioneer fund article. This is a violation of wikipedia living person policy. Saturdayseven 13:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WP living person violation:2nd warning
Please do not add unreliable sources like this[] to living person biographies like you did in Rushton's article. These sources do not meet wikipedia's quality standards for supporting any claim, but they are especially unacceptable when sourcing controversial statements about living individuals. Please read wikipedia's living person policiy. We are supposed to revert this type of material from living bios as much as we want, as this rule is an exception to 3rr. Saturdayseven 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence quotient tags--what exactly is the problem?
Hello Ultramarine. I'm wondering what you find "dubious" about the text under "High IQ Societies." If you read my message on the talk page, you would know that I find the premise behind the Giga Society to be pretty ridiculous, but that in itself doesn't mean the section in question contains anything dubious. In fact, to repeat some more of what I said on the talk page, it is clear from the prose in that section that the claims of the Giga Society are indeed dubious, to say the least. Thus there's no need for a tag on that score, nor is there a need to question the credibility of a website which is little more than a list of hyperlinks to the websites of various organizations which cater to the "High-IQ" crowd. Finally, the sentence, "In more recent years, a number of high IQ individuals have used the internet to contact members and form groups of varying degrees of exclusivity" hardly constitutes original research. How could it possibly? All it says, in essence, is that various people with similar interests have used the Internet to find one another. It's roughly as controversial and original as saying that in recent years more and more people have been contributing to Wikipedia.

To make things clear: The page as I have left it (approximately 3am UTC, 17 March 07) says only that:

a) People sometimes form societies based on shared interests, in this case, an interest in announcing that one has a high IQ and spending time with others who feel the same way;

b) Mensa is one such group;

c) whereas in the past people who wanted to organize societies for those with high IQs needed to resort to mail and other slow forms of communication, they now have the Internet at their disposal;

d) as a result, several such web-based societies have sprung up in recent years; and

e) some of these societies (Giga for instance) make some rather outlandish and dubious claims regarding their entrance criteria.

The article needs no referencing for the first four claims, and the fifth is backed up with a link to a web page containing links to the home pages of various high-IQ societies, which in turn supply their entry criteria.

None of this needs tagging.

I invite you to respond to this in as much detail as you think necessary on my talk page, and I look forward to hearing from you. Buck Mulligan 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read Attribution. Gives sources or it can be removed. Also this "Giga" material looks like spam or advertisement for a not important group, maybe for commercial reasons.Ultramarine 12:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 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 07:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 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 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ECA clearup
Lo there - honestly wasn't trying to breech POV (in fact you'll see I removed some of the more spurious criticisms) - the article is a real shambles and i've neglected the cleanup for too long - it has the horrid marks of long runnign POV battles all over it - I hope the changes I've made meet with your approval, but can I pelad with you, if they don't, to examine them case by case, because otehrwise cleanign the artickle will take forever if I have to wait for consensus to remove each little horror. Frankly, I think the criticisms section could live, POV-wise, without the rebuttal at the end, I've left it in for you, but pelase do see what you think about removing it.--Red Deathy 15:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, to be honest a scorched Earth is a better prospect than teh mess that went before, will have to try and rebuild a criticisms section - to be honest I came back to try and improve this article as an indirect way of improvinf the criticisms of socialism article/section - this atricle needs to be first class in order to help the rest - I honestly wasn't trying to skew it (and don't think my edit you reverted the second time was biased) - anyway, thanks for your help.--Red Deathy 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations
What is up with this template? futurebird 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused abut why this data is in a template anyway. Is this a normal way of organizing things? Another user brought up concerns about this tamplate on the template talke page. I agree that it ought not agragate data from two sources. That's OR. futurebird 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 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 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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 08:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund entry ...
In the "rules" it says that part of achieving NPOV is having balance between "all sides" of any story. You have removed one of the items in support of Rushton and added in several negative criticisms. There is supposed to be balance between negative/positive points of view included here ... I don't think anyone is supposed to add in tons of stuff just on one side of the story

Also this is a biography of a living person.

This should not turn into a forum for personal attacks (or praise) of Rushton

Mstabba 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted ONE of your negative sourced items because the list of negative is about 4 times as long as the list of positive ... which goes against having balance (which is part of NPOV). Just because something is sourced doesn't mean you can add it ALL here.

