User talk:Ultramarine/Archive 6

Thank You
I appreciate that you've stopped editing. You can likely find better uses for your time. It's hard for people to admit they've wasted time. That's how cults suck people in, they ask for a little then ask for a lot because people would rather through away more of their time than admit they were wrong. As someone with very conservative views you may someday be an expert at how to refute the ideas you were indoctrinated into. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.254.68 (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work
I Commend You For Doing Good. Nice Work. But really, the graphs are very good, and I find them useful. Keep it up! Oh, and... What is your view on communism? The Wiggle Fish 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Portugal
On your Global COmpetitive Index map you have painted portugal as grey but POrtugal was in fact ranked in this study. Maybe you could correct this?

Email
Enable your email please. Thanks Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR on State Terrorism by US
Yes, I do know about 3RR, no need for me to read the policy. I have not violated it and will not (though I came closer than I thought as I had forgotten about an earlier edit I made--I would have only made one edit had I noticed that, as I generally make no more than 2 reverts in a 24-hour period). You'll notice I have not been much of a revert warrior in terms of the content of this article. Your inclusion of the term "Communist Cuba" is what set me editing. Avoid weasel terms like "communist" (even though it's obviously accurate for the most part, it's just an unnecessary and loaded adjective) and your edits are much less likely to get reverted. Anyhow thanks for the warning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to revert you, but the material you added here is confusing and not very well written.  For one thing it is not clear who "they" are.  It also adds information which is tangential to the article and which is not sourced (unless you're sourcing it to the Horowitz book, but that source is not good enough to provide an objective view of why the US rejected the ICJ's authority).  Why not just have the sentence end "...that the ICJ has no authority over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree (which the US did not)." At least copy edit the thing, and tone down the phrase "Soviet Bloc police states" which has obvious POV problems, though I think mentioning that is speculative and unnecessary. In general though I think your effort to bring in sources objecting to Chomsky et. al. is good and a better approach than deleting content from the "other side."--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 10:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We could probably do without the graphic rape stuff (or at least minimize it, there was a back and forth with that and I don't know where it ended), but I think most of the time "terrorism" is mentioned it is sourced to someone (then again this article changes so frequently that might not be the case). Anyhow you obviously did not reply to my points above, and changing the topic won't really fool me. I still think the edit I mentioned is very poorly worded, I don't know what your source for why the US rejected the ICJ's authority is, and I think you used infelicitous language like "Soviet Bloc police states" (you've put quotes around this now, but I don't know who you are quoting--if it's Horowitz he is not a good source to discuss the question objectively). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala section
I've posted some new stuff on Guatemala on the talk page which hopefully addresses some of your concerns. Let me know what you think over there on talk, but I'm very much inclined to add this into the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 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 08:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note
RE:

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Wikipedia. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I am very concerned that you continue to remove large referenced portions of articles. Thanks for your time. 216.60.70.61 00:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this concern. FightCancer 23:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state
An IP editor has restored all the non "state terrorism" allegations. Would you mind taking care of it for now? I'll be back tomorrow to make sure none of the unverified original research creeps back in. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Ultramarine, do you mind if I format those external links in the article text into links cuz it looks so unorganized with all those random external links in the middle of the article. Nat Tang ta 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Turn them into proper references, or leave them inline. Simply putting "ref" around them gives you the worst of both worlds. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear power
Your edit summary did not adequately explain that you were deleting information, not restoring it:

I would suggest that the following be re-incorporated in some manner, no matter how much I personally may disagree with it, by the way. 199.125.109.58 09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Most major forms of energy production cause deaths. In comparison, deaths per TWy of electricity produced are estimated at 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.

Your edits to nuclear power are becoming distruptive. Please try to be more constructive. You have come a long ways in your history of editing Wikipedia, and have not even been blocked in almost a year now. Try to focus on making this an encyclopedia, not a POV brochure. 199.125.109.127 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Right to bear arms
A page which you previously contributed to is presently protected in perpetuity due to one editor edit warring with your changes and with other editors attempting to make the same change. See talk page for Right to bear arms. Thank you. Yaf 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 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 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Info
Thought you might find this useful … lots of funtasticly good sources in the bibliography. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism
I removed your last edit from the FSLN page as it appeared to be cut-and-pasted from the source page. Please read WP:CITE and WP:CP to avoid this problem in the future. Notmyrealname 18:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it is in the public domain (is there a specific statement on this?) you still need to use quote marks if you are using the exact wording of the original, otherwise it is still plagiarism (ask any college professor). For long blocks of text, it is much better to rewrite in your own words.
 * You seem to be confusing copyright violations with plagiarism. There is no exception for works in the public domain for the latter. Notmyrealname 18:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, isn't it? All it takes is a pair of quotation marks. For such a long block of text, though, it would ultimately be better to rephrase in your own words. But this is now a stylistic problem that can be dealt with later. Notmyrealname 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposing Views US State Terrorism Section
Hey ultramarine, I reworked the first three paragraphs of this section with the sole intention of making it more readable. I noticed someone (presumably you) reverted it. I guess I should of asked you first, I'm not sure, I just figured it had some major grammatical and comprehension problems from an outsider as myself. I didn't change any of the meanings of the paragraphs. May I ask why it was reverted?Wiegrajo 11:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 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 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix
Phoenix and the Birds of Prey : The CIA's Secret Campaign to Destroy the Viet Cong, the best book on the subject. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip.Ultramarine 19:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 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 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandinista
turbas divinas. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your editing of controversial articles
Sir, while I find your work to be done in good faith; I find you do so in a brusque and sometimes pushy manner. Bmedley Sutler has been blocked for his excessive page moves involving the so-called "torture manuals" but please, do not continue to provoke this user.