Mstabba 20:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do what you have to do.

I am not reverting things that make sense and help to achieve NPOV (part of which is BALANCE between positive/negative/etc. points of view presented.

I can report you too ... for reverting so much of what I do (like removing E. O. Wilson's comment in favour of Rushton's work ... one of 3 such comments (as opposed to the one negative comment I deleted of the ever growing negative list) Mstabba 20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 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 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help improve Plug-in hybrid
You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Energy development, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 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 07:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 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 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 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 06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of communism
Could you, please, help - how do I introduce this in the wikiquotes, and how do I cite it here? I sincerely don't know. Could you give me the links, please. The title of the article suggested me that to include a characteristic quote from one of the most important early critics of communism, is only logical.:Dc76 14:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 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 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel
Hi, I have reverted back to the version where I have given the source for his libertarian views. Please provide some source for his being a "former libertarian" before reverting the article. Thanks, Madhava 1947 (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Conrad Schumann.jpg
Hello Ultramarine, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Conrad Schumann.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Ultramarine/sandbox. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ultramarine
I changed the reference from the personal page to the book that is related to the statement I wrote on the topic of IQ and the wealth of nations. Thanks for your help. 74.14.121.82 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Flynn Effect
Hi. Any particular reason why are you inserting speculative opinion as though it were fact in the wikipedia article. It's impossible to know how people in the 1930s would score on IQ tests made in the 1990s. Secularrise 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects
Hi, Ultramarine. When you turn an article, such as nuclear power plant, into a redirect, don't forget to check for redirects to the article. Nine double redirects were created when you made nuclear power plant into a redirect. Thanks, Kjkolb 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 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 05:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

stop vandalizing
You are vandalizing the page IQ and the wealth of nations. Stop it and look at the discussion.

Well, sorry for saying you are vandalizing, maybe, for some reason you did not see the discussion, but check things before you change them. You have a link to check the information.

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

You have a link above to Lynn personal page and this book. Spain is number 151, and you can see it is 99, not 97. I wonder why someone changed it.

65.11.114.176 00:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)65.11.114.176 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

table
for the topic of IQ and weath of nations: Hi Ultramarine! let's retain the table as it is not quite easy for one to build up. What do you think? For vandalism, I think that you already put this topic on your watchlist and thus you would be able to revert it easily, if necessary. 74.14.121.82 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act
Benjamin Gatti is back, and apparently wants to restart the battle that got him banned from two articles (this and Nuclear power). Would you care to comment on his proposal in Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act ? Thanks, Simesa 05:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

POV Warrior
Ultramarine, we are approaching the point where I will be asking for formal help from WP. Eiyther help edit democracy or don't, but stop being disruptive. Raggz 09:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read Civility. For democracy, see that article.Ultramarine 09:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ultramarine: I am not pleased that you have turned up at Human Rights in the US because with the democracy article you did not work toward a consensus but instead worked to prevent this. I suggest that you seek other editing opportunities because this article requires that we work together, to attain a NPOV, while each holding to strong contrasting POVs. This is your weakness, and is not your strength. Don't fly like a moth to a flame to this new topic as part of your POV Warrior misson.


 * I will not engage you in lengthy POV discussions anymore. I will not accept more violations of policy in regard to reversions. You will not drive editors from this article, as you did with democracy. You have a right to edit any article that you are not banned from, but I suggest that the POV challenge at this new article will likely prove too great for your limited NPOV capabilities and committment. If you choose to continue, I will welcome you as long as you do not persist with what you did at democracy. If you want to edit, you need be committed to reaching a NPOV. Raggz 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at most of my earlier edits, I hope you agree that I have improved the prior very negative bias against the US, which I think you approve off. Regarding the present issues, see talk page of the article.Ultramarine 01:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice
Hi,