While I find your logic here to show a good understanding of our NPOV policy, it doesn't mean you need to engage in a one man revert campaign to keep articles neutral. While your goals are valid, you can and likely will be blocked for excessive 3RR violations.

When editing such controversial subjects as you tend to frequent, please remember to keep a calm head, and ask for administrator intervention when things get out of hand. Attempting to solve the problem by yourself will likely wind up with you blocked for long periods of time. ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 23:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Response
Give me a couple of days to go over what information from that version can be incorporated into the current article. I've been busy and haven't been able to go over it but I will review it and post my view on it in the coming two days.--Jersey Devil 18:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to what you're doing
You usually use only one source for objections like 'The nation magazine' and the 'Latin American Working' group. when there are dozens of objections to the Torture Manuals. It is better to list more. What you do makes the objections look non important. Please do not keep doing this. I will add more important objections. What a senator says is more important than a magazine. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 22:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. 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 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 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 09:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Economic calculation and market efficiency
We're having a minor dispute over the Economic calculation problem article. It was suggested that it would be beneficial to have your opinion on the dispute. The general question is whether or not we can include criticisms of market efficiency without balancing them with explicit sources in support of market efficiency. One specific issue of controversy is whether or not Alec Nove's opinion that Ludwig von Mises made merely implicit assumptions about market efficiency deserves to be balanced by Ludwig von Mises' explicit discussions of those very assumptions. See Talk:Economic_calculation_problem. -- SirEditALot  18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 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 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 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 06:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Index2006_EFCapita.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Index2006_EFCapita.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 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 07:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR
There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you first go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. If you have time Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 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. R Delivery Bot 05:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 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. R Delivery Bot 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 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 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 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. R Delivery Bot 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 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 10:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --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 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 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 06:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalin
yes, i was wrong to remove portion of text. i cant do my edits again due to WP:3RR. but do you consider fair that we have no images from Nazi concentration camps and nuremberg trials documents in Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler and we have a plenty of them in Joseph Stalin? and do you consider fair removal of an image of a monument to him in Gori and leaving the pic of a dismantled sculpture claimed to be " the only existing monument"? Av0id3r 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i really like those omissions!!!!!! there are two angels in wikipedia, heinrich himmler and adolf hitler (judged and considered international criminals) and there is a monster in wikipedia, Joseph Stalin, who was not judged internationally and considered a criminal. we have three "really great" articles here!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Av0id3r (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Torture Manuals
Have at it. I am done now. I am still scratching my head were the kidnapping line came from, it is in the sources somewhere, I just dont know where... Thanks for catching that. Travb (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I'm not Pexise, you may wish to contact him through his user page.. --64.109.56.207 05:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1954 Guatemalen coup d'etat
Hi, Your edits to 1954 Guatemalen coup d'etat are great, but please avoid using passive voice ("was," "were") as much as possible. Perspicacite 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Environmental effects of nuclear power
I would like to ask that if you make a change to the lead of this article, then you make a corresponding change to Environmental concerns with electricity generation. Thanks. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible problems in some articles do not mean that problems should remain in other articles. The best is to source according to policy, there are plenty of sources on this topic. Regards.Ultramarine 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your statement. I've tried cutting down the nuclear power text at Environmental concerns with electricity generation to a brief sentence or so like what we had in Environmental effects of nuclear power, but they won't let me.  Someone adds stuff back.  That's why I asked you to do it.  It doesn't make a lick of sense that text would be acceptable in one place and not in another. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One error is not a justification for more errors. Maybe there are problems with Environmental concerns with electricity generation, but that is not a reason for continuing to have problems in another article. Both problems should be fixed, but they do not justify one another.Ultramarine 13:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous tip
As you are editing this article, please help remove/clean up the BS from the "Iraq 1968" section in Covert Regime change. It is complete nonsense. The Baaths post-1968 ties with the USSR are well documented. 65.28.247.16 01:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 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 08:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)