The MfD discussion of your user subpage has closed as "keep". Best wishes, Xoloz 16:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 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 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I have noticed your contributions to Human rights and the United States and just wanted thank you for cleaning up the article. Your contributions have made the article of better quality, which was much needed. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Never at War - book cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Never at War - book cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to State terrorism
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Ultramarine! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule criterion\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 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 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jacob Peters
Check out his talk page - the original account's talk page. He wants an unblock. Right...Moreschi Talk 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblock request declined by MaxSem. This guy is nuts! Moreschi Talk 21:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the case on checkuser, I saw you reverted all the material you added because the socks were already blocked, but you might want to consider leaving it there, just to leave a clearer trail of his behavior for future editors to see. C thirty-three  22:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is needed, all his socks can be seen on his user page.Ultramarine 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning
If you continue to disrupt the WP:Rfc process concerning the information about Sarkar in the article Capitalism, your account may be blocked. Ofthe1780s 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please stop the edit warring and fighting on capitalism. I have protected the article and won't remove protection until we get to some resolution on the talk page. There is plenty of guilt to go around in this conflict, but slinging mud won't solve anything.--Chaser - T 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Please comment regarding the issue at hand on the talk page if you have a view.Ultramarine 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've commented. Since I've become a participant, I can't act as a sysop in this situation anymore.--Chaser - T 20:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Ultramarine 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

opposition to US
so im browsing and i get to this article and i think to myself this article feels like its just had some white republican hack go through it with a hacksaw and i check the history and I rolled over with laughter, of all the psycho's on the net you have the most time on your hands. I wish I could find you and grab you by the neck and take you to see a few other countries, read a few books and teach you some critical thinking or better yet...

you are what is wrong with my world. you and everyone like you. unimaginative uncurious people who cant see that if they were just born in algeria, or china or serbia, or cambodia you'd be the same self rightous nationalist d!*k just with a different ideology. Esmehwp 17:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 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 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

edit summary
Hey, will you please start using it more consistently? Thanks. Murderbike 07:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya know, after I wrote that, i looked at the history, and realized you had been using it, but a few of em were just vague enough to confuse me, and then a blank one made me crabby, but I think cause i was really tired when I was doing all those citations, and kind of just annoyed at the fact that the article was done without any. No hard feelings? Murderbike 17:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Regarding our dispute, would you accept mediation, such as Requests for mediation? Ultramarine 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok i'll bite... look we don't really need mediation all I'm asking you is to not delete other people's work I have tried not to delete your work if i could help it and if you go back to all the articles and restore your own additions without deleting or changing things you believe are untrue and unsourced I will defend your contributions as well. the way i see it lack of sources is no excuse for deleting anything. just add.Esmehwp 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in Wikipedia anything that does not have a source can be removed anytime. Otherwise anyone can write anything without proof and it could never be removed. See Verifiability.Ultramarine 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

you think I don't know WP policies? don't do that again. read my writing. if you cant understand what I'm saying to you then there's no point in talking. LAST WORD: delete and you'll be reverted. FULL STOP Esmehwp 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that if you continue to refuse to explain your editing and do not make any attempt to solve this by discussion, I will take this to the arbitration committee which can stop this sort of disruption. For example by blocking you from editing. But preferable we can avoid this by discussion instead. What do you prefer? Ultramarine 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify before I proceed futher with Dispute resolution. Do you accept Mediation? I will interpret no answer as a no.Ultramarine 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just find a compromise? How about if Ultramarine, instead of deleting things he thinks lack proper referencing, he instead sticks a Fact/Cite tage, and lets it stand for a week or so, enough time for editors to properly source the material and provide proper attribution--or else discuss on talk about the merits of the issue, one way or another--BEFORE simply deleting large amounts of information? That is what I've asked him to do, and I think it would avoid these conflicts. Its the reason why we have this option and its a reasonable compromise.Giovanni33 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Esmehwp has stated here and on other pages that he will not accept any removal which is of course unacceptable. But your suggestion is fine. I have already added disputed templates to pages in question and talk pages notices describing the disputes. Or will now add them. My edits were explained in detail in the edit summaries. I will wait a few days to see if references or arguments appear. Otherwise I will restore the corrected versions.Ultramarine 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will restore deleted information if I feel the deletion is POV or if it detracts from the article. ultramarine thinks USA is the best country in the world and that is his dogma there is nothing anyone can do about it. it is not based on reason logic or facts its an emotional thing he is an ideological fanatic the only way to stop him biasing WP into his own dogma, is to stand up to him you cant compromise with fanatics I'm not going to run around finding sources for everything he disputes, he can add what he likes he can put up tags if he wants but he cant go around deleting things i''m going to stop him.Esmehwp 23:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PS No Ultramarine I don't share your dogma so there's no point in mediation.
 * You as all other editors must follow Wikipedia policy. So if necessary I will take to place that can impose sanctions. But I will give you or other editors a few days to add sources. Also see ad hominem, discuss the factual arguments, do not attack the person.Ultramarine 05:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there is a lot, I say more than a few days. Check back in 30 days and see how much as been cited. You would be justified in removing stuff that was not cited by then. Lets not rush but do things right. I also recomment you help look for sources that support the claims, which will go a long way to showing good faith, intead of giving the appearnce of only looking to remove things as a means of POV pushing. I also hope that others give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith. Even if we don't agree, we should abide by the spirit and policies of WP to build an encylopedia for everyone, with all POV treated adequantly and fairly. Hopefully, I'm not being too utopian in this desire.Giovanni33 09:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No such requirement. From Reliable sources "Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time." and "the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material." I could remove the material anytime, so waiting a few days is more than required. Assume good faith yourself and do not accuse me of POV pushing. Regarding an encyclopdia, it should obviously not contain false or biased information.Ultramarine 09:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about requirements, we are talking about being contructive and working with others, showing good faith, and seeking compromises to move forward. I did not accuse you of POV pushing. I gave suggestions for you to take that would show the opposite and promote good faith in you for others to see. I agree we should not allow obviously false or biased information, but if others disagree with you, maybe it is not so obvious as you seem to think. As I said, putting up a cite/Fact tag is a good compromise, and hopefully you will assit in looking for sources that support the claims, instead of just trying to delete everything that happens to align with your own personal POV. This method of editing, I think, is what is generated the over the top reaction against you amont other editors, hence my suggestion to reverse this, and all work together on a common goal. This means compromise. I think my suggestions should work for you, and your opponents. Edit waring won't get anyone anywhere.Giovanni33 10:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Read my last response again. To quote Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Ultramarine 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but this is not in the category of "random speculative I heard it somewhere," nor "pseudeo information." Its information that is supported by a number of editors, and I don't even know if your claim about it not being properly sourced is fully acurate, either. Since you are opposed, the best you can do is cite it, then make mention of it on talk, and wait and see. Edit waring if you fail to do this is also bad, and against policies. So, this is a good compromise.Giovanni33 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The personal opinions of anonymous Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. As stated before, if continuing to revert in order to insert unsourced claims without explanation and even refusing to discuss this on the talk pages, I will follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution process with all those involved, even if it requires a RfA.Ultramarine 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

your record keeping
first I'll apologise for personal attacks they were uncalled for and came out of anger.

socend I don't care enough to go around looking for your misdeeds (yet) but I have been watching you for a long time and although I'm no model editor, i do try to be good, I have never been blocked or had other run ins with the law, and even though I lost my cool in this matter I have never hurt WP content for my own purposes.

third you have a very dark history which can be easily demonstrated. one rarely finds someone so strange that they boast about "being involved in the longest running dispute in WP history" and that is just the tip of the iceburg I think your harsh treatment of helpful newbies is what will really anger any wikipedian who looks at your case history.

thus I do not think that your apeals to authourities will draw much sympathy, specially if Someome who is familiar with your modus operandi is pushed to really dig up your record and clearly demonstrate what a bad actor you have been.

Now this is all unimportant as you could if too weighed down by your history just use a suck pupet... but you know that you will endup working on the same articles with the same style and your suckpupets will easily be recognised, but that is not the real reason why you won't use a suck pupet, the reason is that you are proud of "ultramarine" your insulted even by the suggestion of using a suckpupet you've been ultramarine for so long you cant throw it all away, you've accumulatively spent more than a continuous year of your life being ultramarine, its who you are...

I do feel sorry for you... :)

Esmehwp 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You apologize and and make new peronal attacks at the same time. I have no interest in taking this further, but your wikistalking, your refusal to accept that material must be sourced, and your reverting my edits without explanation or attempts to discuss on the talk pages of the articles, makes it likely I will.Ultramarine 18:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not attacking you i'm just honestly telling you what my assessment of the situation is. the problem is that you're edits have a strong POV and you delete in a POV way ie you only tag and delete unsourced things you don't agree with and you generally want to control content rather than allow free exposure off different view points. You may believe that your interpretation and focused view on wiki policies is the correct one but I think that most wikipedians share my inclination and focus, ie whats most important is that ideas are presented fairly and less focus on draconian rules. If every unsourced statement was deleted wikipedia wouldn't even exist.

by the way I think john balton is one of the most worthless human beings on earth.Esmehwp 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I delete unsourced things that I think are incorrect or dubious. I let many unsourced things remain if I think they are valid. Again, if unsourced things should remain, then anyone can write anything without it ever being removed. If you think that I remove something that is correct, try to find a source, as all other editors do, including me if something unsourced I think is correct is removed.Ultramarine 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

first you should look for a source failing to find one then delete. that is good faith. it is impossible for me to follow you round finding sources to every tiny statement you don't like I have things to do.. as I see it a tag is enough for dubious statments but if I don't protect unsourced material in an unbiased way all that will be left will be what your narrow view of reality allows and that is as you like to say "unacceptable"  :)    Esmehwp 19:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, I do check statements before removing them to see if I can find if the claim is true before removing them. If there is some topic you feel is important, take the time to find sources, you obviously are spending some time in recent days in Wikipedia. Use it productively. If you want more time in order to do research, please state so, that is certainly fine with me.Ultramarine 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In principal you are correct, however, in practice as I noted, there are two things, which if you addressed would solve a lot of the problems that cause conficts with other editors. 1. There is a perception that you go out of your way to edit in a POV manner, i.e. deleting only those things that don't fit in with your POV, and claiming the sources don't support the claims of these things, and 2. that you delete them without adequately showing how the sources given say something other than the claim being made on the article--you just delete it and use the edit summary to make the proclamation. This is no good. Use the talk page, and make the case, esp. if you are opposed. If you are not opposed, fine, delete away unsorced things, esp. personal opinions of other editors. But there is obvious disagreement with your characterization of the material your are deleting. You delete whole sections that are sourced, and you are opposed. So this demands that you make your case before deleting, and work with other editors with consensus in mind. That means, instead of edit waring and using edit summaries, tag what statements are not sourced, and present the case on the talk page, i.e. what the source says and how it differs from what is being claimed in the article. If there is an unsourced claim that should be supported, tag it, point it out, and allow some time for editors who oppose you to address the concern, or correct it (if you think it can't be corrected, otherwise you should fix it). If you went about your editing more in this way, and in a much less POV manner, then things would move forward more constructively. That is, if you are here to write an encylopedia for everyone, etc. I don't know why you disagree with this level headed approach. Its a question of tactics, of ettiquete, and working with others, instead of weaslely lawyering.Giovanni33 19:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted, Esmehwp states that he will not allow me to remove any unsoured material, even he is given time to do research. If someone dispute my edits on the talk page, I will certainly respond to them. Esmehwp never does so, he simply reverts without explanation.Ultramarine 19:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll talk to him too, but you can't control the actions of other editors, however you can control your own actions. I'd say, don't react to him, just observe best practices yourself and show by example. You can do so by following my reasonable suggestions above. If you do, I'm sure that the negative reactions your getting will either stop, or will be stoppped, since you will have gained consensus (if your edits are shown to be valid). If you agree to follow these best practices to minimize the conditions for edit conflicts, then I'll work on Esmehwp to agree to modify his behavior, as well. Lets de-esclate this and find the most productive way to all work together on common and accepted goals we all profess to accept. That means adoptics tactics and means that are in line with such ostensive ends.Giovanni33 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would certainly prefer to avoid going further. If you can oonvince him that unsourced material should be removed, after giving a reasonable time for research if the removal is disputed, then all is well.Ultramarine 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

you spend hours everyday on WP my time is too valuable for such low return activities or on pleasing ur sensibilities, the world is not perfect so we can not stick perfectly to rules. forget it i've wasted too much time on this. but I will continue reversing your actions if u go to far and asking for others to keep an eye on you, but i cant waste my time on talking to you any further so dont feel i'm being rude if i reveret you with out talking or delete your comments on my user page i just cant waste my time on you. Esmehwp 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough
Thanks, I like your input, too. Thorough. Anyway, if you ever need help with your new article or whatever, give me a bell and I'd be happy to assist. Scarian 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 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 09:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

BBCap
which the book states is the majority of the deaths - where do you get that from? Gatoclass 09:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the self correction. I figured there was something wrong there. No way would a bunch of lefties blame Communists for the majority of deaths in 'Nam! Gatoclass 10:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

% of ppl living on less than $1/d
Just came across your page. On the first graph you created, you need to say whether it is adjusted for inflation and then indicate what the base year is. Are you familiar with the Gini coefficient to measure inequality? If not, you might find that it's another useful metric. Cheers! Notmyrealname 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The numbers are taken direcly from the referenced article, for those wanting more detail.Ultramarine 18:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just letting you know about a general rule for economic graphs. If you don't adjust for inflation, the numbers are worthless. If you do, you need to state that and also state what the base year is. Otherwise it's like having a map without a scale. The graph should be able to stand alone. The reader shouldn't have to check your sources in order to read your graph. Cheers. Notmyrealname 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Just skimmed through the source paper. It states that it is actually the number of people living on less than US$1.08 in 1993 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), and then adjusted for country-specific inflation. Again, this is vital basic information that people looking at your graph would want to know, if you are trying to show them anything of value. (The act of calculating these numbers is itself very contentious, which is what the authors spend most of the paper explaining.) You might also want to look at Table 4 (on page 31) which shows that the actual number of people living on US$2.15 per day or less has increased during these two decades. Cheers. Notmyrealname 22:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So has the world population. I will add the above numbers, thanks for your help.Ultramarine 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, but the absolute number of people earning less than $1.08 1993 PPP has gone down. And since the authors define "poverty" at the $2.15 level ($1.08 is "extreme poverty"), this is significant if your chart is used in discussions of poverty. The authors note that the China numbers skew everything, and have to do with a massive transfer of resources to the extreme poor there during this period (which will likely not be repeated). A few other notes: the correct notation is 1993 PPP, without the "US" part (e.g. "$1.08 in 1993 Purchasing Power Parity"). Also, the authors list "Latin America and the Caribbean" not just "Latin America." You should also list the page and table number to make it easier for the reader to double check your numbers. Notmyrealname 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it very likely that it will be repeated in India, South Asia, and later in other nations. Not due transfer, but due to the spread of capitalism. Exterme poverty is the most interesting, since that is the people who are the poorest.Ultramarine 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, one can certainly hope that things get better (but I think most Indians and South Asians would be surprised to learn that they are not part of the capitalist system!). The authors discuss the China issue on pages 17 and 18. I have a feeling that most people earning $1.25 per day (which is the average that the authors calculate that the people earning under the $2.15 a day figure are actually earning) are not living in extreme poverty. But these are issues for another day. And, since this graph is currently on display on pages that talk about "poverty," rather than "extreme poverty," this distinction is not something that should be ignored. Notmyrealname 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just saw the update. It is now much more informative. You might still want to make the following changes: correct "Latin America" to "Latin America and the Caribbean" (as per the authors), and provide the page number and table number for the data source. This is a common courtesy for others who might wish to check your data. You might also want to amend the title to read "Percentage of people ..." Notmyrealname 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Researching Wikipedia Online Survey
We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - Human rights in Cuba, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wiki_norms

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 14:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Overseas interventions of the United States
You proposed a merger of this article into another one and then proceded to remove many entries from this article before it was decided whether the articles could be merged. You removed material that is also mentioned in the other article. This was premature. Please don't make these wholesale edits until it's decided whether the articles should be merged. Thank you. Griot 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Don't make idle, unfounded threats. Hobomojo 09:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 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 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state
I just noticed that all your good work there had been reverted. Why did you let Giovanni33 re-insert all that original research? Jayjg (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

SOA and State terrorism by the United States
Hi, I edited down some material you had put in the State terrorism by the United States which basically defended the School of the Americas against some of the criticisms in the article. You reinstated the original material, though another editor has apparently reverted back to my version. In paring down what you wrote I was not trying to remove the SOA POV, but rather just summarize the key points, which I thought I did, since I felt the paragraph was too long (minor details like the fact that it is now controlled by the DoD instead of the Army are just not necessary). Also, I would advise you not to simply revert back to your version if you still find mine unacceptable. The main reason I started editing it was because there were several grammatical errors which made the quality of the prose quite poor. Please take note of that if you are thinking of switching back to your version, though I would suggest that the altered version I put in captures the key points in defense of the SOA.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)